|
Alberto Contador Positive
|
| roturn |
Posted on 30-09-2010 18:15
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
I thought there is no limit. So his amount is too much. |
| |
|
|
| misar82 |
Posted on 30-09-2010 18:17
|
Stagiare
Posts: 170
Joined: 26-07-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
roturn wrote:
A agree that we should wait.
Just meant that the UCI will think about a longer time and if they ban him, then just because they don`t believe the meat story.
EDIT: @ felix:
So as long as he can`t prove that it`s the meat, it is his problem.
That`s what I meant. He has to prove his innocence.
LOL, way to go, you guys would have been great inquisitors in the middle ages. Fortunately the principle of presumed innocence has been established in most of the world's legal systems for quite sometime now
"Between me and Eddie Merkcx we have won all the classics. I won the Paris-Tours, he won all the rest"
Nöel Vantyghem
|
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 30-09-2010 18:19
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
misar82 wrote:
roturn wrote:
A agree that we should wait.
Just meant that the UCI will think about a longer time and if they ban him, then just because they don`t believe the meat story.
EDIT: @ felix:
So as long as he can`t prove that it`s the meat, it is his problem.
That`s what I meant. He has to prove his innocence.
LOL, way to go, you guys would have been great inquisitors in the middle ages. Fortunately the principle of presumed innocence has been established in most of the world's legal systems for quite sometime now
And if that fails, the spanish government can always send their own lawyers to argue the case of the obviously guilty Tour winner who tested positive, with no regard for whether or not he's actually guilty 
You know....the same thing they did in 87 when the rider in your avatar "won" the Tour after testing positive for a masking agent 
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 30-09-2010 18:24
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
misar82 wrote:
roturn wrote:
A agree that we should wait.
Just meant that the UCI will think about a longer time and if they ban him, then just because they don`t believe the meat story.
EDIT: @ felix:
So as long as he can`t prove that it`s the meat, it is his problem.
That`s what I meant. He has to prove his innocence.
LOL, way to go, you guys would have been great inquisitors in the middle ages. Fortunately the principle of presumed innocence has been established in most of the world's legal systems for quite sometime now Your presumed innocent until you're charged for something with evidence to charge you. Then you're presumed guilty until you can come up with something to prove you're innocent.
Don't reverse thing purposely and conveniently. |
| |
|
|
| misar82 |
Posted on 30-09-2010 18:26
|
Stagiare
Posts: 170
Joined: 26-07-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
issoisso wrote:
misar82 wrote:
roturn wrote:
A agree that we should wait.
Just meant that the UCI will think about a longer time and if they ban him, then just because they don`t believe the meat story.
EDIT: @ felix:
So as long as he can`t prove that it`s the meat, it is his problem.
That`s what I meant. He has to prove his innocence.
LOL, way to go, you guys would have been great inquisitors in the middle ages. Fortunately the principle of presumed innocence has been established in most of the world's legal systems for quite sometime now
And if that fails, the spanish government can always send their own lawyers to argue the case of the obviously guilty Tour winner who tested positive, with no regard for whether or not he's actually guilty
You know....the same thing they did in 87 when the rider in your avatar "won" the Tour after testing positive for a masking agent
Well, you give too much credit to Spanish lawyers - and i can see that you have also made up your mind about Contador, anyway. As for Pedro Delgado, the circumstances of what you mention are well documented and he was cleared out. But then of course the damage in these cases is always there. No matter what happens after today, there will always be people (like you just did with Delgado) throwing suspition at Contador's past tours - sad
"Between me and Eddie Merkcx we have won all the classics. I won the Paris-Tours, he won all the rest"
Nöel Vantyghem
|
| |
|
|
| Maximka |
Posted on 30-09-2010 18:27
|
Sprinter
Posts: 1902
Joined: 22-10-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
misar82 wrote:
roturn wrote:
A agree that we should wait.
Just meant that the UCI will think about a longer time and if they ban him, then just because they don`t believe the meat story.
EDIT: @ felix:
So as long as he can`t prove that it`s the meat, it is his problem.
That`s what I meant. He has to prove his innocence.
LOL, way to go, you guys would have been great inquisitors in the middle ages. Fortunately the principle of presumed innocence has been established in most of the world's legal systems for quite sometime now
Innocence presumption? In cycling? You are joking, right?
|
| |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 30-09-2010 18:29
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
I know that you are innocent until it`s proven that you are guilty.
But the UCI proved there is Clenbuterol in his blood.
So they have enough to ban him. Prove is there.
If Contador has an excuse he must prove it.
Otherwise you would do Clenbuterol doping always and claim the cows afterwards.
|
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 30-09-2010 18:31
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
misar82 wrote:
issoisso wrote:
misar82 wrote:
roturn wrote:
A agree that we should wait.
Just meant that the UCI will think about a longer time and if they ban him, then just because they don`t believe the meat story.
EDIT: @ felix:
So as long as he can`t prove that it`s the meat, it is his problem.
That`s what I meant. He has to prove his innocence.
LOL, way to go, you guys would have been great inquisitors in the middle ages. Fortunately the principle of presumed innocence has been established in most of the world's legal systems for quite sometime now
And if that fails, the spanish government can always send their own lawyers to argue the case of the obviously guilty Tour winner who tested positive, with no regard for whether or not he's actually guilty
You know....the same thing they did in 87 when the rider in your avatar "won" the Tour after testing positive for a masking agent
Well, you give too much credit to Spanish lawyers - and i can see that you have also made up your mind about Contador, anyway. As for Pedro Delgado, the circumstances of what you mention are well documented and he was cleared out. But then of course the damage in these cases is always there. No matter what happens after today, there will always be people (like you just did with Delgado) throwing suspition at Contador's past tours - sad
Yes, it's been well documented.
Probenecid has barely any medical uses. It's mostly used to mask steroids. He said (eventually, after changing his story a few different times, and being criticised on it even by Merckx the doper) that he used it "for my legs". Probenecid doesn't help with anything in your legs.
He got away with it because the WADA screwed up and forgot to include Probenecid in the latest revision of the prohibited substances list (even though it was banned and was in the IOC's list of banned substances).
They rushed out a revision of the list, but the red tape didn't clear until two weeks after the positive....so Delgado got off on a technicality.
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 30-09-2010 18:33
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
WADA, really ? 
UCI you mean. |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 25-11-2024 06:33
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| misar82 |
Posted on 30-09-2010 18:33
|
Stagiare
Posts: 170
Joined: 26-07-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
roturn wrote:
I know that you are innocent until it`s proven that you are guilty.
But the UCI proved there is Clenbuterol in his blood.
So they have enough to ban him. Prove is there.
If Contador has an excuse he must prove it.
Otherwise you would do Clenbuterol doping always and claim the cows afterwards.
I see your point and that makes for a fine legal argument - but the penalty is not for having Clenbuterol in his blood, it's for USING that substance to enhance his performance - therefore the burden of the proof still remains on the UCI's side - that is, they need to prove that the allegation of contaminated food is false
"Between me and Eddie Merkcx we have won all the classics. I won the Paris-Tours, he won all the rest"
Nöel Vantyghem
|
| |
|
|
| Aquarius |
Posted on 30-09-2010 18:36
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 5220
Joined: 29-11-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
As long as the blood's in his body while he cycles, and he has the substance in his blood, he's using it, purposely or not. |
| |
|
|
| rugbyn00b_69 |
Posted on 30-09-2010 18:40
|
Amateur
Posts: 12
Joined: 12-10-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
I wonder if this topic can get more replies than the WC one... half-way there!
"Complete cosmic annihilation"
|
| |
|
|
| marble |
Posted on 30-09-2010 18:50
|
Neo-Pro
Posts: 389
Joined: 28-07-2007
PCM$: 400.00
|
issoisso wrote:
misar82 wrote:
roturn wrote:
A agree that we should wait.
Just meant that the UCI will think about a longer time and if they ban him, then just because they don`t believe the meat story.
EDIT: @ felix:
So as long as he can`t prove that it`s the meat, it is his problem.
That`s what I meant. He has to prove his innocence.
LOL, way to go, you guys would have been great inquisitors in the middle ages. Fortunately the principle of presumed innocence has been established in most of the world's legal systems for quite sometime now
And if that fails, the spanish government can always send their own lawyers to argue the case of the obviously guilty Tour winner who tested positive, with no regard for whether or not he's actually guilty
You know....the same thing they did in 87 when the rider in your avatar "won" the Tour after testing positive for a masking agent
Wait.. What? You mean 1988 don't you? |
| |
|
|
| Montolivo |
Posted on 30-09-2010 18:56
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1032
Joined: 16-06-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
I'm pleased seeing another doper which had a very bad reputation and past go, even though a ban has not yet been set out officially. |
| |
|
|
| issoisso |
Posted on 30-09-2010 19:48
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 22918
Joined: 08-02-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Hans Joachim Seppelt, a journalist with the German TV station ARD, has cast doubts on Alberto Contador’s explanation for his Clenbuterol positive, making the explosive claim that chemical traces in samples taken during the 2010 Tour de France suggest he may have received a blood transfusion.
Seppelt, who specializes in doping matters and who was German sports journalist of the year in 2007, was speaking on ARD’s Mittags Magazin programme. He claimed that they contacted UCI president Pat McQuaid yesterday and received a complete denial that Contador was being investigated.
“We have been on this case for weeks and we knew a few days ago,” he said during the television interview. “We tried to contact the UCI yesterday, but they said they won't give a comment. We then called Pat McQuaid. He said 'I don't even know what you are talking about'."Then later the press release came out. So the UCI was lying yesterday.”
The news that ARD was poised to break the story could explain why Contador’s press agent released the news hours before the Elite world championship time trial.
(...)
“There are other, very, very incriminating suspicious facts against Contador. Other values have appeared that are ten times over the higher value from so-called plasticizers [such as di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) – ed.] which are used in blood bags. These values were measured one day before the positive dope control. These blood bag softener values could indicate that autologous blood doping may have been performed.”
https://www.velona...sions.aspx
marble wrote:
Wait.. What? You mean 1988 don't you?
D'oh. Sorry, 88, yes. Roche didn't test positive for Probenecid. He was on a lot of drugs, but Probenecid probably wasn't one
Edited by issoisso on 30-09-2010 19:57
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
|
| |
|
|
| tonymcf |
Posted on 30-09-2010 19:59
|
Stagiare
Posts: 215
Joined: 30-11-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Wait, Irish cycling has never been clean either?... by God I'm absolutely devastated
Edited by tonymcf on 30-09-2010 19:59
|
| |
|
|
| roturn |
Posted on 30-09-2010 20:04
|
Team Manager
Posts: 22246
Joined: 24-11-2007
PCM$: 3900.00
|
Hans Joachim Seppelt is not worth to been quoted.
He is one of those guys who always claims cycling for all the doping cases and that cyclists aren`t real men, because then they wouldn`t dope.
All other sport is fine for him. (There is no doping in other sports-ignoring that they don`t even try to find doper)
At least more or less.
So he probably heard some things and makes his own story about it.
He might be right sometimes, but normally he just looks for bad things in cycling.
Wouldn`t be surprised if he reads in some forums to have stuff for a big complot no matter if the source is serious or not.
At least my opinion about this guy.
Edited by roturn on 30-09-2010 20:06
|
| |
|
|
| kumazan |
Posted on 30-09-2010 20:04
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6662
Joined: 02-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Was about to post that, but isso was faster. It looks like Damsgaard might be right, then. |
| |
|
|
| CrueTrue |
Posted on 30-09-2010 20:35
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 29989
Joined: 20-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
I've been following the case all-day, but haven't really had the time to comment on it until now.
Damsgaard and his mentor have both come up with the same theory: that Contador used the drug in the spring to lose weight. He thought it was out of his system, but unfortunately for him, a very tiny bit was still in the blood that was withdrawn for him.
When he got the blood back during the rest day (the rest days are usually known for being 'refilling' days -- and mind you, he tested positive the day after a rest day), the drug was back in his system, and thus he tested positive.
As with Roturn, I doubt that anything will come from this. UCI and the Spanish Federation will do what they can to clear him.
But in my mind, this is solid evidence, and Contador should be banned, unless he can prove that the drug was in the meat that he ate. |
| |
|
|
| Il Grillo |
Posted on 30-09-2010 20:36
|
Domestique
Posts: 568
Joined: 21-06-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Hajo Seppelt is on a personal mission against cycling that dude has 0 credebility.
It was so fun how his tv interview changed from the morning magazine where only a few details were known to the afternoon magazine where we knew more about the case.
The whole meat story is highly suspicious for me though.
But i beleive Contador will get away this time, smaller names wouldnt have a chance with the same substance. |
| |
|
