109 clenbuterol positives in U17 football WC

[Merckx index]

Just 2 of the WADA laboratory directors believe a threshold should be introduced.

Do you have a link for this? I know there is disagreement, but I haven’t seen any numbers.

What I would really like to see, though, is a link for any WADA official publicly advocating a threshold AND suggesting what that threshold should be.

Despite all the complaints that we need a threshold, no one in this thread—and AFAIK, no one in WADA--has stepped up to suggest what a threshold should be. If you can’t answer that question, may I suggest you really are not on very solid footing suggesting there should be a threshold?

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?

This is definitely possible, which is why I suggested, upthread and before, the need for other factors to be taken into account, such as others who have eaten the same meat, hair test, maybe testing of the meat itself. This is also an argument against a threshold, since there is no threshold that can discriminate doping from contamination, and thus will inevitably provide a loophole for some doping. In fact, there is no way to be certain, but the more factors that are taken into account, the more likely the correct decision will be reached. All of this, it seems to me, provides justification for de-emphasizing a threshold, and emphasizing a case-by-case approach.

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...

A point I made more than six months ago, to a lot of ridicule here, and have continued to harp on. E.g,:

As I have pointed out here before, tests of the general population would be the best way to find out how realistic CB contamination is.

To which you replied at the time:

wada's idiotic political adherence to zero tolerance.

in your infinite intrenched ignorance passed here as some kind of serious scientist you again deliberately ignore the fact that the infinite testing sensitivity of athletes (not limited by the reasonable threshold accounting for legal limits allowed in cattle) will always detect clen.

But I’m glad to see you’re finally coming around to it, Python.

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.

Can’t disagree with that, as that was one of my own suggestions several times upthread:

At some point, WADA has to say, it’s not safe to eat meat in this country, if you test positive and make that excuse, you will get one year for no significant fault.

while I agreed with the WADA decision not to establish a threshold, at least not this time around, I think they should have made a stronger statement acknowledging the problem in certain countries. In line with what that other poster said, they could have warned athletes either to avoid eating meat in those places, or at least to take precautions that would allow them to validate their claim of contaminated meat. I don't think this is a permanent solution to the problem, but a quick-fix that would at least help.

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.

To which your reply at that time was:

all above is pretty irrelevant.

you seek internet response and popularity at the expense of rigorous and responsible science.

But again, glad to see we’re in agreement.

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."

Python made this point back in March or so, and I noted it earlier in this thread:

But it's not just producing a meat sample that allows you the possibility to get off. If that were all that was allowed, Python himself back in March would not have fallen all over himself praising Bert's lawyers for taking a strategy aimed at showing Bert had no liability. His team's argument was not that he had produced the meat; it was that the possibility of contaminated meat in Spain was so small. Python--correctly--pointed out that they were using that fact to show that IF Bert did eat contaminated meat, he was not at fault.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I snipped to the relevant part that has to do with me.

Do you have a link for this? I know there is disagreement, but I haven’t seen any numbers.

What I would really like to see, though, is a link for any WADA official publicly advocating a threshold AND suggesting what that threshold should be.

Despite all the complaints that we need a threshold, no one in this thread—and AFAIK, no one in WADA--has stepped up to suggest what a threshold should be. If you can’t answer that question, may I suggest you really are not on very solid footing suggesting there should be no threshold?

<snipped>

It found this link with the German Lab director at Kreischa and a deputy director-general of China's Anti-Doping Agency.

I thought another Director had mentioned it also, so I will have a quick look.

And just to be clear - I do not believe that a minimum threshold needs to be introduced.

 

[python]

we're once again witnessing attempts to drag down the thread. replacing the constructive dialogue it finally acquired by a a listless compilation of out of context quotes only to provide a room for someone to talk to himself.. back to the issues...

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."

your recollection is correct. we had an extensive discussion here at the time - it was before the rfec ruling became public - everyone wondered what new information changed rfec's mind . my personal position, despite some either misunderstanding it or intentionally distorting, was and remains rather consistent. just as in my several posts/exchanges with ramjambunath, i always argued that contador's case did not fit into the 'no significant fault or negligence' clause of wada rules as they are written now. i consistently said, 'it was a fault or no fault case - none or 2 years. i have always cited the same reasons - eating meat in the eu is not a negligent act. then rfec issued it's second and final ruling which (sort of) put the things straight in terms of inapplicability of 'no significant fault'

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.

i thought the same at the time, but i also suspected that the first rfec ruling proposal (1 year suspension) was a politically staged act in preparation for a turnaround. it was and still is hard for me to believe that 3 experienced spanish lawyers could not interpret the wada code right. now looking back, after all these discussions with ramjambunath, perhaps the 1 year suspension proposal was less political and more of an inclination to interpret the very fact of purchasing meat outside the astana routine as a negligent act. all in fear of misreading wada’s prevailing stance ?

what changed the rfec tribunal's mind ? what gave them the courage to flip ?

well, again i believe I posted my opinion at the time …if one carefully reviews the dateline, one thing pops at you - wada announced that it wont appeal ovtcharov in cas just before rfec was due to issue its final verdict (15 feb, 20011). Obviously, contador’s lawyers, who lobbied the ‘no fault’ interpretation all along, saw wada’s endorsement of their position in the non-appeal and were able to convince rfec’s tribunal. at least, that's my reading of the events.

in reality, of course, contador’s case is a bit different. but the logic of contador’s lawyers when we look only and narrowly at the ‘no fault vs. no significant fault’ interpretation, that logic imo is sound. if an athlete was not considered negligent for eating meat in china - one of 2 well known clen loaded countries - why should an athlete eating meat in a strictly controlled eu country be considered negligent ?

but we now came back to what i keep pointing out over and over - wada’s leading role in providing athlete’s with clear warnings rather than ignoring them. to be fair, wada could not have forewarned ovtcharov, but it sure could have done so for the mexican footballers since it's own german lab has done so (btw, none of the germans was among the 109 clen positives b/c they listened to thier nada)

 

[GJB123]

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.

No, it won't if there is a threshold. The burden of proof would then be on WADA

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."

So I will be. I have stated before that I think you should apply common penal law rules if your goal is to sanction athletes. It might not be a jail sentence, but it is a punishment and that requires certain safeguards are built into the system.

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.

Thank you for proving my point. If I lose my drivers' license in for example France I can still drive my car in the Netherlands. Different rules, different sanctions. The main difference is that doping rules are the same worldwide but are not policed and administered the same worldwide. So yes, I would say that you set threshold and if that is deemed not possible, I would at least expect them to set a general sensitivity that all labs can detect, beneath which it will not be regarded as an adverse analytical finding. Where the threshold should be set is a matter of further research en consideration, setting a general detection limit is quite straightforward and would result in more or less the same. If you don't do that, I would at least expect all athletes in the same event to be tested at the same lab, at the same detection levels.

I agree with the premise of the highlighted.
But that is why 2 different rules can be applied if an athlete can suggest contamination.

The rules as they are applied now breed inequality and injustices as is clearly shown in Colo- and Nielsen-cases. It is bad lwa making if you basically leave it al up to the individual judges.

I could imagine a threshold below which WADA would have the burden of proof and above which the athlete will have the burden of proof.

Regards
GJ

 

[GJB123]

To your points, GJ:

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.

You really don't understand the legal consequences that come with using a zero tolerance policy. I did try to explain that it results in shifting the burden of proof. Now that may seem insignificant, but if you cannot produce the food or drink item that resulted in the alleged contamination, in principle you are way up sh*t creek without a peddle. You may call that nothing, but anyone with legal experience would call tht very significant indeed. Just imagine Ovtcharov not being able to test his team mates!

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.

What I mean is that in your previous posts on this subject you basically stated that you are willing to accept that more innocent athletes get sanctioned as long as it also means that more cheaters get busted. It is on that we will never agree.

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.

Yes, it would be. Or at the very least I would expect all athletes fro one event to be tested at the same facility with the same sensitivity.

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.

Where did I say that?

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.

This is not just about Contador. You do that every time someone disagrees with you. It is about all athletes and perhaps more about other athletes than Contador as he has enough means at this disposal to fight the system.

At what level the threshold should be, I don't know. Do you need to know that to advocate one? I think that is subject to research, but the principle stands that with Clen you can be sanctioned while being completely innocent as it is possible to pick up contamination.

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.

I think I answered and explained above why I think the current situation is not a desirable one from a legal point of view.

Regards
GJ

 

[Dr. Maserati]

No, it won't if there is a threshold. The burden of proof would then be on WADA.

No, the burden will be athlete even if a threshold was introduced.

So I will be. I have stated before that I think you should apply common penal law rules if your goal is to sanction athletes. It might not be a jail sentence, but it is a punishment and that requires certain safeguards are built into the system.



Thank you for proving my point. If I lose my drivers' license in for example France I can still drive my car in the Netherlands. Different rules, different sanctions. The main difference is that doping rules are the same worldwide but are not policed and administered the same worldwide. So yes, I would say that you set threshold and if that is deemed not possible, I would at least expect them to set a general sensitivity that all labs can detect, beneath which it will not be regarded as an adverse analytical finding. Where the threshold should be set is a matter of further research en consideration, setting a general detection limit is quite straightforward and would result in more or less the same. If you don't do that, I would at least expect all athletes in the same event to be tested at the same lab, at the same detection levels.



The rules as they are applied now breed inequality and injustices as is clearly shown in Colo- and Nielsen-cases. It is bad lwa making if you basically leave it al up to the individual judges.

I could imagine a threshold below which WADA would have the burden of proof and above which the athlete will have the burden of proof.

Regards
GJ

A quick example in normal law, DUI/drink driving - they only have to show that you have alcohol in your system, they do not have to prove where you were drinking or what quantity you had.

Also, to your point re suspended licence in France but not Netherlands - well it is much the same in sport, if you are suspended in cycling you are not automatically suspended if you have tennis licence (why you'd have one I dont know).


To the highlighted - I do agree with your point there, however that has more to do with the rather absurd current system of being heard by your own Federation or NADA.

 

[peloton]

Simon Hart weighs in

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/sport/...hould-be-banned-from-hosting-sporting-events/

 

[LouieLouie]

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.

Don't know about China, but so far I've tried that in Denmark, Jordan and the United States, with a 100% success rate.