Contador’s case made me think of the perfect doping crime. This is not related to his guilt or innocence, but rather to the process he went through (most of it outside of his direct control, but a clever athlete could aim for these steps on purpose). There are three main types of perfect doping crimes.

1. Don’t get caught. This is obviously the best one, clean and simple (pun intended)
2. Get the case thrown out. Whether you are a soccer/football or tennis client of Fuentes or your buddies have political cloud, if you can somehow make the case go away before it comes to trial, I’d still award you the perfect crime badge (scout’s honor)
3. “C+” (new and improved)

The C+ method is one that has been largely ignored to date but has the most potential for success for athletes who lack the skills to dope under the radar or the clout to get the case thrown out. It does however require some “local clout”, so small-fry Chinese cyclists need not apply. But there are plenty of countries where protecting the national interest is still common. Here is how the process works:

• Test positive.
• Get the federation to delay an announcement while you get your team together (the federation may even suggest some members for your defense team).
• Get convicted or at least a recommendation to convict by your national federation when the pressure to come up with something becomes unbearable (make sure this happens in the off-season).
• Appeal the conviction or get somebody else to question the process or whatever, but keep it at the local level (getting the national federation of your sport into a procedural dance with your NADA is the preferred route here).
• Get the suspension overturned or the recommendation ignored when you want to race again in the early part of the season following season (for good measure, get your Prime Minister to chime in with a senseless comment).
• Get WADA to introduce lots of experts, this allows you to study their arguments (which legitimately takes time) and introduce your own to to force WADA to study their opinions.
• Go on a training camp to the country from which one of the CAS judges hails. If you can, do three training camps to cover all three judges.
• Get some idiot to question the independence of the CAS tribunal based on your training camp choices, forcing CAS to delay the procedures further while they prove their independence.

If you can stretch this entire process to 24 months, you can be convicted for 24 months served retroactively in its entirety, meaning you will lose 24 months of results but you will not lose any salary, endorsements, etc. And you’re free to move on immediately. For those who think the salary claw back clause in your contract poses a problem, not to worry. Most of your income is in image contracts and endorsements which are hard to figure out, and the claw-back is likely unenforcible anyway.

You may have noticed how CAS did the math in Contador’s case. They took the 24 month sentence, then deducted the roughly 12 months that he raced and for which the results now have been annulled. They also deducted the 5 months of his self-imposed leave from the sport at the end of 2010, when the positive test was first announced.

In other words, he got the exact day-for-day credit for the time he put himself on the sideline as he did for the time he was racing and screwing up results everywhere. Don’t get me wrong, he had the fullest right to screw up those results, those are the rules and when you are innocent until proven guilty, that’s the outcome. It is however odd that CAS gives the same credit for the time between the test result becoming known and the time they reach a verdict, regardless of how that time is spent.

Contador is not even the most extreme case; even while he was on his self-imposed vacation from the sport, he continued to get paid his salary. Mosqueira for example disqualified himself and didn’t even get a salary for the year he had to wait on his verdict. And somehow that year sitting idle penniless wasn’t even credited, his 2 year ban started when the verdict was rendered, effectively giving him a 3 year ban. [This last paragraph was edited as it contained an error, thanks to Dennis Josefsson for pointing it out]

Lots of comments on my last post regarding Contador. I realized in reading them that I should have started out differently, by clarifying that of course the best outcome for him would have been an acquittal and zero months banned. But the way the rules are written, that’s just not really in the cards. If a substance is in your body, you’re guilty unless you can prove it got there inadvertently. That’s difficult to do, and so the athlete is usually banned for 2 years (Mexican soccer players notwithstanding, but Spain isn’t Mexico and cycling isn’t soccer).

Therefore, if the usual outcome is a 2 year ban, being deprived of income for only 7 months is a victory relatively speaking. Just compare it to Ullrich. He got a 2 year ban this year as well, he also got a year and a half of results stricken from the books, but unlike Contador the period for which his results were stricken was not deducted from the 2 years. Instead, his ban started retroactively in August 2011, long after he had retired but it means that he still has 18 months of ban left. Of course, that’s not as bad for him as 7 months are for Contador, but it’s odd how the calculation method for these two cases can be so different. There’s a third dimension to CAS’ calculation of Contador’s ban length, which I will cover next time.

Some of you thought my post indicated I think Contador is guilty. To be honest, that question is not that interesting to me, because other than Contador himself and some of his inner circle, nobody really knows. I spoke with one of his inner circlers last year who was sure Contador was innocent (and this is not a Contador groupie), on the other side I don’t buy the beef story. That leaves the contaminated supplement option, but that’s tough too. As Cancellara commented, any top rider has their supplements tested to avoid contamination, a consumate pro like Contador would not take something willy-nilly (and athletes who are that careless can expect to eventually test positive).

So who knows, all we know is that the substance was in his body and his explanations were not sufficient to reach the level of doubt required under the rules. It’s OK to blame the rules, but it’s a lot harder to blame the judges for how they applied the rules. And the rules won’t change too quickly when the only athletes who really care are the ones who’ve been caught.

So the verdict is in after 18 months and Contador is banned for two years. Therefore the big winner of the whole procedure is Alberto Contador, with Team Saxobank and Saxobank itself a close second. Why?

Because even though his ban is for 24 months, he only has to sit out another 7 months before he can race again. That’s because the ban is effective from  more or less when the test first revealed the offense. True, Contador loses all his results and maybe the prize money for the prior 17 months, but that’s peanuts compared to his salary and his endorsement deals, all of which will have been paid out until now. So in effect he doesn’t lose 24 months, but 7 months of income and 24 months of results. Of course having the pressure of the process on your shoulders for 17 months is no laughing matter and also part of the price he pays.

Second winner is Team Saxobank. There may still be a small scare about losing their WorldTour license, but normally speaking their connections are good enough to avoid that. And even if they can’t, they still win. Without Contador, they would have lost that license a year ago, so instead they squeezed another year of revenue out of the system. And of course for Saxobank, you can’t undo the exposure Contador gave them, or the contracts signed with business relations wined and dined at the Tour de France. That’s all in the bank, so to speak.