Tripleshot Cycling

Whooooaaaa:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/01/ ... ays_157185

Andy wins the tour! I guess dropping his chain didn't matter after all.

gav_eaton wrote:Whooooaaaa

It's an outrage. This will be appealed. WADA will take it to CAS and get it upped to two years, which it should have been to start with.

Roland wrote:Andy wins the tour! I guess dropping his chain didn't matter after all.

I loved reading a report of Andy's comments to L'Equipe, also coincidentally published today, that he didn't really mean his hug on the Tourmalet.

The reason for 1 yr instead of 2.

Marca said the Spanish Cycling Federation will propose a sanction of one year rather than two because “no one has been able to show how the substance entered” his body, together with the minute quantity of clenbuterol detected.

I wasn't aware that the mechanism by which the drug was introduced is a factor. Certainly sets a precendent for future cases if it holds up.

AlW wrote:I wasn't aware that the mechanism by which the drug was introduced is a factor.

Clentador should get two years for his clenbuterol positive, or he should be acquitted if he can show that it wasn't his fault. The one year cop out is more crap from the Spaniards (see Valv-Piti) and I think it'll be bumped up to two years on appeal.

a few notes on the "rules"
In doping cases there is a rule of “strict liability”. Basically if it’s in your body then you are guilty. However there are also what are known as “Exceptional Circumstances”.

EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES do not eliminate the anti-doping rule violation but in limited situations the applicable period of Ineligibility or suspension may be reduced or eliminated. The Athlete has the burden of convincing the Doping Tribunal that he or she is entitled to rely on:
– No Fault or Negligence; or
– No Significant Fault or Negligence


NO FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE

The Athlete must convince the Doping Tribunal:

(i) that there was an absolute lack of fault or careless conduct on the part of the Athlete in connection with the anti-doping rule violation; and

(ii) identify how the substance entered the Athlete’s body.

 If the Athlete satisfies the test then the period of Ineligibility or suspension will be entirely eliminated.

 It is not enough to claim “inadvertent” or “no knowledge” regarding the substance.
 The Athlete must demonstrate to the Doping Tribunal that he or she did not know or suspect, and could not reasonably have known or suspected even with the exercise of utmost caution that he or she had Used or been administered the Prohibited Substance.
 only applies to Athletes who are alleged to have violated the anti-doping rules associated with Presence (Rules 7.16 to 7.20) and Use (Rules 7.21 to 7.23).
 An example of NO Fault or Negligence would be if you proved that a competitor spiked your water bottle for example

It cannot be:
 a positive test resulting from a mislabeled or contaminated vitamin or nutritional supplement (Athletes are responsible for what they ingest);
 the administration of a prohibited substance by the Athlete’s personal physician or trainer without disclosure to the Athlete (Athletes are responsible for their choice of medical personnel and for advising medical personnel that they cannot be given any prohibited substance);
 sabotage of the Athlete’s food or drink by a spouse, coach or other person within the Athlete’s circle of associates (Athletes are responsible for what they ingest and for the conduct of those persons to whom they entrust access to their food and drink).

NO SIGNIFICANT FAULT OR NEGLIGENCE

 The Athlete must establish that his or her fault or negligence, viewed in the totality of the circumstances, and also considering the criteria for No Fault or Negligence, was not significant in relationship to the violation that occurred.

 The Athlete must also establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his or her system.

 If the Athlete can establish both components of the test the period of Ineligibility or suspension may be reduced by up to 50%. (so this is where they are trying to give Contador “time off” but see the bullet point above – their reason doesn’t match the rules)

Overall I think he ought to have received 2 years UNLESS he PROVED to the "comfortable satisfaction" of the Doping Tribunal that the clenbuterol came from the meat. If he did prove it came from the meat (to the "comfortable satisfaction of the Doping Tribunal) it is within their power to reduce the penalty by up to 50% so a 2 year sanction becomes a 1 year sanction.

The press reports seem to indicate that no one proved the source and in these cases it is 100% up to the athlete to prove the source if they wish to rely on either category of Exceptional Circumstnaces. Without proving the source of the clenbuterol he should get 2 years no matter what .

Peter

Well, I doubt it will be the UCI appealing. Here's a really funny annotated copy of Hein Verbruggen's manifesto against doping in th elate 90's. It's funny because of his pompous language, and how hopelessly blind (or complicit) he actually was.

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/52651 ... gIntro.pdf

Looks Like Andy isn't into having a win by 'default.'

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/01/ ... ner_157300

Interesting Clenbuterol overview from Velonews' Explainer:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/01/ ... rol_146328