Contador tests positive for Clenbuterol
Comments
-
Kleber..
I take this is the clue you were hinting about...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 ...'Do not compare your bike to others, for always there will be greater and lesser bikes'0 -
Contador is the Greatest0 -
I love Contador, part deux:
http://twitpic.com/2vdhar0 -
Kléber wrote:I love Contador, part deux:
http://twitpic.com/2vdhar
Only click this link if you don't mind classless things...low gradeContador is the Greatest0 -
You really are something special Frenchiefrenchfighter wrote:Kléber wrote:I love Contador, part deux:
http://twitpic.com/2vdhar
Only click this link if you don't mind classless things...low grade
0 -
frenchfighter wrote:Kléber wrote:I love Contador, part deux:
http://twitpic.com/2vdhar
Only click this link if you don't mind classless things...low grade
Classless?? ..naaah... quite well drawn that is
0 -
0
-
frenchfighter wrote:Kléber wrote:I love Contador, part deux:
http://twitpic.com/2vdhar
Only click this link if you don't mind classless things...low grade
Strangely enough I agree with your "classless....low grade".
However, had it been about another certain cyclist, we all know, I'm betting you would have been delighted.0 -
Dennisn, what I don't UNDERSTAND is why you are interested in ALL this Contador stuff. WHAT is it to YOU if this guy HAS or hasn't doped? Haven't you GOT better ways of spending YOUR time? I'm OF course completely NOT interested in any OF this, I'm just fascinated by the WAY so many people on BIKE radar SEEM to be fixated on this Spanish GUY. I just want to MAKE it clear I don't have any kind of MAN Crush on AC. Hmmm? 0
-
Anyhow's back in the world of the living...
Contador has said that he's happy to have all his wee and blood stored and tested over the next five years to prove he is as pure as a pork sausage. Is he therefore happy and confident enough to have all his frozen wee samples from the past tested for this plastisizer stuff to also prove that he has never had illegal transfusions? Surely he'd jump at the chance to show that his pee from the past is crystal clear, and the tests in the tour were dodgy 'outliers'?
I wonder how many of the current pros would willingly submit their frozen pee to this test? I mentioned on a LA thread that it could be used by the pros who are under investigation / suspicion to help show that they haven't had transfusions.
Thoughts, rants, ramblings, puns, etc???0 -
ratsbeyfus wrote:Dennisn, what I don't UNDERSTAND is why you are interested in ALL this Contador stuff. WHAT is it to YOU if this guy HAS or hasn't doped? Haven't you GOT better ways of spending YOUR time? I'm OF course completely NOT interested in any OF this, I'm just fascinated by the WAY so many people on BIKE radar SEEM to be fixated on this Spanish GUY. I just want to MAKE it clear I don't have any kind of MAN Crush on AC. Hmmm?
Why am I interested? I follow cycling. Have for years. Not quite as closely as some but...
What is it to me? News, like every other thing that happens.
Better ways to spend my time? Ya got that right. Although since I retired a few months back I do find that I have a bit more time for the keyboard than I did before. Much to the dismay of many.
I'll be the first to admit that the "why" of people taking the news of possible doping, by whomever, so seriously really makes me wonder why they let it affect them like that.
Almost as if said doper / cheat had shot their dog.
Glad to hear about your NON man crush on AC.
0 -
[alert/]Irony[alert/]0
-
ratsbeyfus wrote:Anyhow's back in the world of the living...
Contador has said that he's happy to have all his wee and blood stored and tested over the next five years to prove he is as pure as a pork sausage. Is he therefore happy and confident enough to have all his frozen wee samples from the past tested for this plastisizer stuff to also prove that he has never had illegal transfusions? Surely he'd jump at the chance to show that his pee from the past is crystal clear, and the tests in the tour were dodgy 'outliers'?
I wonder how many of the current pros would willingly submit their frozen pee to this test? I mentioned on a LA thread that it could be used by the pros who are under investigation / suspicion to help show that they haven't had transfusions.
Thoughts, rants, ramblings, puns, etc???
OK, dumb question. Just where do they store all this frozen pee, blood, etc. At what cost and to whom is this cost passed on to? Well, that last question has the obivous answer of "it's passed on to the tax payers". Isn't everything? Can the public visit these places?
Do they all smell like p*ss? Do they have displays we could look at? You know, "here's so and so's tainted blood from his failed Olympic tests". What's the hourly wage for the average worker in these urine storage barns? How many gallons of p*ss are calculated to be in any one of the storage areas? 0 -
Well fuck my luck
I own a shop that specialises in "adult" products. All my blinking inflatable women, blow up sheep and vibrators are made of high quality medical grade plastic.
I've had loads of Pro Cyclists calling last few days to cancel orders.
Oh aye...and Berty sent back that 12inch Black Mambo and Plastic Pepe combo.0 -
ratsbeyfus wrote:Anyhow's back in the world of the living...
Contador has said that he's happy to have all his wee and blood stored and tested over the next five years to prove he is as pure as a pork sausage. Is he therefore happy and confident enough to have all his frozen wee samples from the past tested for this plastisizer stuff to also prove that he has never had illegal transfusions? Surely he'd jump at the chance to show that his pee from the past is crystal clear, and the tests in the tour were dodgy 'outliers'?
I wonder how many of the current pros would willingly submit their frozen pee to this test? I mentioned on a LA thread that it could be used by the pros who are under investigation / suspicion to help show that they haven't had transfusions.
Thoughts, rants, ramblings, puns, etc???
I thought this was the one thing Contador said that made me sit up and think maybe he is clean, but I cant see it myself. Cant see LA would ever say anything similar ...not after his positive B when the A was used and his 'i passed the test at the time so no need to re-test' stance ...even though that test conveniently wasnt in place for epo when the A's were done.
(also another reason why surely it would be better to store more samples than the A and B, so there would have been a C and so on to re-test another 2 samples)0 -
I'd love to have me pee tested.
Mite tell me what I should have been taking all these years !0 -
Just imagine it tho, LA for example, or anyone in his position being accused all the time... what if he said "tell you what, Im happy for any samples taken during my career that have been stored in the correct manner to be subjected to tests for EPO or its derivatives, as I quite simply have never taken EPO"
If I was in a position like that where Id not taken something I was accused of, Im sure thats pretty much what Id say. Simple way of looking at it, but a clear statement of 'ive got nothing to hide'.
Wonder why Contador has said something along the lines of storing and retesting cos he knows it wont happen though? If not, then he's making a bit of a statement there.0 -
itisaboutthebike wrote:I'd love to have me pee tested.
Mite tell me what I should have been taking all these years !
Spelling lessons?Twitter: @RichN950 -
mfin wrote:ratsbeyfus wrote:Anyhow's back in the world of the living...
Contador has said that he's happy to have all his wee and blood stored and tested over the next five years to prove he is as pure as a pork sausage. Is he therefore happy and confident enough to have all his frozen wee samples from the past tested for this plastisizer stuff to also prove that he has never had illegal transfusions? Surely he'd jump at the chance to show that his pee from the past is crystal clear, and the tests in the tour were dodgy 'outliers'?
I wonder how many of the current pros would willingly submit their frozen pee to this test? I mentioned on a LA thread that it could be used by the pros who are under investigation / suspicion to help show that they haven't had transfusions.
Thoughts, rants, ramblings, puns, etc???
I thought this was the one thing Contador said that made me sit up and think maybe he is clean, but I cant see it myself. Cant see LA would ever say anything similar ...not after his positive B when the A was used and his 'i passed the test at the time so no need to re-test' stance ...even though that test conveniently wasnt in place for epo when the A's were done.
(also another reason why surely it would be better to store more samples than the A and B, so there would have been a C and so on to re-test another 2 samples)
Do you understand how an A and B sample is taken? And how much of it there is?
You pee in a bottle - then pour half that bottle into two separate containers marked A and B. There's a fair bit of it to work with. I assume they do this in case one sample gets contaminated so they have the other to double-check.
Having more wouldn't really prove anything. - And they don't use all of the sample for testing.0 -
frenchfighter wrote:Kléber wrote:I love Contador, part deux:
http://twitpic.com/2vdhar
Only click this link if you don't mind classless things...low grade
Even though your faith is now totally blind, surely you admit that cartoon is quite funny. You're sounding like Lance now with the low grade patter.Scottish and British...and a bit French0 -
Pokerface wrote:mfin wrote:ratsbeyfus wrote:Anyhow's back in the world of the living...
Contador has said that he's happy to have all his wee and blood stored and tested over the next five years to prove he is as pure as a pork sausage. Is he therefore happy and confident enough to have all his frozen wee samples from the past tested for this plastisizer stuff to also prove that he has never had illegal transfusions? Surely he'd jump at the chance to show that his pee from the past is crystal clear, and the tests in the tour were dodgy 'outliers'?
I wonder how many of the current pros would willingly submit their frozen pee to this test? I mentioned on a LA thread that it could be used by the pros who are under investigation / suspicion to help show that they haven't had transfusions.
Thoughts, rants, ramblings, puns, etc???
I thought this was the one thing Contador said that made me sit up and think maybe he is clean, but I cant see it myself. Cant see LA would ever say anything similar ...not after his positive B when the A was used and his 'i passed the test at the time so no need to re-test' stance ...even though that test conveniently wasnt in place for epo when the A's were done.
(also another reason why surely it would be better to store more samples than the A and B, so there would have been a C and so on to re-test another 2 samples)
Do you understand how an A and B sample is taken? And how much of it there is?
You pee in a bottle - then pour half that bottle into two separate containers marked A and B. There's a fair bit of it to work with. I assume they do this in case one sample gets contaminated so they have the other to double-check.
Having more wouldn't really prove anything. - And they don't use all of the sample for testing.
Yeah, i do understand, its just sealing it in untouched containers. But... if you employ a system where you have to deal with untouched containers and A's are used and come back neg, then in the future if you have new tests for drugs banned at the time then you've only got the B left. So... I think the twin test confirming the first is fine, but there should be say, 3 pairs of sealed samples, not just the 1 pair.
If they started storing that lot now, then in the future new rules on re-testing etc could come about. Just think they should store the stuff to open up possibilities in future.0 -
mfin wrote:If they started storing that lot now, then in the future new rules on re-testing etc could come about. Just think they should store the stuff to open up possibilities in future.
D'oh! I was thinking they would just reseal the A sample - but I guess it's not a perfect sample once it's open. :oops:0 -
Pokerface wrote:mfin wrote:If they started storing that lot now, then in the future new rules on re-testing etc could come about. Just think they should store the stuff to open up possibilities in future.
D'oh! I was thinking they would just reseal the A sample - but I guess it's not a perfect sample once it's open. :oops:
No, well, it probably is if opened in sterile conditions Id guess, but could be tampered, or could be switched with someone elses! ...saying that its frozen isnt it, so theyd have to pop it in the microwave, and its dodgy re-freezing things isnt it to keep the rest? Shouldnt do it too many times with chicken anyway
EDIT... actually, is it frozen??? hmmm0 -
mfin wrote:Pokerface wrote:mfin wrote:ratsbeyfus wrote:Anyhow's back in the world of the living...
Contador has said that he's happy to have all his wee and blood stored and tested over the next five years to prove he is as pure as a pork sausage. Is he therefore happy and confident enough to have all his frozen wee samples from the past tested for this plastisizer stuff to also prove that he has never had illegal transfusions? Surely he'd jump at the chance to show that his pee from the past is crystal clear, and the tests in the tour were dodgy 'outliers'?
I wonder how many of the current pros would willingly submit their frozen pee to this test? I mentioned on a LA thread that it could be used by the pros who are under investigation / suspicion to help show that they haven't had transfusions.
Thoughts, rants, ramblings, puns, etc???
I thought this was the one thing Contador said that made me sit up and think maybe he is clean, but I cant see it myself. Cant see LA would ever say anything similar ...not after his positive B when the A was used and his 'i passed the test at the time so no need to re-test' stance ...even though that test conveniently wasnt in place for epo when the A's were done.
(also another reason why surely it would be better to store more samples than the A and B, so there would have been a C and so on to re-test another 2 samples)
Do you understand how an A and B sample is taken? And how much of it there is?
You pee in a bottle - then pour half that bottle into two separate containers marked A and B. There's a fair bit of it to work with. I assume they do this in case one sample gets contaminated so they have the other to double-check.
Having more wouldn't really prove anything. - And they don't use all of the sample for testing.
Yeah, i do understand, its just sealing it in untouched containers. But... if you employ a system where you have to deal with untouched containers and A's are used and come back neg, then in the future if you have new tests for drugs banned at the time then you've only got the B left. So... I think the twin test confirming the first is fine, but there should be say, 3 pairs of sealed samples, not just the 1 pair.
If they started storing that lot now, then in the future new rules on re-testing etc could come about. Just think they should store the stuff to open up possibilities in future.
This is what LA used with the 99 retests that were done. They were done on the B sample as I thikn the A had already been tested. As such they can't do another analyse to prove the results and so according to WADA rules it isn't a positive.
Same thing with Hamilton at the Olympics where his B samples was stored wrong and so even though the A was positive they couldn't test the B sample0 -
I haven't posted for a while on this forum but have been following this thread with interest. For what it's worth, I think that the clenbuterol positive is what it is and any arguments as to where it came from go towards mitigation only. Personally, the plasticisers evidence seems more credible (even though it's not verified) than the meat story.
On the verification point, although the legal arguments would be numerous, it would be nice to see the uci use it before they find a way around it. it's a fantastic breakthrough.
However the main reason fo my post is the fact that I saw a certain Michael Rasmussen speaking out in contador's defence on cyclingnews! the fact that he is speaking in your defence can't be a a great thing pr wise. But more than that, he says that they should "judge what is performance enhancing" that proves this guy hasn't changed. As has been well verserd, the worry is that it is also an attitude held by many others in the sport.
You can't use half measures to tackle this problem.0 -
There is a list of banned substances and a list of acceptable food/drink/supplements etc. Provided they stick to one and not the other then they are not breaking the rules.Rhods wrote:However the main reason fo my post is the fact that I saw a certain Michael Rasmussen speaking out in contador's defence on cyclingnews! the fact that he is speaking in your defence can't be a a great thing pr wise. But more than that, he says that they should "judge what is performance enhancing" that proves this guy hasn't changed. As has been well verserd, the worry is that it is also an attitude held by many others in the sport.
Smoking dope probably does you no good performance wise, but its still banned I believe.
MR's argument is meaningless/pointless/irrelevant/inexcusableCan I upgrade???0 -
So if they really have nothing to hide, they should just freely let anyone do whatever theywant with their samples forever, protocols be damned? Not sure I agree with that. My understanding is that in many cases it's not like these tests are a pregnancy take-home test 'blue you're pregnant, not blue you're not'. It's not so cut-and-dry; you often need to make judgement calls on what the test results are. Regardless of whether I was clean or not, once my samples had been used for their specific intended purpose I want them to be disposed of. Having them lying around runs the risk of exposure. Or contamination. Or nefarious use by others with less-than-pure motive. There's only risk, and no real reward.
In the same vein, just because I have nothing to hide doesn't mean I let police into my house without a warrant. 'If you have nothing to hide you don't need a lawyer/warrant etc' is bullcrap. We have protections built into the system for a reason.0 -
surista wrote:In the same vein, just because I have nothing to hide doesn't mean I let police into my house without a warrant. 'If you have nothing to hide you don't need a lawyer/warrant etc' is bullcrap. We have protections built into the system for a reason.
Rightly so, but if you are accused of something and there is a definite way for you to clear your name once and for all; Would you go ahead and provide whatever is necessary, or would you carry on happy with the fact that a lot of people seriously doubt your integrity?0 -
Its not anyone and everyone being given samples for testing.surista wrote:So if they really have nothing to hide, they should just freely let anyone do whatever theywant with their samples forever, protocols be damned? Not sure I agree with that. My understanding is that in many cases it's not like these tests are a pregnancy take-home test 'blue you're pregnant, not blue you're not'. It's not so cut-and-dry; you often need to make judgement calls on what the test results are. Regardless of whether I was clean or not, once my samples had been used for their specific intended purpose I want them to be disposed of. Having them lying around runs the risk of exposure. Or contamination. Or nefarious use by others with less-than-pure motive. There's only risk, and no real reward.
In the same vein, just because I have nothing to hide doesn't mean I let police into my house without a warrant. 'If you have nothing to hide you don't need a lawyer/warrant etc' is bullcrap. We have protections built into the system for a reason.
WADA/UCI should ensure the samples are held securely and only send out the samples to specific authorised labs.
Whats the issue with future tests proving guilt or innocence. Its no different to new police forensic methods catching guilty parties years after they have committed crimes.
All these riders have signed up to these races on the premis they are clean. They should not have any issue with the authorites testing their samples whenever they like.Can I upgrade???0 -
Well, I suspect that there would be those that would always 'doubt my intergrity' regardless of what I did - just look at the 9/11 truthers or those that believe the moon landings were a hoax. Lord knows there are people out there who will willfully ignore any and all evidence to hold on to their tinfoil hat or otherwise irrational positions (cough cough*FF*cough cough).
So I would not *freely* offer anything. I would happily give whatever they had a warrant for, and I'd have a lawyer beside me the entire way.0
