|
Alberto Contador Positive
|
| CrueTrue |
Posted on 16-02-2011 11:32
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 27880
Joined: 20-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
ruben wrote:
I really can't make a big deal out of this one. If it was EPO or CERA maybe, but 0.xxxxxxx picograms..meh
I'm getting tired of explaining this.
1. There's no lower limit on clenbuterol. It's not a natural substance. Therefore, if you have any amount of it in your body, you've cheated. It's a positive test.
2. More likely than not, it's a result of blood doping. Contador did take a larger amount earlier that year, and before everything was out of his body, he made a blood transfusion. When he got his blood back in July, that small amount of clenbuterol re-appeared.
Obviously, point 2 is just a theory - but so is Contador's beef story. Even without point 2, we still have a positive test for doping. "It's beef, it's beef," screams Contador, but there's also a rule saying that athletes are responsible for what's in their body - so even if he can make his story probable (we don't have any info about this - only Contador's words, so far), he should still be banned.
Case in point: Alessandro Colo. Contaminated meat, same story as Contador. Difference? Colo got tested positive in Mexico where above 20 % of the meat is contaminated with clenbuterol. His story was accepted, yet he still received a 1-year-ban.
Contador? Contaminated meat from Spain in France. In EU, It's illegal to use clenbuterol in food-producing animals. In 2002, 300.000 meat samples from EU were tested. A single sample showed the possibility of contamination with clenbuterol. Yet Contador is cleared and receives no ban.
I'm sure CAS will get rid of him, but that won't happen anytime soon. This is the Valverde-case all over again. |
| |
|
|
| Waghlon |
Posted on 16-02-2011 12:12
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6542
Joined: 18-08-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
CrueTrue wrote:
I'm getting tired of explaining this.
words
And that should really be the end of the discussion in an ideal world.
Of course, some might know that this is not an ideal world...
THE THOMAS VOECKLER PROPHET OF PCM DAILY
 |
| |
|
|
| titleist82 |
Posted on 16-02-2011 12:15
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 752
Joined: 03-04-2007
PCM$: 1760.00
|
organizer shouldn't (and probably can't) keep contador off their events, he has been (shamefully) cleared and is free to race.
organizer should exclude riders and teams with spanish licence, as it is now clear (once more) that RCEF's effort against doping is completely non-existent.
or shall we expect every rider to apply for spanish license from now on? |
| |
|
|
| Anonymer |
Posted on 16-02-2011 12:22
|
Domestique
Posts: 484
Joined: 20-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
titleist82 wrote:
organizer shouldn't (and probably can't) keep contador off their events, he has been (shamefully) cleared and is free to race.
organizer should exclude riders and teams with spanish licence, as it is now clear (once more) that RCEF's effort against doping is completely non-existent.
or shall we expect every rider to apply for spanish license from now on?
That's nonsense. Lots of spanish riders have been banned, just because of some arguable decisions you can't generalize it. And AC ban will be renewed by the CAS, I'm sure - and it will happend before the tdf starts |
| |
|
|
| titleist82 |
Posted on 16-02-2011 12:31
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 752
Joined: 03-04-2007
PCM$: 1760.00
|
Anonymer wrote:
titleist82 wrote:
organizer shouldn't (and probably can't) keep contador off their events, he has been (shamefully) cleared and is free to race.
organizer should exclude riders and teams with spanish licence, as it is now clear (once more) that RCEF's effort against doping is completely non-existent.
or shall we expect every rider to apply for spanish license from now on?
That's nonsense. Lots of spanish riders have been banned, just because of some arguable decisions you can't generalize it. And AC ban will be renewed by the CAS, I'm sure - and it will happend before the tdf starts
to me, it's not a matter of sense or nonsense
you can't argue about sense after the RCEF sentence on AC.
That's the only way to force RCEF to a proper behaviour on doping, especially on doping from their top riders.
and it is also a way to grant minimum fairness and equal treatment to riders caught doping.
edit: just to clarify, it's not a personal battle against AC or spanish riders, i truly believe that AC is as musch doped as almost every other top GC contender. But he got 4 clear positivness for a banned and non-natural substance. there is no reason for him to avoid a 2 year suspension
Edited by titleist82 on 16-02-2011 12:34
|
| |
|
|
| CountArach |
Posted on 16-02-2011 12:31
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8205
Joined: 14-07-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Anonymer wrote:
titleist82 wrote:
organizer shouldn't (and probably can't) keep contador off their events, he has been (shamefully) cleared and is free to race.
organizer should exclude riders and teams with spanish licence, as it is now clear (once more) that RCEF's effort against doping is completely non-existent.
or shall we expect every rider to apply for spanish license from now on?
That's nonsense. Lots of spanish riders have been banned, just because of some arguable decisions you can't generalize it. And AC ban will be renewed by the CAS, I'm sure - and it will happend before the tdf starts
I don't know, I see this being a long and drawn out legal battle, especially with a legal team like Contador's. I'm not optimistic, |
| |
|
|
| Crommy |
Posted on 16-02-2011 12:34
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8755
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
From: https://www.cyclin...r-decision
McQuaid accepted that Contador is free to ride Tour of the Algarve that begins today in Portugal. However, he acknowledged that the uncertainty was not good for the sport.
"That's the rules. The rules allow him to race, so he races," he said.
"The impact is there and there is nothing I can do about it. We have to move on and continue racing. There's a calendar of races that have to be fulfilled and there are clean riders that are racing. We have to let them race and they deserve the support of everybody."
From this. it's clear McQuaid thinks Contador is guilty - no doubt in my mind the UCI will appeal
|
| |
|
|
| Ste117 |
Posted on 16-02-2011 12:44
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3533
Joined: 21-02-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Even so Blood Transfusion, ain't that banned aswell, if he taken so much Clenbuterol in the early part of the season, how has he been able to get away with it for so long. Testing the top cyclists all year round needs to happen now and not just the TDF when they are competing, to stop this from happening again, but first he needs to be given a 2 year ban, if you ask a blood transfusion also carries a 2 year ba its plain cheating.
MG Team manager Team Ticos Air Costa Rica
 |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 19-12-2025 21:06
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 16-02-2011 12:54
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22053
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
In the early season during the training camps it`s harder to test them for some reason. So the risk to get a positive might be lower than during or in front of bigger races. |
| |
|
|
| kumazan |
Posted on 16-02-2011 17:47
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6195
Joined: 02-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Crommy wrote:
From: https://www.cyclin...r-decision
McQuaid accepted that Contador is free to ride Tour of the Algarve that begins today in Portugal. However, he acknowledged that the uncertainty was not good for the sport.
"That's the rules. The rules allow him to race, so he races," he said.
"The impact is there and there is nothing I can do about it. We have to move on and continue racing. There's a calendar of races that have to be fulfilled and there are clean riders that are racing. We have to let them race and they deserve the support of everybody."
From this. it's clear McQuaid thinks Contador is guilty - no doubt in my mind the UCI will appeal
The UCI will appeal only if (and after) the WADA appeals. Remember this words. All this drama McQuaid is representing would be quite funny if we didn't know that it's all false and that the UCI originally tried to sweep AC's positive under the carpet. |
| |
|
|
| CrueTrue |
Posted on 16-02-2011 22:47
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 27880
Joined: 20-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
(Source: The Inner Ring)
Edited by CrueTrue on 16-02-2011 22:48
|
| |
|
|
| ringo182 |
Posted on 16-02-2011 23:03
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3386
Joined: 03-01-2008
PCM$: 1348.00
|
CrueTrue wrote:
1. There's no lower limit on clenbuterol. It's not a natural substance. Therefore, if you have any amount of it in your body, you've cheated. It's a positive test.
i'm not disagreeing with you crue, but just because you can't produce it in your body doesn't mean that getting the smallest trace amounts means you have definately cheated.
there are many other ways that it's possible to get trace amounts of any substance into your body.
you need a minimum ammount to fail the test for this very reason. if you ban riders every time they have trace amounts of something then there would be no riders left as many legal drugs contain substances that are illegal in high enough numbers.
not defending AC, just disagree with the statement that you can ban a rider based on a trace amount of something alone. |
| |
|
|
| CrueTrue |
Posted on 16-02-2011 23:22
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 27880
Joined: 20-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Well, you can - that's the rules.
The amount of allowed clenbuterol in your body is 0,0000000000000000000000000000000 (insert as many zeros as you like). If you have any amount in your body, that's cheating, according to UCI / WADA rules. |
| |
|
|
| andybandy |
Posted on 17-02-2011 14:50
|
Stagiare
Posts: 162
Joined: 10-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
We all know that, but why do we even have trials and CAS if we could just ban every athlete that has a illegal substance in the body at once? A more general note; at one point WADA have to put up treshold levels, it's not like a couple of molecules clenbuterol per ml should be something to care about.
Edited by andybandy on 17-02-2011 14:56
|
| |
|
|
| Montolivo |
Posted on 17-02-2011 14:58
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 791
Joined: 16-06-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
andybandy wrote:
We all know that, but why do we even have trials and CAS if we could just ban every athlete that has a illegal substance in the body at once? A more general note; at one point WADA have to put up treshold levels, it's not like a couple of molecyles clenbuterol per ml should be something to care about.
So every test which shows only limited or small amounts of illegal substances in a athletes body should just pass by whitout any consequences? |
| |
|
|
| ruben |
Posted on 17-02-2011 14:59
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7125
Joined: 23-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Sometimes rules need to be adapted if they are wrong
There is no point in saying well the rules say if there is any trace of X you are guilty, when it is scientifically proven that that amount of X doesn't even have any effect, and that amount of X can only enter the body via contaminated food (or a blood tranfusion gone wrong).
People who always go by the book and by the rules, eventually end up nowhere since they are not moving forward.
Sometimes you need to question the rules...
|
| |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 17-02-2011 15:03
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22053
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
If you have any amount (and may it that less) of an illegal substance in your body, then you have done anything wrong. Either you really doped and have bad luck that a very little rest was still found or you are really innocent. So you have to check the circumstances.
In Contador`s example. Little amount of Clenbuterol. Then of course there is the chance of this meat theory. But it was Spanish meat and as thousands of tests already proved: Spanish meat is Clenbuterol free. So a 2-year ban is necessary as his only excuse isn`t really good.
If the race was in China, Mexico or somewhere else with a high amount of Clenbuterol meat it`s something different. There you could think about a shorter ban or even no ban if the amount is that small. But still a hard decision then as you never really know. Could also be a smart excuse then. |
| |
|
|
| CrueTrue |
Posted on 17-02-2011 15:11
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 27880
Joined: 20-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
ruben wrote:
Sometimes rules need to be adapted if they are wrong
There is no point in saying well the rules say if there is any trace of X you are guilty, when it is scientifically proven that that amount of X doesn't even have any effect, and that amount of X can only enter the body via contaminated food (or a blood tranfusion gone wrong).
People who always go by the book and by the rules, eventually end up nowhere since they are not moving forward.
Sometimes you need to question the rules...
So what rules do you want to be changed?
1. The rule about strict liability? A very fundamental rule, not just in cycling, but in the civil juridical system in general.
2. Rules about thresholds? You can dope as long as the amount of substance left in your body is below the threshold when you're tested.
Point 1 would be very damaging, point 2 is just crazy as that would allow doping all-together. Then again, some people don't mind legalizing doping, but if that's what you want, that's a different discussion.
(Once again, I'll refer to The Inner Ring. Great insights, told in an understandable way: https://inrng.com/?p=1092)
Edited by CrueTrue on 17-02-2011 15:11
|
| |
|
|
| ruben |
Posted on 17-02-2011 15:14
|
Team Leader
Posts: 7125
Joined: 23-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Just rules in general. You seem to be the type that follows everything to the letter and never questions the system.
|
| |
|
|
| CrueTrue |
Posted on 17-02-2011 15:20
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 27880
Joined: 20-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Of course I question the system (I'm a journalist, it's my job (or will be in the future when I'm done studying  )), but in this case, there's no reason to do so.
Edited by CrueTrue on 17-02-2011 15:21
|
| |
|
