Contador tests positive for Clenbuterol

ratsbeyfus

gethmetal wrote:

Yeah, but you could get a knock at the door while plumbed in to a bag of incoming/outgoing blood.
It still happens...

Simple... pretend you're in he shower and then start injecting shed loads of Evian whilst the missus/Belgian fella makes the vampires a cuppa!

sherer

you can miss a drugs test as well. Just don't answer and then by the next day you can pass the test

rdt

martinbudden wrote:

andyp wrote:

I know Martin, he's a good software architect, as an apologist for dopers, he's not so good.

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.

Since you published your blog on the Internet for the world to see and the world's search engines to spider and index, I'm afraid no one stumbling upon your blog comments owes you any courtesy whatsoever to only critique that writing by commenting directly upon that blog itself. They are free to do so anywhere they so choose. As you have observed. While you may find that harsh, it's the simple fact of the matter.

gethmetal

For what it's worth, I say strip him of the Tour win this year and let him race from the start of next season after a rigorous off-season of tests.

Then watch the bugger very closely.

Pokerface

josame wrote:

Garry H wrote:

Because it would have been out of his system by the time he raced.

I get that, but...

You can be tested at anytime out of competition

I believe you only need to specify one hour a day when you are available for testing. Furthermore - if you are off in some remote location, the likelihood that they will come track you down in the offseason for a test is reduced.

So - if you specify an early hour on one day and a late hour the next - you can, in theory, avoid detection.

Bakunin

I'm not sure what is the most damaging -- a multiple grand tour winner going positive or the UCI still maintaining that it can police and administer the sport.


Despite all my wishful thinking, Contador has been caught out. As a fan, I'm disappointed but not surprised. See you in two years.

But the UCI -- what to do about that? What was it doing? Protecting Contador? Ready to hammer the Spanish? Keeping it quiet? In concert with WADA? Saving Saxo-Bank?

The Contador story is interesting, but, once again, the action of the UCI is the story.

cajun_cyclist

so I'm trying to get at why he took something he could not mask and was very risky

I've only an observation that Contador said "it was such a small amount, it would not help with performance" from news articles. Would not help with performance but helps people for dieting, weight loss issues it seems.

---

On another note, since I have mentioned a few times about these Spanish footballers who tragically had heart problems and 2 passed away, I thought I should look it up as a reference if I am going to say that.

Daniel Jarque: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Jarque (passed away August 2009, I believe Sergio Ramos would wear a shirt dedicated to him)
Antonio Puerta: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Puerta (passed away August 2007)

Both top flight players.

A 3rd player had serious heart problems and if I am correct, at one time was a team mate of Jarque at Espanyol which is located in Barcelona as well. I believe he retired from play.

---

This saddens me and I know there was a player for Walsall who succumbed to a sudden cardiac arrest, Marc Vivien Foe of Cameroon died this way. That one Nigerian has a heart condition, still plays some, maybe Kanu so I don't mean to cast dispersions on Spanish football in this sense.

In fact, heat stroke and the like over the past year had been a big problem for a number of Nigerian players playing in Africa and nowhere near Europe.

But it does make you wonder.

martinbudden

rdt wrote:

martinbudden wrote:

andyp wrote:

I know Martin, he's a good software architect, as an apologist for dopers, he's not so good.

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.

Since you published your blog on the Internet for the world to see and the world's search engines to spider and index, I'm afraid no one stumbling upon your blog comments owes you any courtesy whatsoever to only critique that writing by commenting directly upon that blog itself. They are free to do so anywhere they so choose. As you have observed. While you may find that harsh, it's the simple fact of the matter.

RDT - I agree that someone stumbing on my comments owes me no courtesy whatsoever. My comment was, however, directed at AndyP, who is someone I know - I used to work with him and I have even been out riding with him.

mididoctors

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

10 mins after being tested they take the drug?

dunno?

mididoctors

dB

jimmythecuckoo

so he has allegedly failed a second test according to road.cc

Pokerface

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

so he has allegedly failed a second test according to road.cc

Interesting - just read the article.

"the New York Times, which quotes “a person with knowledge of the test results” as saying that the plasticizers, at a level eight times higher than the legal limit, have been discovered in a sample taken from the cyclist the previous day."


This is the third paper to report the presence of plasticizers. If true - game over for Bertie. Unless he will now claim he ate a roll of plastic wrap also?

jimmythecuckoo

http://road.cc/content/news/25133-secon ... -tdf-champ

seems to infer a different test...

Pokerface

^--- edited my post to agree with you.


Link to NY TImes article that talks of the second failed test:


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/sport ... ref=sports

sherer

seems to be getting worse here. The article does state that the plasticiser test hasn't been validated yet although there is a minimum limit.

I think in exceptional circumstances an salin IV drip is allowed if there is medical grounds for rehydration. Maybe this could explain that, not really clued up on what this means other than the doping link people have said these exist in bidons, food wrappers and all over the place

guinea

This is awesome.

I wish every rider was blood tested on the big days.

if all the riders had blood removed, this could have been carnage.

jimmythecuckoo

I get the feeling now that they are going to be chucking the book at him big time...

amaferanga

Richrd2205 wrote:

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....

fMRI? Its not perfect yet, but not even a pro cyclist can control their neural responses to try to deceive the test. If you have the right testing paradigm then it should be possible to reliably detect lies. I believe there was some debate recently in the USA about whether results should be admissible in legal cases.

frenchfighter

iainf72 wrote:

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?

Maybe if I had been around longer then I would be more suspiscious, but at the end of the day my basic point stands. I watch to be enjoyed and impressed, so when something impressive occurs I don't sit there in anger because I think they are doping, I get excited.

There are 100s of pros. Picking four choice ones does not prove anything. Essentially you are saying to be clean you have to be crystal - anything less means you are doping.

iainf72

frenchfighter wrote:

There are 100s of pros. Picking four choice ones does not prove anything. Essentially you are saying to be clean you have to be crystal - anything less means you are doping.

I chose 4 relatively well known names who get some good results. The point was not everyone who shows some success is immediately suspicious.

People like Contador, Levi, Menchov etc have stuff swirling around them for very good reasons.

I enjoy watching Contador riding, but if you take a step back and look at everything, you can't possibly feel comfortable defending him

mroli

frenchfighter wrote:

Essentially you are saying to be clean you have to be crystal - anything less means you are doping.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. I'm saying as a professional cyclist, you have to be crystal clean. If someone launches an amazing attack on a mountain distancing all the other riders and he has taken drugs then it is not the abilities of the cyclist any more, it is the mental and physical advantage of the drugs. You might as well give cyclists those KERS boosters that they had in F1.

frenchfighter

EUROSPORT - Monday, October 4, 13:41:00 - Alberto Contador has told Eurosport he expects the doping case against him will be closed in just over a week.

The Tour de France champion was provisionally suspended for having a concentration of anabolic agent clenbuterol 400 times less than what anti-doping laboratories accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency must be able to detect.

The Spanish rider, who gave the sample on a rest day at the Tour in July, has maintained his innocence and blamed eating contaminated meat for the traces in his system.

And the 27-year-old Astana rider said in an exclusive interview with Eurosport that he is confident that his case will be resolved in around "8 to 10 days".

"People who know me and people who have been working with me know that I'm innocent," he said.

"I completely trust the dope test process. I had eight tests during last Tour de France. Scientific evidence supports me."

Asked whether he expected a ban, he said: "That's something that I cannot contemplate, especially when you know that you haven't done anything wrong.

"I don't know what is going to happen but I know that it is difficult to be banned when you haven't done anything wrong."

He added: "It is really hard to accept that I may be banned."

Contador revealed that his former team-mate Lance Armstrong, who has himself had to fight off rumours of doping throughout his career, has not been in contact with him since the revelations became public last Thursday, although he is convinced he has the support of Europe's cycling community.

"I haven't spoken to him (Armstrong) but I know what he thinks about it through other people," he said.

"I really think people across Europe trust me. It’s a totally unjust situation. I’m a completely transparent person, dedicated to the struggle against doping and the call for anti-doping sanctions against teams.

"I'm defending my position so ferociously because I'm speaking the truth, the whole truth.

"I don't want to think that people in France, Germany or on the Tour de France have something against me. I don't want to think that there is something else involved."

frenchfighter

L'EQUIPE - Pinto/October 3, 2010 - Alberto Contador, temporarily suspended by the UCI, thinks he is the victim of an injustice. He even considered stopping.

For the past three days the lobby of hotel Las Artes in Pinto, a Madrid suburb, has been packed. Alberto Contador is the local kid, subjected to solicitations from all sides since his temporary suspension by the UCI, following abnormal analyses revealing the presence of clenbuterol in his urine, as a result of testing during the Tour de France. In the face of adversity, he chose not to remain silent. He is expecting German TV channel ARD, which precipitated the announcement. Friendly, but obviously hurt, the three-time Tour winner speaks in a determined voice. Without any of his inner circle nor lawyers by his side, and without trying to wiggle out of it: “All the time and the questions you want.”

What is your state of mind?

I’m very sad. I’m disillusioned by this small cycling world. This helplessness in the face of what’s being said and written is terrible. Even more terrifying since I’ve always encouraged the fight against doping, and now things are turning against me. But I hope this episode will make me even stronger.

On August 24th, Mario Zorzoli (UCI’s doctor) phoned to inform you that some clenbuterol had been found in your urine during the Tour. What was your reaction then?

At first he said that there had been an abnormal test result without mentioning the substance. I answered it was impossible, totally impossible! That there must be some mistake! He told me we should meet and that he’d explain because the situation was complicated and different from typical cases. We met two days later. For forty-eight hours I was in total incomprehension. I said to myself: I’m stopping it all. I saw children around my house on their bikes imititating me and I was tempted to tell them: “Forget about it. Don’t try to be a champion and do your job correctly. This world is unfair”.

You put forward a food contamination as justification. How did you reach that conclusion?

When I told the news to the only two people who are close to me (his brother Fran and his press manager) they both said simultaneously “You must have eaten or drunk something rotten”. I thought long and hard about what I been doing the day of that test (July 21), and after an hour and a half a bell rang. It could only have come from the meat brought from Spain which I’d eaten two days in a row. I did not see, and still don’t see, any other explanation. But I note that the simplest of explanations doesn’t seem to be accepted. It’s not really fair.

The idea of unfairness often comes back…

This is the reality as I feel it. Climbing the Tourmalet is hard work, extremely hard. I dig deep into my resources to achieve it, and I know very well the sacrifices and hours of training it requires. So when you’re told something totally unreal….

Between Zorzoli’s call and the news made official, almost a month elapsed. How did you live through that period?

Almost a month and a half of suffering. Only my brother Fran, my lawyer, and my press man were in on the secret. The UCI and WADA had assured me they’d keep the matter confidential until it was cleared. And one day, I was told that there were rumours circulating, especially in Germany. It was a relief because I could no longer remain silent. I needed to relieve myself of the weight of the injustice. I had nothing to hide and wanted full transparency. Because during that time I was solicited from all sides: my sponsors, to attend the Vuelta, etc. I had to keep smiling and act as if everything was fine.”

How many times were you tested during the Tour?

I don’t know exactly. Testing is an eveyday thing for me: I had six blood tests during the Tour. The final seven days I was tested eight times, including two blood tests. There is not the slightlest abnormality in my biological passport. I also had four tests during the Dauphiné, before the Criterium International. I also went through a lot of tests during the Vuelta a Castilla y León, Paris-Nice, and Volta ao Algarve. Not to mention all the unexpected tests at home. I’m one of the five most tested athletes in the world. Do you think I’d take the risk of doing anything wrong?

You would have preferred the matter being resolved before its disclosure?

Of course. I was in contact with the international bodies. I had entrusted the file to experts. I wanted everything back to normal fast. I’m still confident that the UCI and the WADA will make a right and fair decision…

Were you afraid when you appeared in public last Thursday?

I measured the impact it could have. But it had to come out. I was there to explain, to answer questions without hiding anything. In Spain I’m a public figure and I couldn’t wiggle out of it. But deep inside me, the hardest thing to bear was knowing how it would be for my family, the people I love.

What do you think about the revelations in L’Equipe concerning the examinations performed on your urine samples by the Cologne(*) laboratory?

I didn’t read them but was informed. It was a devastating blow. Your newspaper has considerable weight in the sporting world. Accusations based on a hypothesis can be very harmful! I respect everybody’s work. It’s just that I’d like this kind of information to be handled with extreme caution. It can lead to huge damage. If I’m ever found guilty, then an innocent person will have been condemned.

How much of your credibility remains in the eyes of public opinion?

Against the power of the media, the credit runs out. Facing the public, it does not. I know I have done nothing wrong and must fight. I was not that mad, when I renewed my contract with Astana, to ask the addition of provisions stipulating that if any doping problem emerged, I would leave the team. It was my way of asserting my commitment to anti-doping. I have gone through some difficult moments in my life. I’m a rider with a sense of responsibility. I’m a rider with clear ideas. I don’t care if I finish 20th in a race without ever touching banned products.

Whatever the outcome of the case, do you think your image is tarnished for ever?

The damage is done for me and for cycling once again. It’s damaging for me and for the credibility of the Tour. It’s damaging for me and for all the teams. Everything I have sacrificed for this sport has unjustly been swept away in two days: I don’t accept it. I can only fight for the truth to prevail. But the harm done to me is incalculable.

Do you still want to be a cyclist ?

It’s a question I don’t ask myself because I'm fighting for my innocence to be proven, (with sobs in his voice) but for weeks there’ve been times when I wanted to kick my bike. And then I calm down. Because it’s also in these moments that one must prove that one is a champion.” (Interview by Manuel Martinez for L’Equipe)

*Traces of plastic, the same as the ones found in blood bags, were identified in his urine samples, according to a method for detecting blood autotransfusion that has not yet been been validated.

frenchfighter

So someone want to explain what these blood tests are which he had, which so many have said is impossible to track? And why his biological passport is clean (I assume this otherwise it would have been mentioned)?

pb21

Scientific evidence supports me

Er, no it doesnt!

iainf72

His biological passport was described as "chaotic" - However, the it's become clear that with some careful planning a passport won't be flagged up as abnormal. Or it might be suspicious but nowhere near enough to go after the athlete. A big name with big lawyers and an something as new as the passport is a sure fire recipe for a long expensive court case.

Here's what we know. He failed a drug test for clen. No disputing, he failed it, He doesn't even dispute this.

There are higher levels than expected of plasticisers in his urine. Everyone has a background level but his level is considerably higher and this provides indication, however not proof, of a blood transfusion.

That's all we really know.

Kléber

I’ve always encouraged the fight against doping

Yes Alberto, your co-operation in the Puerto investigation was a brave stand in the anti-doping struggle.

Poor Contador, he's now having to work the PR angle, giving interviews. In strict terms this is a medical/scientific case but he's fighting hard to play the human angle.

What's interesting is that he confirms the UCI has been giving him special treatment.

FF - the bio passport isn't watertight. Many riders have been doping but posted regular values, only to get caught by police. Or look at riders with suspicious numbers - for example scary enough to stop a team signing the rider - who don't get stopped. Only the biggest, most obvious cases, are being prosecuted under the passport.

BR 1979

Re plasticisers (if I've spelt that right).

I've heard that it's common for cyclists to take on IV fluids between stages (perfectly legal, I thought). What's the difference in terms of plasticisers in urine?

(Or have I got it wrong and anything IV's a no-no?)

FWIW, if you asked me to bet, I'd bet guilty.

iainf72

BR 1979 wrote:

Re plasticisers (if I've spelt that right).

I've heard that it's common for cyclists to take on IV fluids between stages (perfectly legal, I thought). What's the difference in terms of plasticisers in urine?

(Or have I got it wrong and anything IV's a no-no?)

FWIW, if you asked me to bet, I'd bet guilty.

No I/V's - Against the rules. Unless you get it at a hospital.

Kléber

BR 1979 wrote:

I've heard that it's common for cyclists to take on IV fluids between stages (perfectly legal, I thought).

No, that's banned. Vitamin injections are allowed but infusions, even of fluids like saline solution, are banned.