Contador tests positive for Clenbuterol

Pokerface

If all independent scientific experts globally (and not just those that were hired by Bertie's defense team) all agreed that this could ONLY be the result of food contamination, then I would gladly change my opinion.

Even if they ALL agreed it was the most likely way it happened (which might be difficult I you take into account the propensity for the professional athlete to cheat).

Even if the UCI was saying it was the most likely cause instead of his legal team.

And the whole arguement that such a small amount gives no performance enhancement is a red herring designed to make people overlook the much more likely scenario that it was contamination from a blood transfusion and not from food.

DaveyL

frenchfighter wrote:

After reading your posts in reply to my posts:

Well, you're certainly never going to be in any danger of testing positive for self-awareness - even if your sample is sent to the Cologne lab.

frenchfighter

So if the bio passport is not going to help with peds, it will help with blood doping. Why didn't it pick up this with Contador? Because it isn't true, he is always consistent.

Good read for anyone that hasn't read it:
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDe ... A&LangId=1

Any significant variations can then be assessed for possible blood manipulation.

The approach relies on the concept of “indirect” detection. Scientific experts will not actually “see” a banned substance in a sample. Instead, they will compare the parameters of the new sample to parameters measured in previous samples. In this way, fluctuations in the riders’ levels which may indicate manipulation, can be identified. It is impossible for a rider to maintain a steady profile if he is manipulating his blood for performance enhancement and/or manipulating his blood to escape detection through a doping control.

bigmat

frenchfighter wrote:

So if the bio passport is not going to help with peds, it will help with blood doping. Why didn't it pick up this with Contador? Because it isn't true, he is always consistent.

Good read for anyone that hasn't read it:
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENewsDe ... A&LangId=1

Any significant variations can then be assessed for possible blood manipulation.

The approach relies on the concept of “indirect” detection. Scientific experts will not actually “see” a banned substance in a sample. Instead, they will compare the parameters of the new sample to parameters measured in previous samples. In this way, fluctuations in the riders’ levels which may indicate manipulation, can be identified. It is impossible for a rider to maintain a steady profile if he is manipulating his blood for performance enhancement and/or manipulating his blood to escape detection through a doping control.

I think they have been having trouble making the Bio-passport stick haven't they? Could be that there were a few raised eyebrows about Contador's profile but they didn't have enough to nail him, hence what appears like a targetted attempt to pin something more concrete on him. I'm still astonished that it worked to be honest!

dulldave

So Frenchie, what has to happen before you'll accept he was cheating? I'm curious to know how far this loyalty will stretch.

Explain to us the scenario in which you'll accept he cheated. It'd be interesting to see if we ever get there.

andrewjoseph

After reading several books, it seems getting your blood values to fall into permissible ranges is not a problem, and has not been for a long time.

From the little I have read it seems the blood profile for some people stays the same over a long tour, when it should drop due to effects of intense riding over 2-3 weeks.

Hopefully the UCI are getting suspicious of riders who's blood levels are artificially static.

frenchfighter

Same as any rider. If they have a positive for a drug that cannot be explained any other way. Or if they say they have doped. Or there is serious evidence from others that they doped - that would make me very suspicious (like what Floyd is saying).

Same as in life, I don't damn people on 'suspiscions' etc etc, and prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt.

He is one of my favourite riders so naturally I sepnd more time reading about him and talking about him. But the logic I follow is the same for all riders.


All you have to go on is a miniscule amount of clen was found. From this only piece of tangible evidence, the whole lot of you damn him with such vehemence and say he is an out and out doper. Quite totally out of proportion. You are happy to accept 'suspiscions' etc when you weigh him in the balance but you wont include all the other aspects.

andrewjoseph

So the plasticiser doesn't count to raising suspicions?

I know the test has not been ratified yet, but plasticisers were found.

Richrd2205

frenchfighter wrote:

He is one of my favourite riders so naturally I sepnd more time reading about him and talking about him. But the logic I follow is the same for all riders.


All you have to go on is a miniscule amount of clen was found. From this only piece of tangible evidence, the whole lot of you damn him with such vehemence and say he is an out and out doper. Quite totally out of proportion. You are happy to accept 'suspiscions' etc when you weigh him in the balance but you wont include all the other aspects.

OK, these two paragraphs are contradictory. You keep being told about the clen levels, yet choose to ignore that information when it doesn't fit your hypothesis. The logic you use is Cartesian in nature (finding the desired outcome then fitting arguments to it), which is not generically the case with all other riders.
It's cool to trust, or have faith in a rider: there are riders I'd be mortified if they tested positive, but to confuse this sense with logic is a serious error.
Besides, there's also the plasticizers & the odd behaviour of the UCI (like what Floyd said).
LA has no concrete evidence against him, Valverde & Contador do, yet you maintain that the former is a doper & the latter two are not.
As I say, I regard your passion for the sport and certain riders very positively & respect you for holding on to those.... Just don't tell me your logical about it though: humans mixing emotion and logic tend to fail badly

frenchfighter

It's a test in its infancy. Had it been tried on a very large sample of pro cyclist values at various points to have a base comparison then it might be of interest in the doping scene.

frenchfighter

To even try and pull out Lance and hold him up as having less against him the Contador is ridiculous. I cannot take what you say seriously therefore and cannot reply to your post.

iainf72

frenchfighter wrote:

It's a test in its infancy. Had it been tried on a very large sample of pro cyclist values at various points to have a base comparison then it might be of interest in the doping scene.

If that's true, why have the findings of the test not been challenged?

Richrd2205

frenchfighter wrote:

To even try and pull out Lance and hold him up as having less against him the Contador is ridiculous. I cannot take what you say seriously therefore and cannot reply to your post.

Try re-reading my post, then looking at the flow of your argument.
I was examining your statement, "But the logic I follow is the same for all riders" in the light of available evidence. If certain evidence is off limits, or unavailable, then proper conclusions might not be drawn, no?
Not interested in a discussion of relative merits of various cases, merely asking about how you draw conclusions.
So the premise you use is incorrect, which would mean your conclusion is also incorrect, no?
Feel free answer or ignore my post as you see fit, but to write it off fallaciously whilst discussing logic isn't really sound debating technique.

andrewjoseph

frenchfighter wrote:

To even try and pull out Lance and hold him up as having less against him the Contador is ridiculous. I cannot take what you say seriously therefore and cannot reply to your post.

But you just did!

andrewjoseph

French Fighters support of contador defies logic, we can see it is a deep and firmly held emotional attachment.

I worry about his depth of disappointment when he realises his hero is a false god.

frenchfighter

You haven't read many of my posts or you would now that I have zero heros, or whatever word you want to use for it, in sport.

You also don't understand that I would be annoyed if he were to be banned becaue I enjoy watching him race.

You also don't understand that riders are not created by drugs. Sure it can make a difference, more so for some. And it may change your mental side because you feel better than your opponents. But I am afraid that, as in Contador's case and many others, I will still enjoy re-watching their performances and will watch them when they come back (like Ricco, Vino, Valverde, etc). Like Vino, the guy is simply a superb rider, aggressive, powerful, stylish - that he blood doped doesn't change anything, just that wins like his Vuelta would most likely not have been possible.

(as an aside, may be of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_dopi ... ansfusions)

DaveyL

frenchfighter wrote:

You haven't read many of my posts or you would now that I have zero heros, or whatever word you want to use for it, in sport.

You also don't understand that I would be annoyed if he were to be banned becaue I enjoy watching him race.

You also don't understand that riders are not created by drugs. Sure it can make a difference, more so for some. And it may change your mental side because you feel better than your opponents. But I am afraid that, as in Contador's case and many others, I will still enjoy re-watching their performances and will watch them when they come back (like Ricco, Vino, Valverde, etc). Like Vino, the guy is simply a superb rider, aggressive, powerful, stylish - that he blood doped doesn't change anything, just that wins like his Vuelta would most likely not have been possible.

(as an aside, may be of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_dopi ... ansfusions)

And still, he is unwilling/unable to make the connection between doping and these riders being "superb, aggressive, powerful, stylish". It truly beggars belief.

frenchfighter

Why do you bother replying to my posts? I mean seriously, your mission is to counter everything I say. I guess it gives something for you to do...

Re-read my post: I said it gives you a benefit both mental and physical; of course I am not denying thatm but it is perfectly normal to say it can make a great rider greater which is simply my point. You can even take a lot of dopers who have returned - they are still riders who are excellent etc.

tarquin_foxglove

Ozwazza wrote:

Anybody worried that Rugby players get away with doping? Why not cyclists? Check out the Telegraph story from the other day

Science of Sport look at that very article and debunk the comparison quite comprehensively.

DaveyL

frenchfighter wrote:

You can even take a lot of dopers who have returned - they are still riders who are excellent etc.

And why do you think that might be?

frenchfighter

Oh goodness me. I thought I should add that extra sentance in but didn't think you would beat that drum. Guess I was wrong.

You have your answer, I have mine. They are diametrically opposed. Lets leave it at that.

moray_gub

andrewjoseph wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

To even try and pull out Lance and hold him up as having less against him the Contador is ridiculous. I cannot take what you say seriously therefore and cannot reply to your post.

But you just did!

Gold....pure gold

moray_gub

frenchfighter wrote:

To even try and pull out Lance and hold him up as having less against him the Contador is ridiculous. I cannot take what you say seriously therefore and cannot reply to your post.

At this moment he is right AC and AV have more against them than LA no doubt about it. Both having ratified doping positives against them LA does not..........end of.

blazing_saddles

Moray Gub wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

To even try and pull out Lance and hold him up as having less against him the Contador is ridiculous. I cannot take what you say seriously therefore and cannot reply to your post.

At this moment he is right AC and AV have more against them than LA no doubt about it. Both having ratified doping positives against them LA does not..........end of.

Having "clean" Lance waved under his nose, while Contador is tarred and feathered with a doping conviction?
I sense a double whammy of frenchfighter frustration.
Leave the poor lad alone to deal with his misery.

Doobz

Alberto Contador says he won’t retire or take 1-year-ban

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/02/ ... ban_158773

frenchfighter

Doobz wrote:

Alberto Contador says he won’t retire or take 1-year-ban

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/02/ ... ban_158773

Good. Fighting talk; a man of morals. Never bend to the corrupt factions that rule this sport.

andyp

I've heard it all now. Contador is a victim of the corrupt UCI?

Can you explain how his positive was kept secret by the UCI until a German media organisation said they were going to run the story if this was all part of some corrupt master plan hatched by Pat McQuaid to get Bertie?

frenchfighter

Oh boy what entertainment you guys have given me today. I'm tired now and am off.

Have a nice weekend!

Reuters

Richrd2205

OK, I'm struggling now...
Can I go through this & point out where I'm struggling & you can point out where I'm missing something:

frenchfighter wrote:

You haven't read many of my posts or you would now that I have zero heros, or whatever word you want to use for it, in sport.

This appears differently in your writing, but I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt....

You also don't understand that I would be annoyed if he were to be banned becaue I enjoy watching him race.

So not a hero, but he is someone that you treat differently from other riders in terms of a potential ban. (I'm inferring that your reaction would be less if you didn't enjoy him racing since the sentence would make no sense otherwise). So we have a semantic difference, but please see above the points about logic & emotion not being good partners.

You also don't understand that riders are not created by drugs.

Really? Ullrich?

Sure it can make a difference, more so for some. And it may change your mental side because you feel better than your opponents.

This is where it gets interesting though. It makes a difference, you say, but not much. This hasn't been quantitatively assessed yet, and is frequently estimated to be between 5 & 40%. Let's assume that the conservative estimate is exaggerated by 10* (which is clearly absurd) & doping only gives 0.5%. Then look at last year's Tour & add 0.5% on to Contador's time. My maths puts him at 21st. Which is, I'm sure you'll agree, quite a difference.
In other terms, tiny differences become hugely significant in Gaussian distributions.
Or to put in other terms, doping makes an absolutely critical difference.

But I am afraid that, as in Contador's case and many others, I will still enjoy re-watching their performances and will watch them when they come back (like Ricco, Vino, Valverde, etc). Like Vino, the guy is simply a superb rider, aggressive, powerful, stylish - that he blood doped doesn't change anything, just that wins like his Vuelta would most likely not have been possible.

"It can make a difference, but I still enjoy watching" appears to be your argument, which is absolutely fine & valid as an argument, but is very,very different to X or Y is clean.
So if you accept that doping can make a difference, Contador should be banned, no?
If you are happy for folk to dope to make it more exciting viewing, then just say so. I would disagree, but have far more respect for your argument since it would actually function & be congruent.
You also don't seem to make the connection to why they are able to be exciting....

If I've missed something, then please point it out, but it appears you are arguing one point, whilst claiming to be arguing another, which might be the reason you are getting a very negative response at times.

dougzz

frenchfighter wrote:

Doobz wrote:

Alberto Contador says he won’t retire or take 1-year-ban

http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/02/ ... ban_158773

Good. Fighting talk; a man of morals. Never bend to the corrupt factions that rule this sport.

“If I accept a sanction is would be to admit that I have done something and I will not admit to anything,”

A bit like Floyd's "I'll say no"

Yes I know it's out of context and translated, but what the hell. We've all pretty much decided where we stand on this anyway.