Why (and How) Bert Should Appeal - 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
  #1  
Old 02-08-12, 07:18
Merckx index's Avatar
Merckx index Merckx index is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,939
Default Why (and How) Bert Should Appeal

Bert has been sanctioned on the basis of a contaminated supplement. While CAS has conceded they don’t know with great certainty that this is the source of his CB, by coming to this conclusion, they have opened the door to an appeal—not of the conclusion itself, but of the sanction. All Bert has to do is point out that the level of CB in his urine that resulted in the sanction could—in fact, would have necessarily—come from a supplement that would test clean by current industry standards.

This study, about five years old, analyzed about 50 samples of different supplements, and found that about 25% were contaminated with steroids, and about 10% contaminated with stimulants (CB is classified as a stimulant). What I found very interesting was not the number of samples that didn’t pass inspection (earlier studies have come to a similar conclusion), but that the detection limit used for CB and other stimulants was 100 ng/g.* The level used for meat in Europe is a thousand-fold lower—100 ng/kg—which means that “clean” supplements can be considerably more contaminated than clean meat. This is basically what opens the door to an appeal (assuming it can be done within the legally allowed framework).

I hadn’t known this before (I have never taken supplements), but most of these supplements are ingested in multi-gram quantities, even the pills or tablets, let alone the drinks, powders, power bars, etc. (See note* below, the detection limit is based on ingestion of 50g. daily of the supplement). So a supplement that tested clean could still have an amount of CB that could result in a positive test in Cologne. Specifically, it has been estimated that Bert’s 50 pg/ml urine concentration would correspond to an ingestion of 200-500 ng of CB. One can modify assumptions and widen that range, but the bottom line is that it is extremely likely—certainly far more than balance of probabilities-- that IF Bert’s positive resulted from ingesting a supplement of several grams or more, that supplement would have tested clean by what is at the very least a recent industry standard. So if CAS wants to make the official cause of the positive a contaminated supplement, they are forced to concede that there is nothing Bert could have done to avoid that contamination. He is not at any fault whatsoever.

In fact, WADA has already laid the groundwork for this rationale. At RFEC, WADA argued on the basis of pharmacokinetics that Bert’s level of CB could not be explained by meat that passed the Euro criterion. This argument is entirely correct, and was accepted by Bert's team, but by making it, WADA is acknowledging that if Bert had a lower level (say 5-10 pg/ml), his positive could have resulted from meat that passed inspection, and that therefore he would have not been at any fault. If a contaminated supplement was the source of the CB, Bert is no more at fault for ingesting it than he would be for a lower level of CB that resulted from eating Spanish meat that passed inspection. In either case, the athlete cannot be held responsible for consumption of something that passes the official standards.

I’m not pointing this out because I think Bert is necessarily innocent of doping. The positive DEHP test, for me, is very compelling evidence of transfusion. I think it’s quite possible he transfused blood without CB, and also took a contaminated supplement, the latter being what triggered the positive. But legally, the DEHP positive doesn’t carry much weight. It’s all about CB. And I think CAS has set a trap for itself here. To reiterate, there is basically no way this amount of CB could have gotten into Bert's system from a contaminated supplement unless that supplement passed the industry standard. If the supplement was contaminated at a level that would make the athlete responsible, Bert's urine level would have tested at a considerably higher level.

I don't know if Bert can appeal on this basis. Supposedly one can appeal only on the basis of procedural errors. But this is complex, because Bert would not be appealing the decision itself, only the sanction associated with that decision. Technically, I don't know if this would be considered a procedural issue or not, maybe a legal mind would know.

Unlike the case with meat, there are no legal implications for supplements failing to meet some standard. They are unregulated, at least in the U.S. (don't know about Spain, but thanks to the internet, they are a global product, anyway). But I don't think this should matter in a doping case. If laboratories testing substances for contamination can't or don't detect the contaminant below a certain level, how can you possibly blame the athlete? If an athlete can be banned on this basis, UCI/WADA should institute a blanket prohibition of all supplements whatsoever, because there is no guaranteed way to protect oneself.

The only argument against the actual logic of this appeal I can see is the reported blood level of CB for Bert that was mentioned in the CAS report (the initial positive, to make sure everyone is clear on this, was based on a urine test; after preparation for the CAS appeal got under way, WADA apparently tested for CB a blood passport sample that Bert provided about the same time during the Tour). But that level, 1 ug/ml, has to be wrong. I'm quite sure no one in recorded history has ever had a CB level that high, and even if it were possible without killing yourself, you certainly couldn't get it from transfusing a few hundred ml of contaminated blood. They may have meant 1 ug/l, or 1 ng/ml, but that level still is not consistent with a urine level of 50 pg/ml about twelve hours later, nor is it consistent with any kind of transfusion scenario. It would also be pretty unlikely to result from a contaminated supplement, though it would be possible. But the initially reported urine levels, 50 pg/ml on 7/21 followed by values in the 5-20 pg/ml range on three succeeding days, are all consistent with each other, and it would be extremely difficult IMO to argue that some other, much higher, value during that same time period was valid.

*The rationale for this detection limit:

Quote:
Based on the published facts that a precursor of an anabolic steroid in an amount between 1–10 μg can cause a positive doping test,18,24 and based on the fact that athletes easily use 50 g of supplements per day or more, a reporting threshold value of 10 ng/g or 10 ppb for all anabolic steroids is used in all tests. This value also allows for individual variations in metabolism. Excretion studies for stimulants are rare, but similar considerations led to the conclusion that for stimulants, a reporting threshold value of 100 ppb is opportune.
Olivier de Hon and Bart Coumans The continuing story of nutritional supplements and doping infractions Br J Sports Med. 2007 November; 41(11)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...8/?tool=pubmed

Clearly, these detection limits were based on the much lower sensitivity of detection for substances such as CB prior to introduction of the more advanced equipment used at Cologne.

Last edited by Merckx index; 02-08-12 at 09:43.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-08-12, 09:37
Bonkstrong's Avatar
Bonkstrong Bonkstrong is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 68
Default

Thank you ever so much for summing up my problem with this whole case - it's flawed from the very start because the rules aren't aligned with the science.

We are now capable of testing far greater sensitivities than we previously have been and this opens up many many possibilities for minute findings.

If the UCI, CAS and WADA had just held their hands up and said "A recent test of a sample has highleted the need for us to address our current rules and testing procedures" this whole pathetic saga could have been avoided, instead of one of the most naturally talented cyclinsts of our time having his career forever tainted by scandel.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-08-12, 10:07
GJB123's Avatar
GJB123 GJB123 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 758
Default

I am just waiting for sniper to weigh in and state that the Israeli CAS-chairman wrote this in on purpose to give AC a better chance of appeal as a thank you for the training camp in Israel.

More back on-topic I fully agree with your analysis, MI.

Regards
GJ

Last edited by GJB123; 02-08-12 at 10:38.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-08-12, 10:18
doolols's Avatar
doolols doolols is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 418
Default

Fascinating. I'm sure the majority of this forum want clean, fair, open cycling more than a Contador ban. Thanks for posting this, MI.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-08-12, 10:37
vcampbell's Avatar
vcampbell vcampbell is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,254
Default

I skipped many long posts about this clenbuterol case, because english isn't my native language, therefore I don't really like long texts, but this was worth read. Now I'm really corious what will Contador's team do.

A question: if he appeal, then can they give him more severe punishment (I mean ban from the date of the new judgment until 2014, and lost his Tour, but keep the Giro, etc), or they can only lower the ban, delete the ban, or keep this ban?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-08-12, 10:40
SiAp1984 SiAp1984 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 252
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doolols View Post
Fascinating. I'm sure the majority of this forum want clean, fair, open cycling more than a Contador ban.
Sorry, but clean, fair, open cycling and an AC ban are congruent things; or better: An AC ban - as ruled by the CAS - makes cycling more clean, fair and open.

Topic: I am pretty sure that presenting new "facts" (like those mentioned here) will not constitute claim of "procedural errors". But I don't know Suiss law.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-08-12, 10:44
Spaniard Spaniard is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Born and raised in Seville, but living in Madrid
Posts: 144
Default

An advice for Contador, get the USA or french nationality and then appeal.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-08-12, 12:17
fujitourer fujitourer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 47
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merckx index View Post
Bert has been sanctioned on the basis of a contaminated supplement.

No he hasn't. He was sanctioned on the basis of his blood containing CB.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merckx index View Post
While CAS has conceded they don’t know with great certainty that this is the source of his CB, by coming to this conclusion, they have opened the door to an appeal—not of the conclusion itself, but of the sanction.
The first part of this section confirms my answer above. Contaminated suplements is simply a hypothesis put forward for how the CB could have reached his bloodsteam and the relative likelihood of this being the case compared to contaminated meat or blood doping. There are other ways it potentially could have got in there, all with their own specific probabilities. Probability, however, has nothing to do with the ruling. All that matters is that an athelete tested positive for a banned substance. Due to WADA's insistence on strict liability, a positive test is a doping offence unless the athelete can prove that they did not knowingly take the banned substance. The fact that we are still talking about the probability of different scenarios only confirms that in this case the athelete has been unable to prove that the substance was not consciously taken. CAS's ruling simply means that the court (rightly) concluded that the previous judgment by the national federation was in error because proof was not, and is still yet to be, provided.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merckx index View Post
All Bert has to do is point out that the level of CB in his urine that resulted in the sanction could—in fact, would have necessarily—come from a supplement that would test clean by current industry standards.
I have read that Contador's own team provided evidence that supplements were not the source, so I do not think this is likely to occur. The supplements he used were provided for by the team, were the same supplements used over a three year period by his teammates and himself, none of whom have ever tested positive for CB, and is produced by a company that has nothing to do with CB.

Regardless, the fact that CAS still felt that this was the most likely explanation is still worthless to Contador - it falls far below the level of proof required by WADA to overturn the CAS decision.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-08-12, 12:25
doolols's Avatar
doolols doolols is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 418
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SiAp1984 View Post
Sorry, but clean, fair, open cycling and an AC ban are congruent things; or better: An AC ban - as ruled by the CAS - makes cycling more clean, fair and open.
That's true. I was more dealing with wishes and ideals; but you're right - one less doper riding makes the sport cleaner.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-08-12, 13:28
T_S_A_R T_S_A_R is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 85
Default

surley the onus is on the athlete to avoid supplements from companies who cannot guarantee that their supplements are kosher.

it's not like clen contamination happens on it own.
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 09:25.


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.