Some preliminary details:
1 - I love cycling as spectator and practical (less often than desired)
2 - I have a very clear opinion against doping and cheating, even before the crime was self-doping I thought that this is a scam , and therefore should have previous criminal convictions against cheaters.
3 - One of the lawyers of Alberto Contador is Andy Ramos, partner and friend, but nevertheless in this case we had quite a few discrepancies, most based on my disappointment with the professional cyclists after so many cases, in the knowledge that all information in the file. That logically (by that professional secrecy) still unknown, having had access to only those documents that are public today.
That said, I must say that to a viewer outside the legal procedure for any sanctions must be fulfilled under the rule of law, the doping case of Alberto Contador is very simple.
He detected a substance in your body which is prohibited by the anti-doping rules in any quantity, however slight, and that the human body does not produce naturally, so commits an offense.
So far the reasoning is impeccable. No substance, it is not is allowed, so there should be punishment.
precisely because it is so simple reasoning, I have not been adequately understood the decision, what's driving the criticism about it, even to make sure that the file record is a direct consequence of political pressures.
not know, evidently, such an extreme but if you look, basically, the decision of the Royal English Cycling Federation (pdf) is apparent that this is not forced or failure twist the interpretation of the rule to find a particular result.
resolution to file the case to Alberto Contador not deny the essential fact of the presence of a prohibited substance in his body , which otherwise would be absurd, since it is scientifically proven that clenbuterol was in his urine, nor refuses the presence of that substance in your body violate doping rules (History of Made second):
"As a result of various anti-doping controls are carried out to participants in this test, on July 21, 2010 , the corridor was subjected doping control at the behest of ICU in the city of Pau (France), at the end of the sixteenth stage of the Tour de France 2010, specifically at 19.35 hours, obtaining two urine samples were stored in separate containers identified as follows: A-B-2512045 and 2512045. These samples were taken for analysis to the laboratory accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)-German Sports University Cologne Laboratory for Doping Analysis, Institute of Biochemistry in Cologne (Am Sportpark Mungersdorf 6 DE - 50933 Koln Germany).
So the analysis by the laboratory, as stated in the report of the analytical S2010003810-1 dated August 19, 2010, r Evel an adverse outcome to demonstrate the presence of Clenbuterol , a substance that is included in paragraph S1.2 "Other Anabolic Agents" of "List of Prohibited Substances and Methods of the World Anti-Doping Agency", effective January 1, 2010 and incorporated in the Anti-Doping Rules (RAD) of UCI by express provision of Article 29. "
What makes the decision, how could it be otherwise, is to apply the law in its entirety, in this case the Anti Doping Regulations of the Union International Cycling (the RAD), and of course look at all the articles and provisions thereof applicable to the case, without forgetting any of them.
After this detection was put into operation the appropriate action, notifying the broker the result, and finally telling the RFEC the application to initiate disciplinary proceedings. In this application, dated November 8, the UCI said the possible causes that could have justified the result and this essential point in articulating the defenses of the rider:
i. - Taking supplements contaminated with clenbuterol. Ii .-
food intake contaminated with clenbuterol.
iii .- Transfusion of blood products containing clenbuterol. Iv .-
microdose of Clenbuterol intake.
v. - .........
That is, for the UCI, the possible causes of the results would be sought in one of those sources. Needless to say how unfortunate reference to ellipsis, since it is limited in this way the possibilities of defense, and you have to argue or try to prove impossible for unknown issues.
On the basis of the other four possibilities is on the cyclist's lawyers have articulated the defense, with some peculiarities to be seen.
First we have to explain that to the general rule that an athlete is responsible for everything that goes into your body, and would justify the penalty, there are extenuating circumstances and exceptions, such as Article 296 of the Anti-Doping Rules (RAD ), whereby the period of suspension (the suspension) will be removed if the corridor to be established that he committed no fault or negligence, shall fully test the entry form of the substance in your body.
" If a broker accredited to your individual event he did not commit any fault or negligence, the period of suspension that decide to implement will be removed . When a prohibited substance, its metabolites or markers were detected in a sample of a broker as stated in Article 21.1 (presence of Prohibited Substance), the broker must also prove how the banned substance entered in your body, to make it lifted the suspension period . In case of application of this Article and the lifting of the suspension period applies, the anti-doping rule violation shall not be taken into account as such for determining the period of suspension to be applied in the case of multiple violations under Articles 306 to 312 ".
Therefore, the first thing is to determine how the substance entered the body.
And at this point also that article 296 must be complied with Article 22 RAD, which noted that when the burden of proof is on the corridor, the standard of proof must be a balance of possibilities.
" When Anti-Doping Rules place the burden of proof on the holder of a license accused of committing a doping rule violation in order to rebut a presumption or establish certain facts or circumstances, and standard l of proof must be a balance of possibilities, except sections 295 and 305, in which the licensee must satisfy a higher burden of proof. "
That is, there is undoubted proof required beyond criticism (which it is required to implement other articles of RAD), but it must analyze the circumstances and in consideration of the possibilities, determine that it was more likely to have happened, according to the evidence on the record. This is essential, especially in an area in which the burden of proof is reversed. In any other disciplinary proceedings, who must demonstrate It accuses the infringement, but in sports law is not so (giving to question many things about meeting the most elementary principles of right ...).
To determine the balance of the corridor options provided technical and scientific reports, as contained in the resolution, with the main aim of analyzing which of the possibilities allowed by the UCI and WADA might happen in the case.
Thus, it provided the following technical reports:
- Technical Report on the Clenbuterol, issued by the professor, Don Julio Cortijo Gimeno, dated 25 November 2010 whose conclusions:
In the case of Don Alberto Contador, not drug plateau originates in the blood, occurs only a single maximum of Clenbuterol, not correspond in any case, the multiple doses of Clenbuterol and even repeat or lower than the therapeutic dose (microdose) . It is also possible to determine the time of intake of the substance, since the July 20 yielded a negative result in a doping test and the next day showed that most of clenbuterol (50 pg / ml), the intake was indisputably between 20 and 21 July 2010.
- In view of the data, we can say that the amount of drug reached in the blood of Don Alberto Contador, has been negligible and in any case have had Clenbuterol anabolic effect, or increase athletic performance.
- The amount to eat at Don Alberto Contador, is outside the range of pharmaceuticals available in the pharmaceutical (drugs), so we indicate that intake of Clenbuterol by Don Alberto Contador, has been so accidental and unintended (being the most likely course of the ingestion of contaminated food), without having a therapeutic purpose or anabolic.
- Report Dr. Douwe de Boer, dated October 14, 2010:
"The athlete Hematologic passport Alberto Contador, sample other than the normal biological variation, some variants of interest for which There are several explanations, but found no evidence of self-blood transfusions. "
- Expert opinion issued by Professor Don Giuseppe Banfi, in relation to the biological passport and hematological data of the corridor during the season 2009-2010, November 10, 2010:
"The evaluation and interpretation of hematologic profile of the athlete Alberto Contador, during the seasons 2009-2010, to suggest that changes in the hematological values \u200b\u200bare physiological and are the characteristic trend of professional cyclists throughout the competition season . There were no indications of stimulation of the blood or bone marrow manipulation . "
- reports issued by Dr. Tomas Martin Jimenez called "Evaluation of Pharmacokinetics of Clenbuterol traces observed in urine samples Alberto Contador" the first of those contributed doc.6-is-on "autologous blood contaminated with clenbuterol, dated November 24, 2010:
" The thesis of Clenbuterol pollution due to accidental presence in bags monkey blood for transfusion in an athlete who had been treated with the drug months ago, is not compatible with the existing scientific data on human pharmacokinetics of clenbuterol. Therefore, we conclude that this thesis is highly unlikely and is not, therefore, scientifically defensible. "
- The second report focuses on "micro-doses of Clenbuterol
"the thesis of deliberate use of micro-doses to obtain therapeutic or beneficial effects on athletic performance is not consistent with the pharmacokinetic data and existing famacodinámicos clenbuterol in humans. Therefore, we conclude that this thesis is not defensible from a scientific standpoint. "
- And third, studies on food contamination:
" The argument put forward by the cyclist Alberto Contador, with regard to the positive for Clenbuterol during the last Tour de France, is consistent with the existing pharmacokinetic data on Clenbuterol in cattle and humans. The consumption of two steaks, according to the sequence described by the rider, resulting in concentrations of clenbuterol in urine within 24 hours well above 50 pg / ml, time of withdrawal were zero and about 50 pg / ml if withdrawal time was 3-4 days. This time of withdrawal could be 5-7, days to individuals with longer half-life or a daily urine volume of less than 1.5 L. Although it is expected that a farmer applies the withdrawal period required to pass the inspections, we have seen historically that this is not always so. Although the EU is generally considered an area of \u200b\u200blow incidence of illegal use of clenbuterol in cattle, due to its use for fattening is prohibited since they are carried out spot checks in slaughterhouses and other facilities, it is necessary to assess the actual level of detection of current sampling system in order to estimate the individual maximum likelihood of food contamination by Clenbuterol. "
the part of the UCI and WADA, despite requests made no reports were provided in either direction, this is important, as the Disciplinary Committee should be judged on the basis of evidence which has .
light of the studies, reports and other evidence has shown Contador had used a steak on the dates of positive ( "we said that the broker has failed to demonstrate that 20 and July 21, 2010 ate meat from a butcher bought English [...] ") its biological passport does not show abnormal changes and that the other options allowed by the UCI (micro-transfusions, nutritional supplement and micro-dose), and ran scientifically impossible (they say the scientific reports on file), so that, following Article 22 RAD legally be taken by the thesis of certain food contamination.
But there is still another hurdle derived exactly from the same article as above, and is that the broker did not act negligently.
However, the resolution states that can not negligence credited as the rider trusted health authorities, buying a product in a legal establishment open to the public.
Keep in mind that, according to data from the European Union, in Europe around the year 2008 were sacrificed and subjected to control for the detection of the substance 286,748 animals, with only one result positive. It is true that statistically we can say that is a substance that is not used, but the sample is small for a conclusive result, it points to another of the reports mentioned in the resolution:
Doña Cecilia Rodriguez Bueno (Head of Department Prevention and Control of Doping and PhD in Chemistry) and Mrs Coral Gumiel Fernández (Head of Division in the Department of Prevention and Control of Doping and BA in Chemistry) view on the documents provided that:
While the documents by different experts can become expert evidence could be of interest to insist in the small sampling of the analysis of cattle, which means it can not be conclusive of the assessment provided.
And for negligence, this is a concept related to the care that a person should maintain in performing a task, it would obviously be absurd to require a notary stored corridor is an example of everything that consumes when he agreed to it in a legal and regulated market, such as that of a business open to the public in Spain.
As you can see everyone who reviewed the resolution (there are 35 folios) is found to counter the defense has met the requirements for establishing adequacy a balance of probabilities on a cause, among those admitted to UCI and WADA, favorable to their interests and demonstrate the absence of negligence on the intake of the product.
Everyone can think what they want about what he did or not Alberto Contador on July 21, but what is indisputable is that the National Committee for Sports Discipline Competition and the RFEC has complied in this procedure with the legal requirements that the UCI Anti-Doping Regulations imposed.
Accountant If the defense has been demonstrated that the most likely source of the clenbuterol was contaminated meat, and their conduct, the cyclist was not to blame or negligence, the record in good legal logic had to be, as indeed has been archived.
0 comments:
Post a Comment