LAUSANNE, Feb 6, 2012 (AFP) – Spanish cyclist Alberto Contador on Monday
received a two-year ban for doping during the 2010 Tour de France and was
stripped of his victory in the race.
The Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) said Contador’s suspension runs
through to August 6, 2012, which means that the Spaniard loses his 2010 Tour
victory and will be unable to take part in this year’s race.
Contador tested positive for the banned anabolic agent clenbuterol, but he
was subsequently cleared by the Spanish Cycling Federation (RFEC) in February
2011, prompting the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and the International
Cycling Union (UCI) to appeal the decision to CAS.
The 29-year-old Spaniard claimed he had ingested the banned substance by
eating a contaminated steak, an explanation which satisfied the RFEC but which
failed to pass muster with the UCI and WADA.
“CAS has partially upheld the appeals filed by WADA and the UCI and has
found Alberto Contador guilty of a doping offence,” CAS said in a statement.
“As a consequence, Alberto Contador is sanctioned with a two-year period of
ineligibility starting retroactively on 25 January 2011, minus the period of
the provisional suspension served in 2010-2011 (5 months and 19 days). The
suspension should therefore come to an end on 5 August 2012.”
CAS added that the “presence of clenbuterol was more likely caused by the
ingestion of a contaminated food supplement” than by contaminated meat.
Apart from losing his 2010 Tour de France title, the verdict means that
Contador is stripped of all his wins in 2011, which include the Giro d’Italia.
It also comes as a further body blow to the sport of cycling which has been
wracked by doping offences over the last 15 years – particularly involving the
Tour de France, the toughest and most prestigious race in the world.
Contador has 30 days to lodge an appeal with the Swiss Federal Court. There
was no immediate reaction from the cyclist.
The UCI said that though it derived no satisfaction from the verdict, it
“welcomed the news as the end of a long-running affair that has been extremely
painful for cycling”.
“This is a sad day for our sport. Some may think of it as a victory, but
that is not at all the case,” said UCI President Pat McQuaid.
“There are no winners when it comes to the issue of doping – every case,
irrespective of its characteristics, is always a case too many.”
Contador’s win in 2010 was his third in the Tour de France and under UCI
rules his suspension means he would forfeit the victory to Andy Schleck of
Luxembourg, who finished as runner-up.
But Schleck said: “There is no reason to be happy now. First of all I feel
sad for Alberto. I always believed in his innocence. This is just a very sad
day for cycling.
“If now I am declared overall winner of the 2010 Tour de France it will not
make me happy. I battled with Contador in that race and I lost. My goal is to
win the Tour de France in a sporting way, being the best of all competitors,
not in court. If I succeed this year, I will consider it as my first Tour
victory.”
Tour de France organiser Christian Prudhomme said: “My first reaction is to
say ‘at last’.
“It puts an end to an interminable procedure which lasted too long and
deeply embarrassed all organisers of races in which Alberto Contador took
part.”
Belgian cycling legend Eddy Merckx said he was “shocked and disgusted” by
the CAS ruling.
“Once again it’s cycling that pays the price,” Merckx told AFP. “It’s an
excessive punishment. It’s bad for everybody, for the reputation of cycling,
for sponsors.
“It’s as if someone wants to kill cycling. They took two years to make this
ruling. It’s that that is not good.”
Merckx added: “I’m neither an expert nor doctor. But I’m really waiting for
the explanations of these experts. It’s only in cycling that we seek to detect
the tiniest quantities.
“I’d like that we do the same thing in other sports.
“If there’d been clear proof to prove Contador had doped, he would have
been immediately suspended. We wouldn’t have waited for two years,” said the
five-time Tour de France winner, adding that Contador’s defence strategy “had
not been good”.