The Secret Pro

RichN95.

Richmond Racer wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

The questions is not whether the riders can avoid certain foods but why they should have to. This is a mandatory race for the teams and they are being forced to compromise on nutrition or play dice with their careers. Nobody's career should be at risk just from eating food.

And if there is to be effective worldwide testing what about sportsmen who are Chinese or China based?

Pedant alert: you can get all the protein you need from fish, tofu, soya protein etc. Foregoing meat for a short period isnt going to compromise an athlete's nutrional needs.

Ok then I'll phrase it differently. Why shouldn't they be able to eat whatever they like without fear of losing their career? It's a ludicrous situation.

The_Boy

Richmond Racer wrote:

The_Boy wrote:

Mad_Malx wrote:

The_Boy wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

I've been to China. I think the vegetarian option was chicken.

Quick wiki says nothing about contaminated chicken, so that would do the trick . Apart from for the veggies obviously.

Quick google says clenbuterol is in chicken.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympi ... terol.html

The Chinese authorities seemed quite relaxed about their athletes eating fish and chicken in a bid to avoid Clen +ves. Granted two years ago.

More to the point, Matt White makes reference to a team not eating any meat products during their time in Beijing:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/white-u ... in-beijing

Well, put it like this, Blazing Saddles - who's able to speak with some authority on the subject - has previously pointed out that when the GB track team go to comps in countries known as high-risk for clen, they dont touch fish from the time they leave the UK until the time they leave that country. They live off fish the entire period, to avoid ANY risk.

I've had very little sleep so brain isn't functioning great, but the section in bold isn't making sense to me.

Richmond Racer

^its really about whether one feels there's no risk in eating poultry. You were expressing a view that chicken seemed OK. However, many feel there is risk, and some athletes and their set-ups avoid it when travelling to compete in clen-notorious countries like China and Mexico.

The_Boy

RichN95 wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

The questions is not whether the riders can avoid certain foods but why they should have to. This is a mandatory race for the teams and they are being forced to compromise on nutrition or play dice with their careers. Nobody's career should be at risk just from eating food.

And if there is to be effective worldwide testing what about sportsmen who are Chinese or China based?

Pedant alert: you can get all the protein you need from fish, tofu, soya protein etc. Foregoing meat for a short period isnt going to compromise an athlete's nutrional needs.

Ok then I'll phrase it differently. Why shouldn't they be able to eat whatever they like without fear of losing their career? It's a ludicrous situation.

Because Clen can be used as a performance enhancing substance. And, once in the body, there isn't (as far as I know) any way to differentiate between the two. Avoiding meat when there is a major risk of contamination is no great hardship and a fairly straight forward step to avoid contamination.

The_Boy

Richmond Racer wrote:

^its really about whether one feels there's no risk in eating poultry

Many feel there is risk, and plenty of studies have shown that its not just red meat that's affected by it

Ah, right. So the first part should read that they don't touch chicken from when they leave the UK and stick to fish?

The initial chicken comment wasn't entirely serious anyway, hence the smiley.

Richmond Racer

The_Boy wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

^its really about whether one feels there's no risk in eating poultry

Many feel there is risk, and plenty of studies have shown that its not just red meat that's affected by it

Ah, right. So the first part should read that they don't touch chicken from when they leave the UK and stick to fish?

The initial chicken comment wasn't entirely serious anyway, hence the smiley.

Its the smiley that got me! We've had a surfeit of them from one particular poster who to the delight of very few has popped up again. I'm smilied out...

RichN95.

Richmond Racer wrote:

^its really about whether one feels there's no risk in eating poultry. You were expressing a view that chicken seemed OK. However, many feel there is risk, and some athletes and their set-ups avoid it when travelling to compete in clen-notorious countries like China and Mexico.

But should an athlete be expected to know this? Is the burden on the athlete to study biochemistry and the farming practices of the country they are in?

Either WADA has to introduce minimum levels for people who have visited certain countries or suspend testing for I (which UCai may have done). And if someone wants to dose up on an ineffective ancient drug which probably does more harm tban good in competition then so be it.

Anonymous

RichN95 wrote:

But should an athlete be expected to know this? Is the burden on the athlete to study biochemistry and the farming practices of the country they are in?

No but the teams should, to me it's as simple as deciding which wheels to pack. If the team feel a signifiant risk, they should make alternatives, look at GB serving tuna in mexico.

RichN95.

sjmclean wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

But should an athlete be expected to know this? Is the burden on the athlete to study biochemistry and the farming practices of the country they are in?

No but the teams should, to me it's as simple as deciding which wheels to pack. If the team feel a signifiant risk, they should make alternatives, look at GB serving tuna in mexico.

Cycling isn't the only sport. Other sports aren't as clued up as cycling about doping, nor have the resources that British Cycling does.For example an Ethiopian doing the Shanghai marathon. A lot of sportsmen are funding their sport on a shoestring and don't have a huge support team.

Anonymous

RichN95 wrote:

sjmclean wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

But should an athlete be expected to know this? Is the burden on the athlete to study biochemistry and the farming practices of the country they are in?

No but the teams should, to me it's as simple as deciding which wheels to pack. If the team feel a signifiant risk, they should make alternatives, look at GB serving tuna in mexico.

Cycling isn't the only sport. Other sports aren't as clued up as cycling about doping, nor have the resources that British Cycling does.For example an Ethiopian doing the Shanghai marathon. A lot of sportsmen are funding their sport on a shoestring and don't have a huge support team.

No I understand that, I meant in general of pro cycling, I imagine every pro tour team has a nutritionist? TeamSkyChef talks about having to source local ingredients, on stage races etc. Do other teams do this? Do all pro tour teams have a chef?

RichN95.

sjmclean wrote:

No I understand that, I meant in general of pro cycling, I imagine every pro tour team has a nutritionist?

I'm not sure if they do. Even at World Tour level.

Anonymous

RichN95 wrote:

sjmclean wrote:

No I understand that, I meant in general of pro cycling, I imagine every pro tour team has a nutritionist?

I'm not sure if they do. Even at World Tour level.

It would be interesting then to see, what precautions are taken against things like this. As it would seem none

The_Boy

RichN95 wrote:

sjmclean wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

But should an athlete be expected to know this? Is the burden on the athlete to study biochemistry and the farming practices of the country they are in?

No but the teams should, to me it's as simple as deciding which wheels to pack. If the team feel a signifiant risk, they should make alternatives, look at GB serving tuna in mexico.

Cycling isn't the only sport. Other sports aren't as clued up as cycling about doping, nor have the resources that British Cycling does.For example an Ethiopian doing the Shanghai marathon. A lot of sportsmen are funding their sport on a shoestring and don't have a huge support team.

That's surely a problem for athletics? Regardless of the facts of the case, the whole Contador thing kinda means that even fat cyclo-commuters like me have an understanding of the risks associated with eating contaminated meat. And the Secret Pro article talks at great length about the chatter about the chatter with the peloton about Clen, unsubstantiated rumours about UCI not testing for it and so on. Not to mention that, assuming Matt White is correct, at least one teal had the sense to avoid meat while there. There isn't a pro cyclist who doesn't have the facilities to stay abreast of all things doping or doping related (team doctor, local doctor, internet and so on).

And remember, there are cases where mitigating circumstances are taken into account - the Offredo ban. Or indeed where athletes have been given the all clear on the grounds of contamination - what's-his-name the british skier among others.

Actually, thinking about it, I seem to remember a piece on the news about the banned substances list which had a bit with an athlete reading through a paper copy of said list. I'm assuming such a thing would be maintained nowadays by WADA? Assuming so, and assuming they haven't already thought of it, perhaps they could also include a list of problems that can arise from for eg contamination and steps to avoid it? Might be a useful tool for athletes from poorer nations/sporting orgs. Just a thought I had so my post related to the one I'm quoting, like.

Anonymous

The_Boy wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

sjmclean wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

But should an athlete be expected to know this? Is the burden on the athlete to study biochemistry and the farming practices of the country they are in?

No but the teams should, to me it's as simple as deciding which wheels to pack. If the team feel a signifiant risk, they should make alternatives, look at GB serving tuna in mexico.

Cycling isn't the only sport. Other sports aren't as clued up as cycling about doping, nor have the resources that British Cycling does.For example an Ethiopian doing the Shanghai marathon. A lot of sportsmen are funding their sport on a shoestring and don't have a huge support team.

That's surely a problem for athletics? Regardless of the facts of the case, the whole Contador thing kinda means that even fat cyclo-commuters like me have an understanding of the risks associated with eating contaminated meat. And the Secret Pro article talks at great length about the chatter about the chatter with the peloton about Clen, unsubstantiated rumours about UCI not testing for it and so on. Not to mention that, assuming Matt White is correct, at least one teal had the sense to avoid meat while there. There isn't a pro cyclist who doesn't have the facilities to stay abreast of all things doping or doping related (team doctor, local doctor, internet and so on).

And remember, there are cases where mitigating circumstances are taken into account - the Offredo ban. Or indeed where athletes have been given the all clear on the grounds of contamination - what's-his-name the british skier among others.

Actually, thinking about it, I seem to remember a piece on the news about the banned substances list which had a bit with an athlete reading through a paper copy of said list. I'm assuming such a thing would be maintained nowadays by WADA? Assuming so, and assuming they haven't already thought of it, perhaps they could also include a list of problems that can arise from for eg contamination and steps to avoid it? Might be a useful tool for athletes from poorer nations/sporting orgs. Just a thought I had so my post related to the one I'm quoting, like.

Yeah this is what I was touching on, I'm sure the UCI put out a statement in regards to the meat issue in Mexico before the track worlds. They certainly talked to the teams about it as Jon Dibben was taling about being told he was going to be "eating tuna for the next 3 weeks".

RichN95.

The_Boy wrote:

That's surely a problem for athletics?

No, it's a problem for WADA not any specific sport. They're the one's that set the minimum rules.

The_Boy

RichN95 wrote:

The_Boy wrote:

That's surely a problem for athletics?

No, it's a problem for WADA not any specific sport. They're the one's that set the minimum rules.

Indeed they are. But unless I misunderstood your post, you were giving the example of an Ethopian runner operating on a shoestring budget and how that may put them at a disadvantage in terms of access to information? Surely the responsibility for providing support and guidance such that athletes can make informed decisions would lie with the sport's governing body?

TheBigBean

I'd just like to chime in with my usual point: there should be a minimum threshold for a clenbuterol positive. Then the whole issue goes away and we can all move on.

frenchfighter

TheBigBean wrote:

I'd just like to chime in with my usual point: there should be a minimum threshold for a clenbuterol positive. Then the whole issue goes away and we can all move on.

Agreed. Getting sanctioned for minuscule amounts which are in no way performance enhancing (and in many cases physically impossible to administer manually) is ridiculous. Imagine the cost involved trying to find these substances too - money should be put to better use imo.

Crankbrother

ThomThom wrote:

artstan wrote:

Anyway lets get a few facts before I get banned again

1, I was willing to listen to Ian's point when he said that Vaughter's confessed to doping.
I read the book he did not confess. I also pointed out that vaughters confessed in 2006 but chose not reveal his identity.
Ian did not come back and acknowledge the fact that he was wrong. I was willing to change my view.

2. Richmond Sky boy Racer said that Vaughters and the other riders who testified were not under oath.
They were and I posted a quote which confirmed they were under oath.
Again no acknowledgement that I was right.

3 Nic posted that drugs are not developed for animals he then tried to cloud the issue and change his wording to drugs are rarely are developed for animals. I made the point all along that drugs are developed for animals and again no acknowledgement that I was again right.

4 We have discussed Froome many times, I posted some Data form independent sources that questioned Froomes performance....Data not nonsense. Obviously it is still a matter of debate but I did at least post a link to back up my own suspicions.

When I made the comment about Sky's doping policy I was met with pure abuse by some of you.

It was quite funny to see Yellow peril completely lose it over a view he disagrees with. It's only a bike race yellow calm down

I have been banned but Rick never gave a reason. I was never nasty never abusive and to be frank when Coach H made that post about me I was quite enjoying it. it was funny watching him try to squirm his way out of it,
again I was not abusive but enjoyed watching the coach crash.

I do like posting on here sometimes. But IMO .
This is a forum and people who share a different view from the majority should be allowed to post and not get

banned for the views.

which is in fact the reason I got banned.

I challenge any of you to find anything have I said that warrants a ban. You may not like some of my opinions and indeed some of you don't but Rick only banned me to keep the majority happy because they like Yellow Peril proved they cannot control their emotions .....Good to see ya back Yellow, no hard feelings, and I hope Rick allows Coach H back on

Cheers Brigid

Good lord, this is so weird..

Especially in 3 months time when it transpires it's Carlton Kirby

Richmond Racer

TheBigBean wrote:

I'd just like to chime in with my usual point: there should be a minimum threshold for a clenbuterol positive. Then the whole issue goes away and we can all move on.

I suspect the challenge might be that what is a miniscule amount at the time of the sample being tested might just reflect the tiny amount left as traceable a number of days after being ingested. How to distinguish whether its the residue of a larger amount taken several days previously... A minimum threshold may give the signal to dopers that they can ingest the stuff a number of days before competition, and get away with it. WADA were considering a minimum threshold a few years ago, dont know whether this is what put them off the idea.

mroli

As soon as you give minimum levels, then people will just push those boundaries to operate with the maximum they can get away with in their system - like the the haemocrit level.

I think Robert Millar was a vegetarian - not for ethical reasons, but because then he knew exactly what he was putting in his body. I wish gotthetshirt2 would pop in occasionally....

The_Boy

Richmond Racer wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I'd just like to chime in with my usual point: there should be a minimum threshold for a clenbuterol positive. Then the whole issue goes away and we can all move on.

I suspect the challenge might be that what is a miniscule amount at the time of the sample being tested might just reflect the tiny amount left as traceable a number of days after being ingested. How to distinguish whether its the residue of a larger amount taken several days previously... A minimum threshold may give the signal to dopers that they can ingest the stuff a number of days before competition, and get away with it. WADA were considering a minimum threshold a few years ago, dont know whether this is what put them off the idea.

This would be my concern.

Richmond Racer

mroli wrote:

As soon as you give minimum levels, then people will just push those boundaries to operate with the maximum they can get away with in their system - like the the haemocrit level.

I think Robert Millar was a vegetarian - not for ethical reasons, but because then he knew exactly what he was putting in his body. I wish gotthetshirt2 would pop in occasionally....

Talking of RM:
http://rouleur.cc/journal/history/royalty

TheBigBean

Richmond Racer wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I'd just like to chime in with my usual point: there should be a minimum threshold for a clenbuterol positive. Then the whole issue goes away and we can all move on.

I suspect the challenge might be that what is a miniscule amount at the time of the sample being tested might just reflect the tiny amount left as traceable a number of days after being ingested. How to distinguish whether its the residue of a larger amount taken several days previously... A minimum threshold may give the signal to dopers that they can ingest the stuff a number of days before competition, and get away with it. WADA were considering a minimum threshold a few years ago, dont know whether this is what put them off the idea.

That is the price that is paid to avoid the current mess regarding accidental ingestion. My way of looking at it is that the test is not fit for purpose as it stands as it doesn't differentiate between clen present in the food chain and clen directly administrated. Now we can all argue that clen shouldn't be present in the food chain, but there is ample evidence that it is. As tests become more and more accurate I imagine this problem will spread to other drugs as well - I'm surprised all those growth hormoned cows in the US don't cause a problem, but maybe it doesn't work like that.

To answer your question, a miniscule amount is somewhere between the amount you ingest from eating a doped up cow to the minimum that could be performancing enhancing. I imagine that range is vast, so settting a threshold would be quite easy.

Richmond Racer

TheBigBean wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I'd just like to chime in with my usual point: there should be a minimum threshold for a clenbuterol positive. Then the whole issue goes away and we can all move on.

I suspect the challenge might be that what is a miniscule amount at the time of the sample being tested might just reflect the tiny amount left as traceable a number of days after being ingested. How to distinguish whether its the residue of a larger amount taken several days previously... A minimum threshold may give the signal to dopers that they can ingest the stuff a number of days before competition, and get away with it. WADA were considering a minimum threshold a few years ago, dont know whether this is what put them off the idea.

That is the price that is paid to avoid the current mess regarding accidental ingestion. My way of looking at it is that the test is not fit for purpose as it stands as it doesn't differentiate between clen present in the food chain and clen directly administrated. Now we can all argue that clen shouldn't be present in the food chain, but there is ample evidence that it is. As tests become more and more accurate I imagine this problem will spread to other drugs as well - I'm surprised all those growth hormoned cows in the US don't cause a problem, but maybe it doesn't work like that.

To answer your question, a miniscule amount is somewhere between the amount you ingest from eating a doped up cow to the minimum that could be performancing enhancing. I imagine that range is vast, so settting a threshold would be quite easy.

Not sure its quite as easy as that, Bean...

This is WADA's current official position:


'Clenbuterol is a prohibited substance and there is no threshold under which this substance is not prohibited.

At present, and based on expert opinions, there is no plan to introduce a threshold level for clenbuterol.

It is possible that under certain circumstance the presence of a low level of clenbuterol in an athlete sample can be the result of food contamination. However, each case is different and all elements need to be taken into account, along with the context of the case.

Under the World Anti-Doping Code, result management of cases foresees the opportunity for an athlete to explain how a prohibited substance entered his/her body.

WADA is working closely with countries, International Federations and event organizers to help minimize the risk of contamination through the monitoring of meat to official hotels and restaurants. This is a government issue and not a WADA issue'


I read that progress is being made on being able to distinguish between clen ingested via food vs otherwise. I'll hunt around for a link to the article.

The_Boy

TheBigBean wrote:

Richmond Racer wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

I'd just like to chime in with my usual point: there should be a minimum threshold for a clenbuterol positive. Then the whole issue goes away and we can all move on.

I suspect the challenge might be that what is a miniscule amount at the time of the sample being tested might just reflect the tiny amount left as traceable a number of days after being ingested. How to distinguish whether its the residue of a larger amount taken several days previously... A minimum threshold may give the signal to dopers that they can ingest the stuff a number of days before competition, and get away with it. WADA were considering a minimum threshold a few years ago, dont know whether this is what put them off the idea.

To answer your question, a miniscule amount is somewhere between the amount you ingest from eating a doped up cow to the minimum that could be performancing enhancing. I imagine that range is vast, so settting a threshold would be quite easy.

Clen has a half-life of up to 48 hours. Assuming it's being used for weightloss* outwith competition then it's all getting a bit 50% 'crit levels for me.

*No evidence either way on that one, afaics.

TheBigBean

Yes, WADA published that a while ago when there was a rumour that a minimum threshold was going to be introduced. Essentially they are saying that an athlete should have the opportunity to explain the positive if in China / Mexico and that may be enough. The problem is that scientifically that's fine - it just falls over a bit when, in cycling, you become stigmatised and some young pro considers suicide.

I like a lot of what WADA does, but on this issue it has dug its heels in in defence of the test. For example, "This is a government issue and not a WADA issue" completely misses the point.

Pross

I don't understand Rich's point (unusually). Surely any athlete competing at a serious level, irrespective of their financial position, should know whether there are high risks of food contamination in the country they are visiting? If I went to Mexico or China I know there's a risk and I don't have a career depending on knowing. I would still eat meat but then I'm not bothered if I lose my 4th cat licence!

RichN95.

Pross wrote:

I don't understand Rich's point (unusually). Surely any athlete competing at a serious level, irrespective of their financial position, should know whether there are high risks of food contamination in the country they are visiting? If I went to Mexico or China I know there's a risk and I don't have a career depending on knowing. I would still eat meat but then I'm not bothered if I lose my 4th cat licence!

But the thing is you are into cycling and read about doping pretty much on a daily basis - so your pretty clued up. As are those in the sport. But in many other sports it's not that big a deal, so they don't give too much thought and a lot of the athletes don't really get told. For a lot of athletes it's just them and their coach.

Clenbuterol contamination is pretty specialized knowledge which you wouldn't know about as a matter of course. Had anyone mentioned it prior to Contador? No-one put it forward as a possible reason until he did.

When Edvald Boasson Hagen came into the sport he didn't even know who Eddy Merckx was, so expecting him to know about farming regulations in China is a bit of a stretch. Now he's fortunate to have an expert team to think about these things for him, but not every sportsman does. (I know someone who manages a Commonwealth Games hockey team. I would be surprised if he knows what a TUE is).

Pross

RichN95 wrote:

Pross wrote:

I don't understand Rich's point (unusually). Surely any athlete competing at a serious level, irrespective of their financial position, should know whether there are high risks of food contamination in the country they are visiting? If I went to Mexico or China I know there's a risk and I don't have a career depending on knowing. I would still eat meat but then I'm not bothered if I lose my 4th cat licence!

But the thing is you are into cycling and read about doping pretty much on a daily basis - so your pretty clued up. As are those in the sport. But in many other sports it's not that big a deal, so they don't give too much thought and a lot of the athletes don't really get told. For a lot of athletes it's just them and their coach.

Clenbuterol contamination is pretty specialized knowledge which you wouldn't know about as a matter of course. Had anyone mentioned it prior to Contador? No-one put it forward as a possible reason until he did.

When Edvald Boasson Hagen came into the sport he didn't even know who Eddy Merckx was, so expecting him to know about farming regulations in China is a bit of a stretch. Now he's fortunate to have an expert team to think about these things for him, but not every sportsman does. (I know someone who manages a Commonwealth Games hockey team. I would be surprised if he knows what a TUE is).

But surely an elite level athlete in any sport, such as the Ethiopian marathon runner you mentioned as an example, would have a greater understanding than some rank amateur? My doping knowledge is (deliberately) limited as I try to avoid that part of the sport.