Alberto Contador verdict is right: now cycling can move on UCI and Wada took a gamble taking on the

Spaniard they had to win for the greater good of the sport William Fotheringham, guardian.co.uk, Monday 6 February 2012 And so, after 585 days, the 2010 Tour de France has finally been decided in favour of Andy Schleck. It has been a long wait for the conclusion of Alberto Contador's clenbuterol case, but it is not the longest grande boucle in history: that dubious honour goes to the 2006 race, which was wrecked by Floyd Landis's positive for testosterone and was not awarded to the Spaniard Oscar Pereiro until the end of June 2008. The wait was worth it, however, because as well as a conclusion the case had got to the point where any ending would have been welcome the verdict provided a measure of dispassionate clarity in a case that has been marked by more than the usual measure of hyperbole and propaganda. The report from the three-man panel at the court of arbitration for sport runs to 96 pages and more than 500 paragraphs but is worth a long look. Its conclusions are simple: Contador's defence that the clenbuterol could only have got into his system through contaminated beef cannot be proven. Nor can the theory that the clenbuterol might have been ingested through a blood or plasma transfusion. The report describes them as "equally unlikely". Intriguingly, the panel said the most likely cause was one that has been kept on the sidelines: supplement contamination. But that, too, was no more than a hypothesis alongside the other two; like the blood doping and the beef, it could not be proven. The critical element, however, is that very lack of definitive explanation and how it impacts on doping cases. There was no doubt the clenbuterol was found the report repeatedly underlines that Contador never contested that and its presence could not be explained conclusively. In that event, how to proceed? The key is to be found in paragraph 202A, under the heading "Issues to be decided". It's a single sentence: "Taking into account that an anti-doping rule violation has been established by the Appellants [UCI, world cycyling's governing body and Wada, the World Anti-Doping Agency] did Mr Contador establish, considering the required standard of proof, how the prohibited substance entered his system?" The answer, the reader figures out eventually, is no. How it happened is irrelevant. What mattered to the tribunal was that Contador had broken the anti-doping rules. The finding is a vital one for anti-doping, because it reasserts the fundamental principle of strict liability: that the athlete is responsible for a banned substance that is found in his or her blood or urine and that the absence of proof that it has been ingested deliberately is not in itself proof of innocence. The athlete is guilty of doping unless he

or she can prove they hold no responsibility for the presence of that banned substance. They have to provide that proof. Contador's defence was that the clenbuterol must have got into his system through contaminated meat, not because that fact had been proven, but because there was no other possible explanation. The absence of conclusive evidence was claimed to be evidence. Had that principle been upheld, it could have established a precedent and driven a coach and horses through the strict liability rule. It seems harsh, but the balance of probability has to remain against the athlete. Do not go to the report looking for light relief, apart perhaps from in paragraph 277, part of a section dealing with the Basque government's report into the provenance of the controversial joint. They concluded that it had to be "solomillo veal" due to the price of the meat purchased, 32 per kg, and that the animal in question must have weighed about 290kg, and that Alberto's bit of veal would have been roughly half the veal joint available from the animal. Questions for future cycling pub quizzes apart, what else does the Contador verdict provide? It has been criticised by a variety of worthies even by none other than Richard Virenque, the man who took two and a half years to own up to doping, which brings a wry smile to the lips and a slight feeling of nausea to the stomach but it is vitally important. The verdict will not kill cycling, as its critics claim. Rather the opposite. Contador is, after Mark Cavendish, the cyclist with the highest profile in the world. His campaign was determined and well-fought and backed at the highest level in Spain. Yes, the process took more than a year and a half, and important race results have to be rewritten, but it has proved that Wada and the UCI will contest the most high-profile of cases, as far as is necessary. The UCI took a considerable gamble in taking Contador on, not least a financial risk. It and Wada had to win for the greater good of the fight against doping. There can be no pleasure in the verdict, but there can be a big sigh of relief. The sport can at last move on, and it does so in a stronger position.