Contador tests positive for Clenbuterol
Comments
-
cswebbo wrote:Meanwhile someone else seemed to be 'in' on this 'dirty bertie secret'
LA Twitter on same day 'and now it all makes sense... crystal ball or what, a hotline to McQuacks office?
Think this has been covered already, LA is widely reckoned to have been responding to news that Landis was filing a "whistleblower" case against him - which could see Landis rewarded financially.
There's little point in using a public platform like twitter to broadcast a cryptic statement about something no-one else knows about yet, especially not if you'd risk looking like you were very very tight with the UCI, who you've recently been accused of bribing....Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
cswebbo wrote:Contador was informed on 24 August of his 'positive'. So , they kept it quiet for 6 weeks to allow him time to get his story straight?
In almosy every case we've seen the time of notification of an A sample positive to confirmation of a B sample positive is between 4 and 8 weeks.
The Doping Authority has to instigate proceedings, notify athlete and national body, ask athlete they own up, if they don't ask if they want B sample tested, if athlete gives permission B sample then tested etc. At no stage during this process should the A sample positive made public.
People unaware of the regulations governing doping offences seem to want this due process to be ripped up.0 -
When was the B made aware?
'First of all we have to respect the rules. The rules are we have to wait until the B sample has gone over and then people can talk and discussion can go on. The rules have to be respected. I am the first one to respect this and I hope also the whole world will respect that."
CancellaraContador is the Greatest0 -
Stagehopper and FF
The UCI website clearly states that the B sample was tested. Allthough it is unclear when it was tested, the indication is that it was tested and the results conveyed to Contador shortly after the original findings
"the UCI immediately had the proper results management proceedings conducted including the analysis of B sample that confirmed the first result"
It does seem that a significant period of time has passed since the testing of the B sample and this info coming into the public domain. It also appears that the main stimuulus for this being publicised was a result of a leak that was being followed up by a German reporter. Not sure what "due process" was being followed by the UCI.0 -
frenchfighter wrote:When was the B made aware?
'First of all we have to respect the rules. The rules are we have to wait until the B sample has gone over and then people can talk and discussion can go on. The rules have to be respected. I am the first one to respect this and I hope also the whole world will respect that."
Cancellara
From the UCI:
In view of this very small concentration and in consultation with WADA, the UCI immediately had the proper results management proceedings conducted including the analysis of B sample that confirmed the first result. The rider, who had already put an end to his cycling season before the result was known, was nevertheless formally and provisionally suspended as is prescribed by the World Anti-Doping Code.
It's true we don't know when exactly the b sample was confirmed, but it looks like they moved pretty quickly at that point.
Given that the result was reported to both WADA and the UCI I may have been a little hasty in suggesting they delayed reporting it.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
I was thinking that Landis mentioned the UCI had a blacklist of riders. Does it seem that far fetched that if they have a blacklist they also have a protect list ? We know they are keen to have a clean tour and have given AC enough time to come up with an excuse and brush this under the carpet. Makes you wonder how many other cases have been treated in the same way ?
ARD seemed to have knowledge of this and with the lab in Cologne I seem to be coming up with two plus two here. Surely the labs shouldn't be leaking this to the media and we need to know if ARD knew this was Contador or just a rider ? if they knew it was Contador that could call into question the validity of the test, they can't know who they are testing, if they did wouldn't that make it invalid no matter what the result ?
If AC, a very good natural talent, was on PEDs then could we really give the tour to Schleck and be 100% confident he is clean ? His performances were just as good so if the winner can't go for three weeks without PEDs and new blood why should the second place rider0 -
The second rest day was about 10 weeks since this all became public. So you are saying a couple of weeks for the A sample test then the rest of the time to do the B sample - worst case - yes??stagehopper wrote:cswebbo wrote:Contador was informed on 24 August of his 'positive'. So , they kept it quiet for 6 weeks to allow him time to get his story straight?
In almosy every case we've seen the time of notification of an A sample positive to confirmation of a B sample positive is between 4 and 8 weeks.
The Doping Authority has to instigate proceedings, notify athlete and national body, ask athlete they own up, if they don't ask if they want B sample tested, if athlete gives permission B sample then tested etc. At no stage during this process should the A sample positive made public.
People unaware of the regulations governing doping offences seem to want this due process to be ripped up.
I think most people don't understand what typically needs to happen and the timelines, which is why the Doping Authority and the UCI should explain this at the time fully to stop any of this avoidable speculation.
10 weeks seems a significant amount of time to most people which is why you get accusations of cover-up.Can I upgrade???0 -
Mccaria wrote:Stagehopper and FF
The UCI website clearly states that the B sample was tested. Allthough it is unclear when it was tested, the indication is that it was tested and the results conveyed to Contador shortly after the original findings
"the UCI immediately had the proper results management proceedings conducted including the analysis of B sample that confirmed the first result"
It does seem that a significant period of time has passed since the testing of the B sample and this info coming into the public domain. It also appears that the main stimuulus for this being publicised was a result of a leak that was being followed up by a German reporter. Not sure what "due process" was being followed by the UCI.
Again, at no point is there any suggestion of a deliberate delay. Due process takes time as we've seen in almost every single case. It doesn't matter if it's an amateur criterium rider or the winner of the Tour de France.
And given the retest was done in consultation with WADA are you suggesting WADA is trying to cover up the result?
The first we hear (or should hear) of any rider testing positive is when the national cycling body suspend them after the B sample confirms the A sample finding.0 -
Interesting to hear Millar and LeMond being cautious. I do wonder, though, how more instances of this are not found from food contamination, if it really is widely used in farming. Would be interesting to know if the blood analysis supports the transfusion hypothesis.
Supporters of clean cycling can support Gilbert and Cav at the Worlds and Garmin riders though.0 -
meggiedude wrote:The second rest day was about 10 weeks since this all became public. So you are saying a couple of weeks for the A sample test then the rest of the time to do the B sample - worst case - yes??
I think most people don't understand what typically needs to happen and the timelines, which is why the Doping Authority and the UCI should explain this at the time fully to stop any of this avoidable speculation.
10 weeks seems a significant amount of time to most people which is why you get accusations of cover-up.
July 21st he was tested. Contador informed on August 24th by UCI - 5 weeks later. Communications normally done by lawyer's letter. Contador has to give permission for B sample to be tested. So let's say that's taken another couple of weeks.
We're already 7 weeks in. UCI/WADA inform lab - could easily be another couple of weeks for results to be analysed (as we've seen previously). Results then have to be conveyed to Spanish Cycling/Doping authority, Contador and WADA - another few days. That takes us up to this week.
Where's the deliberate delay or the cover up?0 -
Precisely. Those thinking there is a cover up need to sort themselves out.Contador is the Greatest0
-
frenchfighter wrote:Precisely. Those thinking there is a cover up need to sort themselves out.
Why was Mosquera and his team mate announced as a A sample straight away and a press release on the UCI website. This one was kept under wraps until ARD got wind and Contador had to announce it himself.
Seems one rule for one and another for the rest so far0 -
Stagehopper
No I am simply asking what is "due process" for the UCI. I would really like to know what is the procedure for dealing with a positive test.
On the same day they put up on the website the Contador result - after the B test but before completion of full review, they also put up the results for David Garcia Da Pena and Ezequiel Mosquera before testing of their B sample. This is not a consistent approach.
Totally agree that due process should be followed but I cannot work out what is due process for the UCI.0 -
Stagehopper,Frenchfighterstagehopper wrote:meggiedude wrote:The second rest day was about 10 weeks since this all became public. So you are saying a couple of weeks for the A sample test then the rest of the time to do the B sample - worst case - yes??
I think most people don't understand what typically needs to happen and the timelines, which is why the Doping Authority and the UCI should explain this at the time fully to stop any of this avoidable speculation.
10 weeks seems a significant amount of time to most people which is why you get accusations of cover-up.
July 21st he was tested. Contador informed on August 24th by UCI - 5 weeks later. Communications normally done by lawyer's letter. Contador has to give permission for B sample to be tested. So let's say that's taken another couple of weeks.
We're already 7 weeks in. UCI/WADA inform lab - could easily be another couple of weeks for results to be analysed (as we've seen previously). Results then have to be conveyed to Spanish Cycling/Doping authority, Contador and WADA - another few days. That takes us up to this week.
Where's the deliberate delay or the cover up?
I didn't say there was a cover up did I?
I simply said that without the authorities making the process and timelines know as part of the broadcast to the media then they are leaving themselves open to accusations of cover-up. As I state ~10 weeks is a long time. If that's to be expected - then fine.
MDCan I upgrade???0 -
I can't see Spanish beef farmers being happy if Contador successfully defends his case as with all the publicity it will make it appear like they are completely ignoring the ban on Clen use in cattle and who knows what else they might be pumping into their meet?0
-
hmmm - does that apply to Argentinian Beef. ??Pross wrote:I can't see Spanish beef farmers being happy if Contador successfully defends his case as with all the publicity it will make it appear like they are completely ignoring the ban on Clen use in cattle and who knows what else they might be pumping into their meet?Organiser, National Championship 50 mile Time Trial 19720 -
As several posts above make clear there has obviously been an inconsistent process. The UCI may make more effort than many sporting authorities to fight doping, but I think that given cycling is a sport where doping works so well it's inevitable that they ought to. I know that PEDs can help recovery and and other aspects, but no amount of any substance was ever going to make Robbie Savage into a footballer, so I think it's fair to say some sports do need a more stringent approach than others, but I'm not suggesting doping in sports where the skill/stamina/strength/endurance balance is different should be allowed to ignore doping.
I think it's also ironic that the apparent attempt by the UCI to hide or control bad news backfires in the way these things always do. They now have their own World Championships being sidelined by a bad news story. Supreme PR.0 -
meggiedude wrote:
Stagehopper,Frenchfighterstagehopper wrote:meggiedude wrote:The second rest day was about 10 weeks since this all became public. So you are saying a couple of weeks for the A sample test then the rest of the time to do the B sample - worst case - yes??
I think most people don't understand what typically needs to happen and the timelines, which is why the Doping Authority and the UCI should explain this at the time fully to stop any of this avoidable speculation.
10 weeks seems a significant amount of time to most people which is why you get accusations of cover-up.
July 21st he was tested. Contador informed on August 24th by UCI - 5 weeks later. Communications normally done by lawyer's letter. Contador has to give permission for B sample to be tested. So let's say that's taken another couple of weeks.
We're already 7 weeks in. UCI/WADA inform lab - could easily be another couple of weeks for results to be analysed (as we've seen previously). Results then have to be conveyed to Spanish Cycling/Doping authority, Contador and WADA - another few days. That takes us up to this week.
Where's the deliberate delay or the cover up?
I didn't say there was a cover up did I?
I simply said that without the authorities making the process and timelines know as part of the broadcast to the media then they are leaving themselves open to accusations of cover-up. As I state ~10 weeks is a long time. If that's to be expected - then fine.
MD
As quite a few people have stated the problem is that the UCI seems to be inconsistent. People's careers and livelihoods are at stake, as well as whatever remains of the reputation of pro cycling, and it should be expected that the UCI follow a strict protocol from testing the athletes through to notification, suspension etc..... It seems that this has only become public because of a german journalist getting the story, so when (if???) would the UCI have released the information.
Given the past record of the UCI and their general incompetence it is hardly a great surprise, but once again they have ably demonstrated that they are not fit to be custodians of the sport.0 -
andyxm wrote:meggiedude wrote:
Stagehopper,Frenchfighterstagehopper wrote:meggiedude wrote:The second rest day was about 10 weeks since this all became public. So you are saying a couple of weeks for the A sample test then the rest of the time to do the B sample - worst case - yes??
I think most people don't understand what typically needs to happen and the timelines, which is why the Doping Authority and the UCI should explain this at the time fully to stop any of this avoidable speculation.
10 weeks seems a significant amount of time to most people which is why you get accusations of cover-up.
July 21st he was tested. Contador informed on August 24th by UCI - 5 weeks later. Communications normally done by lawyer's letter. Contador has to give permission for B sample to be tested. So let's say that's taken another couple of weeks.
We're already 7 weeks in. UCI/WADA inform lab - could easily be another couple of weeks for results to be analysed (as we've seen previously). Results then have to be conveyed to Spanish Cycling/Doping authority, Contador and WADA - another few days. That takes us up to this week.
Where's the deliberate delay or the cover up?
I didn't say there was a cover up did I?
I simply said that without the authorities making the process and timelines know as part of the broadcast to the media then they are leaving themselves open to accusations of cover-up. As I state ~10 weeks is a long time. If that's to be expected - then fine.
MD
As quite a few people have stated the problem is that the UCI seems to be inconsistent. People's careers and livelihoods are at stake, as well as whatever remains of the reputation of pro cycling, and it should be expected that the UCI follow a strict protocol from testing the athletes through to notification, suspension etc..... It seems that this has only become public because of a german journalist getting the story, so when (if???) would the UCI have released the information.
Given the past record of the UCI and their general incompetence it is hardly a great surprise, but once again they have ably demonstrated that they are not fit to be custodians of the sport.
The results were released simultaneously to WADA though. Can't imagine them sitting on them for long.
Most of this debate is my fault, though obviously I blame McQuaid in the long run. Every time I hear his name I reach for my tinfoil hat....Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
frenchfighter wrote:Never understood all this talk of heros. You can admire someone - in this case Alberto Contador - without idolising them.
FF you owe me a new keyboard. I've just spat tea all over this one!0 -
How long do we expect the process to last?
Unless I have missed it, a quick check on Fuyu Li shows that whilst he has been provisionally suspended there is no definite sanction yet. He is not on the naughty boy list on the UCI website.
Assuming this is correct then I would imagine they will be thinking long and hard about the punishment now!0 -
frenchfighter wrote:Never understood all this talk of heros. You can admire someone - in this case Alberto Contador - without idolising them.
0 -
The other thing is if this is a beef thing there is no way on earth that the bloke concerned wouldnt remember where he got this 'quality steak' from. Even if he got it in a butchers on the way... and from that, the butchers will have the invoices from all their suppliers and everything can be checked out. If this doesnt happen cos of some 'cant remember where he got it' then the whole thing is as bolllocks as it sounds.0
-
The most surprising and possibly suspect thing to come out of this so far, for me, is Pat McQuaid saying he's not going to say anything further about it0
-
mfin wrote:The other thing is if this is a beef thing there is no way on earth that the bloke concerned wouldnt remember where he got this 'quality steak' from. Even if he got it in a butchers on the way... and from that, the butchers will have the invoices from all their suppliers and everything can be checked out. If this doesnt happen cos of some 'cant remember where he got it' then the whole thing is as bolllocks as it sounds.
You would have thought that they would be quite a way down this route already, considering they have had over four weeks, but it appears not, or at least we havent heard anything, which is equally strange.Mañana0 -
SunWuKong wrote:The most surprising and possibly suspect thing to come out of this so far, for me, is Pat McQuaid saying he's not going to say anything further about it
Why? That's standard practice for the UCI until a final decision is made. It was more or less the same with Valverde - wasn't able to comment until they made their formal suspension. He's not saying he'll never comment on it again - but he doesn't deal in speculation and can't comment on Contador's defence and such at this point.0 -
Exactly, this is what is strange for me. Clearly they would have thought about contamination as soon as the A sample came back, if not when the B confirmed it. Ample time to start asking questions and get an investigation going.pb21 wrote:mfin wrote:The other thing is if this is a beef thing there is no way on earth that the bloke concerned wouldnt remember where he got this 'quality steak' from. Even if he got it in a butchers on the way... and from that, the butchers will have the invoices from all their suppliers and everything can be checked out. If this doesnt happen cos of some 'cant remember where he got it' then the whole thing is as bolllocks as it sounds.
You would have thought that they would be quite a way down this route already, considering they have had over four weeks, but it appears not, or at least we havent heard anything, which is equally strange.
My only thought is that asking for the meat to be traced could have implicated Contador, it could have led the story to leak out... but even so you'd want to get on the case before the meat is eaten or disposed of. Because either way positive A and B samples on two days mean the news has to come out.0 -
pb21 wrote:mfin wrote:The other thing is if this is a beef thing there is no way on earth that the bloke concerned wouldnt remember where he got this 'quality steak' from. Even if he got it in a butchers on the way... and from that, the butchers will have the invoices from all their suppliers and everything can be checked out. If this doesnt happen cos of some 'cant remember where he got it' then the whole thing is as bolllocks as it sounds.
You would have thought that they would be quite a way down this route already, considering they have had over four weeks, but it appears not, or at least we havent heard anything, which is equally strange.
Exactly... if I knew it was beef and I was telling the truth Id fill the blokes car with petrol (or diesel if it was a diesel) and say go find it again if he didnt know... cos if Id driven say, from down south to scotland 6 weeks ago and had popped into any shop Im 100% sure I could find it again and know where it was no matter what daft route I might have taken.
So yeah, butchers would have been found or would be found and sources found... and even then if the beef sources had none of it in it then whatever... but any plonker can find a shop again from a drive 6 week before.... i bet Id find it first time.
Of course, all the drug info is interesting but this common sense kind of thing about the beef... just mentioning food contamination and not coming out with where its from and all that hahaha... ridiculous!!!!0 -
Pokerface wrote:SunWuKong wrote:The most surprising and possibly suspect thing to come out of this so far, for me, is Pat McQuaid saying he's not going to say anything further about it
Why? That's standard practice for the UCI until a final decision is made. It was more or less the same with Valverde - wasn't able to comment until they made their formal suspension. He's not saying he'll never comment on it again - but he doesn't deal in speculation and can't comment on Contador's defence and such at this point.
I was being sarcastic as it is no unheard of for Pat himself not to put his foot firmly in his mouth or show some form of bias one way or the other.0
