Guilty, not guilty, guilty — who knows! That is exactly the sort of ride that Alberto Contador and the International Cycling Union (UCI) have taken us on over the past few months and the last three weeks or so in particular.
As the debate over Contador's innocence or guilt has raged on, cycling fans worldwide have been faced with the ultimate moral dilemma: What verdict would we rather see? On the one hand, most people want all cheaters in cycling to be caught and duly punished, restoring purity and honesty to a beautiful sport. On the other hand, it is equally acknowledged that the loss of the sport's most dominant current competitor would be extremely damaging. And then, of course, there is the more fundamental question of whether he is guilty or not, regardless of the consequences.
Unfortunately, in neither case is the line completely clear.
Regarding the question of Contador's guilt, there is the matter of what constitutes a violation of the rules and how those rules should be interpreted. What ultimately led the Royal Spanish Cycling Federation (RFEC) to overturn its initial ruling to suspend Contador was Article 296 of the UCI's code, which allows a sanction to be overturned if the rider can prove that he unintentionally consumed the banned subject in question. This would mean that the rider was negligent, but not blameworthy, which is what the RFEC seemingly wants to say.
From here, though, the road is still not clear. For one, Contador and his defense team never did prove that the positive clenbuterol test for which this case was brought up was a result of contaminated meat, as he has claimed. In the end, neither party could prove how the clenbuterol got into Contador's blood, so the RFEC finally decided to simply take Contador's word that he was innocent. The amount of clenbuterol in Contador's blood was trivial, but it was still there.
Just as shoplifting is every bit as much theft as robbing a bank, should minor infractions for banned substances not be considered cheating?
The RFEC could not prove that Contador took the drug intentionally, but he had no better proof that it was an accident. So with whom does the burden of proof lie, and how do you really define cheating? Is just a little bit of the performance-enhancing drug Erythropoietin (EPO) okay now, too?
Then there is the matter of preferential treatment and conflicts of interests. As cycling journalist Will Fotheringham said, "National governing bodies should not be placed in a position where they have to rule on positive drug tests involving their star riders."
Like it or not, the RFEC has a vested interest in the outcome of this case, as does the UCI. Contador is without question the face of the sport today, much as Lance Armstrong was in his time. Naturally, the Spanish Federation and the UCI want to prove that they are cleaning up their image and promoting a fair sport. The loss of their poster boy will definitely not help this cause.
In short, we have to wonder if the case was really dealt with fairly and objectively by all those concerned. Was Contador given preferential treatment due to his star status? If so, what will that mean for the future? This case could be opening a serious Pandora's box of overlooking doping violations when it serves the public interests of the sport.
Now, all of this is just conjecture, and as of this moment ,Contador has been cleared to race and will, according to him, look to defend his overall title at the Tour of the Algarve this week. Naturally, both he and the rest of his squad, Team SaxoBank-SunGuard, are elated. But what about cycling fans all around the world? And what about the riders who will now be competing with him again?
A big question mark will hang over Contador's head for some time. It seems likely that investigations into this matter are not yet through and that the decision could very well be more empirically confirmed or, conversely, reversed. But for the time being, professional cyclists and fans alike will have to ask themselves what matters to them more: a truly clean sport or the happy facade of one.
