Contador Ruling
Comments
-
TheBigBean wrote:skylla wrote:TheBigBean wrote:I'm not sure where this rumour that Contador ate the beef after the positve test comes from. It doesn't come from the CAS ruling from my reading. It is accepted by all parties, that the beef was bought on 20th July and eaten for dinner on the 20th July and lunch on 21st July. He then failed a drugs test taken in the evening of 21st July.
If there was such an anomlay with dates as quoted on this forum I don't think they would have got as far as worrying about the size of the calf it came from.
Perhaps when other pre-beef samples were scrutinised they were found to be + for clen too. Remember, there were several samples tested after the initial +
He failed the tests on the subsequent days for clen in a manner consistent with the original amount slowly being excreted by the body.
Damn him for his negligence in allowing clen to enter his body, but at least give the lawyers and all conerned some credit that they haven't spent 18 months arguing about something that simple.
I'm sorry but that's exactly why the beef story doesn't hold up: clen in a blood sample before he ingested beef. So yes, the lawyers have been barking up the wrong tree. fact.0 -
TheBigBean wrote:Also, the platicisers test hasn't been sanctioned by WADA because they don't believe it is reliable. You can't hang a man on an unreliable test that peaked the day before he failed a drugs test.
uhm, that's exactly that day (beef day minus 1) that clen also showed up in his blood. In re. to the plast. detection not being reliable, it was actually a case of the test not having been rigorously tested as yet and was thus not part of the wada sanctioned tool set. You'll see it used more often in one form or another in years to come.0 -
lemuppet wrote:TheBigBean wrote:I'm not sure where this rumour that Contador ate the beef after the positve test comes from. It doesn't come from the CAS ruling from my reading. It is accepted by all parties, that the beef was bought on 20th July and eaten for dinner on the 20th July and lunch on 21st July. He then failed a drugs test taken in the evening of 21st July.
If there was such an anomlay with dates as quoted on this forum I don't think they would have got as far as worrying about the size of the calf it came from.
In the CAS report, section II item 16, it mentions a blood test taken on the morning of the 20th containing clenbuterol at a level of 1ug/ml.
You are correct. I therefore do not understand why this hasn't received more attention and why the beef scenario was considered in such detail. I also do not understand why the level of clen increases between 24th and 25th. A typo would be one explanation.
I mainly read the discussion later on in the report and this point was not mentioned.0 -
and by the way, the amount of clen in his blood was HUGE compared to the amount in his urine - in excess of 50 thousand times.0
-
Perhaps.skylla wrote:TheBigBean wrote:Also, the platicisers test hasn't been sanctioned by WADA because they don't believe it is reliable. You can't hang a man on an unreliable test that peaked the day before he failed a drugs test.
uhm, that's exactly that day (beef day minus 1) that clen also showed up in his blood. In re. to the plast. detection not being reliable, it was actually a case of the test not having been rigorously tested as yet and was thus not part of the wada sanctioned tool set. You'll see it used more often in one form or another in years to come.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-re ... cizer-test0 -
TheBigBean wrote:lemuppet wrote:TheBigBean wrote:I'm not sure where this rumour that Contador ate the beef after the positve test comes from. It doesn't come from the CAS ruling from my reading. It is accepted by all parties, that the beef was bought on 20th July and eaten for dinner on the 20th July and lunch on 21st July. He then failed a drugs test taken in the evening of 21st July.
If there was such an anomlay with dates as quoted on this forum I don't think they would have got as far as worrying about the size of the calf it came from.
In the CAS report, section II item 16, it mentions a blood test taken on the morning of the 20th containing clenbuterol at a level of 1ug/ml.
You are correct. I therefore do not understand why this hasn't received more attention and why the beef scenario was considered in such detail. I also do not understand why the level of clen increases between 24th and 25th. A typo would be one explanation.
I mainly read the discussion later on in the report and this point was not mentioned.
In regards to fluctuating levels of clen on those days, this could be explained by kidney activity, metabolic activity, intake of water (i.e. urine more diluted) etc. Believe me, all findings add up.0 -
JonGinge wrote:
Perhaps.skylla wrote:TheBigBean wrote:Also, the platicisers test hasn't been sanctioned by WADA because they don't believe it is reliable. You can't hang a man on an unreliable test that peaked the day before he failed a drugs test.
uhm, that's exactly that day (beef day minus 1) that clen also showed up in his blood. In re. to the plast. detection not being reliable, it was actually a case of the test not having been rigorously tested as yet and was thus not part of the wada sanctioned tool set. You'll see it used more often in one form or another in years to come.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-re ... cizer-test
Beat me to it. This was the basis of my assertion.0 -
JonGinge wrote:
Perhaps.skylla wrote:TheBigBean wrote:Also, the platicisers test hasn't been sanctioned by WADA because they don't believe it is reliable. You can't hang a man on an unreliable test that peaked the day before he failed a drugs test.
uhm, that's exactly that day (beef day minus 1) that clen also showed up in his blood. In re. to the plast. detection not being reliable, it was actually a case of the test not having been rigorously tested as yet and was thus not part of the wada sanctioned tool set. You'll see it used more often in one form or another in years to come.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-re ... cizer-test
this bit stands out:
"WADA's Laboratory Committee decided at the time that there were alternative ways to collect the evidence to the one proposed by Prof. Segura's research," WADA's media relations manager Terence O'Rorke said."0 -
skylla wrote:and by the way, the amount of clen in his blood was HUGE compared to the amount in his urine - in excess of 50 thousand times.
Yes, I noticed that. I wondered if it was related to blood / urine testing, but either way it is a significant point that seems to have been missed by all and sundry.0 -
348-455. If you read that and still think he blood doped you are being deliberately obtuse and obfuscatory.Contador is the Greatest0
-
0
-
*shrugs* Methods prove to be reliable or not. Science moves on. Such is life.skylla wrote:this bit stands out:
"WADA's Laboratory Committee decided at the time that there were alternative ways to collect the evidence to the one proposed by Prof. Segura's research," WADA's media relations manager Terence O'Rorke said."
I was just noting that the method used to detect plasticisers in this case has had its funding discontinued0 -
frenchfighter wrote:348-455. If you read that and still think he blood doped you are being deliberately obtuse and obfuscatory.
Do you still think that his defence of meat contamination is acceptable given the presence of clenbuterol in his system before he ate the steak?0 -
TheBigBean wrote:lemuppet wrote:TheBigBean wrote:I'm not sure where this rumour that Contador ate the beef after the positve test comes from. It doesn't come from the CAS ruling from my reading. It is accepted by all parties, that the beef was bought on 20th July and eaten for dinner on the 20th July and lunch on 21st July. He then failed a drugs test taken in the evening of 21st July.
If there was such an anomlay with dates as quoted on this forum I don't think they would have got as far as worrying about the size of the calf it came from.
In the CAS report, section II item 16, it mentions a blood test taken on the morning of the 20th containing clenbuterol at a level of 1ug/ml.
You are correct. I therefore do not understand why this hasn't received more attention and why the beef scenario was considered in such detail. I also do not understand why the level of clen increases between 24th and 25th. A typo would be one explanation.
I mainly read the discussion later on in the report and this point was not mentioned.
Ok. 416 in the report implies that 16 is a typo. So, I'm still fairly confident that no clen was tested before the steak was eaten.
It also states 1 ug (more clearly) and it doesn't look like a microgram as it does in 16. I don't know what an ug is though, but it implies it is smaller than a pg.0 -
JonGinge wrote:
*shrugs* Methods prove to be reliable or not. Science moves on. Such is life.skylla wrote:this bit stands out:
"WADA's Laboratory Committee decided at the time that there were alternative ways to collect the evidence to the one proposed by Prof. Segura's research," WADA's media relations manager Terence O'Rorke said."
No. Thetest on discussion here is VERY RELIABLE when it comes to detecting DEHP. What is says is that there are or should be BETTER ways to detect plasticisers from trans-bags, i.e. one that rules out those plastics that are also used in other products - especially when findings like this will have to stand up in a court of law. So yes, that's where 'the science moving on' bit comes in!0 -
Actually, ignore that, ug is a micro gram which is bigger than a picogram, but the report states it is a low level, so maybe it is a blood urine thing.0
-
ug is the standard way of writing microgram when you don't have the greek character mu0
-
TheBigBean wrote:TheBigBean wrote:lemuppet wrote:TheBigBean wrote:I'm not sure where this rumour that Contador ate the beef after the positve test comes from. It doesn't come from the CAS ruling from my reading. It is accepted by all parties, that the beef was bought on 20th July and eaten for dinner on the 20th July and lunch on 21st July. He then failed a drugs test taken in the evening of 21st July.
If there was such an anomlay with dates as quoted on this forum I don't think they would have got as far as worrying about the size of the calf it came from.
In the CAS report, section II item 16, it mentions a blood test taken on the morning of the 20th containing clenbuterol at a level of 1ug/ml.
You are correct. I therefore do not understand why this hasn't received more attention and why the beef scenario was considered in such detail. I also do not understand why the level of clen increases between 24th and 25th. A typo would be one explanation.
I mainly read the discussion later on in the report and this point was not mentioned.
Ok. 416 in the report implies that 16 is a typo. So, I'm still fairly confident that no clen was tested before the steak was eaten.
It also states 1 ug (more clearly) and it doesn't look like a microgram as it does in 16. I don't know what an ug is though, but it implies it is smaller than a pg.
Sorry, but an ug is a µg, an ug is a microgram, is a million (MILLION!) pg.0 -
lemuppet wrote:frenchfighter wrote:348-455. If you read that and still think he blood doped you are being deliberately obtuse and obfuscatory.
Do you still think that his defence of meat contamination is acceptable given the presence of clenbuterol in his system before he ate the steak?
Exactly. He's a cheating little sh*t and makes you wonder when else he cheated and what else he won through similar means.Specialized Venge S Works
Cannondale Synapse
Enigma Etape
Genesis Flyer Single Speed
Turn the corner, rub my eyes and hope the world will last...0 -
TheBigBean wrote:lemuppet wrote:TheBigBean wrote:I'm not sure where this rumour that Contador ate the beef after the positve test comes from. It doesn't come from the CAS ruling from my reading. It is accepted by all parties, that the beef was bought on 20th July and eaten for dinner on the 20th July and lunch on 21st July. He then failed a drugs test taken in the evening of 21st July.
If there was such an anomlay with dates as quoted on this forum I don't think they would have got as far as worrying about the size of the calf it came from.
In the CAS report, section II item 16, it mentions a blood test taken on the morning of the 20th containing clenbuterol at a level of 1ug/ml.
You are correct. I therefore do not understand why this hasn't received more attention and why the beef scenario was considered in such detail. I also do not understand why the level of clen increases between 24th and 25th. A typo would be one explanation.
I mainly read the discussion later on in the report and this point was not mentioned.
Pretty sure it's a typo, as later in the verdict it refers to the blood test taking place on the 21st (see p86 point 416).0 -
416 mentions a test on the 21st but that doesn't necessarily mean that the test mentioned in 16 didn't take place on the 20th.
However 416 also mentions a negative urine test on the evening of the 20th which you would imagine would have been positive if clenbuterol was present in his blood that morning so that does lead you to think it could be a typo.0 -
416. 20 eve neg, 21 morn 1ug, 21 eve 50 pg. 16 at 20 morn is typo. Google it also and you can see that also on the 20th was neg. Here is a good one for starters:
http://www.velonation.com/Photos/Photo- ... d/572.aspx
Just for information. A typical clen tablet as used in bodybuilding is 20 micrograms or 20 000 000 picograms.
A typical dose is 4-8 of these tablets daily. That is 120 000 000 picograms on average.
When taken orally it peaks in the blood after within a few hours.
Clen is heat stable so cooking doesn't affect it.
The amounts given to animals that showed the effect [muscle growth of 2B fibres] were 6,000 times the maximum human therapeutic dose.Clenbuterol is particularly dangerous when used under hot-weather exercising conditions, since it may induce elevated body temperature. When combined with dehydration, which can occur if you don't drink enough fluids, serious or even fatal heart problems can result.
One often-overlooked property of clenbuterol is that it apparently interferes with exercise-induced gains, especially endurance. A recent study involving horses, for which clenbuterol is legal in the U.S. to treat various lung disorders, found that even therapeutic doses favorably influenced body composition in the horses by promoting fat loss while building muscle.5 The fat-loss effect lasted only two weeks and was attributed to a down regulation, or loss of activity, of beta-adrenergic cell receptors induced by clenbuterol. That effect also occurs in humans, meaning the fat-mobilizing effect of clenbuterol is extremely short-lived, averaging two to three weeks.
Another interesting finding of the horse study that confirms earlier studies was that horses given clenbuterol without exercise showed increased fat loss and muscle mass by the two-week point. But the horses that got clenbuterol and also exercised (three days a week of running) didn't show lean mass gains until the sixth week. The study authors concurred with previous observations that combining clenbuterol with exercise appears to impede the anabolic effect, although exactly how that happens remains uncertain.
I'm done. The case in favour of non-doping is so fucking clear cut it is laughable. Any angle you take cannot provide a reason. Whoever thinks he still doped is a total intelligence nutter. Provide me with an irrefutable scenario that makes sense logically and physically showing he took clen deliberately or STFU.Contador is the Greatest0 -
If there were two failed blood tests then they would have both been mentioned at the beginning. It is clear to me that it is a typo.0
-
I didn't want this. The above was a more general sentiment on the progression of science. In this case I think 'reliable' also means fit for purpose. The test in question may be 'VERY RELIABLE' at detecting DEHP but if it can't distinguish blood bags from food bags then that's a problem. Hence the speculation on the reason for the funding cut and WADA looking to other methods.skylla wrote:JonGinge wrote:
*shrugs* Methods prove to be reliable or not. Science moves on. Such is life.skylla wrote:this bit stands out:
"WADA's Laboratory Committee decided at the time that there were alternative ways to collect the evidence to the one proposed by Prof. Segura's research," WADA's media relations manager Terence O'Rorke said."
No. Thetest on discussion here is VERY RELIABLE when it comes to detecting DEHP. What is says is that there are or should be BETTER ways to detect plasticisers from trans-bags, i.e. one that rules out those plastics that are also used in other products - especially when findings like this will have to stand up in a court of law. So yes, that's where 'the science moving on' bit comes in!0 -
frenchfighter wrote:416. 20 eve neg, 21 morn 1ug, 21 eve 50 pg. 16 at 20 morn is typo. Google it also and you can see that also on the 20th was neg. Here is a good one for starters:
http://www.velonation.com/Photos/Photo- ... d/572.aspx
Just for information. A typical clen tablet as used in bodybuilding is 20 micrograms or 20 000 000 picograms.
A typical dose is 4-8 of these tablets daily. That is 120 000 000 picograms on average.
.
Hero worship is blinding. But I'll help you: now take that value of 20 ug and calculate the concentration of this substance in the plasma volume of an adult human. Please post back.
PS/EDIT: You're mixing/confusing blood and urine sample values in your example btw.0 -
TheBigBean wrote:I'm not sure where this rumour that Contador ate the beef after the positve test comes from. It doesn't come from the CAS ruling from my reading. It is accepted by all parties, that the beef was bought on 20th July and eaten for dinner on the 20th July and lunch on 21st July. He then failed a drugs test taken in the evening of 21st July.
If there was such an anomlay with dates as quoted on this forum I don't think they would have got as far as worrying about the size of the calf it came from.
I read this from posts on redkiteprayer, they even give the paragraph number. As I said, I have not read this myself.
Oops ignore this. already mentioned in posts above.--
Burls Ti Tourer for Tarmac, Saracen aluminium full suss for trails0 -
frenchfighter wrote:.... Provide me with an irrefutable scenario that makes sense logically and physically showing he took clen deliberately or STFU.
No. You are deliberately ignoring the plasticisers in his blood. They were there, it wasn't acted on by CAS, but they were there. The Clen before or after the steak I'm not sure of, the meat defence has been blown away. There has been no hue and cry about supplements.
How else did the Clen get into his body? Well it doesn't matter, he had clen and couldn't explain it. Strict liability means he gets a ban.
I'm convinced he's a cheat and I won't shut up about it just because you don't want to hear it. And please stop accusing everyone who does not agree with you of being stupid, it is extremely childish.--
Burls Ti Tourer for Tarmac, Saracen aluminium full suss for trails0 -
His positive test is proof that something he deliberately took had clen in it. Even he accepts that. He hasn't denied the test, or claimed he was forcibly fed or injected with anything. So he deliberately inserted a clen-containing substance into his body somehow.frenchfighter wrote:.... Provide me with an irrefutable scenario that makes sense logically and physically showing he took clen deliberately or STFU.0
