Alberto Contador’s ban: WADA load of nonsense

Felix Lowe Columnist

By Felix Lowe, Felix Lowe is a Roar Expert

 , , , , ,

30 Have your say

    Alberto Contador leading out Cadel Evans. AP Photo/Christophe Ena

    Related coverage

    It took 585 days (and will rumble on for at least another 30) but finally the outcome of the 2010 Tour de France has been settled: CAS upheld an appeal by the UCI and WADA, banning Alberto Contador for two years.

    Original runner-up Andy Schleck will take the crown after, stripping the Spaniard of his third Tour title and subsequent UCI wins.

    If you read the 96-page report that the Court of Arbitration for Sport filed on the case, it seems like it was based on a rejection of Contador’s contaminated meat defence – even though CAS stressed that it could not be proven that he did or did not dope.

    The whole sorry affair certainly underlines the problem with strict liability cases, in which a person is held legally responsible for the damage and loss caused by his or her acts and omissions regardless of culpability.

    Unless the accused can prove his innocence he is guilty even if guilt has not been established – a total reversal of the normal principle of innocent until proven guilty.

    So while Bjarne Riis, Contador’s directeur sportif at Saxo Bank, can stress that the report finds the presence of clenbuterol as “unlikely to have been a case of conscious cheating”, this is neither here nor there at this late stage of proceedings.

    Conversely, the ruling still didn’t stop the World Anti-Doping Association president John Fahey letting off some steam and telling Reuters that the outcome of the appeal proved that “Contador is a doping cheat, full stop.”

    How Fahey came to this conclusion – and it certainly wasn’t through the CAS report – is unknown. Maybe he knows something we don’t?

    Fahey added that Contador may have got off with the one-year ban initially proposed by the Spanish Cycling Federation – but once the RFEC exonerated the rider and a senior Spanish politician stressed the rider’s innocence in a statement, “WADA had no choice but to appeal”.

    So, in hindsight, Contador could already have this all behind him instead of being forced to sit on the sidelines for this year’s Tour and the Olympics. It could also be argued, though, that (were he guilty of doping) a two-year retrospective ban is not such a bad outcome for the Spaniard, who should make his comeback in the Vuelta a Espana in just over six months.

    While the likes of Ivan Basso and Alejandro Valverde were forced out of competitive racing for almost two years for merely being implicated in Operacion Puerto, Contador has been able to ride on in the peloton. Granted, his results have now been annulled – but it sure beats training on your own for the best part of two seasons.

    In a press conference following the outcome, Contador underlined the “injustice” of the situation, saying he had “done everything possible to show that I was innocent”.

    But the CAS file shows that Contador just didn’t do enough to prove his innocence. In fact, he fell short by putting all his eggs in the meat basket, so to speak.

    CAS made it clear that they would have accepted a contaminated food supplement as mitigation for the tiny traces of clenbuterol in Contador’s bloodstream – but the Spaniard’s legal team never went down this road, instead insisting upon contaminated meat (which became a red herring).

    Put simply, the appeal was less about Contador’s innocence rather than whether or not he could provide a decent explanation that could mitigate his penalty. Because he couldn’t – and strict liability requires the athlete to show they have no responsibility for a banned substance within the blood stream – he took the rap.

    But a two-year ban and potential $7.4m in fines, loss of earnings and legal fees seems in the eyes of many incredibly disproportionate for someone whose blood contained minuscule traces of clenbuterol but no evidence of intentional hard doping (the report dismissed the theory of a blood transfusion as “equally unlikely” as that of the rotten meat).

    “I feel it is particularly hard on me because the amount of clenbuterol was so small it would never change my performance,” Contador stressed again this week.

    Indeed, the 50 picograms per millilitre detected were 400 times below the minimum standards of detection capability required by WADA – and yet here we have the head of that agency, Fahey, seemingly rubbing his hands in glee at the outcome.

    The severity of Contador’s punishment baffles Joe Papp, a former American rider who himself was banned for two years by WADA in 2006 for testosterone. Papp subsequently admitted to using a range of performance enhancing drugs during his career, including EPO, anabolic steroids and amphetamines.

    “What natural right does WADA have to take away this man’s living, to destroy his career, to punish him in the same manner as they would have punished me, when they couldn’t catch him doing anything remotely as severe as what I did?” said Papp, currently under house arrest for his role in supplying PEDs to fellow athletes.

    So, what next? Contador has 30 days to lodge an appeal in the Swiss federal court – but he’s damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t.

    Cutting his losses and focusing on making a winning return in the Vuelta will only give credence to Fahey’s line that Contador is a “doping cheat”.

    But lodging a final appeal and trying to save his name may perhaps do the Spaniard’s already-plummeting reputation more harm than good.

    With the UCI ready to impose a fine of $2.95m – not to mention demand 70% of his annual $6m contract at Saxo Bank – the thought of adding more legal fees to the 18 months already accrued must be daunting.

    With so much money at stake, you would think that WADA will now be pressured into changing the strict liability principle. Some critics already believe that WADA only has an interest in pursuing athletes in situations like Contador’s because they have to justify their own existence and budget.

    As for the wider picture, there are many who claim the belated (not to mention unexpected) decision to come down so hard on Contador is good for the sport. But even UCI president Pat McQuaid denied this in a short statement following the CAS ruling, saying it was “a sad day for our sport” and that “there are no winners when it comes to doping”.

    Indeed, the UCI have got the worst possible result: the peloton’s best and most high-profile rider dragged through the mud and banned, two years of results up in the air, a de facto 2010 champion in Schleck who refuses to take the crown, and more and more people who now simply dismiss cycling as a doping sideshow.

    To be perfectly frank, the UCI shot themselves in the foot when they so brazenly made the case public in the first place.

    As controversial as it may be, is there not a case for suggesting that the UCI should have covered up Contador’s clenbuterol positive – knowing that it would only damage the rider personally and the sport generally?

    In any other sport, this would have not come to light. Perhaps brushing it under the carpet would have been better for everyone.

    Felix Lowe
    Felix Lowe

    Felix Lowe is an English photographer, writer and Arsenal fan with a penchant for pro-cycling. Eurosport writer and blogger, Felix has covered the major cycling races in the pro calendar for the past decade and is now taking up the sport himself, at the ripe age of 31.

    Have Your Say

    If not logged in, please enter your name and email before submitting your comment. Please review our comments policy before posting on the Roar.

    Oldest | Newest | Most Recent

    The Crowd Says (30)

    • February 8th 2012 @ 5:44pm
      Henry said | February 8th 2012 @ 5:44pm | ! Report

      Interesting take. I agree with most of it. I too was baffled by Fahey rubbing his hands in delight – it does smack of grandstanding to help WADA justify its reason for being. With testing able to detect smaller and smaller amounts of substances, WADA surely has to add a bottom limit on Clen (and probably a lot of other drugs?). I have no idea if he cheated or not, but I do know cycling has copped another battering by ignorant mainstream sports journos and the general public making the easy ‘he’s a doper’ call.

    • February 8th 2012 @ 6:11pm
      Australian Rules said | February 8th 2012 @ 6:11pm | ! Report

      Three things that stick out to me about this case:

      1) The quantity of clonbuterol was so miniscule, it could not have made a difference in AC’s performance.


      2) It’s possible that the testers caught it as it was leaving his system, thereby only catching the last tiny trace (I believe it can stay in the body for 4-5 days);

      that said…

      3) Clenbuterol is a completely synthetic substance, so unless his steak was prepared in a science lab, it’s difficult to reconcile the contaminaiton excuse.

      • February 8th 2012 @ 6:31pm
        Jason said | February 8th 2012 @ 6:31pm | ! Report

        Your point 2) says it all. It is strict liability because you may not catch the person at the most damning stage.

        Contador had the ability to reasonably explain what it was doing there in the first place and couldn’t do it.

        End of.

        • February 8th 2012 @ 7:40pm
          H said | February 8th 2012 @ 7:40pm | ! Report

          The problem with number 2 is that Contador was being tested every day at that point in the Tour. For it to be true requires believing that the test is simultaneously capable of producing false negatives almost every time it is performed, and also accurate enough to correctly detect microscopic quantities of a substance. I wouldn’t want to the fate of my sport and its champions to be at the whim of such a test.

          • February 8th 2012 @ 9:17pm
            sittingbison said | February 8th 2012 @ 9:17pm | ! Report

            H it is generally accepted that what in all likelihood occurred was he micro doped prior to the race, stored blood during training, and transfused just before the mountain stage where he battled Schleck through the fog. His problem was the stored blood still had traces of clenbuterol from the microdoping. This entire issue has nothing to do with clenbuterol per se or the efficacy of testing.

            • February 9th 2012 @ 12:04am
              H said | February 9th 2012 @ 12:04am | ! Report

              I was replying to point number 2 of the above poster, who suggested the dope test caught trace amounts of clen because it was leaving Contador’s system at the time. While the author could have simply forgotten to imply that this was part of the process you described, I can only reply to what’s actually been said. Let’s deal with one speculation at a time, eh?

    • February 8th 2012 @ 6:26pm
      Matthew Skellett said | February 8th 2012 @ 6:26pm | ! Report

      We forget that there is strong circumstancial and witness evdience that Mr Contador and Mr Armstrong were in cahoots as far as systemic doping were concerned -we ALL know that Mr Armstrong was up to his eyeballs in it and Mr Contador at one stage claimed Mr Armstrong gave him advice on how to do it (doping) without being detected -obviously he didn’t get a clever enough legal team to get him out of it like Mr Armstrong did -at least physically .

    • February 8th 2012 @ 6:27pm
      sittingbison said | February 8th 2012 @ 6:27pm | ! Report

      sorry, but I strongly disagree with the inferences being drawn in this article. There is nothing easy about making a “he’s a doper” call when that sportsperson is an outright champion and his disgrace drives another nail into the coffin of cycling.

      He has been caught micro-doping, and the clenbuterol is only part of an overall picture including his blood containing plasticizers symptomatic of autologous blood transfusion. The tainted meat argument was flawed from the beginning, and once he said it he had to stick to it even though is was subsequently established that clenbuterol is no longer used in Spain, only in Mexico. He rode for Bruyneel at Astana (a vipers pit of doping), and now rides for Bjarne Riis who in a moment of remorse admitted he was juiced to the gills for his TFD win but subsequently refused to return his yellow jersey – what a paragon of virtue. He is as guilty as sin, his own Federation found him guilty then recanted under political pressure.

      • Columnist

        February 9th 2012 @ 3:37pm
        Felix Lowe said | February 9th 2012 @ 3:37pm | ! Report

        But the CAS report came to the conclusion that the autologous blood transfusion possibility was as flawed (your words) as the tainted meat argument. They said that there was no evidence to suggest he had or hadn’t doped. I hear what you say about Bruyneel and Riis – but that’s a topic for another day. We’d go round in circles if we kept on dragging up the past.

    • February 8th 2012 @ 7:00pm
      njptower said | February 8th 2012 @ 7:00pm | ! Report

      lack of strict liability means that a friend, maybe in the spanish government, could give me a cocktail of the top performance enhancing drugs and i could win races without fearing disqualification.

      if he got the drugs inadvertently, then that is bad luck, but for too long cycling has had an image problem with drugs. Contador had to be disqualified as soon as drugs were detected

      • February 8th 2012 @ 7:16pm
        Jason said | February 8th 2012 @ 7:16pm | ! Report

        Indeed. For the risk of losing a $6m a year contract you’d think it isn’t too much to ask that they be a little bit careful about what they consume.

    • February 8th 2012 @ 8:54pm
      BigAl said | February 8th 2012 @ 8:54pm | ! Report

      Looks like he was one of the unlucky ones . . .

    , , , , ,