Bad news for Alberto Contador as CAS overturns the ruling of the Spanish federation and hands out a two year ban. The ban is backdated,starting from January 1 2011 so he loses the 2010 Tour & 2011 Giro victories and is out from racing until August 5 2012 (time deducted for the provisional suspension served) . This also means that Andy Schleck gets the 2010 Tour win, Michele Scarponi is the winner of the 2011 Giro and anyone hoping to win this years Vuelta can probably start aiming for second place instead.
UCI pressrelease , CAS Press release, Full CAS decision in english (big Pdf)
Image by: Bryn Lennon, Getty Images Sport
0 recs | 586 comments
Still not sure how I feel about the backdated ban
given he raced the whole way through. Stripping the results isn’t the same as him losing that time on the road.
Still, probably the most politically expedient decision.
omnevelnihil - February 6, 2012
that' not confirmed yet but it seems likely to be true
Hate the backdating. It punishes so many others beside the one who gets result stripped.
Jens - February 6, 2012
+1
majope - February 6, 2012
+2
Really pisses me off.
Drew Davis - February 6, 2012
+3 yep
bizarre
Willj - February 6, 2012
+4
Races should be won on the road.
jsallee00 - February 6, 2012
+5
This is why I am anti-cross.
Jens - February 6, 2012
don't muddy the debate with anti-cross
Willj - February 6, 2012
Yeah, watch it
or we will put you behind barriers.
tedvdw - February 6, 2012
Yeah, the chaos that brings to basically the entire 2011 season...
frustrating.
omnevelnihil - February 6, 2012
how can one get time served when part of that time was spent racing?
Willj - February 6, 2012
one of the main reasons given for that
given as that UCI and WADA could have helped more with the rfec case in the first place, rather than sitting on their hands to wait for CAS.
Is a sound principle that in general the first tribunal should be afforded all possible help, in a bid to cut down potential appeals to CAS.
andrewp - February 6, 2012
I say blame the system
agl - February 6, 2012
I say blame McQuaid.
brunop - February 6, 2012
Well I'm glad this saga is finally over
Result was the one I was hoping for though it does really make something of a mockery of last year’s racing, the Giro especially
randomgerbil - February 6, 2012
CAS media release
Says the ban starts January 25th 2011, minus the provisional suspension. Means he’s back August 6th.
PDF
TheFigurehead - February 6, 2012
Nice for him that 2 years = 6 months.
Sort of questionable on their part, but at least it’s something.
majope - February 6, 2012
August 6 this year?! wowwie zowie...Does he miss the Vuelta? (I am too lazy to check)
JustJoshinYa - February 6, 2012
No
Seahorse - February 6, 2012
I see, so it's really a 6 month ban, but his results are stripped 18 months prior.
As I felt last year
-he shouldn’t have raced and that sucks to see the results stripped. But…thank…God…it’s….over.JustJoshinYa - February 6, 2012
Similar to Valverde
He was suspended for 2010 and 2011, despite riding part of 2010.
People are saying he shouldn’t have raced, but should he have been held in stasis like Mosquera? People are also saying that was wrong. So what is the answer? Quicker court verdicts? snort
Aly Edge - February 6, 2012
And yet a speedy trial would be the obvious and desirable answer.
Seahorse - February 6, 2012
Oh the *snort* was not for expediency being undesirable
Just unrealistic
Aly Edge - February 6, 2012
With the threat hanging over them
riders will do what they can to facilitate a quick decision and have a serious case to make for forcing the opposing side t do the same. Snark aside, speedier process is not an impossible goal by any means.
Jens - February 6, 2012
Hmmm
I’d have to disagree. I think Valverde lost very little by stringing out his case. Same with Bert.
ursula - February 6, 2012
I meant with the threat of being sidelined until final verdict
(Mosquera in principle) As you say with these outcomes (AV/AC backdates) the athlete has nothing to lose by following that template. Of course the other way around they would be at the mercy of the expediency of the ADA/CAS putting a huge demand on improved speediness and transparency in the rules and procedures of those organizations (clear un-movable deadlines to begin with).
Jens - February 6, 2012
I keep wondering what has happened to Pelizotti. I wasn't particularly a fan, but he seems to have
sunk into oblivion.
Seahorse - February 6, 2012
Taken his ban
He’ll be back to show that he is a true champion, has turned a corner, left the dark days behind him and can win as a clean rider…….not that he ever did it any other way of course.
Jens - February 6, 2012
Which team are you the PR director for again?
omnevelnihil - February 7, 2012
His suspension ended 4 days ago
Think I heard some complaints from him about not finding a new team
TheFigurehead - February 6, 2012
It's interesting that for some, like Valverde, a suspension is almost a minor interruption,
whereas for others it’s a death knell.
Seahorse - February 6, 2012
I would probably argue that Valverde has some real talent
compared to some of the other stuff.
Uphill - February 6, 2012
Pelizotti is talented, although not in the class of Valverde. What about someone
like Vino…I think we missed his style :)
Seahorse - February 6, 2012
Pelizotti would sink like di Luca without dope.
deadwood in the peloton.
Uphill - February 6, 2012
He said when the verdict first came down against him that he was quitting the sport
‘a course, we’ve heard that before….
Aly Edge - February 6, 2012
I just can't see a speeded up process ever happening.
ursula - February 6, 2012
I can't either, but I have a strong fantasy life :)
Seahorse - February 6, 2012
Interesting bit
TheFigurehead - February 6, 2012
Same Petacchi bullshit
Grr
Not happy. If they don’t think he cheated, there’s no reason to ban him/strip results.
Aly Edge - February 6, 2012
No, just those pesky rules
Jens - February 6, 2012
...which is a polite way of saying he's either an IDIOT or was trying to microdose and got caught.
Ed K - February 6, 2012
Full CAS decision
Jens - February 6, 2012
I'm only going to read that if it contains snark
TheFigurehead - February 6, 2012
It's better when it's in french
then we can just trick Jen into reading it for us
Jens - February 6, 2012
I thought she only did the Italian rulings?
omnevelnihil - February 6, 2012
We did the whole "but you do the french ones so well......" routine
and she fell for it
Jens - February 6, 2012
She must've been distracted by good looking surf.
omnevelnihil - February 6, 2012
Ha!
So since this one’s in English, I don’t have to read it, amiright?
Jen See - February 6, 2012
Winnar!
Ed K - February 6, 2012
+1
Veloki - February 6, 2012
(big honking pdf)
Jens - February 6, 2012
Bah
broerie - February 6, 2012
VDS submission FTW!
Jens - February 6, 2012
Two teams submitted with Contador!
(broerie’s and another)
tedvdw - February 6, 2012
They've got the Vuelta to look forward to.
majope - February 6, 2012
And if he's half as angry at the Vuelta as he was at last year's Giro...
omnevelnihil - February 6, 2012
Be interesting if he goes for the fall hilly races
Lombardy and Emila; possibly Worlds. I wouldn’t favor him in any of them but he would be in the mix of favorites.
ursula - February 6, 2012
Yeah, and a lot to prove
Could be a very interesting end of season run.
omnevelnihil - February 6, 2012
San Sebastian
Vuelta
Worlds (both road and TT)
Milano Torino
Lombardia
Emilia
Beijing
Consedering he’s going to win at least 5 stages in the Vuelta, this means still a ton of VDS points.
broerie - February 6, 2012
I don't think he'll go to Beijing
Unless he becomes a vegetarian.
brunop - February 6, 2012
Great town
for vegetarians.
Chris Fontecchio - February 6, 2012
Verstand komt met de jaren
I’m keeping him though, no matter what. I’m a stubborn kinda fellow, got my mind made up.
broerie - February 6, 2012
Damn right you're keeping him
submitted = final.
tedvdw - February 6, 2012
cough -Ricco- cough
broerie - February 6, 2012
We, I, can be bribed.
tedvdw - February 6, 2012
rec'd
omnevelnihil - February 6, 2012
Someone prepare a "I chose Contador" avatar image please.
JustJoshinYa - February 6, 2012
hmm
broerie - February 6, 2012
don't accept the bribe
until we (you) hear some serious public groveling
I think last year’s “avatar of Ricco shame” by a PdC’r (PopUp Rolen?) sets the bar pretty high for the public shaming required for the much loved Broerie to be allowed to change his picks
:)
Willj - February 6, 2012
I'm keeping Contador
he’s a bargain at 30
broerie - February 6, 2012
TWBS
That’s What Bjarne Says
Jens - February 6, 2012
+1 His ban ends the day before
the Tour de l’Ain
To remind everyone, Vino made his comeback at the Tour de l’Ain unveiling his self portrait kit. I have high hopes of Contador winning this great race – you are welcome to bring Leffe and visit me.
Willj - February 6, 2012
And high hopes for an image Pistolero4ever jersey
Jens - February 6, 2012
Huh?
I assumed that Contador would just wear the Vino jersey.
Impossible to improve on that.
straw dog - February 6, 2012
I know that I often wear it to work.
Katiek - February 6, 2012
+1 nice
Willj - February 6, 2012
isn't the crotch eagle supposed to be in Contador's self image?
professorfate - February 6, 2012
Well, people who submitted Ricco, last year, just accidentely clicked on the "Submit " button!
All 20 of them!
I clearly remember yelling at my cat: " what you done, you idiot!" :)
holmovka - February 6, 2012
Trying to blame the cat..... tsk tsk tsk
VirtKitty - February 6, 2012
cats believe in 2nd and 3rd chances
yeehoo - February 6, 2012
+1
tedvdw - February 6, 2012
+1
muk - February 6, 2012
+4
JessicaH - February 6, 2012
Are you doing an impression
of a flock of sheep?
straw dog - February 6, 2012
Wake Up Sheeple!
(cc-bync licence)
tedvdw - February 6, 2012
biggest GT of 2012: Vuelta!
Cobo, Wiggo & Froome watch out, this year the competition is for real
agostinho - February 6, 2012
+ VDB2 and probably Gesink
broerie - February 6, 2012
Moncoutie must be pissed
odds of him getting a fifth KOM just went down.
ant1 - February 6, 2012
So Bert will put a Merck circa '69 Tour?
And win every jersey?
I could….actually see that happening.
Aly Edge - February 6, 2012
Merckx*, obviously
Aly Edge - February 6, 2012
i can see him trying to make a statement
and destroying the competition on every MTF.
ant1 - February 6, 2012
Yup
At the risk of giving away secrets, I’ve just dropped Anton from my draft PSA/VDS squad. There’ll be a competition for second place a long way down each mountain, methinks.
EdredonBrowny - February 6, 2012
Agreed, race for second place. But why this would affect
your expectations for Anton, who is usually racing for 15th place?
straw dog - February 6, 2012
16th, now
And don’t let Albertina hear you.
EdredonBrowny - February 6, 2012
Yes. An angry Contador is an unbeatable Contador.
blackswangreen - February 6, 2012
well, given Merck's line of business
it’s kind of a funny inadvertent joke . . .
R Mc - February 6, 2012
+
funny and true!
Maratsafin - February 6, 2012
Which means
Every one of them contests the Giro instead
agl - February 6, 2012
S**t no champagne iced! At least a Desert TTT
My view 18months ago.
Clubrider - February 6, 2012
and theres more!
Clubrider - February 6, 2012
you can take snippets of a 98 page decision and prove black is white and white is black
for example
That a specific doping act with blood took place on the rest day has been declared as unlikely that he ate contaminated meat that day, regardless of previous profiles, plasticizers, potential plasma infusions, the potentially unethical practices of members of the spanish meat industry, etc etc
andrewp - February 6, 2012
it just amazing...
all the extremities that suspected dopers tend to have values for all “explainable” reasons…esp with amillion euro legal team
Clubrider - February 7, 2012
Oh Yeah! Scarponi was clearly the strongest at Giro!
Yeah, right! What a effen travesty!
holmovka - February 6, 2012
I call do over!
majope - February 6, 2012
Saxo could have withheld him from racing
The Giro could have requested he stay away. No one is a victim here except those who competed against a shadow-rider and lost.
Jens - February 6, 2012
If I understand that correctly... I think I agree with it.
I feel all along he should have been withheld from racing by someone.
sminer - February 6, 2012
Well, consider the alternative...
…given that the spanish fed acquitted him, what if he’d won the appeal. Then he’d have sat out a full year + for nothing. The SOLUTION is to end this practice of backdating bans.
Ed K - February 6, 2012
only possible to backdate in limited circumstances
and deemed to be “fair” due to the way lack of assistance given to spanish tribunal primarily. Had WADA and UCI provided proper evidence to that tribunal and he was acquitted regardless, then the ban would probably be going forwards today and Contador not seen again until the middle of 2013.
andrewp - February 6, 2012
So screw up races and riders who have no part of the UCI's decision to 'punish' UCI?
By letting Contador largely off the hook?
Senseless.
Ed K - February 6, 2012
or
to treat the relevant tribunal so glibly (and call them out publicly) not only doesn’t serve the interests of justice, it also helped contribute to the problem by expecting a decision to be taken on half information which possibly directly contributed to him not being banned last Feb.
andrewp - February 6, 2012
In that case, reduce the ban (or not, if you think that's rewarding him for the tribunal's incompetance)...
…but don’t strip the results obtained in good faith or harm races / other riders by effectively not banning him for any real period of time / letting them race according to an actual tactical situation on the road rather than possible judicial consequences.
Ed K - February 6, 2012
not saying disagree or approve
but no real mechanism to reduce the ban, so can only play around with its effective dates – with the consequences thereof.
Seems to be an element of assistance to Contador in play by so doing,
Probably because the ultimate finding was not one of “actively” cheating, and for one court to support another.
There was a pretty half arsed effort to prosecute in Spain (generally approved of with a general feeling that de facto the tribunal was inherently biased and the best efforts should be reserved for CAS). While the tribunal exists it should be respected. No surprise it’s appeal court should restate that.
andrewp - February 6, 2012
Fully agree with your last two sentences...
…but really don’t see how anyone but the other riders suffers as a result of this. From the UCI’s pov, an effective six month ban and a bunch of retroactive punishments that no one will really understand / notice, plus C’s return before the year is out is mostly a win. Only one lost TdF title, the Giro title is only of historical concern to most casual fans and will be quickly discounted by everyone else. So I don’t see how this actually punishes the UCI/WADA for not supporting the Spanish tribunal (or why that consideration should trump the larger interests of justice to such an extent).
Further, there was a mechanism to reduce the ban. If they didn’t find him to be actively cheating, they can cut it down to a year, no?
Ed K - February 6, 2012
Re your last sentence
No – he failed to “prove” how it got into his system (not the beef he alleged) so no recourse to the level fault arguments for a reduction. They only come into play after “proof”
His defence did some work on saying why it wasn’t supplements but was the meat. The downside to trying to argue food rather than supplement (although can only argue dodgy supplements if you can find a dodgy supplement)
Tribunal says “no evidence has been adduced” as to fault re supplement use. No discount for this eventuality even asked for, never mind given.
andrewp - February 6, 2012
Ahh, ok.
Still, seems like a bad and ineffective kludge at best.
This might be one of those times for ‘strongly worded letter’… or, if the CAS were a real court of appeals, to kick the case back down to the lower court and tell them to re-argue it properly.
Ed K - February 6, 2012
Plus would Riis even have the right to fire him?
If he was cleared by his federation, he’s not guilty. So Riis would be sitting out a 3-4 million euro rider. What would happen to the team than?
It’s easy to sit out a cheap rider. It’s hard to sit out the rider your team is built around. I don’t blame Riis. I blame the Spanish Federation.
lieutenantmudd - February 6, 2012
Of course any team can fire staff/riders, but if Riis did that without cause it would have
been much more expensive than a year’s salary.
Uphill - February 6, 2012
That's kind of my point
If he was innocent per the Spanish Federation, Riis would have to pay him or he would have to break the contract and risk a lot financial consequences.
Now, I don’t think Riis would be able any obligation to race him. But that goes to my first point.
lieutenantmudd - February 6, 2012
Yea, "Boo Spanish Fed".
I guess Riis should be spared, but race orgnazers I think should have said no go.
sminer - February 6, 2012
But the problem is that CAS agreed with RFEC in it's judgement
It agreed that blood doping was unlikely and without proof, which is what RFEC declared.
However CAS is allowed to make other assumptions – and have judged that in their opinion it is likely that Contador ingested the clenbuterol via a tainted supplement. And therefore it entered his system accidentally. Federations can rule on that as they see fit. In RFEC’s position at the time though, they could not have made such an assumption. CAS however can do this.
Only thing RFEC could have done is ruled earlier, meaning it would have reached CAS earlier. But due to the furore over it, and public war of words with UCI, RFEC dragged their heels as it was such a major decision.
ike2112 - February 6, 2012
With you holmy...Bert was sublime at the Giro.
Seahorse - February 6, 2012
He won me back, with that Giro domination, and his style!
holmovka - February 6, 2012
Exactly! Now there's a man who rides with panache.
Seahorse - February 6, 2012
Don't forget Ricco
such panache. How do they do it?
Jens - February 6, 2012
And Ricco won what eactkly?
Right. Nothing. Poor analogy.
ursula - February 6, 2012
Right!
holmovka - February 6, 2012
Just commenting on the panache
which I usually see as a slap in the face of clean cyclist when 95% of the ones we attribute it too are proven tainted. Pantani being perhaps the best example in the timeframe of my fandom.
Jens - February 6, 2012
the hearts of millions?
ant1 - February 6, 2012
rofl
straw dog - February 6, 2012
hehe
and a sunglasses contract?
Willj - February 6, 2012
+1
PopUp Rolen - February 6, 2012
+1000
Aly Edge - February 6, 2012
You guys are going to have a hell of a time recalculating the 2011 VDS scores
lieutenantmudd - February 6, 2012
No, we aren't doing that.
Once a season is final, its final.
ursula - February 6, 2012
I was joking
lieutenantmudd - February 6, 2012
Ha!
But someone here would ask for a recount, thinking that Jens and Ted have nio life whatsoever. Now normally I’d have to agree but this time we’ll go easy on them.
ursula - February 6, 2012
I kind of want to recount just to see what happens
But I have a life. A sad life entirely full of schoolwork.
lieutenantmudd - February 6, 2012
Adding
I am trying to remember who 1 of the 11 who picked Contador was…
lieutenantmudd - February 6, 2012
Wait, Jens and Ted have a life??
When did this happen??? ;-p
VirtKitty - February 6, 2012
This came as more shocking news to me that the Ac verdict
(not the Ted thing, I’ve seen pictures )
Jens - February 6, 2012
I was talking in hypotheticals...
ursula - February 6, 2012
Whoa--I was thinking Andy finally won a Tour, but it's actually two.
But no recalculation of points, sadly.
majope - February 6, 2012
I'm waiting for Andy Schleck
To sue Contador for the emotional trauma and loss of joy associated with the deprivation of his rightful CL stuffed lions.
R Mc - February 6, 2012 via mobile
Oops, it's still only 1. I need coffee!
majope - February 6, 2012
Listen to your body....you obviously are out for blood. :D
flying dog - February 6, 2012
Coffee, blood...
whatever gets me through the day.
majope - February 6, 2012
Did...Pereiro actually do that?
Aly Edge - February 6, 2012
Highest placed team in 2011 WITH Contador is
75. / sccycler59 / Cruzers / 12153
tedvdw - February 6, 2012
Andy Schleck rewarded for his bitchfest in 2010
well I need a fan, someone? And the recent fanpost of most underwhelming GT champion? Add Scarponi to the list. You know, I think Scarponi actually feels shitty about this too, the tainted Perreiro Tour really seemed to screw the Spaniard as well(and I know injuries played a role). Well 2012 Vuelta is so going to be an FU throwdown, 8 minute victory I already predicted and sticking with it. Shame, a boring TdF route just got duller for myself, looks like as usual I am much more looking forward to Giro/Vuelta(actually that’s not a shame at all). And please don’t make me be 100% rational, I’m a sports fan.
Phil H. - February 6, 2012
Contador will always be the 2011 Giro champ as far as I'm concerned
I don’t care as much about the 2010 Tour. Was it a better race, absolutely, but between Chaingate and Bert looking as flawed as he ever has, it doesn’t gut me as much to have him stripped of that one. Also because Andy was riding to win the whole way. I’m convinced that Scarponi and Nibali were riding to finish ‘second in Milan’ as it were, probably from the very beginning. Now, the fact that this cloud was hovering over the Giro while it wasn’t during the Tour is not an insignificant point, but I will never see Scarponi as a Grand Tour winner until he wins one on the road.
Aly Edge - February 6, 2012
This here is why backdating is completely useless
AC still gets credit for a win he shouldn’t have, and he just gets 6 months off from racing.
Jens - February 6, 2012
Loss of historic results != ban
Short of a time-machine, the ban can’t be backdated. Happy to give the guy credit for voluntarily banning himself (the end of 2010) but you can’t claim he was banned when his wheel was turning.
Loss of historic results should be an additional penalty, not part of a “backdated ban”.
Now, you can take a view on the seriousness of this charge (and I incline to the view that the doubt should have mitigated the penalty) but if it’s a two year ban, then he should not ride again until 6 February 2014.
po8crg - February 6, 2012
His season was over at that point in 2010 anyway
I wouldn’t give him too much credit for following his race program
Aly Edge - February 6, 2012
True
And that’s why you’re not supposed to be able to take a ban in several small pieces – if you could take four six-month bans, you could ride pretty much every race you wanted.
Backdating to 25 Jan 2011 (the day he returned from the voluntary suspension) is what makes the whole thing perverse. If he’d stayed on voluntary ban then he could come back legitimately in August this year; but there should be some penalty for squeezing in that 2011 Giro win, and that has to be more than just the loss of the result.
po8crg - February 6, 2012
Continued: As a fan I much prefer this ban if one had to be
I only miss out on 5 races of Bert and get to see him race an awesome Vuelta, which I would have much preferred than the most overyhyped race in all the lands. Then hopefully get to see him get his revenge on whinester in a hopefully more inspiring 2013 Tour(look I love Mtns, never changing). He will always be the 2010 Tour and definitely 2011 Giro champ in my mind and I was able to see a beautiful display of cycling at the Giro which no other current cyclist could emulate.
Phil H. - February 6, 2012
February 6 is
Talk Out of Your Ass Day.
TheFigurehead - February 6, 2012
Woohoo!
I’m gonna win the Washington State BARR this year! I’ll be a cat-2 by July!
Chris Fontecchio - February 6, 2012
I thought you already passed the barr
Sheesh, the govt. will hire anybody………
Drew Davis - February 6, 2012
He's taken up ballet?
R Mc - February 6, 2012
no, that would be barre
umwolverine - February 6, 2012
Barre is in Vermont.
Am I back in the sock thread again?
majope - February 6, 2012
Well I hope for the sakes of Saxo's soigneurs and bottle carriers
That Bertie really does win the Vuelta by 20 minutes. Remember that Saxo Bank said in the offseason, when it was announced that SunGard was departing sponsorship, that they were considering their sponsorship on a year-by-year basis. That to me said the fate of the team (or at least, their sponsorship, but if Highroad couldn’t get a sponsor I’m not sure anyone can) hung on Bert’s status.
Aly Edge - February 6, 2012
So does Riis sack him?
He’s still good for a Vuelta performance, but I don’t see how Riis can stay a top team while paying a couple million euros to a rider generating no WT points (even after his suspension ends)
Unless Contador takes a steep paycut.
lieutenantmudd - February 6, 2012
He does that, he's kissing his sponsors goodbye
I’m convinced of that
Aly Edge - February 6, 2012
See higher
There’s still San Sebastian, Vuelta, Worlds (road and TT) Lombardia and Bejing.
broerie - February 6, 2012
None of which will generate any WT points.
lieutenantmudd - February 6, 2012
San Seb and Lombardia and Beijing do
ursula - February 6, 2012
And the Vuelta of course ;\
Aly Edge - February 6, 2012
But not when it comes to WT licence for the coming two years
TheFigurehead - February 6, 2012
So Riis hires some token Asians
You only have to be, what, top 16?
Aly Edge - February 6, 2012
He was last last year without Contador
lieutenantmudd - February 6, 2012
That's because of the Leopard Trek exodus, isn't it?
It’s not likely that such a solid core of the team is going to head for another squad, is it?
Aly Edge - February 6, 2012
Not for someone coming off a "two year" doping suspension
lieutenantmudd - February 6, 2012
For the purposes of the "sporting criterion" towards WorldTeam licenses, yes
As far as, say, the World Tour teams classification, those points would absolutely still count (Valverde’s points from TDU count for that).
Aly Edge - February 6, 2012
You sure about that?
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/valverdes-success-will-not-benefit-movistar
lieutenantmudd - February 6, 2012
Yes I am
That’s exactly what my above post says.
Aly Edge - February 6, 2012
This rule, like the rest of the UCI
makes no sense and is erratic.
Phil H. - February 6, 2012
Why not?
They can come back, compete, win for their team ( a win is a win) . There are just special criteria in the license process and one of them is that returning doper points are not credited. It’s an incentive for teams to focus on un-tainted riders instead of throwing huge money at proven, but dodgy, winners.
Jens - February 6, 2012
The riders are not punished but teams are? Who doped?
plus I find it ridiculous that points that count, teams should be allowed to hire anyone who is legal to race and hire. They already had a punishment, no need to compound it. If they get caught doping again the team will have to deal with a shitstorm which is more painful anyway.
Phil H. - February 6, 2012
There is no punishment
It’s their choice to hire a rider returning from sanction. They do it with open eyes, no one is holding a gun to their head.
There are very few possible way to create incitements for teams to work for a cleaner sport and not just chase easy results. This is one of them. And it has been added at the suggestion of the team reps. in the council that determines the WT rules.
Jens - February 6, 2012
If I'm a team manager I sign Valverde over say Gerrans every time
it’s just smarter, teams should not be punished for trying to improve themselves.
Phil H. - February 6, 2012
Well it's fine for managers to act in their self interest, they should
The UCI has to look at what is best for the sport of cycling as a whole. If it deems doping to be a problem in that regard it has to put rules in place that make it so the teams benefit from acting selfishly in a way that serves cycling as a whole well. For example making it more (or as) profitable to sign Gerrans over Valverde in your example.
Jens - February 6, 2012
They are banned for two years
that is already enough punishment in my eyes. They come back as free to race cyclists and should have the same value therefore. In my opinion, plus the UCI doing the best for cycling is a new one…
Phil H. - February 6, 2012
Yes, they are punished
But this isn’t punishment, it isn’t aimed at the rider, it’s a tool to work as incentive for teams to spend their budgets in a way that benefits clean riders and the sport as a whole.
And we can joke about the motives of the UCI sometimes but we can’t negate everything they do based on snark imho, they’re not all rotten to the core.
Jens - February 6, 2012
As a fan
I much rather watch Valverde race than someone who rarely wins. So I’m not sure how it benefits the sport for him to be free to race and nobody signing him because he brings no value. OK this isn’t the case with him but it’s an example. And I don’t question the motives of the UCI but just their competency levels. Although I wished Patty would crawl into a cave far away.
Phil H. - February 6, 2012
And what about teammates who support a rider in their quest to win?
why should they be punished for their work? Their team gains nothing then they gain nothing and are put in a situation where their team may lose PT status and they lose their jobs.
Phil H. - February 6, 2012
In the bigger picture
(still using your example, pretending we know AV is a doper and Gerrans clean)
With the Valverdes marginalized the Gerranses of the world don’t win so rarely. So we get a cleaner sport overall but also one where you get to see exiting riders. Just different ones.
Jens - February 6, 2012
Doubt it
Gerrans isn’t one rider away from winning a bunch of races(of course he just did win one, but again an example), and if Valverde is clean now and still winning then it’s a moot point.
Phil H. - February 6, 2012
Plus it helps the market value of riders who haven't been suspended
lieutenantmudd - February 6, 2012
I misread your comment then
My point is, his points will not help Saxo stay a WT team next year
lieutenantmudd - February 6, 2012
All right, no harm done
And sure, it hurts them and moves them way down the pecking order. But you’ve got some points with the Haedos, the Sørensens…..wow, not a lot else. Might take more than a few token Asians, you’re right.
Aly Edge - February 6, 2012
You're both right
He gets WT points but they will not do Saxo any good applying for a license in 2013
Jens - February 6, 2012
Mhm
Aly Edge - February 6, 2012
The interesting thing is that Saxo Bank as a team are sitting with
all the problems as a result of Contador testing positive on Astana.
A lot of this mess can be resolved by having a points system that awards both the team and the rider equally. But, hey thats another story all together.
Uphill - February 6, 2012
yup, agreed
Jens - February 6, 2012
yep
Willj - February 6, 2012
agree too
Veloki - February 6, 2012
Yes they, will..?
Not the worlds obviously, but the others are all WT races.
Aly Edge - February 6, 2012
Riis is like a cat
He’ll manage somehow.
Chris Fontecchio - February 6, 2012
Bjarne the Cat
Jens - February 6, 2012
Yikes!!!!!!
Looks inscrutable
ursula - February 6, 2012
Cool!
You even found a picture of him smiling.
Chris Fontecchio - February 6, 2012
Winning a Vuelta is far better than anything else they can hope for
WT points don’t bring the money to the sponsors, exposure does. Oh they will get exposure and because I think a lot are sympathetic to Bert it won’t be seen as negative.
Phil H. - February 6, 2012
+1 Sponsors don't care about WT points
they want wins and TV coverage
broerie - February 6, 2012
I'm not saying sponsors do
I am just saying I don’t see how Riis can keep Contador next year and remains WT team, unless he has a hell of a year with everyone else or Contador takes a steep paycut and Riis goes hiring.
lieutenantmudd - February 6, 2012
Supposedly Saxo had money this year to hire a name or two
But just didn’t like what they saw on the market-plus they struck out with T-mart.
ursula - February 6, 2012
Riis is a survivor
I will give him that
lieutenantmudd - February 6, 2012
Or the market didn't like what it saw?
I’d be willing to bet anything that Riis would have no trouble finding a name if the shadow of Contador (and his unknown fate) hadn’t hung over the team.
Jens - February 6, 2012
Seriously?
I have to laugh at your Shadow riders concept.
I can definitely see a young GC rider not wanting to go with Riis with Contador on the team if it is Contador who gets to basically set their agenda as has seemed to be the case.
I can also see that Riis wasn’t interested in Menchov and Cobo.
I wil be surprised if Fuglsang does NOT come back to Saxo for next year.
ursula - February 6, 2012
Take a rider like Porte
Saxo was a golden place for him on paper. With AC there, he could pick 2 other GTs to captain or chose to ride support in the TdF and focus on Giro or Vuelta, without AC he would be the outright Tour captain on a top team. He still left disillusioned, why? Because he got jiggled around to suit AC’s developing situation and had his season totaled as a result. Because the needs of AC would always come first and everything was in limbo. Which GC hopeful would look at that situation on Saxo and think it was a smart career move?
Jens - February 6, 2012
I thought Riis was just punishing Porte
lieutenantmudd - February 6, 2012
Right. Porte is a good example
But I still don’t see that Riis would have done anything different with a completely in the clear Contador. I still see that Riis would have put all his best GC guys in service to Bert as the first priority. Kinda dumb if you ask me but there it is. It is like Riis finally got a great GC rider and lost all perspective on the team as a whole. But I still think that would have happened, clean Bert or dirty. Porte was smart to leave.
ursula - February 6, 2012
Porte doesn't climb well enough to be a GT contender.
brunop - February 6, 2012
Well said GC not GT
And, yeah, Porte is good enough to have a go at several of the smaller stage races.
ursula - February 6, 2012
The market is fickle.
They didn’t like what they saw when Riis had the twinkling lights of the Schlecks and Cancellara. They didn’t like them when Becca had them either.
flying dog - February 6, 2012
Well they do indirectly
Rack up enough WT points, and you ride the Tour de France.
It Geox had been in the Tour last year, they wouldn’t just be a shoe company right now, I guarantee you that.
Aly Edge - February 6, 2012
He technically didn't do anything wrong as a member of the Saxo Bank squad
It’s up to his discretion really, but the bank will leave the team at years end either way I believe
agl - February 6, 2012
Still makes me mad that had this sample gone to most labs nothing would have been discovered
and nothing would have been said. Can we talk about the rules and if they should be changed? Can we use some logic? How the hell does that amount of clen boost performance? Don’t give me blood doping because that’s just theoretical and we can suspend everyone for theoretical proclamations.
Phil H. - February 6, 2012
I hear you. Strict liability has f'ed over some athletes
But what’s the alternative? A benign dictator on high judging whether you “probably” doped?
At the end of the day, the simplest rule is probably the best – if you test positive for the following substances, you are suspended.
lieutenantmudd - February 6, 2012
The alternative
could be different sanctions for different contamination levels.
tedvdw - February 6, 2012
I thought about that
I’d support thresholds on substances like clen as postitive/non-positive line. I don’t think there should be tiered doping bans though based on levels though.
lieutenantmudd - February 6, 2012
It doesn’t, obviously.
This is part of the problem with testing – if you do a test on one day, then what you see could mean the athlete took a tiny dose (presumably by mistake, e.g. tainted food / supplement) that day, and could mean he took a big dose (doping) a month earlier and it hadn’t completely cleared his system.
This is why the rules assume that it means you’re doping if positive, unless you can prove you aren’t.
po8crg - February 6, 2012
Strict liability + no thresholds + increasingly sensitive labs = FAIL sooner or later
In a year or two we will get to the point where an excited spectator runs alongside the leader on a hill, pulls out an asthma inhaler, and the next passing competitor inhales a positive drug test.
Aquatarkus - February 6, 2012
crazy to have a no-threshold ban
on something that can be and is found in common food. Also crazy to feel like they have to ban every possible performance enhancer. It’s just stupid and self-destructive.
yeehoo - February 6, 2012
crazy not to ban every possible enhancer
otherwise it’s not cycling, it’s a shopping list. “You are allowed to dope with the following products” – and then you have doctors furiously working out how, say, nutmeg and flu medicine can be used to enhance performance legally. It would be worse than doing nothing, because if you permit certain drugs and ban others, not only are you encouraging riders to dope, but you’re encouraging them to dope in novel and potentially unsafe ways. I mean, doping isn’t that safe to begin with, but if you make people dope in random “create a performance-enhancing regime from the following substances that aren’t designed for anything like these purposes or doses” ways, safety is likely to be even lower.
If you don’t ban everything, you may as well ban nothing. [And yes, I’m in favour of stricter banning. The drugs you’re taking are contaminated? Well don’t take pills without a TUE. The syringes we found in your bin are just for legal drug injections? Well prohibit injections without a TUE.]
It’s also not crazy to have a no-threshold ban on something that can be found in common food (not that clen falls into this category if you don’t live in the third world – and “things that can be found in food in the third world” would be a very permissive exemption indeed!). Whether it can be due to contamination has nothing to do with the threshold. It’s not as though you can say “there’s not a lot, it must be contamination” or “there’s a lot, it must be intentional” – indeed, it’s usually the other way around. As people were saying about clenbuterol: if you eat contaminated meat, you have a hell of a lot more of it in you than that.
Wastrel - February 6, 2012
I just realized how weird it is that Andy rides for Bruyneel now and Contador (did) for Riis
lieutenantmudd - February 6, 2012
I'm not a huge fan of Andy Schleck, but I think this is a classy response:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/andy-schleck-reacts-to-contadors-doping-ban
Seahorse - February 6, 2012
+1
andrewp - February 6, 2012
I do believe he means it
But come on, what was he gonna say, “Neener neener neener!” ?
Aly Edge - February 6, 2012
Mary go around.
The Schleck brothers used to ride on Riis team. Riis knows everything about the Schlecks brothers. The Schlecks are wise to carefully consider their words, especially considering that there is a real chance Riis will not have a team in 2013.
Uphill - February 6, 2012
odds are this was carefully phrased and re-phrased by hired PR team probably months ago
Which is not the same as saying it’s not what he feels, mind you.
Really, could he ever say anything else?
That said, I say well said!
agostinho - February 6, 2012
Respect!
holmovka - February 6, 2012
yeah,
he’s talked that way all along. Have to give him credit.
yeehoo - February 6, 2012
Andy is upset that this unjust ban takes the focus away from the real issue.
Chaingate >>> 2 year ban for despicable and unsporting behavior.
straw dog - February 6, 2012
Agreed
I’ve considered him the champ for a while, so I’m happy for him regardless of how he feels.
agl - February 6, 2012
Backdated ban sucks ass.
Fine with the ruling, under strict liability. We can debate whether that’s what the rule should be, but it’s the rule. Backdating the ban is absurd, makes it nearly meaningless, and generally does worse things to the sport than simply sitting the rider as per the fucking rules.
What a terrible precedent.
Ed K - February 6, 2012
+1
This case has taught us nothing except that the institutions involved move glacially slowly, and don’t learn from mistakes or seek to improve their processes.
I was very down on cycling for the second half of last season, and this hasn’t helped.
EdredonBrowny - February 6, 2012
Yeah
An automatic 6month ban with no option to appeal would have done the same thing. Make them serve it between TDU and lombardia only. But thats not the rule so whatever.
mr. rogers - February 6, 2012 via mobile
Andy should demand prize money immediately
Willj - February 6, 2012
2010 Tour winner Andy Schleck should thanks Jens! for his great support.
I was lucky enough to see them near the top of Col de la Madeleine on one of the better stages of that Tour.
Willj - February 6, 2012
Has Lance tweeted "lots to learn" yet?
TheFigurehead - February 6, 2012
lol
Uphill - February 6, 2012
No doubt he is giggling somewhere though
Willj - February 6, 2012
but not too loud... just to himself
in case the Feds are listening
agostinho - February 6, 2012
Somewhere there's a chesire cat grin wearing a Mellow Johnny's t-shirt
Drew Davis - February 6, 2012
...about donations.
JustJoshinYa - February 6, 2012
Occupy Aigle
Willj - February 6, 2012
let's go
civetta - February 6, 2012
Can I bring my skis
or is that not quite in the spirit of it all?
tedvdw - February 6, 2012
You may be ready
for Happy Hour.
majope - February 6, 2012
You have to buy Patty an Audi and not a SEAT
duh!
Phil H. - February 6, 2012
rec'd
Guinea - February 6, 2012
The "protected witness" stuff is intriguing.
WADA had a witness who was going to testify to things that happened back in 2005 and 2006. This witness wanted to remain anonymous to protect his/her family and had “severe accusations” against Contador. CAS decided not to hear him/her.
Very curious as to who that was.
majope - February 6, 2012
(section X. A. 167-186 in the full report)
majope - February 6, 2012
Gotta be the butcher.
JustJoshinYa - February 6, 2012
My guess is that it could be Jorg Jaksche.
Uphill - February 6, 2012
Jaksche was already a whistle-blower, though. Would he be afraid to testify without anonymity?
majope - February 6, 2012
Jaksche didn't bring any active riders down.
Just Brian Holm, Aldag, Riis and Zabel (and perhaps others). Just a bunch of old T-Mobbers.
Uphill - February 6, 2012
For what it's worth, if we're thinking a teammate, these guys were on Liberty Seguros both years:
Dariusz Baranowski
Carlos Barredo Llamazales
Joseba Beloki Dorronsoro
Giampaolo Caruso
Allan Davis
Koen de Kort
David Etxebarria Alkorta
Jörg Jaksche
Aaron Kemps
Daniel Navarro Garcia
Isidro Nozal Vega
Sergio Miguel Moreira Paulinho
Javier Ramirez Abeja
Luis León Sánchez Gil
Ivan Santos Martinez
Michele Scarponi
Marcos Antonio Serrano Rodriguez
Angel Vicioso Arcos
(rosters from CN)
But it could also be a staff member, or the person who cleaned his apartment for that matter, so I guess we’ll never know.
majope - February 6, 2012
if the evidence is so compelling
why isn’t it being used for a different doping offense prosecution rather than being attached to this case, where it’s relevance can be questioned?
If Armstrong can theoretically be charged for way back when, then why can’t this supposed evidence be used in the same way I wonder?
andrewp - February 6, 2012
I think Contador may have opened the door to its relevance.
If Contador made that statement in a case document, then testimony as to what he and the whole team were up to back in Puerto days becomes relevant as supporting evidence. Might not be able to build a whole case on it, though, as it would be one person’s word against another’s.
majope - February 6, 2012
He's also been around JB a lot
yeah I said it
Phil H. - February 6, 2012
Frankly, Contador has been associated with a range of questionable
characters, but which rider hasn’t.
Uphill - February 6, 2012
History tells us it is very often (not always) a team mate.
Landis
Jaksche
Kohl
bla
bla
Besides WADA would want to use somebody a bit more substantial than a cleaner.
Uphill - February 6, 2012
to clarify.
By substantial, I mean with access to information.
Uphill - February 6, 2012
Staff member is still possible, though.
And they’d probably be right to be afraid of retaliation, as would any active riders. Retired perhaps less so, depending on what they’re doing and where they live now.
majope - February 6, 2012
There was an Astana staffer that also leaked stories (to an austrian magazine?)
about things not being right about the beef-story. Might be a guy left from the Liberty Seguros days.
Jens - February 6, 2012
Sure, it could be anybody. Your question opened up for speculation.
My bet is on Jaksche.
Uphill - February 6, 2012
What Willj said...
What about the money? There’s a lot of it in a grand tour win. Did he give it all to his teammates so there’s nothing to give back, or as the winner even if he did give it away is he still liable to pay it back?
bethie - February 6, 2012
Drug testing during suspension?
Will he be tested during his suspension or is he free to clenbuterize?
bikepig - February 6, 2012
interesting question
so how does that work?
agostinho - February 6, 2012
given the duration of the bad (from now til august)
he has to remain in the testing pool. iirc, you have to reenter the pool 6 months before returning to competition (if you were retired, a la vino). if you don’t retire, you stay in the length of your ban.
ant1 - February 6, 2012
thx
agostinho - February 6, 2012
He is in the testing pool currently
and he has to make himself available for something like six months before returning to competition so he shouldn’t have many , if any, days away from testing.
Jens - February 6, 2012
roger that.
bikepig - February 6, 2012
He has plenty of time to focus on losing weight before the Vuelta.
No clenbuterol required.
lieutenantmudd - February 6, 2012
Meanwhile, Zeke sits for almost 3 years...
mr. rogers - February 6, 2012 via mobile
yes, its a problem.
We need a much faster process and one possible sentence: 2 year suspension from the date of the verdict or the rider is free to go.
Uphill - February 6, 2012
Because mandatory minimum sentencing has helped the cause of justice and rectitude in so many other fields...
…and appeals-free judicial processes are so, so very reliable.
Ed K - February 6, 2012
well, this is sport. To me is very different.
Uphill - February 6, 2012
Given that it's also people's livelihood, I can't see how.
The only way you get a quick procedure is to make doping offenses essentially the equivalent of sporting fouls and reduce penalties considerably but make them much easier to call. I don’t think that’s a ridiculous way to go, by the way, but it’s very different from the current philosophy.
Ed K - February 6, 2012
I don't buy the livehood argument. Banned riders can always get a job at
McDonalds.
Uphill - February 6, 2012
McDonalds has drug controls too!
Phil H. - February 6, 2012
they serve shitty meat.
Uphill - February 6, 2012
Now with 30% beef
Phil H. - February 6, 2012
really. is that a sort de luxe version?
Uphill - February 6, 2012
The Luxembourg version?
actually as to not risk clen busts it may be .05% there
Phil H. - February 6, 2012
If you ever tell me about the other 70% I'm never talking to you again
Jens - February 6, 2012
This seems like an incentive to tell you
Phil H. - February 6, 2012
See? Incentive, not punishment
Jens - February 6, 2012
Right, a job at McDonalds is just like any other job.
That’s just silly.
Ed K - February 6, 2012
no its not silly, its life.
If a policeman gets a sentence, he can’t return to the force, same with a laywer etc. These people will have to find a diff job. I just used the burger joint as an example.
Uphill - February 6, 2012
That's fine.
But you also have a real judicial process before you bar someone from employment in that kind of way.
Ed K - February 6, 2012
and those are life time bans (often).
A rider can flipped burgers for two years and return as Valverde. Hence the diif between the two systems.
Uphill - February 6, 2012
Regardless, you have a judicial process.
You’ve pretty much destroyed your own argument with the analogy because you accepted the premise that it is an employment issue (which it very obviously is).
Ed K - February 6, 2012
sorry, we have to agree to disagree.
Uphill - February 6, 2012
fair enough, but I'd love for you to find one actual counter-example...
…where someone can be stripped of a professional license with no review process and no possibility of appeal?
I defy you to do so.
Ed K - February 6, 2012
+1
mr. rogers - February 6, 2012 via mobile
Really?
Do you think Contador would have said, “hey, it’s just a four month ban in the off-season, why fight the charges?”
No way, he would fought for his name and his Tour victory.
I am really interested in how you would make the penalties “much easier to call” without removing due process and the presumption of innocence.
I agree with what you have previously said – tougher sentences are less effective than increasing the likelihood of getting caught. But I don’t think that’s any magic sauce to increase the later. Especially with riders with millions of reasons (euros) to fight doping charges tooth and nail.
lieutenantmudd - February 6, 2012
I think this is probably the major sticking point.
But at least you could much more cleanly enforce a strict liability regime under these circumstances.
The other thing, though, is to accept that we’re never going to catch all or possibly even many of the dopers. Any more than all or even many sporting fouls get flagged.
Ed K - February 6, 2012
I think the major sticking point is that second statement.
If the 90% are getting away with it, and then the 10% are getting hammered. Especially if there is an evolution away from valuing direct cheating (EPO).
You’re going to have riders who say "I didn’t do anything wrong… (compared to my peers)
It’d be like one of us getting thrown in the slammer for 6 months for … hmm… the watching of online cycling entertainment through opportune channels, while the entire community does it.
LawrenceS - February 6, 2012
Yep.
it’s why laws that are largely unenforceable are taken to be unfair, even and especially when there are draconian penalties attached to them.
To the extent that the WADA code isn’t reliably enforceable, it’s seriously fucked.
Ed K - February 6, 2012
I totally agree
and I personally think this is the case with Valverde.
Many get erked by his “I didn’t do anything wrong” comments. Which admittedly isn’t the top response I want to hear either.
But if you go back and read his comments after his suspension took place, there are many see bicicciclismo where he says things along the lines of “that was cycling then, that’s how it was, I’ve moved on from that and I’m not talking about it anymore”
today, I think he feels unjustly punished vs the 50+ other Puerto riders, and the hundreds of others in various other scandels from pre-2005 who didn’t.
I think he’s saying "I didn’t do anything [more] wrong [than anyone else, yet I lost 18 months, my results and became the face of Puerto]
LawrenceS - February 6, 2012
I'm not so sure Puerto is such a good analogy though...
…since it really has nothing to do with WADA code and everything to do with a big conspiracy prosecution. Valverde was one of the few who were effectively identified there, is all.
I can’t imagine how you could say ‘oh, it’s ok to be caught up in a pretty obvious conspiracy to commit doping’ just because others might also be doping who aren’t involved in that conspiracy.
I can see how you could complain that getting caught taking a substance for which there isn’t a reliable test and which is widely used is unjust.
I’m not sure that either of these is what’s involved in AC’s case, by the way. I’m simply saying that it’s pretty unclear to me that the WADA code can be reliably enforced in its entirety, or even close to it.
Ed K - February 6, 2012
Sure
I’m just saying that to the athletes, it’s likely to feel like the same thing (or more!)
I think the guys who are being caught in the “anomoly” cases AC, Valverde, Alex Rasmussen, Fuyu Li etc. etc.
are likely saying: I didn’t caught “cheating” for “cheating” like everyone “cheats”. I got caught “cheating” for some bizarre anomoly.
Whereabouts, 5 year old Puerto cases out of competition, micro levels of Clenbuterol, etc. etc.
To the athlete it probably feels “unfair” as they would be in denial about the regular cheating, establish it as the norm and know the risks. However, they get caught by something else and feel “cheated” themselves.
LawrenceS - February 6, 2012
Sure, that's likely true.
Though their fee fees in this regard aren’t always legitimate, by any stretch.
Ed K - February 6, 2012
If he knows that others were doping too
and feels unfairly punished relative to them, why I do believe the authorities can give time off for dobbing in fellow miscreants.
Seriously, if somebody says “that’s how it was back then. I happen to know that X, Y, and Z all cheated, and Dr A and Dr B, and my managers C, D and E all supported it – why just punish me?”, well, that seems fair to me. Give the man a more lenient sentence. When it’s “everyone else was doing it!” and when we ask “oh really? name three!” and he’s like “err. well, you know, people. I heard. not that i know, but, you know, well, i mean we all know about that, don’t we? i mean hypothetically, you know, in the abstract, in general, a friend of mine might have heard about some guy whose friend was doping once… and that TOTALLY justified me in deciding to dope myself because it proved that everybody was doing it, hypothetically….”, then I’m really not keen on giving the guy much benefit of the doubt, or sympathy, or leniency.
Wastrel - February 6, 2012
nobody's going to jail over a positive
big difference.
ant1 - February 6, 2012
losing a professional license, which is what this amounts to...
…needs a judicial process. Find me someplace it doesn’t.
Ed K - February 6, 2012
Don't think anybody says we don't need a system. Some are just arguing
for a simple and faster process.
Uphill - February 6, 2012
No, you're not saying that.
Read your own comment above.
If you’ve changed your position, fine.
Ed K - February 6, 2012
no, wrong. The current system for convicting riders needs to be
optimized. Faster with tighter deadlines along with a simplied sentencing system. Thats the argument I am making.
Uphill - February 6, 2012
But 'faster' = artificially truncating the judicial process.
How do you do that? I’m asking in all seriousness how you can have a fair process with tight deadlines. This is where I’m stuck.
Ed K - February 6, 2012
With less severe punishments
so appealing isn’t worth the trouble.
tedvdw - February 6, 2012
yeah, fairness achieved by making the consequences of a mistake tolerable...
…especially in relation to the value of diminishing the systemic rewards of cheating. Essentially how sporting fouls are handled. We’ve discussed this and I basically agree with you.
But that’s not what people are suggesting above, nor is it what anyone at any official level is contemplating.
Ed K - February 6, 2012
Re. last point: probably not, no
which is really unfortunate.
tedvdw - February 6, 2012
"Optimised" is a weasel word.
You optimise the procedure for one particular characteristic. You’re talking about optimising it for speed, which is very much NOT optimising it for justice.
Justice aside, it would be pointless trying to do this, because it would only work for a few days. I know the court system is pretty damn slow – but when you go to the European Court of Human Rights and/or the European Court of Justice, and say “hello miluds, thought I’d let you know that I’m prohibiting people from practicing their chosen employment, and in the process depriving them of potentially millions of euros of income, not to mention slandering their reputation, on the basis of a transparently unjust quasilegal ruling that failed to establish to any reasonable standard any violation of our rules, and that failed to give the accused a full chance to defend himself”…
… how many minutes do you think it will take the court to throw your ‘optimized system’ out the window and tell the riders you banned to sue you for punitive damages?
Wastrel - February 6, 2012
You must be confusing criminal courts with that of sports
It si very easy to optimise the current system used for sports.
Uphill - February 6, 2012
I'm not sure how that addresses either of my points
To wit,
1. you talk about “optimising” as though it were a clearcut thing. In reality, if you “optimise” for one characteristic, you are not optimising for another. If you have a speedier system, you have a less just system. I’m not clear on why speed is meant to so completely override justice.
2. it doesn’t matter whether you think speed should override justice to that extent, because there’s no way it would be legal. Sport is not immune from the law. If you propose to restrict trade to that extent without due process, the court will almost certainly through your proposals out of a window. A sports tribunal isn’t a court – no, but it’s subordinate to a court.
As WADA put it: “because sports governing bodies exercise a monopolistic ‘quasi-public’ position in their relation with the athletes, there is an understanding among lawyers that sports governing bodies can no longer ignore fundamental issues in their activities, at least if they want to avoid governmental intervention”.
Wastrel - February 6, 2012
To clarify...
…the only way to reliably make the system faster is to eliminate appeals and basically wipe out the judicial process. You popped a positive, 2 year ban and done.
If you have a practical suggestion short of that, I’d love to hear it.
Ed K - February 6, 2012
i'm not saying it doesn't
i’m saying sport and criminal courts are different. one you’re not allowed to take part in certain private races, the other you’re locked up. massive difference.
ant1 - February 6, 2012
irrelevant difference...
…since no one is arguing that this is or should be like a criminal matter.
Ed K - February 6, 2012
i was saying it in reference to
“Because mandatory minimum sentencing has helped the cause of justice and rectitude in so many other fields…
…and appeals-free judicial processes are so, so very reliable.”
which i assumed was a reference to mandatory minimums in criminal cases.
ant1 - February 6, 2012
it was a general statement...
…yes, mostly those show up in criminal matters, but I don’t think the claim depends on them being criminal matters.
I’m simply pointing out that there’s no particularly good reason based on any and all experience we have to believe that either appeals-free processes or mandatory minimums are actually good things. I’m also assuming that one or both of those are about the only way to ‘speed up’ the process and make it more final. The comment was really designed to bring out what I took to be that as the implicit condition for what Uphill was asking for.
Ed K - February 6, 2012
i don't agree with minimums either
but don’t really give a shit either way. i was just supporting Uphill statement that sports are different. this is sports we’re talking about. i don’t really give a damn about athetes’ ‘rights’ to compete. it might not be fair or just to give all doping offences the same punishment, but there’s much bigger injustices in the world. i have no problem with streamlining the process. a lot of things are going to have to happen in the world before i start caring about a millionaire’s ability to make more millions in a sport plagued by doping for the last 100 years. cause it seems that the only time someone doesn’t get a plain old two year sentence is when they can spend big money on lawyers to fight it. so we have a de facto mandatory minimum for the poor that doesn’t apply to those who have money to spend. seems a lot simpler to just apply it to everybody.
ant1 - February 6, 2012
I agree with some of this...
…especially the part about the unavailability of good representation to poorer riders, but don’t let the fact that this is ‘sports’ make you forget that this is also a profession for most of these people. Also don’t forget, as your own comment implied, that most of them are very far from millionaires.
Ed K - February 6, 2012
yeah, it is a profession
but i don’t see it like someone who’s a doctor, or plumber or whatever. sure they train for years to be able to compete at that level, but most of them only do so for a short period of time. 99% of them probably have to get other jobs post-racing. getting kicked out of the sport isn’t the difference between being able to live out the rest of your days retired and having to get another job. i doubt any cyclist expects to be a pro cyclist for their entire working life. and comparing it to other professions, how many of those suspend professionals found to be cheating? i would guess most, if not all, professions treat cheaters by permanently removing their license to practice. also, the profession’s entire reason for existing is that the public watches, unlike most other professions where the public/clients actually need the service. in the grand scheme of things, nobody needs cycling. the profession as a whole has an incentive to keep the public interested. that goal might require steps that other professions don’t have to even consider.
but sure, in a lot of ways, cycling is like any other job. the few ways it does differ (and its history of doping), though, make me not really give a damn about the justice of its administration.
ant1 - February 6, 2012
Sure, other jobs, etc., limited career lifespan, and so on...
…none of which means that while you’re doing that, you don’t need to be able to make a living, have rights under employment law, and should be subject to having your license pulled without there being a reasonably well conducted judicial procedure for doing so.
If you look at how all the things you cite above are handled in these other professions, and in labor law generally, you’ll find that you can’t ban people without due process / a right to appeal.
Ed K - February 6, 2012
sure
but i don’t see how ‘test positive, take two years off (or whatever)’ isn’t due process under a strict liability system. athletes could then appeal to cas (did you test positive? yes. was the test flawed? no. was it administered properly? yes. see you in two years).
ant1 - February 6, 2012
well yes, but that doesn't shorten the process...
…remember that conta only started racing again when he was cleared.
Ed K - February 6, 2012
would strict liability + mandatory minimum/standard suspension
skip the national federation step? not only that, but it would greatly reduce the grounds for appeal to tas/cas. none of the tainted meat/supplements arguments would hold. 2 years would probably be a bit too long of a sentence though.
ant1 - February 6, 2012
wouldn't
ant1 - February 6, 2012
Yes...
…but a 2 year ban on that basis would be just a bit excessive, no doubt.
Ed K - February 6, 2012
agreed
but didn’t they have something like this back in the holy days of merckx? get popped, sit out a few months? i would assume (or hope) that they got rid of it for some reason. either way, this kind of stuff involves serious considerations that i’m not knowledgeable enough in to have an intelligent opinion. won’t stop me from discussing it though, that’s the only way to get less stupid.
ant1 - February 6, 2012
Marion Jones disagrees
Phil H. - February 6, 2012
Perjury, no?
tedvdw - February 6, 2012
whatever it was
usada didn’t put her in jail.
ant1 - February 6, 2012
Brought about from a trial stemming from a positive test
indirect? Yes.
Phil H. - February 6, 2012
Weak
tedvdw - February 6, 2012
Well I think it's weak some athletes are put through more scrutiny than others
Lance has committed perjury, Bonds did, they are fine(jail wise)
Phil H. - February 6, 2012
When did Armstrong commit perjury?
In fact, when did he testify? I think he did a deposition once.
tedvdw - February 6, 2012
The insurance matter, right?
Chris Fontecchio - February 6, 2012
yep.
R Mc - February 6, 2012
Right, thanks
tedvdw - February 6, 2012
+1
free to do anyhting else but sports.
Uphill - February 6, 2012
Yes! Finally, someone else said that!
No National Federation involvement! Independent doping tribunal making decision no later then 1 month after every race or GT. Everyone tested week prior to GT. Decision is final and ban is 1 year for the first offence.
holmovka - February 6, 2012
So
a two-year suspension where he got to keep his legs strong and fresh with 18 months of race miles. Briljant!
Chris Fontecchio - February 6, 2012
I'm sure he's really happy...
blackswangreen - February 6, 2012
just sayin
all the other guys doing two years got HUGE setbacks in their fitness from it. Obviously that’s a bit loaded, considering what they were doing time for. I guess I’d be happier just labeling this a 6-month suspension, or if you need to do two years, start it today.
Chris Fontecchio - February 6, 2012
I'd rather be properly suspended
than winning the goddamn Giro for naught.
blackswangreen - February 6, 2012
I don't like it.
Not because he got banned, but because I really don’t like the stripped results and handing it to the second place riders (everyone loses in that scenario)
and I think that the strict liability situation goes to far.
If the CAS determination is a contaminated supplement as the most likely source, it feels speculative and uncertain. I don’t see how they feel they can confidantly punish Contador to the maximum extent of the penaties on the basis of a theoretical “contaminated supplement” and then apply strict liability to that.
LawrenceS - February 6, 2012
Ultimately the problem isn't the judicial process, flawed as it is
Its a problem with the executive or how the sport is organized and led. That cycling is so scandalized by a rider doping (maybe) indicates that it has no leadership. Almost very other sport can handle player drug suspensions with basically no impact to their sport because they have strong leadership. Cycling? Nothing could be further from the truth. And so cycling stays bush league.
ursula - February 6, 2012
The NFL handles doping by ignoring it happens
Phil H. - February 6, 2012
That and giving out 1 or 2 drug suspensions a year
Doesn’t affect its popularity one bit.
People don’t care if a sport is clean, they care it if appears to be clean.
ursula - February 6, 2012
NFL fans care about it looking clean? I think they don't care
as long as fat men continue to fall on each other they are happy.
Phil H. - February 6, 2012
They definitely care about a level playing surface.
You know: anyone can win on any given Sunday? That’s the holy grail of the NFL.
ursula - February 6, 2012
That has nothing to do with doping.
and everything to do with balanced teams, not becoming college football. To be balanced everyone must dope, because you know the big boys are
Phil H. - February 6, 2012
Literally
the big ones, lineman
Phil H. - February 6, 2012
Well, yeah.
That’s my point then: people don’t really care about doping per se.
ursula - February 6, 2012
Well then we agree
Phil H. - February 6, 2012
All right then!
ursula - February 6, 2012
Not just the linemen
Once it broke that a punter was, I figured pretty much everyone does.
Seat Shifter - February 6, 2012
Doh, link properly dufus!
Panther’s Punter & Steroids
(or take advantage of the preview button)
Seat Shifter - February 6, 2012
yep, It’s fascinating how US sports announcers that focus on stuff like NFL will mock cycling as drug infested. I buy the lack of leadership argument. And that (many) people would enjoy cycling more if it seemed clean by hiding doping more.
Willj - February 6, 2012
Speak for yourself
And what about the doping in soccer? Think that sport is clean?
ursula - February 6, 2012
The Spanish are not
the Germans are squeaky clean
Phil H. - February 6, 2012
Of course they are.
ursula - February 6, 2012
the french too.
ant1 - February 6, 2012
i thought the french never took showers.
yeehoo - February 6, 2012
that's cause there's no need to when you're clean
ant1 - February 6, 2012
Ha. Rec!
tgsgirl - February 6, 2012
I said (many) people – not all
what I meant was by US announcers was non-cycling focused announcers. Your Euro soccer argument is exactly the same (I agree with you)
Willj - February 6, 2012
Okay. I see. Makes sense.
ursula - February 6, 2012
I don't think they need to hide it more.
They just need an independant (non-punishing) body to state the truth.
I’d like to see someone say “X percent of riders in the peloton are cheating” – 99%
whereas, 10% are getting punished.
Let’s do something with the tension between those two points.
LawrenceS - February 6, 2012
Oh, okay!
That means all we’ve got to do is find a way to judge what percentage of the peloton is cheating.
Hmm.
Maybe we could test riders for drugs? It’s not fool-proof, but until you’ve got a better way to ascertain this “the truth” thing for an “independent” (martian?) body to “state”, I say let’s run with it.
Wastrel - February 6, 2012
Are abstract ideas/concepts difficult for you to handle?
There are plenty of ways that we ascertain data points that are different from enforcement points.
Take DUI’s.
Independant surveys, and hospital records show that driving under the influence of alcohol, prescription drugs and recreational drugs are magnitudes higher than the number of people being caught.
If the police say 1 in 1000 people are guilty of DUI’s because that’s the number they catch whereas other data says it’s more around 22 out of 100, then what does that tell you?
Enforcement with penalty is only one way to determine the behaviour of a population.
LawrenceS - February 6, 2012
So what are the other ways IN THIS CASE?
DUIs:
1. often lead to hospital admissions
2. don’t normally lead to coverups because in the vast majority of cases there is relatively little money resting on it (most drunks aren’t senators or moguls)
3. often involve third parties with grudges
4. are minor enough that people often confess to them in non-legal circumstances, particularly if they’re promised that the survey is confidential
5. are common enough that large-scale statistical conclusions can be drawn even from a small subset of the data
Doping:
1. doesn’t normally lead to encounters with hospitals, or with doctors other than those who are in on the doping already
2. is a threat, if made public, to extremely rich individuals and corporations with an incentive to cover up any evidence there might be
3. is usually only known about by ‘insiders’, without there being obvious victims who know about it
4. are so potentially devasting to the people involved, who are so enmeshed in a culture of secrecy, that they’re rarely confessed to even long after the fact. I don’t see a researcher saying “hi, I’m totally not affiliated with WADA, the UCI, the sporting federations, your team, or the french police… could you tell me, in confidence, have you ever doped and if so what did you use?” to an active rider and getting much in the way of a truthful response
5. there are so few active riders, statistically speaking, that a small subset of the data will be so small that the ‘noise’ in the signal is high enough to make conclusions worthless.
Sure, in theory, enforcement isn’t the only way. But I was being serious – when somebody suggests a better way, I’ll support following that way. But I can’t see what concrete, actual measures can be taken to find out this information. I can cope with abstract ideas (my degree was in philosophy), but you’re making a concrete proposal. That requires concrete support – or at least the concrete POSSIBILITY of concrete support. I’m not demanding a precise statistical methodology, but just, you know, some vaguely convincing suggestion as to how such a methodology might ever be feasible at all.
Wastrel - February 6, 2012
All I was suggesting is acquiring the numbers
So, just today in the linked article the head of WADA is saying that it’s 20% (1in5) that are believed to be doping. Whereas, they catch 1-2%.
So is that system working? I’ll leave that up to you to decide. I personally think it’s higher than 20% as well…. and where did they get that number from?
but, it seems that thinking about other ideas (beyond draconian ideas like “whip them harder”) to address the difference between 1-2% and 20% is only worth mocking and talking about Martians.
Thanks for sharing your ideas and positive contirbution!
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/deportes/AMA/injerencias/politicas/nos/obligaron/recurrir/elpepudep/20120207elpepudep_11/Tes
LawrenceS - February 7, 2012
and then
when an nfl player wins a media-voted award and then tests positive, they re-vote and give it to him anyway.
It’s amazing how far apart anti-doping attitudes are in different sports. And probably all stems from the way testing and punishment is handled.
yeehoo - February 6, 2012
Interesting comment.
To me the leadership is cycling stands to maintain the status quo.
I feel like an entire vision for anti-doping in the sport is missing.
You have the most successful cyclist in the history of a single event dominate coupled with the same period when cycling bodies go all-in on anti-doping.
One is a “leader” on the road.
The other is a “leader” in the court rooms.
However, they’re not serious (enough) about maintaining the integrity of the sport. It feels like the wheel of justice just gets spun.
One of the reasons why it doesn’t impact the other sports is because you don’t have 90%+ of the top performers in the sport suspended or under the suspicion of doping on the road, while the sport says “We do the most” and the fans say “This guy is dirty and this guy is for sure clean”
LawrenceS - February 6, 2012
If you by strong leadership mean
leaders who can convince us that the doping isn’t a problem, then I’m not sure I want a strong leadership. And I prefer bush league to the alternative.
TheFigurehead - February 6, 2012
Billions of sports fans worldwide disagree with you.
ursula - February 6, 2012
Billions of sports fans worldwide disagree with you.
TheFigurehead - February 6, 2012
quite
civetta - February 6, 2012
heh
So…you want me to ignore you and you have no point. Gotcha.
ursula - February 6, 2012
Hitler. Armstrong. Obamageddon. Milli Vanilli. Rick Astley
Have I hit the internet reductio ad absurdum yet?
R Mc - February 6, 2012
I don't know
But Milli Vanilli is the best one yet. Blame it on the rain?
TheFigurehead - February 6, 2012
You made some bold claims
without much backing it up. Go ahead and ignore all you want.
TheFigurehead - February 6, 2012
I can read attendance figure and TV ratings
Same as you. Those figures are on my side. You? Tell me how you know billions of sports fans disagree with me.
ursula - February 6, 2012
Please do
And while you’re at it, you might want to clarify what strong leadership means and what the other sports you refer to. If it’s the same thing as below then I believe you’re on really shaky grounds, I’d say that there are very few sports with that kind of executive leadership. Not the least because not all sports are centered around teams, and far from the rest beside cycling that are have that sort of organization that you seem to talk about.
The Olympic sports, for instance, how do they fit your idea?
TheFigurehead - February 6, 2012
Or we could begin with great example of transparency & leadership, football, maybe.
Or that great unmentionable, cricket, living off oil money in Dubai
Or the perpetually mutinous sport of tennis.
Just for a start.
civetta - February 6, 2012
The Olympic sports mostly could barely exist on their own
Kinda obvious, no? Not many fans, not many participants on a professional level. You could say they were held back in their evolution because the Olympic powers tried to maintain the amateur facade. But for whatever reasons they are mostly beholden to outside authorities (the Olympic folks) to have any relevance. They get packaged together to provide spectacle every four years that everyone watches. Otherwise they are a tiny business with a small number of followers, not to be compared to the main sports the world follows.
ursula - February 6, 2012
Not obvious in the slightest
First of all, I don’t know why you think I believe in the idea that certain – still unmentioned – professional or main sports is the baseline that other sports should be compared with. Secondly, while they don’t produce revenue by the billions on their own, most of them manage to exist just fine anyway. Thirdly, people follow these sports anyway, some of them are hugely popular. Field hockey and table tennis are small sports worldwide, just like the professional sport of baseball, but in India and China respectively they are anything but small. Do field hockey and table tennis have anything in common with the main sports – and again, name them please – when it comes to organization?
TheFigurehead - February 6, 2012
In that case perhaps it would be better to ignore me, yes.
You seem quite happy to ignore sports fans who hate all of this in any case.
& I’m sure I’ll never see you type +1 or similar.
civetta - February 6, 2012
But how many of there are you?
The purpose of a professional sport is to make money. Some do this better than others. I don’t see a correlation with making money and transparency though.
ursula - February 6, 2012
I think this is where there may be some culture clash.
I don’t believe the purpose of professional sport is to make money, and I don’t know anyone (except forum people) who does.
Of course, if you think it should just try to make money, the best strategy is clear: forget about doping. Instead, just sit down at the beginning of the season and work out the best “storyline” for each race and for the season as a whole, and command the riders to follow the pre-set storyline exactly. Reality never makes as exciting and emotional a story as a good scriptwriter can. You’d massively boost viewership!
Just imagine, every sport in the world could work just like “professional” wrestling! It’s a very succesful business model, after all!
Personally, I’m not sure this would be an improvement. But hey, tastes differ. Actually, I think there’s an opportunity for you here that could let us all be happy. The US cycling situation clearly isn’t as developed as it is in Europe. How about America and China get together in a highly profitable entirely-rigged “Professional” cycling league, and we here over in Europe can stick with our inferior blood sweat tears and poverty version? That way we can each get what we want. I know some major riders would go to the Professional league, but frankly I wouldn’t care too much about the loss.
Wastrel - February 6, 2012
I am
truly curious, what do you think the purpose of pro sport is? I agree very much that there are cultural differences in the ways people are viewing this.
Dustbunny8 - February 6, 2012
I think it's hard to be specific, but...
… I’d say there are several ‘purposes’ of sport, among which the major ones are probably (and I may be forgetting something):
1. sport can provide windows and portraits to and of the human soul in an uplifting and beautiful way
2. sport can teach us about the human body and its potential for beauty
3. sport can provide entertaining narratives.
When I watched Evans grinding his way up the Galibier with gritted teeth, I was probably primarily struck by his determination, his fortitude, his indomitability; secondarily, by the wonder and majesty of his body, which was doing something it was hard to imagine any human body doing; and, third, I was intrigued by the story, both of the day (will he catch Schleck or not?) and of the Tour (what will this mean for GC?), and I suppose of the man’s career (will he finally accomplish the goal that has seemed so close so many times but always slightly out of reach?).
I have to say, I don’t think I thought “fuck yeah, he’s really making heaps of cash for BMC today!” at any stage.
Why PROFESSIONAL sport in particular? Well, i’d have to think about it in more depth, but primarily:
a) money in the system can lubricate the wheels of the grassroots, helping the sport to thrive in the next generation;
b) money in the system enables the sport to acquire certain concessions that allow it to operate more fully (eg, cycling races that bring in money can persuade local authorities to shut down roads for them, and cycling teams with money can pay airlines to transport their riders and gear from place to place to enable more competition)
c) if there’s money around, some of it has to go to the riders to prevent a worker’s revolt
d) paying sportsmen enough to let them live comfortably helps encourage more people to consider sport as a career, because they don’t have to worry about what they’re losing out on so much
e) the idea that top sportsmen can earn millions helps motivate people to take up the sport and compete hard (but frankly I think the overall results of this one may be negative).
Again, “the sport is popular, it’s a crime not to make money out of” has never occured to me as a reason for professionalism.
Wastrel - February 6, 2012
Also meant to say:
for me, the reason why those old black and white photographs of men in pain on lonely mountains, or caked in mud on a cold day, or of grimy and communal shower rooms, are so evocative and inspiring, is… well, I don’t know exactly and precisely, but I know that it isn’t because of the aura of money they give off. Maybe the guys on the mountains were only thinking “when I get off this mountain I’m going to roll around in the cash I made today”, but I kind of hope they weren’t, at least not entirely. To me, the transcendence is more important than the commercialism. Of course, nothing in life is ever completely transcendent… but the idea that the whole point of even the parts that have an aura of transcendence is just to make money for faceless corporations is alien to me. That might be what individuals are in it for (although I think that’s actually too cynical), but it’s not, to me, why society is so keen on inventing sport in the first place. If that were all it was, we would be following the financial pages instead – there’s a lot more money there.
That may not be a universal view, but I’d like to think I’m not entirely alone in holding it.
Wastrel - February 6, 2012
Thank you,
for sharing your thoughts on that.I appreciate your response.
I think sometimes sport showcases our eternal human battle between the way we wish things were and the way they truly are.Maybe the battle is more important than the outcome.
Dustbunny8 - February 6, 2012
but . . . for the people who INVEST in sports
the purpose of sports is
a. proclaim their gloriousness to the rest of us folks (see Jerry Jones)
make moneyc. have an opportunity to create a spectacle for other clients, etc.
d. indulge in the thrill of “owning” people.
q. proclaim gloriousness etc.
R Mc - February 6, 2012
Those are SOME of the people who invest in sports
and even there I think you’re overly cynical – I think a lot of people who invest in sports are genuinely sports fans as well.
But more important are all the other people who invest: you and me. Whether it’s people buying tickets, or people buying merchandise, or just people giving up their time to sit in front of a television watching a sport, allowing themselves to be advertised to, the biggest investment in sport comes from the sports fans. And then again, a third part of it is the athletes themselves – who want to make moeny, sure, but often want to do more than that as well. I don’t see why the capitalists get treated as though they own the sport, when they’re only a small part of it. The intentions of the capitalists are not the purposes of the sport – after all, the sport would survive without them. Capitalists are permitted to take partial control over the sport only to the extent that they are able to persuade other stakeholders that they will respect THEIR intentions for the sport.
Sport belongs to the people, not to the overlords.
Wastrel - February 6, 2012
As much as I sympathize with the sentiment
I disagree.
My own sporting activity belongs to me.
Any investment of emotional energy I make in a professional sporting activity or sportsperson beyond watching the sporting activity does not grant me an ownership stake. Lots of people think that it does. I don’t.
It’s more convoluted than I have time to type, but I think that these sorts of emotional investments are what swindle people into thinking that certain types of celebrities or sporting figures “give” them “hope” or whatever.
The fan invests (the more relevant term would be “projects,” I’d suggest) their hopes and desires onto a person who seems more capable of realizing those hopes and dreams (at least in the highly structured arenas in which they compete) and, if the sports person succeeds, gets a vicarious return on that emotional projection.
As much as possible I try to refrain from making those investments.
R Mc - February 6, 2012
Well Said
That’s always a tricky one. Ant1 made the point elsewhere along the lines of – love the game, not the players. It’s a good point I think.
I try to do this as well, but sometimes someone comes along and, for whatever reason, I can’t help but root for him/her. There’s a bit of a leap we take as observers/fans/whatever I think. Seeing someone we root for do well can be quite rewarding. Of course that sometimes comes with a downside…
jsallee00 - February 6, 2012
But I wasn't talking about that sort of 'investment'.
I was talking about REAL investment. Actual money investment, or investment of things (time and resources) that can be exchanged for money. And on a true calculation, most of the investment into sport is by the fans – some of it in cash, some of it by agreeing to provide an advertising market, some of it by putting political pressure on authorities to support the sport, and so on.
As an example, take Manchester United. They’re owned by some millionaire american dudes (or by the bank that lent them money). They invested big: in practice about £200m of their own money, with another £400m of other people’s money. So their investment is massive. But how much do the public invest in MU? Well, they directly invest 120m euros PER YEAR in gate receipts alone. And MU get 130meuros PER YEAR through broadcasting rights – which reflect fan investment in viewership MINUS a big profit margin for broadcasters MINUS profit-sharing initiatives. And then MU get 100meuros PER YEAR in commercial revenue, which I think is about 50% merchandising (ie investment by fans) and 50% sponsorships (ie investment by companies presumably backed by investment by fans (because the sponsors are only in it for a profit)).
Altogether, the fans invest more financially in MU every year than the Glazers have done in total. And that’s before we even try to work out how much of the £400m in capitalist investment is ultimately ascribable to investment by bank depositers (ie the public), and how much to implicit government support for banks (ie the public).
That’s why the “the rich guys are investing in the sport, so their interests are the sport’s interests” is so unpersuasive – because in most cases the rich guys are investing relatively little in the sport compared to the fans.
And that, I think, is also where the intangible “emotional” investment comes in – because that emotional investment supports a large percentage of, probably a majority of, the financial investment by fans. Emotional investment DOES make fans stakeholders, because without the emotional investment the sport could not continue.
Wastrel - February 7, 2012
I REALLY avoid those investments.
Your last paragraph is the key:
the money is a token of the emotional or identity investment.
But . . . I’m not sure I buy your argument that a fan’s investment in say, a Real Madrid jersey or a ticket somehow makes them a shareholder or stakeholder in the club. That seems as though it assumes that all financial transactions must be structured the same way with the same consequences.
I’ll grant that fans are encouraged to invest financially and emotionally so that they FEEL as though its “THEIR” team, but just because people fall for that does not mean that it’s really a valid point.
For example: here in Texas, probably several hundred thousand people, maybe a million, are seriously invested in the fortunes of the Dallas Cowboys. And yet, because they continue to buy the licensed crap and go to the games and etc. they don’t realize that they are enabling Jerry Jones to continue screwing them over year after year.
R Mc - February 7, 2012
So?
On the one hand, not all stakeholders are active stakeholders. That doesn’t mean they’re not stakeholders. Most of us are stakeholders in major companies via our insurance and pension funds – yet we don’t choose to exercise much control. So the fact that sports fans put up with a lot doesn’t mean they aren’t stakeholders – either economically or (which is the point of the discussion) morally.
On the other hand, just because teams act as though they don’t realise that their fans are stakeholders doesn’t mean that their fans aren’t stakeholders. Sometimes companies don’t act in their own long-term interests.
The point is, that if you say “sport is about pleasing the fat cats, because it’s their money”, that overlooks the fact that in practice, it’s NOT their money, it’s OUR money. If a sport, or a sporting team, is to be succesful, it has to please, or at least placate, its fans. That gives teams an economic incentive to pay attention to what fans want. More importantly, it also yields a moral imperative: it belongs to us, so we’re the ones it should be trying to please. If in practice it does not, that’s a plain old agent/principal paradox, same as you find in any company with shareholders. What annoys me is that in this case the principals like to pretend that they’re the agents.
Wastrel - February 7, 2012
where are the legions of fans protesting doping in football?
(either real or that American knockoff)
R Mc - February 6, 2012
Cycling is "bush league",
if it is, because cycling is about the only sport that’s trying to live up to its own promises and crack down on cheats. Sure, if it permitted drug taking, like other sports, it would do a lot better.
For now, at least. I’m not sure the public will be content to watch rigged races indefinitely.
Wastrel - February 6, 2012
This sort of thing makes my head hurt...
In other words, Contador’s side argued that it’s silly to say the meat was unlikely to be contaminated because it was contaminated, or at least could have been, even though it was unlikely.
Still working my way through.
majope - February 6, 2012
Go to the last couple of pages
ursula - February 6, 2012
I'll get there eventually.
Will my head stop hurting, or explode?
majope - February 6, 2012
Probably explode.
ursula - February 6, 2012
And yet you tell me to skip ahead so it can explode even faster.
Now I know you hate me.
majope - February 6, 2012
that writer should be banned for
at least a month for run-on-sentence abuse
Willj - February 6, 2012
backdated of course.
JustJoshinYa - February 6, 2012
I'm pleased to see that the lawyers are at least acknowledging the concept of conditional probability.
The classic example from the OJ Simpson trial:
(to jury) – The probability that a man will murder his wife is only 0.1%, so there’s only a 1 in 1000 chance that my client is guilty!
[ Failing to note the relevant probability: The probability that a man has murdered his wife given that we know she has been murdered by someone is over 50%. ]
In this case, I think their argument is dubious, and their lightning analogy is false. “Everyone accepts that deliberate ingestion can be ruled out.” Bollocks.
straw dog - February 6, 2012
I'm in two minds as always....
I’ve been around this sport long enough now to be on a level with kimmage and walsh in terms of cynicism and bitterness and I know that Contador is almost definitely guilty of some sort of doping infringement. But a justice system needs to be consistent and the woolly statement of “can’t really prove anything either way” that’s come out of this investigation is ridiculous. The Spaniards are up in arms and rightly so – there wasn’t enough certainty either way to ban him. Strip him of his TDF win by all means because he had clenbuterol in his system and it’s a banned substance but that’s as far as you can go.
PrinceBuster - February 6, 2012
I beat all the teams that had AC on their VDS teams last year, so I'm at peace.
sminer - February 6, 2012
It pisses me off that other sports are so smug too...
Doping has been the scourge of cycling for years but at least cycling has woken up to try and stamp it out.
People seem to think that the fact that these guys dope has something to do with a “lazy” approach to getting fit for a sport. Contador is one of the most dedicated, hardest training, inspirational athletes ever. So is Lance Armstrong. More so than many others…
PrinceBuster - February 6, 2012
Having played rugby in my late teens...
I really can’t believe that cycling is any druggier than other sports. Cyclists I know who played soccer say the same. It seems to me that cycling simply happened to be the first sport that came under the microcope – and should there be a time when some other sports are laid bare like cycling has been, cycling might look quite clean in comparison.
John Cyclopunk - February 6, 2012
I think cycling has a "visual" problem
I don’t mean an image problem. It is just so… exposed. Especially in the high mountains, and time trials, which is what most casual fans see highlights of (particularly, I suspect, in Lance-era US racing). It is just a guy, some skimpy clothing, and a bike. The differences between one man and another are starkly exposed. Any improvements in performance are immediately and quantifiably obvious.
Compare with rugby. 30 guys on a (muddy, often) pitch, very few one on one contacts, not much evidence of incremental improvement until you really start to watch the game and study stats.
Yes, there is the history of cycling, etc, but I think it is the gladiatorial, exposed nature of the combat that makes the impact of drugs starker.
EdredonBrowny - February 6, 2012
Yet rugby seems to me to be one of the most 'visually' troubling sports of all
if you compare the appearance of players now with players, say, twenty or thirty years ago. I heard a deeply disturbing programme on 5 Live about rugby players’ so-called ‘nutrition’ in which ‘real food’ hardly figured, it was all protein shakes & supplements etc. Which is fine, I guess, & no doubt within the rules BUT which also seems to me a kind of governing-body sanctioned bodily arms race with possible worrying outcomes. Their testing is not that great, either.
As for football, from OM under Tapie to Zidane’s days at Juve to ‘blood-spinning’ at Chelsea & ‘diet pills’ at Man City, a whole range of dubious practice is well, if shadily, documented. There’s none so blind as those who will not see.
civetta - February 6, 2012
Take a long look at Tim Tebow's arms . . .
R Mc - February 6, 2012
I would if I knew who he was... ;-)
civetta - February 6, 2012
Or, just about ANY pro in a US sport.
or Wyclef . . .
R Mc - February 6, 2012
I think the long-run 'solution'...
…not that it is one in an absolute sense, but a major step forward at least, is to ban drug-taking. The whole “this drug is a supplement, that drug is a drug” thing is nonsense, to my mind, and almost demands that the grey area thus produced be exploited. If there was a “you can’t inject yourself with anything or eat any pills, or any shake that isn’t just real food that’s been liquidised, unless you have a valid disease that one of our doctors has prescribed you something for” rule, it would be a lot harder a) to deceive young athletes into accidentally cheating, b) to persuade athletes that this injection wasn’t morally any different from that injection, and c) to appease the fans by saying “it may look bad to you, but it’s how sport works”.
Wastrel - February 6, 2012
Referring to what I said above
We have to remember that the UCI is not the executive governing branch in cycling. It appears to be the executive but that’s because they are filling the vacuum of no leadership-poorly too. A true executive would organize the various teams-which is basically what Vaughters is pointing towards. I am saying that if we had that then how the sport treated doping would be different than now because the executive leadership, unlike the UCI, would have less incentive to highlight doping.
ursula - February 6, 2012
Where is the UCI's incentive in this regard?
I think I get what you’re saying, and it’s essentially the Foucauldian argument that any disciplinary regime has an interest in producing more and more criminality in order to justify the further and further investments in disciplinary techniques, but I’d like to hear you explain.
Ed K - February 6, 2012
Don't think that Foucault argument fits
because that’s not how sports with strong executive organizations function wrt doping.
I think you have to add a Baudrillard sorta approach: what these executive bodies want to do is produce the simulation of control or regulation of “criminal” behavior, while leaving the athletes relatively free to conduct doping as usual.
R Mc - February 6, 2012
Not sure they're incompatible...
…the point of discipline in normalizing regimes is not to produce more normality, but to produce everyone as subject to the regime in some way, thus allowing for the extension and ramification of the dispositif. Insofar as the UCI (and WADA too, for that matter) have, as institutions (knowledge/power strucures) a structural imperative to secure their position of importance, they only need to be able to condemn and discover doping, not eliminate it or even reduce it as a functional characteristic of the system.
This, btw, is why i’ve always thought that ‘Forget Foucault’ was Baudrillard’s stupidest book, as if a single thing he was claiming was in any way either incompatible with or went one real step beyond Foucault.
Ed K - February 6, 2012
Right, basically
Realize that I am not up on my Foucault or Boudrillard….been some time.
But basically and probably over simplistically, in a given sport, the organizing power belongs to the owners of teams. Those owners set up an Executive to further the growth of their sport in various ways. Of course different sports do it differently but most are variations on the theme. My guess is that when a sport gets hit with bad PR like cycling does with the doping or say when baseball got hit with doping, there is a correlation between the bad PR and a weak Executive.
Now as far as I can tell, cycling has no Executive. The UCI was not set up by the owners and race providers like ASO were not either. (The ASO to me is vaguely like the owners of a stadium: they provide the venue.) So you get organizations like the UCI and ASO who fill the power vacuum-but they can’t fill it in a traditional way because the team owners do not empower them. Thus in order to exert authority those other orgs (ASO, UCI, WADA, national federations) have to resort to their own power base which by definition isn’t in the best interests of the sport as conceived by the teams.
Or the riders either. The lack of a strong rider union is also a major problem. No one has to factor into the needs of the riders and so rules get set up without rider input. And just like in any government, setting up rules (laws) without any support from the population basically always leads leads to corruption. A simple example here would be the ever lengthening riding calendar. Riders have no say there. But in the NFL when the Commissioner tried to get 2 extra games a year he ran into all sorts of resistance from the players.
ursula - February 6, 2012
This is where Sweat of the Gods is useful
The original “owners” in cycling were the media corps who set up the races.
For quite a while it served their interests (sold papers, etc.) to market the “heroism” of the riders.
These days it strikes me that they have a balancing act in playing both sides of the street, since doping cases also sell papers and drive page hits . . .
R Mc - February 6, 2012
Very true.
In a way cycling just has not evolved like other sports have.
ursula - February 6, 2012
of course
the New York Times has an ownership stake in the Red Sox. So some things do cross over.
Chris Fontecchio - February 6, 2012
Yep
And the last line is perfectly in line with what I say above re: the disciplinary structure of the entire ‘anti-doping’ enterprise, which really, if you think about it, represents a fairly radical change. There was definitely a point where ‘normal’..aka clean were not really high on anybody’s agenda where this or any sport was concerned. Cycling is really becoming a test case (along with Track and Field) for the idea of a normalized sport.
Ed K - February 6, 2012
And judging by negative reactions from many individuals and orgs involved in the sport that aren't part of the judiciary
The CAS is losing credibility with their Contador decision.
ursula - February 6, 2012
Gotcha, thanks.
Ed K - February 6, 2012
But if there was leadership and organisation there would be no point allowing the "sport" to exist.
90% of everything that’s wrong with sport, and only 1% of what is good about it, comes from “leadership” and “organisation” (ie professionalism, fraud, and commercialism). If we follow that route, we quickly arrive at the wasteland of American ‘sport’. I think we can all agree that it would be better to have cycling destroyed entirely than have it end up the moral and aesthetic equivalent of american football.
Wastrel - February 6, 2012
I'm just sorry I missed the chance to comment on Miami Vice
in yesterday’s pre-verdict thread. That faux black Ferrari Daytona Spyder… so sweet.
phantom_51 - February 6, 2012
This is so flawed
Guilty by association.
Again, this is where the sport needs to decide whether it’s:
A. Almost everyone is cheating and we are just lucky to catch the ones we do.
B. Very few are cheating and we catch almost all the ones who cheat and need to rid that sport of that flawed, small % of participants.
I know what I believe, but WADA shouldn’t be trying to establish that Contador cheated based on the fact that many cyclists cheat… OR that means “A” and the rules and the punishments aren’t working and questions whether the pursuit of individual punishment, in this form, is the most desirable option.
LawrenceS - February 6, 2012
Point is, as andrewp said above, that C's original claim cited in 339 is bullshit.
in particular, part about ‘always having been surrounded by people…’
Proves that he’s willing to lie to the court. Doesn’t necessarily prove anything else, but it does prove that.
Ed K - February 6, 2012
ja
I think the rules of relevance on rebuttal pertain to what’s relevant to the claim you’re rebutting, not necessarily the underlying charges. I don’t do trials but once in a blue moon, but I’m pretty sure you don’t have to let him get away with that bullshit. And then you have a credibility issue!
Chris Fontecchio - February 6, 2012
No.
That’s my opinion.
Bert is claiming he knows two things:
1. He hasn’t doped (which is the case at hand)
2. The people around him have rejected the use of doping substances
He doesn’t claim that Riis has never doped, or that his or other’s history are important to Contador. Bert is claiming that they reject the use of doping substances.
How can we know that Riis doesn’t say “Bert, don’t dope for gods sake!” every day.
It’s 100% speculative. It’s equivalent to saying Your a cyclist and many cyclists dope, therefore you saying you haven’t doped is meaningless. You have to prove that, not just speculate that it’s true.
LawrenceS - February 6, 2012
I should clarify
I personally don’t believe the above.
I just think it’s bogus for WADA to site Riis’ previous transgressions as evidence against Contador. Riis doping has nothing to do with Contador doping unless there is evidence of it.
LawrenceS - February 6, 2012
as CAS pointed out
Bert was quick enough to link a farmer with his brother’s past to imply bad farming practice and contamination. Sauce for the goose… In the end CAS said would give no weight to either claim/counterclaim re “environment”
andrewp - February 6, 2012
Yeah, I agree
I just think it’s low of WADA.
I mean, what’s the point of punishing “dopers” or the pursuit of punishment?
This is the question that seems to get lost in these cases.
Is it to reform them? WADA appears to think No, because they still hold Riis’ confession against him and don’t seem to allow for the idea that the application of the rules, or confessions will at all prevent future transgressions.
Is it to ensure a level/consistent application of sporting rules? No. Because the punishments/enforcements are not consistent when guys are caught for similar violations
Is it to eliminate performances that have been enhanced and results that are achieved by assisted means? No. It’s been established that the Clen wouldn’t have had a performance enhancing quality.
So what is the point?
WADA should be focusing on the case in isolation. It’s good that the CAS is able to look at the case with a seemingly more level hand.
LawrenceS - February 6, 2012
not sure agree with all the above
but there are legitimate questions to ask about WADA and its activity and statements throughout the handling of the case.
Lack of cooperation with the tribunal, the guilt by association meme including a potential secret witness (minimal relevance to the actions of 20/21 june – about approximate level to the lie detector result in scheme of things)
A huge amount of time, effort, expense and blood manipulation theory ruled as unlikely as the meat, and the contribution of wading through that mountain of evidence had to the delay in the case.
And that sometimes they seem to forget the “prosecutor” has a duty to the truth as well as to securing a conviction.
See that there post decision quote mentions the political pressure in Spain etc still, which is hardly aimed at defusing the seemingly prevalent opinion in Spain (rightly or wrongly) of a sense of injustice towards its athletes
andrewp - February 6, 2012
Exactly. Even if Contador didn't dope, he still knowingly lied to the court.
Frankly he should be glad that he’s getting off with a “look, we’re not blind. Seriously. Did you actually think we’d fall for that? I mean come on, it’s all public record, we can read a newspaper you know. Now, shall we all pretend you weren’t so ridiculously stupid as to actually try to tell us that, and get on with the serious stuff instead?”, rather than some sort of “don’t lie to the court. in unrelated news, the court has determined that the correct sentence is sixty days in the salt mines for being an ass.”
Wastrel - February 6, 2012
Contador tried to claim innocence by association
WADA are entitled to refute that.
William H - February 6, 2012
Not commenting on A & B
But how is that flawed? AC makes a statement that is somehow meant to work in his defense that is so laughably easy to disprove and WADA call him on it. How is that guilt by association? Contador could have just shut up about his past and it would never have been an issue. (it seems CAS even opted out of hearing a witness with only stories of old stuff to add)
Jens - February 6, 2012
It's flawed because WADA is actively using outside circumstances to build their case
By that logic one could say: “But most champions in cycling are cheats… therefore, it’s more likely you are too.”
Further to that point, it brings up many bigger questions of cheating in cycling.
If your team is doped to the gills and you aren’t, but you draft them, pace them, use them in TTT’s…. are you cheating?
It’s dangerous, even if it is true, for WADA to start saying:
“You claim that you haven’t cheated and also claim you’ve been around “clean” associates. This is untrue, and it increases the likelihood that you are a cheat yourself, although we are appealing your decision as an individual"
LawrenceS - February 6, 2012
Sorry, I didn't see you guys were already talking about this above.
LawrenceS - February 6, 2012
Wow, they really did take Contador's polygraph test into consideration, and decided it added weight to his claims (page 79).
That sound you hear is a thousand athletes rushing over to Amazon.
Still reading…
majope - February 6, 2012
Oh Dear
Ed K - February 6, 2012
That's interesting
When I heard that Contador wanted to rely on a polygraph test, I searched CAS’ site and if I remember correctly, what they said was that they can bring polygraph tests if they like, but CAS will disregard the “evidence”. They referred to the Swiss courts or something like that.
TheFigurehead - February 6, 2012
Indeed
tedvdw - February 6, 2012
yep
minimal weight given, but some good lawyering there by Bert’s team
andrewp - February 6, 2012
so $500/hour laywer came up with the polygraph idea and another group of laywers
bought the argument.
Great.
Uphill - February 6, 2012
Saxo Bank statement
http://teamsaxobank.com/ny_news.asp?n_id=3486
Press conference with Riis and Contador in Madrid tomorrow evening
andrewp - February 6, 2012
From what the Twitter says, this backdating thing may have the (unintended?) consequence...
…of destroying SaxoBank.
Nice.
Ed K - February 6, 2012
And that by far would be the worst part of this whole scenario
Riis may have a checkered past, but he has run a solid team for a while and doesn’t deserve to have it all fall apart because of this backdated scandal.
agl - February 6, 2012
didn’t the former Yellow Jersey winner know about the Contador case when he signed him?
Willj - February 6, 2012
No
Came out weeks after.
Jens - February 6, 2012
ah, ok
Willj - February 6, 2012
I wonder if the ProTeam designation...
could cascade down to the next eligible applicant?
So if AC’s points are deleted, does Project 1t4i (which appartantly missed PT Status by only a few points) get the spot?
MavicMoto - February 6, 2012
Dear CAS
Could I propose a compromise? Take away the 2010 since you believe that is tainted. Leave the 2011 results since they are not, thus not punishing all the other riders who rode in those races. Then impose a one year suspension from today.
Fewest other riders hurt and most results left intact, with a genuine penalty. Is that so hard?
bdr - February 6, 2012
I don't really have anything to add to this topic
… but, nn a more emotional plan, for me, today’s verdict can’t convince me that the clenbuterol was what won Contador the Tour – and that’s probably not what the verdict is all about. It’s just that he’s guilty, guilty of having clenbuterol in his body, not even as doping – and that’s really where I get to shrug my shoulders. The clenbuterol never won him the Tour – that the clenbuterol was part of a blood doping programme is probable but if I was to go with that explanation, I’d have a real hard time believing that none of the other top-GT-competitors weren’t doing the same. That’s all speculation but adds up to Contador, for me, only losing his Tour- and Giro-titles because he was unlucky – or a worse doper than most of the rest of the field.
Again, that’s speculation – but this case is so full of speculation anyway.
The most important lesson from this case is how improvement of the system is so needed. I’m not one for experting on that side but from all of this I think all of cycling would benefit from clearer rules and methods – and borderline cases like these should be kept from the public or just closed from the beginning, instead with focus placed on how to get to a real decision, real evidence, better methods, clearer rules, so cycling will not have to run through more one-and-a-half year cases like these. That would mean some dopers getting away but it would cause much less damage to cycling, with more clear-cut cases, less re-edited results… and more safety for the dopers to know what the margins are to stay ‘officially’ clean.
As I’m no expert in this, can anyone tell me how a 2-year-suspension is justified with CAS ruling out doping as the most probable explanation to the clenbuterol?
Forstoppelse - February 6, 2012
CAS rules that supplement contamination is most likely, but for a reduced sentence
Contador would have to prove what supplement was contaminated and that it got into his body without it being his fault. Since he didn’t, relying solely on the rejected contaminated meat defense, there are no grounds for reducing the sentence (page 93).
majope - February 6, 2012
Interesting to see how a ban starting from 2010 would have affected VDS
I’ll probably do that soon.
kom vuelta - February 6, 2012
In the end, just about everybody gets slapped.
Contador for the contaminated meat defense, UCI/WADA for not giving the Spanish Fed the documents they asked for before they initially ruled. Well, everybody except the Spanish Fed, who, it turns out, really did offer Contador a 1-year ban, only to whimper and roll over when he said no. They get framed as poor folk who couldn’t possibly reach a fair decision without the UCI’s help.
I’m more and more in favor of taking sanctioning decisions away from the national feds and handed to an independent CAS-like body. It would level the playing field tremendously, and presumably reduce CAS’s workload.
majope - February 6, 2012
Thanks for reading/relaying
The little respect afforded the middle-process, the RFEC panel, by everyone involved really supports your conclusion. WADA/UCI didn’t respect it, Contador’s team didn’t and we the fans certainly didn’t respect it and probably with good cause.
Independent sanctioning body with a serious enough process that it is known to all parties that a successful CAS appeal will be the exception and not the norm would go a long way to shorten the process and give it integrity.
Jens - February 6, 2012
+1
Next WADA code should at least insist each country that can afford it had a national panel for all sports, not a national sports body panel for each sport (USADA, AD Denmark, UKAD, NADA in gemrnay etc rather than French cycling fed, spanish cycling fed) and stop countries having both (e.g., Russia) then some progress should be made. Doesn’t stop inconsistencies but does reduce them
RFEC were lucky in a way, escaped most of the criticism it surely deserved as it did apply the right kind of test to the evidence, but the different finding of fact meant none of the rest of the decision (pure bollocks) ever came up for really close scrutiny – and as the CAS decision shows the one year ban option would have been pb too
andrewp - February 6, 2012
yes
civetta - February 6, 2012
This.
The assumption that only CAS will ever make a definitive ruling is a huge part of the problem here, even and especially for those complaining about the length of the process.
Ed K - February 6, 2012
Yeah, I think cutting out the middleman is the best way to go.
It reduces arbitrariness, and it shortens the appeals process.
The UCI should also have no role in it. Give everything to WADA. Have a single Court of Sporting Regulations – like CAS but at a lower level. I fail to see what the point of letting the local federation have its say is, when whichever side the federation sides with the other side will just appeal. Particularly given the abysmal reputation these procedings have – it’s like saying “hey drunk mafia guy, what do you think about this case? oh? yeah? uh huh? yeah, that’s nice, now let’s go to the real court.” Only it takes six months and screws everyone over in the process.
Wastrel - February 6, 2012
I would call this optimizing the process.
Cutting out the middelman. Easy peasy. Everybody can do it.
Uphill - February 6, 2012
This was inevitable I suppose.
Accept it like a man and move on.
DriftNasty - February 6, 2012
I am so sad
I believe the contaminated beef story.
This was the worst possible outcome of the case, a rider innocent of doping getting a 2 year ban.
CAS is saying:
a) clenbuterol from blood-doping: possible, but not likely
b) clenbuterol from contaminated beef: possible, but not likely
But since there WAS clenbuterol in the samples we have to find an explanation, it must have come from some where, so we go with:
Contaminated food supplement, the rider did not dope, he was just unlucky and stupid to take a supplement without having it analysed in the cologne lab first.
If they had proved that it was blood-doping I would have been sad too, but it would have passed and I would have put him in the box with all the other doping sinners and never looked at him again.
Now I have to see the decision as just another proof that the world is not fair, that good and innocent people get punished without reason, and it is not like we don’t have enough of that kind of injustice all ready.
LittleOldLady - February 6, 2012
Backdating pisses me off, because it's different to each rider
Instead of banning Contador as at the date of failed test, they take the RFEC date of judgement, and deduct the time Conti spent at the beach in 2010 (which he does every year anyway). Hey, didn’t he do the Curacao classic in 2010?!!
Valverde gets a backdated ban from an almost arbitrary date, for an offence which is based on supposition and cannot be pinned down to a specific date.
Valverde’s been actually out of racing for longer than Contador, and with Valverde they didn’t really ever prove anything.
Pellizotti and Valjavec got bans from the dates of the instruction to their federations to open bans. And they had provisional bans, which ended, then were implimented again (Valjavec signed for a Turkish Conti team I think for a few weeks). They didn’t get anything backdated initially, but then the final decision once more picked some rather arbitrary series of punishments.
Fines too – Astarloza got heavily fined, Rebellin got no fine at all.
Make it standard – 2yr ban from raising of evidence for suspicion. Rider provisionally banned instantly. Case must be heard within 3 months or athlete is cleared.
If they really do have evidence of their innocence, it’ll happen quickly – see Jesus Rosendo, who was initially banned at same time as Valjavec and Pellizotti, but had it overturned in just over a month as he had proof to justify his blood values etc.
ike2112 - February 6, 2012
I'm kind of past having any thoughts on this.
Or any linear thoughts that can be neatly written down, anyway.
Interesting discussion though. Well done.
Daniel Oss on twitter, translated by me:
I wish, I wish.
civetta - February 6, 2012
Has anyone mentioned the fine yet? (this thread is way too long)
Almost 2.5 million euros. Michel Wuyts just by the way stated that that’s 1/3 of Conta’s yearly salary. Dude’s on a 7.5 million euro salary?!
tgsgirl - February 6, 2012
7.5 million Euro
And he had some dude haul a dodgy steak in an old Seat Ibiza with no aircon across the Pyrenees in the middle of July. The guy deserves a 4 year ban for being cheap.
Jens - February 6, 2012
fine is equal to 70% of base pay (or so I understand)
Uphill - February 6, 2012
I'm very confused by this whole thing
tgsgirl - February 6, 2012
...and this is different how? ;)
ursula - February 6, 2012
where am I?
tgsgirl - February 6, 2012
Hell if I know
I’m lost too.
ursula - February 6, 2012
So we're both on an alternate timeline tropical island?
Cool. Which way is the cocktail bar?
tgsgirl - February 6, 2012
over by the dolphins . . .
with some guy in underwear serving . . .
R Mc - February 6, 2012
So Lost was really just
what goes on Curacao when they’re not racing?
tgsgirl - February 6, 2012
it's well known that Cancellara looks like
an evil black demon bear to the rest of the peloton.
R Mc - February 6, 2012
That's why they call him the Swiss Bear sometimes.
majope - February 6, 2012
The universe implodes!
tgsgirl - February 6, 2012
That’s a stuffed Cancellara (I know the bear)
Willj - February 6, 2012
I think Contador is on a target of about EUR5M with some personal sponsors and
if he delivers on some goals.
70% of base pay will likely come to 2.5M
Uphill - February 6, 2012
There will be a separate ruling on the fine.
majope - February 6, 2012
Wuyts was talking crap
Did you see Vandeweghe (Terzake)?
broerie - February 6, 2012
Wuyts was very confusing
And no, I didn’t. But I fucking hate Vandeweghe, so my blood pressure is happy that I chose to watch QI instead.
tgsgirl - February 6, 2012
uh? QI?
You ’and the Dutchies) should watch it he sums it up perfectly.
broerie - February 6, 2012
Meh, bullshit
He even contradicts himself
tgsgirl - February 6, 2012
Also, shame on you for not knowing QI
http://www.qi.com/tv/
tgsgirl - February 6, 2012
almost 500 comments now...
we need a live race.
JustJoshinYa - February 6, 2012
Which isn't in the middle of a work day
tgsgirl - February 6, 2012
oh yeah...that Qatar thingy is going on...
JustJoshinYa - February 6, 2012
Did Lance win yet?
Jimbo... - February 6, 2012
he won double big
Willj - February 6, 2012
I wasn’t happy with the outcome, but I was happy with the fact there finally was a verdict. That had to be celebrated:
:
broerie - February 6, 2012
Were do we go to talk about are VDS teams again?
I need help determining if I’m prejudiced because I have no American riders and I am American.That should help us fill up some time/space.
This whole thread helps me to see even more than I did that the most sports fans do not seem to see that pro sports are just entertainment.A entertainment industry,like movies and t.v.,funny stuff.
Dustbunny8 - February 6, 2012
Happy Hour
http://www.podiumcafe.com/2012/2/6/2775636/happy-hour-over-here
tedvdw - February 6, 2012
Or here.
majope - February 6, 2012
From reading the comments above,
if they put PdC in charge of the sport (a la UCI), we’d be close to useless too.
brunop - February 6, 2012
I disagree!
Chris Fontecchio - February 6, 2012
Well you would, you corrupt lackey
Jens - February 6, 2012
let's go château hunting in Aigle this weekend
Willj - February 6, 2012
Let’s start a campaign to have the UCI use $2.5mm fine to promote ……
better team kit,Ted King, women’s cyclingWillj - February 6, 2012
Or hire someone capable of running the place.
jsallee00 - February 6, 2012
Hm
As a blogger I don’t know how I feel about McQuaid ever leaving.
Chris Fontecchio - February 6, 2012
One thing that I think is odd
He was provisionally suspended from August 26 2010 to February 14 2011. That’s the 5 months and 19 days. Then his real suspension starts January 25 2010, which should mean that he serves the suspension between that date and February 14 again. Or am I missing something?
TheFigurehead - February 6, 2012
For the scientists.... this bit is enlightening....
from paragraph 130 of the decision
I suspect this was the reason they threw the book at him….
Peter 2 - February 6, 2012
hm
Sort of like getting gangsters on their tax problems…
Chris Fontecchio - February 6, 2012
but they believe the clen was there
due to tainted supplements? there is so much i don’t understand here (and with a lot of other things too).
ant1 - February 6, 2012
its easy
clen there due to beef – extremely unlikely
clen there due to transfusion – extremely unlikely, indeed equally extremely unlikely
clen there due to contaminated supplement – highly highly unlikely but not extremely unlikely
Panel agrees the presence of the clen being in the sample in the first place is very very unlikely indeed, in fact they would go so far to say that no matter how it got there it was an occurrence that can only be said to occupy a place on somewhere on the highly highly unlikely spectrum
But athlete needed to prove beef on balance of probabilities – failed – regretably for him it was just too much more unlikely it happened than some other very highly unlikely thing – so he had to be banned.
Fortunately the panel was spared the onerous task of pronouncing on what they think happened, just which was the less least likely
andrewp - February 6, 2012
so doesn't it seem
to be a bit ridiculous, in the end? Of course you’ll have all the rules are rules people pipe up. Personally i think rules were made to be bent and broken. Impossible to write rules perfectly enough for them to ever work in the real world. Best to have decent people enforcing them and being reasonable and bending when necessary. Otherwise, nothing works.
(agree with the analysis – blood values were weird – doesn’t mean that’s how the clen got there)
yeehoo - February 6, 2012
WADA say
“This is an appropriate decision from CAS which represents the effective nature of the World Anti-Doping Code.”
And hard to argue Contador didn’t receive an extremely fair hearing looking at the decision. He still never “proved” it wasn’t a supplement (which always gets some fault) or the blood, but rather the meat to their satisfaction, and CAS panels always extremely reluctant to go against the Code as written. It is their job to interpret it not write it.
andrewp - February 6, 2012
yeah,
i agree mostly – i just think they have some crazy rules in place. My rules-bending comment is a bit out of place for this current case – more of a general sentiment.
yeehoo - February 7, 2012
I generally think WADA are smarter on these things than us, the DDIFP
The clen rules are designed as they are not out of ignorance or spite but because that is the one way to deter the use of it. You speak of bending the rules and in the case of clen there is even written leeway in the rules. In the case of inadvertent use you can get the suspension reduced to 0, you just have to demonstrate it in a credible way. I don’t see how it could be any more fair and still be a functioning anti-doping tool?
Jens - February 7, 2012
nonsense Jens
nobody is smarter than DDIFPs. and travel to sweden and prove it to you if it didn’t involve going outside and seeing the sun.
ant1 - February 7, 2012
i would think
all the probabilities would have to add up to 1, as clen was found in his body (assuming the test is right). if the 3 options you cite are the only ones, then one would expect to not have found clen in his sample.
ant1 - February 6, 2012
One would indeed expect not to have found clen in his sample
The fact that we DID find clen in his sample informs us that something unexpected would appear to have occurred.
Wastrel - February 6, 2012
basically yes
Despite assessing the reasons for presence all as highly unlikely or above, have to accept a highly unlikely event occurred (clen is there and its precence was undisputed by all parties) the panel need to assess levels of unlikeliness. If you give 32% likelihood to meat, 32% to blood and 34% to supplements, meat never gets to 51% – loses case. Meat always had to be judged more likely than not to have occurred taking all possible reasons into account. Putting meat at 34%, for example, would never be enough.
Contador was doomed at the moment blood was deemed equally extremely unlikely above as there were three potential reasons for presence, never mind that the supplements were marginally less unlikely than both
andrewp - February 6, 2012
Yeah, the "highly unlikely" thing is a little misleading to me...
Those possibilities were highly unlikely BEFORE he tested positive. Once that happened, well, obviously there is some explanation for it. Presumably the “tainted meat” is considered unlikely because there is very little tainted meat in Spain (an independently verifiable fact, or so we’re told). Why is the transfusion scenario unlikely? If it’s just based on some presumption about what Contador would or wouldn’t try to do if he was doping, that seems weak—you just can’t account for what people are thinking, or the mistakes they make. In particular it seems relevant that Contador and his people may not have been aware of how sensitive the testing regime was.
On the other hand, I also wonder if consideration was given to contamination, either accidental or deliberate, of the sample after it was taken.
I guess I need to read the damn decision…
tgartner - February 6, 2012
perhaps helps if scenarios described as
“possible, but highly unlikely”. Panel agrees all could have occurred, and also all are unlikely events. And, yep, only the decision can explain their rationale re transfusion evidence satisfactorily (well over a hundred paragraphs)
andrewp - February 6, 2012
Seeing Scarponi wear #1 at this year's Giro is gonna leave a bad taste in my mouth
Aly Edge - February 7, 2012
he hadn't decided which race he was riding, giro or tdf. but, with this decision, the giro would make more sense (like the tdf ever would make any sense)
umwolverine - February 7, 2012
Riding this year's Tour makes about as much sense for Scarponi as it would for Schleck
The Giro and (even more so this year) the Vuelta are the climbapaloozas. The Tour should be for the true all-rounders, Evans, Menchov, Kreuziger, Sanchez, Nibali, Leipheimer, that lot.
It’s amazing to me that this is so hard for some top-level riders to figure out.
Aly Edge - February 7, 2012
hahaha I feel the exact same way
Davide Don of Rio - February 7, 2012
I'm sure it's just the prestige of the "Tour de France" calling them
But when the route presents a realistic chance that Tony Martin could make the podium (and I’ll actually be a little surprised if he isn’t top-10, unless all OmegaStep’s eggs go in Levi’s basket)…it’s not a route for Andy Schleck or Michele Scarponi.
Or Damiano Cunego, or Joaquim Rodriguez, or any other climb-first rider.
Aly Edge - February 7, 2012
Andy could make it rain on the Giro
his obsession with the TdF is costing him plenty of other success.
Davide Don of Rio - February 7, 2012
Cunego isn't a bad TTer
like J-rod but he certainly would lose to Levi or Wiggins
kom vuelta - February 8, 2012
Can't believe I forgot Wiggins
This might the best shot he ever has to win a Tour
Aly Edge - February 8, 2012
And true that Rodriguez is in a class of his own in terms of sucking at TT'ing
That ITT in the ‘10 Vuelta……the words “holy shit” come to mind. But there are lots of riders who would suffer like him in a route that emphasizes TT’ing in any way – just, probably not as much.
Luckily I’m sure Katusha at least have it figured out. Menchov for the Tour, Rodriguez for the Vuelta. I wonder who they send to the Giro. Probably just stage-hunters.
Aly Edge - February 8, 2012
If Frank Schleck doesn't do the Giro so he can play second fiddle to his brother in July
he would just be…well…a Schleck
Phil H. - February 7, 2012
WorldTour status or not next year for Saxo
It would be in the interest of race organizers to invite whatever team Contador is riding for to any race he wants to compete in. I don’t think even ASO would say no to him riding the 2013 Tour as a wildcard, the media coverage and hype would be tremendous. Probably no other race organizers would (maybe the Giro turns him down?).
Nomer - February 7, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Podium Cafe to post a comment.