You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
So does anyone else still believe he isn't under the influence of beef?
either he's really that good or the others are really crap in comparison.
Liked yesterdays fan who ran in front of him on the Zoncolan with a fishing rod with a steak on the end!
[img] 
[/img]
3 tours, 1 giro, 1 vuelta. Great rider. Love watching him climb.
Love watching him climb.
Dancing on the pedals they say. I don't think I've seen anyone look so relaxed on the climbs.
Personally I'm not keen on him but if he is clean then theres no taking away his ability.
surely even if he'd taken something before he wouldn't do it now with all the attention/testing. so if he's not taking anything now - wow!
contador, the armstrong of this decade....best rider by far and no one can beleive it isn't through doping. Such as shame for cycling.
I find this whole Armstrong witch hunt very annoying.
best rider by far and no one can beleive it isn't through doping
Perhaps, that's because it is?
I don't think I've seen anyone look so relaxed on the climbs.
I think Ivan Basso pre ban looked somehow cooler, and Rasmussen showed that even the skinny gits have to work for their altitude but you're right - he just looks like its 0 effort to knock out a col or two after 150Km.
Irrespective of the doping discussions, I thought that the way he took the yellow from Schleck last year was cheap. Yes, Schleck messed up a gear change by the look of it but even so, his weak arguments about not knowing etc just cheapened the whole thing.
On the climbing alone though, he's awesome although I did like the fact the guy behind him was closing towards the finish yesterday.
On CN there is a thread entitled "Contadors Head"
It's hilarious...
If I believed he was clean then I'd be impressed by the way he rides and attacks, unfortunately though he's not so what he does is an irrelevance and is destroying the Giro as it's totally screwing up everyone else's tactics.
If I believed he was clean then I'd be impressed by the way he rides and attacks, unfortunately though he's not so what he does is an irrelevance and is destroying the Giro as it's totally screwing up everyone else's tactics.
I refuse to believe he'd be so stupid as to risk doping while the Tour scandal is still going on - IMO this is one race where he's guaranteed to be clean.
Mogrim - but he has gained his advantage thru past doping perhaps?
Mogrim - but he has gained his advantage thru past doping perhaps?
What past doping TJ? TJ you're boring.
I am hoping that Andy Schleck has a great tour as well and there is no runaway leader this year.
The past doping he tested positive for. You know - steroids and plastisisers in his blood.
He failed a test. he is a doper and should be banned. its ridiculous he is still allowed to race. Any other sport he would be banned.
And he's still allowed to race, so clearly your wasting your time and energy here. Perhaps you'd be better [s]wasting[/s] spending your time talking to Carlos Castaño asking him why Alberto can continue riding when the experts say he shouldn't. If you look around [url= http://www.rfec.com/ ]here[/url] you might find his email address.
He's only racing because the Spanish Federation didn't follow the rules, which is why UCI/WADA have taken it to CAS. He tested positive for Clenbuterol - the Spanish Federation should have then handed Contador a 2 year ban based on strict liability, then he would have been able to appeal based on his 'ate dodgy beef' story.
If the proper process had been followed Contador wouldn't be riding the Giro, and in all likelihood he'll win it, then have the title stripped from him when his hearing at CAS comes up in June. Any ban would start from when he tested positive, which was last July.
And that's not even bringing the plasticizers into it.
The plaastacisers is just internet rumor..
I don't think he will be banned. The Spanish Fed would not had cleared him if there was not some form of evidence that supported his story.
It wasn't the Spanish Federation's place to clear him in the first instance. It should have been an automatic 2 year ban for a positive test, then they would hear Contador's appeal and decide if he had a case for having the ban overturned, reduced or left at 2 years.
His story is irrelevant. Strict liability should apply as it does in every other sport. You can get shorter bans for accidental ingestion as Alain Baxter did but he still lost his bronze olympic medal and got a 3 month ban (IIRC)
The very fact he is racing in the Giro shows the contempt the Spanish federation have for the rules and that doping in cycling is still not taken seriously.
He failed a drug test he should be serving a ban.
FTFYThe Spanish Fed would not had cleared him if there was not some form of [s]evidence that supported his story.[/s] backhander
I seriously doubt there's any past advantage to be gained from doping over a year ago, though.
Agree that he should have been banned, though I think a year would have been more than sufficient. Sad to say he failed the test, and the strict liability clause means a ban.
@mogrim - even if there's no ratified test for what he's doing?
So you're saying ban him for something, just in case? By that same token, ban all the riders! Even Cavendish: after all, there's no ratified test for whatever it is he's on!
The very fact he is racing in the Giro shows the contempt the Spanish federation have for the rules and that doping in cycling is still not taken seriously
There's no contempt for the rules, they've done everything they can to wriggle out of them - following them to the letter. In part it's the cultural difference between common law (the spirit of the law) versus napoleonic code (the word of the law).
The international rules are clear I thought. Strict liability applies. Fail a drugs test get a ban
He went down in my estimations when he dropped schleck during his chain incident in last years tour. He is an amazing climber no doubt at all.
I'm talking about testing for plasticizers to catch autologous doping but you're right there's a lot more than just Contador doing it however if plasticizers really did show up in his dodgy sample then at least that's direct evidence and it explains the presence of a trace of clenbuterol (there would be little point him using it on it's own on a rest day in a stage race in such a small quantity).
Dancing on the pedals they say. I don't think I've seen anyone look so relaxed on the climbs.
Yes you have...
Mr LA himself, of course he never ate any dodgy beef to achieve his climbing ability 🙄
Trouble is I liked LA, he just consumed what his competitors consumed. Contador doesn't have that excuse.
The Spanish Federation also dragged their heels on dealing with Valverde, and again it took the CAS to force them to ban him. Like Contador, Valverde was able to ride until the inevitable CAS decision.
I like him and I think it's great that so many people get themselves all wound up over it. Makes it all tthe more exciting! 😀
Wasn't the amount found in his samples absolutely tiny and in no way possible capable of giving him any sort of advantage?
And I woon't expect him to be so silly as to be doping at the moment, so his recent perfomance is all down to his natural ability. Maybe, just maybe, he is actually clean, you know? Ever considered that?
There was a fair amount of anti-Contador vitriol before the doping scandal. Lot of people don't want him to succeed, for some reason.
I thought that the way he took the yellow from Schleck last year was cheap. Yes, Schleck messed up a gear change by the look of it but even so, his weak arguments about not knowing etc just cheapened the whole thing.
See? 😆
I loved the way he showed no mercy, and punished Schleck. It's a race, not a popularity contest ffs. I love the way he looks round at other riders, right into their eyes, almost mocking them, then accelerates away from them. I do that to people on climbs; it destroys their spirit. Crush the weak like the dogs they are! 😈
You can get shorter bans for accidental ingestion as Alain Baxter did
Oh here we go. So some Scottish ski-ist 'accidentally' ingested something, but Contador is definitely a cheat? Cos, like, that's fair and balanced, of course. 🙄
What a lot of nonsense some of you lot spout.
I hope Bertie goes and wins for the next five years. Make you lot even more peed-off.
That would please me immensely. 🙂
Elf - he failed a drug test by the rules he should be banned. Amounts and how it got there is only relevant to the length of the ban.
I used Alain Baxter as an example as he did accidently ingest and still lost his olympic medal and got a ban. However as it was accidental it was a short ban
I used Alain Baxter as an example as he did accidently ingest
Yeah. Right. Course he did. 😉
Cos like, you're not biased at all in favour of some Scottish ski-ist against some swarthy Spaniard, are you? Oh not, not at all vicar....
😆
Keep going. I love all this.
When all said and done, you can't polish a turd!
He has to be good to get to the grand tour stages, to be accused of doping in the first place. If it was just a case of taking drugs we'd all be at it!!!
Elf - I suggest you look up the Baxter case.
Can't be bothered. Not actually interested. Find it amusing that you stick up for one bloke what happens to be Scottish, yet are quick to condemn someone else who claims to have also accidentally ingested something (which is entirely possible, after all).
You just don't like Bertie cos more ladies fancy him than fancy you. That's what it's all about, isn't it?
[img] 
[/img]
Look, he's mocking you.
Because he knows he's better than you...
Alain Baxter tested positive, got served a ban, lost his medal. The length of ban was changed on appeal, but the appeal to get his medal back was unsuccessful though as he still had tested positive and strict liability applied. Process followed.
If the Spanish had followed procedures, Contador would've been banned, appealed and if he could have produced enough evidence to support his beef story could have had the ban shortened or overturned. The amount of Clenbuterol was tiny, but the fact that it was there returns a positive result and should see a ban.
TJ is bang on. Failed drug test = ban, which can then be appealed and if there are found to extenuating circumstances then the ban can be reduced. Allowing AC to race the Giro is plain wrong.
baxter and contador are not similiar. Baxtor used a product that is fine to use here but the US version had a banned substance and he could prove this
Contador ate some imported beef and he has all the evidence that repeating the sentence can provide.
His sample contained a trace amount of methamphetamine - albeit the inactive levorotary isomer of methamphetamine - levomethamphetamine (aka levMethamphetamine), an isomer with no significant stimulant properties......Baxter was able to confirm later that the trace had originated from a Vicks inhaler bought in the United States. He had been unaware that the contents were different from those found in the UK version. The International Ski Federation accepted his explanation and banned him for the minimum of 3 months.
Hmmm where did I read the Clebuterol issue was perhaps more related to how he ingested it, rather than via dodgy Spanish beef (not that he upset the Spanish beef producers claiming it was them) but perhaps that the blood it was in was contained in a bag (similar to a Camelbak bladder)...
So the suggestion was that he used it to train and that a tiny amount was left in his blood when it was removed from his body, which was not the rest day in the TDF 2010.
The fact that he started off with Manolo Saiz / Once from the age of 16 would have no relationship to his propensity to dope 😯
Baxter was able to confirm later that the trace had originated from a Vicks inhaler bought in the United States. He had been unaware that the contents were different from those found in the UK version. The International Ski Federation accepted his explanation and banned him for the minimum of 3 months.
Now that's a handy excuse, ideal masking agent?
I don't think anyone questioned Baxters excuse. He still got banned and still lost his medal under strict liablity .
yes he used a banned substance to mask the banned substances he was taking 🙄
His story is irrelevant. Strict liability should apply as it does in every other sport.
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sportspeople_cleared_of_doping_charges ]This list[/url] will support TJ in every aspect that strict liability applies to all sports and under no circumstances have mistakes been made, especially not by anyone here.
Lol @ DS's list - whose argument is that shite supporting ?!
cocaine, moi ? good lord no, though I did lick some birds nostrils in a nightclub 🙄
I once touched a lady's bottom in a nightclub. 😮
It's ok though, because she let me. 🙂
she only let you 'cos you told her you were famous, I bet
don - you may want contador to be innocent but he is not
Non of those listed are comparable apart from the ****stani cricketers and ev en they were found guilty and pardoned later.
Strict liability applies in drug testing - that is it does not matter how it got in your system if it is in there you are guilty of doping.
Contadoer had clembutarol in his system. No techincal irregularities in the testing. Procedures followed properly. He should be serving a ban by the rules.
It just shows how soft cycling and the spanish federation are on doping. The spanish federation have previous as well.
she only let you 'cos you told her you were famous, I bet
Oh dear. I think I'm going to need a superinjunction... 😳
don't tell anyone but I told some burd I was Ryan Giggs a while back
DS that list is poor if it proves anything it is that other sports are also culpable of letting stars off and doing tests badly.
Ps my fav was the snow boarder cleared of dope smoking as it was not on the banned list at the time.
I note there is a cleared cyclist who was found guilty of the same substance who then produced a medical certificate to explain his test result. So I await his Drs note then.
Is there a similar one with a vague claim about contaminated meat not substantiated by any other corroborating evidence anywhere?
I also wish he was clean and I am not fully sure of why it was there tbh but his excuse is piss poor and not very believable IMHO. If he could produce credible evidence he could get a reduced ban but no ban seems kind to the point of ignoring the rules.
don - you may want contador to be innocent but he is not
And the bit where I said innocent until proven guilty and it is CAS and not wee little internet chappie who'll prove him guilty, and that'll I will accept the ruling. You on the other hand can only see guilt and will still scream guilty if CAS find him innocent.
tbh but his excuse is piss poor and not very believable IMHO.
Unfortunately you'd need to be aware of how the farmers operate here, and inspite of TJ's superior knowledge he doesn't know what goes on here. Clenbuterol being fed to animals, based on personal experience, is plausible. Again sending staff out across the border to Spain is plausible, are you aware of how the Spanish love Spanish food. Forgetting which butchers and not having the food checked is a little dubious. Trust me I probably know the Spainsh, and members of the Spanish Federación, a bit better than TJ and am not talking about things naïvely.
This I think has only been done 2 or 3 thousand times. TJ has convinced himself without any facts and will probably spout all types of shite if Alberto gets a ban about how he knew all along. He will also choose to select which bits of my posts he wants to use for best effect, strange really as on other threads he'll completely ignore me, which is no bad thing... 😈
Don - he failed a drug test. He is guilty. That is a fact. He had clembuterol in his body therefore he is guilty.
You cannot get away from this. it is not unsubstanciated allegations it is a fact. He failed a drug test.
~What about this says to you he is innocent until proven guilty - he has been proven guilty of having clembuterol in his body.
are you aware of how the Spanish love Spanish food.
I am! 😀
I've known a fair few Spains, and they do like their proper Spainish grub, it has to be said. They'll bring suitcases full of foodstuffs of back over with them when they come back from trips home. Chorizo, Jamon, cheese, olive oil, tins of squid, octopus etc, all sorts. All of it positively [i]dripping[/i] with Glen Butronol. Possibly.
Trust me I probably know the Spainsh, and members of the Spanish Federación, a bit better than TJ
Don Simon lives in Sapin. So this is probbly true, TJ.
TBh, TJ hazzunt really provided any proper evidence type stuff against Contador, and clearly has an agenda against the poor lad.
Here he is, with not one, but [i]two[/i] pretty ladies kissing him. Whilst looking mockingly at TJ.
[img] 
[/img]
Elf - contador failed a drug test. There is no doubt about this.
Look at him mocking you, TJ.
Because he knows he's better than you.
I am prettier than him
TJ has convinced himself without any facts
yes the failed drug test is not a fact and when you compare it to the Spanish love of their food and inability to prove the given account I can see why you mock his view.
I am glad you know the Spanish authorities and can speak knowledgeably about Spanish farmers ...is he calling you as a witness with your evidence?
I thought it was just the japanese that made fake whisky - no wonder TJ's pissed offGlen Butronol
~What about this says to you he is innocent until proven guilty - he has been proven guilty of having clembuterol in his body.
Erm... Let me think on this one.... I know... I'll get it in a minute.... Bear with me... It's on the tip of my tongue... No, no don't help me...
Is it because he's still racing and NOT actually banned?
He is not banned because the spanish authorities broke the rules not to ban him hence it is going to the international body where he will be banned.
There is no defence. he had clembuterol in his body he is guilty.
I don't know why you find this so hard to understand.
Wether he was banned or not has no bearing on the fact that he is guilty of having clembuterol in his body.
I am prettier than him
No you're not.
Here he is, pointing and laughing at you for not wearing a helmet:
[img] 
[/img]
It's not a court of law, it's rules of sport of a governing body. He tested positive so is guilty. Under normal procedures he would be banned, and it would then be up to him to prove his innocence to overturn the ban. It's the fact the Spanish Federation aren't following the procedures they're required to under UCI/WADA/IOC rules that it's been referred to CAS who will likely again force the Spanish Federation to follow rules.
For the same reasons you can not understand that if he is allowed to race then nothing wrong has been done. He does not get a ban if he can show that there is a reasonable explanation regarding the Clenbuterol in the body, the RFEC were satisfied, all legal and above board. CAS have the right to appeal, and are and if they agree with the story-No ban. Why can't you understand that?
The RFEC came to that decision by not following the rules they are required to abide by, which is why it's gone to CAS. This is why UCI/WADA referred it to CAS. It was not RFEC's role to decide whether his explanation was reasonable, they should have banned him. Contador then could have appealed and made his case. Them's the rules. They broke them, and could be facing expulsion from the IOC before long because of it.
They broke them, and could be facing expulsion from the IOC before long because of it.
Not seen that, links?
Because it is not right. You don't understand the rules. It does not matter how the clembuterol got into his body under WADA rules he is guilty and must be banned. Accidental ingestion gets him a short ban not the 2 years that he gets for deliberate.
Teh spanish federation are in breach of WADA regulations. Article 9 and 10 especailly
I suggest you read the WADA regs
It was on links from Bikeradar Pro Race forum. The Spanish Federation's inability to follow procedures with regards Valverde and Contador and other cases/investigations were causing rumblings.
He does not get a ban if he can show that there is a reasonable explanation regarding the Clenbuterol in the body
Nope - that's not the rules. Hence why Baxter was banned.
CAS ... if they agree with the story-No ban
Even if they believe the story (for which there is what evidence?) I'd be very surprised by that.
Why can't you understand that the only reason he isn't banned is because the rules haven't been followed, not because he's innocent? I'm quite confident that you'll shortly find that Contador only has 2 TdF wins (and those only because they didn't catch him).
For the same reasons you can not understand that if he is allowed to race then nothing wrong has been done.
You are missing the point all we have now is him and the decision makers breaking the rules. If this constitutes innocence to you then no amount of logic is going to sway you. He did have the drug in his bodyand the relevant authorities did not enforce the rules properly.
None of this is actually debatable it it is what happened and CAS will almost certainly find him guilty.
... and the Giro organisers will be in the farcical situation of stripping the overall winner of his Maglia Rosa a couple of weeks after winning it. They didn't want him there precisely because of this.
None of this is actually debatable it it is what happened and CAS will almost certainly find him guilty.
And I will repeat for the umpteenth time, if/when CAS find him guilty I will accept it and not before.
TJ, point ne to the bit you want me to read. please?
Don Simon, you're not FrenchFighter on the bikeradar forum are you?
Don Simon, you're not FrenchFighter on the bikeradar forum are you?
Err, no. Why?
Article 9 and 10. its very clear. Strict liability applies. 10.5.2 especaillly
unfortuatly you cannot copy and paste off it.
However to paraphrase if a test is failed then disqualification is automatic. article 9
10.5.2 if they have no significant fault or negligence then bans can be reduced
GUILTY. The dope was in his system ergo he should be banned. Whether it was intentional or not is yet to be proved. Those are the rules, it's really quite simple.
Elf - he's short & not that good looking but hey maybe short ugly blokes are your type.. 😉
A poster there that similarly has defended Contador against the same arguments. Sorry, my mistake.
Elf - he's short & not that good looking
He's better looking than you. As many women will testify.
Let's have a look at your mug then. Come on.
And what's wrong with being short? Prince is short, and he's way sexier than you. And so am I.