Contador tests positive for Clenbuterol

dennisn

Attica wrote:

CyclingNews wrote:

The 26-year-old has said he will fight he charges. “I'm going to do everything I can to prove I am innocent,” he said, and has already given a sample for a hair analysis test.

Has Contador provided a similar hair sample? Does that actually do any good?
I'd be rather glad if Contador could prove his innocence beyond any doubt, I somehow doubt he'd ever be able to if he were innocent.

I'm not sure if anyone should have to prove they are innocent of something. At least as far as the burden of proof always rests with the accuser.

skylark

dennisn wrote:

I'm not sure if anyone should have to prove they are innocent of something. At least as far as the burden of proof always rests with the accuser.

+1

DaveyL

dennisn wrote:

Attica wrote:

CyclingNews wrote:

The 26-year-old has said he will fight he charges. “I'm going to do everything I can to prove I am innocent,” he said, and has already given a sample for a hair analysis test.

Has Contador provided a similar hair sample? Does that actually do any good?
I'd be rather glad if Contador could prove his innocence beyond any doubt, I somehow doubt he'd ever be able to if he were innocent.

I'm not sure if anyone should have to prove they are innocent of something. At least as far as the burden of proof always rests with the accuser.

Contador is already guilty - he has tested positive for a banned substance. He might get a reduced sentence if he can prove he is innocent of deliberately taking the substance.

Homer J

DaveyL wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Attica wrote:

CyclingNews wrote:

The 26-year-old has said he will fight he charges. “I'm going to do everything I can to prove I am innocent,” he said, and has already given a sample for a hair analysis test.

Has Contador provided a similar hair sample? Does that actually do any good?
I'd be rather glad if Contador could prove his innocence beyond any doubt, I somehow doubt he'd ever be able to if he were innocent.

I'm not sure if anyone should have to prove they are innocent of something. At least as far as the burden of proof always rests with the accuser.

Contador is already guilty - he has tested positive for a banned substance. He might get a reduced sentence if he can prove he is innocent of deliberately taking the substance.

+1

dennisn

DaveyL wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Attica wrote:

CyclingNews wrote:

The 26-year-old has said he will fight he charges. “I'm going to do everything I can to prove I am innocent,” he said, and has already given a sample for a hair analysis test.

Has Contador provided a similar hair sample? Does that actually do any good?
I'd be rather glad if Contador could prove his innocence beyond any doubt, I somehow doubt he'd ever be able to if he were innocent.

I'm not sure if anyone should have to prove they are innocent of something. At least as far as the burden of proof always rests with the accuser.

Contador is already guilty - he has tested positive for a banned substance. He might get a reduced sentence if he can prove he is innocent of deliberately taking the substance.

Agreed, but how you could prove something like that is beyond me. I think the whole affair shows that cyclings governing bodies are going by the letter of the law, or should I say, the rules. Hard to imagine going out, getting a good steak dinner, and having to worry about losing your livelyhood. Or eating anything for that matter.

Pokerface

dennisn wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Attica wrote:

CyclingNews wrote:

The 26-year-old has said he will fight he charges. “I'm going to do everything I can to prove I am innocent,” he said, and has already given a sample for a hair analysis test.

Has Contador provided a similar hair sample? Does that actually do any good?
I'd be rather glad if Contador could prove his innocence beyond any doubt, I somehow doubt he'd ever be able to if he were innocent.

I'm not sure if anyone should have to prove they are innocent of something. At least as far as the burden of proof always rests with the accuser.

Contador is already guilty - he has tested positive for a banned substance. He might get a reduced sentence if he can prove he is innocent of deliberately taking the substance.

Agreed, but how you could prove something like that is beyond me. I think the whole affair shows that cyclings governing bodies are going by the letter of the law, or should I say, the rules. Hard to imagine going out, getting a good steak dinner, and having to worry about losing your livelyhood. Or eating anything for that matter.

Same reason I don't visit whorehouses in 3rd world countries

timoid.

Merckx calls Contador's defence lightweight. One in the eye for Frenchie?

“I’m not passing any judgements on the man or on the consequences,” Merckx told Le Soir. “Frankly I don’t know what is going to happen but the explanations given by Contador seem lightweight and not very credible to me.”

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/merckx- ... rs-defence

Pokerface

Timoid. wrote:

Merckx calls Contador's defence lightweight. One in the eye for Frenchie?

“I’m not passing any judgements on the man or on the consequences,” Merckx told Le Soir. “Frankly I don’t know what is going to happen but the explanations given by Contador seem lightweight and not very credible to me.”

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/merckx- ... rs-defence

HA! I was just about to post the same thing.


FF - you are Eddy Merckx and I claim my £5.

domhopson

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/6972/Contador-decision-now-not-likely-before-February.aspx

Looks like Feb now before a decision

dennisn

domhopson wrote:

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/6972/Contador-decision-now-not-likely-before-February.aspx

Looks like Feb now before a decision

Must be lots of politics or politicians or lawyers involved. Who else could take so long in making a simple decision? :roll: :roll:

nickwill

dennisn wrote:

domhopson wrote:

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/6972/Contador-decision-now-not-likely-before-February.aspx

Looks like Feb now before a decision

Must be lots of politics or politicians or lawyers involved. Who else could take so long in making a simple decision? :roll: :roll:

Unless they are disputing the actual presence of clembuterol, which is unlikely, there is nothing to discuss! If they accept that it's there then he's guilty, it's a two year ban! Open shut case. ..... Next!!!

TomBombadil

I've not followed everything on this subject but I'm not sure about this comment!

'Hard to imagine going out, getting a good steak dinner, and having to worry about losing your livelyhood. Or eating anything for that matter.'

There is nothing to worry about! As you will not have clenbuterol in your system - as discussed everywhere - there is no EVIDENCE that this has ever happened just speculation by a few athletes who are using it as a defence.

However there will always be a possibility of somebody contaminating an athletes food which is why they should take full responsibility and know exactly what they are eating - it is therefore and can only ever be their responsibility as indicated in the rules!

All the experts have said contamination from meat is not likely and I'm not aware of any study that has shown this actually has happened - maybe somebody has some published evidence.

What absolutely amazes me is how long this taking to sort out - are the cycling administrati hoping it will be magically go away and all be forgotten? If they let Contador off (he did have clen in his blood and it was his responsibility to not have any) it ridicules the sport to a new all time low.

Tom

dennisn

TomBombadil wrote:

I've not followed everything on this subject but I'm not sure about this comment!

'Hard to imagine going out, getting a good steak dinner, and having to worry about losing your livelyhood. Or eating anything for that matter.'

There is nothing to worry about! As you will not have clenbuterol in your system - as discussed everywhere - there is no EVIDENCE that this has ever happened just speculation by a few athletes who are using it as a defence.

However there will always be a possibility of somebody contaminating an athletes food which is why they should take full responsibility and know exactly what they are eating - it is therefore and can only ever be their responsibility as indicated in the rules!

All the experts have said contamination from meat is not likely and I'm not aware of any study that has shown this actually has happened - maybe somebody has some published evidence.

What absolutely amazes me is how long this taking to sort out - are the cycling administrati hoping it will be magically go away and all be forgotten? If they let Contador off (he did have clen in his blood and it was his responsibility to not have any) it ridicules the sport to a new all time low.

Tom

That's my ....hard to imagine quote.
I meant it on the lines of "can you (or I or anyone) imagine going to a restaurant and having to worry about whether ANY of the food was somehow tainted with some substance that would render a positive dope test"? Not being able to drop by a restaurant
for some food, with friends, or anyone for that matter, is not a life I want to be a part of.
Seems I once read an LA quote in which he said something to the effect that he never ate anything that his personal chef didn't prepare. Makes some sense, when you think about it. This may be standard practice these days.
As for it being his(AC's) responsibilty not to have it in his blood? Yes. Of course, and he will probably pay the price. Just like any other rider, famous or not.

RichN95.

dennisn wrote:

That's my ....hard to imagine quote.
I meant it on the lines of "can you (or I or anyone) imagine going to a restaurant and having to worry about whether ANY of the food was somehow tainted with some substance that would render a positive dope test"? Not being able to drop by a restaurant
for some food, with friends, or anyone for that matter, is not a life I want to be a part of.

It's highly unlikely though. The risks are so small (particularly in the EU) that they're not worth worrying about.

There's a chance that any of us could get hit by a car and killed when riding a bike. But the chances are very small, so we don't sit at home, frightened to go out of the front door.

dennisn

RichN95 wrote:

dennisn wrote:

That's my ....hard to imagine quote.
I meant it on the lines of "can you (or I or anyone) imagine going to a restaurant and having to worry about whether ANY of the food was somehow tainted with some substance that would render a positive dope test"? Not being able to drop by a restaurant
for some food, with friends, or anyone for that matter, is not a life I want to be a part of.

It's highly unlikely though. The risks are so small (particularly in the EU) that they're not worth worrying about.

There's a chance that any of us could get hit by a car and killed when riding a bike. But the chances are very small, so we don't sit at home, frightened to go out of the front door.

I know it's unlikely to happen, but you and I don't have any issues or worries about whether some food or supplement might cause us to test positive for some banned substance. Why would we? I was sort of commenting on what people who are tested on a regular basis have to be alert for. They can't just ingest anything, like you and I. There needs to be some control in their choices of foods and nutritional products. It wouldn't surprise me at all if someone tried to sabotage a riders food and drink.

RichN95.

dennisn wrote:

I know it's unlikely to happen, but you and I don't have any issues or worries about whether some food or supplement might cause us to test positive for some banned substance. Why would we? I was sort of commenting on what people who are tested on a regular basis have to be alert for. They can't just ingest anything, like you and I. There needs to be some control in their choices of foods and nutritional products. It wouldn't surprise me at all if someone tried to sabotage a riders food and drink.

They have to be careful about things like supplements, but food, in the EU - there's no real danger. Certainly less danger than any of us being killed on our bike. I can name people who have been killed cycling, but no-one who has failed a drug test due to dodgy food in a European restaurant. There's no reason for paranoia.

The beef stuff is just an excuse. It's highly unlikely that that is actually how it got in his system.

top_bhoy

dennisn wrote:

know it's unlikely to happen, but you and I don't have any issues or worries about whether some food or supplement might cause us to test positive for some banned substance. Why would we? I was sort of commenting on what people who are tested on a regular basis have to be alert for. They can't just ingest anything, like you and I. There needs to be some control in their choices of foods and nutritional products. It wouldn't surprise me at all if someone tried to sabotage a riders food and drink.

Admittedly tough but thats the choice and sacrifice of a professional athlete. Many people have to make difficult choices everyday in their chosen career which will affect their personal life and vice versa.

Does anyone know what the Spanish farmers are saying on this issue - I can't imagine them being less than upset if their industry is as clean as they say. Contador being severely punished or the overhaul of the entire Spanish beef industry should be the only outcome of this 'defence'. One has a problem which needs to be addressed.

ratsbeyfus

The Spanish authorities can't trust themselves and need WADA and UCI to hold their hands:

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/7032/Spain-asks-for-UCI-WADA-participation-in-Contador-decision.aspx

With Valverde's most recent appeal also being rejected this seems like a good day for clean Spanish cycling and a bad day for my old chum FF.

Edit: McPat not interested in helping the Spanish see the bleedin' obvious:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-says-spanish-federation-should-make-a-decision-on-contador-case

iainf72

See you later Bert.

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/deportes ... dep_23/Tes

rick_chasey

iainf72 wrote:

See you later Bert.

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/deportes ... dep_23/Tes

Presumably el plastico is a reference to the plasticizers?

attica

Google translate is a little unclear on Ianf72's article, is it saying that the test for plasticisers is now about to be recognised?

iainf72

Attica wrote:

Google translate is a little unclear on Ianf72's article, is it saying that the test for plasticisers is now about to be recognised?

Yes

It's been peer reviewed, found that it works and should be approved by WADA.

attica

iainf72 wrote:

Attica wrote:

Google translate is a little unclear on Ianf72's article, is it saying that the test for plasticisers is now about to be recognised?

Yes

It's been peer reviewed, found that it works and should be approved by WADA.

Cripes, big implications. Hopefully a positive move toward a cleaner sport.

CORRECTION

Toward cleaner sport!

sudholz

Impressive!

Thanks for the link Iain.

Pross

Will it be allowed to be applied retrospectively though?

rick_chasey

Pross wrote:

Will it be allowed to be applied retrospectively though?

He hasn't been sanctioned yet, so presumably it isn't retrospective?

RichN95.

Pross wrote:

Will it be allowed to be applied retrospectively though?

I would imagine that it won't be allowed on the test that has already been reportedly done, but clearly re-testing could be done.

dougzz

RichN95 wrote:

Pross wrote:

Will it be allowed to be applied retrospectively though?

I would imagine that it won't be allowed on the test that has already been reportedly done, but clearly re-testing could be done.

Maybe they'll retest all the samples...... Squeaky bum time?

dulldave

dougzz wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Pross wrote:

Will it be allowed to be applied retrospectively though?

I would imagine that it won't be allowed on the test that has already been reportedly done, but clearly re-testing could be done.

Maybe they'll retest all the samples...... Squeaky bum time?

I think they should. People find ways to get round the tests that exist so when they bring out something new they should always do a bit of retrospective testing in my view. This way the threat of getting caught is just that bit greater.

stevie_90210

dulldave wrote:

dougzz wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Pross wrote:

Will it be allowed to be applied retrospectively though?

I would imagine that it won't be allowed on the test that has already been reportedly done, but clearly re-testing could be done.

Maybe they'll retest all the samples...... Squeaky bum time?

I think they should. People find ways to get round the tests that exist so when they bring out something new they should always do a bit of retrospective testing in my view. This way the threat of getting caught is just that bit greater.

I've always thought this myself. Would the cheats use something knowing scientists might find a way of detecting it, and then your samples would be re-tested?