Looks like BL bet on the wrong horse going down. I'm surprised, I
didn't think CAS had it in them, but they've surprised me before (good
and bad). While this is the right decision, can't say it's a good one
for pro cycling, as it will likely add to the decline in sponsorship
and fan support. On the positive side, maybe the message will sink
through some more thick skulls.
> Looks like BL bet on the wrong horse going down. I'm surprised, I
> didn't think CAS had it in them, but they've surprised me before (good
> and bad). While this is the right decision, can't say it's a good one
> for pro cycling, as it will likely add to the decline in sponsorship
> and fan support. On the positive side, maybe the message will sink
> through some more thick skulls.
"maybe the message will sink through some more thick skulls."
> Looks like BL bet on the wrong horse going down. I'm surprised, I
> didn't think CAS had it in them, but they've surprised me before (good
> and bad). While this is the right decision, can't say it's a good one
> for pro cycling, as it will likely add to the decline in sponsorship
> and fan support. On the positive side, maybe the message will sink
> through some more thick skulls.
The decision shows that athletes are not getting due process, since it
repeatedly states that "Contador was unable to prove..." Normally,
when someone is accused, then he is presumed innocent and it is up to
the prosecution to prove him guilty, he doesn't have to prove
anything.
On Feb 6, 8:49 am, ilan <ilan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The decision shows that athletes are not getting due process, since it
> repeatedly states that "Contador was unable to prove..." Normally,
> when someone is accused, then he is presumed innocent and it is up to
> the prosecution to prove him guilty, he doesn't have to prove
> anything.
> -ilan
Hey Ilan glad to see your still in the fight. I'm leaning towards he
was probably dirty, but I KNOW the system is dirty and broken as you
and Sandy have pointed out on many occasions.
On Feb 6, 4:07 pm, tritonrider <tritonri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 8:49 am, ilan <ilan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The decision shows that athletes are not getting due process, since it
> > repeatedly states that "Contador was unable to prove..." Normally,
> > when someone is accused, then he is presumed innocent and it is up to
> > the prosecution to prove him guilty, he doesn't have to prove
> > anything.
> > -ilan
> Hey Ilan glad to see your still in the fight. I'm leaning towards he
> was probably dirty, but I KNOW the system is dirty and broken as you
> and Sandy have pointed out on many occasions.
Thanks! The most egregious CAS remark was that no previous case of
Clenbuterol had previously occured, implying that the first accused
must always be guilty.
However, it appears that in this case, the CAS verdict was consistent
with the version of due process they are given. Not so in the Landis
case where his defense proved that the laboratory evidence was
tainted, not to mention the even worse Mayo case.
> > Looks like BL bet on the wrong horse going down. I'm surprised, I
> > didn't think CAS had it in them, but they've surprised me before (good
> > and bad). While this is the right decision, can't say it's a good one
> > for pro cycling, as it will likely add to the decline in sponsorship
> > and fan support. On the positive side, maybe the message will sink
> > through some more thick skulls.
> The decision shows that athletes are not getting due process, since it
> repeatedly states that "Contador was unable to prove..." Normally,
> when someone is accused, then he is presumed innocent and it is up to
> the prosecution to prove him guilty, he doesn't have to prove
> anything.
> -ilan
It's not a nice process, but it's all there in the WADA code. Strict
liability is a harsh mistress. And I don't say that as someone who was
rooting against Contador ("Congratulations Andy Schleck, how does it
feel to be the winner of the 2010 Tour de France?" "Pretty crap,
actually"). I'm a bit surprised they went with a 2-year ban. Given
that expires in August, this seems like a face-saving way of
justifying his 2-year limbo, and making sure he's out of the 2012 Tour
just for good measure.
> > > Looks like BL bet on the wrong horse going down. I'm surprised, I
> > > didn't think CAS had it in them, but they've surprised me before (good
> > > and bad). While this is the right decision, can't say it's a good one
> > > for pro cycling, as it will likely add to the decline in sponsorship
> > > and fan support. On the positive side, maybe the message will sink
> > > through some more thick skulls.
> > The decision shows that athletes are not getting due process, since it
> > repeatedly states that "Contador was unable to prove..." Normally,
> > when someone is accused, then he is presumed innocent and it is up to
> > the prosecution to prove him guilty, he doesn't have to prove
> > anything.
> > -ilan
> It's not a nice process, but it's all there in the WADA code. Strict
> liability is a harsh mistress. And I don't say that as someone who was
> rooting against Contador ("Congratulations Andy Schleck, how does it
> feel to be the winner of the 2010 Tour de France?" "Pretty crap,
> actually"). I'm a bit surprised they went with a 2-year ban. Given
> that expires in August, this seems like a face-saving way of
> justifying his 2-year limbo, and making sure he's out of the 2012 Tour
> just for good measure.
Yeah, it looks we got politics instead of justice and that is never a
"nice process".
(excuse me for jumping on your phrasing but such expression seems apt)
And "Schleck got pissed on too". Not an honorable Yellow Jersey...
--D-y
> > > > Looks like BL bet on the wrong horse going down. I'm surprised, I
> > > > didn't think CAS had it in them, but they've surprised me before (good
> > > > and bad). While this is the right decision, can't say it's a good one
> > > > for pro cycling, as it will likely add to the decline in sponsorship
> > > > and fan support. On the positive side, maybe the message will sink
> > > > through some more thick skulls.
> > > The decision shows that athletes are not getting due process, since it
> > > repeatedly states that "Contador was unable to prove..." Normally,
> > > when someone is accused, then he is presumed innocent and it is up to
> > > the prosecution to prove him guilty, he doesn't have to prove
> > > anything.
> > > -ilan
> > It's not a nice process, but it's all there in the WADA code. Strict
> > liability is a harsh mistress. And I don't say that as someone who was
> > rooting against Contador ("Congratulations Andy Schleck, how does it
> > feel to be the winner of the 2010 Tour de France?" "Pretty crap,
> > actually"). I'm a bit surprised they went with a 2-year ban. Given
> > that expires in August, this seems like a face-saving way of
> > justifying his 2-year limbo, and making sure he's out of the 2012 Tour
> > just for good measure.
> Yeah, it looks we got politics instead of justice and that is never a
> "nice process".
> (excuse me for jumping on your phrasing but such expression seems apt)
> And "Schleck got pissed on too". Not an honorable Yellow Jersey...
> --D-y
Alberto attacked Andy when he dropped his chain when he was in yellow.
> > > > > Looks like BL bet on the wrong horse going down. I'm surprised, I
> > > > > didn't think CAS had it in them, but they've surprised me before (good
> > > > > and bad). While this is the right decision, can't say it's a good one
> > > > > for pro cycling, as it will likely add to the decline in sponsorship
> > > > > and fan support. On the positive side, maybe the message will sink
> > > > > through some more thick skulls.
> > > > The decision shows that athletes are not getting due process, since it
> > > > repeatedly states that "Contador was unable to prove..." Normally,
> > > > when someone is accused, then he is presumed innocent and it is up to
> > > > the prosecution to prove him guilty, he doesn't have to prove
> > > > anything.
> > > > -ilan
> > > It's not a nice process, but it's all there in the WADA code. Strict
> > > liability is a harsh mistress. And I don't say that as someone who was
> > > rooting against Contador ("Congratulations Andy Schleck, how does it
> > > feel to be the winner of the 2010 Tour de France?" "Pretty crap,
> > > actually"). I'm a bit surprised they went with a 2-year ban. Given
> > > that expires in August, this seems like a face-saving way of
> > > justifying his 2-year limbo, and making sure he's out of the 2012 Tour
> > > just for good measure.
> > Yeah, it looks we got politics instead of justice and that is never a
> > "nice process".
> > (excuse me for jumping on your phrasing but such expression seems apt)
> > And "Schleck got pissed on too". Not an honorable Yellow Jersey...
> > --D-y
> Alberto attacked Andy when he dropped his chain when he was in yellow.
> Karma
Maybe so. I'm not going to offer an opinion on karma, but this "drop
back and punt" method of re-awarding race wins is putting the lie to
Alexi Grewal's statement that "No one will remember how, they'll just
see the results". Gonna take some generations for that.
--D-y
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> Given that expires in August, this seems like a face-saving way of
> justifying his 2-year limbo, and making sure he's out of the 2012 Tour
> just for good measure.
> The decision shows that athletes are not getting due process, since it
> repeatedly states that "Contador was unable to prove..." Normally,
> when someone is accused, then he is presumed innocent and it is up to
> the prosecution to prove him guilty, he doesn't have to prove
> anything.
Dumbass,
They (WADA/UCI, etc) already proved that Contador was guilty under the rules by detecting traces of clenbuterol in his blood. Contador's defence was aimed at reduction of the sentence, possibly to zero, not to disprove that he didn't have clenbuterol in his blood.
On Feb 7, 3:38 pm, "A. Dumas" <alexan...@dumas.fr.invalid> wrote:
> On 06/02/2012 14:49, ilan wrote:
> > The decision shows that athletes are not getting due process, since it
> > repeatedly states that "Contador was unable to prove..." Normally,
> > when someone is accused, then he is presumed innocent and it is up to
> > the prosecution to prove him guilty, he doesn't have to prove
> > anything.
> Dumbass,
> They (WADA/UCI, etc) already proved that Contador was guilty under the
> rules by detecting traces of clenbuterol in his blood. Contador's
> defence was aimed at reduction of the sentence, possibly to zero, not to
> disprove that he didn't have clenbuterol in his blood.
Not quite true. The CAS considered a number of different possibilities
for the source of the Clenbuterol and wanted proof from Contador that
it came from tainted meat. Since a rigorous proof of this is
impossible, their standard is also impossible.
By the way, the whole CAS penalty falls through because they state
that the clenbuterol most certainly came from a dietary supplement,
which means its ingestion was also accidental and therefore not
cheating. This means that Contador should have received the minimum
penalty.
> On Feb 7, 3:38 pm, "A. Dumas" wrote:
>> On 06/02/2012 14:49, ilan wrote:
>>> The decision shows that athletes are not getting due process, since it
>>> repeatedly states that "Contador was unable to prove..." Normally,
>>> when someone is accused, then he is presumed innocent and it is up to
>>> the prosecution to prove him guilty, he doesn't have to prove
>>> anything.
>> They (WADA/UCI, etc) already proved that Contador was guilty under the
>> rules by detecting traces of clenbuterol in his blood. Contador's
>> defence was aimed at reduction of the sentence, possibly to zero, not to
>> disprove that he didn't have clenbuterol in his blood.
> Not quite true. The CAS considered a number of different possibilities
> for the source of the Clenbuterol and wanted proof from Contador that
> it came from tainted meat. Since a rigorous proof of this is
> impossible, their standard is also impossible.
Yes. But I don't see how that makes my statement "not quite true." They were definitely aiming, independent of the fact that their goal could not be reached, at least not strictly according to the rules.
I can't be bothered to read it again but in the award I think that UCI/WADA were asked by CAS to put forward plausible alternatives to counter Contador's tainted meat explanation, presumably because they were the ones appealing the RFEC ruling. They didn't have to prove them though - the burden of proof still lay with the athlete, so in that sense he was back to square one.
Had there been only one possible explanation (Contador's) then, on the balance of probabilities, then it would have been enough.
Had there been two (transfusion and meat), then Contador's meat defence would have still stood a good chance although there was some evidence (spike of phthalates, team history) that a transfusion might have taken place. More evidence than Contador presented anyway. Not much in it either way.
But with three scenarios, all plausible but with scant evidence, then Contador had a much harder job in proving his was the most likely (ie >50%).
Frankly I'm surprised that CAS said it was more likely down to contaminated supplements in the end, given that there was even less evidence for this than for a transfusion. Maybe they were being nice so he'd save face.
In any case he'll be back racing in August, then on the balance of probabilities win the Vuelta and all will be right in the world of professional cycling.
On Feb 8, 8:13 pm, Jeff Jones <drjone...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I can't be bothered to read it again but in the award I think that UCI/WADA were asked by CAS to put forward plausible alternatives to counter Contador's tainted meat explanation, presumably because they were the ones appealing the RFEC ruling. They didn't have to prove them though - the burden of proof still lay with the athlete, so in that sense he was back to square one.
> Had there been only one possible explanation (Contador's) then, on the balance of probabilities, then it would have been enough.
> Had there been two (transfusion and meat), then Contador's meat defence would have still stood a good chance although there was some evidence (spike of phthalates, team history) that a transfusion might have taken place. More evidence than Contador presented anyway. Not much in it either way.
> But with three scenarios, all plausible but with scant evidence, then Contador had a much harder job in proving his was the most likely (ie >50%).
> Frankly I'm surprised that CAS said it was more likely down to contaminated supplements in the end, given that there was even less evidence for this than for a transfusion. Maybe they were being nice so he'd save face.
> In any case he'll be back racing in August, then on the balance of probabilities win the Vuelta and all will be right in the world of professional cycling.
OK, but there is still the fact that if he accidentally ingested
clenbuterol from meant, then he's "innocent" but if he accidentally
ingests it form a supplement, then he's "guilty."
> > On Feb 7, 3:38 pm, "A. Dumas" wrote:
> >> On 06/02/2012 14:49, ilan wrote:
> >>> The decision shows that athletes are not getting due process, since it
> >>> repeatedly states that "Contador was unable to prove..." Normally,
> >>> when someone is accused, then he is presumed innocent and it is up to
> >>> the prosecution to prove him guilty, he doesn't have to prove
> >>> anything.
> >> They (WADA/UCI, etc) already proved that Contador was guilty under the
> >> rules by detecting traces of clenbuterol in his blood. Contador's
> >> defence was aimed at reduction of the sentence, possibly to zero, not to
> >> disprove that he didn't have clenbuterol in his blood.
> > Not quite true. The CAS considered a number of different possibilities
> > for the source of the Clenbuterol and wanted proof from Contador that
> > it came from tainted meat. Since a rigorous proof of this is
> > impossible, their standard is also impossible.
> Yes. But I don't see how that makes my statement "not quite true." They
> were definitely aiming, independent of the fact that their goal could
> not be reached, at least not strictly according to the rules.
OK, maybe I should have said: "not quite relevant to the point I'm
making right now." I hope that clears things up. More generally, any
statement that doesn't conform to my opinion* will be treated
similarly.
-ilan
*I reserve the right to change my opinion at any time without prior
notice.
Yes, I see what you mean. The intent was the same, the outcome very different because that's what the WADA code says.
I don't know whether he could have argued 'accidental ingestion' and hedged his bets a bit. Too late for that now.
Flipping it the other way, if strict liability was removed from the code, then there'd be a lot fewer sanctions. You'd basically have to be caught red handed to get a penalty.
On Feb 9, 8:42 pm, Jeff Jones <drjone...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, I see what you mean. The intent was the same, the outcome very different because that's what the WADA code says.
> I don't know whether he could have argued 'accidental ingestion' and hedged his bets a bit. Too late for that now.
> Flipping it the other way, if strict liability was removed from the code, then there'd be a lot fewer sanctions. You'd basically have to be caught red handed to get a penalty.
This basically comes down to the fact that strict liability is
incorrect. The current WADA code goes against basic human rights, this
was the basic argument proposed by Kasheshkin's Belgian lawyer a
couple of years ago, but that idiot Kasheshkin ended up firing him
before he could take it to the European court of human rights.
> OK, but there is still the fact that if he accidentally ingested
> clenbuterol from meant, then he's "innocent" but if he accidentally
> ingests it form a supplement, then he's "guilty."
No, he would also have been guilty if he accendently ingested clebuterol. See the case of tennisplayer Manuel Puerta. It was accepted he didn't deliberately or knowingly ingest effortil, but they suspended him all the same for six years, because "we cannot see how it need have occurred at all if the player had exercised the utmost caution." The utmost caution, of course, is not eating or drinking at all.
On Feb 8, 11:12 pm, ilan <ilan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 5:18 pm, "A. Dumas" <alexan...@dumas.fr.invalid> wrote:
> > Yes. But I don't see how that makes my statement "not quite true." They
> > were definitely aiming, independent of the fact that their goal could
> > not be reached, at least not strictly according to the rules.
> OK, maybe I should have said: "not quite relevant to the point I'm
> making right now." I hope that clears things up. More generally, any
> statement that doesn't conform to my opinion* will be treated
> similarly.
> -ilan
> *I reserve the right to change my opinion at any time without prior
> notice.
If your opinion is found to be dopey, the CAS can and will
retroactively change your opinion for you, even several
years after the fact.
On Feb 9, 8:42 pm, Jeff Jones <drjone...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, I see what you mean. The intent was the same, the outcome very > different because that's what the WADA code says.
> I don't know whether he could have argued 'accidental ingestion' and > hedged his bets a bit. Too late for that now.
> Flipping it the other way, if strict liability was removed from the code, > then there'd be a lot fewer sanctions. You'd basically have to be caught > red handed to get a penalty.
This basically comes down to the fact that strict liability is
incorrect. The current WADA code goes against basic human rights, this
was the basic argument proposed by Kasheshkin's Belgian lawyer a
couple of years ago, but that idiot Kasheshkin ended up firing him
before he could take it to the European court of human rights.
The Cas stated in 1994 that strict liability might be unfair, but is nevertheless necessary, since without it for sport federations it would be far too expensive to pursue the struggle against doping. It's also much cheaper to hang all the suspects, instead of spending a lot of money trying to find out who is really guilty.
> On Feb 9, 8:42 pm, Jeff Jones <drjone...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes, I see what you mean. The intent was the same, the outcome very
> > different because that's what the WADA code says.
> > I don't know whether he could have argued 'accidental ingestion' and
> > hedged his bets a bit. Too late for that now.
> > Flipping it the other way, if strict liability was removed from the code,
> > then there'd be a lot fewer sanctions. You'd basically have to be caught
> > red handed to get a penalty.
> This basically comes down to the fact that strict liability is
> incorrect. The current WADA code goes against basic human rights, this
> was the basic argument proposed by Kasheshkin's Belgian lawyer a
> couple of years ago, but that idiot Kasheshkin ended up firing him
> before he could take it to the European court of human rights.
> The Cas stated in 1994 that strict liability might be unfair, but is
> nevertheless necessary, since without it for sport federations it would be
> far too expensive to pursue the struggle against doping. It's also much
> cheaper to hang all the suspects, instead of spending a lot of money trying
> to find out who is really guilty.
> Benjo
Thanks for that information which confirms the CAS's bizarre stance.
The argument that anti-doping practices violate human rights is
simple: I assume that in most countries any "search and seizure" must
be ordered by a prosecutor of approved by a judge, that is certainly
the case in the US and France. In particular, in France, the police
does not have the right to do a full body search without an explicit
request by a prosecutor, and then must be done in the presence of a
doctor, not a technician, but a medical doctor)(of course, that is
routinely violated by the police, but that is another question).
Since drawing blood consists of a search and seizure, to do it without
any legal (that is, criminal justice) justification is a violation of
individual rights. Now, as the CAS has ruled, these searches are
necessary to fight doping, but that doesn't mean that they should be
allowed.
