Forum menu
What are you going to do if Bertie's actually cleared?
Take that!
[img] 
[/img]
Blimey when where was that pic taken?
That punch was on Alpert d'Huez this year.
Some spectators are such numbnuts
The picture makes it look much more amazing than it was.. I wouldn't class it as a punch, a glancing blow at most.
I thought it was funny, not a fan of contador.
Elf - he failed a drug test. He cannot be "cleared"
So who wants to bet a tenner that Alberto 'retires' before November?
Elf - he failed a drug test. He cannot be "cleared"
You still haven't quite grasped the difference between failing a drugs test and being declared a cheat, have you?
This may well cloud the water irrespective of the absolutes of the current clenbuterol rules
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20110614/cyc-wada-clenbuterol/
mogrim can you explain for me? Surely if you fail a drugs test you are cheating, no?
Think that bloke that Contador lashed out ruined his race for him as he'd been like a machine that day till that happened..Think it messed with his head & cost him the win tbh.....
You're only a cheat (from a legal standpoint) if 'convicted' of it. So if you fail a test and then your national federation say that you're not guilty of cheating (as in Contador's case), you're not a cheat. In this instance the UCI don't agree so they're taking the case to CAS who will make a final ruling as to whether he cheated or not.
FWIW, I think he's a cheat along with Andy Schleck (and probably several others) - the data so far suggests that the two of them were notably slower this year while Cadel Evans remained similar.
I still don't follow, so because the Spanich federation said.. "no no it's fine" it is all ok?
So he is technically not a "cheat" yet just guilty of having banned substances in his system?
In my eyes if you are a sportsman and you test positive for a banned substance your a cheat, fairly simple view to have I know but it is up to you and your team to ensure you dont go eating "dodgey steaks" and the like!
Mogrim - thats the point - failing a drug test is the offence - Contador has failed a drug test he cannot be cleared. He has failed a drug test.
It is of no matter hove the clembuterol got into his system - strict liability is the doctrine.
No one can find against the facts - he has clenbuterol in his body. he cannot be "cleared of this"
What the spanish federation did was use a clause to impose no sanction on him. Wrong according to the WADA doping code as the sort of situation Contador claimed is outside the scope of the clause used to impose no punishment.
However that aside there is a world of difference between being cleared and having no sanction applied.
He failed the drug test - this is an absolute and he cannot be cleared of this
emac65 - Member
Think that bloke that Contador lashed out ruined his race for him as he'd been like a machine that day till that happened..Think it messed with his head & cost him the win tbh.....
No I think he was missing his beef from the Butchers that he can't remember.
What the spanish federation did was use a clause to impose no sanction on him. Wrong according to the WADA doping code as the sort of situation Contador claimed is outside the scope of the clause used to impose no punishment.
Not correct, the federation determined that he hadn't cheated, and that he was therefore innocent of doping. The federation didn't declare him guilty-but-no-sanction.
😀 If he had managed to eat a little more beef he might have been able to actually put some effort in to the punch. It was very "Mr Burns" 🙂
Bertie had many more of these idiots chasing him around the course.
SOme throwing steak at him, some with meat dangling from fishing rods, some were covered in blood, some carried syringes, some (as this guy was) were dressed in Doctors gowns, some had flags and banners taking the p*ss out of him, some journo's were constantly asking him about the case rather than the race.
I'm supprised the guy actually finished the course never mind getting a decent place in the GC.
I, for one, think he's an amazing athlete and superb bike rider.
SOme throwing steak at him, some with meat dangling from fishing rods, some were covered in blood, some carried syringes, some (as this guy was) were dressed in Doctors gowns, some had flags and banners taking the p*ss out of him, some journo's were constantly asking him about the case rather than the race.
And if he had watched what he was eating (if he was unaware) then he could have concentrated on the GC and being a top rider. You make your bed n all that.
I, for one, think he's an amazing athlete and superb bike rider
+1
I'm not that naive to think the rest are not on "the gear" either tbh......
I, for one, think he's an amazing athlete and superb bike rider.
Shame he needed to cheat then really isn't it... (all IMO, of course).
the organisers have got to do something about the muppets who run alongside. I'm all for close spectators but AdH this year was a joke.
They clearly aren't 'cycling' fans as if they were cyclists they'd know how irritating they are being.
Maybe they are cycling fans and quite deliberately want to disrupt a cheat who makes the sport a whole lot less enjoyable for the fans... (yes, I know all the riders get it but that's never going to change - it's always been that way - in fact it used to be worse with 'foreign' riders deliberately getting blocked, punched, etc if they were racing a home favourite...)
AS and AC slower this year, CE similar to previous:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/2011-tour-de-france-the-cleanest-in-recent-years
Once convicted. All the previous cheats will come out bleating all evangelistical again.
No, no, you misunderstand. That picture wasn't taken on the Alpert d'Huez.
That's outside the blood testing station at the end of the race. The guy on the right is Contador's doctor and the chap getting punched is the sample tester.
"Oh crap, we're rumbled. LEG IT!"
mogrimNot correct, the federation determined that he hadn't cheated, and that he was therefore innocent of doping. The federation didn't declare him guilty-but-no-sanction.
Wrong - he failed a drug test. The federation cannot clear him of this . Strict liability applies. He is guilty of having cenbuterol in his system.
The spanish federation chose not to sanction him
Once you have failed a drug test you cannot be cleared of this - its a matter of fact that he failed the test.
right mogrim and TJ to prevent another slanging match can we have your sources please, then we can decide.
Lets face it it's pretty much a technicality anyway, RFEC let him "get away" with a positive dope test.
Donk
http://www.wada-ama.org/en/World-Anti-Doping-Program/Sports-and-Anti-Doping-Organizations/The-Code/
2.1.2 Sufficient proof of an anti-doping rule violation
under Article 2.1 is established by either of the
following: presence of a Prohibited Substance
or its Metabolites or Markers in the Athlete’s A
Sample where the Athlete waives analysis of
the B Sample and the B Sample is not
analyzed; or, where the Athlete’s B Sample is
analyzed and the analysis of the Athlete’s B
Sample confirms the presence of the
Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or
Markers found in the Athlete’s A Sample.
2.1.3 Excepting those substances for which a
quantitative threshold is specifically identified
in the Prohibited List, the presence of any
quantity of a Prohibited Substance or its
Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample
shall constitute an anti-doping rule violation
No ifs buts or ands - clenbuterol in your system you have failed a drug test this is an anti doping rule violation
2.2.1 It is each Athlete’s personal duty to ensure that
no Prohibited Substance enters his or her body.
Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent,
fault, negligence or knowing Use on the
Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to
establish an anti-doping rule violation for Use
of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited Method.
Again - quite clear - It does not matter how it gets there.
An anti-doping rule violation in Individual Sports in
connection with an In-Competition test automatically leads
to Disqualification of the result obtained in that Competition
with all resulting Consequences, including forfeiture of any
medals, points and prizes.
OK cool but I [i]thought[/i] mogrim was arguing the RFECs decision not the rules, having a quick read of the cyclingnews stories they don't seem to say how the RFEC excused the positive test.
BTW does schlek get the returned prize money? Can't see him going out celebrating the TDF win by default but the cash [i]may[/i] put a [i]bit[/i] of smile on his face.
There is a clause that says if its inadvertent you can have a reduced sanction or even no sanction at all. However this is not for cases such as Contadors excuse that he inadvertently ingested it. its for cases where someone deliberately spiked a rival for example. The guidence is quite clear. Inadvertent ingestion is not a sufficient excuse. Alain Baxter and the vicks is the test case. 3 moth ban. loss of olympic medal, because his explanation for the positive test was accepted. thats what Contador should have got if the spanish federation accepted the contaminated beef story.
Its also up to Contodor to provide proof that he consumed contaminated beef and he has not done so.
its not enough for Contador to cast doubt that he cheated - he has to prove he did not.
Jesus christ. walk away from the thread people.
Well I thought it was one of the "cleanest" races I've seen in a very long time.
And do we really need to regurgitate the same stuff over and over and over again..
Surely not.
The famous Article 296:
If the Rider establishes in an individual case that he bears No Fault or Negligence, the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be eliminated. When a Prohibited Substance or its Markers or Metabolites is detected in a Rider’s Sample as referred to in article 21.1 (presence of a Prohibited Substance), the Rider must also establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his system in order to have the period of Ineligibility eliminated. In the event this article is applied and the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable is eliminated, the anti-doping rule violation shall not be considered a violation for the limited purpose of determining the period of Ineligibility for multiple violations under articles 306 to 312.
Mogrim -
That does not mean he is not guilty - it means the he receives no sanction for the breach of the rules.
He has to prove his case which he has not done and you need to read the guidance for that which clearly states it is not for cases such as his. its for cases where someone else has spiked him. Inadvertent consumption is still negligent.
His defense of contaminated beef does not show he is not negligent
TJ - Just had Pat McQuaid on the phone, he's got a position in the UCI's Cavity Search Team he'd like you to fill. Blazer included.
The issue with the Contador case is that there are other cases of Clenbuterol positives that have not seen sanction from national bodies, and which have not been pursued further by WADA. http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/7408/WADA-chief-confirms-that-Agency-wont-appeal-Dimitrij-Ovtcharovs-Clenbuterol-case-dismissal.aspx
There is also a lot of scientific evidence that supports Contador's accidental ingestion defence, this is the reason the hearing has been delayed, as the UCI and WADA are having difficulty mounting a serious case against him from a scientific point of view.
If 'Bert is handed down a sanction, that would be a pretty poor way for Andy to 'win' a tour, and with a now 14 month delay in getting this sorted, it's bad for our sport* no matter what happens.
* for some value of sport.
Hmmm, I'm jet lagged so may be talking rubbish, but I thought some of the argument was around Limits of Detection and Limits of Quantification in the assay?
The amount they detected was teeeeeny - much less than a standard assay would have been able to reliably detect (which is the difference between the LOD and the LOQ - detecting it doesn't mean it's there).
It's kind of like been done for drink driving becuase they've detected alcohol in your system at 1/100th of the legal limit.
Anyway - that aside - it was actually funny watching Alberto clobber that fella. It was the campest of bitch slaps ever. He deserves banning for that!
Hmmm, I'm jet lagged so may be talking rubbish, but I thought some of the argument was around Limits of Detection and Limits of Quantification in the assay?
My understanding is that there is no lower limit for Clenbuterol, and that there is no evidence that the lab result was unreliable.
Er, yes, probably.
But the issue is whether the assay was reliably detecting the substance.
You'd be amazed at how inaccurate assays are at low concentrations.
The Limit of Detection is the point at which you can't detect. The LOQ is the point at which you can detect with an error margin of 100%.
The amount they found was way below what can normally be detected. So, it could be a groovy new super assay - or it could be nonsense that doesn't exist.
It's kind of like been done for drink driving becuase they've detected alcohol in your system at 1/100th of the legal limit.
No. There's no limit, it's just that to be acredited as a test lab they have a minimum level that they must be able to detect. The lab that tested AC's sample could test lower than the required minimum and did so. There's no argument that the detection was invalid or innacurate, even from AC's team.
It's more like being done for drink driving because they've detected a teeny tiny amount (well below the current limit) if they dropped the legal limit to zero.
It's like being a footballer with a huge supercar and driving it at 150mph down the motorway and being caught. Then hiring a super lawer who proves that the police didn't calibrate the speedo, the cars speedo wasn't working correctly, and you were more than likely only doing 65mph anyway. And therefore you are not guilty.
The Spanish have all sorts of dodgy practices regarding beef.
The amount they found was way below what can normally be detected. So, it could be a groovy new super assay - or it could be nonsense that doesn't exist.
The amount they found was way below the accreditation threshold. I find it highly unlikely that they would publish a result with such significant consequences, if they weren't confident in it.
traildog - Member
It's like being a footballer with a huge supercar and driving it at 150mph down the motorway and being caught. Then hiring a super lawer who proves that the police didn't calibrate the speedo, the cars speedo wasn't working correctly, and you were more than likely only doing 65mph anyway. And therefore you are not guilty.
Nope. It's like driving at 71mph in a 70 and being caught by a camera that is accurate enough to tell that you were at 71mph while most others can only tell if you're doing over 75mph and then claiming that you did it by mistake even if the rule is that even if you're 1mph over, you'll get done.
No one is arguing that the clenbuterol wasn't there. The argument is about whether it being there means that he gets banned. The letter of the law seems to suggest there's no consideration for how/why it's there while the Spanish Federation seems to view the rules as allowing you to be let off if you can come up with a good excuse.