Contador - CAS ruling. (All things Contador/doping - merged)

[Tumbleweed]

Did not say that - Never mind Ullrich the topic of the week is AC, WHO DID INDEED TEST POSITIVE

 

Ullrich indeed tested positive for a no-no substance, MDMA, but the authorites decided that as we was doing it out of competition he wasn't using it for performance-enhancing reasons.

[Juba2]

Although in his defense I see it was a seriously small amount detected:

 

The concentration found by the laboratory was estimated at 50 picograms (or 0,000 000 000 05 grams per ml) which is 400 time less than what the antidoping laboratories accredited by WADA must be able to detect.”

 

“In view of this very small concentration and in consultation with WADA, the UCI immediately had the proper results management proceedings conducted including the analysis of B sample that confirmed the first result. The rider, who had already put an end to his cycling season before the result was known, was nevertheless formally and provisionally suspended as is prescribed by the World Anti-Doping Code.

 

It seems like these labs could even find a brain in Julius Malema.

 

:clap:

[kosmonooit]

actually - whats the wada stance on plasticizers? are they not a banned substances yet?

 

There is no 'approved' test for them as yet and there is not policy as I understand it.

[GrumpyOldGuy]

There is no 'approved' test for them as yet and there is not policy as I understand it.

 

Indeed, they can find them, but the protocols are not in place to allow them to be used as evidence against the athlete.

[fandacious]

There is no 'approved' test for them as yet and there is not policy as I understand it.

 

so same as EPO in the late 90s? what about retroactive testing? what if there is an approved test in the next year or two. can/will they retroactively test blood samples and ban/fine riders?

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Am a big fan of his, despite his missteps.

 

Manuela Ronchi managed him. She was also the conduit between him and the family in the rougher times. Hers is called: Man on the Run: The Life and Death of Marco Pantani.

 

Matt Rendell's The Death of Marco Pantani paints a less complimentary potrait of Roncho and her relationship with Marco. He also touches on Pantani's sexual proclivities to suggest that he may have had a dalliance with a tranny. Not sure whose version I trust more, so read them in tandem.

 

Wilcockson also wrote a book about him, but I found it unremarkable.

 

Yeah I am also a fan of Marco, he had his problems but he was a pretty colorful character, and before he fell off the bus, a superb athlete.

 

I will try and find Ronchi's book, I knew she had something to do with him but I wasn't clear exactly what.

 

Another rider I find intriguing is Claudio Chiapucci, its alledged that he was part of a systemic doping protocol by the Italian Cycling Federation, and that Pantani might have also been part of it, there's never been real proof and he has never said anything but, who knows.!!

 

Fortunately, as the Simoni's and the Savoldelli's started coming through the ranks and the spotlight was turned on them as future hopes, the Italian legal system was changed and it became a criminal offence to be caught doping / with doping products, so, of course, all that came to a stop.

Edited February 8, 2012 by GrumpyOldGuy

[Man with no name]

As said elsewhere I will continue supporting him. Liekthe man's guts and work ethic.

 

He'll be back, but like without the muscles and stuff

[GrumpyOldGuy]

so same as EPO in the late 90s? what about retroactive testing? what if there is an approved test in the next year or two. can/will they retroactively test blood samples and ban/fine riders?

 

Yeah, much the same as r-EPO in the 90's, but how they got around it then was by the blood parameters, and of course the haematocrit %.

 

I dont know, it would be interesting, although its not something that can be proved to have been caused by doping, many athletes just had saline drips and they could pick up plasticers for that, so not sure how they will get around that issue.

 

Of course now with the "no needle" rule its a moot point.

[fandacious]

Yeah, much the same as r-EPO in the 90's, but how they got around it then was by the blood parameters, and of course the haematocrit %.

 

I dont know, it would be interesting, although its not something that can be proved to have been caused by doping, many athletes just had saline drips and they could pick up plasticers for that, so not sure how they will get around that issue.

 

Of course now with the "no needle" rule its a moot point.

 

thats what i was thinking... if plasticizers are banned, they shouldnt be in your blood at all, because of no needles rule.

 

are there any other ways plasticisers can get into blood stream? water bottle etc?

[Wyatt Earp]

thats what i was thinking... if plasticizers are banned, they shouldnt be in your blood at all, because of no needles rule.

 

are there any other ways plasticisers can get into blood stream? water bottle etc?

Perhaps the little dipsh1t chewed on his dogs plastic steak.

[scotty]

Perhaps the little dipsh1t chewed on his dogs plastic steak.

Beer on keyboard

[GrumpyOldGuy]

thats what i was thinking... if plasticizers are banned, they shouldnt be in your blood at all, because of no needles rule.

 

are there any other ways plasticisers can get into blood stream? water bottle etc?

 

Not sure you could get it from a water bottle, doubt it though. I guess you are referring to 'Berto?, but I think the No needle rule came about after he was caught in 2010.?

 

The issue with plasticisers is really to do with a legal protocol, they can certainly detect them, but until the legal side is sorted out, they can not use the fact their were plasticisers to convict the athlete of doping.

 

I think (and again this is my opinion only) the UCI were a little sneaky in 'Berto's case, in that they harped on a little about it (plasticisers), even though they knew it could not be used as evidence against him, and, I think they did so to possibly create doubt in the minds of some of the panel as to his theory, legally they were within their rights to mention it, but ethically in my opinion it was not the correct way forward.

 

In the end some will say CAS disregarded it as it was never mentioned, hence its a moot point, but WADA did mention it, which speaks volumes to me anyway.

Edited February 8, 2012 by GrumpyOldGuy

[TNT1]

Why would this be ?

 

Because 'Dale lives in world somewhat disconnected from the one you and I laughingly call reality.

Edited February 9, 2012 by TNT1

[Tumbleweed]

Tackling the issues of an appeal: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/legal-expert-rates-contadors-chances-of-a-successful-appeal

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Tackling the issues of an appeal: http://www.cyclingne...ccessful-appeal

 

Hmm, sort of backs up what I said to Fandacious, that the UCI (especially) and WADA were a little exuberant in suggesting Blood doping (Plasticisers) and CAS appears to have disregarded it, but who knows if the seed did get planted.?

 

 

The panel’s reasoning hinged on the probability that Contador ingested a supplement that carried the clenbuterol. However, no evidence was revealed to back this claim. The Spaniard argued that the substance was from tainted meat while part of the WADA/UCI argument raised the possibility of blood doping. CAS avoided both these arguments.

“What was a bit surprising was that the UCI tried to suggest its blood doping theory. I think that made it a lot more complicated. Normally a sports governing body doesn’t need to say why the substance got there, usually it’s up to the athlete.

 

I think if he appeals it will be only to prove a point and perhaps force CAS onto a spot, like saying "you make my life miserable I do will everything I can to reciprocate and make yours difficult as well" - not sure who wins in that situation, but I think he is past caring about that anyway.

Edited February 9, 2012 by GrumpyOldGuy

[Wyatt Earp]

Because 'Dale lives in world somewhat disconnected from the one you and I laughingly call reality.

Ja ,the melodrama and mystique being conjured up all the time.

Evans is nothing but a lucky bugger with sheer guts and determination who in time will be in the same boat as the rest of his doping cronies.