• 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 6 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 14, 2009
2,498
0
0
Visit site
runninboy said:
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

all these substances are used on humans and animals for respiratory problems.
With a search for "drugs in drinking water" dozens of things come up, domestic and international studies that find all kinds of things in high concentrations. Finding a common asthma medication in young people athletes or not would hardly be a surprise. I think Poland and China have Mexico beat for horse meat on the table.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
a few more intriguing details emerged…

in my earlier response to Califootman.(post #17) i remarked that it was wada rather than fifa who enabled this world championship in a clen-contaminated country. i also noted in the same post that wada ignored a warning from germany made well before the 109 positives broke out.

18 october teleconference, fifa medical director confirmed what i said
jiri dvorak said:
The background which led to the decision is that in April this year, the German anti-doping organisation issued a warning to the sports federations and anti-doping organisations that athletes should be cautious when travelling to Mexico and China as there is a possibility to produce adverse analytical findings due to meat contamination. We took note of this but as this is warning which was not commented upon or reinforced by WADA, we continued with our preparation for the FIFA U-17 World Cup in Mexico.

and there was another fascinating detail - of the 109 eventual positives for clenbuterol, only 4 were actually detected during the tournament itself by the examining lab. Why ?

as I have pointed out earlier, this was due to the sad reality of the current wada rules that allow rendering one and the same athlete a cheating doper if tested in one country and a squeaky clean in another.

in the particular case, it was one of the best equipped and the largest wada lab (ucla in California) that rendered the 4 positives. alarmed by the positives, since fifa never experiencing a single clen case in the 20 yrs of U17 world championships, fifa decided to retest all 208 samples from mexico in cologne (germany). the retesting took place many weeks after the wc ended. cologne is the same lab that busted contador.

the count went from 4 to 109 !

in other words, a whopping 97% of the samples which according to the current wada guidance were supposed to be positive, for clenbuterol…were actually rendered clean by one of wada’s best labs. :confused:

in the same vein, from the public sources we know that contador’s clen postive was also produced by cologne lab, unlike the rest of the peloton’s negatives that were produced by the less sensitive lausanne lab.

that's what i called an absurdity earlier :mad:
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
python said:
a few more intriguing details emerged…

in my earlier response to Califootman.(post #17) i remarked that it was wada rather than fifa who enabled this world championship in a clen-contaminated country. i also noted in the same post that wada ignored a warning from germany made well before the 109 positives broke out.

18 october teleconference, fifa medical director confirmed what i said


and there was another fascinating detail - of the 109 eventual positives for clenbuterol, only 4 were actually detected during the tournament itself by the examining lab. Why ?

as I have pointed out earlier, this was due to the sad reality of the current wada rules that allow rendering one and the same athlete a cheating doper if tested in one country and a squeaky clean in another.

in the particular case, it was one of the best equipped and the largest wada lab (ucla in California) that rendered the 4 positives. alarmed by the positives, since fifa never experiencing a single clen case in the 20 yrs of U17 world championships, fifa decided to retest all 208 samples from mexico in cologne (germany). the retesting took place many weeks after the wc ended. cologne is the same lab that busted contador.

the count went from 4 to 109 !

in other words, a whopping 97% of the samples which according to the current wada guidance were supposed to be positive, for clenbuterol…were actually rendered clean by one of wada’s best labs. :confused:

No, the reality is that none of these athletes are viewed as "cheating dopers" because of the very same WADA rules.

If what I read on this thread earlier was applied (or the rules) about Zero Tolerance, Strict Liability and other buzzwords then they would not have even been given the opportunity to clear their names.

They were caught having a banned substance in their system, it was investigated and they were cleared.


python said:
in the same vein, from the public sources we know that contador’s clen postive was also produced by cologne lab, unlike the rest of the peloton’s negatives that were produced by the less sensitive lausanne lab.

that's what i called an absurdity earlier :mad:
Well, Contadors positive was produced by Clenbuterol, it was analysed in Cologne - the only issue is how did it get in his system.

Contadors sample was one of 10 sample selected to be analysed in Cologne for the very reason that Cologne was able other substances and to a higher concentration.
 
Oct 6, 2009
5,270
2
0
Visit site
python said:
<snipped for brevity>

the retesting took place many weeks after the wc ended. cologne is the same lab that busted contador.

the count went from 4 to 109 !

in other words, a whopping 97% of the samples which according to the current wada guidance were supposed to be positive, for clenbuterol…were actually rendered clean by one of wada’s best labs. :confused:

in the same vein, from the public sources we know that contador’s clen postive was also produced by cologne lab, unlike the rest of the peloton’s negatives that were produced by the less sensitive lausanne lab.

that's what i called an absurdity earlier :mad:

Before this point gets lost in another avalanche of pedantry, thanks for the new info Python.

I can see Contador's legal team bringing up the issue of false negatives, especially with so few TdF 2010 samples being tested at the Cologne lab. The variability in lab findings really highlights the need for a threshold for many substances, or else set minimum testing levels. The different WADA labs need to be more "equal," so that what constitutes a positive in one country/lab would also be considered positive if the same test were done somewhere else. There has to be some fairness in the system.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
no maserati, you are still very confused.

or more likely engaging in another round of obfuscation.

you are not even capable of reading what's written in black and white - many players would become cheating dopers if the fifa blindly applied current wada rules and did not fork out large sums for additional testing.

one wada lab found 4 positives of 208 and another 109 of the same 208 samples. let me ask you, can you explain why this should happen and how is that an indication of robust rules and regulations ?

in fact, wada, as was clearly stated by fifa medical director, ignored a warning from germany and thus facilitated unnecessary troubles.

also please explain why did wada ignore the warning ?
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
python said:
no maserati, you are still very confused.

or more likely engaging in another round of obfuscation.

you are not even capable of reading what's written in black and white - many players would become cheating dopers if the fifa blindly applied current wada rules and did not fork out large sums for additional testing.

one wada lab found 4 positives of 208 and another 109 of the same 208 samples. let me ask you, can you explain why this should happen and how is that an indication of robust rules and regulations ?

in fact, wada, as was clearly stated by fifa medical director, ignored a warning from germany and thus facilitated unnecessary troubles.

also please explain why did wada ignore the warning ?

Firstly - I pointed out the inaccuracies in your previous post, I made no personal comments - kindly refrain from doing so.

To the blue - yet these athletes didn't, because of the very rules set up by WADA allowing them investigate possible sources for the positives -that is the system working as it should.


To the highlighted questions -
Cologne has more sensitive testing equipment than UCLA - there is a threshold that WADA labs must be able to detect, there is no minimum value that can be detected. Perfectly within the "rules and regulations".

I have no idea why WADA "ignored a warning". I also have no idea why WADA would need to comment on the warning.
Should WADA have stepped in to the Tour of Beijing and stopped the UCI race there?
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
Beech Mtn said:
Before this point gets lost in another avalanche of pedantry, thanks for the new info Python
.You’re welcome.

i understand your reference to pedantry but you’re hardly alone. having seen enough of the doc’s style, i believe it’s a deliberate form of deflection to avoid admitting simple facts and looking like he is winning a debate whilst making himself look silly if not obtuse. the 2 points i made weren't complicated and very specific. yet doc, a self-admitted stickler for details, managed to mire them in irrelevant statement. here is a sampling of comments by other posters reflecting virtually the same sentiment as you did.
brodeal said:
Jeebus! No one can even post a summary of rules and what they believe the effective consequences will be because people are too freakin' stupid to figure out that it is not a direct quote from WADA rules, so much so that they start harping on a member because of it in post after post.
python said:
I don&#8217]
brodeal said:
It's being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative and then beating the non-issue like a dead horse until everyone else avoids the thread.
And more of his frustrations
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.
Richwagmn quoting quoting brodeal and noticing how pedantry is really a derailing
Couldn't agree more. Completely uninterested at this point
.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
python said:
.You’re welcome.

i understand your reference to pedantry but you’re hardly alone. having seen enough of the doc’s style, i believe it’s a deliberate form of deflection to avoid admitting simple facts and looking like he is winning a debate whilst making himself look silly if not obtuse. the 2 points i made weren't complicated and very specific. yet doc, a self-admitted stickler for details, managed to mire them in irrelevant statement. here is a sampling of comments by other posters reflecting virtually the same sentiment as you did.



And more of his frustrations

Richwagmn quoting quoting brodeal and noticing how pedantry is really a derailing
.

Just to be clear - you wrote this?
i believe it’s a deliberate form of deflection to avoid admitting simple facts and looking like he is winning a debate whilst making himself look silly if not obtuse.


I am more than happy to discuss the issue - you appear to prefer making it personal - which begs the question - why?

Because right now in making this personal it looks as though it is you who is making a "deliberate form of deflection" to avoid having your position questioned.

BTW - yes, I am pedantic - I make no apologies for it.
It gets straight to the core of the subject - if you have a problem with that, then it is your problem.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
so once again, despite of so many clear examples and pleas from several members, the thread is being again plunged into the flood of obtuse and irrelevant deflections by the same poster.

in stead of addressing the specific points and examples about wada rules being inadequate as they relate to clenbuterol, we are forced into intentionally distorted and confused and irrelevant verbiage.

Ii’m going to use your own expressions, doc, to make it clear very clear, no one here cares if you are pedantic shmedantic, if you don’t want to be called on your apparent obfuscations by using pedantry, stop obfuscating.
 
Jul 4, 2011
1,899
0
0
Visit site
One thing that has been established is that there is a clenbuterol problem in Mexico and China. Another thing is that different countries interpret the clenbuterol rule differently.

Now my question (all hypothetical) is, after the Nielsen case, why wouldn't a Danish cyclist or sportsman of any sort could spend his off season or even shift base to Mexico and China and provide proof of him eating contaminated meat, even though could have spent his time doping.

If there is a world standard rule, what would it do to some honest Chinese and Mexican athletes who may be eating clen contaminated beef or whatever meat regularly?

Finally, and I honestly know nothing about this, are clenbuterol supplements for cows even legal. If so, is it time to change it and have a world standard? If there is a world standard, how difficult will it be to implement?
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
ramjambunath said:
One thing that has been established is that there is a clenbuterol problem in Mexico and China. Another thing is that different countries interpret the clenbuterol rule differently.
thanks, ramjambunath, for returning the discussion to real issues.

i will try to give you my take and keep in mind, it's only my opinion since i do not have a lot of the information required to be more factual...

Now my question (all hypothetical) is, after the Nielsen case, why wouldn't a Danish cyclist or sportsman of any sort could spend his off season or even shift base to Mexico and China and provide proof of him eating contaminated meat, even though could have spent his time doping.
if i understood you correctly, you are suggesting that a rider could be deliberately doping and yet pretending to have been contaminated ? if so, it is certainly a possibility.

an important thing to keep in mind is that the sports doping with clenbuterol is typically done for 2 reasons - to quickly lose weight or as a long term bronchdilator. if one let say chose a base in mexico, doped with clen and got popped for clen, then it would be an interesting case given the very latest developments. it would depend on many circumstances and a doper may indeed get away or earn a reduced suspension.


If there is a world standard rule, what would it do to some honest Chinese and Mexican athletes who may be eating clen contaminated beef or whatever meat regularly?
that's the million euro question !

many wada scientist strongly believe that we should start with the introduction of threshold for clen. some disagree. it's not an easy step b/c we first need to understand the degree to which a general population, including athletes, may be contaminated with any background, iow finding the level of the background by conducting appropriate studies...

there were also suggestions of relegating clen positives into a so called 'atypical finding' rather than an automatic 'adverse analytical finding'. also, some modifications to the current 'strict liability' principle have been suggested by no less than legal folks from cas itself...
Finally, and I honestly know nothing about this, are clenbuterol supplements for cows even legal.
clen is clearly illegal in cattle. it is allowed only as a specific therapeutic - as a broncho-dilator in horses for example. in europe, it is allowed in meat, milk and water in trace amounts defined by a term 'maximal residual level' -mrl. a very small concentrations.

If so, is it time to change it and have a world standard? If there is a world standard, how difficult will it be to implement?
there already exist a word standard for doping in sports - wada. many, including myself , believe it needs tweaking...as to the word standard for clen in meat, well, it's possible but as far as i know different countries have slightly different mrl they also differe widely in terms of enforcing the standard.

mexico is the best example of lax enforcement as many still beleave, i even read it in reputable periodicals, that clen is legal in mexico..

one mechanism to address clen standard for cattle word-wide would the world trade organization. but i have no clue if they care...

hope this helped.
 
Jul 4, 2011
1,899
0
0
Visit site
Thanks for that.

My last question was about cattle rearing not drug control and that was answered in the previous question itself.

One problem with the WTO having a clen standard for cattle is that there are govts around the world which try to protect their farmers from international laws, mainly for economical reasons but if it does improve the quality of cattle, some govts would definitely not enforce the law in their land. Of course, that would hurt exports but in many countries with only domestic consumption, it would mean that the market is filled with contaminated meat readily available for any sportsman.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
ramjambunath said:
Thanks for that.

My last question was about cattle rearing not drug control and that was answered in the previous question itself.
good. i was trying to be concise answering that question. but in reality - clenbuterol regulations in agree culture - is a complex problem. it primarily involves public health but also many civil, criminal and scietific issues.

i have some excellent references if you're interested. but be warned :)- it's a tedious, boring, multi-page stuff.
One problem with the WTO having a clen standard for cattle is that <snip for brevity>
wto has many problem, true, but it also creates a vehicle, however imperfect, for standardizing practices for goods and services traded across the world. once countries sign to wto, they can be held legally responsible for breaking agreements and that is a powerful tool to keep clen illegality and corruption, at least, manageable.

but, you right, there are plenty of bilateral agreements for that, and for example mexican beef in the eu - or spain by extension - is supposed to be 'clean'. i expect it to be so, but since crime and corruption have not been eliminated, i allow for a small degree of that possibility.

improbable rather than impossible as they say :)
 
Jul 4, 2011
1,899
0
0
Visit site
True, something is better than nothing and if it is a starting point for quality control then it is good.

Also unlike reading all the ingredients of packaged food, if an athlete does his due diligence in the tracing of the meat many issues can be avoided. Sorry to defect to Contador's case a bit, but I just want to make a general point from this specific. I don't think he was in either of the countries. He could have easily bought organic meat, which is surely available in Europe considering it is a lot of India's organic produce ends up there. That can apply to every athlete.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
due diligence is of course an important term for a professional athlete exposed both to every-day chemicals and the anti doping code.

but again, it's a legal term (and i'm far from being a lawyer). the term gets many interpretations depending on the case...

wada covers due diligence under the strict liability rules. i don't find them all that unreasonable. for example, in the case of nutritional supplements they are clear and straight forward - wada has specific warning about supplements and if an athlete ignored them he usually gets 2 years. if inadvertently consumed, wada allows 'a no significant fault or negligence' interpretation and an athlete will be punished with a reduced suspension - 1 year typically (J. Hardy case for ex).

however, in the case of regular staple food items like meat, eaten in the stictly controlled eu country, due diligence is a tad more complicated and the athlete's responsibility is subject to interpretation.

i agree, that contador, (i'm not really his fan nor a foe) or any athlete buying meat in europe would be wise to go organic or exercise cation.

but is being wise equivalent to criminal negligence ? is it a punishable legal obligation ?

no question, that contador can afford special controls, a personal cook, certified-contaminant free supplements etc..but is it reasonable to expect a lesser mortal to spend a fortune of such luxuries ?

that's why i see clenbuterol issues as a 2-way street where 'reasonable and fair' is balanced against abuse and cheating. ideally speaking.
 
Jul 4, 2011
1,899
0
0
Visit site
python said:
due diligence is of course an important term for a professional athlete exposed both to every-day chemicals and the anti doping code.

but again, it's a legal term (and i'm far from being a lawyer). the term gets many interpretations depending on the case...

wada covers due diligence under the strict liability rules. i don't find them all that unreasonable. for example, in the case of nutritional supplements they are clear and straight forward - wada has specific warning about supplements and if an athlete ignored them he usually gets 2 years. if inadvertently consumed, wada allows 'a no significant fault or negligence' interpretation and an athlete will be punished with a reduced suspension - 1 year typically (J. Hardy case for ex).

however, in the case of regular staple food items like meat, eaten in the stictly controlled eu country, due diligence is a tad more complicated and the athlete's responsibility is subject to interpretation.

i agree, that contador, (i'm not really his fan nor a foe) or any athlete buying meat in europe would be wise to go organic or exercise cation...

...no question, that contador can afford special controls, a personal cook, certified-contaminant free supplements etc..but is it reasonable to expect a lesser mortal to spend a fortune of such luxuries ?

that's why i see clenbuterol issues as a 2-way street where 'reasonable and fair' is balanced against abuse and cheating. ideally speaking.

True, some very valid points there.

but is being wise equivalent to criminal negligence ? is it a punishable legal obligation ?

It most definitely isn't a crime for an individual to make errors as these and I believe this is one of the most important roles of the team. If the team doesn't advice the rider on his diet then, I think they have wronged that rider especially where diet is so closely monitored. If they have then that would constitute negligence on part of the rider.

The problems in interpretation, though imo, come especially when a youngster who hasn't yet experienced the professional setup and lifestyle and makes the error of eating the wrong meat. That can't be definitively be proved as negligence on part of the rider.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
ramjambunath said:
<snip for brevity> If the team doesn't advice the rider on his diet then, I think they have wronged that rider especially where diet is so closely monitored. If they have then that would constitute negligence on part of the rider.
this is an interesting point. but again, i would first take a thorough look at the wada general code and the substantive law and precedents, before passing a judgement. not saying i disagree with you, but i'm simply not sure if the team (an average budget team) responsibility can be so easily transferred to a rider, legally speaking.

The problems in interpretation, though imo, come especially when a youngster who hasn't yet experienced the professional setup and lifestyle and makes the error of eating the wrong meat. That can't be definitively be proved as negligence on part of the rider.
youngsters or junior athletes are an easier case. we are on the same page there. but is it uci's or wada's business to pass a rule that would specifically cover teams as opposed to individuals. can an individual athlete be responsible for the low budget of his team if they did not hire a nutrition consultant etc..?

that's why cas's resolution of contador's case is so interesting...i follow it closely because, among other issues, it may address the one you brought up here.

it appears that both wada and the uci do not, repeat - that's my impression from reading what' became public - do not exclude contador's story as the downright invention, that the meat was indeed purchased, delivered and consumed a day before the fatal test...
 
Jul 4, 2011
1,899
0
0
Visit site
python said:
this is an interesting point. but again, i would first take a thorough look at the wada general code and the substantive law and precedents, before passing a judgement. not saying i disagree with you, but i'm simply not sure if the team (an average budget team) responsibility can be so easily transferred to a rider, legally speaking.

Transferring the responsibility to a rider will not be easy if at all possible.

Again going into the hypothetical world, firstly a list of do's and dont's with respect to meat consumption (I doubt anyone would have one for doping) would be a good starting point. Secondly, if a team can't get a full time nutritionist, they could have a sit in seminar once a year to disseminate knowledge to the whole team.
It will never be that simple of course but basic training on such things can go a long way to reduce erroneous positives.

youngsters or junior athletes are an easier case. we are on the same page there. but is it uci's or wada's business to pass a rule that would specifically cover teams as opposed to individuals. can an individual athlete be responsible for the low budget of his team if they did not hire a nutrition consultant etc..?

That's exactly the problem I meant to point out. The Courts will have to follow the letter of the law and emotions cannot come into it. I also don't think the UCI or WADA could explicitly formulate different laws to smaller budget teams or teams in general. Mainly because sport in general is bent. Owners would go under the table rather than be fully legal if such rules come out. Thankfully, we can pass comment and aren't needed for formulating laws as there will always be black sheep looking for loopholes.

Edit: I'm not sure about this, but there must surely be a clause in any contract saying that the team isn't responsible for a rider's activities off the road.

that's why cas's resolution of contador's case is so interesting...i follow it closely because, among other issues, it may address the one you brought up here.

it appears that both wada and the uci do not, repeat - that's my impression from reading what' became public - do not exclude contador's story as the downright invention, that the meat was indeed purchased, delivered and consumed a day before the fatal test...

I am not an expert on doping but can Contador's story be discounted? Absolutely not. As you pointed out earlier in the thread, there is a chance (no matter how small) that his meet could have come from Mexico and could have been contaminated. Whether it's believable or not is for the court to interpret.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
firstly, after a rather disappointing path the thread has veered into earlier, i want to let you know that i'm enjoying both your thoughtful contributions and finally the on-topic discussions.
ramjambunath said:
Transferring the responsibility to a rider will not be easy if at all possible.
let's look at an example. let's assume that a team has the budget to hire a nutritionist and goes beyond the legal obligations to a rider, which besides the economic side invariably includes medical care. let's also assume that the team has an internal doping monitoring routine (overt or covert, whatever) which would provide an additional line of awareness for a rider. at the end of the day, all these measures are geared to protect the team's image, sponsor etc against the doping stigma first and foremost and only then the rider. so, by definition, a team is disincentivized. besides, a rider does not live in a military controlled encampment, he could be a good rider but poor learner etc etc. a team simply can't guarantee lack of willful or inadvertent doping...at the end, the responsibility will always be with the individual as it should be...

Again going into the hypothetical world, firstly a list of do's and dont's with respect to meat consumption (I doubt anyone would have one for doping) would be a good starting point.
ha, you just hit the nail on the head and naturally arrived at one of the most important points i kept making, before it mired into the flood of irrelevancy - an anti-doping's organization responsibility in addition to (!) the athlete's responsibility. having, for example an official wada warning regarding potentially contaminated meat in mexico, could go a long way to preventing so many cases of contamination. yet, as i keep pointing out and the fifa cmo complained, wada simply ignored the german heads-up. education and clear warnings is nada/wada/fifa etc responsibility in addition to rules...

Secondly, if a team can't get a full time nutritionist, they could have a sit in seminar once a year to disseminate knowledge to the whole team.
It will never be that simple of course but basic training on such things can go a long way to reduce erroneous positives.
very true. it goes back to the point of education, seminars etc
I am not an expert on doping but can Contador's story be discounted?
as i noted earlier, one of the keys in cas's challenge would be to debug the 'story of the meat' - because clearly, it was not very wise for contador to deviate from the eating routing of the entire astana team. cas needs to establish if it is it altogether not invented, if the receits were not forged, iow, if timing of meat consumption being coincident with the positive test has any legs.

even then, even if true, contador has an uphill road because he has to prove that clen came from the the source he ate...
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
ramjambunath said:
One thing that has been established is that there is a clenbuterol problem in Mexico and China. Another thing is that different countries interpret the clenbuterol rule differently.

Now my question (all hypothetical) is, after the Nielsen case, why wouldn't a Danish cyclist or sportsman of any sort could spend his off season or even shift base to Mexico and China and provide proof of him eating contaminated meat, even though could have spent his time doping.

If there is a world standard rule, what would it do to some honest Chinese and Mexican athletes who may be eating clen contaminated beef or whatever meat regularly?

Finally, and I honestly know nothing about this, are clenbuterol supplements for cows even legal. If so, is it time to change it and have a world standard? If there is a world standard, how difficult will it be to implement?

Thanks, ramjambunath, for returning the discussion to real issues - and may I say thats a lovely shirt your wearing.

The highlighted is the key here. Even though some labs can now detect minute traces of clenbuterol the major instances are confined to a number of countries.

It leaves WADA with a dilemma - do they introduce a threshold or do they allow each case to be individually heard.

Just 2 of the WADA laboratory directors believe a threshold should be introduced.
It should be remembered that WADA did recently consider clenbuterol when they were updating their list for 2012. They decided to leave it as is and allow it be judged on a case by case basis.

You ask a good question about riders using countries like that as an excuse to dope - I think it will be only a short time before an athlete is sanctioned and the reason given is because they did not uphold due diligence while visiting that country and the 'excuse' of contamination is no longer accepted.
 
Jul 4, 2011
1,899
0
0
Visit site
python said:
firstly, after a rather disappointing path the thread has veered into earlier, i want to let you know that i'm enjoying both your thoughtful contributions and finally the on-topic discussions.

It takes two people to get a proper discussion and you made some pertinent points earlier in the thread.

let's look at an example. let's assume that a team has the budget to hire a nutritionist and goes beyond the legal obligations to a rider, which besides the economic side invariably includes medical care. let's also assume that the team has an internal doping monitoring routine (overt or covert, whatever) which would provide an additional line of awareness for a rider. at the end of the day, all these measures are geared to protect the team's image, sponsor etc against the doping stigma first and foremost and only then the rider. so, by definition, a team is disincentivized. besides, a rider does not live in a military controlled encampment, he could be a good rider but poor learner etc etc. a team simply can't guarantee lack of willful or inadvertent doping...at the end, the responsibility will always be with the individual as it should be...

True, can't disagree with any of that.

ha, you just hit the nail on the head and naturally arrived at one of the most important points i kept making, before it mired into the flood of irrelevancy - an anti-doping's organization responsibility in addition to (!) the athlete's responsibility. having, for example an official wada warning regarding potentially contaminated meat in mexico, could go a long way to preventing so many cases of contamination. yet, as i keep pointing out and the fifa cmo complained, wada simply ignored the german heads-up. education and clear warnings is nada/wada/fifa etc responsibility in addition to rules...

Again, I can't disagree here but FIFA's attitude towards drugs, doping and regulations have always been lax. It really doesn't come as a surprise to see their teams (football teams) involved in so many positives in what can only be described as contaminated food. I don't think there can be 100+ positives due to doping, which tends to be performed diligently in most cases. I am not saying there is no doping in football, but I seriously doubt this was one of them.

as i noted earlier, one of the keys in cas's challenge would be to debug the 'story of the meat' - because clearly, it was not very wise for contador to deviate from the eating routing of the entire astana team. cas needs to establish if it is it altogether not invented, if the receits were not forged, iow, if timing of meat consumption being coincident with the positive test has any legs.

even then, even if true, contador has an uphill road because he has to prove that clen came from the the source he ate...

Okay, if his story is true, one can't but question the man's wisdom (for want of a better word) in going against the routine of Astana. He is the most high profile rider in the sport with some of the highest levels of testing. I maybe speaking on hindsight, but as a cyclist of the highest quality in one of the best teams, he should have known about the repercussions.
 
Oct 6, 2009
5,270
2
0
Visit site
A long time back, I remember reading an article The Swordsman linked to that was about AC's appeal to the RFEC. If I recall correctly, one of the reasons he was able to get the proposed 1-year suspension lowered to no suspension was based on his lawyers arguing that since AC was eating meat in Europe (and not China or a country with known contamination problems), it was unreasonable to expect that contamination could be an issue. It was reasonable to expect an athlete to eat European meat without fear of contamination. Therefore his case should go from "no significant fault/negligence" to "no fault/negligence."

I will try to look for the link later. I remember at the time thinking it was a clever way to turn the argument, but I never really saw the point get widespread mention in stories.

Side note - For anyone who hasn't read it yet, or is interested, the RFEC resolution on Contador's case has been translated into English and posted on the Contador Notebook site for months. I will check later to see if this is where I read this part mentioned above. (no time now)
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
ramjambunath said:
It takes two people to get a proper discussion and you made some pertinent points earlier in the thread.
cheers.

Again, I can't disagree here but FIFA's attitude towards drugs, doping and regulations have always been lax.
as i'm european born and bred i have always been partial to football. their doping angle, though, i started to follow only recently. my opinion ? it's doped up but things started to look better after fifa harmonized to wada.

I don't think there can be 100+ positives due to doping, which tends to be performed diligently in most cases. I am not saying there is no doping in football, but I seriously doubt this was one of them.
you may not have seen it, but i described earlier how the count went from 4 to 109 to none. it was ceratinly a case of meat contamination. but different counts were also due to fifa's deep pockets and the somewhat messy way wada regulates clenbuterol. (btw, don't take seriously someone who has no clue how many wada lab directors spoke up in favour of clen shreshold, sheesh i just kick up another boogie for endless sideways jorneys:))


Okay, if his story is true, one can't but question the man's wisdom (for want of a better word) in going against the routine of Astana.
yes, it was a case of poor judgment on the part of contador - if the story is true. which goes right up to your earlier point - will cas consider contador's poor judgement in the light of negligence/no negligence provisions of strict liability ? i personally have no idea but my sense is it will not matter if the meat story itself proves true...
 
Jul 4, 2011
1,899
0
0
Visit site
python said:
cheers.

as i'm european born and bred i have always been partial to football. their doping angle, though, i started to follow only recently. my opinion ? it's doped up but things started to look better after fifa harmonized to wada.

I enjoy the sport myself, I've been to all of my team's home games last season (total cost of $5) and it's a good first step to have accepted WADA's standards.

you may not have seen it, but i described earlier how the count went from 4 to 109 to none. it was ceratinly a case of meat contamination. but different counts were also due to fifa's deep pockets and the somewhat messy way wada regulates clenbuterol. (btw, don't take seriously someone who has no clue how many wada lab directors spoke up in favour of clen shreshold, sheesh i just kick up another boogie for endless sideways jorneys:))

I definitely missed that.
To be honest, I don't think I have anything else to offer on this discussion. It was a very good one though. As I stated earlier, I am not really very knowledgeable on doping and only made statements about the basic administrative side of things (which I do know a bit about) which could help in reduction of erroneous positives.
 
Jul 4, 2011
1,899
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
Thanks, ramjambunath, for returning the discussion to real issues - and may I say thats a lovely shirt your wearing.

The highlighted is the key here. Even though some labs can now detect minute traces of clenbuterol the major instances are confined to a number of countries.

It leaves WADA with a dilemma - do they introduce a threshold or do they allow each case to be individually heard.

Just 2 of the WADA laboratory directors believe a threshold should be introduced.
It should be remembered that WADA did recently consider clenbuterol when they were updating their list for 2012. They decided to leave it as is and allow it be judged on a case by case basis.

You ask a good question about riders using countries like that as an excuse to dope - I think it will be only a short time before an athlete is sanctioned and the reason given is because they did not uphold due diligence while visiting that country and the 'excuse' of contamination is no longer accepted.

Shirt? Thanks but I am topless:D I am a male though.