Cyclists getting a positive drugs test are so common no one with even a passing interest in the sport is surprised anymore. So when Tour de France champion Alberto Contador received a one-year ban after a positive drugs test, most would expect nothing but a shake of the head right?
Wrong! I feel the ban on Contador is unjust. Now I only have a passing interest in the sport but everything I read so far seem to indicate that he did not take the drug. Contador tested positive for the banned drug clenbuterol, however at an amount that is 400 times below what is needed for him to get an advantage from it.
Would you knowing take a performance enhancing drug if it didn’t enhance your performance? Contador says the drug came from contaminated meat, which is deemed possible by experts as clenbuterol is used on animals. The experts also agree that there was no way the trace amount found in Contador has any gave him an advantage when he won the 2010 Tour de France.
Unfortunately for Contador, the rules state that NO drugs must be found within his body so he is going to be stripped of his 2010 Tour de France and face a 2 year ban from the sport. In a comprise (due the amount found), Contador will only face a 1 year ban instead of the regular 2 years.
Now I know the cycling World Cycling's governing body (UCI) is trying to stamp out drug cheats but I can’t understand why they are banning Contandor when even their own experts agree that the man did not gain any advantage from the drugs in his system.
Contador say this was an error, the clenbuterol went into his system by accident, and all evidence so far seen to indicate he is telling the truth. So why is he facing a 1 year ban? A man is innocent till proved guilty right? Why is the UCI and and the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) trying to ban the man and take away his title when even they don’t believe he got any advantage from the clenbuterol? That is just stupid.