Contador tests positive for Clenbuterol

dennisn

frenchfighter wrote:

surista wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

The world of cycling will be much poorer, the fans will be worse off, the TdF will be dull.

No it won't, no they won't, and no it won't.

Just because you're losing the object of your man-crush, don't assume the rest of us won't enjoy the TdF all the same, perhaps more if we can believe that cycling is just a little bit closer to getting clean when one of the cheaters is caught.

Who are you. Ta gueule. Contribute something of worth or don't bother quoting me.

I think he did contribute something of worth. YOU may feel "worse off", "poorer", and "dull" but don't assume everyone, or even anyone, thinks like you do.

dougzz

dennisn wrote:

I think he did contribute something of worth. YOU may feel "worse off", "poorer", and "dull" but don't assume everyone, or even anyone, thinks like you do.

The voice of reason arrives

Ease up Dennis, this Contador stuff stops you and your bro's Dave and Moray from having to defend that bastion of clean cycle Sir Lance

dennisn

DaveyL wrote:

TimeEventParadox wrote:

It's turning into a Witch hunt.

The witches never tested positive first though.

But they were still burned at the stake.

DaveyL

So it's not just Lance who has irrational fanboys. Who'd a thunk it?

iainf72

dennisn wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

TimeEventParadox wrote:

It's turning into a Witch hunt.

The witches never tested positive first though.

But they were still burned at the stake.

But if they had tested positive, you'd broadly be supportive?

DaveyL

dennisn wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

TimeEventParadox wrote:

It's turning into a Witch hunt.

The witches never tested positive first though.

But they were still burned at the stake.

And they were innocent. Here we have a positive test backed up by a B sample.

Or are you just wilfully missing the point again?

disgruntledgoat

LangerDan wrote:

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?

He turned me into a newt!

I got better!

dennisn

DaveyL wrote:

dennisn wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

TimeEventParadox wrote:

It's turning into a Witch hunt.

The witches never tested positive first though.

But they were still burned at the stake.

And they were innocent. Here we have a positive test backed up by a B sample.

Or are you just wilfully missing the point again?

But they weren't innocent, according to the law(and I use that term loosely) at the time.
In any case I should have put a at the end of that.

DaveyL

I shall rephrase that, Den - they had done nothing wrong until they were accused by the witchhunters. Getting through yet?

dougzz

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaUkt59vY1Q

pb21

dougzz wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaUkt59vY1Q

I can’t get this at work, is it an apology!

rdt

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 understand the sanctions can be reduced (e.g. 1 yr suspension vs 2 yrs) if it can be shown the substance was taken unintentionally.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, it's very telling how Contador has attempted to shift all discussion to "the Spanish steak", insisting that was the source of the Clenbuterol.

As an innocent guy, he'd have had no clue where the Clen came from, and that should have been his story.

That he's insisting, seemingly with certainty, that it's the alleged steak (as opposed to a whole host of possibilities such as, say, contamination of a supplement, etc), even though he has zero evidence to support the claim, just makes the claim appear even more ridiculous than the convoluted jackanory story already warrants.

Even if it turned out it was the meat, Contador's seeming certainty in it being the source (rather than just one of a host of possibles), undermines his claim and just makes the story appear an after-the-fact work of fiction.

dennisn

iainf72 wrote:

dennisn wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

TimeEventParadox wrote:

It's turning into a Witch hunt.

The witches never tested positive first though.

But they were still burned at the stake.

But if they had tested positive, you'd broadly be supportive?

Can't say that I would have been broadly supportive of anyone who is out witch hunting, but remember that the accused witches did test positive, if only through torture, etc.
In any case my intention was a bit tongue in cheek and not meant as much of anything serious. I'll throw in a couple of winks to prove it.

surista

I recall reading someone saying that all Contador had to do was get someone to procure him a clen-tainted slab of steak, and *poof*, problem solved.

Only thing is - you really think people will help AC trash the entire Spanish beef industry? If there really is clen-tainted meat out there, make no mistake - they *will* find it, and if they do, Contador will get a one-year ban instead of two (he's still responsible for not being careful about what he ate), and it would result in massive fines (possible jail time?) for Spanish beef producers. Especially since clen has been banned in Europe for years and years.

I'd be more shocked to hear about actual clen-tainted beef in Spain than to hear that a cyclist was caught doping.

dave_1

are infusions and transfusions the same in the rulebook? We are still waiting on the results from the kit found at the july 2009 tdf so what kit is definitely not allowed? Does AC have any defence re plastic residue by claiming saline drip?

iainf72

Dave_1 wrote:

are infusions and transfusions the same in the rulebook? We are still waiting on the results from the kit found at the july 2009 tdf so what kit is definitely not allowed? Does AC have any defence re plastic residue by claiming saline drip?

Saline drip also banned.

dave_1

iainf72 wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

are infusions and transfusions the same in the rulebook? We are still waiting on the results from the kit found at the july 2009 tdf so what kit is definitely not allowed? Does AC have any defence re plastic residue by claiming saline drip?

Saline drip also banned.

what if a rider is seriously dehydrated far from TDF Drs? drips were allowed in the 2003 TDF.

inkyfingers

Dave_1 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

are infusions and transfusions the same in the rulebook? We are still waiting on the results from the kit found at the july 2009 tdf so what kit is definitely not allowed? Does AC have any defence re plastic residue by claiming saline drip?

Saline drip also banned.

what if a rider is seriously dehydrated far from TDF Drs? drips were allowed in the 2003 TDF.

I would imagine that if in a doctors opinion it was needed for their health then they may allow it. What he really needs is a backdated TUE...

iainf72

inkyfingers wrote:

I would imagine that if in a doctors opinion it was needed for their health then they may allow it. What he really needs is a backdated TUE...

Naturally, you can get one if you really need it. They're not barbarians.

LangerDan

WADA Rule M2.2

"Intravenous infusions are prohibited except for those legitimately received in the course of hospital admissions or clinical investigations."

in this case, it would be a bit late for Bertie to suddenly claim he was hooked up to an IV in some French hospital on the night in question.

dave_1

inkyfingers wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

are infusions and transfusions the same in the rulebook? We are still waiting on the results from the kit found at the july 2009 tdf so what kit is definitely not allowed? Does AC have any defence re plastic residue by claiming saline drip?

Saline drip also banned.

what if a rider is seriously dehydrated far from TDF Drs? drips were allowed in the 2003 TDF.

I would imagine that if in a doctors opinion it was needed for their health then they may allow it. What he really needs is a backdated TUE...

what if a rider is severely dehydrated and far from TDF drs? For their wellbeing a registered dr on their team could do it and claim otherwise would be negligent. Where is that rule re banning of infusion drips like saline?

psittacosis

what if a mischevious pixie came and sprinkled magical clenbuterol on his steak? what if? what if?

No_Ta_Doctor

Dave_1 wrote:

inkyfingers wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

are infusions and transfusions the same in the rulebook? We are still waiting on the results from the kit found at the july 2009 tdf so what kit is definitely not allowed? Does AC have any defence re plastic residue by claiming saline drip?

Saline drip also banned.

what if a rider is seriously dehydrated far from TDF Drs? drips were allowed in the 2003 TDF.

I would imagine that if in a doctors opinion it was needed for their health then they may allow it. What he really needs is a backdated TUE...

what if a rider is severely dehydrated and far from TDF drs? For their wellbeing a registered dr on their team could do it and claim otherwise would be negligent. Where is that rule re banning of infusion drips like saline?

I can't imagine a rider ever being that far from the TdF doctors, the route is well known beforehand.... Besides, surely they have mobile phones?

jibberjim

Dave_1 wrote:

what if a rider is seriously dehydrated far from TDF Drs? drips were allowed in the 2003 TDF.

See:
http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/docu ... ion_en.pdf

IV infusion in sport is commonly linked with rehydration after exhaustive effort, and this situation is arguably the major cause of debate for sports physicians. It must be clearly stated however that the use of IV fluid replacement following exercise to correct mild rehydration is neither clinically indicated nor substantiated by the TUE process. There is a well-established body of scientific opinion to confirm that oral rehydration is the preferred therapeutic choice, deemed by some authorities as being even more effective than the parenteral option. (Ref: 3,4,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17)

So you should not get a TUE accepted if you use it for the above, the note also says:

“Finally, to assist TUECs in their deliberations here is a simple check list of pre-requisites:
1. A clear, confirmed medical diagnosis of illness or injury in a specific athlete.
2. No permitted alternative treatment available
3. No capacity for this treatment to enhance performance
4. Treatment by qualified medical personnel in an appropriate medical setting
5. Adequate medical records of the treatment available for inspection

and an IV to rehyrdrate in the middle of a grand tour would clearly enhance performance unless the medical problem was so severe that they could not continue.

So I cannot see a retrospective TUE being accepted (depending on who actually is on cyclings TUEC)

Tom Butcher

Re. the plasticisers. I understand the test for these is not currently approved/validated or whatever the correct term is. I'm assuming that this is a process and that such a test will at some point in the forseeable become official.

When that happens can they retrospectively test stored samples and hand out bans on the strength of that ?

dave_1

No tA Doctor wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

inkyfingers wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

are infusions and transfusions the same in the rulebook? We are still waiting on the results from the kit found at the july 2009 tdf so what kit is definitely not allowed? Does AC have any defence re plastic residue by claiming saline drip?

Saline drip also banned.

what if a rider is seriously dehydrated far from TDF Drs? drips were allowed in the 2003 TDF.

I would imagine that if in a doctors opinion it was needed for their health then they may allow it. What he really needs is a backdated TUE...

what if a rider is severely dehydrated and far from TDF drs? For their wellbeing a registered dr on their team could do it and claim otherwise would be negligent. Where is that rule re banning of infusion drips like saline?

I can't imagine a rider ever being that far from the TdF doctors, the route is well known beforehand.... Besides, surely they have mobile phones?

I can imagine it cause some of the riders are located 50 or 60 miles from stage start/finish. No race rules could stop a dr administering a drip if he thought it needed more urgently than by a 2- -3 hour round trip drive to a TDF dr. Do you know the rules on this?

iainf72

Dave_1 wrote:

I can imagine it cause some of the riders are located 50 or 60 miles from stage start/finish. No race rules could stop a dr administering a drip if he thought it needed more urgently than by a 2- -3 hour round trip drive to a TDF dr. Do you know the rules on this?

I doubt there are many times on the Tour when it would take 2 hours to get to a hospital. If you're in that dire need of saline or anything, then you're ill and should be in a hospital, or at least in an ambulance.

No_Ta_Doctor

Dave_1 wrote:

I can imagine it cause some of the riders are located 50 or 60 miles from stage start/finish. No race rules could stop a dr administering a drip if he thought it needed more urgently than by a 2- -3 hour round trip drive to a TDF dr. Do you know the rules on this?

Someone else posted the rules above. As I said, it were an emergency then why not pick up the phone and call them?

Further to that, why would a rider's dehydration only become apparent when they got back to their hotel? Surely as soon as they finish the stage they start to rehydrate. Anyone looking in a bad way should surely be spotted at this point, where the doctors are presumably on hand? If I've missed some basic physiological point about rehydration then feel free to correct me.

***Edited to trim some of the quotes out, like wot Iain did done***

dave_1

iainf72 wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

I can imagine it cause some of the riders are located 50 or 60 miles from stage start/finish. No race rules could stop a dr administering a drip if he thought it needed more urgently than by a 2- -3 hour round trip drive to a TDF dr. Do you know the rules on this?

I doubt there are many times on the Tour when it would take 2 hours to get to a hospital. If you're in that dire need of saline or anything, then you're ill and should be in a hospital, or at least in an ambulance.

I just know hotels can be very far away from TDF start and finish areas and drs have the law behind them and can make judgments as to what is best. Are you certain no infusion kit is allowed?

Kléber

If you need that sort of help then you get the Tour de France medic Dr Porte to help. The race has ambulances and medical staff on stand-by.

Note too that a team couldn't even give a saline IV. No team is allowed material like this, it is a criminal offence to hold such stuff under French law. All teams have to declare any medical products that they bring into France. Declaring a drip, even saline, would land them in trouble. It is not needed because the race organisers will have supplies for an emergency.