CAS says it expects to announce Contador decision on Monday 6 February. Maybe.

Oh FFS!

The only surprise is that we should be surprised that the announcement has been delayed again.
I will be surprised if we get an announcement on 6th Feb

I remember commenting quite a while back that this was a joke & it still is !!!

** SLAP **

Sorry - bit slow off the mark

lol at the catch-line ..... "holding breath ill-advised"

What a ridiculous situation! Valverde new someone that had done a few pills and got a two year ban. Contador is going to get let off after and interminably long time just so we all forgot that he did actually have an illegal substance in his blood!!

Must ban him ... or what next? Accidentally eating an EPO riddled kumquat or accidental blood transfusion whilst picking at my teeth with a hyperdermic?!

Ah, if only everyone else involved in this case were as quick, andylul

Argghh! I think we should revisit the entire set-up for cycling. Let's allow drugs after all. It could be a kind of formula one - mechanics, coaches, trainers, doctors AND chemists all team together to make a cyclist as fast as possible - in other words, exactly the way it is at the moment.

No one expects us to be clean anymore. In fact - it's incredibly hard to persuade anyone inside or outside of the sport that any successful rider is clean. Which is as one would expect - after all, every other day some new twat falls foul of the doping authorities...and on the days inbetween we notice that the authorities are either completely toothless or so corrupt as to be no different from the guys with the off-the-chart hematocrit levels.

Our most successful current cyclist was caught with a banned substance in the blood during cycling's most high-profile race. Oh - and evidence of plasticizers from a blood transfusion...no doubt from the body-building haemophiliac cow he ate. Naturally it takes years to judge such a case - why wouldn't it?

Seriously - let's end it now, it's pathetic beyond redemption.

Revamp cycling - the teams could sponsored by the companies that 'assist' them: Glaxo Smithkline Beecham storm the Pyrenees...Pfizer rip apart the team time trial...Bayer create first 140kph cyclist!

The honesty might win back some fans...certainly couldn't lose them any faster.

WADA, UCI, CAS,RFEC, enough's enough, kick the lot out and start again.Between them they are making a simple positive into world class negative.

Meanwhile, Pat McQuaid is worried about Paul Kimmage did to his reputation? The irony is too delicious for words.

February 6th, Contador hearing, February 7th Kolobnev hearing, my aren't these panels busy, no wonder they keep deferring!!

Re veseunr's comment above

As far as I recall, Valverde's DNA matched that in a blood bag labelled Valv. (Piti) stored in Fuentes' freezer, which is a good reason for a ban IMHO.

Contador's clenbuterol level was considerably lower than the level that testing labs are required to be able to detect, thus (again IMHO) making clenbuterol conviction a bit dependent on where the samples get sent for analysis.

Plus the time this case has gone on for is so absurdly long that it's an injustice on its own.

Re Valverde: taking blood out is not an offence .... just putting it back. No plastizers, no drugs found. Not saying he shouldn't have been banned but maybe unlucky? Maybe he has getting all Heston Blumental (sic) and making his own black-pudding!!

Re Contador: There is not minimum permissible amount of Clenbuterol. If the lab found it ...it's there! Does the law not state "cyclist are responsible for what they consume"? ergo guilty.

Hypothetical situation: regulations say that any concentration of doping product A is not permitted. Regulations also say that testing labs must be able to detect A down to a concentration of 1 ng per ml. Now suppose two riders, 1 and 2, both have A in their samples at 0.1 ng per ml. Rider 1's sample goes to a testing lab that can detect A down to 0.01ng per ml, and is found guilty. Rider 2' sample goes to a testing lab that can only detect A down to the regulation 1 ng per ml and is found innocent.

This is exactly the kind of scenario that can happen where there isn't a lower limit that counts as positive, and it's exactly the case with clenbuterol. Contador's clenbuterol was at a concentration below that level at which testing labs must be able to detect. I reckon that makes conviction a bit of a lottery.

Not saying this with the opinion that Contador is either innocent or guilty. I have no idea, and personally I think the whole plasticiser issue is significant, but wasn't an approved test at the time.

I think he'll be exonerated by CAS. Plus the whole shambles has gone on for far too long.