Contador tests positive for Clenbuterol

frenchfighter

Nickwill wrote:

Frenchfighter, I think a little more consistency is required. You are the first to berate LA's fanboys, but you are coming across as an equivalent but in Betrie's corner.
The rules state that if you are found with an illegal substance in your system, then you are guilty. On that basis Contador should be suspended. Case closed!!

See previous post, you are mis-informed. I am only posting here because I like Contador and also to provide balance. I could leave then it could be 50 of you against.....0. That would be fun, eh?!

Re 2nd point, you haven't read my posts. I repeat it for the 3rd time today. If he is banned due to those being the rules, it won't bother me.

frenchfighter

By the way, this thread is following the same degenarating path as many other doping ones. It partly occurs here because there are a lot of people who love to comment about me rather than the issue - that isn't clever, intelligent or productive. The other reasons are typical.

TimeEventParadox

At the risk of being stalked or flamed:
Has the plasticiser story been confirmed?
or it is still “a person with knowledge of the test results”.
If it has NOT been confirmed, then this is pretty much a fairy story.

amaferanga

Assuming the blood transfusion explanation a couple of questions....

1) Given the concentration of clenbuterol in the test of 50 picograms and assuming that to avoid detection he wouldn't have been able to take on too much blood on the rest day, then what sort of concentration of clenbuterol would have been in the blood used for the transfusion?

Without knowing very much about pharmokinetics and all that, I'd guess that the concentration in the transfused blood must have been pretty significant and therefore would it not have been detectable even with less sophisticated testing equipment?

2) Are all 2010 samples being analyzed for plasticizers? If they are then surely we'll be seeing a whole bunch of new blood doping cases assuming the test is considered robust enough (which it must be otherwise the results for Contador would surely not be reported).

bompington

frenchfighter wrote:

By the way, this thread is following the same degenarating path as many other doping ones. It partly occurs here because there are a lot of people who love to comment about me rather than the issue - that isn't clever, intelligent or productive. The other reasons are typical.

FF, that's because you're way more interesting than the issue, which is pretty cut-and-dried

psittacosis

Good bye dirty berty, you are history

calvjones

amaferanga wrote:

Assuming the blood transfusion explanation a couple of questions....

1) Given the concentration of clenbuterol in the test of 50 picograms and assuming that to avoid detection he wouldn't have been able to take on too much blood on the rest day, then what sort of concentration of clenbuterol would have been in the blood used for the transfusion?

Without knowing very much about pharmokinetics and all that, I'd guess that the concentration in the transfused blood must have been pretty significant and therefore would it not have been detectable even with less sophisticated testing equipment?

2) Are all 2010 samples being analyzed for plasticizers? If they are then surely we'll be seeing a whole bunch of new blood doping cases assuming the test is considered robust enough (which it must be otherwise the results for Contador would surely not be reported).

The test isn't acceptable as to least to a doping conviction alone, but you can bet if this goes to CAS an 8x permissable level the day before the Clen appeared in his blood will be admissable as corroborating evidence that a transfusion was involved.

Frankly, if he can't supply a tame butcher with a believable Clen-supply trail, he's toast.

edhornby

guinea wrote:

edhornby wrote:

I reckon the UCI will sit on their hands and come the start of the next season we'll get the usual

'well nothing could really be proved or disproved... he's served the 3month that we suggested... so lets all race again shall we?'

I really hope you're wrong.

I hope I am wrong too - the reason I'm being sceptical is the UCI told him not to make a statement but...

"Hey pistolero, it's pat. sample B confirms sample A. no racing for the rest of this year - find me the dodgy steak by the end of the season otherwise it's 2 yrs. See Ya"

wou'd be slghtly more acceptable (only slightly, still not good enough though)

Kléber

frenchfighter wrote:

By the way, this thread is following the same degenarating path as many other doping ones. It partly occurs here because there are a lot of people who love to comment about me rather than the issue - that isn't clever, intelligent or productive. The other reasons are typical.

It's partly because you keep flooding the forum with supportive comments about Contador. That's fine, it's even good. But as ever, people who make contentious remarks in a forum are likely to get questioned.

Still people should try to at least avoid personal attacks, it helps to stick to the ideas.

The Prodigy

TimeEventParadox wrote:

At the risk of being stalked or flamed:
Has the plasticiser story been confirmed?
or it is still “a person with knowledge of the test results”.
If it has NOT been confirmed, then this is pretty much a fairy story.

I find this plasticiser story very annoying, 'a person with knowledge of the test results' what a crock.

The worst thing about any doping case is all the stories like that one that follow, all hearsay and anonymous sources.

At the moment the only thing we know for certain is that AC failed a test for Clen and he will have to face the consequences of that, whatever those consequences may or may not be.

I don't really understand why people are always so keen to jump on any doping hearsay stories such as this and the recent Ricco case. People on this forum would have Ricco hung from the nearest tree as soon as the operation cobra story broke last week even though he wasn't linked to it!

BikingBernie

Kléber wrote:

Can anyone remember the Spanish university / lab that was touting itself to screen samples for teams in the past?

Spanish doctor Marcos Maynar Mariño sent an email offering comprehensive urinalysis and steroid profiling at 50 euros per athlete to as many as ten professional cycling teams including Gerolsteiner, Milram, CSC and Columbia . Maynar offered to provide a complete analysis consistent with the same control methods used by the International Cycling Union (UCI).

http://www.steroidreport.com/2008/07/21 ... g-scandal/

sudholz

Kléber wrote:

Still people should try to at least avoid personal attacks, it helps to stick to the ideas.

+1

I look forward to reading FF's posts on the whole and I appreciate his sticking to his guns wrt Bertie. I don't doubt his sincerity in his anti-doping stance either.

Back on topic...reading all the interviews (Spanish and translated) with Alberto he is very careful to talk only about banned substances. I wonder if anyone has asked him outright whether he has ever transfused his own blood?

From what I've read about the sliding scale of morality within the doping mindset I could imagine that he might be absolutely convinced of having done no wrong after receiving a small top-up.

It's only a thought. I'm sure one of you out there might have a view...

S

surista

frenchfighter wrote:

bompington wrote:

Sad but I kind of knew it would come to this...

You are mis-informed which isnt surprising. All you need to do is go through all the doping posts this year and particularly those on LA to see for yourself that I hardly ever post on them. Old news which doesn't interest me.

So that was a different FF in the Leipheimer thread a month or two ago?

Kléber

BikingBernie wrote:

Kléber wrote:

Can anyone remember the Spanish university / lab that was touting itself to screen samples for teams in the past?

Spanish doctor Marcos Maynar Mariño sent an email offering comprehensive urinalysis and steroid profiling at 50 euros per athlete to as many as ten professional cycling teams including Gerolsteiner, Milram, CSC and Columbia . Maynar offered to provide a complete analysis consistent with the same control methods used by the International Cycling Union (UCI).

http://www.steroidreport.com/2008/07/21 ... g-scandal/

Great, thanks.

This possibly suggests that riders are storing blood and getting samples of the reserves tested in order to ensure that they don't contain banned substances. It raises the interesting point of whether anyone like Maynar Mariño who claims to screen things can actually offer the same level of detection that labs can.

All too often riders get caught not because they dope but because they do something stupid. It could be that a screening program was set up, only for it to fail to detect the clenbuterol because they weren't as accurate as the Cologne lab. But that's just a vague suggestion.

tarquin_foxglove

BikingBernie wrote:

Spanish doctor Marcos Maynar Mariño sent an email offering comprehensive urinalysis and steroid profiling at 50 euros per athlete to as many as ten professional cycling teams including Gerolsteiner, Milram, CSC and Columbia . Maynar offered to provide a complete analysis consistent with the same control methods used by the International Cycling Union (UCI).

http://www.steroidreport.com/2008/07/21 ... g-scandal/

An honest question, how come that would be considered to be suspicious but Garmin's testing regime elevates them above suspicion?

TimeEventParadox

The Prodigy wrote:

TimeEventParadox wrote:

At the risk of being stalked or flamed
Has the plasticiser story been confirmed?
or it is still “a person with knowledge of the test results”.
If it has NOT been confirmed, then this is pretty much a fairy story.

I find this plasticiser story very annoying, 'a person with knowledge of the test results' what a crock.

The worst thing about any doping case is all the stories like that one that follow, all hearsay and anonymous sources.

Indeed.
It's turning into a Witch hunt.

sherer

tarquin_foxglove wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

Spanish doctor Marcos Maynar Mariño sent an email offering comprehensive urinalysis and steroid profiling at 50 euros per athlete to as many as ten professional cycling teams including Gerolsteiner, Milram, CSC and Columbia . Maynar offered to provide a complete analysis consistent with the same control methods used by the International Cycling Union (UCI).

http://www.steroidreport.com/2008/07/21 ... g-scandal/

An honest question, how come that would be considered to be suspicious but Garmin's testing regime elevates them above suspicion?

Garmin are testing riders to make sure they are clean and not doping.

The above is testing riders stored blood so that it can be injected back into them during stage races to give them a boost

DaveyL

TimeEventParadox wrote:

It's turning into a Witch hunt.

The witches never tested positive first though.

nickwill

It doesn't matter whether Contador turns up with 'evidence' of adulterated meat, under the strict application of the law, he is guilty. There are no provisions for grey areas.

dougzz

TimeEventParadox wrote:

Indeed.
It's turning into a Witch hunt.

Not really. These forums are where people debate what's happening. Since the UCI are pretty selective about what they release and when, we the following public have little choice but to rely on the leaks. If there were no leaks we still wouldn't know anything about this, which I suspect is the way the UCI would have liked it. You have a sense that had they been able to conduct this in secrecy the whole thing might have gone away for the price of a centrifuge

bompington

dougzz wrote:

the whole thing might have gone away for the price of a centrifuge

Is that how the UCI stop it from flying off at a tangent?

amaferanga

Nickwill wrote:

It doesn't matter whether Contador turns up with 'evidence' of adulterated meat, under the strict application of the law, he is guilty. There are no provisions for grey areas.

I disagree. It does matter. I don't think anyone is debating whether or not the test was positive, but the source of the clenbuterol makes a massive difference to how Contador will be thought of in the future.

psittacosis

Who really thinks he is going to name the butchers where his chef "bought the meat"? you guys are deluding yourself he will obfuscate and hide behind his lawyers like all the others.

ooermissus

Blood doping too now?

pb21

I wonder if the Spanish beef industry will bring charges of slander against Contador?

Gazzaputt

frenchfighter wrote:

Nickwill wrote:

Frenchfighter, I think a little more consistency is required. You are the first to berate LA's fanboys, but you are coming across as an equivalent but in Betrie's corner.
The rules state that if you are found with an illegal substance in your system, then you are guilty. On that basis Contador should be suspended. Case closed!!

See previous post, you are mis-informed. I am only posting here because I like Contador and also to provide balance. I could leave then it could be 50 of you against.....0. That would be fun, eh?!

Re 2nd point, you haven't read my posts. I repeat it for the 3rd time today. If he is banned due to those being the rules, it won't bother me.

From your postings that comment cannot be believed at all.

flanners1

Critique from Cycling Weekly, on the money for me:

"My colleague Edward Pickering asked an unequivocal question that demanded an unequivocal answer.

"Can you assure us that you've never taken any banned performance-enhancing products, nor used any banned methods, and can you take this opportunity to make a strong statement for clean cycling?"

Contador replied: "I'm available 365 days a year, which is something I accept with good grace for the sport I love. I will continue to have this attitude."

Why do so many fall so short when given the chance to strike a blow against cheating? Does the omerta really preclude a cyclist from saying: "I did this completely clean and I am very proud to have done so."

So what happens now? If the letter of the law were to be applied, Contador would be suspended for two years. He could appeal and if his "meat excuse" stood up at the Court of Arbitration for Sport his ban might be reduced.

But the damage is done. In the eyes of the world, the three-time Tour de France has tested positive for drugs and that is that.

It was the beef, it was the Jack Daniels and beers, it was the pressure from team management, the drugs were for my dog, my mother-in-law, it's a witch-hunt, it's a mistake. It's all very tiring."

Good article : http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... astic.html

meggiedude

Nickwill wrote:

It doesn't matter whether Contador turns up with 'evidence' of adulterated meat, under the strict application of the law, he is guilty. There are no provisions for grey areas.

Yes, Its all a question of whether the authorities will stick to their own rules and regulations, or allow a little greyness in.

LangerDan

DaveyL wrote:

TimeEventParadox wrote:

It's turning into a Witch hunt.

The witches never tested positive first though.

Does Contador weigh more than a duck?

No_Ta_Doctor

cajun_cyclist wrote:

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.

Kanu actually had a serious heart defect that required surgery, had to have an aortic valve replaced, nothing to do with the sort of problems associated with dropping dead from having overly thick blood.