|
Alberto Contador Positive
|
| jona777 |
Posted on 06-02-2012 15:40
|
Under 23
Posts: 57
Joined: 12-05-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Even though I'm a Schleck-fan I don't think that this ban is 100% justified but the UCI has to ban him because otherwise everybody will start using clenbuterol with the excuse of eating wrong meat...
RIP Wouter Weylandt, siempre con noi
 |
| |
|
|
| CountArach |
Posted on 06-02-2012 15:40
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8290
Joined: 14-07-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
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
Remember that one of the chief witnesses for the WADA and UCI was not allowed to testify with his theory that it was taken through blood doping. If he had been allowed to do so, it may have made the theory seem more likely.
|
| |
|
|
| doddy13 |
Posted on 06-02-2012 15:40
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7891
Joined: 04-03-2007
PCM$: 200.00
|
Alakagom wrote:
I am fine that he got suspended and deserved too. But flipping heck, 2 years is way too much imo. Oh well, at least racing might get more interesting without Contador p'wning everybody.
lul wut?
It's done fine for every other doped rider has it not?
There's no point slapping a schleck - Sean Kelly on "Who needs a slap"
|
| |
|
|
| Alakagom |
Posted on 06-02-2012 15:41
|
World Champion
Posts: 10891
Joined: 19-11-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
doddy13 wrote:
Alakagom wrote:
I am fine that he got suspended and deserved too. But flipping heck, 2 years is way too much imo. Oh well, at least racing might get more interesting without Contador p'wning everybody.
lul wut?
It's done fine for every other doped rider has it not?
In my biased opinion he didn't deserve that much. 1 year would be enough, but well it's my opinion only.
|
| |
|
|
| CrueTrue |
Posted on 06-02-2012 15:42
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 29989
Joined: 20-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
CrueTrue wrote:
That's not true, Ruben.
They also find Contador's meat story highly unlikely. They do, however, find some sort of supplement being the most likely reason. However, as they don't know, it's a matter of strict liability (as I have said all along). Contador bears the responsibility of what's in his body. Clenbuterol, a banned substance, was found, Contador couldn't give a trustable explanation on why it was there, and thus Contador receives a two-year-ban.
True is, that the verdict says food poisoning (not the steak) is more probable than blood transfusion,why you must always twist it and not face the facts? Of course he is responsible for substances coming to his body, but nobody is 100 percent aware.
 I won't face the facts? I correct the info that's factually wrong.
I have argued for my stand, and I have done so ever since the positive test. Here we are, 500 days later, and it turns out that CAS ruled as I thought it would.
There's a very clear set of rules, and they were followed in this case. Deal with it. |
| |
|
|
| CrueTrue |
Posted on 06-02-2012 15:43
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 29989
Joined: 20-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
KenL wrote:
I don't know if this is mentioned yet, but doesn't this also mean that even "When" he comes back and wins the Vuelta that his points will "not" count for SaxoBank.
In similar style as to Valverde's points not being counted for the next 2 years?
Correct. Which makes this a very exciting year for Saxo Bank  |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 25-11-2024 06:19
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| Dizzle |
Posted on 06-02-2012 15:44
|
Neo-Pro
Posts: 378
Joined: 30-06-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
As many pointed out in this thread; He is responsible for the things in his body, making the verdict somewhat plausible. What makes me wonder, is the words CAS use in their report.
How can they make a conviction based on a that he ''most likely'', used some sort of substance? According to the 'real world', you cannot be convicted, if there is 'questionable doubt'.
As for all this, I regonize that he had some clenbuterol in his body, but as it seems, Contador, UCI, WADA and CAS has no real explanation as to how it got there, making it questionable doubt.
But ehm, call me fanboy all you want, regardless who it was, a verdict like this should make most people wonder.
As for Saxo Bank, I'm sure Riis has something up his sleeve. If not, Chris Anker for the polka dots 
Edited by Dizzle on 06-02-2012 15:46
|
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 06-02-2012 15:47
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
doddy13 wrote:
Alakagom wrote:
I am fine that he got suspended and deserved too. But flipping heck, 2 years is way too much imo. Oh well, at least racing might get more interesting without Contador p'wning everybody.
lul wut?
It's done fine for every other doped rider has it not?
But Contador is not a proven doper He was just not aware enough.
|
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 06-02-2012 15:49
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
This story reminds me the cocaine cookies of Simoni the most.
|
| |
|
|
| jack888 |
Posted on 06-02-2012 15:49
|
Protected Rider
Posts: 1280
Joined: 09-06-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Can someone this "countback" rule to me? Why call it a 2 year ban? He is banned for 6 months. What is the point of counting back if he has been racing? It just makes no sense in my mind, these decisions take time, so why not ban them from the time the decision is made? |
| |
|
|
| CrueTrue |
Posted on 06-02-2012 15:50
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 29989
Joined: 20-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
But that's why he's convicted, Dizzle. CAS doesn't really know what has happened. Neither Contador's theory nor UCI/WADA's theory can be accepted as the truth. Therefore, we have to follow the rules which say 1) a rider has to be banned if a banned substance is in his body, and 2) that a rider is responsible for what's in his body.
You can divert from those rules if there's a good explanation which can be rendered (very) probable, but as you say, that was not possible in this case. Therefore, Contador had to be banned. |
| |
|
|
| andy222c |
Posted on 06-02-2012 15:50
|
Sprinter
Posts: 1537
Joined: 23-05-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
CrueTrue wrote:
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.
Haha, totally agree CruTrue It's kinda strange that almost every single Danishman hated Alberto Contador before 2011, but now they are supporting and sympathizing him, as he were god!
I don't say that i'm much better than the average Danishman, i have been feeling the quite same, but what is going on in the Danish public at the moment is one big disgraceful double standard!
|
| |
|
|
| Dizzle |
Posted on 06-02-2012 15:54
|
Neo-Pro
Posts: 378
Joined: 30-06-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
CrueTrue wrote:
But that's why he's convicted, Dizzle. CAS doesn't really know what has happened. Neither Contador's theory nor UCI/WADA's theory can be accepted as the truth. Therefore, we have to follow the rules which say 1) a rider has to be banned if a banned substance is in his body, and 2) that a rider is responsible for what's in his body.
You can divert from those rules if there's a good explanation which can be rendered (very) probable, but as you say, that was not possible in this case. Therefore, Contador had to be banned.
I see, that makes much more sense then. Thanks for clarifying.
|
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 06-02-2012 15:54
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
CrueTrue wrote:
But that's why he's convicted, Dizzle. CAS doesn't really know what has happened. Neither Contador's theory nor UCI/WADA's theory can be accepted as the truth. Therefore, we have to follow the rules which say 1) a rider has to be banned if a banned substance is in his body, and 2) that a rider is responsible for what's in his body.
You can divert from those rules if there's a good explanation which can be rendered (very) probable, but as you say, that was not possible in this case. Therefore, Contador had to be banned.
When i put emotions aside, this is the best explanation of what happened. But sadly many people think this means he is certainly a doper and not only in 2010.
|
| |
|
|
| Alakagom |
Posted on 06-02-2012 15:56
|
World Champion
Posts: 10891
Joined: 19-11-2010
PCM$: 200.00
|
He rode a clean Giro, but his victory will be taken from ? What a stupid rules...
Anyway looking at newspapers website, this is going to hit cycling very bad. Even as Merckx said : “It’s a sad day for Alberto Contador; it's a sad day for cycling,” he told the Eurosport cameras. “I think people want to kill off cycling.
P.S. Please don't respond with comments "he deserved it" I know.
Edited by Alakagom on 06-02-2012 15:56
|
| |
|
|
| johannes-w |
Posted on 06-02-2012 16:00
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 833
Joined: 24-04-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Alakagom wrote:
He rode a clean Giro, but his victory will be taken from ? What a stupid rules...
Anyway looking at newspapers website, this is going to hit cycling very bad. Even as Merckx said : “It’s a sad day for Alberto Contador; it's a sad day for cycling,” he told the Eurosport cameras. “I think people want to kill off cycling.
P.S. Please don't respond with comments "he deserved it" I know.
yeah thats the thing that sucks the most - it s not only bad for him but also for cycling in general |
| |
|
|
| andy222c |
Posted on 06-02-2012 16:01
|
Sprinter
Posts: 1537
Joined: 23-05-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Just got a little conspiracy theory that i thought i wanted to share with you.
Hasn't anybody thought about the date of the rulling?
The end of his ban the 6th of August is just a week or two after Tour de France 2012. I think someone really wanted the rulling to be be exposed some weeks so the ban could end after the start of the Tour
- Just saying...
Edited by andy222c on 06-02-2012 16:02
|
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 06-02-2012 16:01
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
Alakagom wrote:
He rode a clean Giro, but his victory will be taken from ? What a stupid rules...
Anyway looking at newspapers website, this is going to hit cycling very bad. Even as Merckx said : “It’s a sad day for Alberto Contador; it's a sad day for cycling,” he told the Eurosport cameras. “I think people want to kill off cycling.
P.S. Please don't respond with comments "he deserved it" I know.
He was not allowed to ride technically in that time in the light of the new verdict, so they must strip it from him,but i find it stupid too. Even more sad is that fact, that many people here think it is a "small" punishment.
|
| |
|
|
| kumazan |
Posted on 06-02-2012 16:02
|
Team Leader
Posts: 6662
Joined: 02-07-2009
PCM$: 200.00
|
Alakagom wrote:
doddy13 wrote:
Alakagom wrote:
I am fine that he got suspended and deserved too. But flipping heck, 2 years is way too much imo. Oh well, at least racing might get more interesting without Contador p'wning everybody.
lul wut?
It's done fine for every other doped rider has it not?
In my biased opinion he didn't deserve that much. 1 year would be enough, but well it's my opinion only.
He should be saying thank you to the people who shamefully cleared him and his drugmates from the OP. Otherwise this'd be the end. The. End.
|
| |
|
|
| CrueTrue |
Posted on 06-02-2012 16:03
|
Tour de France Champion
Posts: 29989
Joined: 20-10-2006
PCM$: 200.00
|
I agree it would have been better to let him keep his 2011 results and ban him for another year |
| |
|
