Contador tests positive for Clenbuterol

Gazzaputt

frenchfighter wrote:

And to the proponents of a 2 year ban: educate yourself in the cases involving at least Clenbuterol

Abdoujaparov, 1997, Clen + another: 1 YEAR BAN
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/ ... an27a.html

Vandenbroucke, 2002, Clen + others: 6 MONTH BAN OVERTUNRED BY CAS TO NO BAN
http://velonews.competitor.com/2002/06/ ... nsion_2484

Luis Coehlo, 2006, Clen + others: 1 YEAR BAN
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getOb ... d=MzQ2Nzc&

Fuyu, 2010, Clen: 2 YEAR BAN (TENTATIVE and SUSPECT, see article below):
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_17181966? ... ck_check=1

Colo, 2010, Clen: 1 YEAR BAN
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5957/ ... itive.aspx

Your hatred of Contador surpasses rationality, basis in fact, common sense and precendents.

And your relentless support for a convicted drug cheat is astounding.

andrewjoseph

Tusher wrote:

andrewjoseph wrote:

Tusher wrote:

I've just started to shape the raglan.

I prefer straight sleeves myself.

What colour is it?

Aran coloured, fawn with flecks of brown from

http://www.knitandsew.co.uk/Hayfield_Fa ... ts_342.htm

A cardigan for my father-in-law.
And just the sort of garment I imagine the forumites here wear as they sit at their computers tapping away. :-)

the last time i wore a cardigan was when i was starting school at age 5, 45 years ago! !!

When I'm not wearing lycra, i wear whatever my wife has knitted me, or whatever was top of the pile and not absolutely minging.

andrewjoseph

what gets me about this whole affair is that is was 'apparently' brought down on contadors head either himself or his team when they brought in a special treat for him. if he'd eaten the same as everyone else in the hotel then he wouldn't have tested positive......

or would he?


I think he's a cheat and the tainted beef is a red herring, so to speak.

has he sacked the chef who asked for the meat to be brought in?

andrewjoseph

Frenchie, from the link you posted:

Zhao's lab had 20 clenbuterol positives in the last three years alone. Without proof, he cannot be sure whether any of those may have been caused by meat, or whether cheats are merely using meat as an excuse. Zhao is baffled why, if bad food is a cause, comparatively few athletes fail tests.
"Every year, China does more than 10,000 anti-doping tests. If there was a food contamination situation, you wouldn't have just these few clenbuterol positives—because everyone eats meat. No? Why don't other athletes test positive?"

yes I know it's selective quoting, but the main 'expert' in the article is saying he doesn't understand why so few positives even in a country where clen is known to be in the food chain.

and this is for pork, pork liver, and in china. not a beef steak from spain.

shinyhelmut

frenchfighter wrote:

Your hatred of Contador surpasses rationality, basis in fact, common sense and precendents.

What makes you think anyone hates contador? I'd want to see any athlete serve a ban commensurate with their crime.

dilemna

TailWindHome wrote:

dilemna wrote:

The point is Contador contends he had eaten "good food and drink" as you put it, just that the "good" beef he had eaten was too good containing traces of clenbuterol. The concentration of this substance in his body was so low, many times below the thresh hold of other labs which test for this substance. The only conclusion you can draw is that Contador's explanation might be true or it might not be, therefore there is UNCERTAINTY but you cannot say is that he deliberately doped. So in this respect I think he should be given the benefit of the doubt or a warning that if any further such infringement should occur it will result in a ban for what ever period is considered appropriate at the time.

Have there been any tests for the presence of Clenbuterol in the general non cycling population?

If Contador's explanation/excuse is true then it would suggest that a random sample of the general population would also show the presence of Clenbuterol at these minute levels.

One hopes that the Cologne testing lab also ran suitable controls otherwise whose to know that the level of clenbuterol found in Bertie's system wouldn't also be found in others who eat meat, Spanish premium beef. And here's another thing - those eating it would be ingesting it into their stomachs which is pretty good at breaking down substances so it may not cross the epithelial lining of the small intestine into the blood stream or may only do so in trace amounts. However if clenbuterol was injected directly into his bloodstream then it would be at levels impossible to achieve if he had merely eaten contaminated meat? As the level found is so low IMHO there needs to be a more thorough scientific analysis. If this Cologne lab are testing to such a sensitive level they have to make sure the substances they are detecting come from only one source - doping, otherwise they are peeing in the wind as the result could be a false positive. Surely there must have been others who ate this paticular variety of beef? Contador surely didn't eat the whole cow or heard did he, surely not???? Would the farmer not be prosecuted if it were illegal to give clenbuterol to cattle or to use it to improve meat?

The whole affair smells a bit .... fishy to me.

Garry H

dilemna wrote:

One hopes that the Cologne testing lab also ran suitable controls otherwise whose to know that the level of clenbuterol found in Bertie's system wouldn't also be found in others who eat meat, Spanish premium beef. And here's another thing - those eating it would be ingesting it into their stomachs which is pretty good at breaking down substances so it may not cross the epithelial lining of the small intestine into the blood stream or may only do so in trace amounts. However if clenbuterol was injected directly into his bloodstream then it would be at levels impossible to achieve if he had merely eaten contaminated meat? As the level found is so low IMHO there needs to be a more thorough scientific analysis. If this Cologne lab are testing to such a sensitive level they have to make sure the substances they are detecting come from only one source - doping, otherwise they are peeing in the wind as the result could be a false positive. Surely there must have been others who ate this paticular variety of beef? Contador surely didn't eat the whole cow or heard did he, surely not???? Would the farmer not be prosecuted if it were illegal to give clenbuterol to cattle or to use it to improve meat?

The whole affair smells a bit .... fishy to me.

Why? Their mandate is to test for banned substances. I understand what you're saying, but surely this kind of study would (Should) get done prior to something being declared a banned substance...

dave_1

iainf72 wrote:

FF - 2 of those positives were in countries where clen in the food system is well known. VBD was overturned on a technicality.

If you're going to argue a position, at least make sure it makes some kind of sense.

like your 2 years of research comment last week re SI's article Iain? Bleeding chunks of text cut from Walsh's 2005-06 articles and we don't yet know if anything will happen given the dodgy research that article was based on

dilemna

Garry H wrote:

dilemna wrote:

One hopes that the Cologne testing lab also ran suitable controls otherwise whose to know that the level of clenbuterol found in Bertie's system wouldn't also be found in others who eat meat, Spanish premium beef. And here's another thing - those eating it would be ingesting it into their stomachs which is pretty good at breaking down substances so it may not cross the epithelial lining of the small intestine into the blood stream or may only do so in trace amounts. However if clenbuterol was injected directly into his bloodstream then it would be at levels impossible to achieve if he had merely eaten contaminated meat? As the level found is so low IMHO there needs to be a more thorough scientific analysis. If this Cologne lab are testing to such a sensitive level they have to make sure the substances they are detecting come from only one source - doping, otherwise they are peeing in the wind as the result could be a false positive. Surely there must have been others who ate this paticular variety of beef? Contador surely didn't eat the whole cow or heard did he, surely not???? Would the farmer not be prosecuted if it were illegal to give clenbuterol to cattle or to use it to improve meat?

The whole affair smells a bit .... fishy to me.

Why? Their mandate is to test for banned substances. I understand what you're saying, but surely this kind of study would (Should) get done prior to something being declared a banned substance...

Err ..... you don't understand - all scientific/laboratory tests, in order to be valid, have to run controls at the same time otherwise how do you know the results obtained aren't merely a false postive, contamination or even a false negative?

iainf72

Dave_1 wrote:

like your 2 years of research comment last week re SI's article Iain? Bleeding chunks of text cut from Walsh's 2005-06 articles and we don't yet know if anything will happen given the dodgy research that article was based on

Yes, the authors started working on the research when Lance announced his comeback. Hence the Catlin bits in the article, which is probably where it started.

I've read Walsh's book and there was stuff that wasn't in his book.

Pokerface

Bertie has packed up his toys and gone home: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contado ... ining-camp

I wonder if we'll see him on a beach in July - only to get the call up for the Vuelta at the last minute?

sherer

frenchfighter wrote:

And to the proponents of a 2 year ban: educate yourself in the cases involving at least Clenbuterol

Abdoujaparov, 1997, Clen + another: 1 YEAR BAN
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/results/ ... an27a.html

Vandenbroucke, 2002, Clen + others: 6 MONTH BAN OVERTUNRED BY CAS TO NO BAN
http://velonews.competitor.com/2002/06/ ... nsion_2484

Luis Coehlo, 2006, Clen + others: 1 YEAR BAN
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getOb ... d=MzQ2Nzc&

Fuyu, 2010, Clen: 2 YEAR BAN (TENTATIVE and SUSPECT, see article below):
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_17181966? ... ck_check=1

Colo, 2010, Clen: 1 YEAR BAN
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5957/ ... itive.aspx

Your hatred of Contador surpasses rationality, basis in fact, common sense and precendents.

Doesn't this just show that Clen use does exist in the peloton, rather than what was suggested at first, which is this product wouldn't help a cyclist

Doobz

Kiss Kiss - Bang Bang

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... -case.html

Cant wait to see what happens with this

amaferanga

Tusher wrote:

If Contador is determined to prove his innocence, why doesn't he fund a study of, say, students and pensioners, chosen at random from Spain/Europe. All the study would have to do woudl be to exclude vegetarians. Pay the doners 1 euro for their urine sample and have them analysed by the Cologne lab (which would cost a lot). Someone may even get their PhD out of it. See what percentage of the population tests positive.




Er, or maybe he's not that confident.

Um do you think anyone would accept a study funded by Contador? Think about it....

DaveyL

Nice Bonnie Ford article: http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/c ... id=6069073

One authority didn't swallow the steak story. Christiane Ayotte, longtime director of the WADA-accredited lab in Montreal, was blunt with reporters in an informal media briefing in mid-October.

"You'll never find a ton of [clenbuterol] because the doses are really small," Ayotte said then, calling the beef excuse implausible. "Most of the samples are below 1 nanogram [a billionth of a gram]."

She added that her lab has seen many samples with levels as low as Contador's and that she considers them prima facie evidence of doping. Her scientific experience leads her to believe that athletes use low levels of the drug because of side effects that include headaches, high blood pressure and heart palpitations.

This week, Ayotte said she would be "disappointed, based on what I've seen in this case" if Contador receives only a one-year ban rather than the default two-year ban.

"We're following this very closely because we're still reporting [clenbuterol] cases," she said of her lab, which processes about 20,000 samples a year. "We haven't finished compiling the numbers yet, but the cases are concentrated in the sports of bodybuilding, swimming, triathlon and cycling. Is there a genetic predisposition to eat more contaminated meat in those sports?"

stevie_90210

DaveyL wrote:

Nice Bonnie Ford article: http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/c ... id=6069073

One authority didn't swallow the steak story. Christiane Ayotte, longtime director of the WADA-accredited lab in Montreal, was blunt with reporters in an informal media briefing in mid-October.

"You'll never find a ton of [clenbuterol] because the doses are really small," Ayotte said then, calling the beef excuse implausible. "Most of the samples are below 1 nanogram [a billionth of a gram]."

She added that her lab has seen many samples with levels as low as Contador's and that she considers them prima facie evidence of doping. Her scientific experience leads her to believe that athletes use low levels of the drug because of side effects that include headaches, high blood pressure and heart palpitations.

This week, Ayotte said she would be "disappointed, based on what I've seen in this case" if Contador receives only a one-year ban rather than the default two-year ban.

"We're following this very closely because we're still reporting [clenbuterol] cases," she said of her lab, which processes about 20,000 samples a year. "We haven't finished compiling the numbers yet, but the cases are concentrated in the sports of bodybuilding, swimming, triathlon and cycling. Is there a genetic predisposition to eat more contaminated meat in those sports?"

"Is there a genetic predisposition to eat more contaminated meat in those sports?"

Ha ha ha, very good point and very well made!

Great article and very interesting.

Garry H

dilemna wrote:

Err ..... you don't understand - all scientific/laboratory tests, in order to be valid, have to run controls at the same time otherwise how do you know the results obtained aren't merely a false postive, contamination or even a false negative?

I understand you dude (I went to kawlidge as well). They found a banned substance in his system, if he states that it did not get in there via doping then he needs to prove it, not them.

ddraver

Garry H wrote:

dilemna wrote:

Err ..... you don't understand - all scientific/laboratory tests, in order to be valid, have to run controls at the same time otherwise how do you know the results obtained aren't merely a false postive, contamination or even a false negative?

I understand you dude (I went to kawlidge as well). They found a banned substance in his system, if he states that it did not get in there via doping then he needs to prove it, not them.

Dilemna's post is valid though because the lab, that runs tests way more sensitive than is necessary, needs to be sure that the substance has been deliberately ingested for performance enhancing purposes rather than by accident

The Montreal lab report suggests that even at such minute concentrations that this is the case though

cyclopath

ddraver wrote:

Garry H wrote:

dilemna wrote:

Err ..... you don't understand - all scientific/laboratory tests, in order to be valid, have to run controls at the same time otherwise how do you know the results obtained aren't merely a false postive, contamination or even a false negative?

I understand you dude (I went to kawlidge as well). They found a banned substance in his system, if he states that it did not get in there via doping then he needs to prove it, not them.

Dilemna's post is valid though because the lab, that runs tests way more sensitive than is necessary, needs to be sure that the substance has been deliberately ingested for performance enhancing purposes rather than by accident

The Montreal lab report suggests that even at such minute concentrations that this is the case though

I beg to differ.

The Lab need only report its findings. ie. Evidence of Clenbuterol in the sample. It has no mandate to speculate upon how the Clen came to be there, that is for others to deal with.

We do the speculating. 112 pages worth.

ddraver

Ok, fair point - the UCI/doping agencies have to (but perhaps i should say SHOULD have to) show that it could only be there from doping - presumably this is why some substances have minimum values.

If the minimum value for Clen was below that of the minimum sensitivity then perhaps no one bothered to think about it

s'all hypothetical rubbish though really so....?

MrTapir

i thought it was for the athlete to prove that the substance was present because of an accident and not doping. WADA dont have to prove that a banned substance was present cos of doping surely?

DaveyL

ddraver wrote:

Ok, fair point - the UCI/doping agencies have to (but perhaps i should say SHOULD have to) show that it could only be there from doping - presumably this is why some substances have minimum values.

If the minimum value for Clen was below that of the minimum sensitivity then perhaps no one bothered to think about it

s'all hypothetical rubbish though really so....?

This really should not be so difficult to understand. It is up to the athlete to prove that any banned substance was accidentally ingested, not for the Federation, UCI, WADA or anyone else to prove it was deliberate doping. It does not matter what you think the rules *should* be. This is the WADA code that the sport has signed up for, and these are the rules the athletes agree to abide by, by competing.

There is no minimal value for clenbuterol. If it is in your body, you have committed a doping offence.

ddraver

Yes David but why is there no minimum doping level?

Is it because the minimum sensitivity for Clen is way above what could be caused by contaminated food?

DaveyL

ddraver wrote:

Yes David but why is there no minimum doping level?

Is it because the minimum sensitivity for Clen is way above what could be caused by contaminated food?

No. It is because the body does not produce clenbuterol, it is found to give a performance-enhancing benefit, and WADA have placed it on the prohibited list. Therefore if there is any clenbuterol in your body, you have committed a doping violation. Under the rule of strict liability, it is up to *you* to prove it got there accidentally.

It is not the norm that there are minimum levels for banned substances.Certainly not for substances which are not naturally occurring in the body. EDIT: to be clear, there are a few exceptions (e.g. Salbutamol has a limit) but Clenbuterol is not one of them.

ddraver

My argument - using hypothetical values is that if the minimum detectable amount by a lab is 100grams/litre (or whatever unit they use) and eating contaminated food could cause an amount of 10g/l then a lab which, for whatever reason, could detect an amount of 1g/l could detect people who had, through no fault of their own, ingested a banned substance

Perhaps WADA need to study this a little to discover how eating contaminated food or spending a note with cocaine traces on or kissing a girl/boy who's just had a line would affect results.

If they discover (as the Montreal study seems to hint) that even an amount as low as 0.5pg (was nt it?) cannot be caused by food contamination then enforce a 2 year ban for doping!

One year bans for ?positive/?false positive/ "well you probably did but we can't be sure" don't exactly give a strong message...

surista

One of the more...interesting (for lack of a better word) articles I've read in a long time: Full text of Landis interview. Warning: It's really long. Landis throws Pereiro under the bus as well, btw.

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2011/landiskimmage

There are so many things that don't quite add up, I'm not quite sure how much stock to put in it. I'm also aware of the danger of the 'critical mass' argument, which is common knowledge among trial lawyers: If you're going to do a smear campaign, you go defcon 5, throw as much crap as possible at the wall, becaues the general reaction from Joe Blow Public is, 'well it can't all be false, right? At least some of it must be true - no smoke without fire', etc etc.

Landis seems to be in a really really difficult place, so in that sense I have a bit of empathy...but I find it appalling that the guy who says he 'doesn't care about the money' apparently doesn't care that people donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend his lie. And I find it tough to believe in his 'I'm this man of strong character, standing alone against The Powers That Be', when his own wife didn't want to stand by him.

Percy Vera

surista wrote:

One of the more...interesting (for lack of a better word) articles I've read in a long time: Full text of Landis interview. Warning: It's really long. Landis throws Pereiro under the bus as well, btw.

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2011/landiskimmage

There are so many things that don't quite add up, I'm not quite sure how much stock to put in it. I'm also aware of the danger of the 'critical mass' argument, which is common knowledge among trial lawyers: If you're going to do a smear campaign, you go defcon 5, throw as much crap as possible at the wall, becaues the general reaction from Joe Blow Public is, 'well it can't all be false, right? At least some of it must be true - no smoke without fire', etc etc.

Landis seems to be in a really really difficult place, so in that sense I have a bit of empathy...but I find it appalling that the guy who says he 'doesn't care about the money' apparently doesn't care that people donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend his lie. And I find it tough to believe in his 'I'm this man of strong character, standing alone against The Powers That Be', when his own wife didn't want to stand by him.

Have you missed the other thread?

surista

Percy Vera wrote:

Have you missed the other thread?

Uh...apparently so.

In material more relevant here: I didn't know this:

The Spanish press are speculating over why he has been banned for only one year after testing positive during the final rest day of last year's Tour. A two-year suspension would force Contador to return 70 per cent of his 2010 salary, which is understood to amount to £2.7 million, while a one-year ban does not incur a financial sanction.

Possible the one year ban was negotiated, and Bertie is going through the 'oh, i'm going to appeal' motions just to save face?

RichN95.

surista wrote:

The Spanish press are speculating over why he has been banned for only one year after testing positive during the final rest day of last year's Tour. A two-year suspension would force Contador to return 70 per cent of his 2010 salary, which is understood to amount to £2.7 million, while a one-year ban does not incur a financial sanction.

Possible the one year ban was negotiated, and Bertie is going through the 'oh, i'm going to appeal' motions just to save face?

That ruling got overturned in some sort of court (Vino challenged it, I think)

frenchfighter

Giuseppe Martinelli:

"Accept the suspension, thinking of when he will return to race," Martinelli told Italy's La Gazzetta dello Sport. "He's the strongest, and will prove it again."

Before Contador, Martinelli won five Grand Tours as a director, including the victories of Marco Pantani at the 1998 Giro d'Italia and Tour de France. He keeps his faith in Contador, but says the fight is not worth the cost.

"I want to clarify to avoid any misunderstanding: I believe Alberto. He's clean. And knowing full well what effort we had to make to win the Tour, you can imagine what it costs to lose," continued Martinelli.

"There are times when you make a choice: either a bang your head against the rubber wall and have it bounce back, or find the courage to leave. Alberto has to do what is best for him, without being influenced by too many people around them. And not make the same mistake as Marco Pantani in 1999."

Pantani was kicked out of the 1999 Giro d'Italia while leading the race for having a hematocrit value higher than the allowed limit of 50. He suffered from the result and never reached his best again, eventually committing suicide in 2004.

"After the exclusion from the Giro at Madonna di Campiglio, Pantani was supposed to start the Tour, but I could not convince him. With the experience of the last 11 years, I am sure that now I am able to... Going back to the Alberto situation, I'm sure he has not done anything illegal, but as it is, it is not easy to prove. In cycling, the burden of proof is reversed.

"Alberto can start thinking about when to return. A one-year stop that ends in August, think about it, you don't miss that much."