WHAT A JOKE!!!

He isn't innocent as we all know. Really he has just got off on a technicality

oh dear, the UCI really really needs to sort this sh*t out, if it didn't iritate me so much it would be in danger of becoming (even more) laughable than it already is.

Excellent. Really truly excellent.

This is a joke. Berty is a lucky boy, twice he has gotten away with it now. Operation Puerto nearly nailed him also. Cycling has lost what little credibility it had left. RIP.

"an athlete can be exonerated if they prove that they had inadvertently ingested a banned product through no fault or negligence on their part."

I'm sorry I cannot see any proof whatsoever, since when has anybody's word been taken as proof?

So I could get someone no inject me with EPOs whilst I'm not looking and get away with it? Brilliant! :D

im glad it was over turned the level was so low it could of come from any where even from water thrown by fans on the stage a common sense outcome shame he's with ris now coz he is bent

The UCI really do need to take the responsibility away from national federations.

Athletes should also note that asking their lawyers to use legal technicalities generally infers guilt !

Votes on Bikeradar to ask Mr C to replace the 1st O in his name to a U? That's what I think of him!

Regardless of how it got there he had something in his system that is not naturally occurring. Therefore he should be banned. It is as simple as that.

The sport is already a laughing stock and this reiterates even more the need for change.

This is absurd, I wonder if he is going to race clean from now on, or if he is going to do a ricco. I think he will find lots of fans will be angry at him, but it'll be interesting to see his results from now on. If he's Sh!t it's because he's not doping, and if he is still good, then I don't know what to say. Everyone know's he is guilty, things don't add up, and how could he be certain that the clubenthorol came from the beef, sounds like a prepared excuse, if you ask me.

I think the real issue of integrity sits with how much of this stuff leaks out before there is real concrete evidence. This makes cycling its own worst enemy with huge amounts of speculation amongst fans and the media.

The Governing Bodies need to sort this out to avoid witch hunts for anyone accused of anything. The issue of his innocence or guilt isnt the point. The speculation and gossip is what is I find most damaging. Why dont we find this level of exposure with any other sport? I know cyclists are tested more but we also seem to gossip more.

What a joke, didnt they also find plasticizers in his sample. Perhaps the cow needed a transfusion just prior to being slaughtered.

This decision by the Spanish National Cycling Federation is absolutely, preposterously biased. They have proved nothing other than showing their cowardly ineptitude.

Rule 296 of the UCI regulations states that a rider can be exonerated if he or she can PROVE that they inadvertently ingested a product through no fault or negligence on their part.

They have twisted this rule in order to reverse a decision, giving Alberto Contador the benefit of the doubt, rather than Contador and his legal team PROVING that he inadvertently ingested a product through no fault or negligence on HIS part.

Expect WADA and the UCI to appeal this absurd decision.

Members of the forum have you reached a verdict of this guilty man? Yes, Guilty burn him.

Oh well cycling is still in the twilight zone.

"an athlete can be exonerated if they prove that they had inadvertently ingested a banned product through no fault or negligence on their part."

So why didn't Alain Baxter get his bronze medal back then?

The members of this form seem far too eager to scream guilt. I for one am happy with the result. Yes, there is a chance he may have doped, but where a man's entire career and reputation hang in the balance, proof beyond reasonable doubt is needed. The evidence provided is a concern but seems far from conclusive.

Just because the cycling community is on a war path against doping, doesn't mean the basic principles of justice should be ignored.

"Athletes should also note that asking their lawyers to use legal technicalities generally infers guilt !"

No it doesn't, it implies guilt. You however may draw that inference from the circumstances.

Ah the boy got off, well well, & pro racing bimbles on same as it ever was,rather than that mythical drug free past/present/future that some poor deluded souls believe in, still, the scenery is usually nice, the podium girls beautiful, the crashes often spectacular, the tantrums & dramas entertaining, so why worry, watch it for what it is, or take up bowls or stamp collecting let your righteous indignation flow away, your blood pressure drop & a happy calm joy of being a cycling fan will return …...

[i]"an athlete can be exonerated if they prove that they had inadvertently ingested a banned product through no fault or negligence on their part."

So why didn't Alain Baxter get his bronze medal back then?[/i]

Because it was fault and/or negligence on his part.

danielsim1990 - the only evidence available to the general public is that a test of AC's urine contained a detectable level of clenbuterol. The allowed value for clenbuterol is zero - therefore he is "guilty" of having a banned substance in his system for which there is a "mandatory" 2 year ban. The only "proof" that appears to be missing is that of the Contador party to support their claim he is innocent of deliberate doping and that the drug got in to his system by contaminated food chain.

Again from what the public have access to - parties who have investigated the food chain that produced the supposed contaminated meat have so far found no evidence to support the claim.

Obviously the public is not privvy to all the available facts. From what we are presented with though I can only see AC as being "guilty".

Let us hope that the UCI and WADA get this sorted out properly.

I can't see the borderline AC fans being happy and to be honest I was always concerned how his association with Puerto vanished in a puff of smoke.

The legal limit is zero. He tested positive. That should be a ban regardless of how it got there (even if you believe the beef story)

spanish federation favours spanish rider! do we need to say more!!!!!

not only was there Clen in his system there was also plastiziers in his blood! So not only did he have a non natural chemical in his system he had also done a bood transfusion!

He didnt cheat once but twice.....

ITs an absolute joke! why dont they just say its fine to cheat as they are letting cyclist that they favour get away with it... F*****G W*****S SORT IT OUT FOR CHRIST SAKE.

taxi for professional road cycling credibility!

If you make the laws then you must reap what you sow. There's no point getting upset after a rider makes use of the regulations that were set out by the UCI and member federations.

"The legal limit is zero. He tested positive. That should be a ban regardless of how it got there (even if you believe the beef story)"

This sort of statement doesn't really mean much. Atoms & molecules are so small that it wouldn't surprise me if we all have one or two molecules of most of the banned substances going in our blood stream. e.g. 9/10 bank notes carry cocaine (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/08/090816-cocaine-money.html), and that's only at the levels we can detect, which I would imagine are a lot higher than 1 molecule.

I'm not a chemist so I can't come up with actual figues for the quantaties of chemicals, but when you're talking about 7e20 atoms in the average human body, zero is a pretty small number...it just really means "less than our current ability to detect"

Them Roadies just can't keep their hands out of the cookie jar can they! Good job that the UCI understand this!

''The allowed value for clenbuterol is zero - therefore he is "guilty" of having a banned substance in his system for which there is a "mandatory" 2 year ban.'' bla bla...you forgot to say that article 296 of the UCI’s regulations says that an athlete can be exonerated if they prove that they had inadvertently ingested a banned product through no fault or negligence on their part.

AC's team presented pharmaceutical studiy in which they proved he could not voluntary ingest such a tiny amount of clenbuterol nor it had any effect on his performance. So, what else you want? You who flame him could just say I don't like AC and want him banned regardless.

It really does begger belief doesn't it. I wonder if the RFEC would have reached the same decision for someone like Armstrong?

If you UCI let this stand then they'll have finally nailed the coffin of cyclings credibility (like it ever had any).

What a joke! ... Who's going to believe in any race where Bertie crosses the line first? He's a cheat, just like his old mate Liestrong and unfortunately for Pro Cycling, noone's going to get too excited about the Pro Tour races, at least until Bertie goes away. I predect a drop off in commercial sponsorship as a result of this spineless decision.

Money is all these riders & officials are interested in and the irony is that this will result in there being even less of it to go round for all the cheating B*****ds! So, in a rather appropriate way, they will suffer from their own stupidity ..... eventually!