Contador fails drug test

[Chuffy]

'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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.