Not great news IMO. Tainted meat, yeah right.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/confirmed-alberto-contador-cleared-of-clenbuterol-charges
So that's how you make a mockery of justice in sport. You learn something every day.
Blimey. You'd think if they were serious about it they'd make it strict liabilty or thereabouts.
That's just the Spanish federation. Can't the UCI still ban him?
Unbelievable!
Surely the UCI will appeal?
They have 30days to appeal...
I think it was the right decision.
wow, it's official;
cheating pays, winners take drugs.
this will be appealed ......UCI warned spanish auth's not to let him off !!
Im glad as i think it was a fix up, he passed every test in the tour .
I also think that there is not many top riders who are 100% drug free .
A lot of roadies will tell you that Greg Lemond was most likely the last clean rider to win.
If a clear chain of evidence can be produced linking AC with a supplier of contaminated meat then he should've been cleared. Without that evidence he should receive the 2 year ban. He is responsible for what he puts in his body. He is a professional sportsman with years of experience at the highest level, he knows the rules. He knows where the responsibility lies.
As far as I've seen there is no evidence beyond AC's say so, if this really is the case then he should be serving day one of a 2 year ban right now. If evidence does exists AC would be wise to make it public at the first opportunity, as without that evidence I think a lot of people will consider him a cheat and any future wins tainted.
Hold on hold on hold on, you lot.
Although Contador and his legal team were unable to produce a sample of the meat that they have claimed was tainted with the clenbuterol that resulted in the positive test, the fact that it could not be shown conclusively that Contador had deliberately taken the product worked in his favour.
Wasn't the amount found in his blood a tiny tiny amount? IE, no way would it have had any 'performance enhancing' effects?
So, it is actually possible he's telling the truth?
Or is that just a bit too boring?
Im glad as i think it was a fix up, he passed every test in the tour .
I also think that there is not many top riders who are 100% drug free .A lot of roadies will tell you that Greg Lemond was most likely the last clean rider to win.
Passed every test apart for the one that has found clenbuterol in a tour sample.(why else would we be discussing it)
Lemond was a class act and one of the best cyclists ever (check his palmares, its ridic)
Argument that Sastre was clean but I take your point.
Clenbuterol is strict liability ....performance enhancing doesnt come into it (argument over small amount as a result from it being present in recently tranfused blood and not taken at the time)
Fair point elf but what about the plastcisers? As I understand the results from that test have not been considered as the test itself wont be valid till this year i.e. 2011. None the less, the results do indicate quite stronlgy that AC had been doping.
I would say those results in conjunction with the Clenbuterol results point towards doping..
I think hes very lucky.
I would love to have all Lance,s old tour samples re tested to the same test as AC has been 😀
Good stuff, I was looking forwarded to seeing contador and schleck slug it out this year. I'm sure they will both be suitably 'prepared' for the season, so should be good.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/astana-have-receipt-for-contadors-steak-says-cook
read this without laughing
He's guilty! Cycling knows it & he knows it.
His Lawyers got him off on a technicality - speaks volumes.
Cheating scum.
theboatman - Member
Good stuff, I was looking forwarded to seeing contador and schleck slug it out this year. I'm sure they will both be suitably 'prepared' for the season, so should be good.
how dare you suggest either of the Schlecks would consider anything of the sort.
http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/frank-schleck-admits-fuentes-payment-18842
🙂
"He asked me if I needed anything and I asked him if he could bring some 'steak' [b]*WINK WINK*[/b] because the 'meat' in France is not the same."
lot of roadies will tell you that Greg Lemond was most likely the last clean rider to win
Wasn't he full of lead after the hunting incident?
Oh dear, what a lot of hot air over something none of us ACTULLY know the full details of. Still: nothing new there then eh??
😯 play with your tally whackers, you'll be less stressed trust me, AAHH that's better!
Oh dear, what a lot of hot air over something none of us ACTULLY know the full details of. Still: nothing new there then eh??
Its called having an opinion & the problem with that is what exactly?
mrl...nothing at all. But just now and then it would be really nice for the opinions to be based on something approximating facts.
Note to self: try and lighten up....and learn to type/spell!!!
I quess what worries me most about all this is that a lot of this the extra test of AC tour sample is because the UCI Preident Pat McQuaid would like his friends son Andy Schleck to win the tour.
I know that that might sound daft but there is a lot of things what look very bad when you look in to the UCI and hopefully it will all come out into the open and proved one way all the other.
For fans of road racing try to get a copy of last years Giro it was far better than the tour.
Note to self: try and lighten up....and learn to type/spell!!!
Very chilled thanks you boring pedant.
He actually had trace levels of Clenbuterol in his system for 4 consecutive days during the Tour including the tested level climbing again on the 4th day...
It was indeed very small trace amounts but the issue is the rules need to be the same for all participants. He's been let off by the Spanish Fed to avoid backlash from the Spanish public.
I cannot believe that the UCI will not appeal & subsequently award a ban of 2yrs. The initial 1yr proposal from the Spanish Fed was already a shorter ban than most.
I will say one thing, physically where does AC get his power and endurance from? He's too bloody quick to have such stamina.
Sorry.
now and then it would be really nice for the opinions to be based on something approximating facts
Well I'm basing my opinion (not given it yet - wait a minute) on the totally undisputed facts as given:
1) Contador's sample tested +ve for clenbuterol.
2) The level was lower than other labs could test for, but [b]any[/b] amount of clenbuterol is a drug test fail.
3) There is a rule of strict liability for drugs.
4) The only exception to the above allowed is "an athlete can be exonerated if they prove that they had inadvertently ingested a banned product through no fault or negligence on their part".
5) Contador and his team have failed to provide any sample of clenbuterol contaminated meat to prove it was inadvertent.
6) Contador's case rests on the fact the prosecution team can't prove that he took the drug deliberately, but see points 3, 4 and 5, that's not the way it works. No proof of innocence from his side, hence under the rule of strict liability he's guilty.
Actually given that string of undisputed facts, I'll let you have a guess at my opinion.
wow, it's official;
cheating pays, winners take drugs.
Well he's in good company, since 1903!
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.
mrlebowski...the note to self was exactly that; a note to me to lighten up. I didn't expect quite such a vituperative response.
Not having steak again, all those nasty chemicals they put in it nowadays! 😆
Did he just say
🙄vituperative
Surely to goodness that isn't how the rule works! He comes up with a basically implausible, half-assed theory for how the illegal performance enhancing substance came to be in his body, and because no-one can prove that a long-digested and possibly mythical steak [i]didn't[/i] mysteriously contain performance enhancing drugs he can't be banned.
I'm feeling another bout of serious indifference to all this coming on. 😐
end of the day there all at it.... It was nothing that will boost performance so let it slide..
Assuming it wasn't ingested innocently, presumably the low level is the result of a prior course to build muscle mass during training i.e. it's taken to boost performance during training not competition. No?
Well allegedly Lance tested positive at the 1999 tour but it was brushed under the carpet. The whole drugs thing is a nightmare IMO as the UCI are so corrupt! Has anyone else read Landis' interview with Paul Kimmage recently? Okay I take what he says with a pinch of salt as why did he fight for so many years claiming he was innocent (including taking people's money to fight it and write a book) to them "come clean" mmm I think he's in it to take LA down as he's bitter however it still makes interesting reading.
It can be found here:
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2011/landiskimmage
I would love to think that there are some top pro's out there that don't dope but I dont' think in my heart there are unfortuatnely. I think Chris Boardman didn't do as well as he could've becuase he didn't dope, but that's again just MO with no face behind it.
Corruptin in th UCI that Landis is so bitter about is aimed at the last President that stepped down in 2005. There was some funny goings on that the UCI can not explain.
Like big payments from top riders...
Like i said there all at it. SOme are clever. Some are stupid like the recent case of DIY doping.
The 3 main grand tours require super human effort to put the body through that level of torture. There all at it..
I ride road and accept it goes on... It is not just cycling either, if you think that your nieve
All of our great cycling heros have bent the rules in years gone by. Some more than others granted. But it's foolish to think that's its any different now. It's just to a lesser extent now I think.
I could take all the EPO in the world and I'll still be sh*t! 😉
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
Read what I wrote. That's not how it's supposed to work. There is strict liability for drugs - it's up to him to prove his innocence, not anybody else to prove he took the drugs to boost performance. Otherwise it would be pretty much impossible to find anybody guilty of drug taking.
BIGMAN you referring to the muppet that is Ricco!? Who would've thought it! Both him and his Mrs are done for doping, he gets done AGAIN then tries his own DIY doping and ends up in hospital whta a d*** he should be banned from ALL sports for life.
Friend met an ex commonwealth long distance medal winner recently, they had an interesting conversation abuot doping in that he stated all long distance runners were at it! Maybe that's Paula Radcliffe's problem she isn't doping enough .. or actually no ... she's just a quitter.
[b]Aracer[/b]: - Read what I wrote. That's not how it's supposed to work. There is strict liability for drugs - it's up to him to prove his innocence, not anybody else to prove he took the drugs to boost performance. Otherwise it would be pretty much impossible to find anybody guilty of drug taking
Indeed...similarly the police don't need to see you drinking beer. A breath or blood test will secure a convinction for drunk driving - I ate some spanish beef before driving through the red lights is not yet something the courts will take heed of.
vi·tu·per·a·tive/v??t(y)o?op??r?tiv/
Adjective: Bitter and abusive
STW is becoming elitist at last!
Ban them! Ban them all!
Common sense has not (so far) prevailed. Once a rider tests positive for a banned substance it is up to him to prove how that substance innocently got in his system. From the information that has been made available it appears that the only evidence that Contador has is his say so. That is not evidence. He should be banned for 2 years under the rules as they stand.
Whether two years is long enough is a different argument. In cases of greyness I would say that it's probably a little short and should be increased to 3 years from the point of the judgement. In black and white cases I think a 10 year ban needs to be introduced, but only on new cases. Call time on previous doping investigations but draw a line in the sand saying from this point onwards if you get caught you are effectively finished.
As for Ricco, he needs to banned for life for his own safety, he has been a fool but he appears to have already suffered far more than most for his stupidity. At the end of the day it's cycling and it should not cost anyone their health or worse.
MuppetWrangler I agree with you btu unforatuntely look at the state Pantani ended up in and his untimely and sad, lonely death in a hotel room! I'm fascinated by the drugs seen and the psychology behind it. Have you read Laurent Fignon's "we were young and carefree" a very honest book where he admits on a few occasions he did coke and it sent him mad basically and scared he living daylights out him, but they were skirting around doping tests in those days and picking and choosing how they ran the testing. Very interesting read.
Munque-chick, thanks for the recommendation I'll make a mental note for a holiday read.
It was very easy reading as Fignon wrote it himself but I though it was one of THE most engrossing cycling books I've read (and I have pretty much read them all!). Plus I'm obssessed with reading about the doping issue. have you read "bad Blood" by Jeremy Whittle that's good too although it's quite old now, well it's about Operation Puerto from 1998 (I think).
Nothing more than you expect from 'official' bodies like that.
As mentioned above he also had plasticizers in his blood - he is a cheat.
Road cycling is a tainted sport where every winner in recent years is likely to have had extra help. Does the sport now give riders carte blanche and watch them all die in their 30's, 40's and 50's from drug induced complications.
Puerto was 2006
Festina was 1998 😉
Reckon we're due another biggie though Lance Vs US govt might be just that
Alrigh I was thinking festina in my head but that became Puerto sorry my bad 😉 Anyway you pedant it is still a good book.
On a lighter note, my favourite drugs and cycling story is the one involving Sean Kelly, who to get around the test had a bottle of his mechanics pee concealed in his shorts. Unfortunately the mechanic had been driving late into the night and had self administered a banned substance to help keep him awake.
The full story is in Festina masseur Willy Voet's memoirs.
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.
Common sense has nothing to do with it though. The rules are quite clear, unless he can prove that he ingested the substance unknowingly he should get a 2 year ban.
There are several things that make me uncomfortable about all of this, which can be summed up by this quote:
[url= http://twitter.com/inrng/status/37604553398550529 ]"RFEC President Juan Carlos Castaño says it's "good news" that Contador has been cleared."[/url]
I don't care whether he was taking drugs to enhance his performance or not, he was found with a banned substance in him and cannot prove why. Therefore should be banned. If it were a lesser rider i'm sure he would have been too.
Double standards. Google Tom Zirbel and his ban.
Bad Blood is amazing book.
If you have ever road raced you will love "the Rider" by Tim Krabbe.
As for Contador, a temporary repreive. No way he will be allowed to get away with it.
The backlash has started
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/media-reactions-to-contadors-clearing-on-doping-charges
As for clean riders .......N Roche, Wiggins, Van De Velde, Hushovd, Evans ???
Various people saying exactly the same there as I did in my earlier post.
I accidentally ingested several pints of beer while out with WCA last Friday night. 😳
Marge - MemberHe actually had trace levels of Clenbuterol in his system for 4 consecutive days during the Tour including the tested level climbing again on the 4th day...
I haven't seen anything of this, could you point me in the direction of the source of your information, please?
I accidentally ingested several pints of beer while out with WCA last Friday night.
There is no doubting that there was Clembuterol present, so the connection to drinking is a bit puerile. And people have got off DR0 with technicalities on low levels of blood alcohol. Not a valid comparison, but clearly satisfies the blood lust.
I do hope that you have more supporting evidence to back up his guilt. The run down from the RFEC is that Clembuterol can enter the body in 3-4 different ways and the supporting evidence shows that the only logical answer is that systematic doping did not occur.
I understand what the law says, yet clearly no-one is interested in what Contador has to say regarding rule changes and accidental ingestion. He was prepared to throw away his career because of what he believed in. I bet he sleeps alot better at night than the people with the knives out. God forbid we change the rules and progress. Rules is rules and Emily Pankhurst was nothing but a comon criminal! 🙄
On a daily basis I have to deal with a security guard who throws the rules is rules argument at me, I don't have a positive opinion of him.
Clearly everyone who is shouting conspiracy or ban him has alot more info or knowledge of the machinations of the RFEC, Alberto Contador, UCI and WADA. There may or may not be an appeal based on greater info than the badly translated info put forward by one of the cycling mags!
I will also, unlike some, accept the outcome of any appeals as they come. If he is banned by UCI then he will be banned and have to serve the ban as they will be the facts and reality.
¡Animo Alberto!
He actually had trace levels of Clenbuterol in his system for 4 consecutive days during the Tour including the tested level climbing again on the 4th day...
[url= http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/952/Wielrennen/article/detail/1219441/2011/02/08/Contador-testte-viermaal-positief-in-Tour.dhtml ]Linky to article in Dutch[/url]
Originally reported in Marca (Spanish paper) but reprinted in the press over here in Belgium including the quantities found.
A quick look in [url= http://www.marca.com/2011/02/15/ciclismo/1297788145.html ]Marca only reports one control[/url] on 21/07 in their archives, again if you could point me to the original Marca article, I would be grateful. Again I wouldn't believe 100% what is being reported in the press. I prefer to get my information first hand and make my own decisions.
see The Inner Ring piece here regarding the 4 tests:
http://inrng.com/?p=739
Their coverage has been excellent and very informative
theres been a few good articles up [url= http://www.sportsscientists.com/ ]here[/url]
Hehehe.... It's hilarious the way folks get so wound up about these issues. Cycling is a freak show and should be enjoyed as a spectacle... Or not... whatever your taste. But with the knowledge...if your of sane mind. They all dope and have done since it began. Always have always will. The governing bodies know this and are more interested in keeping the illusion its clean so it can attract money in... They don't really care for catching the top lads as it puts the sponsors and tv networks off. It's the way of the world money rules. Sad but true!
@don Simon - what rule changes? The ones that may happen afterthis case? Surely he must be judged by the the current rules, not afny future ones! As said by many people, many times above the current rules call for strict liability under which, from the evidence released, he is due a 2 year ban.
and the supporting evidence shows that the [b]only[/b] logical answer is that systematic doping did not occur.
Well indeed it is ! - oh, or cheating I suppose. That might take care of the plasticisers too; I like an elegant theory
As said by many people, many times above the current rules call for strict liability under which, from the evidence released, he is due a 2 year ban.
Or not as he's not banned. Let's wait and see what the UCI do. He will accept a ban, if banned, that has never been in doubt. Yes, he is looking to change the rules for the future and not wriggle out of the current situation. 😉
What ever people might think he has been cleared at this point by those who matter and its not up to anyone else to question that. If you don't agree join the authorities that cleared him.
I do question the whole issue. many people rant on about how doping is bringing the sport into disreute. Well thats easy to solve. Shut up like other sports do. Funny how those most "supportive" of a sport end up trashing it. It happend to motorcycle trail riding. Too many mags pushing it and it grew to the point it was banned. mountain biking is in danger of the same in places.
I could ask whats the problem anyway? is it using un natural products to enhance performance? Whats natural about the diets of these athletes? With my dodgy joints Codeine is as common as cabohydrates in my diet. And i hate carbs and wouldn't touch them if I could get away with it.
As for protectingthe riders from themselves. Thats only their concern , just like helmets or seat belts. Not anyone else problem.
Touch paper lit just to make one or two bigots think a bit.
Touch paper lit [u]just to make one or two bigots think a bit.[/u]
I doubt it.
Or not as he's not banned. Let's wait and see what the UCI do. He will accept a ban, if banned, that has never been in doubt. Yes, he is looking to change the rules for the future and not wriggle out of the current situation.
no, not at all. Given all the evidence that has been made public it is clear that he should be banned for 2 years - the rules are quite simple and quite clear! There seems to be no basis for RFEC giving him a 1 year ban and even less basis for waiving the ban altogether. If there is additional evidence which categorically proves the steak he ate was contaminated then Bertie is not helping himself by keeping that private.
Given that other people have been banned for the same thing for 2 years recently (and given the same reason and same lack of proof of that reason) there is seemingly no reason why Bertie should not be banned. I'd be very surprised indeed if WADA didn't take this further, and if they do given the lack of evidence he will serve a ban.
If he was doping for performance enhancement or not doesn't matter, the rules (as they currently stand) have been broken and it's astonishing that RFEC have not handed down a ban.
@mattsccm - you're missing the point. The question is not whether Contador has doped or not (nor the morality of doping) it's whether the rules have been broken or not. All the evidence there is shows the rules have been broken and there has been no evidence made public to the contrary. As above, UCI rules state that a 2 year ban should be given.
I personally don't care if he has been doping or not, only that the rules are applied fairly and evenly.
@pjt201, it's the UCI rule that has allowed the ban to be rescinded. I for one will accept the decision as final, and I mean the decision/appeals of WADA and UCI. Will the banhimbrigade be able to do the same if the current position is upheld?
Well, the rule that they have rescinded the ban on is article 296 which states:
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
If he can prove this, then fair enough and he should have no qualms in providing the evidence to do so. As it stands, he hasn't provided this evidence - which doesn't make him look good. It's not up to the UCI, RFEC or WADA to prove or investigate this - it's up to Contador.
The issue is that there has been no evidence made public that shows the ban should be overturned. If this evidence exists there is no reason it should not be made public and I'm sure he would then be exonerated by all. Both Contador and RFEC are bringing themselves into disrepute by not providing this evidence (or some other legitimate, provable reason)
I'm with ANC's comments! They all do it and most of us accept it, however if they are bending rules to allow riders back in then it's wrong!
What pjt201 said.
[url= http://inrng.com/?p=1059 ]http://inrng.com/?p=1059[/url]
Hmm, from this it seems that RFEC based their decision on the amount of clenbuterol not being enough to make a difference so therefore it must have been from a contaminated steak - some pretty big assumptions there and not following the rules as they stand.
“The minimal amount detected could not presume an improvement in sporting performance…
…This brings us to the conclusion that with a high degree of probability the positive detected was a consequence of the consumption of contaminated meat, an act which cannot be assumed or considered as negligent conduct.”
The rules state nothing about probability or there being a limit for the amount of clenbuterol in the system.
All these articles stating content of Clen in the system and plastacisers in his blood are from magazines and papers not from offcal sources!!!
No official body has confirmed any of it!!!
Its press wanting sales unless the whole case is made public.. If the evidence doesn't exist he cannot be banned..
Yes he has traces of Clen in system but there has been cases across europe of Clen finding its way into food chain.. Even here in the UK...
If you hate road riding and some of the ugly things that go on don't read the articles or watch it on the box. Simples! 😯
The word on the drug-crazed roadie forum seems to be that the UCI offered 4 options for the +ve, 3 of which were illegal and the 4th was contaminated meat. Contadors lawyers were able to disprove the 3 illegal means (using his biopassport data LOL) therefore only option 4 is a possibility. As European meat is screened for clenbuterol you can use article 296 to get over the strict liability rule - if you have very expensive and crafty lawyers.
WADA should not have strict liability on a substance which is floating around the food chain now that the testing equipment is so sensitive.
The Utterly Corrupt Institution should not allow a protected rider to fail tests and should not allow test results to get leaked while working out how to cover them up. Alledgedly.
If you read the Landis interview with Paul Kimmage on velonation it is pretty obvious at that the very top they are all on it and all know they are on it so it seems fair to me, in a bizarre way.
What is bad is when morons get on the homebrew to try to compete and then nearly kill themselves.
The good thing is he wont be able to show his old 'form' again will he.
He'll know hes watched etc now. So his performances wont be the same.
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
Another VERY interesting doping article, covers LA's '99 positive test. Makes good reading although a bit technical in places.