Contador tests positive for Clenbuterol
Comments
-
frenchfighter wrote:
I don't understand this. It's not just you who say it either. When will you be happy? When there are no attacks. When no one distances antoher rider, when the time gaps are minimal? I don't get it really. Especially as that would be incredibly boring; might as well go and watch a cat 3.
Do you accept cycling has a doping problem?
I know you're relatively new to the sport so you're really only used to the blood doping era. When cycling was cleaner, there were big performances for sure. But (I'm going to sound like an old fuddy duddy here) if you've been watching cycling for nearly 25 years, seen the emergence of oxygen vector drugs, you'd call something BS a lot more often
Here's 4 names
- Cadel Evans
- Marco Pinotti
- Thor Hushovd
- Pip Gilbert
Tell me the possible doping scandals swirling around those guys. None? Not even a hint? Why do you think that's true for them, yet not for someone like Contador?Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0 -
Marion Jones took a lie detector test.
She passed.0 -
contaminated meat, pah, by that hacks math a few days ago he would have needed to ingest 54 100g steaks, >12lb of meat at the highest allowed levels and then assumes 100% absorption, unlikely for an oral dose at the best of times.
I haven't a clue on the absorption characteristics of clen but I would put the blood transfusion a bit higher up the likely scale.
he dosed, waited a bit until levels were low (below the test limit of detection), had blood taken/stored/reinfused. Gave sample and in the mean time the lab had invested in more sensetive equipment and got plain better at the extraction/test procedure and lowered their detection level.
2 days he was found to have clen, the next day not, to me that says the detection level is somewhere below 20 picograms/ml in that lab. Give blood a few days later guys.FCN 120 -
Kléber wrote:Dennis, if I didn't just know a bank robber but spent all day hanging out with known hoodlums, and then I started driving a big car and bought a big house with cash, all whilst spending the day playing craps with my associates, what would you say.
It certainly takes a leap of faith to imagine a rider with Saiz never went near doping products, more so when a riders name is referenced on several documents kept by Fuentes.
But all this is in the past, the issue today is whether he ate a bad steak or not.
I know what you're saying,and yes it does LOOK bad for me to hang out with known hoodlums. However, it doesn't prove a thing about me. As for AC, or any pro rider, I'm thinking that what choice do they have but to know these people, associate with them, talk to them? You simply can't ignore all these people, good or bad. How can you ignore team members, team doctors, all the other riders out there, good or bad? Lot's of these people are more than likely his friends, be they good or bad. You can't be a hermit and not talk to anyone and still be a part of a sporting organization like this(or any organization). In any case I see it as no big deal who he talks to, has lunch with, who he shakes hands with, etc., etc.
As for the bad steak, it must not have been too bad. He ate the whole thing.
0 -
RichN95 wrote:Pokerface wrote:Maybe he should volunteer to do a lie detector test instead of volunteering to have his samples retested in 3-5 years. Although, it's my understanding that you can beat the lie detector, especially if you don't think what you did was wrong.
Lie detectors are hopeless. You've got as much chance of finding out The Truth by flipping a coin as using one of them. You can use it to intimidate someone into confessing, but the actual results are rubbish.
Not true. And how telling would it be if he failed?0 -
I think FF really needs to accept he has 2 positive tests and of this there is no denial.
Did he didn't he does matter he's been caught.
As I previously said he'll negotiate a ban a year I think.
UCI are making sounds they want to make an example of Spanish cycling and this has given them the ammunition needed.0 -
If he gets a 1 year ban, will he miss next years TDF?0
-
Pokerface wrote:RichN95 wrote:Pokerface wrote:Maybe he should volunteer to do a lie detector test instead of volunteering to have his samples retested in 3-5 years. Although, it's my understanding that you can beat the lie detector, especially if you don't think what you did was wrong.
Lie detectors are hopeless. You've got as much chance of finding out The Truth by flipping a coin as using one of them. You can use it to intimidate someone into confessing, but the actual results are rubbish.
Not true. And how telling would it be if he failed?
No, it is true. Polygraph tests are widely rejected as highly unreliable by psychologists and legal experts alike.
Here's a couple of links, for example:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/polygraph.aspx
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/polygraph/ota/index.html
Lie detectors are like time machines - great plot devices for the movies, but no use in real life.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Gazzaputt wrote:I think FF really needs to accept he has 2 positive tests and of this there is no denial.
Did he didn't he does matter he's been caught.
As I previously said he'll negotiate a ban a year I think.
UCI are making sounds they want to make an example of Spanish cycling and this has given them the ammunition needed.
Or the UCI were caught with their pants down
:However there are unconfirmed reports of tensions between the UCI and WADA over the issue. The Spanish newspaper El Pais claimed over the weekend that the rider had been set to be given just a three month suspension by the UCI prior to the announcement of the ongoing investigation. WADA is thought to be less than happy about this, given that the substance in question normally leads to a two year ban.
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5889/Contador-Investigation-WADA-chief-Howman-satisfied-thus-far-with-the-UCIs-results-management-of-case.aspx0 -
RichN95 wrote:Pokerface wrote:RichN95 wrote:Pokerface wrote:Maybe he should volunteer to do a lie detector test instead of volunteering to have his samples retested in 3-5 years. Although, it's my understanding that you can beat the lie detector, especially if you don't think what you did was wrong.
Lie detectors are hopeless. You've got as much chance of finding out The Truth by flipping a coin as using one of them. You can use it to intimidate someone into confessing, but the actual results are rubbish.
Not true. And how telling would it be if he failed?
No, it is true. Polygraph tests are widely rejected as highly unreliable by psychologists and legal experts alike.
Here's a couple of links, for example:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/julaug04/polygraph.aspx
http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/polygraph/ota/index.html
Lie detectors are like time machines - great plot devices for the movies, but no use in real life.
One of those reports is from 1983!! I think the technology may have improved since then?0 -
Pokerface wrote:One of those reports is from 1983!! I think the technology may have improved since then?
Believe them if you want, but you'll be hard pushed to find a psychologist that believes in them (and isn't on polygraph manufacture's payroll), or an independent study that supports them.
They're only good for the Jeremy Kyle show.Twitter: @RichN950 -
The technology in a lie detector just looks for signs of stress, like heart rate. So you start with familiar questions that people can answer and give normal "baseline" readings, like their name and address. Then you go the tough questions, like "did you kill Colonel Mustard in the library" and see if they begin to sweat at the mention of this. Only the problem is people being accused of something get stressed by the accusations and this can be mistaken for guilt on the readings.
It's a good public relations stunt but it's not very useful scientifically. I suppose you could scare someone, by asking if they'll take a test and they panic and confess, fearing the machine will bust them.
But as said above, a lot of riders - no names - just think doping is normal and they won't start breathing faster if they're accused, partly because they've deflected questions about this so many times before. So a pro with a history of doping but who hasn't been caught could well sail through a polygraph test.
If you want a better test, body language and eye movements are apparently better tests, and so are linguistic patterns, the way someone talks.
Reverting to pro cycling, ask a rider if they've doped and see what they say. I bet the four mentioned above (Gilbert, Hushovd, Evans and Pinotti) would address the matter in a relaxed way, whilst Mosquera or Valverde would get a bit cagey and try to move on to a new subject or get out of the chat. This isn't much better than a lie detector test but it gives a clue about who's ready to confront the issue and who resorts to the "I've been tested X times this year" mantra.0 -
I know from a few years ago I had a cycle sport magazine and without being in the know, at the time the magazine said they were having problems in Australia.
I heard someone say there is a good chance we won't see Contador in next year's tour de France and that sounds about right though personally, I think a good percentage of them are at it so in reality that would be of little consequence.
This year's tour was pretty good while it was on as there were not really any negative stories.0 -
andyp wrote:I know Martin, he's a good software architect, as an apologist for dopers, he's not so good.
The point of my blogpost was to present my calculation so that people could make up their own minds. I carefully avoid stating whether Contador had an illegal transfusion or not - since I have no data on this subject. In the case of the clenbuterol, my initial analysis was before the blood doping accusation came out and I maintain that the level was too low to suggest that Contador deliberately took clenbuterol and the contaminated meat theory is feasible.
In my update I state that of the three possible explanations the deliberate ingestion of clenbuterol seems unlikely, but I make no comment as to whether I believe Contador blood doped or not. I did state that the UCI should have blood test results and that they should release those results.
And finally, is you want to accuse me of being an apologist for dopers, you could have the courtesy of doing it to my face - that is in a comment to my blog post - so that I can reply. It is only by chance that I came across your accusation.0 -
Pokerface wrote:
One of those reports is from 1983!! I think the technology may have improved since then?
The technology has improved vastly since then, but it's about what you are testing. As Kleber says, it measures stress. To be fair, stress was measurable in 1983 without any problem anyway, the problem lies in stress not necessarily being involved in lying.
RichN95 is also clear about psychologist's not trusting them & they really are the experts in the mechanics of lying (& his assertion is correct IME).
Further to Kleber's point, there is no way of reliably detecting lies, since there is no one mechanism or reaction or cognitive process at play. Just like a lie can appear truthful, "normal" mechanisms & reactions and processes are also being used.
Someone who is really, really good, might be able to pick upwards of 80% of untruths in a first-meeting interview, a machine won't really help, since they measure what is visible anyway. Rich's quote about time machine's is both accurate & very funny!
(& if you've seen the Negotiator, then take that with a pinch of salt too....).
The best way, from a distance, to establish truth, is whether the explanation is congruent with the available information. For example, as stated above, the explanation that it was a contaminated steak seems incongruent when it could have been a number of things. That explanation is more congruent with a PR drive than "truthfulness."
The best way, up close, is pretty much the same, but whilst looking for subtle indicators in speech, tonality, body language etc etc.
But none of it is all that reliable, even at expert level....0 -
martinbudden wrote:andyp wrote:I know Martin, he's a good software architect, as an apologist for dopers, he's not so good.
The point of my blogpost was to present my calculation so that people could make up their own minds. I carefully avoid stating whether Contador had an illegal transfusion or not - since I have no data on this subject. In the case of the clenbuterol, my initial analysis was before the blood doping accusation came out and I maintain that the level was too low to suggest that Contador deliberately took clenbuterol and the contaminated meat theory is feasible.
In my update I state that of the three possible explanations the deliberate ingestion of clenbuterol seems unlikely, but I make no comment as to whether I believe Contador blood doped or not. I did state that the UCI should have blood test results and that they should release those results.
And finally, is you want to accuse me of being an apologist for dopers, you could have the courtesy of doing it to my face - that is in a comment to my blog post - so that I can reply. It is only by chance that I came across your accusation.
Not knowing anything about you at all - what are your qualifications for making your calculations?0 -
As a complete aside. Watching the Ryder Cup today, there was Miguel-Angel Jimenez. 46 years old, overweight, smoking his huge cigars, often while playing a shot. Later he was seen drinking Rioja straight from the bottle.
My thoughts were: "Now there's the one Spanish sportsman I can believe in".Twitter: @RichN950 -
Kléber wrote:Mosquera or Valverde would get a bit cagey and try to move on to a new subject or get out of the chat. This isn't much better than a lie detector test but it gives a clue about who's ready to confront the issue and who resorts to the "I've been tested X times this year" mantra.
Otra pregunta!0 -
RichN95 wrote:As a complete aside. Watching the Ryder Cup today, there was Miguel-Angel Jimenez. 46 years old, overweight, smoking his huge cigars, often while playing a shot. Later he was seen drinking Rioja straight from the bottle.
My thoughts were: "Now there's the one Spanish sportsman I can believe in". Mens agitat molem0 -
I have one simple question and it may have already been asked so be gentle with me
If Clen is easily detected and old school....
Why did he use it earlier in the year prior to a blood transfusion??'Do not compare your bike to others, for always there will be greater and lesser bikes'0 -
Because it would have been out of his system by the time he raced.0
-
josame wrote:I have one simple question and it may have already been asked so be gentle with me
If Clen is easily detected and old school....
Why did he use it earlier in the year prior to a blood transfusion??
He used it, waited for it to clear his system, took the blood out, but wasn't aware that the lab could pick up such minuscule traces. Or he got the blood tested somewhere that couldn't detect low levels and it came back clear. Or he ate a huuuuuuuge steak, took the blood out and transfused it back in with traces of Clen from a contaminated bit of meat.Warning No formatter is installed for the format0 -
josame wrote:I have one simple question and it may have already been asked so be gentle with me
If Clen is easily detected and old school....
Why did he use it earlier in the year prior to a blood transfusion??
My take on this would be that if AC was using Clenbuterol then his doctor may have been able to test for the presence in larger concentrations, but not in the tiny amounts found by the fabled Cologne lab. Therefore it was drawn and stored, with not enough caution regarding what levels the authorities could test to.
I more interested in the alleged plasticiser angle pointing to a transfusion, personally.0 -
Sorry Doc, you hadn't responded when I started my reply :oops:0
-
-
All of these replies are interesting but ignoring the simple fact..
He takes the drug ...why? to get some benefit
regardless of the blood transfusion
10 minutes after taking the drug he could have had a knock at the door from the vampires
so I'm trying to get at why he took something he could not mask and was very risky'Do not compare your bike to others, for always there will be greater and lesser bikes'0 -
Yeah, but you could get a knock at the door while plumbed in to a bag of incoming/outgoing blood.
It still happens...0 -
josame wrote:All of these replies are interesting but ignoring the simple fact..
He takes the drug ...why? to get some benefit
regardless of the blood transfusion
10 minutes after taking the drug he could have had a knock at the door from the vampires
so I'm trying to get at why he took something he could not mask and was very risky
Because he'd been doing stuff like it for years and felt invincible?
Because without doing risky prep. like that he was liable to not do so well in GTs and let in other more talented / more dopey-daring riders?
I dunno.
Perhaps he had a convenient stash of 'dodgy' clemmed-up steaks* in his fridge that he can get out if the vampires did happen to turn up on Christmas morning 5 mins after he's just jacked up...
*or Turkeys... or whatever they eat at christmas in Spain. Paella? Churros?0
