Oops. Seems he's been found guilty, 2 years no racing and stripped of his title.
So he has.
[url= http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cas-sanction-contador-with-two-year-ban-in-clenbuterol-case ]Story[/url] for those interested.
Still, looking on the positive side, he can eat as much steak and chips as he wants for 2 years 🙂
Took long enough.
Seems a fair punishment, although I'd have been happier if they had found him innocent: the Tour is better with him than without.
is anyone else getting an advert for steak in the top bar of the linked page? sorry that's cracked me up.
Is it actually possible to get that much into your system by eating tainted meat?!
Barne Riis certainly knows how to pick them
the Tour is better with him than without
erm, care to explain?
He'll probably appeal though won't he? According to [url= http://road.cc/content/news/52225-spanish-press-reports-alberto-contador-banned-2-years-stripped-2010-tour-de ]road.cc[/url] the CAS has admitted there's no actual proof of doping?
the Tour is better with him than without
No. Cycling is better off without him if he is a cheat.
Seems a fair punishment, although I'd have been happier if they had found him innocent: the Tour is better with him than without.
Agreed, I'll miss the battles between him and the other climbers, it's a real shame.
So, the 2 year ban ends on August 5th [b]this year[/b] 🙄 OK, so all results since July 2010 are forfeited.
The way I read it, it's "back dated", so he's not banned 2 years from now, but rather loses all the titles he's won in the last 2 years. Or am I reading it wrong?
Back dated. He can ride this year's Vuelta.
Where is Don Simon 🙂
I am glad the cheat got his just desserts - stripped of all wins since as well. Should be a longer ban IMO as he continued to race while under investigation and cheated others of places especially the giro win.
Its a good day for cycling that this cheat has been punished
He can only appeal on procedural matters not on findings.
Andy Schleck is now a T'dF winner. A sad way to win the yellow jersey.
So his ban means that he loses his placing in races since the positive but ends on 5th August this year. Leaving him free to race the Vuelta.
He'll claim innocence and unfairness on the part of WADA, CAS, UCI. Play the scapegoat and come back more popular than ever (at least in Spain) after a full 5 month layoff.
The one thing that has become clear during this case is that the system is in desperate need of an overhaul.
A 2 year ban, backdated, er, 2 years. He can ride the Vuelta this year but not the Giro or the TdF.
Andy Schleck is now the winner of the 2010 TdF.
No. Cycling is better off without him if he is a cheat.
Disagree - professional cycling is part of the entertainment business, and I want entertaining...
UCI have left the length of the ban blank on their official press release 🙂
MrSalmon - MemberHe'll probably appeal though won't he? According to road.cc the CAS has admitted there's no actual proof of doping?
doesn't matter
He can only appeal on procedural issues not finding
It upholds strict liability - fail a test get a ban.
Disagree - professional cycling is part of the entertainment business, and I want entertaining...
So do I, but not by cheats.
According to road.cc the CAS has admitted there's no actual proof of doping?
Do they actually need "proof"? I'm assuming by that they're referring to smoking syringes and the like, right? Surely the trace of the drug found in his blood is enough?
Worst part of the whole thing is Schleck getting the title 🙁
I totally agree he should be banned, but it's a sad day when he gets banned and Armstrong walks away a free man. Money talks.
he should have lost all the titles and be banned from his last competitive ride for 2 years - at the moment he is effectively still advertising himself to sponsors, etc.
Apart from the fact we now know he is a drug addled cheat - as if we didn't before, will this really affect him ?
I totally agree he should be banned, but it's a sad day when he gets banned and Armstrong walks away a free man. Money talks.
Apart from the fact he failed a drug test and Armstrong didn't ? ( I agree that LA was prob just as bad though
That's a lot of editing of wikipedia to do- all those race results, all those time differences to be recalculated. 🙂
road cycling is as farcical (sp?) as football IMO.....
shlecks now won the TDF 2010, does this mean he will get the prize money for winning too? also havent the schlecks also been done for cheating before?!?! its not really a great outcome either way...
i cant imagine how/why one man decides to cheat and the rest of the TDF line up dont, surely most of the riders are doing it to some extent, riding there luck and trying to get away with it?
What happens to bets paid out on Contador winning, and those who bet on Shrek to win? I'm guessing nowt?
What kind of 2 year ban is it when he'll be back in August this year.
Worst part of the whole thing is Schleck getting the title
^^This^^
After their awful whining about having to go down a hill last year, I really didn't want to see either of them win anything.
shlecks now won the TDF 2010, does this mean he will get the prize money for winning too? also havent the schlecks also been done for cheating before?!?! i
I'd imagine that Andy will get the money yes. Frank had paid Fuentes and admitted as much but was cleared of doping by the Luxembourg federation. Read into that what you want but no ban and it's not "The Schlecks" it's Frank.
I don't think anyone has said Andy is doping. Whether people like him or not, the implication is he's clean.
What happens to bets paid out on Contador winning, and those who bet on Shrek to win? I'm guessing nowt?
Not entirely sure but I would suspect first past the post on sports betting
Gets too complicated otherwise
Paddy Power may take some free advertising and pay out again though
I do find the Schleck hating a bit bizarre. In the 2010 tour Andy rode as well as anyone could have done, and for someone still young enough to wear the white jersey to be in contention like he was is a feat. Whether you like his personality, you can't say he's not deserving of the yellow.
Where is Don Simon
I'm here, what's your point TJ? I've always claimed that he had to be treated as innocent until proven guilty, he's now been proven guilty and will hopefully take the ban on the chin. I have no issue with this.
Google is doing wonders for my knowledge of foreign languages 🙂
Contador suspendu deux ans
Dos años de suspensión para Contador
?Contador wordt voor twee jaar geschorst
Contador utstenges i to år
?Contador suspenso dois anos
Contador für zwei Jahre gesperrt
?
?
Frank paid Fuentes 10 grand for 'training advice' didn't he 🙂
Cadel Evans may be the only rider to win the Tour clean in its history, and even that's wishful thinking.
Of course you did Don 🙄
Wonder how Wiggins will get on in this years tour now. Hmmmm. Worth a punt?
what a well researched, clever and witty response hora.
Edit: I forgot you were a Lance fan. I now understand the monosyllabic response.
From now on, its the best response to give to people who make such comments.
only because you know all other arguments proclaiming Lance's innocence are laughable.
People seem to forget that LA did fail a drug test for cortico-steroids (sp) but managed to get a post dated therapeutic exemption use certificate.
Maybe Contador needs his doctor.
I am glad the cheat got his just desserts
But if he had had just desserts, and not the steak main course, he wouldn't have got caught.
His blood from 1999 also failed a test for synthetic EPO in 2005, but the courts ruled you couldn't use the test as the blood was old.
When you have the sports biggest star giving money to the chief of the sport 'to buy an anti doping machine' and a substantial pot of that money cannot be accounted for, it's time to think the sport is corrupt beyond help. anyone who thinks that Lance Armstrong has never doped is a naive idoit.
Ah, but he hasn't been done for it. That's what makes him awesome and Contador a loser 🙂
anyone who thinks that Lance Armstrong has never doped is a naive idoit
🙄
maybe all these armchair critics should be employed as scientists to do all the drug testing, seeing as they seem to know so much about it
IanMunro, and he's done a lot of great work for charity, which has benefitted him in any way what so ever, no, not one bit.
His 'charity' doesn't pay him $200,000 per appearance at one of their events, oh no, it would never do that.. would it?
joao - have a read of this. this is one of the worlds top experts on doping who believes Armstrong did dope.
Inadmissible for banning as the sample was too old.
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
warton - Member
IanMunro, and he's done a lot of great work for charity, which has benefitted him in any way what so ever, no, not one bit.His 'charity' doesn't pay him $200,000 per appearance at one of their events, oh no, it would never do that.. would it?
What has that got to do with guessing whether Armstrong has doped or not?
The reason that LA never failed a drug test is apparently because of a massive conspiracy involving the testing labs and the UCI. The evidence for this being the ravings of Tyler Hamilton on a US TV show.only because you know all [s]other[/s] arguments proclaiming Lance's [s]innocence [/s] guilt are laughable.
Hamilton countered Armstrong’s claim of having never failed a drug test, saying that Armstrong told him in a relaxed, “off the cuff” manner that Armstrong had failed a test at the 2001 Tour of Switzerland.
“People took care of it,” Hamilton said. “[b]I don’t know all the exact details[/b] but Lance’s people and people from the other side, people I believe from the governing body of the sport, figured out a way for it to go away."
rusty - just have a read of my link.
Armstrong did fail one test and got a retrospective exception.
the reason why he never got caught beyond this is he was one step ahead of the testers.
Look at all the american track and field folk now known to have been cheating who never failed.
CaptJon, nothing really, but it just sums up the man IMO. He has turned livestrong from a charity into a for profit organisation (which is pretty much unprecedented) and still tries to 'market'it as a charity, while all the time amassing a huge personal fortune.
45% of the money the company raises goees on his legal bills and other expenses, when it could be being used for fighting cancer.
TJ, don't waste your time, the 'believers' won't ever stop beleiving!
Anyhoo.
The most important question for me : Is the Lance Armstrong 'did he / didn't he' thing going to be like the 1966 World Cup? (i.e. some people will still be boring everyone to death about it 45+ years after the event).
I really really hope not.
at least justice has been done 'sort of' .Andy Schleck is now a T'dF winner. A sad way to win the yellow jersey.
Maybe other sports could follow suit and strip more proven cheats of their medals and much higher financial penalties as they have usually profitted hugely from deals directly off thAndy Schleck is now a T'dF winner. A sad way to win the yellow jersey.
e back of cheating
Innocent until proven guilty.
A belief in guilt without supporting evidence is lynch mob mentality. That never did any good.
How about we wait until Armstrong is proven to be guilty before proclaiming him to be a drug cheat?
Meanwhile lets hope that drug cheats get lifetime bans from professional sport in future (all sports).
It is possible to prove somebody did do something, there is evidence of some description, in the case of Contador at a very low level but within the legal parameters.
It is pretty much impossible to prove somebody didn't do something. How can you provide evidence that something didn't happen ??
Which is the problem Lance Armstrong is stuck with, if you accept the premise that he didn't dope (not saying that I do believe that, just that it is impossible for him to prove he didn't).
So he will never win this. Major world religions are founded on this premise.
Epicyclo - read my link above - thats pretty strong evidence.
anyway - back to Contador - its good he got done.
Its clear what he did as I said when the evidence came out.
He took clenbuterol in the off season
He thought the traces had gone from his system
He drained off blood
he retransfused this blood on the rest day in the tdf
New more sensitive testing found the traces of clenbuterol and importantly plasticisers showing the transfusion
he made up a cock and bull story about contaminated meat
It is possible to prove somebody did do something, there is evidence of some description, in the case of Contador at a very low level but within the legal parameters.
Clenbuterol is a strict liability drug - no level is allowed. He also had plasticisers in his blood showing transfusion had been done
In that piece, is he talking about re-analysing the results of a urine test from 1999, with greater insight into EPO with what we know now, or literally re-testing urine from 1999, years after it was taken? If it's the latter that's really not convincing IMO - the pish is too old to yield reliable analytical results, which is what seems to be the official position of WADA etc.joao - have a read of this. this is one of the worlds top experts on doping who believes Armstrong did dope.Inadmissible for banning as the sample was too old.
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
Lance does have the ability to divide opinion doesn't he. I do feel a bit sorry for Contador, the amount found in his blood seems almost negligable.....but I suppose any amount means your guilty. something needs to happen though, the uci need to start handing out lifetime bans not just for riders but for directors, and team doctors or.....just ignore it and let them all dope....
Garry - which is why (rightly ) its inadmissible for bannings. Its evidence not proof maybe.
The answer to anybody who says Armstrong must have been innocent because he was tested lots and never tested positive:
Marion Jones
I've been busy editing Wikipedia with the correct winner of the 2010 TdF 🙂
Garry, TJ
although just how a synthetic substance appeared in his sample is anyones guess!
the uci need to start handing out lifetime bans not just for riders but for directors, and team doctors or.....just ignore it and let them all dope....
The thing is with Contador being caught using clenbuterol, which is a rather old school drug years behind other alternatives, and Rico(???) the Italian cyclist who nearly killed himself, self transfusing.
It does make me believe that the UCI stance, especially with the biological passports and the sanctioning of retrospective testing, is starting to have an effect. It is beginning to look like doping is no longer through the teams and the doctors, but now being done on an individual level by the athletes.
don simon - Member
I've always claimed that he had to be treated as innocent until proven guilty, he's now been proven guilty and will hopefully take the ban on the chin. I have no issue with this.
don simon - Member
Common sense has prevailed, based on the info available it can not be proven that the Clembuterol was taken to boost his performance, therefore he can not be banned. Simples.
8 of his samples - and before they were identified as his. and not in other samples
So all drug tests are useless then? If a rider tests positive it's because he's been doping. If he tests negative it's because he's been doping but getting round the tests somehow.The answer to anybody who says Armstrong must have been innocent because he was tested lots and never tested positive:
Marion Jones
Or does that just apply to Lance ?
My main problem with Lance is he seems like a bit of a ****. If the smart people at the drugs testing agencies can't catch him then it's beyond my ability to judge. However, I can judge the man and nothing I've read about him suggests he's anything other than a horrible person for the most part (obviously this may be untrue, I don't personally know Lance). I thought him slamming a bloke about to have cancer treatment because he asked people not to buy him "yellow wristbands" was particularly classy (ironically, he signed off with "Stay classy").
So all drug tests are useless then? If a rider tests positive it's because he's been doping. If he tests negative it's because he's been doping but getting round the tests somehow.
<whoosh>
I'm not suggesting that Marion proves anything about the guilt or innocence of anybody else - it simply removes the argument that the huge number of negative tests Lance gave shows he must be innocent. Kind of like I just said in the bit you just quoted.
What it means is that you have to to some extent ignore a history of negative tests and look at the balance of probability from other available evidence - Lance doesn't look all that good if you remove this presumption of innocence due to negative testing.
Both Contador and Armstrong have doped.
Bertie has tried to cover his up and gotten caught
Armstrong has paid to cover his up and bet upon his reputation. So far he's won
Anyone, ANYONE who believes that either of them raced clean is utterly naive.
From what I've seen of him I'd agree with that, but I guess nice guys don't have what it takes to win the TdF 7 times. It's a bike race, not a personality competition.My main problem with Lance is he seems like a bit of a ****
..... maybe, but just punishing the individual doesn't seem to stop them from risking it, mind you, half the directors have a suspect history.It is beginning to look like doping is no longer through the teams and the doctors, but now being done on an individual level by the athletes.
but I guess nice guys don't have what it takes to win the TdF 7 times.
That is unfortunately becoming a self fulfilling prophecy, it seems that all young athletes are now being taught to be ruthless bastards, but there has been enough nice guys who have won to show that it doesn't have to be that way.
By making the punishment so harsh it'll surely put folk off? no?
as said above, life time bans for the rider and the team boss.
life time bans for the rider and the team boss.
What if the team boss is innocent?
Anyone who thinks that LA didn't use EPO because he didn't test positive are only kidding themselves, a reliable test for EPO is a fairly recent thing, at the turn of the century when LA was cleaning up at the TdF it was common for dopers to get away with it, you only need to look at all those that have retired and since confessed, indeed David Millar never failed a test for EPO and was only banned after confessing.
I'm glad Contador was caught, although saddened at the same time because of the negative publicity for pro cycling.
It won't detract from my viewing of the tour or any other cycling. But for the Daily Mail reading majority it will be jumped on at a time when cycling seems to be on a wave of popularity which is a shame.
For me, doping is like F1 where teams use things outside the rule book to improve performance. There's a grey area where something could or could not be allowed. Teams exploit this to improve results, until its outlawed and they are subsequently fined/banned. On the flip side, some use substances that are known to be outlawed, which is clearly cheating. Having read Millars biography, it seems that a lot of 'fluid' replacement stuff goes on after the race which is allowed. Surely if you want to do it clean, all forms of 'replenishment' should be banned too? But where does it stop - should all performance enhancing products (energy drinks, bars, gels, IV's to re-hydrate) be on the list?
I don't think a blanket 'lifetime' ban can be slapped on everything. At the same time, I think more action should be taken against team managers, especially those with one or more banned riders on their teams.
Maybe this year Wiggins can show that you can be nice and still win?
Or will his negative drug tests and lack of a murder conviction prove that he's doped-up axe-wielding serial killer? 😀
Internet neds shit on a mans real achievements. Nice.
Yes of course in 2003 he could only use chemicals to aid his recovery from this fall on Luz Ardiden huh?