Contador and Spanish cycling - Page 56 - CyclingNews Forum

Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #551  
Old 11-27-12, 14:07
Grandillusion Grandillusion is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 254
Default

Hope this is not off-topic (I don't think it is), but does anybody know the current APMU expert-panel member-list?

Also, when were Michele Ferrari, and Dr Fuentes (maybe Conconi too?) given the heave ho? They were all new members in early April this year according to Cyclismas (but it's a self-described satirical site, so maybe it was just a joke).
Reply With Quote
  #552  
Old 11-27-12, 14:21
Dazed and Confused Dazed and Confused is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 8,267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by airstream View Post
UCI must cook up one more anti-doping charter with especially harsh consequences for those who are popped. Something like $1M from the team for caught rider.

It seems we already have one more anti-doping team block: Argos, Cofidis, Europcar as far as I know. Saxo already joined this?
In a revised WT ranking system, doping would simply cost the team points for the coming season. A rider testing positive: -100 points. A rider banned: -200 points etc.

Anti doping block involving Argos: With the news of Germany's NADA appealing the UV light treatment ruling to CAS, both Kttel and Gretsch could see themselves being banned mid season. Great start.
Reply With Quote
  #553  
Old 11-27-12, 14:31
Le Baroudeur Le Baroudeur is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 429
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Maserati View Post
To the blue - so countries outside Europe should be held to the same standard as Europe, even though they do not hold the same standard?
No, why should European athletes be held to higher standards than elsewhere and flagrant assumptions be made about European food standards and their effectiveness of applying them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Maserati View Post
Then in the next sentence you mention 'global'.
It is why WADA said they would look at clen positives on a case by case manner - because there is not a clear 'global' standard on food.
Yes, global, one rule for all... the clue is in the W of WADA. Otherwise split the UCI into continental sized chunks, and similarly WADA, and keep the sides apart.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Maserati View Post
Your arguements are almost 2 years old - Contador had his opportunity (quite rightly) and it was dismissed.
If my arguments are two years old that would be because the subject matter of the post they were originally directed toward was also two years old, and frankly it's not a matter I choose to debate beyond addressing the flame-baiting and diversionary nature of that post and affiliation of the poster. But for the courtesy of replying to your remarks, having genuinely, and generally, long regarded your contribution to this board, I would not have done so.

To be clear this isn't about Contador's sanction or guilt specifically for my part, I'm fine with it, although I sense it might be for you... I don't agree that there is consistency within this sport, or across sports in general, nor do I necessarily see the merit in perusing athletes for substances that are common contaminants.

Being that we are unable to agree why not let the tread get back on topic, namely chastisement of Spanish riders based on reportage in the press.
Reply With Quote
  #554  
Old 11-27-12, 14:55
Dr. Maserati Dr. Maserati is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,035
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Baroudeur View Post
No, why should European athletes be held to higher standards than elsewhere and flagrant assumptions be made about European food standards and their effectiveness of applying them.
They are not.
You even brought up the case of Philip Nielsen, a Danish rider.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Baroudeur View Post
Yes, global, one rule for all... the clue is in the W of WADA. Otherwise split the UCI into continental sized chunks, and similarly WADA, and keep the sides apart.
Your clue ADA. Those rules are for all athletes.
WADA cannot control how individual countries have different standards on their food.
Thats why WADA correctly looks at each possible contamination violation individually.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Baroudeur View Post

If my arguments are two years old that would be because the subject matter of the post they were originally directed toward was also two years old, and frankly it's not a matter I choose to debate beyond addressing the flame-baiting and diversionary nature of that post and affiliation of the poster. But for the courtesy of replying to your remarks, having genuinely, and generally, long regarded your contribution to this board, I would not have done so.

To be clear this isn't about Contador's sanction or guilt specifically for my part, I'm fine with it, although I sense it might be for you... I don't agree that there is consistency within this sport, or across sports in general, nor do I necessarily see the merit in perusing athletes for substances that are common contaminants.

Being that we are unable to agree why not let the tread get back on topic, namely chastisement of Spanish riders based on reportage in the press.
Great, we are both fine with Contadors guilt.
Good to know.
Reply With Quote
  #555  
Old 11-27-12, 14:57
LaFlorecita's Avatar
LaFlorecita LaFlorecita is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Utrecht, The Netherlands
Posts: 15,257
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frenchfry View Post
For me the unbelievable part of Contador's story is that he asked an acquaintance to bring Spanish beef to him during the TDF. This just doesn't pass the smell test for me, who would actually make a request like this? If it was beef he had actually eaten while in Spain at least I wouldn't have the impulse to laugh at how ridiculous this excuse is.
It is true though. The Astana chef still had the receipt.
__________________
"The second place is not good."
The great Alberto Contador
Reply With Quote
  #556  
Old 11-27-12, 15:47
airstream airstream is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Minsk
Posts: 4,202
Default

It is very informative to discuss with the poster who entirely sticks to Contador's offical version and even idealizes it. So much new.
Reply With Quote
  #557  
Old 11-27-12, 15:59
Nilsson Nilsson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 349
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandillusion View Post
It's corroborated, not collaborated.

What do you mean by "he used methods and definitions that aren't accepted scientifically"?

He was stopped from giving an explanation by the legal process followed during the hearing, and was quite clear about the enormous frustration he felt at being silenced.

If ever I've read a more cogent and convincing description of a process than the one Ashenden gave in that interview, then I've yet to read one.
Awful mistake, damn. My bad.

On topic. With 'not accepted scientifically' I meant the methods he used (he calls it cross-examination, I believe) do not really exist and can't be used. Particularly not in an (eventual) Passport Case. Something this case (not without reason) wasn't and probably why he went 'rogue'. He simply had to dig deeper, look at the numbers in a different way to establish a transfusion was possible (not that he definitely transfused).

For instance he tried to establish a normal retic percentage, that in itself doesn't exist, and did that by cherry picking in the available data (and therefore leave out those that didn't fit in his theory, without explaining).

I can understand Ashenden's frustration about not being allowed to answer some questions, although I do not agree with it, since the only thing he could have said (mainly about the existence of DEHP-free bags for plasma) has not been an argument for CAS to disfavor the transfusion theory. Besides, the existence of such bags were confirmed by Scott and CAS explicitly took notion of it. I understand he would have liked to explicate this issue himself, but it more likely than not wouldn't have mattered.

In the end CAS rejected the theory not (only) because a transfusion could not be made clear (enough, which is only step 1 of the theory) but because of (step two) making a possible transfusion the cause of the clenbuterol positive was too thin. I recall the high amounts of clen that must have been used, the need of a ('mentally ill' and stupid) plasma donor to make it all stick, while on the other hand they should except a very sophisticated doping program.
Reply With Quote
  #558  
Old 11-27-12, 15:59
Le Baroudeur Le Baroudeur is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 429
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Maserati View Post
They are not.
Yes they are, athletes based in Europe have been treated differently to when they are based elsewhere.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Maserati View Post
You even brought up the case of Philip Nielsen, a Danish rider.
I did indeed because his case highlights inconsistency, and yes he was cleared by his federation being that he tested positive in Mexico providing the explanation of contaminated meat, and yet hounded by WADA until they dropped the CAS appeal when the news broke about the U17 tournament In Mexico.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Maserati View Post
Your clue ADA. Those rules are for all athletes.
WADA cannot control how individual countries have different standards on their food.
Thats why WADA correctly looks at each possible contamination violation individually.
So they drop cases based on failed test in Mexico when to continue with the appeal would be profoundly embarrassing, yet pursue them when failing a test in Europe despite having the same body of evidence available.

Fair enough, if they insist upon non uniform and regional treatment then disband them. Their stated role is to Harmonise not regionalise. I'm all for individual appraisal of cases but do we need a body for that rather than an agreed rule book? If a rule is not able to be uniformly applied and they insist on maintaining a common contaminant in a globally traded product on the banned list without a threshold, and then regionalise the approach to cases they are failing their purpose.

UKADA advise athletes to avoid liver, Don't eat meat in China, Mexico etc. but eat it in the UK because we don't have problem with the illicit use of meat conditioners contrary to findings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Maserati View Post
Great, we are both fine with Contadors guilt.
Good to know.
Yes we agree he was found guilty of involuntary consumption of a banned substance by way of a contaminated supplement having concluded it more likely than the consumption of contaminated meat.

Consistency... Conformity in the application of something, typically that which is necessary for the sake of logic, accuracy, or fairness:
Reply With Quote
  #559  
Old 11-27-12, 16:33
Nilsson Nilsson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 349
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandillusion View Post
Hope this is not off-topic (I don't think it is), but does anybody know the current APMU expert-panel member-list?

Also, when were Michele Ferrari, and Dr Fuentes (maybe Conconi too?) given the heave ho? They were all new members in early April this year according to Cyclismas (but it's a self-described satirical site, so maybe it was just a joke).
Cyclismas is indeed a satirical website, so it's just a joke. None of them has been member of the expert panel.

I don't know about the panel right now, because it has changed into the AMPU. I guess that it will be more or less the same (external) people, except for Ashenden.

These were the originals:

• Michael Ashenden (Australia), Project coordinator, Science and Industry Against Blood Doping Research Consortium, on the Gold Coast, in Australia, and member of the World Anti-Doping Agency working group on blood parameters.

• Michel Audran (France), Professor, biophysical and bioanalysis laboratory, Faculty of Pharmacy at the University of Montpellier I, France. Professor Audran is also a member of the World Anti-Doping Agency working group on blood parameters.

• Bo Berglund (Sweden), Professor, departments of medicine and of chemistry at Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm, and member of the medical and anti-doping committee of the International Canoe Federation. Professor Berglund is also a member of the World Anti-Doping Agency working group on blood parameters. In addition, he is chief physician of the Swedish Olympic Committee.

• Giuseppe D’Onofrio (Italy), Professor of haematology and Director of the transfusion department at the Policlinic A. Gemelli in Rome. He is also a member of the World Anti-Doping Agency working group on blood parameters.

• Pierluigi Fiorella (Italy), sports doctor, cardiologist, Director of the Olympus Medical Centre in Ravenna, member of the scientific and technical commission of the Italian Athletics Federation, member of the health protection commission of the Italian Cycling Federation and consultant for FC Inter-Milan.

• Giuseppe Fischetto (Italy), specialist in sports medicine, internal medicine and pneumology. He is Head of the emergency department at the Frascati-Marino Hospital in Rome, member of the medical and anti-doping commission of the International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF) and Head of the medical department of the Italian Athletic Federation. He is also a member of the World Anti-Doping Agency working group on blood parameters.

• Olivier Hermine (France), Professor, service of adults haematology and service of infectious and tropical diseases at Necker Hospital in Paris. Professor Hermine is also haematology consultant for the French Cycling Federation.

• Robin Parisotto (Australia) is an independent research scientist. He worked of many years with the Australian Sports Institute.

• Olaf Schumacher (Germany), works in the department of sports medicine at the University of Freiburg, in Germany. He is a member of the UCI Security and Safety Conditions Commission and is currently chief physician of the German Cycling Federation.
Reply With Quote
  #560  
Old 11-27-12, 16:34
Dr. Maserati Dr. Maserati is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,035
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Baroudeur View Post
Yes they are, athletes based in Europe have been treated differently to when they are based elsewhere.
This is what you said:
"why should European athletes be held to higher standards than elsewhere..."

So - its not the athlete nationality, but where they might have consumed something contaminated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Baroudeur View Post
I did indeed because his case highlights inconsistency, and yes he was cleared by his federation being that he tested positive in Mexico providing the explanation of contaminated meat, and yet hounded by WADA until they dropped the CAS appeal when the news broke about the U17 tournament In Mexico.
Mexico allows clenbuterol - so having a group of athlete get off for consuming and applying that rule to Nielsen is consistent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Baroudeur View Post
So they drop cases based on failed test in Mexico when to continue with the appeal would be profoundly embarrassing, yet pursue them when failing a test in Europe despite having the same body of evidence available.
Europe has a ban on clenbuterol - quite rightly it should require further investigation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Baroudeur View Post
Fair enough, if they insist upon non uniform and regional treatment then disband them. Their stated role is to Harmonise not regionalise. I'm all for individual appraisal of cases but do we need a body for that rather than an agreed rule book? If a rule is not able to be uniformly applied and they insist on maintaining a common contaminant in a globally traded product on the banned list without a threshold, and then regionalise the approach to cases they are failing their purpose.

UKADA advise athletes to avoid liver, Don't eat meat in China, Mexico etc. but eat it in the UK because we don't have problem with the illicit use of meat conditioners contrary to findings.
To the highlighted......to harmonize what?
Thats right, their rules. Indeed Contador like Nielsen was afforded the opportunity to show 'No Fault or Negligence' unlike Nielsen, Contador failed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Baroudeur View Post
Yes we agree he was found guilty
Agree
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Baroudeur View Post
of involuntary consumption of a banned substance by way of a contaminated supplement having concluded it more likely than the consumption of contaminated meat.
Disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Baroudeur View Post
Consistency... Conformity in the application of something, typically that which is necessary for the sake of logic, accuracy, or fairness:
The rules are consistent.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 00:31.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.