Contador tests positive for Clenbuterol

avoidingmyphd

frenchfighter wrote:

Am I to understand that there was no testing done of the meat in the Cologne labs that tested Contador?

Why the same lab?

frenchfighter

Because that lab is meant to have the most advanced technology. If Contador's samples had been tested elsewhere, we would not be having this conversation.

attica

FF

For the meat to have produced the concentration it did in Contador's sample, it would have had to have had a substantially stronger concentration of Clenbuterol in it.

By eating the meat he would have been diluting it with his own clean bodily fluids.

detecting small concentrations in the meat would be unnecessary as they would then be undetectable in anyone who ate it

frenchfighter

Your opinion. Threre are 'experts' that argue both ways re. the concentration required for 0,000 000 000 05 grams per ml.

pb21

A question for frenchfighter and anyone else who believes what Contador is saying.

Why do you choose to believe what Contador says?

nickwill

Attica wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

27 m livestock slaughtered in 2008, 122,648 samples tested for clen, 22,518 return a + "for beta agonists, including Clenbuterol"

???

I think you're reading that wrong.
Of the 122648 tested, only 22518 were tested for Clenbuterol
Contador's team aren't denying the single positive from those 22518, just pointing out that the odds are shorter than the WADA report which apparently points to one in 122648.

Either way, the chances of Contador getting meat from the one animal in however many are pretty darned slim

What amazes me, is that he somehow knows that the meat was the source of the problem!

TheBigBean

pb21 wrote:

A question for frenchfighter and anyone else who believes what Contador is saying.

Why do you choose to believe what Contador says?

I don't believe what Contador is saying; I want to believe it. I want to think the sport is getting cleaner and that there will be some epic battles involving Schleck and Contador in the future.

nickwill

TheBigBean wrote:

pb21 wrote:

A question for frenchfighter and anyone else who believes what Contador is saying.

Why do you choose to believe what Contador says?

I don't believe what Contador is saying; I want to believe it. I want to think the sport is getting cleaner and that there will be some epic battles involving Schleck and Contador in the future.

The problem is that he has already broken the rules by having illegal substances in his system. There are no grey areas. If he is somehow cleared, it will be a disaster for the sport. It will bring the whole anti doping protocol into disrepute.

No_Ta_Doctor

bipedal wrote:

Odd line of defence:

“Such reasoning is fallacious,” they argue, “because if so we have to admit also that it is absurd that any athlete uses a banned substance, especially because sport's controls are much more abundant than livestock and use much more sophisticated detection methods than those used in veterinary medicine.”

So because cyclists dope, cows dope. I wonder how much they charged to come up with that gem?

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/6388/ ... ation.aspx

You've got that the wrong way round.The WADA report says (paraphrasing) that farmers don't dope their cattle because they might get caught, ergo there cant be any dope in the cattle, so Contador can't have got his clen from beef. Contador rightly points out that it's a very strange argument, given that athletes are in a similar position.

I'd like to see the full text, because if that's really what they said it brings down the tone of the whole report :-(

attica

I think WADA is implying that as there is no "Out of Slaughterhouse testing" the farmers that do dope are wise to it and stop doping the cattle long enough before they send them to the abattior that there's none in the cattle's system.

bipedal

Velonews article seems to suggest WADA did do their own tests:


"But a report by WADA obtained by the newspaper El Pais said its experts visited the butcher’s shop in northern Spain where the meat was purchased and the slaughterhouse that supplies it, and found no evidence of clenbuterol in any of its products.

“None of the inspections, none of the tests on samples of meat found traces of clenbuterol, a banned drug used to fatten cattle quickly,” El Pais said."

http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/11/ ... aim_149978

Of course, until they publish the full WADA report it's hard to know exactly what they did

Pokerface

^--- Yes, I understood from various articles that they had performed actual tests on meat. If this is not the case, the report, while perhaps influential, is not as damning as in the case that they had actually done tests.

Still - you would think that Contador's team of lackies would have gone to the same places, and secured similar meat samples - and had them tested. And of course found the contamination that would back up his story. :roll:

No_Ta_Doctor

Attica wrote:

I think WADA is implying that as there is no "Out of Slaughterhouse testing" the farmers that do dope are wise to it and stop doping the cattle long enough before they send them to the abattior that there's none in the cattle's system.

Sorry, yes, that was more like it. Though they explicitly state it, rather than imply it!

It still amounts to "farmers aren't stupid enough to get caught", which does ask some questions of the peloton :-)

cal_stewart

frenchfighter wrote:

According to the latest official report of the European Union for 2008, over a total of nearly 27 million cattle were slaughtered in the EU but only a total of 122,648 samples (0.48%) of which only 22,518 cases with searches for traces of beta agonists, including Clenbuterol.

First rule of statistics relates to sample size. Here are 1000 UK citizens. None of them have class A drugs in their body, so we conclude that no one in UK has class A drugs in their body. This logic is pointless. Totally pointless.

Lightweight. Lightweights.

FF so the 1000 uk citizens = even less % than the EU survey by a long shot. Around 25000 same fair.

andylav

At 11:21 on 17 Nov 2010, frenchfighter wrote

I'm done here. Check the sig.

At 17:17, he then wrote

“Blah, blah, blah.,,,,,,
.......................................
Lightweight. Lightweights.

Proving that while he might be very adept in the posting of others' photographs - in contravention of copyright law by the way - he doesn't seem to have quite got the gist of the flouncy exit yet.

Brightened up my evening though.

LangerDan

Pokerface wrote:

Still - you would think that Contador's team of lackies would have gone to the same places, and secured similar meat samples - and had them tested. And of course found the contamination that would back up his story. :roll:

Particularly since Contador has posited the "contaminated beef wot my chef got from Spain" explanation / excuse only two days after being advised of the positive test by the UCI on August 24th - which would have given him a far better chance of locating the offending material than WADA rocking up several weeks later.

DaveyL

Nickwill wrote:

What amazes me, is that he somehow knows that the meat was the source of the problem!

Very good point. It must have tasted dodgy, that high quality meat.

No_Ta_Doctor

DaveyL wrote:

Nickwill wrote:

What amazes me, is that he somehow knows that the meat was the source of the problem!

Very good point. It must have tasted dodgy, that high quality meat.

Cant remember where I read it, was in one of the links above I think, but Clen meat and high quality apparently don't go hand in hand - it makes it a bit tough.

Arkibal

Nickwill wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

pb21 wrote:

A question for frenchfighter and anyone else who believes what Contador is saying.

Why do you choose to believe what Contador says?

I don't believe what Contador is saying; I want to believe it. I want to think the sport is getting cleaner and that there will be some epic battles involving Schleck and Contador in the future.

The problem is that he has already broken the rules by having illegal substances in his system. There are no grey areas. If he is somehow cleared, it will be a disaster for the sport. It will bring the whole anti doping protocol into disrepute.

If he got the clen through contamination, how is that breaking the rules?

Do you think the table tennis player who got cleared after his clen positive brought the anti doping protocol into disrepute?

gattocattivo

"frenchfighter wrote:

First rule of statistics relates to sample size. Here are 1000 UK citizens. None of them have class A drugs in their body, so we conclude that no one in UK has class A drugs in their body. This logic is pointless. Totally pointless.

Lightweight. Lightweights.

I'm sure somebody better at statistics can come along and correct me on this, but I think if you took a sample of 10,000 UK people and found none of them had taken class A drugs, that would quite strongly suggest that nobody actually took class A drugs.

If we (very conservatively) estimate that 1% of the adult population have traces of class As in their bloodstream at any given moment in time, and we pluck one person at random from the whole population of Britain then there is a 99% chance that they will not have class As in their system.

If we pluck two people at random then the chance of neither of them having class As in their system is 0.99 x 0.99 = 0.9801 (i.e. 98.1%).

I

gattocattivo

(I haven't finished that post yet, but I'm having bizzarre formatting problems)

ratsbeyfus

The First Rule of Statistics is That No One Talks About Statistics.

gattocattivo

If we picked 100 people at random, then the chances of none of them having class As in their system would be 0.99 to the power of 100, which is about 37%.

If we picked 1000 people at random, the odds would be 0.99 to the power of 1000, which I make about 0.004%.

By my calculation, if you picked 1,000 people at random, the chances of none of them having class As in their system would be 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000224%.

Pokerface

Arkibal wrote:

If he got the clen through contamination, how is that breaking the rules?

Very simply because the 'rules' state that you are responsible for whatever goes into your body. It may not seem right, especially in cases of genuine contamination or mistake, but those are the rules.

Tusher

Statistics are Art and not Science.

You can make figures say whatever you want them to say.

Tom BB

ratsbeyfus wrote:

The First Rule of Statistics is That No One Talks About Statistics.

The second rule of statistics is...........Everyone makes up most statistics.

disgruntledgoat

Tusher wrote:

Statistics are Art and not Science.

You can make figures say whatever you want them to say.

37% of all people know that!

furrag

Nickwill wrote:

What amazes me, is that he somehow knows that the meat was the source of the problem!

This.

pdstsp

^ Well he has had a while to think about where it might have come from.

andy_wrx

 The less believing would re-spin that as

^ Well he has had a while to think up where it might have come from and this was the most plausible excuse/explanation he and his legal team could come up with

:twisted: