# Contador fails drug test



## Flying_Monkey (30 Sep 2010)

No joke. Alberto Contador tested positive for Clenbuterol after the July 21st stage of the Tour. His PR says it was 'food contamination'... this one should run and run!


----------



## zaid (30 Sep 2010)

Yes I've just seen a news report on this too.
Does this mean the TDF title goes to Andy? After all a fail is a fail.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (30 Sep 2010)

be prepared for lots of mealy mouthed excuses, changing stories, and sports administrators failing to cover themselves in glory.


----------



## ComedyPilot (30 Sep 2010)

I think he's bit off more than he can chew.


----------



## Sysagent (30 Sep 2010)

Karma for the Chaingate scandal in the Tour de France?

I bet a certain Mr Schleck is rubbing his hands in anticipation!

;-)


----------



## raindog (30 Sep 2010)

Mind you......


> However, the UCI said the concentration found by the laboratory was estimated at 50 picograms - 400 times less than anti-doping laboratories accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) must be able to detect.


----------



## dan_bo (30 Sep 2010)

Microdosing? New instruments? 


Anyway, should this thread not have a spoiler warning in the title?


----------



## yello (30 Sep 2010)

Claiming 'food contamination' which, in practice, is possible... and I guess might result in those small amounts found... but...

I'm just p*ssed off again. In a way that I thought I was over years ago.


----------



## raindog (30 Sep 2010)

dan_bo said:


> Anyway, should this thread not have a spoiler warning in the title?


----------



## Bollo (30 Sep 2010)

yello said:


> Claiming 'food contamination' which, in practice, is possible... and I guess might result in those small amounts found... but...
> 
> I'm just p*ssed off again. In a way that I thought I was over years ago.



Had a little search for Clenbuterol and it's a drug that has some previous for food contamination. However, intentional doping or not, the damage is done the moment the story hits the news.


----------



## Paul_L (30 Sep 2010)

And in a split second, the Tour has lost any credibility it has regained over the last couple of years.

Don't buy the food contamination argument. Riders and the teams have control over everything they take in.

I just hope this gets concluded swiftly.


----------



## threebikesmcginty (30 Sep 2010)

Oh lordy, not again...


----------



## rich p (30 Sep 2010)

Well that is a real shock. I had never ever suspected that Bertie would get a positive test....








....for clenbuterol


----------



## John the Monkey (30 Sep 2010)

Paul_L said:


> Don't buy the food contamination argument. Riders and the teams have control over everything they take in.



There's an interesting piece on Velonation about it. Basically the case against seems to be as follows;



> Alberto Contador underwent sport drug testing during many days of the 2010 Tour de France, including July 19, 20, 21, and 22.
> <li>No Clenbuterol was detected in any of the tests prior to July 21.
> <li>An extremely low trace concentration of Clenbuterol was found in the urine sample taken on July 21; the concentration found in the urine sample taken on July 22 was even lower. <li>The half-life of Clenbuterol is 25-39 hours.
> <li>These facts show that Clenbuterol was ingested after the urine testing on July 20 in an amount that could have never enhanced his performance.
> <li>There are numerous documented cases of humans ingesting Clenbuterol accidentally by eating meat from animals that have been fed the substance to stimulate growth.



Read more: http://www.velonatio...x#ixzz10zmNsc5I


----------



## raindog (30 Sep 2010)

I'm trying to be positive (sorry!) about this



> "The experts consulted so far have agreed also that this is a food contamination case, especially considering the number of tests passed by Alberto Contador during the Tour de France, making it possible to define precisely both the time the emergence of the substance as the tiny amount detected, ruling out any other source or intentionality."


----------



## kennykool (30 Sep 2010)

Gutted to say the least! I too thought this was all gone.


----------



## Firestorm (30 Sep 2010)

There are a number of questions for me on this, had Contador been tested previously on the tour, or even in the previous month ? If he had and no traces of Clenbuterol were found that would probably eliminate weight loss as the reason for taking the drug, just leaving its bronchodilation properties as a reason for taking it, which tbh are rarely reasons for doping unless someone is having breathing issues at that time.
Food contamination does seem to be limited to pork in china...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clenbuterol


----------



## scook94 (30 Sep 2010)

From the article on road.cc



> David Howman, WADA’s director general, told The Associated Press that even the tiniest amount of clenbuterol could lead to action being taken against an athlete, although he was unable to talk about the particular aspects of Contador’s situation.
> 
> "The issue is the lab has detected this,” Howman said. “They have the responsibility for pursuing. There is no such thing as a limit where you don't have to prosecute cases. This is not a substance that has a threshold," he continued.
> 
> ...


----------



## Keith Oates (30 Sep 2010)

It's a shame that it has become general knowledge before a full investigation and conclusion has been reached!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## kennykool (30 Sep 2010)

Berty boy to hold a news conference today at 10am our time to give his "Version". I am gonna wait and see what he has to say before passing any judgement. I will probably believe anything he says tho. He is my new god!!!!


----------



## kennykool (30 Sep 2010)

Keith Oates said:


> It's a shame that it has become general knowledge before a full investigation and conclusion has been reached!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Its always the way tho Keith - Guilty until proved innocent. Its unfortuately the nature of the beast that has been created over the years. Posters on here are always quick to question a great performance by a rider. It's down to "porridge" most of the time. 

I always like to believe that these riders are clean until proved otherwise. But i suppose i am fairly new to cycling and am not cynical.......yet!!!!!!


----------



## PaulB (30 Sep 2010)

Surely this is an irrelevant non story. 400 times less than anti-doping laboratories accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) must be able to detect! That is so insignificant, it cannot be worth pursuing. Not when he continually came up negative in previous and subsequent testings. This is pedantic nit-picking of the worst sort and could turn out to embarrass the credibility of the sport more than if they'd discovered an amount 400 times more concentrated than that they actually detected. What are they doing? Showing off at how miniscule the amount they can detect? My, aren't they clever!


----------



## Tim Bennet. (30 Sep 2010)

> It's a shame that it has become general knowledge before a full investigation and conclusion has been reached!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!


That's because Contador issued a press release with the full details.
Both his A and B samples have been tested and he's not contesting their accuracy.
He's been suspended from racing.

So how exactly is he 'guilty until proven innocent'? Who exactly is to blame for this being public knowledge being as it was Contador that released the information?

Funny how the cheat apologists are always Armstrong fans.


----------



## Keith Oates (30 Sep 2010)

I wondered how long it would be before his name was linked into the thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## monkeypony (30 Sep 2010)

PaulB said:


> Surely this is an irrelevant non story. 400 times less than anti-doping laboratories accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) must be able to detect! That is so insignificant, it cannot be worth pursuing. Not when he continually came up negative in previous and subsequent testings. This is pedantic nit-picking of the worst sort and could turn out to embarrass the credibility of the sport more than if they'd discovered an amount 400 times more concentrated than that they actually detected. What are they doing? Showing off at how miniscule the amount they can detect? My, aren't they clever!




Well said that man.

Not a Contador fan myself but feel very sorry for him and the damage this will have done to his reputation.


----------



## kennykool (30 Sep 2010)

How does any doping scandal always manage to get LA brought up

Lets look at the facts here - ALBERTO CONTADOR has tested positive!! They werent even on the same team this year!

WTF has that got to do with LA - get over yourself!


----------



## John the Monkey (30 Sep 2010)

Good summary of the rules over at the "Inner Ring" blog.

Essentially, if he can prove he's not at fault, the ban can be reduced - but there is still a ban for a positive test.


----------



## e-rider (30 Sep 2010)

dan_bo said:


> *Microdosing*? New instruments?
> 
> 
> Anyway, should this thread not have a spoiler warning in the title?




Do you mean picodosing?


----------



## Smokin Joe (30 Sep 2010)

Willy Voet on Clenbuterol -

"Banned from the market in France, Clenbuterol is one of the most powerful hormones when it comes to developing muscular mass. Beef rearers are well aware of its properties: the more meat they can sell, the more money they make. It can give spectacular muscle growth. To work out its effects precisely, we needed a guinea-pig, but it couldn't be one of the riders. They are so happy to be given something new that they tend to lose all restraint and the whole pelelon knows exactly what's happening over the next few weeks. We found the right man soon enough: me. Before the Dauphine Libere in 1996 I took ten pills over seven days, then urinated conscientiously into a jar from days five to eight after taking the final pill. The whole works was then sent to a laboratory in Ghent. The Clenbuterol had been eliminated from my system by day eight. For a cyclist, who will get rid of chemicals far more quickly than someone sedentary like me, the period was still shorter. 

And the effects were felt almost immediately. Three hours after I took the first pill, I began shivering. I had the impression that my lungs were swelling, that I had a new battery somewhere in the system. I felt confident, full of energy, strong as a bull - on hormones. The effects lasted for more than a month, effects which we used with good results in the big Tours after that."


----------



## e-rider (30 Sep 2010)

PaulB said:


> Surely this is an irrelevant non story. 400 times less than anti-doping laboratories accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) must be able to detect! That is so insignificant, it cannot be worth pursuing. Not when he continually came up negative in previous and subsequent testings. This is pedantic nit-picking of the worst sort and could turn out to embarrass the credibility of the sport more than if they'd discovered an amount 400 times more concentrated than that they actually detected. What are they doing? Showing off at how miniscule the amount they can detect? My, aren't they clever!




yes, it would be interesting to know the limit of detection and the limit of quatification for the instrument used for analysis. It does seem like more media nonsense to me.


----------



## kennykool (30 Sep 2010)

User3094 said:


> How did he actually perform on the 21st July?




Think it was a rest day - he slept like a baby


----------



## philipbh (30 Sep 2010)

John the Monkey said:


> Good summary of the rules over at the "Inner Ring" blog.
> 
> Essentially, if he can prove he's not at fault, the ban can be reduced - but there is still a ban for a positive test.




But...doesn't section 10.3 apply - unintentional use of Specified Substances

If AC establishes that the level of Clenbutarol in his samples is at a level that could not enhance performance (see PaulB's comment) - then as a first offence the best he can hope for is a reprimand - the worst is still a one year ban


----------



## threebikesmcginty (30 Sep 2010)

kennykool said:


> ...he slept like a baby



Woke up every hour crying?


----------



## Smokin Joe (30 Sep 2010)

tundragumski said:


> yes, it would be interesting to know the limit of detection and the limit of quatification for the instrument used for analysis. It does seem like more media nonsense to me.


It's more than media nonsense.

Contador has been suspended by the UCI and will almost certainly be banned and stripped of his Tour win. He tested positive for a banned substance, there is no precedent as far as I know where the offence is mitigated because the amount was very small, and neither does it matter how he ingested it. Saying he eat contaminated meat will not wipe out the offence, all it could do is shorten the length of the ban if he is believed. (Bearing in mind they Didn't buy Landis's story about beer).


----------



## raindog (30 Sep 2010)

Smokin Joe said:


> Willy Voet on Clenbuterol -


blimey - thanks for that!


----------



## kennykool (30 Sep 2010)

threebikesmcginty said:


> Woke up every hour crying?




ha ha - love it


----------



## rich p (30 Sep 2010)

tundragumski said:


> yes, it would be interesting to know the limit of detection and the limit of quatification for the instrument used for analysis. It does seem like more media nonsense to me.




The lab has found contamination in both samples, the UCI have provisionally suspended him and Bertie leaks the information himself by informing the media that he is holding a press conference today.

How do you blame the media?


----------



## dan_bo (30 Sep 2010)

tundragumski said:


> Do you mean picodosing?



Yeah whatever 

[spod alert] It's not that small an amount, 50 pg(per microlitre I assume), as it goes- only eight times less than the 'threshold' as stated. Not that I know much (if anything) about PED use but it is easily detectable by modern (in fact not even that modern] instrumentation. Standard specs on instruments even ten years old measure down to the tens of femtogram level. I wonder why there is a seemingly arbitary threshold in use?[/spod alert]


----------



## Bollo (30 Sep 2010)

kennykool said:


> Think it was a rest day - he slept like a baby


Was he doping with Tixilix?


----------



## biking_fox (30 Sep 2010)

> I wonder why there is a seemingly arbitary threshold in use?



Becasue at some level the amount of drug you have in your system has absolutely no effect whatsoever on performance. As instrument sensitivity increases (generally every year you can detect smaller amounts than the year before if you keep buying new kit), you will reach a point where you can measure things that have no biological significance. We're already at that level for some pollutants and toxins such as arsnic. I don't know about drugs because they can be much trickier, and whether it's in blood or urine or water makes a lot of difference.

There is also the difference between detected and quantified. Most instruments have a level of detection lower than the smallest amount they can accurately measure. 


Personally I'm guessing guilty - if the Voet article is accurate, there was performance improvement for sometime after the drug could no longer be measured. So Bertie takes it on the rest day, hopes it all pisses out, and still has the benefit for the next few days.... However 50 picogram isn't very much! I would like to know what concentration / dose it equates to.


----------



## montage (30 Sep 2010)

Dissappointed.....but then again, half the people on here said bertie looked like he was definately riding clean this tour, and he did look it. Surely if Bertie was doping and Andy was clean, Bertie would have taken time out of Andy on the Tourmalet, which could mean either Bertie wasn't doping, or Schleck was as well......or that Schleck is one of the best climbers ever to walk this planet


----------



## davefb (30 Sep 2010)

perhaps they should test members of the public for stuff like this,, to get 'baselines'..


err assuming they dont


----------



## dan_bo (30 Sep 2010)

davefb said:


> perhaps they should test members of the public for stuff like this,, to get 'baselines'..
> 
> 
> err assuming they dont



That's kinda what the biological passport system's all about isn't it- to establish baselines for naturally occuring hormones etc.


----------



## davefb (30 Sep 2010)

dan_bo said:


> That's kinda what the biological passport system's all about isn't it- to establish baselines for naturally occuring hormones etc.



i was thinking more like this

http://www.snopes.com/business/money/cocaine.asp

that if you got a population test, then you might find a number of people who've been 'accidently' got a bit of the drug, in order to see how realistic the defence of 'accidently' would be..


----------



## montage (30 Sep 2010)

Seeing as he failed all the other drug tests in that tour, I strongly believe that he is clean (2009 may be a different story though)
Shame, I wanted to see him win the three tours next year - or at least try


----------



## simongrant (30 Sep 2010)

Another one of bruyneels former riders,SHOCK?,not me officer


----------



## Crackle (30 Sep 2010)

rich p said:


> Well that is a real shock. I had never ever suspected that Bertie would get a positive test....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I read right through the thread but that about sums it up. Clenbuterol FFS!


----------



## biking_fox (30 Sep 2010)

Another thought - Bertie claims it was contaminated meat imported from Spain.... which presumably wasn't just for him. Who else ate it? This should be tracable, and if they were tested they'd also have positive samples. This should help to prove one way or another the truth of Bertie's claim.

We wait and see I guess.


----------



## Firestorm (30 Sep 2010)

The daily Mash take on it

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/sport/sport-headlines/tour-de-france-bans-terrythomas-201009303129/


----------



## montage (30 Sep 2010)

biking_fox said:


> Another thought - *Bertie claims it was contaminated meat imported from Spain*.... which presumably wasn't just for him. Who else ate it? This should be tracable, and if they were tested they'd also have positive samples. This should help to prove one way or another the truth of Bertie's claim.
> 
> We wait and see I guess.



Penelope Cruz?


----------



## philipbh (30 Sep 2010)

biking_fox said:


> This should be tracable



Bit of a tall order that (IMO)

Can he really be expected to show traceability for a sirloin steak (other cuts are available) all the way back to the farm where animal was reared?

His defence surely rests on the concentration level 50 picograms / ml (or 0.05 ng / ml) being too small to be of any benefit - the labe threshold for detection is 1.00ng / ml

Having said that Li Fuyu from Radioshack is still facing a ban (I can't find anything new on his case) for the same level in March this year


----------



## NickM (30 Sep 2010)

biking_fox said:


> Personally I'm guessing guilty - if the Voet article is accurate, there was performance improvement for sometime after the drug could no longer be measured. So Bertie takes it on the rest day, hopes it all pisses out, and still has the benefit for the next few days...


The half life of clenbuterol is ~34 hours. Surely he wouldn't have eliminated a dose sufficient to produce an ergogenic effect by the following day?


----------



## John the Monkey (30 Sep 2010)

philipbh said:


> Having said that Li Fuyu from Radioshack is still facing a ban (I can't find anything new on his case) for the same level in March this year


I've been wondering about that.

Is the difference that Li would not have been tested in the days prior to +ve, and so could not show that *only* the small amount was ever present in his system?


----------



## philipbh (30 Sep 2010)

John the Monkey said:


> I've been wondering about that.
> 
> Is the difference that Li would not have been tested in the days prior to +ve, and so could not show that *only* the small amount was ever present in his system?




You might be right - he also protested his innocence based on food contamination, I think


----------



## tigger (30 Sep 2010)

I don't know what to believe - ultimately I think performance enhancement is so endemic in this and every other professional sport that we might as well accept that ALL the top guys do it.

I like Berty and am disappointed. The dose is so incredibly low so as to offer little or no enhancement. He was tested so many times and this is all they came up with? Really its a pointless amount, so I say food contamination is a real possibility. I understand that its often used in pigs to reduce fat???

Like I say I think Contador is an amazing cyclist and wears the yellow jersey well. So I'll believe what I want to


----------



## rich p (30 Sep 2010)

Firestorm said:


> The daily Mash take on it
> 
> http://www.thedailym...s-201009303129/




very good!

_Calls for cycling to be removed from the Tour de France as it's the least important bit

_Sums up how the public view racing sadly.


----------



## yello (30 Sep 2010)

rich p said:


> _Calls for cycling to be removed from the Tour de France as it's the least important bit
> 
> _Sums up how the public view racing sadly.



Why "sadly"! The TdF IS an event, a spectacle. You've seen the crowds that gather; at the starts and finishes, lining the roads on-route... they are there to take part in the event. Once it's all passed by, do they look at the results for the day? I suspect most don't. I don't think it's sad, just a more popular aspect of the same event. For me, that's what is humorously spot on about that comment!


----------



## rich p (30 Sep 2010)

yello said:


> Why "sadly"! The TdF IS an event, a spectacle. You've seen the crowds that gather; at the starts and finishes, lining the roads on-route... they are there to take part in the event. Once it's all passed by, do they look at the results for the day? I suspect most don't. I don't think it's sad, just a more popular aspect of the same event. For me, that's what is humorously spot on about that comment!




Well, in France they do, but the general public over here only realise the TdF is on when a doping scandal hits.

Exaggeration of course - some have heard of Cav!


----------



## Fiona N (30 Sep 2010)

dan_bo said:


> Yeah whatever
> 
> [spod alert] It's not that small an amount, 50 pg(per microlitre I assume), as it goes- only eight times less than the 'threshold' as stated. Not that I know much (if anything) about PED use but it is easily detectable by modern (in fact not even that modern] instrumentation. Standard specs on instruments even ten years old measure down to the tens of femtogram level. I wonder why there is a seemingly arbitary threshold in use?[/spod alert]




I thought the concentration used for stuff like this was per millilitre or per gramme which makes it about 80 x. Again I'm no expert - a geochemist not bio-


----------



## yello (30 Sep 2010)

Been reading a bit about this and something I have found interesting (though in no way offered as a excuse) is that the lab in Germany that has detected this is one of those labs that can detect such small quantities. 

To be a WADA approved lab, a lab must conform to certain standard as defined by WADA. They have to be able to detect certain substances to a certain level or threshold. This particular lab significantly exceeds that threshold. That is to say, another (WADA approved) lab would/may not have been able to detect it. 

Now a positive is a positive, but should an athlete's career be threatened because there is no consistency of testing across the board?

Note also that this positive only indicates that the substance was found; not that it was intentional doping nor that it would or would not have had any benefit to Contador. The unintentional 'food contamination' argument is plausible, for both Contador and the similarly positive Chinese RadioShack lad.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (30 Sep 2010)

I am quite surprised at the rush to claim this is a 'media conspiracy'. This is the normal procedure. The story is the result of Contador's publicity people getting their excuses out first. And people really should take more notice of what Willy Voets says about the use of clenbuterol. The fact that trace amounts were found has various explanations, only one of which is that it got into his system through mreat contamination. If he or his team was using some deliberate strategy of 'flushing' or 'masking' then this is exactly what one might expect if his timing was just a little bit off or the testing was done earlier than they had anticipated.

Saying 'it's too small an amount, therefore no problem' or 'the media made it up' is just as ridiculous and premature a reaction as saying 'he's a cheat', and perhaps even more so.


----------



## yello (30 Sep 2010)

Flying_Monkey said:


> The story is the result of Contador's publicity people getting their excuses out first.



Quick point on this, wasn't the detection made (and Contador notified) around a month ago? If so, hardly indicates getting excuses in first. There is probably a 'back story' here but such things tend to get confused with 'he said, she said' so I prefer to not concentrate on such things.

I personally don't think there's a media conspiracy. I think the positive test is exactly what it is. I'm also neither convicting nor free-ing, but I am interested in the arguments that inevitably fall out of such things, and the lights that are shone on the workings. I also like to entertain possibilities (even conspiracy theory!) rather than take stuff at face value.


----------



## Bill Gates (30 Sep 2010)

I've often been amazed by how AC can recover so well after putting in a tremendous effort to gain a couple of minutes on his rivals on a mountain stage. Where fitness is a factor in other sports the fatigue impacts on performances quite regularly. Contador is a GT rider where recovery is vital to winning. 

Personally I've never been convinced when I watch him on the TV that this wonderful ability to recover is clean.


----------



## Hont (30 Sep 2010)

It does seem a very small amount to contribute to performance enhancement. If there is a masking agent for it, that might explain it but I've not seen any comment to suggest that there is so far. If there isn't a masking agent I'm inclined to believe Contador's version. No one would choose to take this drug in the middle of the tour given how detectable it is and how little benefit you would get from such a tiny amount.

Having said that, why was he eating steak? I thought they stuck resolutely to white meat?

In any event I can't see Contador getting the full punishment. If he has a plausible explanation (which he appears to have) he can argue that he is not being treated the same as other athletes whose tests do not end up at a lab capable of detecting the drug in such minute quantities. I expect a 6 month to 1 year ban and keeping his TdF crown.

His and cycling's reputation are another matter.

Interesting to see Lemond's take (as always). He seems to imply that there is no coincidence that anyone who leaves Lance's team gets done for positive drugs after leaving.

"I can’t believe how many people have left a certain team and then gone positive,” LeMond told _Cyclingnews_ after hearing the news.


----------



## raindog (30 Sep 2010)

Bill Gates said:


> I've often been amazed by how AC can recover so well after putting in a tremendous effort to gain a couple of minutes on his rivals on a mountain stage.


Yes, but this year that didn't happen. He struggled just to hang on in the Dauphiné and in the Tour he didn't exactly dominate AndyS did he? If anyone looked like they were riding clean this year it was Berto imo. The Liqui boys on the other hand......


----------



## scook94 (30 Sep 2010)

From the BBC



> Contador, {snip} , said the meat was brought across the border from Spain to France during a rest day during the Tour.
> 
> He said there were complaints about the food at the hotel where his Astana team were staying.
> 
> The Spaniard revealed he ate the meat on 20 July and again on 21 July



I wonder what his team mates thought about him eating the specially imported meat while they (presumably) continued to eat the slop the hotel were serving?


----------



## philipbh (30 Sep 2010)

scook94 said:


> I wonder what his team mates thought about him eating the specially imported meat while they (presumably) continued to eat the slop the hotel were serving?




Others on the team did, only Vinokourov didnt *

*According to Cycling Weekly http://tiny.cc/0mtnfh2fw1


----------



## scook94 (30 Sep 2010)

philipbh said:


> Others on the team did, only Vinokourov didnt *
> 
> *According to Cycling Weekly http://tiny.cc/0mtnfh2fw1





> he and his team mates returned late from a training ride and ate food from the hotel, rather than having it prepared by the team's chef.



So now he's saying it was the hotel's meat that was contaminated and not the stuff he imported from Spain? *confused*


----------



## Smokin Joe (30 Sep 2010)

I'd like to believe Contador, but we've heard it all before. Apart from Millar who put his hands up straight away it's always the same old story, deny deny deny, don't know how it got there, must have been the meat/beer/a dodgy lab test/someone is out to get me/the French don't like me, it's the media stirring things up, etc etc etc.

Clenbuterol is known to be something cyclists have used to boost performance and what do you know, they found traces of it in a Tour de France winner's sample. There may be a perfectly innocent explanation of course, but then there always is.

It stinks.


----------



## philipbh (30 Sep 2010)

scook94 said:


> So now he's saying it was the hotel's meat that was contaminated and not the stuff he imported from Spain? *confused*




Oops! - the story seems to have evolved throughout the day  - not sure what the time stamp is on that Cycling Weekly story 

William Fotheringham in the Guardian (at 15.12 BST) has AC blaming the spanish meat, which was brought to the team by the organiser of the Vuelta


----------



## iAmiAdam (30 Sep 2010)

I'm gonna sit on the innocent until proven guilty side.

And either way, a trace that small won't of helped him too much tbf.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (30 Sep 2010)

Never mind, Alberto, Mr 60% trusts you! I know he's his new manager, but that's the kind of support you really don't need at a time like this...


----------



## iAmiAdam (30 Sep 2010)

That's quite important tho, being schlecks manager too.


----------



## philipbh (30 Sep 2010)

iAmiAdam said:


> That's quite important tho, being schlecks manager too.




Not important enough - AC has tested positive for a banned substance, for which there is no threshold for sanctions

See Pierre Bordry & David Howman's comments - Howman doubts that ingestion is possible inadvertantly*

The only(?) thing to decide is the severity of the sanctions

* the case of US Swimmer Jessica Hardy is also relevant - she proved inadvertant ingestion, but her 2 year ban was halved


----------



## yello (30 Sep 2010)

I've just read of another interesting take on this, and one that could explain the low count. That is, the Contador did not take clenbuterol BUT it was present in the stored blood he'd transfused!

In short, the suggestion goes that he stored some of his re-oxygenated, EPO-ed blood before the tour. That blood also contained clenbuterol, as he would having being doint that too at the time. The clenbuterol decays but doesn't disappear. He infuses, or micro-doses, the stored blood and so re-introduces a small amount of clenbuterol!

Like a true gossip monger (and what are forums for if not to discuss speculation!), I have no idea if this is a credible or otherwise. But it's got to be as plausible as the meat story!


----------



## raindog (30 Sep 2010)

I don't want that to be true yello, but I've got to say it seems more plausible than anything else at the moment.

This is a funny place sometimes. I'm still relatively new here so I'm surprised by the fact that we're half way through the worlds and that thread has reached 6 pages, and this dope related news only broke this morning and we're on the same ammount. Seems like doping is more interesting than actual racing on here.


----------



## Smokin Joe (30 Sep 2010)

raindog said:


> I don't want that to be true yello, but I've got to say it seems more plausible than anything else at the moment.
> 
> This is a funny place sometimes. I'm still relatively new here so I'm surprised by the fact that we're half way through the worlds and that thread has reached 6 pages, and this dope related news only broke this morning and we're on the same ammount. Seems like doping is more interesting than actual racing on here.


The TdF winner testing positive is bigger news than Cancellara winning the worlds TT, like it or not.


----------



## Genman (30 Sep 2010)

Smokin Joe said:


> The TdF winner testing positive is bigger news than Cancellara winning the worlds TT, like it or not.


Not when his bike was battery powered it wasn't.
.


----------



## briank (30 Sep 2010)

yello said:


> I've just read of another interesting take on this, and one that could explain the low count. That is, the Contador did not take clenbuterol BUT it was present in the stored blood he'd transfused!
> 
> In short, the suggestion goes that he stored some of his re-oxygenated, EPO-ed blood before the tour. That blood also contained clenbuterol, as he would having being doint that too at the time. The clenbuterol decays but doesn't disappear. He infuses, or micro-doses, the stored blood and so re-introduces a small amount of clenbuterol!
> 
> Like a true gossip monger (and what are forums for if not to discuss speculation!), I have no idea if this is a credible or otherwise. But it's got to be as plausible as the meat story!



Indeed. Remember Landis.
Similar objections to his guilt were proposed. ie no possible benefit from the drug or dose as detected, negative tests on days before and after, the lunacy of taking something which could do you no good when you knew you were bound to be tested.

The only plausible explanation that I can recall was the very same.

(Of course, maybe it is Spanish beef taking revenge for the corrida.)


----------



## yello (30 Sep 2010)

raindog said:


> Seems like doping is more interesting than actual racing on here.



It certainly is to me, I wouldn't know about others here. I see no shame in that either, they are two completely different things. Equally, I'm interested in MotoGP but not in high performance motorcycle engine design!


----------



## rich p (30 Sep 2010)

Isn't clenbuterol banned even for animal use in France? It's risible to believe that he was having Spanish beef brought over to him.


----------



## yello (30 Sep 2010)

briank said:


> Indeed. Remember Landis.
> Similar objections to his guilt were proposed. ie no possible benefit from the drug or dose as detected, negative tests on days before and after, the lunacy of taking something which could do you no good when you knew you were bound to be tested. The only plausible explanation that I can recall was the very same.



Indeed. And arguably why his insistence that he had not taken testosterone are (white lie) true! 

You've got to find the possibility of it all deeply funny in a way. Ironic, some might say. So careful are they with the micro-dosing, to avoid detection of EPO, that they forget about the other stuff they were taking. Damned by their own blood!


----------



## maurice (30 Sep 2010)

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5...Results+|+VeloNation.com)&utm_content=Twitter

It's now being claimed there is evidence of 10 times the normal level of 'plasticizers' in his blood a day before the positive. Plasticizers are used in blood bags. Doesn't look good for him.


----------



## johnr (30 Sep 2010)

The damage is already done to the sport. Strong action by administrators may minimise it... but given their past history that seems unlikely.


----------



## yello (30 Sep 2010)

rich p said:


> It's risible to believe that he was having Spanish beef brought over to him.



He didn't have it brought over specifically I believe. I think it was something like a gift, but it's kind of a moot point really.

I also believe it's illegal for animal usage in Spain too... doesn't stop farmers injecting their herds with it. It does happen so as I said before, the story is plausible if not somewhat comical.


----------



## yello (30 Sep 2010)

maurice said:


> It's now being claimed there is evidence of 10 times the normal level of 'plasticizers' in his blood a day before the positive. Plasticizers are used in blood bags.



Yep, that's what I was referring to before. The only link I had at that time was in German, and I didn't understand the plasticizers stuff, so thanks for that link maurice.



> The news that ARD was poised to break the story could explain why Contador’s press agent released the news hours before the Elite world championship time trial.



This would explain the 'why now' question. Maybe UCI were actually sitting on this to hear Contador out.


----------



## rich p (30 Sep 2010)

maurice said:


> http://www.velonatio...content=Twitter
> 
> It's now being claimed there is evidence of 10 times the normal level of 'plasticizers' in his blood a day before the positive. Plasticizers are used in blood bags. Doesn't look good for him.




That's a really interesting article Maurice. It casts the UCI in a very poor light again. To retain gain credibility it really needs to kick ou McQuaid and te influence of HV.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (30 Sep 2010)

yello said:


> Yep, that's what I was referring to before. The only link I had at that time was in German, and I didn't understand the plasticizers stuff, so thanks for that link maurice.
> 
> 
> 
> This would explain the 'why now' question. Maybe UCI were actually sitting on this to hear Contador out.



Or that the UCI were simply hoping to cover the whole thing up until the ARD threatened to reveal it. This is looking more and more like Landis and Hamilton all over again...


----------



## Flying_Monkey (30 Sep 2010)

rich p said:


> That's a really interesting article Maurice. It casts the UCI in a very poor light again. To retain gain credibility it really needs to kick ou McQuaid and te influence of HV.



Abso-frickin-lutely.


----------



## Smokin Joe (30 Sep 2010)

So many of Armstrong's former team-mates have tested positive after leaving his teams. Could it be that Postal and Discovery had such sophisticated methods of avoiding detection that riders became complacent and when they went to other teams with less advanced methods in place they were rumbled?


----------



## adam23 (30 Sep 2010)

not sure what to think any more on people getting caught doping, didnt 3 riders get caught this month for doping.
at least i know who won the tt with out watching it now soe one posted in this thead after i avoided the other threads


----------



## philipbh (30 Sep 2010)

Smokin Joe said:


> So many of Armstrong's former team-mates have tested positive after leaving his teams. Could it be that Postal and Discovery had such sophisticated methods of avoiding detection that riders became complacent and when they went to other teams with less advanced methods in place they were rumbled?



You might be on to something here - trying to replicate previous results without being in possession of all the knowledge and / or technology would certainly account for it.

What was damning (for me at least) was hearing AC say something like - you have to question the system [of testing]

If its a genuine occurrence, surely better to stick to that (even if he was lying) vs. questioning the testing regime?


----------



## raindog (30 Sep 2010)

maurice said:


> http://www.velonatio...content=Twitter
> 
> It's now being claimed there is evidence of 10 times the normal level of 'plasticizers' in his blood a day before the positive. Plasticizers are used in blood bags. Doesn't look good for him.



Good grief - this is serious stuff.

From the article....



> When asked if it was a serious issue for cycling, he suggested that it could be wider than that. “You can ask the question if it is a cycling problem or a problem of organised sports,” he said. “I think the UCI has a problem and a president who lies"
> http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5...Nation.com)&utm_content=Twitter#ixzz112bDfsJQ


----------



## rich p (30 Sep 2010)

Smokin Joe said:


> So many of Armstrong's former team-mates have tested positive after leaving his teams. Could it be that Postal and Discovery had such sophisticated methods of avoiding detection that riders became complacent and when they went to other teams with less advanced methods in place they were rumbled?




That has been the theory going round for a number of years. Seems likely.


----------



## philipbh (30 Sep 2010)

raindog said:


> Good grief - this is serious stuff.
> 
> From the article....




A bit reductive though, isn't it?

PM - I dont know what you are talking about 

JS - PM @ UCIis a liar

Clearly PM wants to control the release of information and on his time table - not to be forced by a journalists enquiry ahead of the time, thereby losing control of the "narrative"


----------



## raindog (30 Sep 2010)

By serious I meant the fact that Seppelt has oppenly called PM a liar.

Not looking too good for Berto if it's true about the plasticizers being detected.


----------



## philipbh (30 Sep 2010)

raindog said:


> By serious I meant the fact that Seppelt has openly called PM a liar.
> 
> Not looking too good for Berto if it's true about the plasticizers being detected.




Agree on both counts - 

Time for PM to go and go quickly (as they say in politics) or face some serious scrutiny over his stewardship of the UCI


----------



## Tynan (30 Sep 2010)

denying - that is what innocent people do, as well as guilty

trace - from that voets book, the whole game was to take things that were a benefit but things that you could get through tests, so the trace points back to something that was of benefit earlier I suppose, you have to magine that the drugging experts are alwasys one step ahead

who knows, no-one quite possibly


----------



## Smokin Joe (30 Sep 2010)

Tynan said:


> *denying - that is what innocent people do, as well as guilty
> 
> *


They do, but they don't come out with outlandish excuses about dead brothers, beer or gifts of meat.


----------



## Tynan (30 Sep 2010)

sure but sometimes that's the truth

not saying he's innocent just saying that endless denials in the face of evidence isn't a sign of guilt


----------



## tigger (30 Sep 2010)

[QUOTE 1195680"]

Where does it all go from here?
[/quote]


10 years from now - more of the same

I've a novel idea, how about just legalising performance enhancement?


----------



## Smokin Joe (30 Sep 2010)

tigger said:


> 10 years from now - more of the same
> 
> I've a novel idea, how about just legalising performance enhancement?


Which means that anyone who wasn't prepared to risk his life by consuming ever increasing amounts of more and more powerful stimulants could forget about a career in pro cycling.

As novel ideas go, it's a non starter.


----------



## johnnyh (1 Oct 2010)

Poor old Bertie, but wouldnt shock me in the slightest if he had been "using" for some time.

shame eh.


----------



## yello (1 Oct 2010)

Tynan said:


> who knows, no-one quite possibly



Not us mere mortals that's for sure. But, my word, the speculation is fun!

Re the plasticizers; they are chemicals used to soften plastic. There are amounts of plasticizers in varying degrees in many plastics, such as gel tubes, drink bottles, etc. Simple infusion of products from such plastic containers is unlikely to lead to significant amounts of it entering the blood system. Transfusion of blood from a soft plastic bag, however, would do the trick. Plasticizers themselves are clearly not a banned substance, they are not 'performance enhancing'! And they are no smoking gun. They do not tell you what the 'soft plastic bag' contained (if indeed you can show they came from a blood bag). Certainly, in context, they are a pointer to blood doping but not proof. It's like finding syringes and blood bags in the team's trash; less than that imho.

More importantly, the test for plasticizers is apparently not approved/ratified. So my guess is that the 'Contador blood doped' will remain speculation and wont be acted upon. I reckon they'll take action over the clenbutoral though. 

I am somewhat intrigued to know how the German TV station ARD were able to get these "exact values", how they even knew of the positive test, but that's a side issue and somewhat irrelevant.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Oct 2010)

Smokin Joe said:


> Which means that anyone who wasn't prepared to risk his life by consuming ever increasing amounts of more and more powerful stimulants could forget about a career in pro cycling.
> 
> As novel ideas go, it's a non starter.



Hardly a non starter. It's exactly what is happening now. Doesn't seem to be putting people off taking part.


----------



## Ball (1 Oct 2010)

I know some people have argued that seeing as so many riders seem to dope, and need to dope in order to cope with the rigours of professional racing, why not just allow doping. I don't think I could agree with that, but what I would like to know is how much of an effect do these drugs have? 

It's very easy to imagine that a rider takes something like clenbuterol and then flies uphill 10 times quicker than everyone else. But they obviously aren't superman pills, and there must actually be quite a fine line between those drugs and the other thousands of supplements and permitted drugs that are taken by athletes everywhere. 

Then again, I assume there is a huge amount of science and testing that goes into regulating the sport, and I can only hope that the reasons for some drugs being banned and others not are profound and not arbitrary.


----------



## biking_fox (1 Oct 2010)

Some more details from Cycling news


> De Boer also calls into question the lab's declaring an Adverse Analytical Finding for such a low amount, and argues that 50pg is 180 times less than the amount shown to induce physical effects by the drug.



Now all we need is a decent source for that 180[sup]th[/sup] of the active level - a quote from his defense expert won't cut it. 


Why do journalists on science stories never site their sources properly.?


----------



## Smokin Joe (1 Oct 2010)

Ball said:


> I know some people have argued that seeing as so many riders seem to dope, and need to dope in order to cope with the rigours of professional racing, why not just allow doping. I don't think I could agree with that, but what I would like to know is how much of an effect do these drugs have?


Greg Lemond, who won had three Tours says that when EPO became commonplace in the peloton he was struggling to keep up on the flat stages.

I've heard that EPO makes about 10% difference, which is a huge amount among riders of fairly similar ability.


----------



## zacklaws (1 Oct 2010)

Well if the source of the doping came from meat, then this might account for why I have good days out on the road. All I have to do is work out is Greggs sausage rolls more performance enhancing than Couplands, or could it be Morrissons frozen sausages are better than Netto's. Now I know what I have been missing out on, the cake stop, sausage rolls maybe.

I shall have to alter my training diary to state where I bought my meat from and what it was.


----------



## gavintc (1 Oct 2010)

Ball said:


> I know some people have argued that seeing as so many riders seem to dope, and need to dope in order to cope with the rigours of professional racing, why not just allow doping. I don't think I could agree with that, but what I would like to know is how much of an effect do these drugs have?
> 
> It's very easy to imagine that a rider takes something like clenbuterol and then flies uphill 10 times quicker than everyone else. But they obviously aren't superman pills, and there must actually be quite a fine line between those drugs and the other thousands of supplements and permitted drugs that are taken by athletes everywhere.
> 
> Then again, I assume there is a huge amount of science and testing that goes into regulating the sport, and I can only hope that the reasons for some drugs being banned and others not are profound and not arbitrary.




All very well, but if it was acceptable (encouraged) practice at the highest level, it would quickly filter down to the lower amateur levels of the sport. I would not be happy if a 16 yr old aspiring Cavendish replacement was required to be on some enhancing agents to win a junior race.


----------



## John the Monkey (1 Oct 2010)

Ball said:


> It's very easy to imagine that a rider takes something like clenbuterol and then flies uphill 10 times quicker than everyone else. But they obviously aren't superman pills, and there must actually be quite a fine line between those drugs and the other thousands of supplements and permitted drugs that are taken by athletes everywhere.
> 
> Then again, I assume there is a huge amount of science and testing that goes into regulating the sport, and I can only hope that the reasons for some drugs being banned and others not are profound and not arbitrary.



Science of Sport: The Effect of EPO on Performance

Science of Sport: The Drugs Work, But by How Much?

Are both decent starting points.


----------



## ColinJ (1 Oct 2010)

zacklaws said:


> Well if the source of the doping came from meat, then this might account for why I have good days out on the road.


And why I have so many bad ones, not having eaten meat for 25 years!


----------



## Ball (1 Oct 2010)

John the Monkey said:


> Science of Sport: The Effect of EPO on Performance
> 
> Science of Sport: The Drugs Work, But by How Much?
> 
> Are both decent starting points.




Thanks. Will read with interest later.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Oct 2010)

The 18th Amendment to the US constitution mandated 'The Noble Experiment' It ended in failure and the 21st Amendment was passed 13 years later. Prohibition simply does not work. 

As with Americans and alcohol so with pro-tour riders and drugs. All that prohibtion does is drive it underground and ensure that a lot of eneregy and resources goes into hiding the worng doing from the authorities.

What is the philosopical basis for insisting on 'clean' sports? Drugs are a technology, technology is used to bring about incremental improvements in performance, by banning certain technologies which are easily hidden and widely available we invite exactly the problems we have.


----------



## philipbh (1 Oct 2010)

GregCollins said:


> Drugs are a technology, technology is used to bring about incremental improvements in performance, by banning certain technologies which are easily hidden and widely available we invite exactly the problems we have.




But with a more robust testing scheme - the cheaters could be rooted out and dealt with more quickly

With riders being banned quickly (for whatever length of time according to the nature of the abuse) this would discourage the drug abusers

Its a bit mad that it takes this long for the results of tests to come out - the Li FuYu case has been around since March / April

He tested positive for a banned substance - take the sanction and get on with your life vs. suspension and then back dated bans or back racing next week on a time served basis


----------



## Flying_Monkey (1 Oct 2010)

GregCollins said:


> The 18th Amendment to the US constitution mandated 'The Noble Experiment' It ended in failure and the 21st Amendment was passed 13 years later. Prohibition simply does not work.
> 
> As with Americans and alcohol so with pro-tour riders and drugs. All that prohibtion does is drive it underground and ensure that a lot of eneregy and resources goes into hiding the worng doing from the authorities.
> 
> What is the philosopical basis for insisting on 'clean' sports? Drugs are a technology, technology is used to bring about incremental improvements in performance, by banning certain technologies which are easily hidden and widely available we invite exactly the problems we have.



IMHO, the social prohibition argument doesn't hold here. 'Sports' are defined partly by the fact that they have rules that are not the normal rules of society around them. They are disciplines. This is the basis for insisting on 'clean sports'. If you want a market-based competition between pharmaceutical (and soon, genetic and nanotech) companies in which the qualities of the rider become increasingly irrelevent, then your solution is great. If you want to make the young men and women involved expendable tools of this competition, then your solution is also great. 

But I don't think I like either of those outcomes.


----------



## Hont (1 Oct 2010)

Can't believe that there's a debate on making doping legal. Hasn't this been done to death already?

The contaminated blood bag theory has changed my mind somewhat. That seems very plausible, especially considering that Contador (and Schleck for that matter) both seemed to go much better after the rest days. Need the experts to tell us whether it makes scientific sense, but it certainly makes cognitive sense.

And I agree - the denials, the explanations, the pointing to food, contamination, spiking, mishandling - we've been here before. But then Diane Modahl was saying the same things, and she was proven right in the end. 

Just trying to keep an open mind - even though history indicates I should do otherwise.


----------



## e-rider (1 Oct 2010)

Flying_Monkey said:


> IMHO, the social prohibition argument doesn't hold here. 'Sports' are defined partly by the fact that they have rules that are not the normal rules of society around them. They are disciplines. This is the basis for insisting on 'clean sports'. If you want a market-based competition between pharmaceutical (and soon, genetic and nanotech) companies in which the qualities of the rider become increasingly irrelevent, then your solution is great. If you want to make the young men and women involved expendable tools of this competition, then your solution is also great.
> 
> But I don't think I like either of those outcomes.



Yes, but it would open up the sport at a professional level to more people as natural ability and hard work would become less important - even fat blokes could ride the TdeF along as they were taking the hits!


----------



## e-rider (1 Oct 2010)

Hont said:


> Can't believe that there's a debate on making doping legal. Hasn't this been done to death already?
> 
> The contaminated blood bag theory has changed my mind somewhat. That seems very plausible, especially considering that Contador (and Schleck for that matter) *both seemed to go much better after the rest days*. Need the experts to tell us whether it makes scientific sense, but it certainly makes cognitive sense.
> 
> ...



perhaps that has something to do with resting?


----------



## ColinJ (1 Oct 2010)

GregCollins said:


> What is the philosopical basis for insisting on 'clean' sports?


How about the fact that it makes it possible for 'clean' athletes who value their health to stand a chance of winning?

When great riders like Andy Hampsten and Greg Lemond were getting dropped by doped-up 'average' pros it makes a joke of the sport. 

If you say that anything goes, you have the people who are literally willing to die to win winning (and dying)!


----------



## davefb (1 Oct 2010)

Hont said:


> Can't believe that there's a debate on making doping legal. Hasn't this been done to death already?
> 
> The contaminated blood bag theory has changed my mind somewhat. That seems very plausible, especially considering that Contador (and Schleck for that matter) both seemed to go much better after the rest days. Need the experts to tell us whether it makes scientific sense, but it certainly makes cognitive sense.
> 
> ...



that was apalling, it became a sort of reverse prejudice, ie the lab claimed it was just a pesky brit being snobbish..

but the value in her system would have meant she would have been having serious health problems it was so high...

hmm kudos to l'equipe..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diane_Modahl

still, if those plasticizers are true, is there any legit reason for having those? could he have had fluids since it was hot or something ? ? is that okay ?


----------



## davefb (1 Oct 2010)

tundragumski said:


> Yes, but it would open up the sport at a professional level to more people as natural ability and hard work would become less important - even fat blokes could ride the TdeF along as they were taking the hits!



its interesting reading the old info about the TdF, the attitude was sort of 'hang on, you think we could do this without cocaine and arsenic , are you MAD???'

apparently they even had a mention in a 30's rule book to remind riders that the tour didnt give out any drugs !!


----------



## Smokin Joe (1 Oct 2010)

Flying_Monkey said:


> IMHO, the social prohibition argument doesn't hold here. 'Sports' are defined partly by the fact that they have rules that are not the normal rules of society around them. They are disciplines. This is the basis for insisting on 'clean sports'. If you want a market-based competition between pharmaceutical (and soon, genetic and nanotech) companies in which the qualities of the rider become increasingly irrelevent, then your solution is great. If you want to make the young men and women involved expendable tools of this competition, then your solution is also great.
> 
> But I don't think I like either of those outcomes.



I agree.


----------



## Paul_L (1 Oct 2010)

aparently the use of clenbuterol is common in livestock farming to build muscle on livestock that don't get chance to roam about. Several articles on t'internet including this one called tainted meat

I wonder if this is the cause of pico traces in Bertie's urine?


----------



## raindog (1 Oct 2010)

Paul_L said:


> I wonder if this is the cause of pico traces in Bertie's urine?


Well that's what he's saying. Someone gave him a gift of meat from Spain the evening before the rest day. 

But in theory it's forbidden in Europe to use clenbuterol on livestock, but I expect there are still breeders breaking the law and using it, just as farmers still use forbidden pesticides etc and get away with it.


----------



## adam23 (1 Oct 2010)

ColinJ said:


> How about the fact that it makes it possible for 'clean' athletes who value their health to stand a chance of winning?
> 
> When great riders like Andy Hampsten and Greg Lemond were getting dropped by doped-up 'average' pros it makes a joke of the sport.
> 
> If you say that anything goes, you have the people who are literally willing to die to win winning (and dying)!



and tom simpson died frm booze and drugs didnt he so your right its never right to dope up


----------



## Ball (1 Oct 2010)

Flying_Monkey said:


> IMHO, the social prohibition argument doesn't hold here. 'Sports' are defined partly by the fact that they have rules that are not the normal rules of society around them. They are disciplines. This is the basis for insisting on 'clean sports'. If you want a market-based competition between pharmaceutical (and soon, genetic and nanotech) companies in which the qualities of the rider become increasingly irrelevent, then your solution is great. If you want to make the young men and women involved expendable tools of this competition, then your solution is also great.
> 
> But I don't think I like either of those outcomes.



Bloody well said!

As for Contador, accepting a gift of meat from ANYBODY during the Tour de France smacks of stupidity really.


----------



## raindog (1 Oct 2010)

adam23 said:


> and tom simpson died frm booze and drugs didnt he


....and dehydration.


----------



## Smokin Joe (1 Oct 2010)

raindog said:


> ....and dehydration.


There were many factors in Simpson's death. in addition to his ability to push himself to extraordinary limits he wasn't well and hadn't been for a few days prior to his collapse. But it was almost certainly the Brandy he drank (which caused his dehydration) and the Amphetamines (which are a mental stimulant, not a physical one and allow the user to exceed normal physical limits) which caused him to go over the edge of what would normally just have been fatigue.

Simpson was not the first rider in those days to collapse after drug misuse, but the others were lucky and only nearly died.


----------



## tigger (1 Oct 2010)

Just putting a check in to see where we all are with this at the moment...

Not sure if this has been mentioned before in this thread, but... I'm sure we all know that the lab in question detected a trace which is 400 times lower than the threshold required by WADA for labs to be able to detect?

Well this gives even more perspective on how insignificant this trace is: 50 picograms of clenbuterol were found in Contador's sample. There are a trillion picograms in one gram!!!

I think he was also tested approx 2 days either side with negative results for both tests.

So given the insignificance of this amount, we know it cannot have offered any performance enhancement? So this _has_ to be a contamination case? Agreed?



Obviously we can only guess at the cause of the contamination - but do we all agree this can only be a case of contamination?


----------



## Spokesmann (1 Oct 2010)

When will these highly paid, highly influential morons ever learn?


----------



## Skip Madness (1 Oct 2010)

tigger said:


> Obviously we can only guess at the cause of the contamination - but do we all agree this can only be a case of contamination?



It's dependent on this news about the level of plasticisers supposedly found in one or more of his samples around the same time, which could be an indication of use of a blood bag. That opens up the idea that the clenbuterol was in blood he had stored earlier in the year and then reinjected in the Tour. I'd guess that he didn't take clenbuterol during the Tour as a PED. Supposing he transfused his own blood, I'd still be surprised if he had used clenbuterol since it's apparently easily tested for, so it may have been that the clenbuterol entered his sytem through (say) contaminated meat earlier in the year (which has been reported with Spanish meat, especially veal), and it was present in the blood he transfused.

But really, who knows yet. I didn't think Landis would take testosterone during the Tour. If cycling's taught me one thing, it's never under-estimate either the craftiness or stupidity of cheats. So as for where I am with this case? No bloody idea...


----------



## Crackle (1 Oct 2010)

No surprise in the Peloton according to Chavanel


----------



## tigger (1 Oct 2010)

Skip Madness said:


> It's dependent on this news about the level of plasticisers supposedly found in one or more of his samples around the same time, which could be an indication of use of a blood bag. That opens up the idea that the clenbuterol was in blood he had stored earlier in the year and then reinjected in the Tour. I'd guess that he didn't take clenbuterol during the Tour as a PED. Supposing he transfused his own blood, I'd still be surprised if he had used clenbuterol since it's apparently easily tested for, so it may have been that the clenbuterol entered his sytem through (say) contaminated meat earlier in the year (which has been reported with Spanish meat, especially veal), and it was present in the blood he transfused.
> 
> But really, who knows yet. I didn't think Landis would take testosterone during the Tour. If cycling's taught me one thing, it's never under-estimate either the craftiness or stupidity of cheats. So as for where I am with this case? No bloody idea...




Ah you miss my point... sure the contamination could have come from a transfusion of stored blood. My point is he didn't actively, knowingly ingest clenbuterol during the tour. With me? 

Oh, and re: the plasticisers. Whether its true or not is irrevelant I think to WADA or UCI. I understand the testing for them is not agreed? So it can't have any bearing on Contador's case. Not saying he didn't contaminate himself this way but rather it will not hang him!


----------



## montage (1 Oct 2010)

If the rumour about the plastics in his blood is true, then that seals the deal for me.
Gutted I spent all that time watch the tour de france - what a waste of time.


----------



## scook94 (2 Oct 2010)

tigger said:


> Ah you miss my point... sure the contamination could have come from a transfusion of stored blood. My point is he didn't actively, knowingly ingest clenbuterol during the tour. With me?
> 
> Oh, and re: the plasticisers. Whether its true or not is irrevelant I think to WADA or UCI. *I understand the testing for them is not agreed?* So it can't have any bearing on Contador's case. Not saying he didn't contaminate himself this way but rather it will not hang him!



Not according to WADA director general David Howman-



> He also claimed that the World Anti-Doping Agency has not validated a method for detecting plastic from blood transfusion bags. This was contradicted by Howman, who said that a method was "fully validated and has been used in the food industry for years.”
> 
> “Its use for anti-doping purposes is partially validated and evidence from it, among others, can be used before tribunals.”


----------



## Bill Gates (2 Oct 2010)

Crackle said:


> No surprise in the Peloton according to Chavanel



For me that speaks volumes. I've always had my doubts about him. His powers of recovery are too good to be true.


----------



## Tim Bennet. (2 Oct 2010)

> It’s like the tree that hides the forest.


Don't get all hung up about the size of the dose or whether the plasticer test is validated by the UCI. 
These are all technicalities.
Contador has got some explaining to do, so it's over to him.
He's just got to make it a lot more convincing than he has so far.

Anyone who dopes will always have given thought to an excuse. He might have chosen to use clenbuterol during winter training because, despite it's ease of detection, he believed the contaminated Spanish meat stories would provide him with an excuse if necessary.


It's behaviour as a doping agent is also well known and can be used in training 'safely' as its half life in the blood is well documented (with previous testing sensitivities). He would only be caught if he was subject to random out of competition testing and then the contaminated meat story would swing into action. (He might even have a friendly local butcher in Spain who could supply the investigators with 'samples').


But if he stored his blood during the winter believing the levels to have dropped to zero then this more sensitive test would have caught what I think may well be common practice amongst the riders.


----------



## raindog (2 Oct 2010)

Tim Bennet. said:


> Contador has got some explaining to do, so it's over to him.


He's due to appear live on the France 2 sports programme here on sunday afternoon. He says he's ready "to cut both hands off" to prove his innocence, but this is developing so fast that by sunday he probably won't want to turn up.

Anyone else sick to death of this constant bloody mess in bike racing?


----------



## chevin (2 Oct 2010)

Tim Bennet. said:


> Contador has got some explaining to do, so it's over to him.



This may seem outrageously naive, but maybe he doesn't know, given how low the levels are. I'll bet there's all sorts of things in food, even when carefully sourced, which 'shouldn't' be there.


----------



## yello (2 Oct 2010)

raindog said:


> Anyone else sick to death of this constant bloody mess in bike racing?



Yes. It's a mess from so many angles too. I was initially really p*ssed off when this news broke, I thought I was right back were I was 4 or 5 years ago. But fortunately, I was able to find the division that worked for me then and treat the issues separately.

I want to pick up on something said by Chavenel in that article linked to...



> It’s up to Contador to prove his innocence.



...and also touched on my chevin above; is it realistic to expect Contador to prove his innocence? 

Let's say for a moment that he is completely innocent; he did not take clenbuterol, he did not transfuse. Just HOW is he to prove his innocence? Perhaps all he can do is conjecture, produce reports that suggest that his conjecture is plausible (and arguably even that shouldn't be required). How long has this German lab taken to develop it's super accurate testing methods? How many people are employed doing it. How much has it cost to do so? Is Contador expected to replicate all of that to mount a defence?


----------



## the_mikey (2 Oct 2010)

_"I notice on Eurosport, the Sidi cycling shoes ad has replaced Alberto Contador with Filippo Potazzo.. _"


Heh, I was wrong! They just showed the Alberto Contador ad for shoes, also Selle italia are advertising a replica Alberto Contador saddle!


----------



## iAmiAdam (2 Oct 2010)

Yeah, he might of doped, don't think he did tho, but he's still won three tdfs and many grand tours, and you can't really take them away, unless UCI do or whatever.


----------



## Crackle (2 Oct 2010)

montage said:


> If the rumour about the plastics in his blood is true, then that seals the deal for me.
> Gutted I spent all that time watch the tour de france - what a waste of time.



Yep, that seals it for me. Doping is a clandestine business and whilst I'd like to believe it's simple contamination, cycling has previous and lots of it, Contador is no Diana Modahl and even if he manages to wriggle out of it, in my mind he's cooked and I'm afraid I'm heavily suspicious of Andy Schleck too.


----------



## Skip Madness (2 Oct 2010)

tigger said:


> Ah you miss my point... sure the contamination could have come from a transfusion of stored blood. My point is he didn't actively, knowingly ingest clenbuterol during the tour. With me?


Maybe not during the Tour, but it may be that he actively, knowingly ingested it before he had his blood stored, in which case I don't think it could be described as contamination.


----------



## Skip Madness (2 Oct 2010)

I'm heavily suspicious that Andy Schleck is a tosser, dope or no dope.


----------



## Smokin Joe (2 Oct 2010)

yello said:


> *...and also touched on my chevin above; is it realistic to expect Contador to prove his innocence?
> 
> *


Yes it is.

There comes a point in any investigation where the balance of proof swings to the accused. For instance, if the police believe you to have commited a murder it is up to them to find the evidence to prove their case. If they then find the murder weapon and it has your DNA and fingerprints on it then it would become your responsibility to provide a plausable explanation as to how it innocently got there.

Contador was found to have an illegal substance in his sample, that is beyond dispute. He now has to show how it got there without his knowledge.


----------



## yello (2 Oct 2010)

Smokin Joe said:


> He now has to show how it got there without his knowledge.



We're back to square one. It's there but he doesn't know how it got there... how can he prove what he does not know?


----------



## Ball (2 Oct 2010)

Smokin Joe said:


> Yes it is.
> 
> There comes a point in any investigation where the balance of proof swings to the accused. For instance, if the police believe you to have commited a murder it is up to them to find the evidence to prove their case. If they then find the murder weapon and it has your DNA and fingerprints on it then it would become your responsibility to provide a plausable explanation as to how it innocently got there.
> 
> Contador was found to have an illegal substance in his sample, that is beyond dispute. He now has to show how it got there without his knowledge.




He doesn't actually have to at all. The onus isn't on him to prove his innocence, except of course if he wishes. It's basically up to those who decide, to decide whether they feel there is sufficient evidence to convict him. That's it. I agree with the above poster that it would be way too complex for him to ever really prove his innocence, because innocence would imply his having absolutely no idea how that clenbuterol got there, and where on earth would he start!


----------



## raindog (2 Oct 2010)

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...tigate-source-of-contador-s-mystery-meat.html

this made me grin 



> Given Contador has not named which butcher's shop his friend Jose Luis Lopez Cerron bought the meat in, yesterday Irun was apparently crawling with journalists visiting all 37 butchers in the medium-sized border town to try and find out which one it was.


----------



## yello (2 Oct 2010)

It crossed my mind that trying to find the supplier shouldn't prove too difficult. Whether they'd want to own up to 'cattle doping' is another matter!


----------



## rich p (2 Oct 2010)

He has to prove his innocence because the athlete is responsible however the substances got ther. Them's the rules, like it or not.

The meat story is quite frankle utterly laughable and stinks of desperation. I'd be more inclined to believe in his innocence if most of us hadn't had our suspicions over the years and the fact that Sylvain Chavanel is speaking out is indicative of what the peloton think.


----------



## philipbh (2 Oct 2010)

montage said:


> If the rumour about the plastics in his blood is true, then that seals the deal for me.
> Gutted I spent all that time watch the tour de france - what a waste of time.




Is there the slightest possibility that these plasticisers are also in the bag of a saline drip - assumimg dehyrdration after a stage, would it be normal for a cyclist to be put on a saline drip by a team doctor to aid recovery etc...?


----------



## Smokin Joe (2 Oct 2010)

philipbh said:


> Is there the slightest possibility that these plasticisers are also in the bag of a saline drip - assumimg dehyrdration after a stage, would it be normal for a cyclist to be put on a saline drip by a team doctor to aid recovery etc...?


There is the slightest possibility of any excuse being true. But they've all got an excuse when they're caught, and if the doper's words were taken as gospel you would conclude that doping had died out when they made it illegal in the mid sixties.


----------



## philipbh (2 Oct 2010)

Smokin Joe said:


> There is the slightest possibility of any excuse being true. But they've all got an excuse when they're caught, and if the doper's words were taken as gospel you would conclude that doping had died out when they made it illegal in the mid sixties.




Then AC is off the hook with the plasticiser accusation - but not the clentbuterol


----------



## yello (2 Oct 2010)

rich p said:


> He has to prove his innocence because the athlete is responsible however the substances got ther. Them's the rules, like it or not.



I appreciate that but it wasn't really the point I was trying to make. Presuppose he IS innocent. Just _how_ is he supposed to prove that? What would be acceptable?

Btw, I'm not offering a defence of Contador but asking a hypothetical question.


----------



## snailracer (3 Oct 2010)

=


----------



## rich p (3 Oct 2010)

yello said:


> I appreciate that but it wasn't really the point I was trying to make. Presuppose he IS innocent. Just _how_ is he supposed to prove that? What would be acceptable?
> 
> Btw, I'm not offering a defence of Contador but asking a hypothetical question.




He can't because he has clenbuterol in his system. He is responsible even if it was accidentally ingested.


----------



## oldroadman (3 Oct 2010)

rich p said:


> He can't because he has clenbuterol in his system. He is responsible even if it was accidentally ingested.



I've got a longer memory than some - one Malcolm Elliott had an "adverse finding" many years ago for nandrolone. His assertiin that the tiny amount detected was because of using eye drops (in common use in Spain) sold as "Nandrolona" was accepted. The name might have provided a clue....
Move on to today, labs can detect really tiny amounts of almost any metabolite you want to trace if you know the profile to look for. AC is in a spot, but why would he use the stuff (which has zero benefit at the concentrations found) in the middle of the TdF KNOWING he would get tested, as the race leader, every day? It make no sense. The question remains, where did it come from, was there some sample contamination, and why does a lab report a concentration 40 times less than WADA actually think is detectable. Smacks of desparation to find something, anything, by someone?
I don't condone the possible "offence", but it all sounds very strange.


----------



## yello (3 Oct 2010)

I know the rules say that if it's there then it's his responsibility, I'm not questioning the rules. My questions are more this;

People are asking him to prove his innocence. Realistically, how does he do that when the rule says he's guilty? Does he have to show that the rule is wrong too? How does he do that? Set up his own lab and get it accredited? Show the clenbuterol DID come from a doped cow? Or somewhere else? What's he got to do? I'm not saying the science is wrong, just the interpretation of it could be questioned. 

The zero tolerance nature of the rule assumes that the only reason for the presence of clenbuterol is performance enhancing. That assumption might be wrong. 

Assume he did not dope, intentionally or otherwise. Assume he has genuinely no idea what-so-ever where the clenbuterol came from, has always trained and prepared 'clean', not taken any pharmaceuticals (permitted or otherwise) that might give cause for concern. He's done everything by the book in the right and proper manner. Then comes this positive; bang, out of the blue. He KNOWS he's innocent. He knows that this 'zero tolerance' rule will wrongly end his career. HOW does he prove that?

It just seems stacked against someone who is genuinely innocent to prove their innocence.


----------



## philipbh (3 Oct 2010)

rich p said:


> He can't because he has clenbuterol in his system. He is responsible even if it was accidentally ingested.



Reasonable doubt though...

1. History of clenbuterol in spanish meat
2. -ve tests either side of the "meat gate"
3. testimony from Jose Luis Lopez Cerron that he bought the meat for the team
4. testimony from the buccher that sold it 

As mentioned before - its going to be hard to get testimony from the cattle farmer that he is using a banned substance in the rearing of his animals

5. Precedent from other athletes that have tested positive, but had their sanctions reduced due to mitigating circumstances

Hard to see how AC will escape a any sort of ban and just get a reprimand (though that is a possibility under the WADA rules)


----------



## dellzeqq (3 Oct 2010)

http://uk.eurosport....s/article/1186/ 

Look at this from a different angle. Thirty years ago there was a 'farm gate' trade in 'growth promoters' in the UK. 20kg bags of the stuff.....I'm told that this is now a thing of the past. 

It may be that there is still a farm gate trade in Spain. 

Now I've never been a fan of Contador. If he were to be found guilty of the cleverest doping scam that there has ever been I'd get over the shock in less than a second. But in this case the amount is so tiny that it puts me in mind of the cocaine which is apparently on every dollar bill in the US


----------



## philipbh (3 Oct 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> http://uk.eurosport....s/article/1186/
> 
> Look at this from a different angle. Thirty years ago there was a 'farm gate' trade in 'growth promoters' in the UK. 20kg bags of the stuff.....I'm told that this is now a thing of the past.
> 
> ...




In the eyes of WADA - Clenbuterol is, as Clentbuterol does - so he has a case to answer whatever the level 

Looks like his goose is cooked !

(Cocaine: also every £10 note in circulation in the UK - so much so that the Forensic Science Service have stopped testing for it)


----------



## andrew_s (4 Oct 2010)

I can see him getting off with the clenbuterol (CB) if the blood bag plasticisers amount to nothing.

On the face of it, the contaminated meat story is plausible.
People have taken in far higher levels of CB from contaminated meat in the past, sufficient to send them to hospital with overdose symptoms. The use of CB is illegal, but it's known to continue.
Meat is "normal food". It doesn't have a list of ingredients that can be checked against the banned list, and if Contador went to the civil courts they would be very likely to find that it would be unreasonable to expect him to be able to detect and avoid any contaminated products. Losing the case could put the UCI (or WADA) into severe financial difficulties, and unlike Li Fuyu (Radioshack), Contador could afford to fight.

If the DEHP plasticiser levels mirror the clenbuterol levels (low for 2 days, high on the rest day, declining the next 3 days), then he could probably be successfully banned for transfusion. If they don't, they will either negotiate a short winter ban or accept the excuse.


----------



## Bill Gates (4 Oct 2010)

yello said:


> Assume he did not dope, intentionally or otherwise. Assume he has genuinely no idea what-so-ever where the clenbuterol came from, has always trained and prepared 'clean', not taken any pharmaceuticals (permitted or otherwise) that might give cause for concern. He's done everything by the book in the right and proper manner. Then comes this positive; bang, out of the blue. He KNOWS he's innocent. He knows that this 'zero tolerance' rule will wrongly end his career. HOW does he prove that?



If I was really innocent I would fund my own lie detector test. OK it doesn't hold up in a court of law but in the court of public opinion it would be extremely credible.


----------



## rich p (4 Oct 2010)

I find the meat story a laughable and implausible excuse which he has probably hatched up with his chums and ranks up there with Tyler Hamilton's chimera and Mary's assertion to Joseph that she wasn't playing away from home. Still, as I've said before, I'm a cynical old Hector!  

People on here referring to such a small amount of Clenbuterol seem to be forgetting Yello's, and subsequently many experts', theory that the tiny amount was present in the blood he transfused that rest day. No-one is seriously suggesting thst he took the substance that day, apart from the meat story believers. Even if they tested the blood themselves to ensure its cleanness they would have been unable to detect as small an indicator as the lab did.

I strongly suspect that the Chinese rider from Shack may have accidentally ingested the stuff accidentally in China where Clenb. is in common use, and Bertie and his team have jumped on to a very convenient passing bandwagon.

I may attempt to resist passing any more comment until new evidence comes to light but that's not a promise.


----------



## Keith Oates (4 Oct 2010)

rich p said:


> People on here referring to such a small amount of Clenbuterol seem to be forgetting Yello's, and subsequently many experts', theory that the tiny amount was present in the blood he transfused that rest day. No-one is seriously suggesting thst he took the substance that day, apart from the meat story believers. Even if they tested the blood themselves to ensure its cleanness they would have been unable to detect as small an indicator as the lab did.
> 
> I strongly suspect that the Chinese rider from Shack may have accidentally ingested the stuff accidentally in China where Clenb. is in common use, and Bertie and his team have jumped on to a very convenient passing bandwagon.
> 
> I may attempt to resist passing any more comment until new evidence comes to light but that's not a promise.



IF he did transfuse blood as you suggest is possible, the amount of Clenbuterol in his full blood circulation would be very small indeed and probably undetectable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Chuffy (4 Oct 2010)

rich p said:


> I find the meat story a laughable and implausible excuse which he has probably hatched up with his chums and ranks up there with Tyler Hamilton's chimera and Mary's assertion to Joseph that she wasn't playing away from home. Still, as I've said before, I'm a cynical old Hector!


There is another possibilty - that in the six weeks since Bertie found out he (and his team) have been trying to figure out where any possible contamination could come from and they have latched onto the Spanish meat as the only 'likely' source. Personally I think floating that hypothesis was a big mistake as it effectively backs him into a corner with his whole defence resting on one (flimsy) possibility. 




> I strongly suspect that the Chinese rider from Shack may have accidentally ingested the stuff accidentally in China where Clenb. is in common use, and Bertie and his team have jumped on to a very convenient passing bandwagon.


Hardly a bandwagon - Clenbuterol contamination is a well known phenomena and has been for many years.

I've always thought Bertie was a bit smelly, but this whole scenario seems odd and I'm not convinced that it's an open and shut smoking gun (to mix metaphors).


----------



## Tim Bennet. (4 Oct 2010)

The fourth Spanish rider to be implicated in drug taking in the past couple of weeks is the women's cross country rider  Margarita Fullana. She's been provisionally suspended after testing positive for EPO.


Cycling hasn't cleaned up it's act yet.
By a long way.
The battle goes on.


Rather scarily, the sport site I found to check the spelling of her name contains adverts placed by Google, and the top one was for an EPO booster drug.


----------



## Willo (4 Oct 2010)

My frustration as someone who enjoys watching cycling, but am in no way qualified (as I guess few are) on drugs, testing etc., is that each side of the argument sounds rational.

I read a piece explaining the contanimation and the point that his tests were clean previously on the tour which rules out the small trace could've been a remnant of a higher dose admistered in the past. Then I read Walsh in the Sunday Times who makes an equal case leading to suspician of blood doping. 

It would be great if these investigations concluded and then just announced the rationale of the decision. There would still be gossip etc., but at least it would be more decisive. As it is, the failed test is thrown out for the media / public to come up with their own theories and any objectivity is lost by the time they finally come up with a ruling.


----------



## rich p (4 Oct 2010)

Chuffy said:


> There is another possibilty - that in the six weeks since Bertie found out he (and his team) have been trying to figure out where any possible contamination could come from and they have latched onto the Spanish meat as the only 'likely' source. Personally I think floating that hypothesis was a big mistake as it effectively backs him into a corner with his whole defence resting on one (flimsy) possibility.



I thought that was what I said!





Chuffy said:


> Hardly a bandwagon - Clenbuterol contamination is a well known phenomena and has been for many years.



I hadn't heard of the tainted meat defence until the Li Fuyu case.


----------



## yello (4 Oct 2010)

rich p said:


> I may attempt to resist passing any more comment until new evidence comes to light but that's not a promise.



Well, that didn't last long!  

Fwiw (and very little, I know) I think he is guilty as all hell of transfusing... and it _really_ pains me to say it. I hope I am wrong, sincerely I do, but there's just too many ifs in the meat contamination story for it to be true, imo. I think it's possible, even plausible (depending on your definition of plausible), but just not likely imo. That is, of course, an entirely different question as to whether I think he should serve a ban or not. I don't think transfusion can be proved, there's too many ifs in that one for me too, but the rule is quite clear for clenbuterol. I think he'll swing for that (in some form or another) and should consider himself very lucky.

Now it seems he's threatening to quit if banned...



> "If this is not resolved favourably and in just fashion then I would have to consider whether I would ever get back on a bike," Contador told Spanish broadcaster Telecinco



http://www.france24.com/en/20101003-contador-says-may-quit-banned-doping


----------



## yello (4 Oct 2010)

This is interesting reading if you want to plough through it and have a head for numbers....

http://martinbudden.wordpress.com/2010/10/01/contador-–-cheat-or-bad-meat/

Some choice cuts, easily digestable (ho ho)....



> In the European Union it is legal to use clenbuterol as a tocalytic (that is to surpress premature labour) in cattle.





> So a 100g piece of steak could legally contain up to 0.01 micrograms, that is 10 nanograms, of clenbuterol.





> The amount of clenbuterol ingested by Contador (540 nanograms) is consistent with his assertion that he ate contaminated meat.



Note: the writer of the above is, to quote him, a scientists "in the broad sense". What that means in reality, I have no idea! Interesting reading but ultimately just another take on it.


----------



## Chuffy (4 Oct 2010)

rich p said:


> I thought that was what I said!
> I hadn't heard of the tainted meat defence until the Li Fuyu case.


Different emphasis old boy. My version has Team Contador going 'WTF?' and trying to figure out _how_ the clenbuterol could be there. Your version has Team Contador knocking up some bullshit defence on the back of a fag packet. 

I'm assuming that they genuinely don't know how there could be any Clenbuterol in his sample. Even if he is a Naughty Boy (quite likely) then it's not impossible that there has been some shenanigans backstage. Precedent would be Mr Landis who still maintains that he was stitched up on his +ive for testosterone, despite having subsequently 'fessed up to more than enough other offences to guarantee that his '06 ban would stand.


----------



## Crackle (4 Oct 2010)

Pedant posturing and explanation bending. We all know he's guilty, the Peloton knows he's guilty, he knows he's guilty, it's not like cycling is a clean sport and this is a shock horror moment. Burn him I say and throw a few others in the pond, see if they float.


----------



## Chuffy (4 Oct 2010)

Crackle said:


> Pedant posturing and explanation bending. We all know he's guilty, the Peloton knows he's guilty, he knows he's guilty, it's not like cycling is a clean sport and this is a shock horror moment. Burn him I say and throw a few others in the pond, see if they float.


 
And you used to be such a _nice_ fanboy.


----------



## yello (4 Oct 2010)

'ere Chuffy, you following the UCI v WADA slant on all of this on Cycling News? Interesting stuff... I wish I could paraphrase succinctly... maybe I'll have a go later!

I want to do something I wouldn't normally do. That is, quote somone from another forum. It really is an excellent post as it seems to but into words what I was struggling to before.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=353442&postcount=78



> Somewhere there is a legal reality that makes the imposition of an absolute zero tolerance level for a single, and singled out European rider, problematic for the UCI. Or some non-expert folk made an inhouse judgement, rightly or wrongly, that this European rule minimum level" kinda makes sense, and that the Contador sample was so small and so far below it that it just didn't add up to that smoking gun.





> On the one hand we have rules for powerful stimulants that set overly generous levels, allowing riders who are jacked up to 99% of it, and dead cert cheats by more reasonable readings of it, to happily peddle about in the peleton. And on the other hand we have now the ability to detect insanely small amounts of less useful amounts, _possibly_ so small that riders could live as vegetarian Buddhist monks in little Tibetan monasteries living on nothing but thin air and free range goats milk, and still be found positive against insane standards that were drawn up in an era when that level of detection was impossible.
> 
> Without even understanding what micro-levels are contracted in totally untraceable and unavoidable ways _naturally_, by the grace of living in our modern society.
> 
> ...


----------



## Chuffy (4 Oct 2010)

More seriously, this needs to be done properly. If people are going to be thrown to the wolves on the basis of what we all 'know' then that will undermine confidence, not to mention being legally suspect, open to challenge and dodgy as hell. Riders who are clean or who have genuinely been fingered in error need the protection of a fair and robust system that doesn't simply burn them because we 'know' that pro-cyclists are all drug-guzzling hypowhores.


----------



## Crackle (4 Oct 2010)

The plasticizers are the smoking gun, if that bit of the story is true, if not....... Read the Wada guidelines on transfusions, they are simply not allowed except for clinical hospital admissions and tests.


----------



## yello (4 Oct 2010)

Crackle said:


> The plasticizers are the smoking gun



I'm not so sure. That they were there, yes, I can accept that. What that means though is, imo, far from straight forward. I don't accept that the mere presence of plasticizers means that an IV transfusion necessarily took place. I certainly think it's a step too far to ban AC on the basis of that assumption, as established as a link may be. That is to say, IF there was a transfusion then, yes, there'd be plasticizers in the blood... but I wouldn't state it the other way around.


----------



## Chuffy (4 Oct 2010)

yello said:


> 'ere Chuffy, you following the UCI v WADA slant on all of this on Cycling News? Interesting stuff... I wish I could paraphrase succinctly... maybe I'll have a go later!
> 
> I want to do something I wouldn't normally do. That is, quote somone from another forum. It really is an excellent post as it seems to but into words what I was struggling to before.
> 
> http://forum.cycling...42&postcount=78


That's a good post. I've been dipping in and out of Cycling News but there's too much to keep on top of and I'm finding the comfort-blanket cynicism of some posters quite annoying. 

To be honest I'm struggling with this one. If it were Tex then I'd probably have no trouble at all, given that there's a whole load more back history _and_ the man is a Grade A cock. I don't particularly like Bertie and have always thought he had a fishy whiff but I just can't make the leap to tossing him off a cliff from the evidence presented/leaked/assumed so far.


----------



## Hont (4 Oct 2010)

tundragumski said:


> perhaps that has something to do with resting?


Yes but the rest of the peleton, who were dropped by AC and Schleck both days following the rest days, had the same advantage.

Regarding the burden of proof to prove innocence being on Contador; it has to be this way. He has to be responsible for what is in his system otherwise no doper would ever be banned. They would simply blame everything and everyone and get away with it because - other than the drug test itself - there is never any "proof", when the only witnesses are in on the crime. This is one of the reasons why Armstrong repeated the "test me" mantra for so long.


----------



## Ball (4 Oct 2010)

Hont said:


> Yes but the rest of the peleton, who were dropped by AC and Schleck both days following the rest days, had the same advantage.
> 
> Regarding the burden of proof to prove innocence being on Contador; it has to be this way. He has to be responsible for what is in his system otherwise no doper would ever be banned. They would simply blame everything and everyone and get away with it because - other than the drug test itself - there is never any "proof", when the only witnesses are in on the crime. This is one of the reasons why Armstrong repeated the "test me" mantra for so long.



That's not really the way the law works though, you're innocent until proven guilty, and if the evidence isn't strong enough then he can't be proven guilty. The only reason he needs to prove his innocence thereafter is to save his reputation and his credibility, which is just as important anyway.


----------



## raindog (4 Oct 2010)

Ball said:


> The only reason he needs to prove his innocence thereafter is to save his reputation and his credibility, which is just as important anyway.


According to Berto himself, his credibility, no matter what happens, is now shot. I think I agree with him.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contador-admits-credibility-is-damaged



> “The damage is done for me and for cycling, once again,” Contador said. “It’s damaging for me and for the credibility of the Tour de France. It’s damaging for me and for all the teams.


----------



## Smokin Joe (4 Oct 2010)

I just can't buy the "piece of steak a friend bought from Spain" story.

The biggest fear of anyone riding a Grand Tour is illness. That far into the race the body will be run down and the immune system shot to pieces, for that reason riders are fanatical about avoiding infection to the point of paranoia. They will even use a handkerchief on a door handle to ensure against picking up germs, the teams won't even let the hotel staff prepare their food, and to suggest that someone would eat a piece of steak brought all the way from Spain during the hottest time of the year doesn't add up, unless he is now going to tell us that his mate came up in a refridgerated truck.

As said already, it sounds like a deasperate story thought up during the time he knew he had tested positive.


----------



## Skip Madness (4 Oct 2010)

Smokin Joe said:


> The biggest fear of anyone riding a Grand Tour is illness. That far into the race the body will be run down and the immune system shot to pieces, for that reason riders are fanatical about avoiding infection to the point of paranoia. They will even use a handkerchief on a door handle to ensure against picking up germs, the teams won't even let the hotel staff prepare their food, and to suggest that someone would eat a piece of steak brought all the way from Spain during the hottest time of the year doesn't add up, unless he is now going to tell us that his mate came up in a refridgerated truck.


To be fair, they say the meat came from Irún, which is only an hour and a half from Pau according to Google Maps, so it wouldn't have been a huge drive. But I agree that it seems outlandish.


----------



## snailracer (5 Oct 2010)

Ball said:


> That's not really the way the law works though, you're innocent until proven guilty, and if the evidence isn't strong enough then he can't be proven guilty. The only reason he needs to prove his innocence thereafter is to save his reputation and his credibility, which is just as important anyway.



Breaking UCI rules is not the same as breaking the law, so the "innocent until proven guilty" principle does not necessarily apply the way you think it should.

In France, the use of many performance enhancing drugs is actually against the law. So it's double jeopardy for alleged TdF dopers.


----------



## yello (5 Oct 2010)

yello said:


> That is to say, IF there was a transfusion then, yes, there'd be plasticizers in the blood... but I wouldn't state it the other way around.



I'm starting to change my opinion. From this NY Times article

http://www.nytimes.c..._r=3&ref=sports



> The test to detect plasticizers from IV bags has been around for more than a year in antidoping, but is not yet validated for use, so an athlete could easily question its validity in court.





> “Even without a validated test, it could be looked at in a case-by-case basis,” Francesco Botré, the chief of the World Anti-Doping Agency-accredited laboratory in Rome, said. “If someone has a very, very high level of plasticizers in the urine, it would be hard for that athlete to explain how that happened if not for doping. If the level is lower, it obviously would make it much harder, but it would still be possible to prove.”



(Btw, the comments from Kohl in that article make for interesting reading too)

The plasticizers test has been devised through some degree of sampling and research. You can see from this study in August 2009 that 127 athletes were among those included in the sample group. The study concludes...



> High concentrations of DEHP metabolites present in urine collected from athletes may suggest illegal blood transfusion and can be used as a qualitative screening measure for blood doping.



DEHP is a plasticizer found in IV bags.

I'm following another avenue at the moment, one I suggested earlier. That is, that Contador is caught in the middle of a WADA - UCI handbags session. It is _possible_ that Contador was targeted, perhaps by WADA. I've read (and I could find the link again if needed) that WADA were not happy with Contador's blood passport. There was no consensus opinion from 6 experts as to exactly what might be wrong, but they didn't like it. They were also not pleased with UCI not doing more about it. Then came the clenbuterol positive. I think UCI wanted to keep it quiet at first, investigate it a little more and perhaps giving Contador a chance to explain. (People have suggested 'brush it under the carpet' but I'm giving UCI a somewhat untypical benefit of the doubt here!) I think it's possible that WADA leaked the info to the German broadcaster just to lift the lid on it (I have no evidence of that whatsoever btw, just me pondering). Now, even if any of that is true, it's not a defence for Contador. 

Another thought occurred to me, but I'm sure it's been taken into account, I believe Contador takes (daily?) medication for epilepsy.

Edit: darned editor, I couldn't embed the NY Ttimes article link!


----------



## Crackle (5 Oct 2010)

You read the bit about plasticizers and Clenbuterol being found on different test days. It's possibly plausible, the contaminated meat bit, possibly but why else would he have plasticizers in his body if he hadn't transfused.


----------



## rich p (5 Oct 2010)

Crackle said:


> You read the bit about plasticizers and Clenbuterol being found on different test days. It's possibly plausible, the contaminated meat bit, possibly but why else would he have plasticizers in his body if he hadn't transfused.




The only thing that could possibly explain them is plasticisers from a saline rehydrating drip but I have no idea if that is plausible or not.


----------



## Chuffy (5 Oct 2010)

rich p said:


> The only thing that could possibly explain them is plasticisers from a saline rehydrating drip but I have no idea if that is plausible or not.


Plausible but not legal.


----------



## John the Monkey (5 Oct 2010)

yello said:


> The plasticizers test has been devised through some degree of sampling and research. You can see from this study in August 2009 that 127 athletes were among those included in the sample group.


That's a really interesting study.

Given that the control group were exposed to DEHP too (but not via transfusion) does that put paid to the "Oh, but it will detect plasticisers in the bidons" argument?


----------



## tigger (5 Oct 2010)

yello said:


> I'm following another avenue at the moment, one I suggested earlier. That is, that Contador is caught in the middle of a WADA - UCI handbags session. It is _possible_ that Contador was targeted, perhaps by WADA.




Yes I think thats absolutely whats happened here.

It doesn't absolve AC from any blame, but for sure there's a lot going on behind the scenes between WADA and the UCI. At the end of the day the UCI have a delicate balance to keep - yes they have to try and clean up their sport but they also have to protect its image. WADA are sick of this and just want the sport clean - full stop. They have very advanced tests now and AC was hunted down to make an example.

The sad thing is, if AC is guilty of blood doping, then we can rest assured that so was AS and no doubt an awful lot more of the GC contenders.

Maybe we should just accept the bad news with Contador and see this as the new dawn. If WADA can now detect minute traces of stimulants and transfusions without having to rely on excessively high levels of HCrit then it will naturally drive micro doping out of the sport. Until the next new drug of course...

Oh but we've come full circle!


----------



## dellzeqq (5 Oct 2010)

Is the WADA prohibition of transfusions now part of the UCI rulebook?

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/Science_Medicine/Medical_info_to_support_TUECs/WADA_Medical_info_IV_infusions_v.2.2_March2010_EN.pdf 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1537-2995.2009.02352.x/full#t1 the study looks kind of sketchy to me (but feel free to put me right on this). A significant number of the control and non-transfused groups has higher concentrations than a significant number of the transfused groups. You’d have to set the limit so high that the great majority of ‘transfusers’ would escape.


----------



## Crackle (5 Oct 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> Is the WADA prohibition of transfusions now part of the UCI rulebook?
> 
> http://www.wada-ama....arch2010_EN.pdf
> 
> http://onlinelibrary...02352.x/full#t1 the study looks kind of sketchy to me (but feel free to put me right on this). A significant number of the control and non-transfused groups has higher concentrations than a significant number of the transfused groups. You’d have to set the limit so high that the great majority of ‘transfusers’ would escape.



The WADA prohibited substances and methods are the UCI's as well because to be accredited to the IOC WADA guidelines must be adopted.

Looking at that page from the study it looks pretty clear that transfused patients have higher plasticizer levels, except after 48 hrs.

_*CONCLUSION:* Elevated concentrations of urinary DEHP metabolites represent increased exposure to DEHP. High concentrations of DEHP metabolites present in urine collected from athletes may suggest illegal blood transfusion and can be used as a qualitative screening measure for blood doping._


----------



## philipbh (5 Oct 2010)

yello said:


> DEHP is a plasticizer found in IV bags.




Yet alternative transfusion bags are available (see Baxter Healthcare Infusion Products for example)

If teams are attempting to conceal the use of transfusions (blood, saline for rehydration etc) - they would be pretty foolish (IMO) to use bags that contain a plasticiser for which there is a known test


----------



## Flying_Monkey (5 Oct 2010)

Bernard Kohl is saying that it's impossible to win the TdF at current average speeds without drugs.


----------



## yello (5 Oct 2010)

rich p said:


> The only thing that could possibly explain them is plasticisers from a saline rehydrating drip but I have no idea if that is plausible or not.



All forms of IV are prohibited now, rehydration included, but I guess Contador could attempt to kop a lesser charge (??) to explain the plasticisers! 


That's interesting what you say there tigger, one can understand WADA's perspective and, at the same time but to a lesser extent imo, that of UCI. 



> They have very advanced tests now and AC was hunted down to make an example.



I wonder what kind of defence Contador might have in suggesting he has been treated unequally. That is, not every rider's samples were sent to this high tech lab and analysed to this degree. I wonder even if every rider's sample has been subjected to the plasticiser (I'm sick of typing that word btw!!) test? On such things, cases are thrown out of court.


----------



## tigger (5 Oct 2010)

So can the plasticer test results be used against Contador? This article suggests they can in conjunction with other +ve tests.

Looks like Bertie is hanged if so.

http://nymag.com/daily/sports/2010/10/httpimagesnymagcomimages2daily.html


----------



## Smokin Joe (5 Oct 2010)

There is a very good piece on The Comic's website by Lionel Birnie. I think it sums up the whole sorry business very aptly, Contador's explanation as to how the stuff got in his body is laughable - and has seriously upset the Spanish meat industry.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...he-beef-excuse-and-the-traces-of-plastic.html


----------



## Crackle (5 Oct 2010)

Smokin Joe said:


> There is a very good piece on The Comic's website by Lionel Birnie. I think it sums up the whole sorry business very aptly, Contador's explanation as to how the stuff got in his body is laughable - and has seriously upset the Spanish meat industry.
> 
> http://www.cyclingwe...of-plastic.html



His excuse is akin to 'the dog ate my homework'


----------



## rich p (6 Oct 2010)

Smokin Joe said:


> There is a very good piece on The Comic's website by Lionel Birnie. I think it sums up the whole sorry business very aptly, Contador's explanation as to how the stuff got in his body is laughable - and has seriously upset the Spanish meat industry.
> 
> http://www.cyclingwe...of-plastic.html




A very nicely understated piece of writing.


----------



## Tim Bennet. (6 Oct 2010)

It is a good article and mirrors my previous assertion that the clenbutorol trace was transferred with a transfusion of his own blood taken after his winter training where he was using the drug. The 'lab' he used to check it was clean clearly didn't have the ability to check for levels as small as the Koln one.

I also identify with the author's frustration with so many riders inability to say categorically that they are clean and oppose the use of drugs:


_My colleague Edward Pickering asked (Contador) an unequivocal question that demanded an unequivocal answer._
_
_
_"Can you assure us that you've never taken any banned performance-enhancing products, nor used any banned methods, and can you take this opportunity to make a strong statement for clean cycling?"_
_
_
_Contador replied: "I'm available 365 days a year, which is something I accept with good grace for the sport I love. I will continue to have this attitude."_
_
_​Does Lance Armstrong run master classes in this sort of double speak? All his prodigies seem to have his knack of fending off the simple "Do you cheat?" question with their own variation of his classic "I am the most tested athlete on the planet" or "I have never failed a drugs test", etc.


----------



## User169 (6 Oct 2010)

Newspaper this morning appeared to suggest that the steak may have been vacuumed packed; a possible source of plasticizers? 

(Apologies if this has already been shot down)


----------



## Smokin Joe (6 Oct 2010)

Delftse Post said:


> Newspaper this morning appeared to suggest that the steak may have been vacuumed packed; a possible source of plasticizers?
> 
> (Apologies if this has already been shot down)


I'd suggest we have finally reached the bottom of the barrel


----------



## philipbh (6 Oct 2010)

Smokin Joe said:


> I'd suggest we have finally reached the bottom of the barrel



But we haven't had Cellular Resistance to Insulin ( a pre cursor to Type II Diabetes) yet!


----------



## rich p (6 Oct 2010)

You lot should take a long hard look at yourselves and what you're doing to poor ole old Contador - I've just read that this saga is making him tired.

What drug do you think might help him overcome this?


----------



## John the Monkey (6 Oct 2010)

Delftse Post said:


> Newspaper this morning appeared to suggest that the steak may have been vacuumed packed; a possible source of plasticizers?



With Del's comments on the study referenced above in mind, the authors contend that profiles of test subjects exposed to plasticisers via mehtods other than IV show a different profile to those exposed via IV. Ingestion would be different to transfusion, in other words.


----------



## rich p (6 Oct 2010)

The developer of of the plasticiser test has spoken

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/seg...sticizer-levels-are-indicative-of-transfusion


----------



## yello (7 Oct 2010)

From the above article...



> "Nobody has officially notified us that it has been used," Segura confirms. "*I don't understand how it can be that they haven't been in contact with the people who developed the test*, especially as it is being used in such high-profile case."



An avenue for a technical defence perhaps? Or request for a re-test?


----------



## rich p (7 Oct 2010)

yello said:


> From the above article...
> 
> 
> 
> An avenue for a technical defence perhaps? Or request for a re-test?




I saw that quote. Slightly odd, in that once the test is out there in the big wide world of science surely it's not a necessary requirement to refer back to the 'inventor' every time?


----------



## philipbh (7 Oct 2010)

rich p said:


> I saw that quote. Slightly odd, in that once the test is out there in the big wide world of science surely it's not a necessary requirement to refer back to the 'inventor' every time?




Not realy odd - IMO - can you google up Segura Plasticiser Test and find a direct link to the paper

I suppose what he (Segura) is getting at is the lab in Cologne might have wanted to be 100% sure that they were following the correct test protocol. 

They would be covering themselves against a technical defence by documenting that, although the test has yet to be officially recognised, they had been supervised (in some way) by the originator of the test to ensure their test followed the protocol


----------



## Hont (7 Oct 2010)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Bernard Kohl is saying that it's impossible to win the TdF at current average speeds without drugs.



Impossible for him maybe. A rider with such average physiology that even using CERA he couldn't beat Carlos Sastre riding clean.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Oct 2010)

Have the UCI not kicked him into touch yet? How tedious.


----------



## rich p (8 Oct 2010)

Well Bertie must be over the moon now that he's recieved backing from Riis and Rasmussen - it now only needs Rumsas to support hima nd we'll have the 3 Rs...

...or should that read the 3 arses.


----------



## Dave Davenport (8 Oct 2010)

Isn't having backing from Rasmussen a bit like calling Peter Sutcliffe as a character witness at your murder trial?


----------



## rich p (8 Oct 2010)

Someone at Astana is dishing the dirt on Bert now.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ast...dor-used-clenbuterol-at-criterium-du-dauphine


----------



## Chuffy (8 Oct 2010)

rich p said:


> Someone at Astana is dishing the dirt on Bert now.
> 
> http://www.cyclingne...ium-du-dauphine


Which is almost _too _convenient. Something smells...


----------



## Crackle (8 Oct 2010)

Chuffy said:


> Which is almost _too _convenient. Something smells...



I'm having trouble with you in this reverse cynic role. He's caught bang to rights. Rumour has it Landis has a story too


----------



## Chuffy (8 Oct 2010)

Crackle said:


> I'm having trouble with you in this reverse cynic role. He's caught bang to rights. Rumour has it Landis has a story too


Landis, a story about Bertie? Do share....

Heh, I can _smell_ your confusion. Don't worry, I'm not going soft. Think about it. When have you _ever_ heard of a team 'insider' ratting out a rider at the level of Contador within days of a complicated and debatable failed test? That just doesn't happen. Whoever it was will almost certainly be uncovered and they will never work in cycling again. Just because they are saying what we want to hear doesn't mean we shouldn't ask questions.

I'm finding this whole thing a bit odd frankly. I didn't get a warm fuzzy glow when Bertie got busted, it wasn't a nice clean slam-dunk like a +tive for EPO or his blood being found in a dodgy doctor's clinic. Now, had everything been the same, but for Tex rather than Bertie, I'd have been celebrating. I didn't like that because I like to at least try to be objective. Basically I think I'm going from being a full-time witchfinder, hearing what I want to hear, to being prepared to at least consider other options and possibilities. I blame Yello, he led me to the Cycling News forum and that's stuffed to the gills with fundamentalist puritan types who think Kimmage is soft. I'm just trying to find a sensible middle path.

Lance is still a c*nt though.


----------



## rich p (8 Oct 2010)

I'm slightly shocked too Chuffers. AC has been suss from the word go and the evidence in this case is mounting up. He's clearly guilty as **** as far as I can see from the circumstantial evidence.

Chavanel jumping in is as persuasive as the rest of the science


----------



## Chuffy (8 Oct 2010)

rich p said:


> I'm slightly shocked too Chuffers. AC has been suss from the word go and the evidence in this case is mounting up. He's clearly guilty as **** as far as I can see from the circumstantial evidence.
> 
> Chavanel jumping in is as persuasive as the rest of the science


I'm not defending him. How many times have I said that Bertie smells over the years? I'm just starting to question the way I process and deal with the information presented. In this case I have a feeling that there's a lot more to the story than a nice simple 'Bertie doped with Clen' + 'Bertie had a transfusion' narrative. The current Astana 'insider' story is incredibly convenient but doesn't fit with any logical or historical pattern.

I'm not sure what's going on, but something doesn't seem right.


----------



## Crackle (8 Oct 2010)

Chuffy said:


> I'm not defending him. How many times have I said that Bertie smells over the years? I'm just starting to question the way I process and deal with the information presented. In this case I have a feeling that there's a lot more to the story than a nice simple 'Bertie doped with Clen' + 'Bertie had a transfusion' narrative. The current Astana 'insider' story is incredibly convenient but doesn't fit with any logical or historical pattern.
> 
> I'm not sure what's going on, but something doesn't seem right.



Yes I see you've been active over there. I read the plasticizer thread, the talk of levels, false positives, sources of DEHP was interesting but the pattern of Bertie's results seems fairly conclusive. The only doubt was one of the last threads linking to a report discussing the variability of levels in non transfused patients and how it can spike one day and be low the next.

As someone said, his defence could soon change to eating contaminated steak fried in a teflon pan or; the dog ate my homework and was sick on my textbooks too.


----------



## yello (9 Oct 2010)

I share Chuffy's unease... I think there's something else at play here too.

Not that Contador isn't guilty as charged (I think he is) but I think there's another battle being waged behind the scenes. I've said it elsewhere, I think WADA having finally tired of UCI's softly softly approach (and I'm being kind with that description) and have decided they want to get tough. Not before time either imho. I just keep telling myself that it's for the greater good even though I wish it were someone else being used to do it.


----------



## Noodley (9 Oct 2010)

I blame Tugboat's surviving littermates and their 'ghost' twins...


----------



## Crackle (15 Oct 2010)

Well, WADA and the UCI are still at loggerheads and that unratified plastics test is now being hushed

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-to-ensure-timely-conclusion-to-contador-case


----------



## dellzeqq (15 Oct 2010)

you're going to have to indulge me here, but let me run this by you..

isn't the most significant thing about this the test for chemicals associated with transfusions? And, if teams get it in to their heads that transfusions are a risk, will we see some riders tumble down the ratings next year?


----------



## philipbh (15 Oct 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> you're going to have to indulge me here, but let me run this by you..
> 
> isn't the most significant thing about this the test for chemicals associated with transfusions? And, if teams get it in to their heads that transfusions are a risk, will we see some riders tumble down the ratings next year?




Doubt it - other bags are available that don't have these types of plasticisers in them. If cyclists are transfusing blood then they should be using these bags already to avoid detection.


----------



## Crackle (16 Oct 2010)

Slim pickings for the contaminated meat defence

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/experts-poke-holes-in-contadors-contaminated-meat-defense


----------



## the_mikey (16 Oct 2010)

Alberto Contador in happier times....


----------



## oldroadman (17 Oct 2010)

What about bidons, made of plastic.....doubtless different to blood bags. Does this mean I could have plasticers in my bloodstream from a recent transfusion? 
One other point, what about all the other sports clients identified (or not) as associated with the same Spanish source - I hear nothing about vertain very well known players in other big money ball sports. I'm 100% behind cleaning up SPORT, at the moment it seems to be business as usual, bash the filthy cheating cyclists, ignore/sweep away others.
It's WADA who should be making the noise, because if they see UCI as light touch, the international federations like (I don't want to get sued so won't mention FIFA and ATP, allegedly) must be ready to take off!


----------



## gavintc (17 Oct 2010)

Unless you are getting the fluid from your bidon into your body through a saline drip, I very much doubt that you will have the plasticers in your body. In addition, the bags in which blood are stored are quite a specific type of plastic.


----------



## rich p (17 Oct 2010)

oldroadman said:


> ?
> One other point, what about all the other sports clients identified (or not) as associated with the same Spanish source - I hear nothing about vertain very well known players in other big money ball sports. I'm 100% behind cleaning up SPORT, at the moment it seems to be business as usual, bash the filthy cheating cyclists, ignore/sweep away others.
> It's WADA who should be making the noise, because if they see UCI as light touch, the international federations like (I don't want to get sued so won't mention FIFA and ATP, allegedly) must be ready to take off!




I'd like to give you a detailed answer but I haven't got a clue what you're on about! 

"the same source" ??? Contaminated meat or are you dragging in Puerto?

The WADA bit is incomprehensible I'm afraid.


----------



## Chuffy (17 Oct 2010)

rich p said:


> I'd like to give you a detailed answer but I haven't got a clue what you're on about!
> 
> "the same source" ??? Contaminated meat or are you dragging in Puerto?
> 
> The WADA bit is incomprehensible I'm afraid.


I've translated it from Oldfart to English and yes, he's on about Puerto. 

And I'm sick of the defensive whinging about other sports.


----------



## Chuffy (17 Oct 2010)

AdrianC said:


> Are suggesting that Rich can't speak Old Fart?


----------



## akaAndrew (18 Oct 2010)

In oldroadman's defence (not that he needs me to do it!) he does, of course, have a point. There are more than just cyclists that dope. Personally, I have my doubts about a few footballers and tennis players too (just off the top of my head). Further, they're not all Spanish either! It's clearly no defence for cycling but all sports should be of concern to WADA.

Though I'm reminded of someone or other's recent comments (Bordry? the retiring AFLD chappie... or perhaps it was Kohl?? anyway...) that cycling simply does it better; due to money, practice and experience! Imho, UCI are inept and quite probably corrupt at some level or other, but is that unheard of amongst sports administrators? FIFA seems topical at the moment... and the IOC have been mentioned in whispers for donkey's ages. Again, doesn't mean it's okay for cycling though... which is my prime interest.


----------



## John the Monkey (18 Oct 2010)

oldroadman said:


> What about bidons, made of plastic.....doubtless different to blood bags. Does this mean I could have plasticers in my bloodstream from a recent transfusion?


The plasticisers are a "family" of chemicals & are similar, so yes, you could have some in your body from bidons. However, the amounts involved are very different - and the testers set the threshold high enough to eliminate false positives.


> One other point, what about all the other sports clients identified (or not) as associated with the same Spanish source - I hear nothing about vertain very well known players in other big money ball sports. I'm 100% behind cleaning up SPORT, at the moment it seems to be business as usual, bash the filthy cheating cyclists, ignore/sweep away others.


So? I don't care about other sports, tbh, I care about cycling. Just because crime exists, we don't abolish the law.


> It's WADA who should be making the noise, because if they see UCI as light touch, the international federations like (I don't want to get sued so won't mention FIFA and ATP, allegedly) must be ready to take off!


Although the UCI are quite astonishingly hamfisted - I'd be entirely happy to see WADA police cycling, and the UCI promote and organise it. The current situation where the UCI is both cheerleader and policeman is a recipe for conflicts of interest, even without the apparent lack of PR and management skill and consistency Aigle are wont to display.


----------



## Hont (18 Oct 2010)

John the Monkey said:


> Just because crime exists, we don't abolish the law.


In oldroadman's defence I don't believe that was what he was saying. It was more "why is the law not applied to other sports?"

It _is_ galling to hear commentators eulogising about iffy sportsmen whilst sneering at cycling's problems. Their naivity baffles me. Just like German TV turning its back on cycling after each positive test. Positive tests are a _good thing_. In EVERY Professional Sport there will be people trying to cheat or corrupt (be it doping, bribery, fake blood, match fixing or whatever). In cycling we know that there are still some who dope. If there are no positive tests then they are getting away with it - just like all those Jamaican sprinters, Spanish tennis players etc.


----------



## Hont (18 Oct 2010)

John the Monkey said:


> Although the UCI are quite astonishingly hamfisted - I'd be entirely happy to see WADA police cycling, and the UCI promote and organise it. The current situation where the UCI is both cheerleader and policeman is a recipe for conflicts of interest, even without the apparent lack of PR and management skill and consistency Aigle are wont to display.


+1


----------



## NickM (21 Oct 2010)

Assuming that it happens, how long will we have to wait before Schleck is awarded the 2010 Tour?

Why does it take so ridiculously long to redress injustices in professional cycling? By the time a cheat is deprived of his ill-gotten "win", the result has long ceased to be of interest, having been superseded by a new season's races. In even the most egregious cases of cheating (Landis), the rider who was deprived of a fair result in the race is lucky if he gets any real recognition, and that after an altogether inappropriate interval. This cannot be right.


----------



## Smokin Joe (21 Oct 2010)

It's not right Nick, but in order to make a watertight legal case procedures have to be followed to the letter and those things don't happen overnight.


----------



## rich p (21 Oct 2010)

Smokin Joe said:


> It's not right Nick, but in order to make a watertight legal case procedures have to be followed to the letter and those things don't happen overnight.



According to McPratt, he's waiting on WADA results so at least it may be thorough.


----------



## yello (22 Oct 2010)

I wonder who he might be referring to 

All gone quite on that score, no? One presumes that Contador's current woes are momentary headline relief for, and perhaps even bring a smile to, the Texan.


----------



## rich p (22 Oct 2010)

Apparently LA hasn't offered sympathy to Bertie which he did to all the other ex-team-mates who got caught. I hoping that buying omerta is a bit of a wasted effort now.


----------



## NickM (22 Oct 2010)

Ah, now I see the strategy behind the comeback - well, maybe. With any luck (and given that they no longer had the watertight "support" services of Bruyneel teams) the principal rivals would be found out while his nibs, either riding 100% clean or confident that his "support" team simply don't screw up, wouldn't. His visible decline would be attributed to advancing years; and seen in comparison, his heyday would be assumed to be genuine. So he would look good to history. Oh, the vanity.


----------



## e-rider (22 Oct 2010)

NickM said:


> Assuming that it happens, how long will we have to wait before Schleck is awarded the 2010 Tour?
> 
> Why does it take so ridiculously long to redress injustices in professional cycling? By the time a cheat is deprived of his ill-gotten "win", the result has long ceased to be of interest, having been superseded by a new season's races. In even the most egregious cases of cheating (Landis), the rider who was deprived of a fair result in the race is lucky if he gets any real recognition, and that after an altogether inappropriate interval. This cannot be right.



very good point - I don't even know who 'won' the Landis tour!


----------



## dan_bo (22 Oct 2010)

Perreiro after an unlikely breakaway.


----------



## psmiffy (22 Oct 2010)

Spain’s Guardia Civil arrested 34 people connected to an alleged trafficking ring involving clenbuterol in the Canary Islands that could bolster the argument by Alberto Contador that his positive test during this year’s Tour de France came from eating contaminated meat.


----------



## NickM (25 Oct 2010)

That just leaves the plasticisers to account for, then. No doubt he'll assert that the "contaminated meat" came wrapped in the same plastic that they make blood bags out of.


----------



## psmiffy (25 Oct 2010)

NickM said:


> That just leaves the plasticisers to account for, then. No doubt he'll assert that the "contaminated meat" came wrapped in the same plastic that they make blood bags out of.



Do they allow saline after hard stages - I assume the bags are the same -


----------



## oldroadman (25 Oct 2010)

psmiffy said:


> Do they allow saline after hard stages - I assume the bags are the same -



Not quite sure, any infusion via a drip has to be for "medical" reasons. I clearly remember the use of drips after particularly hot races to aid recovery, contents glucose and saline. The simple medical reason being that with the demands of a multi-stge event, it's simply not possible to rehydrate quickly enough via the usual method for good recovery to take place. In the same way, recovery drinks and foods have advanced to a level now where the use of the drip can be restricted, but who would police some of the less fastidious teams? Nothing would show in any test, it's natural to ingest lots of glucose and saline after a hard day.

Mind, if the raids in Cararia show clenbuterol being illegally imported into Spain (it's use is banned in EU) for use to fatten cattle, then there may be something to the explanation offered, however odd it sounds.

The problem is simply that nothing showed in the days before, and as leader you get tested every day, so why would anyone risk it? I'm 100% in support of anti-doping, but if this one is prosecuted then every competitor in every sport will be a possible positive.

Finally, in other sports, now there are FIVE positives from Delhi, boxing, weights, wrestling...and no-one is shouting in the press about "filthy cheating boxers" trying to tarnish the sport, and apply it to all the clean people in the who compete. Good job there were no cycling positives, eh?


----------



## philipbh (25 Oct 2010)

oldroadman said:


> Not quite sure, any infusion via a drip has to be for "medical" reasons. I clearly remember the use of drips after particularly hot races to aid recovery, contents glucose and saline. The simple medical reason being that with the demands of a multi-stge event, it's simply not possible to rehydrate quickly enough via the usual method for good recovery to take place.



The WADA Guidelines clearly refute this assertion btw


----------



## beastie (25 Oct 2010)

psmiffy said:


> Do they allow saline after hard stages - I assume the bags are the same -



No they don't. There are no transfusions allowed unless it's a medical emergency


----------



## NickM (26 Oct 2010)

beastie said:


> No they don't. There are no *transfusions* allowed unless it's a medical emergency


A transfusion isn't an *in*fusion, though...perhaps this is giving rise to *con*fusion?


----------



## oldroadman (26 Oct 2010)

NickM said:


> A transfusion isn't an *in*fusion, though...perhaps this is giving rise to *con*fusion?



Correct. Not blood, just saline/glucose. WADA seem to have a thing: needles = bad (must be something dodgy).
Doesn't seem to worry footie/rugby/runners/tennis where guys and gals get cortisone injected into injured areas so they can play and make the injury worse long term, or even worse, "pain killing injections"!! Bit of a contradiction, when you can be banned for using a cold symptom relief tablet. Careful look at WADA lists needed before anything is done/takem.


----------



## rich p (2 Nov 2010)

McQuaid says a decision is imminent!

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-says-a-decision-on-contador-is-fast-approaching

and calls for four year bans for dopers. Tough guy!


----------



## John the Monkey (2 Nov 2010)

rich p said:


> McQuaid says a decision is imminent!
> 
> http://www.cyclingne...ast-approaching
> 
> and calls for four year bans for dopers. Tough guy!



"Fast Approaching". 

UCI Fast?

Or Actual Fast?

Enquiring minds, and all that.


----------



## rich p (2 Nov 2010)

John the Monkey said:


> "Fast Approaching".
> 
> UCI Fast?
> 
> ...



 

It's true to say that my breath isn't actually baited yet but it may be the end of the beginning!

To use another wartime quote, "It'll be over by Christmas"


----------



## Keith Oates (4 Nov 2010)

Yes but Christmas of which year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Canardly (7 Nov 2010)

'_Contador’s efforts to go unpunished could be hampered by the fact that Clenbuterol was banned by the European Union in 1996. According to AP, it tested 83,203 animal samples in Europe between 2008 and 2009; just one of those was positive. During the same period, Spain tested 19,431 samples in those years and no traces of the drug were found_'.

Source: Velonation


----------



## Chuffy (7 Nov 2010)

Canardly said:


> '_Contador’s efforts to go unpunished could be hampered by the fact that Clenbuterol was banned by the European Union in 1996. According to AP, it tested 83,203 animal samples in Europe between 2008 and 2009; just one of those was positive. During the same period, Spain tested 19,431 samples in those years and no traces of the drug were found_'.
> 
> Source: Velonation


A lack of drug testing positives being used to demonstrate that there isn't a drug problem? And this is being quoted on a _cycling_ website? 

This is either extreme irony or someone, somewhere has a _very_ dry sense of humour....


----------



## beastie (7 Nov 2010)

Chuffy said:


> A lack of drug testing positives being used to demonstrate that there *isn't* a drug problem? And this is being quoted on a _cycling_ website?
> 
> This is either extreme irony or someone, somewhere has a _very_ dry sense of humour....




Actually I read it as inferring that the chances of Contadors excuse being true were very unlikely


----------



## just jim (7 Nov 2010)

Riis believes Bertie was clean:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/riis-says-he-believes-contador-is-clean

"I can see no other explanation"


----------



## Flying_Monkey (8 Nov 2010)

just jim said:


> Riis believes Bertie was clean:



But does anyone believe Riis was clean?


----------



## Chuffy (8 Nov 2010)

Flying_Monkey said:


> But does anyone believe Riis was clean?


_Riis_ doesn't believe that Riis was clean!


----------



## Smokin Joe (8 Nov 2010)

Latest news -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/9169082.stm


----------



## Keith Oates (9 Nov 2010)

It looks as if there is no going back now, shame as I quite liked Contador but if he must have been very naive to think he could get away with it in the current testing market!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## dellzeqq (9 Nov 2010)

Keith Oates said:


> It looks as if there is no going back now, shame as I quite liked Contador but if he must have been very naive to think he could get away with it in the current testing market!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I was thinking that very thing, and then it occured to me that perhaps he knows more than we do, and, in his estimation, the number of people caught is a fraction of the number of people offending.

I'm with Beastie on this - what are the chances of Bertie finding the one cow that had had been juiced up? And has the cow done a 10k time trial recently?


----------



## MartinC (9 Nov 2010)

There is a problem here. 

Contador desn't have a leg to stand on. Clenbuterol in any concentration is against the rules so he's broken them, end of story. Many of us, including me probably, will suspect that this is a result of him being caught out blood doping with a stored sample taken when training - not knowing how sensitive the tests can now be. However, we've no real evidence or proof of this - just a cynical understanding that it seems to be the most likely explanation. The offence he's actually been found guilty of (a minute level of a drug with no prescence in samples on adjacent days) can't have provided him with any competitive advantage and any desire to cheat hasn't been proven by a country mile.

The problem is. If the UCI are going to start testing for minute (to the point of being totally meaningless outside an assumed scenario of related usage) concentrations then 2 things will happen:

There will be a succession of hard luck stories where riders get banned in circumstances where contamination is a perfectly plausible explanation. If the testing regime is perceived as arbitrary and unjust then people will lose confidence in it. How will people on this forum react if Wiggins or Cavendish are next? However clean they are they can't guarantee the provenance of everything they eat and drink.

Secondly you start to offer another way to cheat. Don't bother taking drugs yourself just make sure your rivals are spiked. When you get to concentrations as low as those being detected now it will be a piece of cake for the bad guys to get riders to inadvertently ingest enough for it to show.

You also need to be aware of the where the bodies involved see their best interests. The UCI have a vested interest in making sure cycle racing continues and grows which actually involves retaining some notion of a clean sport. However badly they go about it they're on the right side. WADA's interests lie in promoting their position as the premier body in world sporting drug regulation - if they can kick cycling to death to promote that image then they will. In fact it would prove how concerned and effective they are.

None of this is good news.


----------



## yello (9 Nov 2010)

You raise some very thought provoking questions there Martin. It's almost that there's going to be a dangerous precedent set whichever way the decision goes.

There's also the question that not only is it a minute amount that he's tested positive for but also he's one of the few (perhaps only?) one to be tested by this lab (with it's ability to discover such small amounts). Yes, fair cop done bang to rights etc but you can see the 'level playing field' arguments.

Still, it's like an inverse lottery isn't it? That is, if you don't want to win then don't buy a ticket. It's the only safe way. Maybe the problem is so severe that we must tolerate such ethical considerations.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (9 Nov 2010)

Yet again pro cycling sits at its desk staring at the loaded revolver lying before it.

My inner cynic now concludes they are all cheats, and it is only a matter of time before our current crop of heroes, whosoever they may be, are found to be zeroes after all, every podium finishing, billy whizz sprinting man jack of 'em

Let the cycling authorities blaze a trail, not in developing regimes that can detect homeopathic concentrations of banned substances in a given blood sample with all the farce that will entail "Clearly m'lud my client was bitten by a mosquito which had just bitten a spanish cow, why he even has the scars" but rather in allowing doping.

It is a professional sport. One in which new technology is regularly legalised. Toeclips anyone? All the corinthian cries of "but people want to compete on a level playing field" are shamateuristic nonsense. Not many Ethiopian cyclists competing on the European circuit, or Peruvians, or Indonesians are there?

*runs*


----------



## yello (9 Nov 2010)

I refer the honourable gentlemen to the answer given by ? (FM??) several pages ago.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (9 Nov 2010)

yello said:


> I refer the honourable gentlemen to the answer given by ? (FM??) several pages ago.



Yes, we've done this one and Greg's argument wasn't any better that time!


----------



## rich p (9 Nov 2010)

It may be a small amount but who cares. How did it get there is the question? The meat story is laughable and the last throw of a desperate man matched only by Dennis Mitchell's 6 times a night sex alibi and Tyler's chimera. 

Below is the quote from CN using stats fro the EU. If the bastards are microdosing then amounts will be necessarily small anyway.




_Contador will have to prove his meat was contaminated but official data shows that Clenbuterol has only shown up once in 83,203 animal samples tested by EU countries in 2008 and 2009 and never in Spain_


----------



## yello (9 Nov 2010)

rich p said:


> It may be a small amount but who cares.



I'd guess 'who cares' is exactly where a defence could be made. I don't know about the major tenets of law but I'd think there'd be something about same rules for all, or something like that. If those same samples would have been given the green light by another approved lab then I can see grounds for defence and even dismissal. Not saying it's right or wrong, or whether Bertie doped or not, just that I can see the argument. And I can equally see how it MUST be like that.


----------



## andrew_s (9 Nov 2010)

Is the animal sample testing sensitive enough to detect low levels of clenbuterol?
It was brought in after people were showing up in hospital with levels high enough to cause them problems.

83,000 samples in 2 years shows that most animals get onto the market without being tested.

Dosing of cattle with clenbuterol is still going on. There were some people caught for it only a few weeks ago in Spain (a trawl sparked off by the Contador case?).

I reckon contaminated meat is a very much better excuse than the normal contaminated supplements.


----------



## Smokin Joe (9 Nov 2010)

But Clenbuterol in the system combined with evidence of transfusions does tend to add up to a less than innocent explanation as to how it got there.

This makes interesting reading -

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5...-transfusion-prior-to-the-Tour-de-France.aspx


----------



## rich p (9 Nov 2010)

Apart from the evidence, we've all 'known' for years that Bertie was guilty as hell!


----------



## Chuffy (9 Nov 2010)

andrew_s said:


> Is the animal sample testing sensitive enough to detect low levels of clenbuterol?
> It was brought in after people were showing up in hospital with levels high enough to cause them problems.
> 
> 83,000 samples in 2 years shows that most animals get onto the market without being tested.
> ...


Senor Carne de Vaca said "I have never tested positive and am available for testing when ever required. I can do no more. Moo". 
But hey, no positives means no problem! Right?


----------



## yello (10 Nov 2010)

My gut feeling is he is guilty as rumoured... but courts tend to have different means of deciding matters. 

It wouldn't surprise me if this ends up being dismissed entirely or as just a token suspension, but it could go to CAS to get that. The Spanish Federation says 'nada', UCI - pushed by WADA - pack a sad and take it to CAS. CAS says 'stop fighting you girls or I'll send you to your rooms' and hands down a judgement of 'case not proven', or benefit of the doubt, or summat like that. Contador will breath a mighty sigh of relief and we'll be back where we started.


----------



## Aperitif (10 Nov 2010)

yello said:


> My gut feeling is he is guilty as rumoured... but courts tend to have different means of deciding matters.
> 
> It wouldn't surprise me if this ends up being dismissed entirely or as just a token suspension, but it could go to CAS to get that. The Spanish Federation says 'nada', UCI - pushed by WADA - pack a sad and take it to CAS. CAS says 'stop fighting you girls or I'll send you to your rooms' and hands down a judgement of 'case not proven', or benefit of the doubt, or summat like that. Contador will breath a mighty sigh of relief and *we'll be back where we started.*



Good summary yello - I thought the same after reading the bit about the timings permitted, and the subsequent appeal procedure. 
Too much at 'steak'...


----------



## adscrim (10 Nov 2010)

Aperitif said:


> Too much at 'steak'...



The steaks were too high!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 Nov 2010)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Yes, we've done this one and Greg's argument wasn't any better that time!



To be fair this is true. Guilty as charged. But then the counter arguments haven't advanced much either. 

So why should a chap or chapess follow a sport in which the probability is that the chief particpants are out and out cheats then? Or more pertinently why should the CEO or Marketing Director* of a commercial company with sound ethics and a sensible CSR policy sponsor cycle sport in any way? Why would the mainstream/serious sports media cover cycling at all? They don't devote column inches to pro wrestling do they?

* I was dining with one recently, works for a European mainland based multi-national. They used to do a bit of sponsorhip of cycling events, albeit off-road years ago but now sponsorship of cyclo-sport in any form, nationally/locally is on their proscribed list of activities. They've taken up sponsoring something else instead, sport x, even in countries where the alternative is very much a minority sport, because "the values of sport x are seen as complementing our values whereas cycling is.... tainted..."


----------



## philipbh (10 Nov 2010)

http://tiny.cc/xzjxp

This article from the Melbourne Herald Sun (reporting an AFP story) suggests another 2 - 3 month wait until Spains cycling federation (RFEC) make a decision


----------



## beastie (10 Nov 2010)

adscrim said:


> The steaks were too high!




Only chefs are allowed to make "steak" jokes.


----------



## yello (11 Nov 2010)

Are we to believe that UCI have paved the way to a minimal suspension?

http://www.cyclingne...ving-uci-report



> “Thus, according to documents submitted by the UCI and WADA, food contamination remains the only reasonable explanation from a scientific point of view to justify the presence of the tiny amount of Clenbuterol in the body of the rider during the past Tour France.”



So, my reading, IF they are saying they go for the contaminated meat story (note, as the only _*scientific*_ explanation) that points the jury towards leniancy.

What it does not say, again my reading, is that they're sure he didn't transfuse; just that the plasticiser test won't/doesn't stand up to examination - the science isn't proven. I reckon Contador's going to be a lucky boy.


----------



## adscrim (11 Nov 2010)

beastie said:


> Only chefs are allowed to make "steak" jokes.




What a load of mince...


----------



## beastie (11 Nov 2010)

adscrim said:


> What a load of mince...




burger off!!!


----------



## yello (2 Dec 2010)

Nothing like a bit of pressure is there?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-says-uci-will-appeal-unsatisfactory-contador-ruling



> “If we aren't happy with the Spaniards' decision, then we will consult with the World Anti-Doping Agency and go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport,” UCI president Pat McQuaid told the German press agency _SID_.





> "It must quite clearly be a fair result,” McQuaid said. “I can't say any more.”



Personally, I wish the man wouldn't say any more but that's another matter! What concerns me here is the clearly prejudicial stance being taken, as much as one might share intuitions of guilt. His remarks might be taken, by the Spanish Federation, as a red rag to a clenbuterol doping bull.


----------



## raindog (2 Dec 2010)

I just wish they'd move their @rses and come to a decision. Poor old Berto must've bitten his finger nails down to the elbows by now.

Did anyone else notice this on CN?



> Appeal considered in German Clenbuterol case
> 
> In another current Clenbuterol case, the German National Anti-Doping Agency and the World Anti-Doping Agency are considering whether to challenge the dismissal of doping charges against table tennis player Dimitrij Ovtcharov.
> 
> The Deutschen Tischtennis Bund dismissed the charges against the German, accepting his explanation that it came from contaminated meat. As evidence, he provided hair analyses from other members of the tabletennis team who had been with him in China when the positive control was taken, with the analyses also showing a low concentration of Clenbuterol.


----------



## raindog (3 Dec 2010)

AdrianC said:


> Dimitrij Ovtcharov comes up with an explanation that effectively shows he and his team-mates were probably all at it


----------



## rich p (3 Dec 2010)

yello said:


> Nothing like a bit of pressure is there?
> 
> http://www.cyclingne...contador-ruling
> 
> ...



I agree that it would have been wiser for McQuaid to keep quiet. I suspect it was said as a response to the recent 'votes of confidence' for AC, emanting from the great and the good in Spain, including their Olympic chief. More of a shot acros the bows to keep it clean.

However, what I read into this, is that the WADA and UCI evidence is categorical and finds Contador guilty. The Spanish Federation are only meant to rubber stamp the decision that the enquiry has already made after due process. After all, the Spanish aren't discovering new evidence, merely reviewing what has been discovered.

It also indicates that the authorities have as much faith in the Spanish Fed's impartiality that I and others have.


----------



## lukesdad (3 Dec 2010)

beastie said:


> Only chefs are allowed to make "steak" jokes.


If only I knew one......


----------



## yello (3 Dec 2010)

rich p said:


> It also indicates that the authorities have as much faith in the Spanish Fed's impartiality that I and others have.



Indeed. Personally, I think there's something a bit suspect going on in that nation, and not just in cycling... but that's just MY unfounded prejudice! One expects remarks from the head of an official body to be more even handed.

My take on McQuaid's comments is that they were, at least in part, in response to Landis's recent comments that UCI protects certain riders.


----------



## andy_wrx (3 Dec 2010)

The UCI/McQuaid certainly protect a certain rider, who didn't get on all that well with Bertie when they were in the same team...


----------



## dellzeqq (3 Dec 2010)

yello said:


> Indeed. Personally, I think there's something a bit suspect going on in that nation, and not just in cycling... but that's just MY unfounded prejudice! .


anyone for tennis?


----------



## yello (3 Dec 2010)

For example, yes... or jumpers for goalposts even.


----------



## Ghost Donkey (26 Jan 2011)

Breaking News on this on the BBC Website. When I say news, it's news that there may be news tomorrow.


----------



## raindog (26 Jan 2011)

This has been news on bike sites since monday.
Got me all excited for nowt there.


----------



## fossyant (26 Jan 2011)

It's like Eastenders this............


----------



## HLaB (26 Jan 2011)

Ghost Donkey said:


> Breaking News on this on the BBC Website. When I say news, it's news that there may be news tomorrow.




The BBC are usually 24hours behind everyone else in their news, does that mean today is Thursday


----------



## rich p (26 Jan 2011)

The word on the street, well cyclingnews anyway, is that he will get a year's ban.

Seems odd to me - if he's deemed to be guilty then it should be 2 years and if innocent, then nothing.

Do you think they'll offer him a reduced sentence if he doesn't take them to appeal or court?


----------



## Ghost Donkey (26 Jan 2011)

rich p said:


> The word on the street, well cyclingnews anyway, is that he will get a year's ban.
> 
> Seems odd to me - if he's deemed to be guilty then it should be 2 years and if innocent, then nothing.
> 
> Do you think they'll offer him a reduced sentence if he doesn't take them to appeal or court?



Would a ban be deferred if the case is referred for arbitration? It makes sense to make a decision before the season kicks off. The last thing we need is for him to be potentially winning races with a ban looming over him.


----------



## Paulus (26 Jan 2011)

Just heard it on Sky/murdoch news, The Spanish cycling federation have banned him for one year.


----------



## gavintc (26 Jan 2011)

rich p said:


> The word on the street, well cyclingnews anyway, is that he will get a year's ban.
> 
> Seems odd to me - if he's deemed to be guilty then it should be 2 years and if innocent, then nothing.
> 
> Do you think they'll offer him a reduced sentence if he doesn't take them to appeal or court?



Yes, this was my take on hearing he might get only a 1 year ban. Does that make him only slightly a cheat and if so, I think the door is open for an appeal.


----------



## gb155 (26 Jan 2011)

1 year ban, stripped of last years TdF


----------



## gavintc (26 Jan 2011)

So, does Contador retain his TdF win with this verdict or will we see Schlek moved into the no1 slot?

Just spotted gb155's post - interesting as Schlek as a statement / interview on Cyclingnews

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/schleck-gutted-and-disappointed-after-losing-tour-de-france

Too much of a co-incidence to be posted on 26 Jan.


----------



## yello (26 Jan 2011)

I've just heard on French TV that the ban will be a year, but it is not yet official. The Spanish federation have said it'll be announced tomorrow

http://www.cyclingne...on-due-thursday

and a later report seems to be confirm the ban

http://www.cyclingne...uterol-positive

I think we can say it's a year... but will UCI be happy with that?

Edit: reword to say that the ban is not yet official


----------



## yello (26 Jan 2011)

I have to say (after reading around) I hope it's not a 1 year ban - that's a can of worms decision, neither fish nor fowl. Both Contador AND UCI/WADA would appeal that one! So either the full 2 years or let him off completely. I just don't see how the compromise decision can be justified.

I'm going to be very interested in what the Spanish Federation say tomorrow.


----------



## rich p (26 Jan 2011)

Ghost Donkey said:


> Would a ban be deferred if the case is referred for arbitration? It makes sense to make a decision before the season kicks off. The last thing we need is for him to be potentially winning races with a ban looming over him.




If he's banned for a year, as seems likely now, he will be allowed back in September this year having been suspended in September 2010.


----------



## iAmiAdam (26 Jan 2011)

So, tomorrow we find out whether Contador is riding the tour this year. Taking bets...


----------



## Stange (26 Jan 2011)

iAmiAdam said:


> So, tomorrow we find out whether Contador is riding the tour this year. Taking bets...



I can't see it myself.


----------



## iAmiAdam (26 Jan 2011)

The one year ban seems to be official.

http://www.saxobanksungard.com/ny_news.asp?lang=uk&n_id=3036


----------



## raindog (27 Jan 2011)

Yep, that's it - and strippeed of last year's win.
Worra farce,really. 

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...-banned-for-a-year-has-10-days-to-appeal.html


----------



## rich p (27 Jan 2011)

It's not over yet I suspect.

WADA or the UCI will have to appeal to CAS or else lose all credibility. not that the UCI have far to go in that respect.

Contador had threatened to retire if he was banned - well Bertie?


----------



## raindog (27 Jan 2011)

rich p said:


> Contador had threatened to retire if he was banned - well Bertie?


I mentioned this on another forum and was told that he only said he would pack it all in if he got a two year ban. My answer was "So, if it's a one year ban he'll pack it all in just a bit?"


----------



## yello (27 Jan 2011)

rich p said:


> It's not over yet I suspect




I suspect you're right






Depending on what date the ban starts, Contador could be riding the vuelta this year (August 20). I wonder if that figured in the thinking?


----------



## threebikesmcginty (27 Jan 2011)

rich p said:


> Seems odd to me - if he's deemed to be guilty then it should be 2 years and if innocent, then nothing.



Spanish Federation recommendation of a one year ban, I don't understand it either - why a reduced ban?

http://www.saxobanksungard.com/ny_news.asp?lang=uk&n_id=3036

Edit: usual trick of going to last page read and not last page, although the link has been posted before it does say recommended ban and not definite!


----------



## gb155 (27 Jan 2011)

Either he's guilty and gets 2 years (and quits) 

Or

He's innocent and gets nothing 

To me this is BS and is just going to run and run .


----------



## Paulus (27 Jan 2011)

gavintc said:


> So, does Contador retain his TdF win with this verdict or will we see Schlek moved into the no1 slot?
> 
> Just spotted gb155's post - interesting as Schlek as a statement / interview on Cyclingnews
> 
> ...




With regard to the Schlek interview, I have seen this interview before, sometime last year, this is a rehashed job, maybe to cause a bit of mischief?


----------



## iAmiAdam (27 Jan 2011)

If Contador has his title stripped, Schleck will move to the top spot. He may win the tour twice in one year.

That's some going.


----------



## dellzeqq (27 Jan 2011)

yello said:


> I suspect you're right
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What do you think????? I mean, really...

Wasn't an Italian rider given just 12 months for Clembuterol?


----------



## gb155 (27 Jan 2011)

AdrianC said:


> And deprive the sport of his sparkling personality?



Would be SUCH a shame, ah well , never mind Cya Bertie, don't let the door hit your ass


----------



## johnr (27 Jan 2011)

The Guardian report said the Italian got one year because he'd been eating meat in Argentina. Looks like the veterinary evidence is going to be vital in this case! Bring on Rolf Harris...


----------



## kennykool (27 Jan 2011)

As I am gutted he has been found guilty i still dont understand why CHEATS dont just get banned for life!!! would cut all this nonsense out for good!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (27 Jan 2011)

i see the uci have started to wail and grind their teeth.

F A R C E


----------



## tigger (27 Jan 2011)

Re the 1 year ban thing.

Isn't there some discussion at the beginning of the thread? I think its a 2 year ban unless the rider can prove that the substance was not knowingly taken, in which case its reduced to 1 year. He can't escape the ban. It was his responsibility to be free of clenuterol and its zero tolerance. The so-called lack of intention mitigates it to a 1 year ban. 

Edit: Meant to say - this means they accept the contaminated beef excuse. This was always going to be the case since the plasticizer testing isn't validated yet and the quantity of clenbuterol was too low to have been taken as a performance enhancer during the tour.

Its taken a long time for the only logical outcome.


----------



## Keith Oates (27 Jan 2011)

It's taken a long time to reach this decision and whether it's one year or finally two years is irrelevant, the losers are the sport of cycling itself and the fans. Personally I get no pleasure in seeing Contador's career in tatters!!!!!!!!!


----------



## yello (28 Jan 2011)

Keith Oates said:


> Personally I get no pleasure in seeing Contador's career in tatters!




It's not really in tatters. He'll be back, probably for the vuelta. One GT a year is business as usual for some riders. If this one year ban suggests acceptance of the tainted meat excuse then he's not even officially a doper, just someone who wasn't careful enough. (No, I don't buy it either!)


But I don't think it's over yet; we've got a pissing contest to come I reckon. (There has to be a joke in their somewhere about samples!)


----------



## HLaB (28 Jan 2011)

Now the BBC are reporting the one year ban is only a proposal


----------



## mike-L (28 Jan 2011)

Because 'they' can't prove anything conclusively, it seems.

The glass half full view would be that there's a 'chance' that the stuff came from meat (there was some earlier evidence of this in another case), so to ban him completely might be overkill. This, because otherwise why would earlier and later tests (still during the race) have been negative? He's no cheat and the sport is mostly clean.

The cynic in me says though that doping is still endemic in top level cycling and he got unlucky despite very sophisticated medical techniques used to hide the stuff. Why for instance has mention of the PLASICISER also found, not been examined? - it comes from blood from transfusion bags. He's a cheat, but then so are a lot of them in that machine.

Ireally can't say which of the above is closer to the truth. Will we ever know? Like the Magic Circle or the Masons, once you are on the inside...




kennykool said:


> As I am gutted he has been found guilty i still dont understand why CHEATS dont just get banned for life!!! would cut all this nonsense out for good!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## yello (28 Jan 2011)

I think it is a difficult case in fairness. It's not a simple slam dunk. 

The amount of clenbutorol was so minutely small that pretty much everyone accepted it could be of no use in itself. The 'tainted meat' excuse is, well, an excuse and doesn't stand too much scrutiny... but I guess it's not outside the realms of possibility. So, on the face of it, it seemingly does point to transfusion. But there's no proof of that either. Even the plasticiser test, should it have been acceptable, does prove transfusion... just adds to the probability. 

Yes, of course, there should be NO clenbutorol in his system at all, full stop. That's the letter of the law. Just like you shouldn't do 30.0000001mph in a 30. Personally, I think the levels detected allow for some leniency, allow him some space (wiggle room if you want) to offer an explanation (as it clearly wasn't taken at that time for performance enhancement). 

Much as we all may believe that he probably transfused, I don't feel you can ban him on the basis that the clenbuturol was probably accidental but indicates something else. That's damned near a 'no smoke without fire' argument.

Personally, I reckon Contador should recognise the environment he's in, shut up and take the 1 year ban and think himself damned lucky.


----------



## andy_wrx (28 Jan 2011)

kennykool said:


> As I am gutted he has been found guilty i still dont understand why CHEATS dont just get banned for life!!! would cut all this nonsense out for good!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> __________________
> *What would Lance do?......... *


----------



## yello (28 Jan 2011)

AdrianC said:


> That would be seen as tacit admission though.




By which party? 

I don't see it as Contador admitting anything. I'd say that he's been given the benefit of the (albeit slim) doubt on his 'tainted meat' story. Officially anyway. He'd spin it as 'story accepted', they'd spin it as 'case not proven'.


----------



## fozzy (29 Jan 2011)

[first post, hard topic to start with] Have to say i agree with mike l, there just seems to be too much doubt/uncertainty and if i may add a certain amount of political toe dipping from the UCI and others. A few things just seem wrong to me from a 'fairness' [sorry i hate inverted commas too] point of view. Why the wait from the UCI before announcing the results last year? was it all going to swept under the carpet, or did they know/strongly suspect it was just a mistake? or, was thier collective arm bent into exposing the whole thing by the leak to the German?? media who i think got hold of the infomation [i may be wrong there but seem to remember that being the case].

Does the contaminated meat thing hold up? there has been cases for and against that particular reason/excuse, in many differant sports. So; does it happen or are the methods always 100% right and all sportsmen/women always lying? i don't personally deal in absolutes but, many people seem to be of a differant opinion. or, is he cheating and clutching at straws, any excuse will do!

As for a lifetime ban, surely that is too steep a pentalty in a case that obviously contains some level of doubt. Also, on a proffesional level, he has just done something wrong at work and in his case - and others - there are people, family, employers, emplyees, team mates, business and many other people of differant logistical positions that rely on him and his representation in the team to earn a crust. also, in any job, to break the laws of that trade under an employer, and then to subsequently be banned for life of ever practising that trade again; for anyone, anywhere, at anytime, is far too harsh: for any person, in any trade [the rules must apply to all, or they are simply guidelines to be bent for the few and used to lash the rest].

Do i think he cheated? on the evidence [?????????] put forward for the public i would have to say there is enough doubt [reasonable doubt anyone?] to say that he may of just made a mistake [i'm sure i read somewhere that he is human like the rest of us], but his reputation has already been dragged through the mud and will never recover fully. the whole thing seems like a farce to me, and from begining to - eventual - end no one has been covered in glory, or anything remotely like it.


----------



## frank9755 (29 Jan 2011)

fozzy said:


> Does the contaminated meat thing hold up?



I recall reading somewhere that in all the many thousands (or tens, hundreds of thousands) of the tests that have been carried out in meat in Europe that clenbuterol had never been detected in any. That implies he was either very unlucky, happening to eat the only contaminated steak detected in the whole continent, or he wasn't. 


Has anyone explained how he knew it came from the Spanish beef?


----------



## johnr (29 Jan 2011)

> Has anyone explained how he knew it came from the Spanish beef?



An acquaintance came over from Spain to meet up after one of the mountain stages and brought it with him, apparently  . I'm vegetarian myself, but I understand it's very hard to buy meat in France.

I keep thinking back to that final timetrial. Schleck, the rubbish trialler, has the ride of his life and Contador (can we call him Albeutenol, officially, yet?), the acknowledged expert, struggled all the way. There was something wrong. I assumed at the time that Albeutenol's team had got the recovery/'nutrition' wrong in some way.

I suppose now they're on the same team, under the watchful eye of that paragon of the sport, Riis, they'll at least be using the same pharmacist in future.

On a separate point. Someone in this thread mentioned the earning potential of golfers. In the warm up to one of the tennis matches that's on today, they listed player's earnings in one of the stats boxes. A woman I've only vaguely heard of earned $5 million last year  .

I know the top stars pull down biggish bucks through advertsing etc. But don't the second tier have agents and/or representatives? And is there no one pointing out to them how much better off they would be if the sport was clean?

And now Albeutenol is going to fight to 'clear his name'. It's back to the margins for all of us...


----------



## johnr (29 Jan 2011)

PS...

Good first post Fozzy and welcome to the forum


----------



## gb155 (29 Jan 2011)

johnr said:


> An acquaintance came over from Spain to meet up after one of the mountain stages and brought it with him, apparently  . I'm vegetarian myself, but I understand it's very hard to buy meat in France.
> 
> I keep thinking back to that final timetrial. Schleck, the rubbish trialler, has the ride of his life and Contador (can we call him Albeutenol, officially, yet?), the acknowledged expert, struggled all the way. There was something wrong. I assumed at the time that Albeutenol's team had got the recovery/'nutrition' wrong in some way.
> 
> ...



Bertie Joined Team Leopard ????


----------



## frank9755 (29 Jan 2011)

johnr said:


> An acquaintance came over from Spain to meet up after one of the mountain stages and brought it with him, apparently  .



No, what I meant was not how did he get the beef but why did he believe *it* had caused it as opposed to any other potential cause? Presumably he ate other things during the period so how was his sixth sense able to identify the beef as the cause.

What I'm getting at is:

[/puts on gullible hat] he couldn't possibly have detected that the steak he ate had the substance in it, so why did he suggest it was the steak? [/takes off gullible hat] unless he off course knew it wasn't the steak but was not completely surprised by the test result. 

It just seemed to be a form of protesting too much, but I'd not seen anyone pick up on it, and having not followed the story as closely as some, I wondered if I had missed it being discussed...?


----------



## rich p (29 Jan 2011)

By saying that his mate had brought the meat over from Spain, he gave himself a reason why he could be clenbuterol positive while his teammates wouldn't be. That defence wouldn't have been possible if they'd all eaten the same food in the hotel as per normal. 

A risible defence, in my opinion, but some people have swallowed it like a piece of tainted steak!

The cynical amongst us wonder what he'd have come up with had the stage been in the Alps and not just over the Spanish border.


----------



## Crackle (29 Jan 2011)

An asthmatic team mechanic accidentally let his inhalor off in his pocket as Contador bent down to examine his chain. He didn't realize he'd inhaled it, just thought the mechanic had farted.


----------



## fozzy (29 Jan 2011)

thanks johnr. good point frank9755. i can't remember that particular view point being brought up in any media/forum [i mat be wrong on that however]. agree, he maybe he couldn't tell the differance between the two bits of meat [if they contained drugs or not], i can only assume he blamed that particular bit of cow because he was aware???? it hadn't been through the same testing procedure, what that is i don't know. which of course would lead to the question of why he ate it [if indeed it was from food in the first place]. or, did he trust the source and saw no reason to doubt it. i would also add that the position of the athlete being solely responsible for everything that enters thier body [food, drink, suppliments etc etc] seems slightly draconian. can we really expect them to source the meat, follow its husbandry, slaughter, transport and preparation? without even mentioning the terms and conditions of each countries' laws governing import/export of food stuffs, and the frequency of testing within those laws, or peoples attitude towards enforcing those laws. i know people are employed to do this for tham but, surely that in itself would imply a certain amount of grey area as opposed to black and white, it's all your [alberto] fault.


----------



## yello (29 Jan 2011)

He blamed the beef (as opposed to the carrots) because there is documented evidence both of clenbutorol being in beef and of it transferring to humans who eat the contaminated beef. Some farmers (and Spanish no exception) did once give their cattle the stuff but the practice supposedly ceased some years ago. Clearly, that doesn't mean there aren't those still doing it.

It is something I've raised before though; Contador is not a biochemist. IF (note IF) he is innocent of deliberate doping then how on earth is he supposed to explain the presence of clenbutorol? All he can do is offer the most plausible theory... as laughable as that theory might be to some.


----------



## rich p (29 Jan 2011)

fozzy, for what it's worth, the cynics amongst us think the meat is a red herring  

I don't know if it's worth it but this is the theory widely held about what happened.

Bertie, according to sources close to the Astana team, was doping up on clenbuterol and when all traces had gone by all normal testing methods, he had some extracted to use at a later date - blood doping.

During the tour, Bertie has a blood transfusion of his own slightly tainted blood, which explains the presence of plasticizers from the blood bag. Unfortunately this was not an accredited test at that time but is now. (I'm not sure why they don't retest but there may be a scientific reason.)

This lab tested to a higher degree than hitherto which explains why the amount was tiny and why Astana assumed it was clean.

Result is that Bertie gets nicked for a tiny amount which is assumed to be negligible and allows him the Spanish meat defence.


----------



## fozzy (29 Jan 2011)

hi, rich p, was trying to offer an opinion to another post when it was asked why AC blamed the meat specifically as opposed to any other food stuff [frank 9755]. also, i appreciate that cynics or any other view point would believe the meat thing to be a red herring, i'm not sure myself to be honest, but i stated reasonable doubt in my first post. i hadn't heard that sources close to astana had stated he was doping up and that this was made publc. i do however, always treat with a large pinch of salt, any news article leading with lines such as; "a friend of the team", "sources surrounding the camp", "ex-team mate" etc etc etc. basically when a specific person doesn't name themselves and put themselves forward with proof or the balls to say yes; i saw this happening and am willing to stand by my claims publicly. otherwise it always seems to me to be someone with a strong opinion who wants to get thier point across by saying they have this infomation from sources they can't disclose, and that, somehow lends weight to an argument.


----------



## yello (29 Jan 2011)

fozzy said:


> I do however, always treat with a large pinch of salt




Are you sure it's _only_ salt?







I think you're right to accept the possibility of the tainted meat story. I think a court of law has to as well (how that differs from sports arbitration, I don't know!) because as guilty as I personally think Contador _probably_ is, I do think there is sufficient doubt for him to be given a raised eyebrow benefit of the doubt reduced penalty or even to be let off... as much as it might piss off UCI etc. 

But then it's not a court of law, there is not necessarily as presumption of innocence and Contador does have to prove himself 'not guilty'.


----------



## PpPete (29 Jan 2011)

Crackle said:


> An asthmatic team mechanic accidentally let his inhalor off in his pocket as Contador bent down to examine his chain. He didn't realize he'd inhaled it, just thought the mechanic had farted.


----------



## fozzy (29 Jan 2011)

great point yello, your right it's not a court of law and, as you state there isn't a presumption of innocence [not being contrite] but does that mean there is a presumption of certain guilt hanging over everyone, until they give a sample that is ok? that said, i completely agree with what you say yello, good points, well made. just got back from a quick ride and was thinking, usually, in other cases, in other sports when there is a an even split in opinion and also, when half the people are saying the punishment is too light half the people are saying it's not enough does that mean the spainish federation got it about right or have they just sat on the fence, passed the buck and annoyed everyone?


----------



## peelywally (29 Jan 2011)

rich p said:


> By saying that his mate had brought the meat over from Spain, he gave himself a reason why he could be clenbuterol positive while his teammates wouldn't be. That defence wouldn't have been possible if they'd all eaten the same food in the hotel as per normal.
> 
> A risible defence, in my opinion, but some people have swallowed it like a piece of tainted steak!
> 
> The cynical amongst us wonder what he'd have come up with had the stage been in the Alps and not just over the Spanish border.



he got a friend or friend decided to bring some steak ?


shouldve stuck to fray bentos pie by the sound of it


----------



## fozzy (29 Jan 2011)

i do enjoy a fray bentos, but wouldn't like to be tested afterwards - that is not clean meat.


----------



## frank9755 (29 Jan 2011)

... reflecting on this further, has the friend who gave him the meat been identified, did he actually come across that day, did he have receipts from a butchers, etc - ie do we know for sure that the steak did exist?

Probably I've just missed all of this by not reading the right mags!

@RichP ^^ 
That was more or less what I had picked up too.


----------



## rich p (29 Jan 2011)

Again, FWIW, I have read that clenb. tainted meat is common in China but almost only ever from pork as it doesn't stay active in beef.

The press trawled every butcher in the town where Bertie's pal said he'd bought the meat and found nothing and the local farmers were indignant apparently at the implid slur.

Bertie or Astana promised to provide the receipt but strangely it never appeared.

As I said before, the meat is a red herring - surf and turf anyone?


----------



## dellzeqq (29 Jan 2011)

rich p said:


> Again, FWIW, I have read that clenb. tainted meat is common in China but almost only ever from pork as it doesn't stay active in beef.
> 
> The press trawled every butcher in the town where Bertie's pal said he'd bought the meat and found nothing and the local farmers were indignant apparently at the implid slur.
> 
> ...


that's the sum of it. The beef thing is just not sustained by any evidence. The plasticiser thing reeks to high heaven - and the smell spreads right the way through spanish sport.


----------



## StuAff (29 Jan 2011)

Bertie used Twitter to link to this Telegraph article by Brendan Gallagher: Rugby Union players are exonerated while cyclists take the blame. How is that fair? - Telegraph. The 'poor me I'm being demonised' argument doesn't wash, unfortunately for him. The 'contaminated beef' claim stank. That the amounts of clenbuturol detected were not enough to enhance performance on their own makes no difference. Banned substance, period. AC would get more respect if he admitted his sins, served his time & redeemed himself like David Millar.


----------



## frank9755 (29 Jan 2011)

AdrianC said:


> We know that
> 
> a) Bertie has probably got a friend.



This is one of the many bits that just seems so improbable!


----------



## yello (30 Jan 2011)

Contaminated beef has been indicated as the source of clenbutorol in humans several times in the past; in Mexico, Italy and Spain. One of the Spanish cases was attributed to beef liver rather than meat. Have a look at the following blog for more info (including links to the research).

http://martinbudden.wordpress.com/2010/10/01/contador-–-cheat-or-bad-meat/

As I said, the story has got legs... and a tail and horns... just maybe not the clenb. Again, I personally don't buy it (the story or the meat) but what I think counts for nought.

It is not quite as simple as 'banned substance, end of', imho. And rightly so given precedent. People unknowingly ingest all manner of substances, some on sports' banned lists. They can't be blamed for that but, obviously, this fact can also be exploited by dopers. Put the saffer rugby buggers into whichever category you feel is appropriate there btw. Because that's what it will come down to eventually; someone somewhere making a judgement call on the evidence presented. The truth doesn't leap out and say 'pick me'.

So the powers that be allow for mitigation due to accidental ingestion. It still carries a penalty but it is not the same as being labelled a deliberate doper, as getting the full sentence would.


----------



## MotorpointProCycling (1 Feb 2011)

They reckon that a big reason for his being banned was that they found traces of plastic in his system similar to the plastic found after a blood transfusion.

That would also make sense as to why it was such a low amount of Clenbuterol, perhaps he didn't manage to get it all out of his system?


----------



## Ghost Donkey (2 Feb 2011)

MotorpointProCycling said:


> They reckon that a big reason for his being banned was that they found traces of plastic in his system similar to the plastic found after a blood transfusion.
> 
> That would also make sense as to why it was such a low amount of Clenbuterol, perhaps he didn't manage to get it all out of his system?




That's the way I read it. I haven't seen anything official stating plasticisers were found rather than rumour and intrigue but that might just be me not reading properly. If it is true it would certainly give a reason why such a small amount was found in his blood. Hopefully the details of the case will be made public once it's all been put to rest one way or another.

I don't know about Spain but my local butchers doesn't give receipts unless asked. I doubt they would if I went back and asked for a receipt so I could prove they were selling illegal meat.


----------



## rich p (2 Feb 2011)

@ Ghost Donkey and MPC

If you read the thread you'll find that the plasticizer presence has been discussed in detail.


----------



## johnr (3 Feb 2011)

The 'others do it' is a sort of playground excuse. In fact, cycling is shackled to a history of drug use which stretches back to the origins of professional racing. The fact that for decades stars openly abused drugs and then spent similarly long times claiming there was nothing wrong with it, means anyone wanting to update the story has thick wads of clippings to help them.

You can't start a movement for 'omerta' after all that and get away with it. Cycling has got to get itself to a point where administrators can confidently declare the sport clean, knowing their assertions are correct.

Football, rugby and US sports started with a 'clean' sheet and players and administrators have conspired to keep a lid on it.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Feb 2011)

johnr said:


> The 'others do it' is a sort of playground excuse. In fact, cycling is shackled to a history of drug use which stretches back to the origins of professional racing. The fact that for decades stars openly abused drugs and then spent similarly long times claiming there was nothing wrong with it, means anyone wanting to update the story has thick wads of clippings to help them.
> 
> You can't start a movement for 'omerta' after all that and get away with it. Cycling has got to get itself to a point where administrators can confidently declare the sport clean, knowing their assertions are correct.
> 
> *Football, rugby and US sports started with a 'clean' sheet and players and administrators have conspired to keep a lid on it.*



surely they started with omerta and kept it that way. fortunately the nature of non endurance sports makes performance enhancing drugs in them a whole different ball game.

two things which until recently you could not do in those sports, admit to taking performance enhancing drugs or admit to being gay.


----------



## tigger (3 Feb 2011)

Interesting statement on Contador's site:

http://www.albertocontador.com/prensa.detalle.php?id=493


----------



## peelywally (4 Feb 2011)

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-77axBdYmE


i was having a yap with a mate and he mentioned tommy simpson id not heard of this before but maybe it illustrates the extreme side of doping .


----------



## raindog (5 Feb 2011)

tigger said:


> Interesting statement on Contador's site:
> 
> http://www.albertoco...alle.php?id=493


thanks for the link



> The Union Cycliste Internationale notified the Royal Spanish Cycling Federation (RFEC) that clenbuterol could have come into Alberto Contador’s body in four different ways. During the proceedings, we called upon experts from around the world to analyze one by one all the possibilities argued by the UCI, in order to prove Contador’s innocence. Both Spain’s State Anti-Doping Agency, asked by the RFEC, as well as various experts in toxicology, pharmacokinetics, chemistry, hematology, physiology, medicine, etc. scientifically ruled out each of the three other possibilities addressed by the UCI, all of them concluding that the only possible explanation was food contamination. No scientist consulted doubted their verdict.
> Thus, applying that weighting of probabilities required by the World Anti-Doping Code, we have demonstrated that the theory of ingesting contaminated meat was the only one possible......


----------



## raindog (5 Feb 2011)

peelywally said:


> http://www.youtube.c...h?v=r-77axBdYmE
> 
> i was having a yap with a mate and he mentioned tommy simpson id not heard of this before but maybe it illustrates the extreme side of doping .


You mean you're a biker and you didn't know about Simpson dying on the Ventoux?


----------



## rich p (5 Feb 2011)

peelywally said:


> http://www.youtube.c...h?v=r-77axBdYmE
> 
> i was having a yap with a mate and he mentioned tommy simpson id not heard of this before but maybe it illustrates the extreme side of doping .



Tommy Simpson? 

Here's a wonderful link to Clenbuterol24 advert using Bertie and Nielsen as examples of users.

http://www.clenbuterol24.com/blog/


----------



## rich p (5 Feb 2011)

AdrianC said:


> It sounds great. I really shouldn't let my prejudice against internet pharmaceuticals get the better of me and start doping for the FNRttC.




 I'll go halves!

The blurb in that ad says that it is used by sportsmen to lose weight and Bertie was reported to be carrying a bit of timber at the Dauphin Libere prior to the tour.


----------



## gb155 (5 Feb 2011)

rich p said:


> I'll go halves!
> 
> The blurb in that ad says that it is used by sportsmen to lose weight and Bertie was reported to be carrying a bit of timber at the Dauphin Libere prior to the tour.



Awesome, let's do a bulk order


----------



## Dayvo (5 Feb 2011)

raindog said:


> You mean you're a biker and you didn't know about Simpson dying on the Ventoux?




What's your point? There's a lot of car drivers who don't know who Jim Clark was!


----------



## raindog (5 Feb 2011)

Dayvo said:


> What's your point?


aw - don't get all prickly, I hate the f ckin' Eagles just as much as you. 
Wasn't trying to make a point and I hope peelywally isn't offended. I'm just gobsmacked that someone posting in the racing section of a bike forum has never heard the story of Simpson on the Ventoux. After all, it's probably the most famous event of uk pro racing.


----------



## rich p (5 Feb 2011)

Dayvo said:


> What's your point? There's a lot of car drivers who don't know who Jim Clark was!






raindog said:


> aw - don't get all prickly, I hate the f ckin' Eagles just as much as you.
> Wasn't trying to make a point and I hope peelywally isn't offended. I'm just gobsmacked that someone posting in the racing section of a bike forum has never heard the story of Simpson on the Ventoux. After all, it's probably the most famous event of uk pro racing.




Never mind all that, you two - are you coming in on the bulk order of Clen?


----------



## Dave Davenport (5 Feb 2011)

rich p said:


> Never mind all that, you two - are you coming in on the bulk order of Clen?



I'll come in on the bulk order, can we have some epo as well? Oh and some whizz too if they've got it, I no it's not really going to help my cycling but I haven't had any for years


----------



## yello (5 Feb 2011)

rich p said:


> Never mind all that, you two - are you coming in on the bulk order of Clen?



Fancy a Big Mac (praps it should be a Big Mig?) yourself then do you?

Did you know that I can ask for a hamburger with cheese in 5 different languages? Polyglot, me.


----------



## frank9755 (5 Feb 2011)

rich p said:


> Here's a wonderful link to Clenbuterol24 advert using Bertie and Nielsen as examples of users.
> 
> http://www.clenbuterol24.com/blog/



It looks like there could be an endorsement deal in this for Bertie; perhaps some consolation if some of his other sponsors drop him.


----------



## gb155 (5 Feb 2011)

Dave Davenport said:


> I'll come in on the bulk order, can we have some epo as well? Oh and some whizz too if they've got it, I no it's not really going to help my cycling but I haven't had any for years



Forgot about EPO, Lets see if we can get a bulk discount on that too, while we are at it , lets set up a UCI Pro Team, making sure it doesn't go to waste .


----------



## raindog (5 Feb 2011)

I'll have a coupla tubs of whatevers going - got to get rid of this wine gut before the season starts.


----------



## andrew_s (6 Feb 2011)

frank9755 said:


> ... reflecting on this further, has the friend who gave him the meat been identified, did he actually come across that day, did he have receipts from a butchers, etc - ie do we know for sure that the steak did exist?
> 
> Probably I've just missed all of this by not reading the right mags!



The friend was a Spanish journalist who was a regular visitor to the team. He's spoken with the team cook via mobile whilst on the way, and was asked to get some meat. The journalist was asked to get the meat because the hotel were being sticky about letting the team use the hotel kitchen, so they were cooking in the back of the team bus. This was all documented in an interview the cook gave to some other journalist a couple of days later. The interview said the journalist got it from Pau market, but the journalist said he got it just before crossing the border (do you know what French for "veal tenderlion" is?). Maybe the cook didn't ask at the time, and just assumed. 
The team do have the receipt, which would have gone in for expenses.

The contaminated meat theory can't be proved either way. 
By the time the test results were available the actual meat from the same cow would have been history, and anything else, such as the hide, would be untraceable.
On the other side, before clenbuterol was banned in cattle there were cases of people being hospitalised due to eating clenbuterol contaminated cow meat (i.e not liver). There were about 42,000(*) clenbuterol slaughterhouse tests in Europe over 2 years, and none tested positive. However, that just means none failed the public health standards, not that there were none that would have registered clenbuterol on a test designed to detect evidence of use. It seems to be known than stopping dosing 2 or 3 weeks before slaughter will result in passing the test. Clenbuterol use does continue - a Spanish vet was nabbed for selling clenbuterol to farmers (in the Canaries iirc) after Contador was tested.

If you want to trawl through the mammoth treads on the cyclingnews forum, you can find the links for most of this.

Me, I think the blood doping explanation is the most likely.
However, I also think that if this ever gets out of the sporting courts and into the civil ones, Contador could end up getting off on the uncertainty. It would take longer than a year though, not to mention costing a fortune. Contador would do well to compare his current financial status with that of Flandis.


(*)
Anyone any idea of what percentage of animals that makes?


----------



## Dayvo (8 Feb 2011)

Just seen on Norwegian TV news that Contador was tested positive for clenbuterol on four consecutive days during the TdeF.

Can't find any news outlet at present for it, though.

His dodgy steak story is looking even thinner now!


----------



## Dayvo (8 Feb 2011)

Don't know if this helps:

http://www.marca.com...1297167903.html 

From the 'translated' bit:

_Tonight on the program "Around the World 'by Veo7 - from 22.00 hours also in MARCA.com - featuring Peter J. Ramirez, will guest with Alberto Contador, who will give his version on doping charges hanging over his head after failing last four stages of the Tour de France.

This is the first television interview granted by the cyclist Pinto, and two days after the deadline had to present their arguments to the proposed penalty, a year without being able to compete and the loss of the Tour de France 2010 - Competition Committee of the RFEC.

*MARCA as forward in today's edition, then not only Astana rider tested positive for clenbuterol at the stage July 21 (50 pg / ml) of the Tour de France, as previously thought, but did so in three more. Day 22 (16 pg / ml), 24 (7 pg / ml) and 25 (17 pg / ml) of the same month, analyzes the Madrid were also positive.*

_


----------



## mangaman (8 Feb 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> that's the sum of it. The beef thing is just not sustained by any evidence. The plasticiser thing reeks to high heaven - and the smell spreads right the way through spanish sport.





Regarding Spanish sport - they do seem remarkably successful at everything.

Interesting last paragraph in this article!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/feb/08/alberto-contador-defence-doping-ban


----------



## yello (8 Feb 2011)

My reading of the '4 positives' (which isn't a new story btw, it's just hi-lighting a particular fact and giving it a spin) is that all 4 tests are deemed to have the same source (be it contaminated meat, transfusion or whatever) so, in effect, there's only 1 case to answer. It's the same positive four times, if you like. Remember, the testing lab picked up minute amounts and the stuff may well take days to clear entirely from the system (I don't know this for a fact, btw, I'm just hypothesising!)

Re the lab, I was interested to read (in the Guardian link above) one of Contador's lines of defence...



> Contador's team has also called on Spanish cycling's disciplinary committee to take into account "the principle of equality" when it comes to analysing athletes' samples. Contador's clenbuterol reading was discovered at a German lab in Cologne, which is one of just four of the world's 34 accredited anti-doping laboratories cutting-edge enough to have detected the minute traces of clenbuterol.



Personally, I have some sympathy for this line of defence and I'm not surprised it's being taken. Of course, it doesn't make him 'not guilty' but it does bring into question what I would have thought is a basic tenet of law - that of it being applied equally.


----------



## frank9755 (8 Feb 2011)

yello said:


> Personally, I have some sympathy for this line of defence and I'm not surprised it's being taken. Of course, it doesn't make him 'not guilty' but it does bring into question what I would have thought is a basic tenet of law - that of it being applied equally.



I see your point but I don't agree. 
I agree that, in a sense, he was unlucky, in the way that someone who is seen committing an offence by a policeman with unusually good eyesight, or is chased down the street by one who happens to be a club sprinter, is also unlucky. But still guilty.


----------



## rich p (10 Feb 2011)

yello said:


> My reading of the '4 positives' (which isn't a new story btw, it's just hi-lighting a particular fact and giving it a spin) is that all 4 tests are deemed to have the same source (be it contaminated meat, transfusion or whatever) so, in effect, there's only 1 case to answer. It's the same positive four times, if you like. Remember, the testing lab picked up minute amounts and the stuff may well take days to clear entirely from the system (I don't know this for a fact, btw, I'm just hypothesising!)




That's what I thought Yello but how does it explain the fact that his Clen, level went up from 7 on day 24 to 17 on day 25?

Did he take another dose that night? Surely it should decrease daily for Meatgate to stand up to scrutiny?


----------



## yello (10 Feb 2011)

rich p said:


> how does it explain the fact that his Clen, level went up from 7 on day 24 to 17 on day 25?



It doesn't. It seems counter intuitive does it? 

The only 'but' I can imagine is in the magnifying glass or microscope. That is, these amounts are SO minute and the tests so detailed, that maybe 7 to 17 is an expected deviation/anomaly in the results. Every lab test has a margin for error, perhaps the difference falls within that and is, as such, insignificant. Just because it seems like a big difference to us in pure numeric terms, it doesn't mean it is scientifically. I've not really explained that very well but I hope you get my drift.




> Did he take another dose that night?




Well here I think you raise a very interesting point. Another minute dose of clenb? That makes no sense in terms of performance enhancing (or perhaps even practically). Another transfusion? Why? For what objective?

If one were to argue that the difference IS significant then I think the cause of the difference needs to be explained too. And, viewed in that context, it almost becomes an argument for the defence. Just how would Contador have gotten those differences in readings by doping. Maybe he had a tainted veal leftover sandwich after the sample on day 24! If it wasn't already farcical then it becomes more so now!

Again, I state for the record, imho I think he doped. But I also think there's more to the story.


----------



## rich p (10 Feb 2011)

Have you read this Yello?

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/columns/story?columnist=ford_bonnie_d&id=6069073


_One authority didn't swallow the steak story. Christiane Ayotte, longtime director of the WADA-accredited lab in Montreal, was blunt with reporters in an informal media briefing in mid-October._

_"You'll never find a ton of [clenbuterol] because the doses are really small," Ayotte said then, calling the beef excuse implausible. "Most of the samples are below 1 nanogram [a billionth of a gram]."_





_She added that her lab has seen many samples with levels as low as Contador's and that she considers them prima facie evidence of doping. Her scientific experience leads her to believe that athletes use low levels of the drug because of side effects that include headaches, high blood pressure and heart palpitations. _


----------



## gb155 (10 Feb 2011)

AdrianC said:


> I might withdraw from the bulk purchase.



MTFU

Bertie Did


----------



## gb155 (11 Feb 2011)

AdrianC said:


> And there we see the corrupting influence of peer pressure.



Dont give Alberto any new excuses to use dude....


----------



## rich p (11 Feb 2011)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contador-ban-to-be-overturned

It looks like those staunch defenders of probity, the Spanish Fed, are going to overturn the Bertie ban with the Spanish prime minister saying elsewhere that he believes Bert to be innocent. It's unclear whether his bio-chemistry skills are up to Wada standard but there you go!

UCI to appeal to CAS presumably if that happens.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Feb 2011)

It has become a cycling pantomine.....

Bertie as the evil villain
McQuaid as the widow twanky
A comedy cow with an asthma inhaler played by the Schleck brothers
Spanish Prime Minister as Baron Hardup

"He's guilty!" cries the crowd
"Oh no he's not" cries the Baron
"Oh yes he is!"
repeat ad lib to fade.


----------



## Renard (12 Feb 2011)

So who won the tour then?


----------



## gb155 (12 Feb 2011)

Lance, The rest all got DQ'ed

Hurrah


----------



## yello (13 Feb 2011)

rich p said:


> Have you read this Yello?
> 
> http://sports.espn.g...ie_d&id=6069073





No I hadn't. It's a very firm line stance and perhaps rightly. Perhaps there ought be a 'no prisoners' approach.



> There's no out clause saying you get a reduced suspension just because no one can figure out precisely how the substance got into your body.



I struggle sometimes with definitive statements because you know full well that decisions based on the letter of the law are wrong sometimes. I like there to be interpretation, wiggle room if you like. It is entirely possible for a substance to be in the body and you have no idea how it got there. Why should you? There's a presumption of guilt and that always makes me nervous. I do appreciate the need for a line to be drawn somewhere and accept that that can mean injustices. I guess I'm undecided which is the lesser of the two wrongs here; innocent jailed or guilty free.

Re the science of it, I found this surprising...

_



Her scientific experience leads her to believe that athletes use low levels of the drug because of side effects that include headaches, high blood pressure and heart palpitations.

Click to expand...

_
I don't doubt low levels do reduce side effects but I have read elsewhere the opinion of others that such low levels serve no PE purpose either! But who knows? Perhaps Contador did micro-dose. Blimey, I don't know! I can only take on trust the informed opinion of others! 

I do think the author is right to point out the inconsistencies in the application of the regulations, and the potential for favouritism... 




> Athletes in Olympic sports all over the world are supposed to be governed by the same impartial code.





> Thus, the initial decision on Contador's fate rests in the hands of the very body that would have most to lose by punishing a high-profile ride





but I equally feel that an individual shouldn't be punished for the faults of the system. The fault for the difference in application here is to do with UCI and not Contador. Just WHY UCI handled it the way it did, I have no idea. It's a subject for much conjecture! Personally, I can find a little leniency with UCI (which goes against the grain for me!!). I think it possible that they were trying to do the right thing. 




> This case has diverged from the norm in every single way possible, and there's no doubt that's because of Contador's stature and his nationality rather than the facts.



I personally think that a dangerous statement to make. As I said, I think the author is right to point to the inconsistencies and the possible conflicts of interest but to deny Contador a right to defend himself because of that is scapegoating him. So I think there are two issues here that author bundles together; Contador's guilt or innocence, and the inconsistencies of the system. Just because Contador is the Spanish cycling federation's favourite son, and may have been UCI's pin up boy in waiting, that doesn't make him guilty either. You can't blame him for them treating him differently.


----------



## rich p (13 Feb 2011)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/freire-calls-for-life-ban-for-ricco

This could go in either this one or the Ricco thread!

Oscar Freire saying he's not sure if he believes Contador is a much more damning statement than meets the eye, in my opinion. For a fellow rider, and a fellow Spaniard at that, and one who is probably privy to cycling's dark heart it's an unusual step.


----------



## gb155 (13 Feb 2011)

rich p said:


> http://www.cyclingne...e-ban-for-ricco
> 
> This could go in either this one or the Ricco thread!
> 
> Oscar Freire saying he's not sure if he believes Contador is a much more damning statement than meets the eye, in my opinion. For a fellow rider, and a fellow Spaniard at that, and one who is probably *privy to cycling's dark heart it's an unusual step*.



I agree, I suspect this one will run and run for some time yet


----------



## adscrim (14 Feb 2011)

Contador to escape ban? AKA Val Verde mkII. Sound like the RFEC and UCI/WADA may be on another collision course. 

Edit - Looks like I'm 3 days slower than Rich P


----------



## Flying_Monkey (14 Feb 2011)

Spanish cyclists always have extenuating circumstances, it seems.


----------



## beastie (14 Feb 2011)

Surely the national federation of any cyclist is the wrong body to carry out the investigation and subsequently to impose sanctions (or not).A distinct lack of impartiality.


----------



## mangaman (15 Feb 2011)

Nice article by Friere - a brilliant cyclist who seems to have a few principles!

I don't think the Spanish federation can clear Contador? Surely it will be challenged by WADA et al.

I think the comment from the Canadian scientist, that any clembuterol at all is not right, is important.

I also agree that the tiny doses found, would have made the fact that they varied day-to-day irrelevant.

I'd be amazed if that wasn't within the limits of randomness at such small doses.

Of course, the doses were small, but consistantly there. Bertie may slip out of this, but IMHO he was found with a banned substance in his blood on several occasions and should receive the normal 2 year ban. He's broken the rules and should be punished (unless I'm missing something?)

I really can't see why anyone would argue against that - unless they were pro-doping.


----------



## rich p (15 Feb 2011)

Mangaman, the point is that if the Spanish Fed believe he ingested it accidentally from the tainted meat they can, according to Bertie's reading of the UCI rules, exonerate him.

_However, he appealed that decision, and cited an article of the International Cycling Union's (UCI) doping regulations which says that a suspension can be eliminated if the rider has no fault or negligence_.

This goes against the strict-liability rules where you are responsible for any illegal product in your system.


The Spanish Fed now find themselves 'swayed' by Meatgate a week after pronouncing him guilty and provisionally banning him for a year. Can anyone explain to me what the f*** they have been investigating for 2 months and what was the ban provisional upon?

Even Bertie admitted the clenbuterol was present, so the only investigation was how it got there. Have they only just realised a week after their investigations were ended that the tainted meat story was persuasive? It was a year's ban dependant on whether Bertie said I'm innocent or not.

I wonder if the Spanish Fed are simply scared of costly civil litigation in Spain and would rather the tough decision and expense was taken on by WADA or the UCI at CAS.


----------



## yello (15 Feb 2011)

Somewhat bizarrely, my reading (on as.com) suggests that UCI might _not_ refer to CAS! That is, they seem to accept the meat contamination as the most likely source of the clenb! This gets weirder!!



> En este informe final, de 36 páginas, exponía que debe ser absuelto, ya que tanto el Comité, como la Agencia Estatal Antidopaje (AEA) y l*a Unión Ciclista Internacional (UCI) concluyen en sus respectivos dossieres que la única explicación al positivo es la intoxicación*.



roughly translated 'UCI conclude in it's own files that the only explanation to the positive is the poisoning'

I don't think it's necessarily that people accept the meat contamination theory as fact (Contador's defence would only suggest it as a possibility) but that it has introduced sufficient doubt and suggests a theoretical alternative explanation as to the presence of clenb. We'd have to see what Contador submitted in the 10 days since the Spanish Federation suggested a year ban, and now seemingly clearing Contador, for us to know why (officially) they changed their minds. 

I dunno, I reckon there's something decidedly 'behind the scenes' going on here. Maybe UCI feel CAS would chuck the case out anyway, because UCI didn't follow procedure in reporting the positive in the first place. Who knows? I suspect we'll only ever have conjecture.

Edit: full link, because the embed hasn't worked... again!!!

http://www.as.com/ciclismo/articulo/defensa-incidio-alegacion-ausencia-culpa/20110215dasdaicic_2/Tes


----------



## Crackle (15 Feb 2011)

Of course you do wonder why the UCI didn't follow pocedures ......................................


----------



## rich p (15 Feb 2011)

Interesting google translation Yello!

My Spanish is too poor in the original. 

One wonders how thety managed to get a photo of Bertie getting off the throne after providing a stool sample - smells fishy to me


----------



## adscrim (15 Feb 2011)

rich p said:


> One wonders how thety managed to get a photo of Bertie getting off the throne after providing a stool sample - smells fishy to me





That's because he still needs the protein while staying clear of beef.


----------



## yello (15 Feb 2011)

Maybe UCI did cock it up?

http://www.velonatio...ng-charges.aspx



> According to L’Equipe, one factor which may have led to the RFEC’s Competition Committee dropping the charges against him was what is being termed a procedural defect on the part of the UCI.



Basically, UCI wrote to the Spanish Federation advising them of the charges ... but didn't write to Contador or his legal people. This apparently is a violation of his rights. So he MIGHT have wiggled out on a error in due process. It'd certainly explain any reluctance on UCI's part to appeal it.

I did think this would end up with Contador breathing one helluva sigh of relief, some technicality being exploited, but I wouldn't quite have predicted that he'd walk for price of a postage stamp!


----------



## adscrim (15 Feb 2011)

And he's free to race but will he be welcomed back at the TdF


----------



## HLaB (15 Feb 2011)

> article 296 of the UCI’s regulations, which says that an athlete can be exonerated if they prove that they had inadvertently ingested a banned product through no fault or negligence on their part.



I that the big boy made me excuse?


----------



## Dave Davenport (15 Feb 2011)

Oh FFS! 

He put up zero evidence to support the cock & bull (beef geddit?) meat fairy tale and it sounds like the commitee were politically leaned on.

I really hope they don't let him ride the tour.


----------



## mangaman (15 Feb 2011)

Dave Davenport said:


> Oh FFS!
> 
> He put up zero evidence to support the cock & bull (beef geddit?) meat fairy tale and it sounds like the commitee were politically leaned on.
> 
> I really hope they don't let him ride the tour.



I know - has anyone interviewed the mysterious friend and found out if he entered Spain that day?

Have they asked him where he got the meat and checked the herd?

You would have thought proving it would have been easy if it were true.


----------



## iAmiAdam (15 Feb 2011)

Remember, if you want to dope, win a few Grand tours without getting noticed beforehand 

/cough lance


----------



## Andy84 (15 Feb 2011)

Can he still be stripped of the TDF title? Even if he's cleared of being at fault, it was still in his body.


----------



## iAmiAdam (15 Feb 2011)

Long answer short... no.


----------



## gb155 (15 Feb 2011)

iAmiAdam said:


> Remember, if you want to dope, win a few Grand tours without getting noticed beforehand
> 
> /cough* lance*



Never tested, positive


----------



## Dayvo (15 Feb 2011)

And here is the smug git, leading a merry dance!


----------



## iAmiAdam (15 Feb 2011)

gb155 said:


> Never tested, positive



Positive tests, never revaled.


----------



## peelywally (16 Feb 2011)

what sort of message is this sending out to possible dopers ,

im glad hes racing again but its tainted with a sense of anger if that makes sense .


----------



## dragon72 (17 Feb 2011)

They all do it. All of them.
Look at all the recent winners: Contador, Basso's buddy Sastre, Landis, Armstrong, Pantani, Riis, then look me in the eye and tell me they weren't all juiced up. I very much doubt Big Mig "In-the-vein" before them was only popping Paracetamol.
I just accept that it's all chemically assisted and enjoy the racing willy-nilly.


----------



## dragon72 (17 Feb 2011)

How silly of me. I forgot to mention the '97 winner Jan Ullrich. Sorry, Jan.
He whose DNA was found to match 9 bags of blood found in Fuentes' office during Operación Puerto. 
Ullrich was still a great rider to watch, though.


----------



## Noodley (17 Feb 2011)

dragon72 said:


> ...9 bags of blood found in Fuentes' office during Operación Puerto.




That would be the ones with "Jan" written on them  
Not even wise enough to use his dog's name!


----------



## HLaB (17 Feb 2011)

Noodley said:


> That would be the ones with "Jan" written on them
> Not even wise enough to use his dog's name!



What about 'Feb'


----------



## Flying_Monkey (17 Feb 2011)

Contador is saying today that his let-off is 'a great advance for the sport'... everyone else thinks it'san incredibly cynical decision, and the Spanish Meat Federation is saying he's talking bollocks (and I don't mean 'sweetbreads').


----------



## MartinC (17 Feb 2011)

It's certainly not an advance for the sport. It's just that there aren't any alternatives. If the UCI or the Spanish Federation banned him they'd just end up in court, lose a lot of money, have the issue in the media for years and he'd still get off. The bottom line is that cycling has to operate within the rule of law. You can't just call someone a cheat and deprive them of their income unless you've got some proof of a legal standard. We might all have our own idea of how an ineffective amount of clenbuterol got into his bloodstream but it doesn't prove that he cheated.

Where the UCI (and WADA) need to smarten up is in not testing for results they can't do anything with. By testing for inconsequential amounts of substances that are known to be in the food chain they create positives that can't be sanctioned. All they do is create a lot of ill feeling and bad publicity. Testing for results that can be followed through is the only sensible option.


----------



## tatworth-torpedo (17 Feb 2011)

Im not watching the TDF this year if he,s in it .


----------



## johnr (17 Feb 2011)

So, this year's TdF is going to be another year of What's My Line (as those of us who are down with the kids say)


----------



## rich p (19 Feb 2011)

Courtroom legality isn't always applied in sporting courts. The riders and teams sign up to a set of rules and conditions that wouldn't necessarily stand up in a British court. There are differences in jurisprudence within western European countries let alone in some other less democratised countries who also have cyclists.

This expert has corroborated what some of us have been saying for some time about retesting for plasticisers now the procedure has been verified...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/fre...t-suggests-new-analysis-for-contadors-samples


----------



## rich p (19 Feb 2011)

AdrianC said:


> Do the rules they are all signed up to include the idea of going back and re-testing as and when new tests are developed?




I'm pretty sure they retested samples when the CERA test was first accredited when they caught Emanuelle Selle amongst others.

I seem to recall that the Beijing Olympic samples were retested after the event for CERA too when they caught 4 athletes.


----------



## BJH (20 Feb 2011)

Have a look out for the full interview of Floyd Landis by Paul Kimmage. Absolutely fascinating. You can say whatever you want about him being a discredited cheat, but he lifts the lid on the absolute cess pit of the sports governance - no wonder at all Contador has been let off. The UCI wnats to develop into a global sport, can't let a little thing like cheating cause any upset to the plan. it stinks.


----------



## johnr (21 Feb 2011)

BJH said:


> Have a look out for the full interview of Floyd Landis by Paul Kimmage. Absolutely fascinating. You can say whatever you want about him being a discredited cheat, but he lifts the lid on the absolute cess pit of the sports governance - no wonder at all Contador has been let off. The UCI wnats to develop into a global sport, can't let a little thing like cheating cause any upset to the plan. it stinks.



Have you a link?


----------



## MartinC (21 Feb 2011)

rich p said:


> Courtroom legality isn't always applied in sporting courts. The riders and teams sign up to a set of rules and conditions that wouldn't necessarily stand up in a British court. There are differences in jurisprudence within western European countries let alone in some other less democratised countries who also have cyclists.




Yes, this makes it more complex and is where the lawyers stand to make lots of money. To some extent riders sign up to a set or rules when they race but this doesn't allow the authorites to behave arbitrarily. Cycling has to operate inside the rule of law (jurisdiction's an interesting issue too) and the rules of natural justice still operate - but how much is where the courts cases will be. So if you give someone a slap on the wrist you'll get away without any comeback but if you have draconian punishments then you'll need to apply them fairly, reasonably and with due process or the lawyers will get involved.

The Bosman (IIRC) ruling is a case where European law overrode the sporting authorities wishes.


----------



## cd365 (22 Feb 2011)

johnr said:


> Have you a link?



Interview


----------



## BJH (22 Feb 2011)

Sorry I hadn't responded with the link, but cd365 has.

The additional comments post interview are also very good. It's a long read, but worthwhile.


----------



## Dave Davenport (22 Feb 2011)

There was an article on cyclingnews.com earlier 'top 10 doping excuses' which included Berties' beef along with 'it's for my dog', 'my nan sent some sweets from Columbia' etc.

It seems to have been removed, wonder why?


----------



## Crackle (23 Feb 2011)

Independent is carrying the lawyers explanation of how the cheating git he got off.


----------



## yello (23 Feb 2011)

Crackle said:


> Independent is carrying the lawyers explanation of how the cheating git he got off.



From that article...



> In Europe it's not impossible [to eat contaminated meat], merely improbable. And TAS themselves say that there is no way you can oblige athletes to go to unrealistic extremes, such as analysing everything they eat in a mobile lab or keeping a lump of every piece of meat they eat."



Broadly speaking, I'm in agreement with that. There's only so much you can expect from an athlete. I _*know*_ it's also a get out of jail free card in the making but I think it both fair and resonable to have a provision for allowance (but as I've said before, I'm no fan of 'zero tolerance' approaches... especially not when you cannot exclude your own fallibility). In fairness to UCI - and I cannot believe I just said that! - it is possible that they knew they were in a very grey area with this one, but once the test results were leaked they had little option other than to be seen to be trying to play it by the book.


----------



## Crackle (23 Feb 2011)

Do you remember the Scottish skier who came 3rd at the winter Olympics who tested positive after taking a cold remedy. There was no excuse for him even though his reason was accepted, a great deal of sympathy but no reprieve. It has to be strict liability otherwise you'll have lawyers like this talking hogwash, which is what it is, at what point must athlete's accept reponsibility. They didn't know, there coach gave it to them, there could be innumerous excuses. If it's in their system, they have an advantage or it points to them having an advantage. I don't think we've seen the end of this.


----------



## Noodley (23 Feb 2011)

That was Alain Baxter, now training as a track cyclist with Craig McLean and, IIRC aiming to be a pilot at Paralympics, or something like that!


----------



## yello (23 Feb 2011)

Crackle said:


> It has to be strict liability otherwise you'll have lawyers like this talking hogwash, which is what it is, at what point must athlete's accept reponsibility.



A small point but the lawyers merely argued the rules, so don't blame them. In this case, the rules allowed for there to be no ban if the athlete could be shown to be genuinely at no fault. They managed - probably with the willing ears of the Spanish federation, imho  - to successfully argue that case. 

I can understand the frustration. I personally think the odds that Contador doped in some way or another are high... but I wouldn't bet my mother's life on it, or my mother-in-law's for that matter. 

I think this case highlights that the dopers are still way ahead of the game. The rules, processes, etc need to catch up and - imho - getting tough and 'zero tolerance' is just desperation.


----------



## uphillstruggler (23 Feb 2011)

Just watched the last part of the track racing from the weekend. Great interview with wiggins after the team pursuit win, calling his week there a holiday and moaning about the contador questions.

You got to like that sort of attitude

Great stuff


----------



## fozzy (24 Feb 2011)

agree with yellow, lawyers are there to argue the point, there should always be discussion of these things. i remember the skier and remember thinking that he lost out on a technicality and that he was made to suffer for being a human being who felt under the weather, i think a mistake was made and hoped it would never be made again. also, i struggle to agree with the point of absolute responsibility of the athlete. i've asked before and it doesn't really depend on if you believe AC or not, but can you really expect an athlete who trains for six hours a day to source the meat/fish they eat, this would include knowing the import/export agreements of each country in the world, the relevant loop holes that exsist in all trades, the frequency of national, regional and local testing. the specific ways and means of selection of animal feed, including any growth hormones. the husbandry of each animal, the slaughter and storage thereof, the transportation and then prep of the food stuff? that just seems like a lot to ask one person to know, let alone verify six times a day.


----------



## rich p (24 Feb 2011)

Even I'm tiring of this debate!
The presence of clenbuterol in Bertie's blood was unexplanable by Bertie and his advisors apart from saying that they don't check every cow in Spain so it's theoretically possible it came from a cow.

They were unable to provide any evidence of clen in Spanish beef or any cases of anyone being infected by it in that way.

To my mind that is not a reasonable defence but then I'm not a lawyer.

The other thing is the presence of plasticisers. I'm not sure why this isn't being highlighted by the authorities.


----------



## yello (24 Feb 2011)

rich p said:


> so it's theoretically possible it came from a cow.



In one I reckon. Theoretically possible... and nobody can prove it one way or the other. Benefit of the doubt to the accused. And, as I've intimated, imho the law *has* to work that way.



> The other thing is the presence of plasticisers. I'm not sure why this isn't being highlighted by the authorities.



Simply because it's not an approved test. It may well be a valid test, perfectly sound scientifically, but at this point in time not officially approved (to the best of my understanding anyway). Plus - and a big plus when you consider the theoretical nature of the meat contamination defence - it doesn't actually *prove* transfusion took place. It only points to it. Again to the best of my understanding, nobody is claiming with 100% certainty that there is no other possible explanation for the presence of plasticisers. It's a test too soon as it were, consider it a shot across the bows even. 

The more I think about this, the more I think the answer (to the doping question) is not just in testing. Wiggle room can be and will be exploited. I have no idea what the answer is (the blood passport is one direction despite its flaws, ironic to think Contador could have used it in his defence!) but I reckon it has to be approached from a number of different directions at the same time. We see testing alone can be farcical.


----------



## Crackle (24 Feb 2011)

From a reasoned perspective I agree with your view about testing Yello but and it's a big but, no one has the resources to conduct a police like forensic investigation so you have to take a much simpler approach and strict liability is flawed but simple and workable.


----------



## rich p (24 Feb 2011)

yello said:


> In one I reckon. Theoretically possible... and nobody can prove it one way or the other. Benefit of the doubt to the accused. And, as I've intimated, imho the law *has* to work that way.
> .




The law does, I agree, but sporting liability never has. Most sports accept that the ruling body has jurisdiction over punishments with the riders and teams accepting and signing up to the rules. I agree that this case takes that understanding to the margins and may be the death knell. 
Even in law though it's not always enough to come up with an implausible but infinitesimally small alternative possibility. 

_Gentlemen of the jury, it is up to you to decide whether the defendant has made a sufficiently persuasive case and believe he is telling the truth.... _I've watched Perry Mason! 

I thought that the plasticiser test had been accredited now but I may be wrong.


----------



## yello (24 Feb 2011)

When you're talking about peoples livelihoods etc, I'd guess sport's arbitration cannot consider itself above the law. That is to say, maybe any decision could be challenged in a court of 'real' law?? I don't know, really I don't.

As I type, I'm not sure of the status of the plasticiser test. I read differing opinions, none of them authoratative! At the time, I was under the impression it was new and not officially accepted... and so highly challengable... it's there on the CyclingNews forum if you want to research it... I can't, in all honesty, remember exactly. But suffice to say, and as you said rich, NOTHING was made of it in UCI's official reporting of the test positive - there must be a reason for that.

Strict liability is simple and workable, I agree. Maybe it's the right approach too. I sway on that very point tbh... sometimes I think 'ah sod it, hang the bastard!'


----------



## rich p (24 Feb 2011)

yello said:


> Strict liability is simple and workable, I agree. Maybe it's the right approach too. I sway on that very point tbh... sometimes I think 'ah sod it, hang the bastard!'




  

I admit that I interpret the rules to support my way of thinking! I want the cheating git to be punished.

I think the test, having just researched a bit, is still waiting so that's a non-starter at the moment.

Okay, as you were Bertie, carry on.


----------



## Crackle (24 Feb 2011)

I think we should do the FNRttC to Dieppe (is it) with placards and beat Bertie as he goes past and with another one saying "We're watching you Schlecky boy". Yello's already there, so he can bring the placards with him.


----------



## NickM (24 Feb 2011)

rich p said:


> I want the cheating git to be punished.


In the hope that road racing will somehow transform itself from a spectacle back into a sport?

I've long since given up on that...

Now bowls - _that's_ a sport.


----------



## NickM (25 Feb 2011)

After many years of cynicism since the Festina Affair*, I thought for a couple of seasons recently that a corner had been turned and that we were seeing the genuinely-best riders triumph. Now it seems that we're still being conned, and have probably always been conned, but it takes some small incompetence on the part of a team "doctor" or soigneur for it to come to light because we're in one of those phases when the teams are ahead of the testers.

I _want_ to feel enthusiastic about road racing; it _could_ be a thing of beauty. But I always end up feeling cheated 






*bloody hell, it even sounds like a Tintin title - quite appropriately, really...


----------



## rich p (25 Feb 2011)

I understand your disillusionment Nick and share it to an extent. FWIW, I believe that despite a few recent cases the peloton is cleaner than it was. The racing has in general seemed cleaner and less predictable in the last couple of years. Wiggins being able to come 4th for instance and I believe him to be clean.

There is less omerta and more comment in the pro ranks these days. I don't believe it is or ever will be entirely clean though - I'm not that naive!


----------



## BJH (28 Feb 2011)

So we see a change in position by the UCI when it comes to this case.

The athlete has always been responsible for anything found in their body. The case of the medallist skier has been mentioned on these pages. He used a well known nasal spray that was bought over the counter. It turned out that the version sold in the US and Canada is different to that sold in the UK, in that it had a banned substance.

No argument was put forward against this defence.

But, the offence is absolute whatever the reason and with a banned substance found it was removed from the finishers and no medal.

Yes it's difficult to cover off every single thing going into the body, but others manage it. I would far rather see cases such as the one above ( no matter how distressing for that individual) as this ensures there is only a single rule and a single interpretation.

The UCI have just copped out. Long term, whatever there motivation they have made a poor decision for cycling and sport,


----------



## Flying_Monkey (28 Feb 2011)

BJH said:


> The UCI have just copped out. Long term, whatever there motivation they have made a poor decision for cycling and sport,



Didn't you know that the 'C' in UCI stood for 'Cop-out'?


----------



## yello (28 Feb 2011)

BJH said:


> The UCI have just copped out.



In fairness, they haven't. Not yet anyway. It wasn't their decision, it was the Spanish federation. What's more that decision was made within the rules... whatever we as individuals may think of it.

I have a gut feel that UCI won't appeal the decision to CAS. THAT is something you could consider a cop out.


----------



## Noodley (28 Feb 2011)

There was a story on the Scottish News tonight about a Hamilton Accies player who was banned for 4 weeks after failing a drug test...he had taken a diet supplement which stated on the label "contains no banned substances" and had asked the club doctor to check as well...although a short ban he was still held responsible in the ruling for anything in his body.


----------



## rich p (1 Mar 2011)

Noodley said:


> There was a story on the Scottish News tonight about a Hamilton Accies player who was banned for 4 weeks after failing a drug test...he had taken a diet supplement which stated on the label "contains no banned substances" and had asked the club doctor to check as well...although a short ban he was still held responsible in the ruling for anything in his body.




I also read that the Scottish rugby union team have all tested positive for Mogadon.


----------



## BJH (3 Mar 2011)

yello said:


> In fairness, they haven't. Not yet anyway. It wasn't their decision, it was the Spanish federation. What's more that decision was made within the rules... whatever we as individuals may think of it.
> 
> I have a gut feel that UCI won't appeal the decision to CAS. THAT is something you could consider a cop out.



I disagree. The UCI is the World governing body and whilst the ban has to be put in place by his home federation I would point out that the UCI was clearly choosing who and when they advised around the test failure. Follow that up with some very lax statements and mix in some uncertain statements and you have the pefect recipe for the Sapnish federation to act as only they can.

I feel pretty confident taht if the UCI had said clearly, any punishemt short of a ban and we will take action and the Spanish would have produced a different result. Almost certainly, a shorter ban by concluding he had something in him, but wasn't his fault.

Decision stinks and I still find it amazing that anyone he has beaten into 2nd place wouldn't be screaming the place down. Which of course leads me to another conclusion !!!!!!!!!!


----------



## fozzy (3 Mar 2011)

don't think the uci could of told the spainish federation to ban him, no matter what, otherwise it completly defeats the object of letting national federations making any kind of decision [it's a bad idea to let national federations do that anyway, but thems' the rules]. in short, completely agree with your first paragraph, excellent point.


----------



## Aperitif (30 Mar 2011)

rich p said:


> I admit that I interpret the rules to support my way of thinking! *I want the cheating git to be punished.*
> 
> I think the test, having just researched a bit, is still waiting so that's a non-starter at the moment.
> 
> Okay, as you were Bertie, carry on.



Might as well requote you, Rich 

Here's today's article from the Guardian


----------



## montage (31 Mar 2011)

I want contador to get off with it, just so that I can run up the alpe d'huez next to him dressed as a steak.


----------



## Flying_Monkey (31 Mar 2011)

montage said:


> I want contador to get off with it, just so that I can run up the alpe d'huez next to him dressed as a steak.



Is that a promise?


----------



## johnr (5 Apr 2011)

montage said:


> I want contador to get off with it, just so that I can run up the alpe d'huez next to him dressed as a steak.




I think I might be watching the TdF after all!


----------



## montage (5 Apr 2011)

Flying_Monkey said:


> Is that a promise?



Depends on how much time I have between knowing whether he is riding it, and the start of the race, but I am serious about this


----------



## johnr (5 Apr 2011)

montage said:


> Depends on how much time I have between knowing whether he is riding it, and the start of the race, but I am serious about this




Start sewing now... if by some miracle money doesn't talk this time round, you can always carry a sign 'who has been chewing on my juicy bits?' It'll give the European commentators a few challenges!


----------

