Contador: he can't retire, even if he wanted to!

Yeah, ok, we all heard Contador declaiming "if they find me guilty, I will retire."

(cries of "handbag!" and "ooh, get you!" from all directions.)

This was a silly statement to make, for many reasons:

a) what are you, aged 10?

b) do you seriously think this will persuade the authorities not to ban you? In England, that's known as "blackmail" and it is considered a Very Bad Thing.

c) if, or rather, when you change your mind, you are going to look like either a liar, or someone who says things they don't really mean.....

d) there's this little thing called a CONTRACT which you signed with SaxoBlank.

Of course, item d) is the important one.  Bertie signed a contract for two years, and would be in a lot of trouble if he refused to ride for his new team - especially after Bjarne Riis has been so vocal in support of him, (*mental image of Bjarne holding Conti by the throat and shaking him, shouting "YOU VILL RIDE FOR ME! YOU VILL RIDE FOR ME!" while going bright red in the face*) not to mention taking on three of his buddies from Astana.  Or do we think that Conti would get a note from his doctor saying he wasn't fit enough to ride anymore? No, he has to ride.

In a rather surprising turn of events, SaxoBank itself have confirmed that they will continue as sponsors (albeit not main sponsors anymore, that's now Sunguard) even if Contador does not ride for Bjarne this year.

I say "surprising" as they originally said that they would come back as sponsors only once Contador was signed to the team, and (did you know this?) they had a clause in their sponsorship contract saying that they could back out of the deal if Conti was not on board.

However, back in October, Lars Seier Christensen, Co-CEO and co-founder of Saxo Bank told PR Newswire: “I have agreed with Bjarne Riis and the team management that Saxo Bank will ignore this clause if Alberto Contador, against expectations, will not be on the team next year."

This is pretty amazing, really, and shows what faith they have in Bjarne Riis. Of course, it's a big shame that they didn't show him their faith earlier in the year, by continuing to sponsor the team, in which case the Team Schlux schism might never have occurred.....

(Schism: n; division or disunion, esp. into mutually opposed parties. There, don't say you never learn anything here.)

Meanwhile, we've all heard the gossip, it's been leaked that the RFEC (Spanish Cycling Federation) told Conti that they were proposing to ban him for one year, and that he had 10 days in which to appeal. The UCI responded with a Press Release telling us that the RFEC position was not official, it was only one small part of the proceedings, and was not to be taken as the "final" or "official" position.

Interestingly, the RFEC have now said that it was not supposed to be general knowledge, and hinted that it was Conti who leaked it to the press.

Conti stated "It's a disgrace that it was leaked to the press before it was made official to me" and of course we all believe him. But Juan Carlos Castano, President of the RFEC, said that the news was not supposed to have been made public until Thursday, and denied having announced it: he said: "The Federation has not been the one that leaked the information,” and “It can only have come from the environment of the athlete, but that is speculation.“ and of course we believe him, too.

As an aside, I find it quite bizarre that the RFEC would, in effect, send a note to Conti saying "by the way, Mate, this is what we're thinking of doing, one year ban, how do you feel about that?"    In my world, ruling bodies make rulings, they don't discuss the case beforehand with the accused person. Once a ruling has been made, then the accused can appeal if they don't like the decision. But not before it's even been made... no wonder the UCI and WADA are all prepared for a fight ("we will appeal against the decision" said the UCI, long ago, clearly implying that they thought it would be a whitewash) as it really does look as though the RFEC are utterly biased towards Contador.

And here's another thought: how long, exactly, would a One Year Ban, actually be? There's been some speculation that Conti will be able to ride in La Vuelta next year - that starts on August 20th.

One year from the day he tested positive? That was 21st July. "Vuelta? Si."

One year from the date he was suspended? That's a bit trickier; the UCI Press Release on confirming the adverse finding was dated 30th September. Which means, "Vuelta? No es probable."

As a further layer of problems, is Contador actually suspended, or not?  Ever since the event, most of the reports have referred to Conti as being just "provisionally suspended" and therefore allowed to participate in training camps and the lovely team building holiday that SaxoBlank went on.

It could be said that if he's only been provisionally suspended so far, then he would need to be officially suspended first, and that his one-year ban should therefore run from that date onwards. "Vuelta? No una oportunidad en el infierno" (roughly translated: Not a chance in hell.)

Just out of interest, I checked that UCI press release and confusingly,  they say that Contador was  "formally and provisionally suspended" Huh?  One or the other, I would respectfully suggest - or possibly, he could be provisionally suspended and then upgraded to formally suspended. I can't imagine any circumstances (or grammatical construction) where he would be suspended formally first, and provisionally second.

And, my final point for today - will he be stripped of the Tour de France title for 2010?

Yes, sorry everyone, we have to briefly tackle this one - everyone's talking about it. It hasn't been mentioned yet, but it is generally accepted that if a rider is done for doping in a specific race, he loses the title/trophy/money/points/respect for that race.

Which means that Our Glorious Leader (whoops, little bit of Schleckland creeping in there!) will get them.

Of course, it's not all good: Unndy will then have to "give back" his second place trophy/money/points...... which get passed on to Denis Menchov of Rabobank, who in turn will pass on his third place trophy/money/points to Sammy Sanchez of Euskatel.("Carrots!")

It also makes a difference (I assume) to the King of the Mountains classification, as Conti was fourth in that respect.

How much money, I wonder? Hmm, let's see: TdF GC winner gets €450,000. (second, €200,000, third €100,000, and everyone who finishes gets some money: anything worse than 91st place, you still get €400, aaw, makes it all worthwhile, huh?)

€350 for every day that you hold the yellow jersey: €300 for every day you hold the polka-dot jersey:  €4,000  for coming fourth in KoM, plus a variable amount - up to €800 - for each mountain stage win. (By the way, there's €10,000 for the first up the Tourmalet, so well done Unndy for pipping Conti to that one!) 

OK, you do the sums: and I'm not including the many other bonuses and odd prizes. Quite a substantial sum, then. And if he gave away his prize money among his team - which is traditional - that makes no difference, he still has to give it back.

Better get on with breeding those budgies, Conti, you might need to raise a bit of money!

Meanwhile, poor old Unndy is caught on the horns of a dilemma - to use a rather odd English expression - talking of which (warning: diversion) the phrase "tiptop" came up in conversation on Miss Fede's Blog recently, as being a Luxemburgisch word meaning "perfect", used by Our Glorious Leader at the Team Schlux presentation in reference to his new pushbike. Yes, it's an English word, and yes, "perfect" or "first rate" is a good translation, but it's  not a word that would be used by anyone under the age of about 70. It goes with (fake upper-class British accent)  "I say, chaps, Smithers says there's some tiptop crates waiting for us back in Blighty". It's all a bit World-War II, Biggles, Flying Ace sort of thing. Not an expression that I have ever personally used.

Anyway, Unndy: backpedalling slightly in his friendship with Conti. He did the right thing and stuck up for his friendy at the beginning, and should be cheered for immediately saying that as long as Conti says he is innocent, then he (Unndy) will believe him.

Now it's starting to look as though Conti is going to be found guilty - well, let's face it, he IS guilty of being caught with Clenbuterol inside him - and there are going to be more questions asked, more digging done, etc - and we all know that guilt sticks, so it's best not to be closely associated with anyone found guilty.

So Unndy, no doubt under advisement from the PR department at Team Schlux, is not doing a complete turnaround and sticking a knife into Conti: we would not expect that sort of behaviour from him. No, he's making sensible statements which show his support of Conti, assuming that Conti has not been lying.   What else can he do?

And the whole business of "he put his arm round me, I didn't put my arm round him, it was all for show" has nothing to do with a faltering friendship, it's an honest admittance that, at the time, Unndy's stomach was full of anger. We know about that, we have the t-shirt! Quite literally!  We have all formed our own opinions of Unndy from all the many, many interviews etc, and we all think that he is far too polite to have slapped Conti's hand away  from his face, particularly when he - Unndy - was the loser. It's all about dignity. If Unndy had taken one of Conti's bananas and shoved it where the sun don't shine (ie a small village at the back of Lancre, set in a deep, deep gorge....) he would have been vilified as being a sore loser. He did the right thing by putting up with it: and now, at this distance, it's ok for him to admit that he was pretty cheesed off about it.

Whoops, sorry Fede, too much slang: I'm sure you already know that "cheesed off" means "fed up with" something. I am cheesed off with so-and-so, you are cheesing me off with that attitude, but NOT "don't let it cheese you off".  Don't ask me why, English is a strange language in the first place, and slang expressions are even stranger!

So, Conti is going to be found guilty and banned for one year: he is going to appeal: the UCI and WADA are going to appeal: and Bjarne is stuck with three Spanish domestiques that don't speak a word of anything other than Spanish. Fun all round, then.

Oh, and going back to the original point of this post, Conti has now changed his mind completely, and says that he's not going to retire after all. Even though he's been found guilty. Despite saying that he would retire. A man of his word, then. On his own supporters' website he says that "he wanted to fight to the finish".

And for some reason, they seem to think that the UCI suspended him - provisionally only, you will note - on the 24th August ("Vuelta? Si.") so if the Spanish are a bit lax with their sums, he might be available to start the Vuelta. They say:

"Spain’s grand tour starts on August 20 and the UCI provisionally suspended the cyclist on August 24th, the time at which the sanction should be enforced. However, the Committee’s proposed sanction does not specify an exact date, but rather leaves it ambiguously as “from the time the provisional suspension was communicated.” 

Oh, what's that I hear? The sound of goalposts being moved? This is just going to drag on for weeks, and weeks, and weeks....

Worst of all, if Bertie's ban extends beyond la Vuelta, then his first proper race might well be in the UK at the Tour of Britain, starting 11th September.

And if he does, I am going to be there, throwing banana skins at him....