Alberto Contador, who should learn within the coming week what punishment if any is to be imposed on him by the Spanish national cycling federation following his failed test for clenbuterol in last year’s Tour de France, which the cyclist insists is due to his having eaten a contaminated steak, has presented further evidence including “new information” in a last effort to escape a ban.
The RFEC said last month that it intends to ban the former Astana rider, now with Saxo Bank-SunGard, for a year, and Contador has said that he intends to fight any ban. Talking to Spain’s Radio Nacional, as reported on the website of the Spanish sports daily Marca, the 28-year-old continued to reinforce his insistence that tainted meat lay behind the presence of clenbuterol in his urine.
Although it’s not clear exactly what new evidence has been given to RFEC ahead of its decision, Contador says that "With the documentation submitted and the two new items we've introduced there is hope that this changes matters. The rule says there must be responsibility and negligence on the part of the athlete to apply for a sanction to be applied.
“One athlete tested positive for Mexico, where they use clenbuterol on cattle, but in the European Union meat passes through controls and it is forbidden to raise livestock with this substance. I could not have believed that this meat was contaminated.”
That, Contador believes, gives him a strong enough case to demonstrate that he is free from blame, enabling him to benefit from UCI rules that can absolve a cyclist or provide for a shorter ban in certain circumstances, with the three time Tour de France winner saying, "It's the perfect case to demonstrate the absence of negligence, and if this principle is not used, none of this makes sense.”
Anti-doping rules do not set a minimum threshold when it comes to clenbuterol, meaning that even the tiniest amount of the substance is enough to return a positive test, as happened in Contador’s case, but the cyclist says he is relying on Articles 296 and 297 of the UCI’s anti-doping rules.
Article 296 provides that a ban can be eliminated “if the rider establishes… that he bears No Fault or Negligence,” although the onus is on the cyclist to “establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his system in order to have the period of Ineligibility eliminated.”
The wording of Article 297 differs and applies to cases where the rider establishes he has “No Significant Fault or Negligence,” presumably less onerous to prove than under Article 296, but which at most sees any ban only reduced by half, and again the cyclist must demonstrate how the substance came to be in his system.
Referring to how his case has progressed, Contador said, “At first it was a nightmare, and now is a feeling of disappointment. When they say a year’s ban and you see that the work you’ve done has been for nothing, you sink. But now I have hope,” he insisted, adding, “I will fight to the end.
Contador, who comes from just outside Madrid, also revealed that he had received support from Barcelona coach Pep Guardiola, who spent several years in an ultimately successful attempt to clear his name after testing positive for nandrolene while playing in Italy.
"Guardiola did not stop until he was acquitted,” said Contador. “It is a similar case to mine. It is sad that so much time went by until he proved his innocence. Now the experts know that a threshold has to be set for clenbuterol. Until we change the rules, no barriers will be established and unfair cases will be punished,” he maintained, adding that he and Guardiola had “exchanged some messages” when news of his failed test became public.
In the interview, Contador also reiterated comments made in recent days that he had changed his mind about retiring from cycling if he were banned due in part to the public support he had received, and also stated that he did not believe that he had been persecuted by the authorities.
He added he won’t touch steak again during big races for as long as he continues to be a professional cyclist.
Add new comment
44 comments
it works like this:
1) the times on my computer are the ones i'll go by
2) erm, that's it
Chris, you need to take 4hrs off any guess you make by the looks of things
I reckon he'll be in before that.
I'm saying 14:02 (that's GMT for Chris's benefit )
so have i got this right? his new defence is
It was definately in the meat, but because it couldn't possibly have been in the meat because of the rules in europe then he couldn't have known it would be there which is why he ate it, even though it was definately in the meat, although he knew it wouldn't be which is why he ate it....
eh? baldrick could have had a better plan
edit: too slow, think ive picked up the same point as big dummy but he said it better
Hang-on, how does the timing work ?
On my page it says Barry posted his comment at 15:09 predicting a 14:54 Elfstoning.
And my comment above was 16:11. Anyway assuming a couple of hours to build up sufficient outrage I reckon about 1hr 45mingfrom now, whatever time my post comes up as.
"I could not have believed that this meat was contaminated.”
Sorry. I don't understand. He has a banned performance enhancing drug in him. He claims it got in via a steak he ate. But now he claims that he couldn't have believed that the steak had the substance in it, because steak doesn't have this stuff in, apart from in Mexico.
As the steak didn't come from Mexico, this makes it LESS likely that his explanation for the presence of the drug in his body is in any way true or even plausible.
It elevates his "steak defence" to the status of Landis' claim that a massive amount of synthetic testosterone can be produced by drinking 2 beers and a whiskey or Tyler Hamilton's that the vast amount of foreign blood in him belonged to a phantom twin whose life essence entered Tyler while they shared the same womb. Or am I missing something?
@BigDummy I think to be fair that claiming he 'could not have believed' is probably best translated into UK legalese as saying he had a reasonable belief that the steak would not be contaminated.
Therefore under the rules they are citing he cannot be held to have been responsible or negligent.
In common law we are held responsible for something we can reasonably foresee. If you put a gorilla in a cage and tie it shut with a bit of string, then the gorilla escapes and attacks someone you cannot claim that it was not your fault, because it was reasonably foreseeable.
On the other hand if you take all due precautions and some unpredictable event happens, such as the gorilla has mastered the art of picking locks, then you might not be liable.
Sadly the perfectly foreseeable possibility that you might kill or injure someone if you are not paying attention while driving a tonne or more of metal at high speed has been replaced by the ridiculous rules of careless driving which allow people to get away with what should be manslaughter.
Elfstone: I say he's not gonna do it this time. A non-runner.
I haven't even read the story, I came straight down to the comments to see if Alberto's friend had made an appearance.
Perhaps HE WILL NOT RETURN.
The thing is, he's not a friend of Alberto is he? Elfstone always starts off 'If Alberto were a close personal friend...'. So, the world awaits the twelfth coming of the Elfstone. In the meantime, I'm going to find out who Alberto is and what he's supposed to have done...
15:08
Will he be eating any plasticizers in the future?
He'll be eating his words soon enough, with any luck
ELFSTONE COMMENT SWEEPSTAKE: I'm going for 14:54
hahaha! I'm going for 15:12. Office schwag for the winner. who else is in?
And the winner is?
Pages