but from what I read, experts said that it couldn't have been enough if he didn't test positivie in his previous test and only tested positive for 40 picograms (I think it was) in the next one.

If it was the meat or not, idk, but it sounds unlikely he or the team's medical staff would give him such a useless amount.

He was declared innocent at first, but then they appealed and declared him guilty in the second trial because according to the rules they have to bann him if he is tests positive.

i'm not exactly an expert, but clenbuterol only stays in your system for a short time (like 2 days or so). and all i know is that SOME experts say it is POSSIBLE. and i don't deny that.

my question is: is it PLAUSIBLE?
considering all the facts (every single meat test being negative / all professionals being extra aware with their food and medication / clenbuterol being a commonly used ped / contador's dominating performances in a doping ridden sport / his relation to known doping experts) say no - HIGHLY UNLIKELY!

don't they test him every day during the Tour though? (idk, I thought they did, at least on tv they make it look as if they are constantly being tested)

and he was also dominating before that Tour, and he's started winning again now that he's back in form; he is a top cyclist

the fact is there is no proof that he doped himself though, if it wasn't for the rule that says positive test must be punished, he'd have been declared innocent (which is what happened in the original trial)

i think they only test like 10 riders per stage...
but even if he was tested every single day, there is still the possibility that it was in an (also illegal) blood transfusion, because clenbuterol is often used in pre-season to lose fat and gain lean mass...




that actually supports my point, because ALL experts say that it's absolutely impossible to not only compete on a high level but being that dominant in a sport full of cheaters without cheating yourself, no matter how big your talent / determination is...




so after all that (every single meat test being negative / all professionals being extra aware with their food and medication / clenbuterol being a commonly used ped / contador's dominating performances in a doping ridden sport / his relation to known doping experts) you still think he's clean?
just because what they actually found was illegal but enough to enhance his performance at the time they discovered it? i really did not expect you to be that naive / biased...

it's not a matter of being naive, it's that I believe that people should be treated according to "innocent until proven guilty"

and if he did do anything ilegal only the blood transfusion would make sense (still there is no evidence of this either), in which case he wouldn't have been given such a harsh bann

wait, let's be clear here. i'm not saying you're naive for thinking he should only be punished for what they were able to prove. no, that's perfectly fine. they "just" found small amounts of clenbuterol (still illegal according to the rules, thus the ban & loss of titles) and just punished him for that.

but i'm talking about what we think really happened and not about what they were able to prove.
and in my opinion, if you really BELIEVE his "contaminated meat" story and think he is absolutely clean, but still dominating a sport full of cheaters... then i can just say that's either extremely naive or extremely biased, sorry.

so do you believe in ullrich's innocence, too? because he was banned just for alleged relations to a certain dr. fuentes... that's hardly proof, is it?
then why do you welcome the decision that he doesn't get the titles from 2000, 2001 & 2003, when he finished 2nd behind armstrong?

I don't believe he took clenbuterol on purpose; judging by the amounts detected, it wouldn't make sense imho.
I do consider a transfusion possible.
I consider Contador's sirloin theory possible aswell, although, yes, it is a longshot.



I don't know enough about Ulrich's case to judge



because we don't know what would have happened if Arsmtrong never competed in those Tours; those races would have been different, and so maybe Ulrich or a team mate that assisted him could have been injured or fallen, or whatever; maybe the psychological pressure would get to him; maybe one day he'd eat something that affected him and made him run out of stamina in the decisive moment (like with Indurain's never achieved 6th Tour)... there could be infinite possible scenarios without Armstrong. I was never happy Oscar Pereiro got the Tour after Landis was disqualified either.

so, transfusion (illegal) possible, tainted meat possible but unlikely but you still think he's a clean rider who dominates a dirty sport? sounds somewhat inconsistent...




well, but that's true for every sporting event ever. if you apply that logic (basically chaos theorie's butterfly effect), no medal / no placement should ever be re-awarded... consequently, every event, a cheater participated in should be nullified...

I meant that I admit it sounds like something really strange, but it has been backed up by both cyclists and scientists, so I don't see why it should be discarded.



I believe a disqualification should not alter any athlete's position in the competition, I'm not saying the competition should be nulified. So if the cheater finishes 9th, there is simply no 9th spot, the 10th stays 10th and so on.

"backed up by scientists" - that sounds like it's not strange or unlikely anymore then. again, it IS possible (that's the reason we hear it from so many athletes who get caught dirty) - but what are the odds?

anyway, you're kinda wriggling about here... "should not be discarded"... ya, well... all i want to know is if you really believe he is clean and just so good that he even dominates cheaters. a simple question really...
because that is (in my and most expert's opinion) literally impossible. combined with the high unlikeliness of his story that paints a rather conclusive picture...




i see, but don't the athletes deserve a fair chance to win one of the medals / podium places even if there is a cheater amongst them?
let's take this years olympic games for example. in the "female" shot put event, the winner from belarus was disqualified for doping. so according to your method, none of the other athletes ever had a fair chance to win a gold medal, isn't that unfair?

This post was edited by fender on Oct 29 2012 07:21pm