Contador fails drug test

[Flying_Monkey]

Contador is saying today that his let-off is 'a great advance for the sport'... everyone else thinks it'san incredibly cynical decision, and the Spanish Meat Federation is saying he's talking bollocks (and I don't mean 'sweetbreads').

 

[MartinC]

It's certainly not an advance for the sport. It's just that there aren't any alternatives. If the UCI or the Spanish Federation banned him they'd just end up in court, lose a lot of money, have the issue in the media for years and he'd still get off. The bottom line is that cycling has to operate within the rule of law. You can't just call someone a cheat and deprive them of their income unless you've got some proof of a legal standard. We might all have our own idea of how an ineffective amount of clenbuterol got into his bloodstream but it doesn't prove that he cheated.

Where the UCI (and WADA) need to smarten up is in not testing for results they can't do anything with. By testing for inconsequential amounts of substances that are known to be in the food chain they create positives that can't be sanctioned. All they do is create a lot of ill feeling and bad publicity. Testing for results that can be followed through is the only sensible option.

 

[tatworth-torpedo]

Im not watching the TDF this year if he,s in it .

 

[johnr]

So, this year's TdF is going to be another year of What's My Line (as those of us who are down with the kids say)

 

[rich p]

Courtroom legality isn't always applied in sporting courts. The riders and teams sign up to a set of rules and conditions that wouldn't necessarily stand up in a British court. There are differences in jurisprudence within western European countries let alone in some other less democratised countries who also have cyclists.

This expert has corroborated what some of us have been saying for some time about retesting for plasticisers now the procedure has been verified...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/fre...t-suggests-new-analysis-for-contadors-samples

 

[rich p]

Do the rules they are all signed up to include the idea of going back and re-testing as and when new tests are developed?

I'm pretty sure they retested samples when the CERA test was first accredited when they caught Emanuelle Selle amongst others.

I seem to recall that the Beijing Olympic samples were retested after the event for CERA too when they caught 4 athletes.

 

[BJH]

Have a look out for the full interview of Floyd Landis by Paul Kimmage. Absolutely fascinating. You can say whatever you want about him being a discredited cheat, but he lifts the lid on the absolute cess pit of the sports governance - no wonder at all Contador has been let off. The UCI wnats to develop into a global sport, can't let a little thing like cheating cause any upset to the plan. it stinks.

 

[johnr]

Have a look out for the full interview of Floyd Landis by Paul Kimmage. Absolutely fascinating. You can say whatever you want about him being a discredited cheat, but he lifts the lid on the absolute cess pit of the sports governance - no wonder at all Contador has been let off. The UCI wnats to develop into a global sport, can't let a little thing like cheating cause any upset to the plan. it stinks.

Have you a link?

 

[MartinC]

Courtroom legality isn't always applied in sporting courts. The riders and teams sign up to a set of rules and conditions that wouldn't necessarily stand up in a British court. There are differences in jurisprudence within western European countries let alone in some other less democratised countries who also have cyclists.

Yes, this makes it more complex and is where the lawyers stand to make lots of money. To some extent riders sign up to a set or rules when they race but this doesn't allow the authorites to behave arbitrarily. Cycling has to operate inside the rule of law (jurisdiction's an interesting issue too) and the rules of natural justice still operate - but how much is where the courts cases will be. So if you give someone a slap on the wrist you'll get away without any comeback but if you have draconian punishments then you'll need to apply them fairly, reasonably and with due process or the lawyers will get involved.

The Bosman (IIRC) ruling is a case where European law overrode the sporting authorities wishes.

 

[cd365]

Have you a link?

Interview

 

[BJH]

Sorry I hadn't responded with the link, but cd365 has.

The additional comments post interview are also very good. It's a long read, but worthwhile.

 

[Dave Davenport]

There was an article on cyclingnews.com earlier 'top 10 doping excuses' which included Berties' beef along with 'it's for my dog', 'my nan sent some sweets from Columbia' etc.

It seems to have been removed, wonder why?

 

[Crackle]

Independent is carrying the lawyers explanation of how the cheating git he got off.

 

[yello]

Independent is carrying the lawyers explanation of how the cheating git he got off.

From that article...

In Europe it's not impossible [to eat contaminated meat], merely improbable. And TAS themselves say that there is no way you can oblige athletes to go to unrealistic extremes, such as analysing everything they eat in a mobile lab or keeping a lump of every piece of meat they eat."

Broadly speaking, I'm in agreement with that. There's only so much you can expect from an athlete. I know it's also a get out of jail free card in the making but I think it both fair and resonable to have a provision for allowance (but as I've said before, I'm no fan of 'zero tolerance' approaches... especially not when you cannot exclude your own fallibility). In fairness to UCI - and I cannot believe I just said that! - it is possible that they knew they were in a very grey area with this one, but once the test results were leaked they had little option other than to be seen to be trying to play it by the book.

 

[Crackle]

Do you remember the Scottish skier who came 3rd at the winter Olympics who tested positive after taking a cold remedy. There was no excuse for him even though his reason was accepted, a great deal of sympathy but no reprieve. It has to be strict liability otherwise you'll have lawyers like this talking hogwash, which is what it is, at what point must athlete's accept reponsibility. They didn't know, there coach gave it to them, there could be innumerous excuses. If it's in their system, they have an advantage or it points to them having an advantage. I don't think we've seen the end of this.