Contador tests positive for Clenbuterol
Comments
-
Blazing Saddles wrote: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.
No.......... this is good its what FF needs a wee bit of reality , who would have thought that Bertie would be a confirmed dope cheat while LA as it stands is not.Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
frenchfighter wrote:Oh boy what entertainment you guys have given me today. I'm tired now and am off.
Have a nice weekend!
Reuters
enjoy your weekend.............mooooo
Gasping - but somehow still alive !0 -
hello all.
PMSL
0 -
"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"
I'm no AC defender, but for nearly all of the race he wasn't actually racing in the sense of trying to gain time on his rivals, so it would be 0.5% of a much smaller number than his total finishing time.0 -
#Steve2020 wrote:"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"
I'm no AC defender, but for nearly all of the race he wasn't actually racing in the sense of trying to gain time on his rivals, so it would be 0.5% of a much smaller number than his total finishing time.
You're absolutely right. I was using back-of-a-fag-packet calculations to illustrate a point, rather than trying to be exact about it, but then made an exact(ish) conclusion. There are simply too many factors to be exact.
Shoddy calculations aside, I think the illustration of the impact of tiny gains on a tight distribution still stands though, which is the point I was trying to make...0 -
frenchfighter wrote:Oh boy what entertainment you guys have given me today. I'm tired now and am off.
Have a nice weekend!
Not half as much as you're giving us! All that man love for Bert has boomeranged quite spectacularly, and instead of showing a bit of humility, you continue digging. Carry on, you'll be out the other end in time for the Tour Down Under next year!Le Blaireau (1)0 -
I have just worked my way through the Flandis / NYVelocity transcript and came across this link to The Nation from John Eustice in the comments.
Despite it being an article from 2007 about a different sport, I think it is a fantastic description of Pro Cycling and goes a long way towards explaining why posters on this forum (who as far as I can tell all give a s**t) adopt the positions they do.
I'd be interested in what others make of the article with regards to Bertie's current predicament.
SWell. Certaintly...0 -
Moray Gub wrote:Blazing Saddles wrote: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.
No.......... this is good its what FF needs a wee bit of reality , who would have thought that Bertie would be a confirmed dope cheat while LA as it stands is not.
I was going to add a wink. Just joining in on the jokey banter.
Out with the fanboy, in with the conboy.
"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
Steve2020 wrote:"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"
I'm no AC defender, but for nearly all of the race he wasn't actually racing in the sense of trying to gain time on his rivals, so it would be 0.5% of a much smaller number than his total finishing time.
Actually, if you look at the portions of the race where time is realistically won and lost (ie mountains, TTs, etc) and take out the mass finishes where the entire peleton gets the same time, and just factor .5% there, the time gaps would probably be bigger
I think :oops:0 -
Pokerface wrote:Actually, if you look at the portions of the race where time is realistically won and lost (ie mountains, TTs, etc) and take out the mass finishes where the entire peloton gets the same time, and just factor .5% there, the time gaps would probably be bigger
I think :oops:
Eh? How does that work.
As I see it, there are probably 6-8 hours in the TdF where the main contenders properly race. Let's call it 8 hours. 0.5% of that is 2 mins 24 secs - which of course is significant. (However, 0.5% increase in power, doesn't equate to 0.5% increase in speed.)
It's all guesswork anywayTwitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:
It's all guesswork anyway
Isn't that the key point here. The dopers believe it works for them or they wouldn't run the (maybe minor) risk of being caught. I don't think you can make hard calculations on the effect as the variables are too great, but does anyone really doubt that a quality doping program brings results. Quite possibly long lasting results, maybe Basso was clean last year, but did he benefit from the lasting effects of previous doping, if you accept he did more than think about it. I've read many opinions that Valverde was clean for the 2009 Vuelta, but even if you accept that, which I personally find hard to believe, how do we know that he wasn't benefiting from previous activities? The answer is we don't, because this has not been studied or quantified in any way.
I agree broadly with Richrd2205's point, that even a small margin of improvement could make a significant difference to someone's time, but any attempt to quantify it is not possible. Even if you could state the likely performance improvement x% more power might offer on a particular climb or stage, you can't possibly quantify how riders x, y and z would have behaved if the time gap to the podium was say 30 seconds instead of say 8 minutes.
All of this is just the sort of non central rubbish that detracts from what we really know, which is that Contador tested positive for a banned substance, and should have been banned for two years. All of this should have happened within the normal time frame, with the normal procedures, and without any special treatment. He could then have appealed with his food defence to have the ban shortened, but the positive cannot be denied.0 -
From AC himself"The rules governing elite sports nowadays detail a list of substances that are taken by some athletes to improve performance, leaving the rest of the competitors at a disadvantage, and one of those substances is clenbuterol."
"So if clenbuterol were to be detected, or some other substance found in an amount sufficient to improve performance, and could only have appeared in the body if taken voluntarily, it was taken with that end in mind. Therefore, for particular substances there exists a threshold, the surpassing of which constitutes an offense and is punishable on a sporting level.
Today, advances in science are able to detect minute amounts of some banned substances which neither further athletic performance nor can possibly be taken voluntarily, except if they enter our bodies through ingested food; this is my case with clenbuterol. But whereas scientific advances have arrived in the year 2011, the rule remains stuck in the 60’s, hence my “crime” and possible sanction.
Only by combining scientific advances with modifications to the anti-doping rules will it be possible to talk about honest and fair sport, as I have always practiced it."
Alberto Contador
http://www.albertocontador.com/prensa.d ... php?id=494
0 -
dougzz wrote:Isn't that the key point here. The dopers believe it works for them or they wouldn't run the (maybe minor) risk of being caught. I don't think you can make hard calculations on the effect as the variables are too great, but does anyone really doubt that a quality doping program brings results. Quite possibly long lasting results, maybe Basso was clean last year, but did he benefit from the lasting effects of previous doping, if you accept he did more than think about it. I've read many opinions that Valverde was clean for the 2009 Vuelta, but even if you accept that, which I personally find hard to believe, how do we know that he wasn't benefiting from previous activities? The answer is we don't, because this has not been studied or quantified in any way.
Absolutely.
In fact there will come a time when the restrictions and tests for doping will mean that some riders will be doping and getting no real benefit, other than the placebo effect. It's possible that we're close to that already.
Does microdosing really work? I mean, if I drink a glass of wine every day, I'm not drunk by the weekend.
An unnamed person involved in Puerto said that Mancebo was only being given a placebo (as his natural HCT was high).
I look forward to a time when riders are forking out tens of thousands for snake oil.Twitter: @RichN950 -
0
-
RichN95 wrote:
Does microdosing really work? I mean, if I drink a glass of wine every day, I'm not drunk by the weekend.
It's rare to read something so inciteful on a thread that has run to a squillion pages! I guess Rich's analogy is a bit like the old joke about the bloke who put a clean pair of underpants on every day, and couldn't get his trousers on by the end of the week. If the effects of the dope in question are cumulative then I guess microdosing will work. ( A bit like if you take just a spoonfull of sugar in your tea each day you will, all other things being equal, put on more weight than an identical person who doesn't take sugar.) A small amount of dope may improve your performance in training and help build, for example, muscle mass, or stamina, which, I imagine, are cumulative effects. I'm sure, though, there are doping products out there that in micro doses don't have any effect on performance as they get metabolised before having an impact (like the daily glass of wine in RichN95's analogy). It would be an interesting study to do, and would probably get a Biochemistry student a DPhil somewhere in the world.
Of course, the suggestion all along has been that the clem in Contador's system is not a result of microdosing but due to previously withdrawn clem contaminated blood being re-infused during the rest day (backed up by the plasticizers found and the rumours from the Astana source that AC was trying to lose weight after the Dauphine IIRC).0 -
Credit where credit is due: this thread would have died long ago, but for the sustained and loyal postings of French Fighter.Mens agitat molem0
-
bazbadger wrote:Credit where credit is due: this thread would have died long ago, but for the sustained and loyal postings of French Fighter.
Indeed. We're honoured by his presence.
(His posts are interesting though)My commute:
0 -
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
Yep seen that. No problems whatsoever.
Here are a few pieces for you which you no doubt know about but which others wont.VeloNews obtained a copy of the original 36-page document sent from the Guardia Civil to authorities in France last July.
After a thorough review of the document, VeloNews found only two mentions of Contador. Neither of those two references could be linked to illicit doping products or doping practices, officials later decided.
The first reference to Contador is mentioned on a list of then-Liberty Seguros teammates (spelling mistakes remain as is) that appear on a document later to identified as a list of training schedules for members of the team:
En el documento 3 se observan marcados de distinta forma los nombres de los corredores: Dariuz BARANOWSKY; Josefa BELOKI; Ginpaolo CARUSO; Alberto CONTADOR; Allan DAVIS; David ETXEBARRÍA; Igor GONZÁLEZ DE GALDEANO; Roberto HERAS; Jorg JAKSCHE; Isidro NOZAL; Sergio PAULINHO; Nuno RIBEIRO; Luis León SÁNCHEZ; Michele SCARPONI; Marcos SERRANO y Ángel VICIOSO.
The second reference includes initials of riders’ name that appeared on another training document:
En el reverso del documento 31 se localizan unas anotaciones manuscritas con el título “INDIVIDUALIZACIÓN” en el que se identifican a distintos corredores del equipo LIBERTY-SEGUROS WÜRTH por sus iniciales: R. H. (Roberto HERAS), M. S. (Marcos SERRANO), J. B. (Joseba BELOKI), I. G. (Igor GONZÁLEZ), A. V. (Ángel VICIOSO), J. J. (Jorg JAKSCHE), A. D. (Alan DAVIS), L. (sin identificar), A. C. (Alberto CONTADOR) .
Contador’s name was also heard in taped phone conversations of Fuentes, but authorities said his name appears only in reference to conversations about race results.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BnW_6ivBuqs/R ... hot003.jpgEven Tour officials seemed content that a rider on last year’s Puerto list could win this year’s scandal-ridden edition.
“He was part of the dossier at first, but after closer review, he was rightly removed,” said ASO president Patrice Clerc before Thursday’s start. “His name was mentioned in taped phone conversations, but the references were related to sporting results. In no instance could his name be linked as a client of Fuentes or Operación Puerto, so his name was excluded.”Even the elusive Fuentes, speaking last year on Spanish radio, said he never worked with Contador.
And something very few people would have read and may well make an impression.In other news, I think one of the more surreal and telling moments of the Giro was the moment when Toni Colom came to hand Contador a banana while the favorites group (sans Sella and Simoni) was arguing their way up the last climb in stage 20. Contador, who eats bananas during most every stage, was far too busy telling Ricco where to get off to notice the awaiting banana hand-off from the flailing Colom. Finally he very calmly takes the banana, but he keeps right on arguing with Ricco. Meanwhile they are climbing fast enough that any mortal could not even breathe, let alone carry on a lengthy argument. Then Contador starts waving the banana right in Ricco's face, which was a bit like waving a red cape at a bull. Ricco surely looked well and truly pissed off.Contador is the Greatest0 -
Richrd2205 I will reply to your long post tomorrow if I can.Contador is the Greatest0
-
iainf72 You lining up a new avatar soon?Contador is the Greatest0
-
Ricco.
Colom.
Bertie.
What do these boys have in common?___________________
Strava is not Zen.0 -
Richrd2205 wrote:
This appears differently in your writing, but I'm happy to give you the benefit of the doubt....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.
I can’t prove or disprove this to you, so yes you will just have to believe it or not. Maybe don’t confuse defending riders you like with passion, with idolism.Richrd2205 wrote:
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 I would be annoyed if he were to be banned becaue I enjoy watching him race.
I enjoy watching rider A race. A ban means I wont be able to see them race. It is perfectly ok to say I will be annoyed. It isn’t hard to understand: person P supports Arsenal. Arsenal are removed from competition for a year. Person P will be annoyed.
In direct reply to your point: I don’t treat how I analyse a ride, with regard doping, differently. I do feel differently about not being able to watch them later (don’t confuse this with whether I think each ban is justified).Richrd2205 wrote:
Really? Ullrich?You also don't understand that riders are not created by drugs.
Two amateur riders: Rider 1 is excellent, Rider 2 is average. They are clean. Drugs are given to Rider 2 who now becomes very good. Rider 1 is still superior.
Yes, someone like Kohl wouldn’t feature without the raft of drugs he was taking. But why can’t you believe that a rider can be excellent drug less, even if they were a top 3 rider whilst on drugs?Richrd2205 wrote:
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.Sure it can make a difference, more so for some. And it may change your mental side because you feel better than your opponents.
In other terms, tiny differences become hugely significant in Gaussian distributions.
Or to put in other terms, doping makes an absolutely critical difference.
I agree that small differences can make the difference between winning and coming 5th or so. Your point falls down on the fact that you have treated every minute of the Tour as equal. ‘Rolling along quietly in the bunch’ minute is nothing compared to ‘final 3km battle on a summit finish’ minute.Richrd2205 wrote:
"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.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.
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....
This is simple. I am against drugs; see a post about this exact point some pages back on this thread. No I don’t think Contador should be banned as I don’t think he doped, for reasons already covered.
Why is one rider exciting to me and another not? Does this matter? Not really, each person has their own opinions about this and another cannot say other's opinions aren’t valid. I don’t explain the ‘why’ here as it isn’t relevant.
I hope there is some understanding now. Nice to see a poster approaching the matter with some intelligence.Contador is the Greatest0 -
From my viewpoint, here in dunce's corner, there are two damning facts about Contador-
1. plasticisers
2. he never took up the offer of the DNA test to prove that the blood in the Puerto fridge was not his.
Oh, and a third. When asked directly if he dopes, he flannels.
Yes, he is no doubt a Very Nice Man.
Yes, he is a hugely talented rider.
Yes, he is generous to charity.
But.......but......0 -
1. So little is know about this test if done on pro cyclists. Have them do it on every single pro cyclist and see what the result is then it may have some credibility.
Or, maybe even better. Measure his samples over the entire TDF and see whether there is an abnormal fluctuation. If Test A was done and found 0 Clen + plas. lv 1, and then Test B was done (sample from next day) and found Clen + plas. lv. 1, this is a sure sign of the clen coming from meat. Not sure why this hasn't been mentioned or tested for before.
2. See last line in doc: he said he would. Also see my quote below Iain's: it concerns Puerto.Contador is the Greatest0 -
1. I presume they are already doing so. And I presume that there are a lot of worried riders as a result. But I still believe that it has credibility.
2. Yes, he (reluctantly) said he would, but the crucial fact is- he didn't. He can't blame a needle phobia, he has frequent blood tests- what did he have to lose?0 -
I added a bit to my post above yours.
Also consider this:
Contador has offered to provide his full blood and urine samples for testing, saying he is open to their analysis now and also in the future, when the tests are more evolved.
Would a doper do that?Contador is the Greatest0 -
ff, does he mean the (alleged) Puerto blood as well?
And retrospective testing on ALL his previous blood and urine?0 -
Tusher wrote:but the crucial fact is- he didn't.
He said he would so that has nothing to do with him. I am sure that tests would have been done by authorities if they thought it necessay.Contador is the Greatest0
