Posts: 2247 Joined: 21.02.09 Location: Widnes, UK PCM$: 100.00
Didn't Contador say when all this started that he will contemplate quitting the sport if he is banned, I don't agree with backdated bans, yes Valverde's was backdated but still don't agree with it.
Contador didn't need to cheat, he was good enough.
The end for Saxobank, can't see where there points will come from.
I hope Valverde rides the TDF now coz he won't win the Vuelta if Contador is there. I can't see how people will accept him back, as he is practically serving a 6 months ban, whereas the other served 2 yers or close to 2 years in Valverde's case.
I don't think it has killed the sport but peharps the opposite and made the sport stronger.
Manager of Team Credexbank!
Contador case is really bad, but he tested positive it doesnt matter that he doped or not they just made a decision. I think its not naive to think that there`re still big star in the peloton that are clean, i mean in other sports great athletes are not cheating and they dominate. This is not the fault of Shcleck, Evans or any other rider. Contador should assume his guilt and if other top 5 top 10 or top 100 is tested positive it should be the same. IMO.
kumazan wrote:
I'm glad I was wrong and he didn't walk out free, but a backdated ban with 5 months of holidays discounted? Lame.
Now I'm off to the Marca forums. I need a good laugh.
You should see the Danish ones. It's laughable. Everyone are protecting Contador - but let's say that Schleck had stayed with Saxo Bank and finished behind Contador a couple of times. That would turn the situation upside down.
Posts: 991 Joined: 01.09.10 Location: Staffordshire, England PCM$: 110.00
It's a joke.
He can come back in six months time and because he'll be so fresh, he'll win the Vuelta by roughly half an hour, then pop off to the Worlds and probably become world champion. Would he be allowed to compete in the worlds? Spain shouldn't pick him, regardless.
As for Saxo, hmmm. Chris Anker for the Tour anyone? I think they're up shit creek without a paddle, I'm afraid. Nuyens almost certainly won't win De Ronde this year, and I can't see where their points are coming from.
kumazan wrote:
I'm glad I was wrong and he didn't walk out free, but a backdated ban with 5 months of holidays discounted? Lame.
Now I'm off to the Marca forums. I need a good laugh.
You should see the Danish ones. It's laughable. Everyone are protecting Contador - but let's say that Schleck had stayed with Saxo Bank and finished behind Contador a couple of times. That would turn the situation upside down.
I'm sorry, Marca's is in a league of its own. "They only do drug tests to Spaniards", "Boicot le Tour", "France is attacking our sport", "The Tourmalet (?) won't be the same without Contador". Pure comedy. You'd think he's been sentenced by a French people's comitee.
CrueTrue wrote:
"More likely" = CAS doesn't know and thus relies on the rules about strict liability.
He tested positive for a banned substance. Call it doping, call it witchhunt. Doesn't change the facts
No I agree, the burden of proof was on Contador and he didn't meet it(could've gone with a pun there). It kind of reminds me of Al Capone and getting busted for a lesser issue.
ruben wrote:
The final verdict says that clenbuterol via blood transfusion is highly unlikely and that food contamination was the most likely cause.
And they still ban him.
LOL. CAS is a joke. They believe his story, and still ban him. That makes as much sense as all the Contador-haters in here
Finally someone see the nonsense of this, Contador was banned because of food contamination according to CAS verdict and all the haters are happy that he was banned for doping, which he was not. Now all the media will spread this bullshit...
They also find Contador's meat story highly unlikely. They do, however, find some sort of supplement being the most likely reason. However, as they don't know, it's a matter of strict liability (as I have said all along). Contador bears the responsibility of what's in his body. Clenbuterol, a banned substance, was found, Contador couldn't give a trustable explanation on why it was there, and thus Contador receives a two-year-ban.
ruben wrote:
The final verdict says that clenbuterol via blood transfusion is highly unlikely and that food contamination was the most likely cause.
And they still ban him.
LOL. CAS is a joke. They believe his story, and still ban him. That makes as much sense as all the Contador-haters in here
Here's the relevant passage in case anyone was interested:
"The Panel concluded that both the meat contamination scenario and the blood transfusion scenario were, in theory, possible explanations for the adverse analytical findings, but were however equally unlikely. In the Panel’s opinion, on the basis of the evidence adduced, the presence of clenbuterol was more likely caused by the ingestion of a contaminated food supplement."
They also find Contador's meat story highly unlikely. They do, however, find some sort of supplement being the most likely reason. However, as they don't know, it's a matter of strict liability (as I have said all along). Contador bears the responsibility of what's in his body. Clenbuterol, a banned substance, was found, Contador couldn't give a trustable explanation on why it was there, and thus Contador receives a two-year-ban.
True is, that the verdict says food poisoning (not the steak) is more probable than blood transfusion,why you must always twist it and not face the facts? Of course he is responsible for substances coming to his body, but nobody is 100 percent aware.
