Contador tests positive for Clenbuterol
Comments
-
Even a 3 month suspension would nullify his TdF result though as it would have to be backdated to the time of the offence.-pokerface
You are really on the ball to say that, I don't know if that is true, but from the Spanish article this caught my eye too..Una sanción de tres meses, que Contador cumpliría a finales de noviembre,fuera de temporada, pues aceptó una suspensión provisional el 24 de agosto, sería la fórmula para superar los problemas legales.
So, Simply saying November, 3 months from August 24th would be the "finales" the end of November, Contador would fullfill or complete the 3 month sanction.
It seems the rule of law would say that would nullify the TdF result under these circumstances and perhaps why Contador has been saying today "freeze all my samples and test them in 5 years when the testing procedures are more perfect."0 -
Has Cycling Weakly has changed one of its headlines in relation to this story?. The one I am thinking of now reads
'McQuaid quiet on Contador case, but says Spain can do more'.
I am sure that this morning it read something like
UCI quiet on Contador case, but hangs others out to dry', or words to that effect...0 -
Has Lance not twittered yet? he did when the Cancellara 'motorbike'story broke.M.Rushton0
-
sherer wrote:Pokerface wrote:Even a 3 month suspension would nullify his TdF result though as it would have to be backdated to the time of the offence.
i sort of feel the UCi wanted to cover this up with a ban in the off season we knew nothing about.
Makes me wonder how many other cases like this we never knew about, this was only exposed because of ARD finding out
the same UCI who immediately informed WADA as soon as the result of the A sample was known?
ARD not covering themselves in glory with their conspriacy theories.0 -
If he really does get a 3 month suspension I'm going to boycott pro-cycling for a while.
I really, really hate the UCI. British Cycling should pull out of it and tell it to go fuck itself.The British Empire never died, it just moved to the Velodrome0 -
fastercyclist wrote:If he really does get a 3 month suspension I'm going to boycott pro-cycling for a while.
I really, really hate the UCI. British Cycling should pull out of it and tell it to go fark itself.
If WADA disagree they can appeal to CAS.
Echoes of Di Luca. 3 months for his association with a dodgy doctor.Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
what worries me with this case is that it's going to be one those where even at the end of it you won't know if he really is guilty or not0
-
I almost pine for the Landis case- it seemed a lot clearer, although the more I read, the less inclined I am to believe the meat defence.0
-
You are barking up the wrong tree there. When the UCI was attempting to wrest control of the big races away from the organisers (partly in order to get control of the TV rights to events such as the Tour and partly in order to stop Patrice Clerc from introducing a more rigorous dope testing regime in ASO events, free of the self-serving corruption of the UCI) British Cycling backed them to the hilt.fastercyclist wrote:I really, really hate the UCI. British Cycling should pull out of it and tell it to go fark itself.0 -
There's an interesting paper by Salleras et al 1995. Its an investigation of an outbreak of clenbuterol poisening in Catelonia Spain as a results of eating contaminated liver. Of 113 people affected 91 went to casualty due to symptoms including tachycardia, muscle tremmors, cephalgia and myalgia whish lasted up to 40 hours ie they were unwell The article also refers to other outbreaks in France in 1990 (22 people affected) and in Spain (135 people affected) with contaminated liver suspected in both cases.
If a contaminated cow had entered the food chain wouldn't other people also be unwell, especially any who had been unlucky enough to eat the liver (where the clenbuterol is concentrated)?
Tom0 -
Tusher wrote:I almost pine for the Landis case- it seemed a lot clearer, although the more I read, the less inclined I am to believe the meat defence.
Hmmm, yes it, it was almost believable until everyone leapt to AC's defence and suddenly we have 3 different sources for the beef and 3 different incompatible versions of the story. From an agnostic Contador's defence has now turned me into an atheist.0 -
TomBombadil wrote:
If a contaminated cow had entered the food chain wouldn't other people also be unwell, especially any who had been unlucky enough to eat the liver (where the clenbuterol is concentrated)?
Tom
Has Contador complained of being ill? His levels were that low that maybe they dont have any negative effects?0 -
Although some people might not be ill if they ate some contaminated beef. Many people must have eaten beef from the same animal and the chances are somebody somewhere would have had been ill - especially if they had eaten the liver ie it seems from the literature that contamination causes an outbreak not a single case.
Tom0 -
Why should they be banned for life? You could go out and murder someone and you wouldn't be put away for life and for me that is a far worse crime and you'd probably be rehabilitated so why shouldn't they?
Even rabid anti-dopers like Millar and Boardman are kind of sceptical about this result.
As I wrote on another thread - I find it far more worrying that Bruyneel is supporting AC; I wouldn't trust that man as far as I could throw him.'Google can bring back a hundred thousand answers. A librarian can bring you back the right one.'
Neil Gaiman0 -
If WADA disagree they can appeal to CAS.
Echoes of Di Luca. 3 months for his association with a dodgy doctor.- Ianinf721
That is the thing about WADA and especially WADA when Dick Pound was with them, they were real hard-core on the subject, super strict, I guess Pound ruffled some feathers and stood down if I am correct and I am a bit surprised we have not heard from them yet. Still, for this Contador affair, as said, Lemond, Millar, others are uncertain about the circumstances too. This is a conundrum. At the same time, perhaps it is best someone blew the whistle too.
To another matter, I certainly can not know what is truly going on in the case.
If somehow AC has been suspended since August 24th, the public has only just been made aware that was the date of the first test so I'm no scholar on this topic but there are inconsistencies to point out one.
I know when Tyler Hamilton got into trouble back in 2004 per the Olympics and the Vuelta, it was like we were all told he failed the A test for the Olympics and there was drama about waiting to hear about the B sample which for the record Hamilton kept his Medal because the B sample was unproperly cared for but he was unable to ride in the Vuelta.
Also, to the thread of thought on what TomBombadil was saying, I don't know if we are talking about 'poisoning' in this case, maybe one could ingest the Clen, have traces of it in the body but not become poisoned.
Still, that doesn't alter the fact, that seems to be one needs to eat the liver to ingest it and not so much the meat/beef according to the NY Times article.0 -
In some respects, I think Contador deserves some special treatment here.
We're talking about banning the biggest name in cycling and tarnishing the image of cycling BIG time. This isn't some domestique from a low-level team.
(Alberto walks into a bar and says "I'm Alberto f**cking Contador") But I digress.
Not saying let him off easy or anything like that - just saying - they really need to get this one right. Take some extra time and make sure. It's like a death penalty case, but for cycling.
If looked at that way - I can understand why they were slow to release the info to the public. I don't think they were planning on covering up for good.0 -
Pokerface wrote:In some respects, I think Contador deserves some special treatment here.
Absolutely not. That's just the sort of crap that makes people think the whole thing is bent, you have consistent rules and you enforce them consistently. Special case and the whole thing is pointless. If you change the rules for this case you set a precedent and every case then refers to this one for the same special treatment.
Incidentally they were not slow in releasing the news, they were hiding it until they realised that a German TV channel knew too much and at that point Contador set his PR machine into action (that kind of thing remind you of any other recently retired rider). The UCI are now right between a rock and a hard place, and that's exactly where they belong given the way they conduct things under Chief Pat.
Surely the facts are that Contador had in his blood a banned substance, however it got there is his responsibility. End of. Ban etc.0 -
^--Clearly you didn't read my post.0
-
Pokerface wrote:^--Clearly you didn't read my post.
Well enlighten me, because what I read suggested taking extra time and making a special case based on his position in the sport My point was counter to that.
You said they were slow to release the info and I disputed that, what did I not read?0 -
I wasn't talking about 'changing the rules'. I was just saying they should take their time and get it right - not rush to judgement (as most of us have done).
I believe under WADA rules they can find a 'no-fault' decision in his favour. He would still lose his Tour title, but not be suspended. There's a lot more on the table here than most people might think.
Don't get me wrong - I personally think he's guilty.
As far as I know - the UCI have no obligation to release the info about his positive to the public. They have to inform the rider and possibly his national federation - but not Joe Public.
There is far too much speculation and innuendo floating around right now. Hopefully the facts will eventually filter down and an educated decision can be made.
And what if....as unlikely as it all sounds....he's telling the truth?
Just saying.0 -
Turns out it was never "400 times" the detection limit but more like 40 times. Someone got their numbers wrong at the UCI :roll:0
-
But my understanding is the 'detection limit' was a standard applied to the laboratory, as in they must be able to detect to a minimum standard of x. The fact that the Cologne lab could detect a smaller amount is unimportant, and by stating this,and getting it wrong by a factor of x10 the UCI look like either idiots, or corrupt and taking a position, rather than the wholly neutral governing body they should be.
Further to this, by not releasing this case to the public, but doing so in the cases of Mosquera and Garcia after only testing the A samples there, they show an inconsistent approach. All of this makes them appear amateurish or corrupt, you choose.0 -
Indeed dougzz, especially since the UCI instructed Contador to keep quiet.
Despite the A and B samples being positive, it was only a leak to the German media, presumably from a perplexed employee at the Cologne lab, that this all came out.
Personally I reckon Contador's going to get off the hook. The UCI simply doesn't want him to be caught. Small fry like Sevilla and Mosquera are tossed to the media before their B samples are positive but Contador gets treatment that certainly appears like protection.0 -
There is a real feel that this whole episode too is on Uncharted Territory... it is unique.0
-
@Pokerface.
OK, but I stand by my point about a consistent approach. You must if you wish to both be fair, and be seen to be fair have a completely consistent process. Either you always go public after an A sample is +ive, or you only go public when you announce a ban after it's admitted, or the B tests +ive, or not at all if the results of the two samples are inconsistent.
Does it matter if he's telling the truth? If he got the banned product from contaminated meat that's sad, but it was still in his blood, and he's responsible for that. If you change that, then no one will ever get banned because they'll just play the "it was a friend/advisor/trainer that slipped me something thinking they were doing me a favour' card.
For what's it worth I think he's guilty and the meat story is ridiculous.0 -
It's kinda like if you ate load of triffle with sherry in it (but didn't know there was sherry in it) - and then got busted for drink driving. (Silly analogy I know - but you get the point).
You're still guilty - but the circumstances are important.
At the very least - this may lead to some change in the WADA rules for these types of products and set a minimum allowable level for them.0 -
There's some legal quote about difficult cases making for bad laws.0
-
Sure, but you could also drink and take a chance and if you got busted by a lab, rustle up an excuse about some sherry trifle your aunt served up.Pokerface wrote:It's kinda like if you ate load of triffle with sherry in it (but didn't know there was sherry in it) - and then got busted for drink driving. (Silly analogy I know - but you get the point).
You're still guilty - but the circumstances are important
The more I read about the case, the more it begins to smell. But I also know this can be the case when you look at anything more closely, small things can stand out.
I just hope it's investigated in full, for example the meat is tracked down and tested, rather than the UCI suddenly decided there's nothing to investigate. The UCI seem already to have decided it's from tainted meat but this only suggests they're taking sides since there's no evidence of bad meat right now.0 -
I'd really like to see this test for plasticizers in the blood ratified/verified so they can detect blood transfusions - and possibly prove that is what happened in this case.
A valid test for blood transfusions will drastically change cycling forever and will be a HUGE step towards cleaning up the sport.0
