• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

109 clenbuterol positives in U17 football WC

Page 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 18, 2009
2,079
2
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
The sad thing about this is that Python posted a good list of absurdities that result from the current rules and how they are enforced, and what could have been an interesting topic has been buried by an avalanche of endless pedantry.

Couldn't agree more. Completely uninterested at this point.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
python said:
now we are learning that your skin is no thicker than your veneer of good manners. a well meant remark, 'i will give it another try' is evoking such comments only indicates insecuruty and lack of substance

i did not claim to produce anything, i only asked question and you failed to produce facts backing up your statements.

more obfuscation. as i explained, i did not question that. again, a pointless statement. i did not question where it was purchased. i went through an extensive effort to stress that. true, getting closer but again how does it equate your statement...(inserting your desired 'he')

He has offered 'proof' that he ate meat from a country that does not have a problem with Clenbuterol like Mexico or Spain.
I'll ignore your trolling and get to the meat.

I assume you are trying to suggest that the meat - which you agree was bought in Spain - is not actually Spanish?
I do remember it being put as a theory before - but thats all it is, a theory (& a poor one).

If so where did it from - and can you link it?
More importantly - why would Contadors legal team and the RFEC not highlight this in the media when Contador was cleared?
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
richwagmn said:
Couldn't agree more. Completely uninterested at this point.
sorry rich and i apologize and appreciate yours and brodeal's interest in the points i made...long ago:).

but we have the forums bully who arrogantly ran over many a good poster and it simply can't be allowed to repeat when, as i said before, the subject is so close to my heart.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
python said:
sorry rich and i apologize and appreciate yours and brodeal's interest in the points i made...long ago:).

but we have the forums bully who arrogantly ran over many a good poster and it simply can't be allowed to repeat when, as i said before, the subject is so close to my heart.
I edited my comment - as it was childish and unnecessary.
 
richwagmn said:
Couldn't agree more. Completely uninterested at this point.

Mostly uninterested here as well, in fact reading MarkvW's tripe in the other thread is boarderline more interesting. But while Python raised a few good points early on, he has begun to sound like a Contador fanboy as the (stupid) discussion has rambled on. Yes there are problems that can be raised with the Clen testing if you are/have a really good lawyer. That in no way means that athletes (including Contador) are not using it as a part of their (illegal) preparations.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
Hugh Januss said:
Mostly uninterested here as well, in fact reading MarkvW's tripe in the other thread is boarderline more interesting. But while Python raised a few good points early on, he has begun to sound like a Contador fanboy as the (stupid) discussion has rambled on. Yes there are problems that can be raised with the Clen testing if you are/have a really good lawyer. That in no way means that athletes (including Contador) are not using it as a part of their (illegal) preparations.

I am uninterested too.
Python did raise some good points early on but quite frankly Merckx Index points answered them - and Python beat down on him too.

There are some valid questions about the whole process and Python is probably the most educated on any of it and he could offer plenty of information on it - but it counts for little if it is biased.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
I assume you are trying to suggest that the meat was bought in Spain- which you agree...
i never needed to agree. i simply told you 13 times i did not question the fact. you just kept asking as if it was difficult to read and understand the obvious. ...
- is not actually Spanish?
so...
I do remember it being put as a theory before - but thats all it is, a theory (& a poor one)
. i agree it's a remote possibility but it speaks to what i had the problem with regarding your statement..a purchase in spain does not necessarily mean that the meat is spanish however remote.

If so where did it from - and can you link it? More importantly - why would Contadors legal team and the RFEC not highlight this in the media when Contador was cleared?
as i recall it, early in the case, contador's lawyers pushed the possibility of the meat foreign origin b/c the town of irgun is in close proximitty to a major export/import commercial hub in france.

so, contador's team certainly tried to sell the story, at least for the pr effect.

as to why they did not push it further i don't know. i would speculate, iirc, the rfec submittal neither excluded nor favoured this origin. they only stressed multiple sources and their inability to trace the actual cow but a group of suspected farms.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
python said:
i never needed to agree. i simply told you 13 times i did not question the fact. you just kept asking as if it was difficult to read and understand the obvious. ... so...
. i agree it's a remote possibility but it speaks to what i had the problem with regarding your statement..a purchase in spain does not necessarily mean that the meat is spanish however remote.

as i recall it, early in the case, contador's lawyers pushed the possibility of the meat foreign origin b/c the town of irgun is in close proximitty to a major export/import commercial hub in france.

so, contador's team certainly tried to sell the story, at least for the pr effect.

as to why they did not push it further i don't know. i would speculate, iirc, the rfec submittal neither excluded nor favoured this origin. they only stressed multiple sources and their inability to trace the actual cow but a group of suspected farms.

C'mon Python - that's what you have been holding out for?

There is trace-ability in the EU - even if (and its a big if) it did originate outside the EU it would be traceable to that country (although not to EU level of farm) and it would be subject to the same controls when it arrived in Europe.

The whole receipt business is IMO a red herring - it was a dangerous ploy (but probably the only one they had) - Clen from food contamination. But we better not accuse France - Spain will have to do.
That worked for the RFEC - there is little chance that it will pass through CAS, jeez even the UCI appealed the decision.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
C'mon Python - that's what you have been holding out for?
i didn't hold out for anything. you asked i gave you my read. when evaluating a complex case like contador's even remote possibilities need be kept in the picture. a purchase in spain is a fact, the actual origin of the cow is an unknown. most likely Spain. but that's how it should be put 'most likely' rather than impossible b/c both sides use the same eu statistics to leverage their positions. wada to show low probability of contamination, contador - to explain that the low contamination incident equals a rider should not suspect problems with meat and thus they pleaded 'no negligence'. could be a total bs but that's how ovcharovs team got him off.

our late theswordman, once dug out an article with some totally unrealistic figures for south american import to spain. i did some research and showed great amount of errors and plain fantasy there. the posts and the link are somewhere.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
python said:
i didn't hold out for anything. you asked i gave you my read. when evaluating a complex case like contador's even remote possibilities need be kept in the picture. a purchase in spain is a fact, the actual origin of the cow is an unknown. most likely Spain. but that's how it should be put 'most likely' rather than impossible b/c both sides use the same eu statistics to leverage their positions. wada to show low probability of contamination, contador - to explain that the low contamination incident equals a rider should not suspect problems with meat and thus they pleaded 'no negligence'. could be a total bs but that's how ovcharovs team got him off.

our late theswordman, once dug out an article with some totally unrealistic figures for south american import to spain. i did some research and showed great amount of errors and plain fantasy there. the posts and the link are somewhere.

You're making me laugh now.

Seriously - this is what I wrote:
"He has offered 'proof' that he ate meat from a country that does not have a problem with Clenbuterol like Mexico or Spain"

You accuse me of pedantry - and I proudly admit it, because when I reread that when I wrote it I was careful not to suggest 'origin' for the very reason that i remember someone bring in the out of EU theory.

Yes, I remember some figures too - I don't remember what they were (realistic/unrealistic) but it suggested large importation. However it still does not get past that imports are traceable to a degree and subject to controls.


Anyway - whats this got to do with Cobo & Nielsen :p I'm out!
 
Merckx index said:
It could have been a very interesting topic if Python had not taken his usual “I know better than anyone else” attitude. If he had actually been willing to debate the topic rather than close it off. Let’s try again:

Absurdity no. 1: Colo vs. Nielson. Yes, I agree that Colo got shafted—or maybe he caught a break and Nielson caught an even bigger break. We really don’t know for sure, do we? The nub of the problem, ironically, is that there is not, as Python claimed in his misleading summary, an absolute zero tolerance rule. If there were, this problem couldn’t have arisen, could it have? WADA rules do make it possible for athletes to get off. So the problem is an uncertainty over what is no significant fault and what is no fault. If you can’t see that, if you really think Python was advancing the discussion by saying one molecule of CB is not allowed, then I have to conclude what buried the interesting topic was something other than pedantry.

Anyone want to propose a solution to this? It seems to me that WADA already has. Taking it case by case, as Mas said, with athletes who test positive in countries like Mexico and China probably getting off, particularly if they test in numbers. For now. In the longer term, maybe meat will be treated like a supplement—even if you prove it was contaminated, it was your fault for not being careful in that situation. Maybe teams that want to eat meat will have to make arrangements with WADA to have samples taken and if necessary tested later. Whatever they do, I think it’s quite unlikely a situation like Colo vs. Nielson will happen again. It has been instructive.

Really? I think it is very likely to happen again, because adhering to zero-tolerance for a substance that quite clearly has a more than remote likelihood of triggering a positive test will inherently always produce miscarriages of justice. You seem to accept to those "false positives" now (and did so in the past) all because of the just fight against doping where the injustice of someone winning PED-aided seeming to be far worse than someone being banned from the sport wrongly.

Added to that, the rule still is zero tolerance (as stated by WADA themselves). Yes the rider can proof no fault or no serious fault, but the zero tolerance rule is still there and ensures that the burden of proof is shifted from WADA to the athlete. Without a zero tolerance rule the burden of proof would rest solely with WADA and the likelihood that they could meet that burden is as low as it is with the athletes. So to claim that there is no such thing as a zero tolerance rule is plain wrong and denies the very real legal effects the rule has.

Absurdity no. 2: Riders get busted by Germany but walk in Paris. This is a conceivable scenario, but we have no evidence that it has happened yet. We are talking about hypothetical false negatives, when in fact the pro peloton is loaded with false negatives, and has been for many, many years. I don’t recall anyone here complaining about all the problems with the EPO test, where rider A can have more synthetic EPO in his urine than rider B, yet A tests negative and B positive. Nor the different criteria that apply in the T-test, to the point where Floyd might possibly have walked if his samples had been analyzed by another lab. Not to mention the Ashenden-documented problems with the passport, unable to identify many if not most cases of blood doping.

I remember that at least I have stated that the rules not only on clen but also on the blood passport need clarification and that it is not acceptable that you can get banned for something they cannot actually proof beyond reasonable doubt. I also distinctly remember being ridiculed by amongst others yourself for not accepting the blood passport in the first place and for not getting angry enough that clean riders are being cheated out of wins, which should justify innocent riders geting a ban.

Given that not all labs can apparently afford the most sensitive detection, what do you propose? That all samples be shipped to Germany for analysis? I don’t think they can handle them all, can they? That the German lab shut down and let the old standards apply more or less uniformly? That the lab not try to detect CB below levels that other labs can’t detect? Is the idea that if some riders might be getting away with doping, we should let them all off? Is that really a better way to approach the situation than to be glad that at least some riders are being caught?

Since cycling is a global sport, you need to test all the samples to the same standard. If different testing standards wouldn't result in gobal 2-year bans but in local bans, I could live with the difference. As it stands, it shouldn't make a difference where your sample is tested. It is global sport, with a global set of rules that should be policed and judged in a uniform fashion, imho.

Absurdity no. 3: Tablemates are not tested. So make a suggestion. Do you think every time athletes sit down for dinner together, everyone should be tested afterwards? Kind of expensive, isn’t it? And if an athlete should want to avoid testing, he just eats somewhere else, or orders the vegetarian special? As I said above, one possibility is storing a sample of meat for possible testing later. It seems to me that would be easier, cheaper, and a more certain way of establishing what was going on than taking samples of everyone at the table and storing them for possible later testing.

Again, are you serious? As someone else pointed put there is a list of possible contaminations that could get you form Paris to Bejing if put in line (in all likelihood, I have no link profing that is a correct stament, it is as such a hyperbole, a conscious exaggeration to get across a point) and as I have stated before, it is not acceptable to me that an innocent rider could get banned for something he couldn't or shoudn't have been aware of ingesting. In the AC-discussions the point was made repeatedly that AC was responsible for what he ate, end of story. My point was and remains that that is just plain inpossible nd unreasonable. So okay, now we know that we have to be carefull when eating meat in China and Mexico, but nevertheless one can still eat contaminated meat elsewhere no matter how likely or unlikely that may be. Do you have trace origins of all your food and drink before ingesting it and then saving sampes of al your food and drink for future reference? That is taking anti-doping to a whole new level of witch hunting imho. Therefore we need to establish a reasonable threshold for such substances. This will indeed mean cheaters getting off, but so be it. For me 10 cheaters getting off is still more acceptabe than 1 innocent rider being punished. Naturally you are free to disagree with me and toe the WADA-line that breeds inconsistencies faster than rabbits. ;)

Regards
GJ
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
You're making me laugh now.
this is what I wrote:
did you need to quote a phrase we have all re-quoted here 20 times;) it's apparent you are still unclear why i pinned you with it :p.

as i said in the beginning, it would be most productive to keep focus on the wada rules first and contador second...not being able to separate the 2, which yes is not easy, muddies the waters when navigating difficult area...
that's one reason, i try to stick to only confirmed public evidence...

what that got to do with colo and nielsen ?

i repeat, wada principle of strict liability, as written, still allows for wild differences in interpretations as exemplified by nielsen and colo cases.

both tested in mexico
both raced in the same race
both ate at the same hotel dinner table
both tested on on 25 april
both riders samples went to ucla

nielsen was acquitted from the start, colo was sanctioned from the start.

apparently, the 'no negligence' and 'no significant negligence' rules of the wada rule book were applied interchangeably by the 2 different adjudicating bodies...this should not happen if the rules weren't allowing for such flipping.

many may recall rfec's flipping - when they replaced the proposed 1 year suspension by none. at the time, i vehemently disagreed with the rfec's 1st decision or as they called it a ' proposal'. 1 year suspension imo was the misinterpretation of wada rules. it was always either 2 years or none.

it was exactly the same fuzziness in the wada strict liability that allowed rfec to flip. i'm far from certain, how cas will rule on that.
 
Merckx index said:
It could have been a very interesting topic if Python had not taken his usual “I know better than anyone else” attitude. If he had actually been willing to debate the topic rather than close it off. Let’s try again:

Absurdity no. 1: Colo vs. Nielson. Yes, I agree that Colo got shafted—or maybe he caught a break and Nielson caught an even bigger break. We really don’t know for sure, do we? The nub of the problem, ironically, is that there is not, as Python claimed in his misleading summary, an absolute zero tolerance rule. If there were, this problem couldn’t have arisen, could it have? WADA rules do make it possible for athletes to get off. So the problem is an uncertainty over what is no significant fault and what is no fault. If you can’t see that, if you really think Python was advancing the discussion by saying one molecule of CB is not allowed, then I have to conclude what buried the interesting topic was something other than pedantry.

Anyone want to propose a solution to this? It seems to me that WADA already has. Taking it case by case, as Mas said, with athletes who test positive in countries like Mexico and China probably getting off, particularly if they test in numbers. For now. In the longer term, maybe meat will be treated like a supplement—even if you prove it was contaminated, it was your fault for not being careful in that situation. Maybe teams that want to eat meat will have to make arrangements with WADA to have samples taken and if necessary tested later. Whatever they do, I think it’s quite unlikely a situation like Colo vs. Nielson will happen again. It has been instructive.

Absurdity no. 2: Riders get busted by Germany but walk in Paris. This is a conceivable scenario, but we have no evidence that it has happened yet. We are talking about hypothetical false negatives, when in fact the pro peloton is loaded with false negatives, and has been for many, many years. I don’t recall anyone here complaining about all the problems with the EPO test, where rider A can have more synthetic EPO in his urine than rider B, yet A tests negative and B positive. Nor the different criteria that apply in the T-test, to the point where Floyd might possibly have walked if his samples had been analyzed by another lab. Not to mention the Ashenden-documented problems with the passport, unable to identify many if not most cases of blood doping.

Given that not all labs can apparently afford the most sensitive detection, what do you propose? That all samples be shipped to Germany for analysis? I don’t think they can handle them all, can they? That the German lab shut down and let the old standards apply more or less uniformly? That the lab not try to detect CB below levels that other labs can’t detect? Is the idea that if some riders might be getting away with doping, we should let them all off? Is that really a better way to approach the situation than to be glad that at least some riders are being caught?

Absurdity no. 3: Tablemates are not tested. So make a suggestion. Do you think every time athletes sit down for dinner together, everyone should be tested afterwards? Kind of expensive, isn’t it? And if an athlete should want to avoid testing, he just eats somewhere else, or orders the vegetarian special? As I said above, one possibility is storing a sample of meat for possible testing later. It seems to me that would be easier, cheaper, and a more certain way of establishing what was going on than taking samples of everyone at the table and storing them for possible later testing.

i quoted this whole post because it's been burried by absurdity.

WADA's in a difficult position with substances like clenbuterol but has mostly gotten it right. going forward clenbuterol remains a no threshold substance and leniency is permitted when the evidence warrants it. it isn't perfect but it's the only practical solution. it's actually quite obvious when you set aside personal preferences, nationalistic pride, or other bias/loyalties.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
python said:
did you need to quote a phrase we have all re-quoted here 20 times;)
What quote :p
python said:
it's apparent you are still unclear why i pinned you with it :p.
Now that is something I can agree with you on.


python said:
as i said in the beginning, it would be most productive to keep focus on the wada rules first and contador second...not being able to separate the 2, which yes is not easy, muddies the waters when navigating difficult area...
that's one reason, i try to stick to only confirmed public evidence...
Rules are by definition open to interpretation - what muddies the water is if you are seeking a particular result from those rules.
As to sticking to confirmed public evidence - you attempted to pin me on a very loose theory on the origin of ACs famous meat.




python said:
what that got to do with colo and nielsen ?
Ok, I was actually joking when I brought that in.....

python said:
i repeat, wada principle of strict liability, as written, still allows for wild differences in interpretations as exemplified by nielsen and colo cases.

both tested in mexico
both raced in the same race
both ate at the same hotel dinner table
both tested on on 25 april
both riders samples went to ucla

nielsen was acquitted from the start, colo was sanctioned from the start.

apparently, the 'no negligence' and 'no significant negligence' rules of the wada rule book were applied interchangeably by the 2 different adjudicating bodies...this should not happen if the rules weren't allowing for such flipping.
OK, this is what annoys me in your argument - because I trust that you know that there was a significant delay in Nielsens case and he benefited from Colos positive.

Colo was notified as early as May 2010, and was heard and sanctioned by CONI by 9th October 2010.

Nielsen B sample wasn't confirmed until January 2011!
His case was not heard until March 2011 - by which time more Clen positives had come out including a guy he had dinner with in Mexico.

Nielsen owes Colo a beer.


python said:
many may recall rfec's flipping - when they replaced the proposed 1 year suspension by none. at the time, i vehemently disagreed with the rfec's 1st decision or as they called it a ' proposal'. 1 year suspension imo was the misinterpretation of wada rules. it was always either 2 years or none.

it was exactly the same fuzziness in the wada strict liability that allowed rfec to flip. i'm far from certain, how cas will rule on that.
Why is it a misinterpretation?

I will summarize (these are not the quoted rules :D) - he produces evidence of contaminated meat, he is off. (NFoN)
He shows a possibility of food contamination - 1 year (NSFoN)
They laugh at the moo moo story - see you in 2 years.

I assume we agree that CAS operate to a higher principle then RFEC?
Unless AC does produce something substantial then I do believe CAS will go for either zero or 2 years - and again, from what has come out from the AC camp I have read nothing to suggest they have anything of substance.
 
lean said:
i quoted this whole post because it's been burried by absurdity.

WADA's in a difficult position with substances like clenbuterol but has mostly gotten it right. going forward clenbuterol remains a no threshold substance and leniency is permitted when the evidence warrants it. it isn't perfect but it's the only practical solution. it's actually quite obvious when you set aside personal preferences, nationalistic pride, or other bias/loyalties.

I am happy to see that you are delighted at thinking that your own opinion is the best and most unbiased opinion available. :rolleyes:

Regards
GJ
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
heads up - a new wada procedure

when an absurdity reaches certain proportions, it can only be addressed by another equal absurdity.

the following wada/uci procedure must be met before any rider sits down for a steak meal : any failure to strictly adhere to or execute the procedure may result in an adverse analytical finding due to a suspicions of sample tampering and/or manipulation or testing positive for clenbuterol

1. at least one certified uci official (who could also be a chaperone) is present in the restaurant
2. this official should follow all steak movements between the kitchen and the table to make sure it was not spiked or substituted.
3. this official or his representative should personally cut out a representative sample with a wada approved sterile knife. any excessive fat, bone, char and sinew must be trimmed (see wada technical document td-moo-003 for how to trim a sample).
4. the official or his rep should split the cut into a and b samples.
5. he should seal and pack both a and b samples only into wada approved tamper-proof containers.
6. prior to placing the samples into a wada-certified portable freezer, he should verify that all temperature instruments have been properly calibrated and set to a proper range.
7. he should then proceed and fill a chain of custody form and sign it in the presence of a rider and another witness
8. he should then place both samples into a tamper-proof portable freezer .
9. the samples then must be transported to a wada-certified storage facility no later than 36 hours since cutting
10. the sample-receiving facility must fill in the chain of custody and place the sample in a secure locked storage.

all costs must be pay by the rider as it's his neck that must be protected.
 
Thank you, GJB and LMG, for attempting to debate the topic. Brodeal and Python complained that a potentially interesting discussion was being derailed, but when I quoted each one of Python’s original points and discussed them, and invited suggestions for how to deal with the problems Python originally raised, neither of them showed the slightest interest in continuing the discussion. Python, in a textbook example of anti-science—judging by the man rather than the idea—replied that nothing I said could be worth responding to. Brodeal couldn’t even be bothered to note that an attempt had been made to restart the discussion. So much for their seriousness in claiming the discussion was derailed.

Then Python went on and on and on in about twenty posts just to argue that Bert’s meat might have come from outside of Spain, when I had already pointed out, on this thread and others in the past, that imported meat in Spain is subjected to the same testing standards.

To your points, GJ:

Added to that, the rule still is zero tolerance (as stated by WADA themselves). Yes the rider can proof no fault or no serious fault, but the zero tolerance rule is still there and ensures that the burden of proof is shifted from WADA to the athlete. Without a zero tolerance rule the burden of proof would rest solely with WADA and the likelihood that they could meet that burden is as low as it is with the athletes. So to claim that there is no such thing as a zero tolerance rule is plain wrong and denies the very real legal effects the rule has.

I really am puzzled how something can be called zero tolerance if it can in fact be permitted under some circumstances. But the important part of this paragraph is in the middle. I think this is the essence of the situation, that the burden is on the rider, rather than on WADA. But in the two recent cases, that has clearly shifted. The fact that WADA decided not to pursue them, though the athletes could not produce the meat, or even a hairtest, indicates that WADA accepted the burden of proof and felt they couldn’t meet it. So while CB may in principle be a you prove it situation, in practice, that is changing. I agree with LMG that they are doing it right now, or as well as they can. Rule changes will undoubtedly follow, but as was noted by Python, these take time. As you yourself have pointed out, we are in a transition period.

I remember that at least I have stated that the rules not only on clen but also on the blood passport need clarification and that it is not acceptable that you can get banned for something they cannot actually proof beyond reasonable doubt. I also distinctly remember being ridiculed by amongst others yourself for not accepting the blood passport in the first place and for not getting angry enough that clean riders are being cheated out of wins, which should justify innocent riders geting a ban.

The very, very few blood passport anomalies that have gotten anywhere suggest to me that anyone getting banned is doing so because of a very strong case. I don’t remember ridiculing you for this, what I have said, as in my post you quoted, is that it is too easy to beat the passport. Yes, I have made the argument about riders getting cheated out of wins, but I’ve not advocated busting more riders for passport anomalies or anything like that. Not sure what you mean here.

Since cycling is a global sport, you need to test all the samples to the same standard. If different testing standards wouldn't result in gobal 2-year bans but in local bans, I could live with the difference. As it stands, it shouldn't make a difference where your sample is tested. It is global sport, with a global set of rules that should be policed and judged in a uniform fashion, imho.

Fine! I welcome your point of view to the debate, and am glad you have joined it. But then how would you address the current discrepancy in testing sensitivity? You can’t just say, there should be uniform standards, any more than you could say, everyone on earth should have food, clothing and shelter. How do we get from A to B, in the specific case of CB? Should we raise the level in Germany, so it is like that of the labs with the lowest sensitivity? Is that your proposal? Be specific.

Again, are you serious? As someone else pointed put there is a list of possible contaminations that could get you form Paris to Bejing if put in line (in all likelihood, I have no link profing that is a correct stament, it is as such a hyperbole, a conscious exaggeration to get across a point) and as I have stated before, it is not acceptable to me that an innocent rider could get banned for something he couldn't or shoudn't have been aware of ingesting. In the AC-discussions the point was made repeatedly that AC was responsible for what he ate, end of story. My point was and remains that that is just plain inpossible nd unreasonable. So okay, now we know that we have to be carefull when eating meat in China and Mexico, but nevertheless one can still eat contaminated meat elsewhere no matter how likely or unlikely that may be. Do you have trace origins of all your food and drink before ingesting it and then saving sampes of al your food and drink for future reference? That is taking anti-doping to a whole new level of witch hunting imho. Therefore we need to establish a reasonable threshold for such substances. This will indeed mean cheaters getting off, but so be it. For me 10 cheaters getting off is still more acceptabe than 1 innocent rider being punished. Naturally you are free to disagree with me and toe the WADA-line that breeds inconsistencies faster than rabbits.

Again, welcome to the debate! So your solution, if I understand it, is to make CB legal, at any level? OK, that’s one possibility, I’ve always had sympathy with the notion of legalizing all PES, actually.

Or do you advocate a threshold? Fine, what is the threshold? Is it less than 20 pg/ml, which will ensure that anyone who eats inspected meat will not be sanctioned? Or is it 50 pg/ml, which would let Bert and apparently many of the recent athletes in Mexico get off, even though it has been rigorously established that you can get this level only by eating meat that does not pass the Euro standard?

Remember, all the statistics say the probability of eating meat over the standard in Spain and elsewhere in Europe is astronomically low. Still uncomfortable with this? Fine, but where do we put the threshold? Again, be specific. I hear you and lot of other people complaining that Bert is being railroaded, but I don’t hear you and these other people making specific proposals on how to avoid this.

Keep in mind that if we put the threshold over 20, so that only meat that is illegal can cause a positive, there is no obvious way to limit the threshold. Why put it at 50, when contaminated meat can lead to a level of 100, 300, or even, according to WADA when they dropped the case against the Mexican soccer players, more than 4 ng per ml. Do you really want a threshold that high? That is an open invitation to athletes to use CB pretty much with abandon.

This is why many of us think a no threshold, case by case basis is still better. Any threshold you name can be exceeded by eating contaminated meat, and can be avoided by many dopers.


In San Diego there is a water treatment plant that uses natural plants and minerals to treat waste water. The primary plant used is a breed of water hyacinth. The water has been tested over the years to reveal that substances in birth control pills and other prescription drugs go unfiltered. All kinds of things are in the water from stuff that is flushed down the toilet ,pills and other meds that people discard. Cows,pigs and chickens being treated with substances that are illegal to a bike racer is pretty standard. even if you don't eat steak, you drink water and that can give you a positive depending on the quantities and testing threshold levels. Sounds syfi but its not

Yes, there was a report a few days ago that DEHP was present in a river in Germany. But people don’t drink river water until it’s treated first. As I posted here not long ago, so far there is no study showing CB in drinking water at a level that would result in anything close to what athletes are testing at in these recent cases.

The issue is what these substances may be doing to wildlife.

when an absurdity reaches certain proportions, it can only be addressed by another equal absurdity

What a surprise! Python has finally rejoined the debate that he started. OK, you think testing meat is absurd. I disagree, I really don't think we have to worry about someone spiking meat and all that, but what is your proposed alternative? Do you favor testing everyone who ate? Or a threshold? At what level? Be specific.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
python said:
when an absurdity reaches certain proportions, it can only be addressed by another equal absurdity.

the following wada/uci procedure must be met before any rider sits down for a steak meal : any failure to strictly adhere to or execute the procedure may result in an adverse analytical finding due to a suspicions of sample tampering and/or manipulation or testing positive for clenbuterol

1. at least one certified uci official (who could also be a chaperone) is present in the restaurant
2. this official should follow all steak movements between the kitchen and the table to make sure it was not spiked or substituted.
3. this official or his representative should personally cut out a representative sample with a wada approved sterile knife. any excessive fat, bone, char and sinew must be trimmed (see wada technical document td-moo-003 for how to trim a sample).
4. the official or his rep should split the cut into a and b samples.
5. he should seal and pack both a and b samples only into wada approved tamper-proof containers.
6. prior to placing the samples into a wada-certified portable freezer, he should verify that all temperature instruments have been properly calibrated and set to a proper range.
7. he should then proceed and fill a chain of custody form and sign it in the presence of a rider and another witness
8. he should then place both samples into a tamper-proof portable freezer .
9. the samples then must be transported to a wada-certified storage facility no later than 36 hours since cutting
10. the sample-receiving facility must fill in the chain of custody and place the sample in a secure locked storage.

all costs must be pay by the rider as it's his neck that must be protected.
forgot to add that merxcks index, whist pushing the absurdity of a rider taking samples of his meat, is not the first deluded scientist who proposed it.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
GJB123 said:
Really? I think it is very likely to happen again, because adhering to zero-tolerance for a substance that quite clearly has a more than remote likelihood of triggering a positive test will inherently always produce miscarriages of justice. You seem to accept to those "false positives" now (and did so in the past) all because of the just fight against doping where the injustice of someone winning PED-aided seeming to be far worse than someone being banned from the sport wrongly.

Added to that, the rule still is zero tolerance (as stated by WADA themselves). Yes the rider can proof no fault or no serious fault, but the zero tolerance rule is still there and ensures that the burden of proof is shifted from WADA to the athlete. Without a zero tolerance rule the burden of proof would rest solely with WADA and the likelihood that they could meet that burden is as low as it is with the athletes. So to claim that there is no such thing as a zero tolerance rule is plain wrong and denies the very real legal effects the rule has.
Zero Tolerance?
Obviously if there is no threshold for a substance then it 'Zero Tolerance' has to be applied.

Lets be clear - the burden will always rest on the athlete, regardless of a threshold or not.


GJB123 said:
I remember that at least I have stated that the rules not only on clen but also on the blood passport need clarification and that it is not acceptable that you can get banned for something they cannot actually proof beyond reasonable doubt. I also distinctly remember being ridiculed by amongst others yourself for not accepting the blood passport in the first place and for not getting angry enough that clean riders are being cheated out of wins, which should justify innocent riders geting a ban.
I think the highlighted is where you will always be at odds with the WADA system.

The standard that WADA use in the rules is "standard of proof in
all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt."



GJB123 said:
Since cycling is a global sport, you need to test all the samples to the same standard. If different testing standards wouldn't result in gobal 2-year bans but in local bans, I could live with the difference. As it stands, it shouldn't make a difference where your sample is tested. It is global sport, with a global set of rules that should be policed and judged in a uniform fashion, imho.
Absolutely not - driving is a global activity, let me know how you get on if you drive above the posted 30 mph limit in China and try and suggest that its 50 where you are from.

There is a threshold that all accredited Labs must be able to detect - which is quite correct but there should be no limit to detection.


GJB123 said:
Again, are you serious? As someone else pointed put there is a list of possible contaminations that could get you form Paris to Bejing if put in line (in all likelihood, I have no link profing that is a correct stament, it is as such a hyperbole, a conscious exaggeration to get across a point) and as I have stated before, it is not acceptable to me that an innocent rider could get banned for something he couldn't or shoudn't have been aware of ingesting. In the AC-discussions the point was made repeatedly that AC was responsible for what he ate, end of story. My point was and remains that that is just plain inpossible nd unreasonable. So okay, now we know that we have to be carefull when eating meat in China and Mexico, but nevertheless one can still eat contaminated meat elsewhere no matter how likely or unlikely that may be. Do you have trace origins of all your food and drink before ingesting it and then saving sampes of al your food and drink for future reference? That is taking anti-doping to a whole new level of witch hunting imho. Therefore we need to establish a reasonable threshold for such substances. This will indeed mean cheaters getting off, but so be it. For me 10 cheaters getting off is still more acceptabe than 1 innocent rider being punished. Naturally you are free to disagree with me and toe the WADA-line that breeds inconsistencies faster than rabbits. ;)

Regards
GJ

I agree with the premise of the highlighted.
But that is why 2 different rules can be applied if an athlete can suggest contamination.
 
Jul 19, 2010
347
0
0
Visit site
BroDeal said:
Does Mexican beef get exported to europe? I am sure a lot of it makes it way to the U.S., by hook or by crook.

There has been some talk about using different standards for different countries, but that would seem to ignore the realities of global trade.

It seems Mexican beef is a staple of national junior football training programs.
 
Jun 16, 2009
860
0
0
Visit site
Paco_P said:
It seems Mexican beef is a staple of national junior football training programs.
I always see beef mentioned, it is well know that horse is consumed in mexico, clenbuterol is very common in races horses, which would make far more sense IMO.
Here is some pure speculation from my part, supposedly clenbuterol is used as a diet aid for some people. Just rumours i have heard. High levels in a person seem much more likely to me from ingesting as a diet aid for someone who is not a top tier professional athlete, especially in a place that now is considered by people to have a food contamination risk.

There are no studies whatsoever that i could find on clenbuterol in combination with other drugs. We know drug combinations to be a powerful tool in the legal application of drugs, and combinations can drastically alter the rate at which drugs are metabolized. Even something as simple as grapefruit juice taken in combination with certain drugs can change the way they are absorbed by the body to the point of making them pontentially lethal.
Since we do not know the metabolic properties of clenbuterol in combination with other substances(especially tb500 or diruetics) it is impossible to assertain what amount found in ones urine constitutes a PED.


lastly from a beef producers point of view, looking at the "evidence" of beef contamination it is quite slim. When the AC story first broke i could easily find some studies on clenbuterol & cattle, later they became buried under hundreds of other results. Here is what i first found
In the 80's there was a study in Europe initially raising the possibility that cattle might benefit in muscle growth from the drug but further study was warranted. Subsequent studies showed detrimental effects of the drug on beef. Change of texture & taste of the meat, and most importantly most breeds actually losing more fat than muscle gained resulting in an overall loss of weight .
Most of the evidence of clenbuterol contamination in cattle occured during the 80's and early90's and gradually dissipated as knowledge of the dangers and lack of performance of the drug became clear.as well as other safer legal alternatives such as ear implants came to be known.
When details are searched in the cases i have seen quoted many times they either refer tothe all encompassing term "livestock"(such as horses) or cases that were far from recent.

Now every time i hear of beef with clenbuterol i consider the source and question the accuracy. Is it a country with lax safety standards? Is it a country where consuming horses is a possibility? And if so, could the fact that it takes place in such a country be that it might be somewhat of a safe haven for that behavior?
any country such as Spain which conducts thorough testing of its beef(domestic & imported)and has no recent positives would obviously not be a place where clenbuterol contamination has any reasonable chance of occurring.
And before someone mentions AC lawyers contention of percentage of testing
producers do not sell just one cow so they have tens of chances if not hundreds per year of having their beef tested. And the accuracy of tests they were doing 15 years ago could trace clenbuterol use going back months, i would imagine current testing would be even more advanced.
So over a period of years even a low percentage of overall tests would still result in a great chance of having ones cattle detected for ANY clenbuterol use, with quite severe penalties for being found in violation of the law.
I would imagine in the last 5 years the chances of a cattle producer in Spain not having their product tested is slim & none.

While innocent until proven guilty is the acceptable standard , once you become positive, for any amount you are guilty. The burden of true proof (and not just possibilty) to reestablish innocence is almost impossible to achieve, because, if you allow the use of probability and possibility to substitute for the hard facts that were used to establish guilt, there is too great a number of possibilities to disallow guilt.
As an example the innumerable drug combinations possibile but as yet unresearched.

zero tolerance with no exceptions IMO
 
May 20, 2010
718
1
0
Visit site
Python and Dr M

Hi Guys, to other members, sorry for OT.

Have noted your discussion on faults/flaws in posts. In future where you are unable to obtain resolution in, let's say, 4 posts, would you please consider PM. I have found the discussion disruptive to the general thrust of the thread. Your first 4 notes to one another allowed me (us?) to observe your views on "the bone of contention".

May I say, in general I appreciate the info that you both bring to the forum.

ta John S