"It wasn't us!" UCI condemns leaks in Alberto Contador case

Paul, nothing I have said is in the slightest part "anti-Israeli," so let's clear that one up straight away. Nor am I questioning his impartiality.

The fact is, Barak happens to be Israeli, and Saxo Bank happened to go to Israel - the first time a top-level team has ever done that for a two-week training camp.

Were he Moroccan and they'd gone there, or Indonesian and he'd gone there, the point still stands - it should have been foreseeable that the trip, and the timing of it, between the hearing and the decision, would give rise to accusations that something wasn't right.

If they'd gone to Mallorca, say, as many other teams do, this wouldn't even be at issue.

You're correct that perhaps there wouldn't be this fuss if Saxo Bank had gone to Switzerland or Germany, but then those are countries with strong links to pro cycling. Again, it calls into question why Saxo Bank chose specifically to go to Israel, right now?

As for the Spanish trip, irrespective of a panel member's nationality, I do think it's an error of judgment, given Contador's nationality, to go there so close to the hearing, particularly when other people involved in the case would be there too.

DHP - WADA thought it relevant enough to seek to introduce the evidence. Again, read my post - traces of it alone aren't evidence of doping, partly because as you say there may be other reasons for its presence. But WADA don't need to prove doping - just that there may have been an explanation other than the steak.

There's the saying that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.

The behind-closed-doors nature of the hearing makes that difficult enough.

If Contador's acquittal is upheld, there will always be some people who believe that Barak's trip to Spain or Saxo Bank's visit to Israel helped influence the final decision.

That won't be because of "anti-Israeli sentiment," and it will be immaterial whether there actually was bias or not - Barak and Saxo Bank have provided critics with plenty of ammunition to accuse them that there was.

Whichever way the decision goes, there will be people who view it as unfair and who will look for reasons to back up their opinion.

Highest profile doping case in years, involving a sportsman who is a huge star in his home country, and the chairman of the panel in the weeks before the hearing attends not one, but two conferences in that country (admittedly ones where representatives of *both* sides are present.)

Irrespective of whether there is or isn't bias, that is an error of judgment in my book, as was Saxo Bank's decision to go to Israel, precisely because they do give rise to accusations of lack of impartiality.

If Barak hadn't gone to Spain, if Saxo Bank hadn't gone to Israel, we wouldn't be talking about this.

But how on earth could they have expected that those trips wouldn't give rise to accusations of bias, irrespective of whether the trips were 100 per cent innocent?

Plasticizers.

With the caveat that at this stage we do not know the full details of what happened during the hearing, it should be remembered that WADA/UCI do not need to prove Conrador doped.

Clenbuterol was in his system, he tested positive, there's no minimum threshold.

He acknowledged there was a positive test, and says it was down to a tainted steak.

The onus is on him to show, on the balance of probabilities, that it was in his system innocently.

Better for him if the meat came from Mexico or China than if it originated in Spain, I should imagine.

Short of his lawyer performing some magical Heimlich manoeuvre on him and Contador somehow coughing up the offending steak 18 months later into the panel’s laps, that’s not easy – I imagine he needs to establish a chain all the way back to the beef herd, and somehow establish there was a good chance of it being contaminated.

WADA, on the other hand, from as much as we know, have sought to show that there may have been another reason clenbuterol was in his system - an illegal transfusion. Plasticizers can be evidence of that.

Now, there's no approved test for them, and you can't be sanctioned for the presence of plasticizers alone, but apparently their argument was that the two together made the tainted steak defence less likely.

What they don't need to do, though, is actually prove he underwent an illegal transfusion. They just need to cast a sufficient element of doubt on his defence. Contador, we understand, had his own experts to counter the plasticizer claims.

One thing about the case. Had RFEC actually gone ahead and banned him for a year, as it had said it would do, we'd now be looking forward to Contador returning to the sport next month, assuming he hadn't appealed.

WADA and UCI may not have been happy with a one-year ban instead of two, but I think they would have accepted it and moved on.

Instead of which, if it goes against him, he could be facing a two year ban, being stripped of results obtained since then, and a fine heading towards seven figures.

What I would be very interested to see - and there's no way of knowing at this stage whether it was discussed at CAS - is precisely what it was that made RFEC change its decision?

It's going to be an interesting week ahead, and whatever the decision, some people will be unhappy.

But if nothing else, I hope lessons are learnt from the way this case has been handled from the very start, because all the way through there have been questions raised by people outside the process that have not yet been answered.