Will UCI appeal the Contador case?

TheBlaaMan

The UCI have about 48 hours left to decide. Its beginning to look like they may not appeal.

I've flip-flopped from thinking he was unfairly treated to feeling he's as guilty as sin and back again. Still not sure.

amjon.

TheBlaaMan wrote: »

The UCI have about 48 hours left to decide. Its beginning to look like they may not appeal.

I've flip-flopped from thinking he was unfairly treated to feeling he's as guilty as sin and back again. Still not sure.

Contador should be shot at dawn but I'll settle with an appeal by the UCI.

petethedrummer

"We accept the findings of the Spanish Federation and don't want to interfere with their decision. We'd like to put this all behind us and get on with the racing. My God!!! Whats that over there?"
*Runs Away*

Hail 2 Da Thief

Yes they will

Lumen

Hail 2 Da Thief wrote: »

Yes they will

The UCI have nothing to lose by appealing. If the appeal wins, they can just point at the CAS. If the appeal loses, they can just point at the CAS.

lescol

They have indeed appealed!

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/7884/UCI-to-appeal-Contador-doping-case-to-Court-of-Arbitration-for-Sport.aspx

wayne0308

Can he still compete while the case is under appeal?

RobFowl

wayne0308 wrote: »

Can he still compete while the case is under appeal?

Yes he can

amjon.

RobFowl wrote: »

Yes he can

But any wins will be voided from the record books if he is found guilty, right?

AstraMonti

RobFowl wrote: »

Yes he can

So from being guilty, he went to innocent until found guilty? again?

petethedrummer

He shall be forever known as Alberto Contador*.

TinyExplosions

AstraMonti wrote: »

So from being guilty, he went to innocent until found guilty? again?

From being suspected, he was cleared and is now on appeal, so there's always been the presumption of innocence... the initial ban is always put in place but is not a presumption of guilt

...though he's guilty in my mind!

CramCycle

Why is there no innocent option? :pac:

TinyExplosions

CramCycle wrote: »

Why is there no innocent option? :pac:

Because he isn't innocent -there was a banned substance found, and according to the UCI rules, for Clenbuterol there isn't a minimum amount. The only possibility is accidental ingestion, but he's still 'guilty' of having the substance in his body

CramCycle

My bad

niceonetom

petethedrummer wrote: »

He shall be forever known as Alberto Contador*.

As it should be.

I can handle the * being added retrospectively. What I can't get to grips with at all is watching racing and not knowing who is really winning at the present.

The current situation makes a farce of every race that Bertie is allowed to race - everything he's doing right now (and has done since he tested positive last July) will be struck from history if he's banned. Think about this one: Volta

Yesterday Bertie attacked on the last climb of the day to Andorra, won the stage and with it almost certainly the whole race... or did he? Maybe he'll be banned whenever this charade is resolved and what I actually watched was Levi Leipheimer accelerate off the front and get overhauled my Scarponi for the stage win? Is Dan Martin on course for a podium or not?

This is the situation that the pathetic Spanish Federation have put us in.

And this is only the Volta. If we're still doing this mental gymnastics in the Ardennes, or the Giro, or (Mario help us) during Le Tour, well, for the first time I'll seriously consider ignoring these races.

The riders must be aware of this too. What if Bertie attacks on a climb again? Is there any need to respond to him? His efforts might afterall be irrelevant. Or they might not be. That uncertainty could even play to his psychological advantage on a climb.

Hopefully the ASO will have the balls to exclude him from the Tour. Maybe. The RCS might take the risk and invite him to the Giro. He'd certainly be welcome at the Vuelta if this isn't resolved by then, and given the pace of these investigations I wouldn't be surprised.

There are many situations where the presumption of innocence does not extend to allowing a person to continue in their role until adjudged innocent or guilty. Teachers, doctors, accountants etc. can all be stopped from working whilst being investigated. Maybe cyclists should be the same.

Hermy

niceonetom wrote: »

I can handle the * being added retrospectively. What I can't get to grips with at all is watching racing and not knowing who is really winning at the present.

Considering the cloud of suspicion that hangs over so many riders are any of them really winning?

ednwireland

niceonetom wrote: »

As it should be.

I can handle the * being added retrospectively. What I can't get to grips with at all is watching racing and not knowing who is really winning at the present

meh i've been watching cycling on and off since the late seventies and nothing has changed peopel have been banned. these days i tend to watch races and put all that other stuff to the back of my mind and what will be will be.

although in the case of contador the UCI and mcquaid have made a complete mess of the process, and honestly thats where the problem lies.

Guybrush T

Hermy wrote: »

Considering the cloud of suspicion that hangs over so many riders are any of them really winning?

I have a minority view point on this, so I'm not going to push it too hard but in my opinion, the guy who crosses the line first wins.
I can see the argument that if Contador is finally found guilty he should lose the 2010 TDF title as he won it using illegal assistance, but if he wins the Volta a Catalunya, or any other race but is subsequently sanctioned for the TDF doping then those results should stand, he won them fairly, while allowed to race.
If you strike his results then it devalues the other riders achievements, Dan Martin may get a podium place, but he was still fourth fastest on the day.

I agree the UCI have dropped the ball, but can't see them picking it up any time soon.

sxt

I am still unclear on how you can breach the rules for doping, plus have traces of plastic in your blood and still be encouraged to ride competively?


"Contador’s defence against the clenbuterol positive has been all-but-invalidated by the fact that the European Union banned the substance in 1996. Of 83,203 meat samples across Europe which were tested in the last two years, only one was found to have contained the substance. The positive sample was not found in Spain, which is where Contador claimed the meat had come from

http://blogs.bettor.com/Alberto-Contador-threatens-to-quit-cycling-a33374"


Anyone?

TheBlaaMan

I sense that we are being softened up for some sort of absolution of Contador from any real punishment. I dont know how CAS work - presumably that are totally independent and above any interference - but McQuaids language over the past week suggests to me that the UCI will accept a lot less than a ban for Mr Clenbutador. He says that they had to appeal because the political interference from the Spanish PM meant "we really had no option but to do what we did" - that doesnt really suggest that the substantive issue of doping is actually the real problem any more - more one of optics for the sport(?)
I suspect that they would all just wish the thing went away - and sooner rathern than later. Both Prudomme and McQuaid seem to be on the same hymnsheet about the issue, in any case, so I guess we'll have to await the outcome. Or maybe its all very straightfoward and we like conspiracy theories a bit too much...?

Morrisseeee

Latest news
In brief:
Case may not be resolved before Tour de France

Alberto Contador’s Clenbuterol case may not be resolved before the Tour de France, according to reports in Spain, as his legal team appears to have sought an extension of a Court of Arbitration for Sport deadline for the delivery of defence documentation.

Citing the Spanish Cycling Federation’s legal advisor Luis Sanz, AS reports that the CAS hearing on the matter will not now take place before mid-July and could even be delayed until September :eek:. The revised date for the hearing is set to be announced on Monday.

not sane

yes I think he's guilty and all of this has ruined the Giro for me and now it looks like the Tour will be the same.

Inquitus

not sane wrote: »

yes I think he's guilty and all of this has ruined the Giro for me and now it looks like the Tour will be the same.

Can the ASO prevent him or his team from riding?

TinyExplosions

not sane wrote: »

yes I think he's guilty and all of this has ruined the Giro for me and now it looks like the Tour will be the same.

Unless the ASO tell him he's not welcome.


Saxo should man up and do similar to what Lampre did in the Giro and not send any riders under suspicion

ROK ON

not sane wrote: »

yes I think he's guilty and all of this has ruined the Giro for me and now it looks like the Tour will be the same.

Not sure on this. ISTR that it it up to the ASO who is invited to the TDF. Now Saxo get an automatic invite, but Astana did not get an invite a few years back due to Vino. That was the last TDF that Contador missed.

Others more knowledgeable can clarify. However IMO the ASO seem to care more about who races the TDF than the organisers of the Giro or Vuelta.

Diarmuid

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Saxo should man up and do similar to what Lampre did in the Giro and not send any riders under suspicion

I can really see Riis doing that :pac:

Morrisseeee

Before this latest 'delay' :rolleyes: I was veering towards Conti getting an 'innocent' verdict from CAS, and I think that oppinion is even more strenghtened now !! It would be great to see what goes on behind the scenes (politically etc) as this type of decision is made.

TinyExplosions

I'm surprised he hasn't just donated 20k to the UCI -it's seemed to have worked in the past (allegedly)

Pherekydes

What the fug takes these CAS idiots so long? Forget the evidence. Everyone else knows he's guilty. Just turn the baxtard over to us so we can stone him.

Diarmuid

Pherekydes wrote: »

What the fug takes these CAS idiots so long? Forget the evidence. Everyone else knows he's guilty. Just turn the baxtard over to us so we can stone him.

The voice of reason

Beasty

Appeal to be heard 1-3 August, ie more than a week after the TdF finishes:(

shaungil

I find this weird, anything happen with LA and there's comments allover it, but not AC will get to do the Tour and I don't see as much outcry. I'd think people would be more upset about a current cyclist that a retired one. Other posters say leave LA alone he's gone it kinda makes sense to focus on current suspicious riders.

Just proves to me my opinion on pro cycling is justified to me. Shambolic.

Diarmuid

I guess with Lance it's 12 years of pent up frustration. With AC we are only a few years into the soap opera.

I think it's terrible the way it has dragged on, ASO should (if they can), man up, and tell Saxo that they are welcome only without AC, similar to what they did with Astana a few years ago.

niceonetom

I find this very disappointing. Prudhomme says ASO won’t block Contador from Tour de France.

TinyExplosions

Diarmuid wrote: »

I guess with Lance it's 12 years of pent up frustration. With AC we are only a few years into the soap opera.

I think it's terrible the way it has dragged on, ASO should (if they can), man up, and tell Saxo that they are welcome only without AC, similar to what they did with Astana a few years ago.

niceonetom wrote: »

I find this very disappointing. Prudhomme says ASO won’t block Contador from Tour de France.

Unfortunately, I don't think the ASO can pull an Astana on Bertie, because in 08, Astana were refused entry after multiple doping positives in the 2007 Tour, whereas Saxo haven't had any (Contador still hasn't been sanctioned, so he's technically still clean), so there's not much Prudhomme can do.

While the Grand Tour organisers have maintained the right to exclude teams over ethical violations, the Contador case does not fall into this category since he has cooperated with the anti-doping proceedings. He accepted his provisional suspension upon notification of his positive test, and only resumed racing once he was cleared of doping charges by the RFEC.

-from BikeRadar

Chips Lovell

niceonetom wrote: »

I find this very disappointing. Prudhomme says ASO won’t block Contador from Tour de France.

Because they tried to block Boonen in 2009 and lost in court.

niceonetom

TinyExplosions wrote: »

Unfortunately, I don't think the ASO can pull an Astana on Bertie, because in 08, Astana were refused entry after multiple doping positives in the 2007 Tour, whereas Saxo haven't had any (Contador still hasn't been sanctioned, so he's technically still clean), so there's not much Prudhomme can do.

ASO can exclude riders under investigation but strictly speaking Contador is cleared to race, the UCI and WADA are merely third parties wanting an appeal. Here’s UCI rule 2.2.010 bis:

The organiser may refuse permission to participate in – or exclude from – an event, a team or one of its members whose presence might be prejudicial to the image or reputation of the organiser or of the event. If the UCI and/or the team and/or one of its members does not agree with the decision taken in this way by the organizer, the dispute shall be placed before the Court of Arbitration for Sport which must hand down a ruling within an appropriate period. However, in the case of the Tour de France, the dispute shall be placed before the Chambre Arbitrale du Sport.

From here and including some very interesting points about the power that French TV ultimately wields in the sport.

It looks to me that ASO could exclude Contador, but to do so would be to start a legal war it may not have the appetite for right now. I don't know what the perception of Contador is like among the French public but if French TV execs are worried that viewing (and therefore advertising) numbers will be down because of his presence, they may yet choose to lean on ASO.

FWIW, if Contador is there in July, and on the basis of what has happened in May, this tour may be the first since the 7-in-a-row that does not get my full attention. I can't get excited about a race knowing the likely winner will be decided in a courtroom after the event. If the decision-makers in France2 think there are a lot of people who feel like me they may intervene. I hope they do.

Liamo08

Whatever your opinions on Contador, it's not great for the Tour if we get him in the yellow jersey being booed by the crowd, inflatable needles waved, steaks being dangled on front of him etc. as he's climbing in the mountains.

If he wins this year and then gets found guilty of doping in last years Tour, will his results from the current year also be stripped off him?

Chips Lovell

Liamo08 wrote: »

If he wins this year and then gets found guilty of doping in last years Tour, will his results from the current year also be stripped off him?

Yes, every result since his positive test will be taken from him.

Diarmuid

Liamo08 wrote: »

Whatever your opinions on Contador, it's not great for the Tour if we get him in the yellow jersey being booed by the crowd, inflatable needles waved, steaks being dangled on front of him etc. as he's climbing in the mountains.

I think it's a good thing that the public get to express their displeasure on TV and get it posted across the internet the following day. Even if he gets to race I don't think the elephant in the room should be ignored.

Liamo08 wrote: »

If he wins this year and then gets found guilty of doping in last years Tour, will his results from the current year also be stripped off him?

I'd expect so, Three grand tours

RobFowl

el tonto wrote: »

Yes, every result since his positive test will be taken from him.

I read somewhere that in this case a ban ill be from the date of the ban rather than the date of the offence as he was acquitted by the Spanish.

More confusion.....

TinyExplosions

RobFowl wrote: »

I read somewhere that in this case a ban ill be from the date of the ban rather than the date of the offence as he was acquitted by the Spanish.

More confusion.....

So it's possible, if they drag their feet that he could get a one year ban from the date of the positive test, meaning that he doesn't miss any more racing at all (just a couple of results?), or would a ban from CAS start at the date of the verdict?

Hermy

Liamo08 wrote: »

Whatever your opinions on Contador, it's not great for the Tour if we get him in the yellow jersey being booed by the crowd, inflatable needles waved, steaks being dangled on front of him etc. as he's climbing in the mountains.

If he wins this year and then gets found guilty of doping in last years Tour, will his results from the current year also be stripped off him?

Given the notion that all publicity is supposedly good publicity, are the cycling authorities anticipating what Liam has said above in the hope that it will gain more coverage than a clean Tour would?

Liamo08

RobFowl wrote: »

I read somewhere that in this case a ban ill be from the date of the ban rather than the date of the offence as he was acquitted by the Spanish.

More confusion.....

So presuming he wins this years Tour he'd get to keep the 2010, 2011 Tour titles and the Giro even though he would have been caught doping in the first of the three? Honestly how can the UCI/ASO expect people to take pro cycling seriously if that happens.

sy

Unbelieveable sh**e. Only just heard that the hearing posponed till August. UCI and FIFA are a joke. Was looking forward to the Tour but if this guy is riding then absolute travesty for the race (again!). He ruined the Giro for me, yes he is a great climber but then so was Lance :rolleyes:

ROK ON

sy wrote: »

Unbelieveable sh**e. Only just heard that the hearing posponed till August. UCI and FIFA are a joke. Was looking forward to the Tour but if this guy is riding then absolute travesty for the race (again!). He ruined the Giro for me, yes he is a great climber but then so was Lance :rolleyes:

Don't worry Sy. Gilbert will save the tour for us. He will take the jersey on Mur du Bretagne and power home (I wish). Won again today and tour of Belgium at w/e.