Forum home Road cycling forum Pro race

Michael Rogers Positive for Clenbuterol

13468934

Posts

  • RichN95 wrote:
    Apologies if this has been covered but this article http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cycling ... -of-rogers about Cycling Australia's statement says that Rogers is not licensed by them. Anyone know who he is licensed by?
    Italy I would have thought. Italian wife, Italian passport.


    ^Lives in Mendrisio, Swiss Land, so could have a Swiss licence.

    Now there is a view that this could cause a little issue. British, Aussie and US cycling feds all have in place a referral agreement with their respective NADO that sees them handing over cases to them immediately for investigation and decision (e.g. BC handed JTL's case to UKAD straight away). But this isnt common. Other cycling feds tend to get involved in the investigation and prosecution - thereby throwing up potential conflicts of interest. And in Mick's case, unless the Swiss Cycling Fed (if it turns out he holds a Swiss licence) has a referral agreement in place to refer their Aussie members to ASADA...this could be messy
  • If it is so easy to accidentally ingest why is it still banned outright on strict liability rather than levels to preclude this kind of contamination?

    And all the same arguments crop up as with Contador. Why isn't the rest of the team testing positive? Etc


    I don't think he is getting any different treatment. The problem is the locus of the contamination which sort of undermines the issue in some peoples eyes. Not for me though, strict liability is strict liability so suck it up Freiburg Mick.
    @JaunePeril

    Winner of the Bike Radar Pro Race Wiggins Hour Prediction Competition
  • If it is so easy to accidentally ingest why is it still banned outright on strict liability rather than levels to preclude this kind of contamination?

    And all the same arguments crop up as with Contador. Why isn't the rest of the team testing positive? Etc


    I don't think he is getting any different treatment. The problem is the locus of the contamination which sort of undermines the issue in some peoples eyes. Not for me though, strict liability is strict liability so suck it up Freiburg Mick.


    Feeling sudden inspiration for a signature to my posts...
  • If it is so easy to accidentally ingest why is it still banned outright on strict liability rather than levels to preclude this kind of contamination?

    And all the same arguments crop up as with Contador. Why isn't the rest of the team testing positive? Etc

    Because how do you police that? I argued this earlier. If you allow for a certain level of clenbuterol then you effectively sanction the use of clenbuterol.
    Correlation is not causation.
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 26,451
    RichN95 wrote:
    Apologies if this has been covered but this article http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cycling ... -of-rogers about Cycling Australia's statement says that Rogers is not licensed by them. Anyone know who he is licensed by?
    Italy I would have thought. Italian wife, Italian passport.


    ^Lives in Mendrisio, Swiss Land, so could have a Swiss licence.

    Now there is a view that this could cause a little issue. British, Aussie and US cycling feds all have in place a referral agreement with their respective NADO that sees them handing over cases to them immediately for investigation and decision (e.g. BC handed JTL's case to UKAD straight away). But this isnt common. Other cycling feds tend to get involved in the investigation and prosecution - thereby throwing up potential conflicts of interest. And in Mick's case, unless the Swiss Cycling Fed (if it turns out he holds a Swiss licence) has a referral agreement in place to refer their Aussie members to ASADA...this could be messy
    You also have the problem that Cycling Australia have said that they will support the maximum sancition possible before the case has even been heard, which prejudices any case that they have any say in.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • joelsimjoelsim Posts: 7,552
    Good on them. I don't think this prejudices anything at all. Cycling Australia are doing more than anyone else to combat doping as far as I can see.
  • Joelsim wrote:
    Good on them. I don't think this prejudices anything at all. Cycling Australia are doing more than anyone else to combat doping as far as I can see.


    How do you make that out then?
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 26,451
    Joelsim wrote:
    Good on them. I don't think this prejudices anything at all. Cycling Australia are doing more than anyone else to combat doping as far as I can see.
    Passing sentencing before the evidence has been heard is prejudicing a case in anyone's book.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • joelsimjoelsim Posts: 7,552
    From what I have read Australia is clamping down as much as anyone on doping.
  • joelsimjoelsim Posts: 7,552
    RichN95 wrote:
    Joelsim wrote:
    Good on them. I don't think this prejudices anything at all. Cycling Australia are doing more than anyone else to combat doping as far as I can see.
    Passing sentencing before the evidence has been heard is prejudicing a case in anyone's book.

    Is that what they are doing? Or are they just stating that if indeed he is found guilty they will press for the maximum ban?
  • ProssPross Posts: 34,759
    RichN95 wrote:
    Joelsim wrote:
    Using Clenbuterol in China is illegal. And in fact in 2011 someone was sentenced to the death penalty for his part in clenbuterol-tainted pork.
    Using Clenbuternol in cycling is illegal. And in fact in 2011 someone was sentenced to two years for his part in clenbuterol-tainted blood.

    Spot the difference.

    Yep, the farmer got a death sentence and the cyclist got a two year ban. It shows how soft cycling's governing bodies are and it's no wonder cyclists continue to dope. Give them the death sentence!
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 26,451
    Joelsim wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    Joelsim wrote:
    Good on them. I don't think this prejudices anything at all. Cycling Australia are doing more than anyone else to combat doping as far as I can see.
    Passing sentencing before the evidence has been heard is prejudicing a case in anyone's book.

    Is that what they are doing? Or are they just stating that if indeed he is found guilty they will press for the maximum ban?
    If they end up having a say in the case (which is what I said), then they are more than just pressing for it. They are not the prosecution, but they may end up being the judge.
    If they have any meaningful connection to this case they have already given Rogers grounds for appeal to CAS. This is why nobody has said anything about JTL - due process and all that.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • joelsimjoelsim Posts: 7,552
    Pross wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    Joelsim wrote:
    Using Clenbuterol in China is illegal. And in fact in 2011 someone was sentenced to the death penalty for his part in clenbuterol-tainted pork.
    Using Clenbuternol in cycling is illegal. And in fact in 2011 someone was sentenced to two years for his part in clenbuterol-tainted blood.

    Spot the difference.

    Yep, the farmer got a death sentence and the cyclist got a two year ban. It shows how soft cycling's governing bodies are and it's no wonder cyclists continue to dope. Give them the death sentence!

    I'm not saying that Pross, merely suggesting that it may not be a complete certainty that all meat in China will contain traces of clenbuterol.
  • joelsimjoelsim Posts: 7,552
    I think this sends out the right message.

    http://www.thestar.com.my/Sport/Cycling ... ralia.aspx
  • ProssPross Posts: 34,759
    Joelsim wrote:
    From what I have read Australia is clamping down as much as anyone on doping.

    What are they doing that is more significant than the UK? The UK via the BOA was deemed to be being too harsh by inflicting life bans for Olympic participation. I would say many countries impose the maximum ban once an athlete is found guilty and there are countries where doping is illegal as well as just a breach of the rules of sports.
  • ProssPross Posts: 34,759
    Joelsim wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    Joelsim wrote:
    Using Clenbuterol in China is illegal. And in fact in 2011 someone was sentenced to the death penalty for his part in clenbuterol-tainted pork.
    Using Clenbuternol in cycling is illegal. And in fact in 2011 someone was sentenced to two years for his part in clenbuterol-tainted blood.

    Spot the difference.

    Yep, the farmer got a death sentence and the cyclist got a two year ban. It shows how soft cycling's governing bodies are and it's no wonder cyclists continue to dope. Give them the death sentence!

    I'm not saying that Pross, merely suggesting that it may not be a complete certainty that all meat in China will contain traces of clenbuterol.

    Nor am I, it was a tongue in cheek response to Rich's 'spot the difference' comment.
  • joelsimjoelsim Posts: 7,552
    Australia have been very vocal about doping over the last few months, there is clear intent to do everything they can to catch dopers. That isn't to say that places like the UK aren't.
  • mike6mike6 Posts: 1,199
    TheBigBean wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    It's almost like they should just bring in a tolerance threshold for Clenbuterol and move on...

    Isn't the point with Clenbuterol that the body doesn't produce it, so that if it's present, it has to have been taken in one form or another? Thresholds/ratios are applied where the substance concerned is produced by the body.

    If memory serves, the hoohah over Berto was that the level detected by the Cologne lab was below the level that labs need to be able to detect in order to gain WADA accreditation. Thus there was the argument that if he'd been tested by a different lab, he'd have not tested positive.

    Could be wrong here, though.

    What you say is correct.

    I don't know this for a fact, but I would guess that to gain a performance advantage from clenbuterol you would need more of it in your system than you would get from a contaminated steak. On the basis that contaminated steaks aren't performance enhancing I would solve the problem by bringing in a threshold. Note that in the AC case, no one suggested it was possible to administer that amount of clenbuterol deliberately, so a threshold at that level would not really allow pros to go wild.

    No one believes AC ate a Spanish steak, In France, before the queen stage of the TDF. If he had said he had no idea where the Clen in his system came from it would have been much more believable. For some reason he was given time to come up with an excuse before the positive was reported. A quick web search by his legal team would have flagged up the slim possibility of meat contamination in Spain. Problem, they were in France at the time, not Spain. I know, a mate of yours visited from Spain, bringing a nice Spanish steak with him....just for you! Sorted, jobs a good un, who could possibly doubt that? :wink::wink::wink:
  • mididoctorsmididoctors Posts: 12,936
    they are getting caught for some pretty stupid behaviour
    "If I was a 38 year old man, I definitely wouldn't be riding a bright yellow bike with Hello Kitty disc wheels, put it that way. What we're witnessing here is the world's most high profile mid-life crisis" Afx237vi Mon Jul 20, 2009 2:43 pm
  • Richmond RacerRichmond Racer Posts: 8,561
    edited December 2013
    RichN95 wrote:
    Joelsim wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    Joelsim wrote:
    Good on them. I don't think this prejudices anything at all. Cycling Australia are doing more than anyone else to combat doping as far as I can see.
    Passing sentencing before the evidence has been heard is prejudicing a case in anyone's book.

    Is that what they are doing? Or are they just stating that if indeed he is found guilty they will press for the maximum ban?
    If they end up having a say in the case (which is what I said), then they are more than just pressing for it. They are not the prosecution, but they may end up being the judge.
    If they have any meaningful connection to this case they have already given Rogers grounds for appeal to CAS. This is why nobody has said anything about JTL - due process and all that.


    ^Spot on

    Imagine a high court judge talking in advance about a criminal case slated to be presided over by a peer of his and saying to the media 'I'd give the accused the maximum sentence'. Anyone think that in the event of the original judge falling sick, the gobby judge who's made up their mind in advance and braodcast it before hearing all of the evidence, would be an appropriate replacement to preside over a fair hearing?
  • mfinmfin Posts: 6,726
    If it is so easy to accidentally ingest why is it still banned outright on strict liability rather than levels to preclude this kind of contamination?

    And all the same arguments crop up as with Contador. Why isn't the rest of the team testing positive? Etc

    Not all the same arguments, as we knew the levels detected in AC's case and that could be looked into as to whether is was steak he said, supplement contamination, or re-infusion of blood from previous Clen taking.

    Of course, the talk was also in the context of Contador's defence, and in the case the Blood Doping re-infusion was stopped from being investgated by the defence, bringing back the case to decide if it was Steak or not.

    (On a side note, plasticisers were at the time and later noted to more likely be present in the plasma bags which are also later re-introduced to restore the hematocrit balance for passport purposes, where micro-dosing of Epo is also needed to get Reticulocyte levels to look correct enough... rough jist)
  • RichN95 wrote:
    Joelsim wrote:
    RichN95 wrote:
    Joelsim wrote:
    Good on them. I don't think this prejudices anything at all. Cycling Australia are doing more than anyone else to combat doping as far as I can see.
    Passing sentencing before the evidence has been heard is prejudicing a case in anyone's book.

    Is that what they are doing? Or are they just stating that if indeed he is found guilty they will press for the maximum ban?
    If they end up having a say in the case (which is what I said), then they are more than just pressing for it. They are not the prosecution, but they may end up being the judge.
    If they have any meaningful connection to this case they have already given Rogers grounds for appeal to CAS. This is why nobody has said anything about JTL - due process and all that.


    ^Spot on

    Imagine a high court judge talking in advance about a criminal case slated to be presided over by a peer of his and saying to the media 'I'd give the accused the maximum sentence'. Anyone think that in the event of the original judge falling sick, the gobby judge who's made up their mind in advance and braodcast it before hearing all of the evidence, would be an appropriate replacement to preside over a fair hearing?

    2 years is the default position for just about all doping substances in the body. Rogers knows this. Everyone knows this.

    Cycling Australia is stating the obvious here rather than preempting the outcome.

    Strict liability is at play here. Even if Rogers accidently had his drink spiked he is still guilty under the rules of anti-doping.
  • mike6 wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    It's almost like they should just bring in a tolerance threshold for Clenbuterol and move on...

    Isn't the point with Clenbuterol that the body doesn't produce it, so that if it's present, it has to have been taken in one form or another? Thresholds/ratios are applied where the substance concerned is produced by the body.

    If memory serves, the hoohah over Berto was that the level detected by the Cologne lab was below the level that labs need to be able to detect in order to gain WADA accreditation. Thus there was the argument that if he'd been tested by a different lab, he'd have not tested positive.

    Could be wrong here, though.

    What you say is correct.

    I don't know this for a fact, but I would guess that to gain a performance advantage from clenbuterol you would need more of it in your system than you would get from a contaminated steak. On the basis that contaminated steaks aren't performance enhancing I would solve the problem by bringing in a threshold. Note that in the AC case, no one suggested it was possible to administer that amount of clenbuterol deliberately, so a threshold at that level would not really allow pros to go wild.

    No one believes AC ate a Spanish steak, In France, before the queen stage of the TDF. If he had said he had no idea where the Clen in his system came from it would have been much more believable. For some reason he was given time to come up with an excuse before the positive was reported. A quick web search by his legal team would have flagged up the slim possibility of meat contamination in Spain. Problem, they were in France at the time, not Spain. I know, a mate of yours visited from Spain, bringing a nice Spanish steak with him....just for you! Sorted, jobs a good un, who could possibly doubt that? :wink::wink::wink:

    More to the point Contador was never trying to have himself exonerated.

    Just get the minimum sentence possible which the Spanish Federation gave him.
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 26,451

    Just get the minimum sentence possible which the Spanish Federation gave him.
    The Spanish Federation cleared him. They originally stated they were going to give him a year until the Spainish PM got involved (another example of why people should keep to due process).
    Contador was given two years by CAS when it was appealled to them by UCI & WADA.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • So does Clen stay in your body for 3 days, or 2-3 weeks?

    Depends on the amount you ingested and the volume of urine.

    2-3 days is the standard but as the other person correctly pointed out if you mainline it into your system it can be detected up to 10-15 days.

    The point of interest here is what was the detection level of the Tokyo lab and how much did they find in his urine.

    If eaten in meat in China then it should have cleared his system.
    How long a drug takes to clear depends on how much you ingest, and the detection limit. CB has a half-life in blood of about 36 hr. If you eat heavily contaminated meat, and have a very sensitive detection limit, it's possible to be positive well beyond 2-3 days.
  • RichN95 wrote:

    Just get the minimum sentence possible which the Spanish Federation gave him.
    The Spanish Federation cleared him. They originally stated they were going to give him a year until the Spainish PM got involved (another example of why people should keep to due process).
    Contador was given two years by CAS when it was appealled to them by UCI & WADA.

    Correct and true. Yes.

    Due process was thrown out the minute he tested positive when the UCI pretended it wasn't really happening.

    That case was a mess. Did nothing for cycling.
  • nic_77nic_77 Posts: 929
    We need to see every rider's daily food diary (along with their power files of course). Why are teams keeping these data secret?

    :wink:
  • joelsimjoelsim Posts: 7,552
    nic_77 wrote:
    We need to see every rider's daily food diary (along with their power files of course). Why are teams keeping these data secret?

    :wink:

    Agreed. I think it's Chris Horner's fault.
  • nic_77 wrote:
    We need to see every rider's daily food diary (along with their power files of course). Why are teams keeping these data secret?

    :wink:

    They are not kept secret.

    They have the TUE system which you can detail your supplements and medicines.

    A food defense is Rogers only hope here.
  • joelsimjoelsim Posts: 7,552
    nic_77 wrote:
    We need to see every rider's daily food diary (along with their power files of course). Why are teams keeping these data secret?

    :wink:

    He ate steak every day while he was there. He was dining with Adam Richman, seeing who could eat the most. He also took some with him to Japan in his Ferrari.
Sign In or Register to comment.