Contador tests positive for Clenbuterol

luckao

There's some interesting reading on the subject (depending on your definition of interesting), especially the link posted earlier to Dr. Douwe dr Boer's opinion on the subject.

Based on the indicated facts it must be concluded that the CLENBUTEROL has been administered somewhere in period after the urine testing on July 20th. If it is assumed that CLENBUTEROL has been administered directly after the testing on July 20th, it can be calculated what the maximum concentration of CLENBUTEROL might have been in the urine directly after administration. With a very simple pharmacokinetic model some rough calculations can be performed. Assuming a half-life of 24 hours that maximum concentration might have been 0.1 ng/mL (=100pg/mL). Assuming a half-life of 32 hours it might have been approximately 0.09 ng/mL (90 pg/mL). Assuming a half-life of 40 hours it might have been approximately 0.08 ng/mL (=80 pg/mL). These maximum concentrations are far below the CLENBUTEROL concentration of 9 ng/mL, which may be the l imit at which symptons might be felt. Consequently, if an accidental intake of low amounts of CLENBUTEROL occurred directly after the testing on July 20th, it must have been happened unnoticeable for Mr. Contador. Moreover, based on what is known is literature it is extremely unlikely that such maximum concentrations resulted in any pharmacological effects.

If only he'd proofread it.

It's a shame that conjecture has effectively sentenced him already. You know he'll have a hard time when people - most notably non-cycling fans - are deriding his justification for the positive results.

Whatever the outcome, a bit like this meat he supposedly ate, he's tainted. Scandal sells, and many will have no qualms about taking him apart, completely disregarding balanced arguments from both sides in the process.

No_Ta_Doctor

Can anyone enlighten me on the link to Puerto? How strong was it?

vestanpance

I used to work in a lab that did food testing for veterinary drug residues. When I was doing beta-agonist analysis, the MRL (maximum residue limit) in bovine meat was 0.2μg/kg (or 200pg/ml). So any residue found below this level was not reported as a positive.

Abstract
The use of veterinary medicinal products within the European Community is governed by a series of directives and regulations that describe the requirements for safety, quality, and efficacy of these products. Veterinary therapeutic use of beta-agonists has only been approved in the case of clenbuterol for bronchodilatation in horses and calves and for tocolysis in cows. No beta-agonists have been permitted in the European Community for growth-promoting purposes in farm animals. Surveillance for the presence of residues of veterinary agents in food-producing animals and meat is regulated by the Directive 86/469/EEC containing specific guidelines for sampling procedures on farms and in slaughterhouses. The level and frequency of sampling is dependent on the category of compounds and animal species. When positive samples have been identified (above certain action levels), sampling intensity is increased. Results of monitoring programs in EU member states during 1992 and 1993 for the occurrence of residues of beta-agonists in food-producing animals vary substantially with respect to the percentages of positive samples, ranging from 0 to 7%. The variability is partly explained by differences in sampling strategies, detection methods, and action levels applied. Identification of the proper matrices for sampling and detection of beta-agonists is important. In the case of clenbuterol, hair and choroid retinal tissue are appropriate tissues because clenbuterol accumulates in these matrices. A clear decrease in the use of clenbuterol in cattle has been observed in The Netherlands, Germany, Northern Ireland, and Spanish Basque Country over the last 3 yr. This is partly due to intensified surveillance activities at farms and slaughterhouses by governmental agencies and production sector organizations. There are data on human intoxication following consumption of liver or meat from cattle treated with beta-agonists. At the concentrations of clenbuterol measured in contaminated liver and meat samples, pharmacological effects may be expected in humans after consuming 100 to 200 g of product. The use of highly active beta-agonists as growth promoters is not appropriate because of the potential hazard for human and animal health, as was recently concluded at the scientific Conference on Growth Promotion in Meat Production (Nov. 1995, Brussels).

In the case of Contador, its been said the level was 50pg/ml, which is below the EU action level. If Contador was a cow, he'd not be positive.

In the world of analytical chemistry, pg/ml is generally about the limit of accuracy, but if the lab has reported the result you can be sure they have the data to back it up.

There's a nice bit here,.http://www.sportsscientists.com/2010/09/contador-tests-positive.html, if you want to get a bit sciencey.

So, I'd say they contaminated meat hypothesis is possible. Or the blood transfusion thing, but if he was taking Clenbuterol in the off season, he'd still have to keep his fingers crossed about getting a visit from the anti-doping officers. Plus any transfusion could also have messed with his bio-passport blood values.....which I'm sure the UCI are keeping a very close eye on.

feltkuota

What does it matter how it got there. The only fact that we have is that both samples have tested positive. Cannot see anything other than a ban and loss of title being the result.

sherer

No tA Doctor wrote:

Can anyone enlighten me on the link to Puerto? How strong was it?

The initials AC were found on some bags. They could have belonged to Antonio Colom which is far more likely. Think there are also a few other ACs too

tailwindhome

Sorry if it's been mentioned already. At work and don't have time yet to read the ENTIRE thread.

IIRC Contador blamed his under par performance in the final time trial on a stomach complaint. Does this support his contminated food version of events?


I watch cycling in the assumption that ALL riders are clean. Naive maybe, but scenery aside there would be no point watching otherwise. Pity another rider seems to have betrayed this trust.

vestanpance

I think the amount of the substance is very important. A level of 50pg/ml is what we analytical chemists call f-all. The lab that did the analysis probably has some new machine that can get a result at these incredibly low levels.

If you look hard enough you can probably find all sorts of trace compounds floating around in the human body, that have no physiological effect. I wouldn't be surprised to find cocaine or heroin in the most straight-edged person if I had a machine that could detect a molecule or two.

I wouldn't expect to find anything in a homeopathic medicine though, 'cause that stuffs a con.

bompington

TailWindHome wrote:

I watch cycling in the assumption that ALL riders are clean. Naive maybe, but scenery aside there would be no point watching otherwise. Pity another rider seems to have betrayed this trust.

You can get much the same result by assuming they all dope, and holding your nose.

FJS

TailWindHome wrote:

IIRC Contador blamed his under par performance in the final time trial on a stomach complaint. Does this support his contminated food version of events?

Contador suggested meat he ate was 'contaminated' with/contained clenbuterol, a veterinary medicine; not that he ate generally contaminated food that would have given him tummy issues.

frenchfighter

TailWindHome wrote:

Sorry if it's been mentioned already. At work and don't have time yet to read the ENTIRE thread.

IIRC Contador blamed his under par performance in the final time trial on a stomach complaint. Does this support his contminated food version of events?


I watch cycling in the assumption that ALL riders are clean. Naive maybe, but scenery aside there would be no point watching otherwise. Pity another rider seems to have betrayed this trust.

I remember reading about a stomach complaint but thought it was a few days earlier.

frenchfighter

vestanpance wrote:

I think the amount of the substance is very important. A level of 50pg/ml is what we analytical chemists call f-all. The lab that did the analysis probably has some new machine that can get a result at these incredibly low levels.

If you look hard enough you can probably find all sorts of trace compounds floating around in the human body, that have no physiological effect. I wouldn't be surprised to find cocaine or heroin in the most straight-edged person if I had a machine that could detect a molecule or two.

I wouldn't expect to find anything in a homeopathic medicine though, 'cause that stuffs a con.

Cheers for the contributions, nice to hear from someone who actually has relevant knowledge.

top_bhoy

TailWindHome wrote:

I watch cycling in the assumption that ALL riders are clean. Naive maybe, but scenery aside there would be no point watching otherwise. Pity another rider seems to have betrayed this trust.

No maybe about it, it is naive as it must be obvious to you that the flow of drug cheats continues on a regular basis. I take the opposite view in that I believe all riders dope and its just a matter of time before they get caught. Probably one or two don't and it is a negative viewpoint but that is the position which professsional cycling has sadly placed itself in.

dougzz

frenchfighter wrote:

Cheers for the contributions, nice to hear from someone who actually has relevant knowledge.

What, did WADA or the UCI post something?

Frenchie, I don't know how he could do this to you mate. The biggest betrayal since that sod Cav dumped poor Melissa.

tailwindhome

Top_Bhoy wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

I watch cycling in the assumption that ALL riders are clean. Naive maybe, but scenery aside there would be no point watching otherwise. Pity another rider seems to have betrayed this trust.

No maybe about it, it is naive as it must be obvious to you that the flow of drug cheats continues on a regular basis. I take the opposite view in that I believe all riders dope and its just a matter of time before they get caught. Probably one or two don't and it is a negative viewpoint but that is the position which professsional cycling has sadly placed itself in.

Why watch?

Not trying to start an argument here but I really don't see the point watching if you assume all riders are cheating.

bsm2dj

frenchfighter wrote:

vestanpance wrote:

I think the amount of the substance is very important. A level of 50pg/ml is what we analytical chemists call f-all. The lab that did the analysis probably has some new machine that can get a result at these incredibly low levels.

If you look hard enough you can probably find all sorts of trace compounds floating around in the human body, that have no physiological effect. I wouldn't be surprised to find cocaine or heroin in the most straight-edged person if I had a machine that could detect a molecule or two.

I wouldn't expect to find anything in a homeopathic medicine though, 'cause that stuffs a con.

Cheers for the contributions, nice to hear from someone who actually has relevant knowledge.

You really are very selective at what information you lock away in that brain of yours. I'm sure we can all understand that you feel betrayed on this but at least be open and admit that the whole saga is very strange indeed.

Vestanpance- cocaine and heroin in a person who has never used...come on, get real!!

Kléber

Small doses can exist, the point is the dosage popped up in the middle of the Tour and rules say if you test positive then you cop a ban.

vestanpance

I hear contamination of bank notes with class a drugs is widespread -http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/464200.stm. Do you find it hard to believe that you could ingest a few molecules of drugs from a banknote?

I'm not saying I don't think Contadors a doper, just that it's a very low level of a not particularly useful drug - so it's a strange case that needs to be looked into - which is what the UCI seem to be doing.

FJS

TailWindHome wrote:

Why watch?

Not trying to start an argument here but I really don't see the point watching if you assume all riders are cheating.

Why not?

E.g. the 2007 Tour de France Rasmussen-Contador duel was, and still is, one of the best spectacles of the last couple of years, with or without doping. The second half of the 1990s about all pros probably used EPO - there were still some interesting races to watch. Unlike say watching a marathon or triathlon cycling as a spectator sport does not just depend on awe for human physical performance - it's also about tactics

feltkuota

FJS,

Shouldn't that read Unlike say watching a marathon or triathlon cycling as a spectator sport does not just depend on awe for human physical performance - it's also about tactics that FJS understands?

Pokerface

vestanpance wrote:

I hear contamination of bank notes with class a drugs is widespread -http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/464200.stm. Do you find it hard to believe that you could ingest a few molecules of drugs from a banknote?

Obviously the recession hasn't hit you as hard as it has hit me.

I spend my money. I don't eat it. :roll:

afx237vi

TailWindHome wrote:

Top_Bhoy wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

I watch cycling in the assumption that ALL riders are clean. Naive maybe, but scenery aside there would be no point watching otherwise. Pity another rider seems to have betrayed this trust.

No maybe about it, it is naive as it must be obvious to you that the flow of drug cheats continues on a regular basis. I take the opposite view in that I believe all riders dope and its just a matter of time before they get caught. Probably one or two don't and it is a negative viewpoint but that is the position which professsional cycling has sadly placed itself in.

Why watch?

Not trying to start an argument here but I really don't see the point watching if you assume all riders are cheating.

Because Diagnosis Murder is sh*t.

FJS

feltkuota wrote:

FJS,

Shouldn't that read Unlike say watching a marathon or triathlon cycling as a spectator sport does not just depend on awe for human physical performance - it's also about tactics that FJS understands?

:?:

bsm2dj

vestanpance wrote:

I hear contamination of bank notes with class a drugs is widespread -http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/464200.stm. Do you find it hard to believe that you could ingest a few molecules of drugs from a banknote?

I'm not saying I don't think Contadors a doper, just that it's a very low level of a not particularly useful drug - so it's a strange case that needs to be looked into - which is what the UCI seem to be doing.

Not at all, but I highly doubt you are likely to find a detectable limit in blood or urine after touching a contaminated bank note.

rick_chasey

TailWindHome wrote:

Not trying to start an argument here but I really don't see the point watching if you assume all riders are cheating.

Depends what you watch it for.


It's different and probably a rubbish analogy but people still watch football even if they deliberately dive - deliberately handball etc.

pedro118118

As a layman, there appears to be a fair amount of grey area in this case. Stupidly low levels, way below the dedectable threshold set by WADA and clear tests in the days preceeding and proceeding the rest day test. I mean, I've heard of micro-dosing, but still...

feltkuota

FJS,

I took your comment to mean there were no tactics in marathon running nor triathlon.

calvjones

pedro118118 wrote:

As a layman, there appears to be a fair amount of grey area in this case. Stupidly low levels, way below the dedectable threshold set by WADA and clear tests in the days preceeding and proceeding the rest day test. I mean, I've heard of micro-dosing, but still...

There's no grey area. Dope in blood = ban. Anything else opens the door for never ending excuses related to unintended ingestion. WADA will have a cow if Bertie slides on this. Do all Olympic sports have to be WADA accredited yet?

dave_1

Homer J wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contador-press-conference-tour-de-france-winner-blames-food-for-positive-test

"It's actually impossible to take such a small amount," he continued. "The administration of it is just not possible. So this points again to food contamination. Moreover, regarding performance, this amount is totally insufficient and doesn't serve anything."

Maybe he had a large amount that had already cleared his system??

Homer J,
That's what worries me...was it in decline from higher levels and also, what are the odds he ate contaminated meat..is he a one in a million case he is suggesting he might be or is it quite common?

alanmcn1

This is hilarious

It is like Landis all over again. Why would he take this.........why would he be so stupid........that drug doesnt even have any enhancing effect................

Facts: A and B test return a prohibited substance. That equals ban. There then follows a long boring legal case that gets the worlds attention yet again while another excellent seaosn of racing goes by with little attention focussed on it.

FJS

feltkuota wrote:

FJS,
I took your comment to mean there were no tactics in marathon running nor triathlon.

Of course there are, but they are not as decisive as in road (non-TT) cycling.