• 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!

Ban on clenbuterol doping drug may be relaxed

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Cloxxki said:
Innocence cannot be proven in case of clen. Few positive cows, lots of clen positives. In Contador's case, the rumored plasticizer test thing complicates it further.

No, it doesn't complicate it further. Plasticizers aren't part of the anti-doping protocol. That's it. Only those who want to hang Contador in the court of public opinion have turned this into a point of contention.

I put the plasticizers controversy right up there with that interview by the alleged Astana "insider" in the Belgian magazine HUMO. That too was supposed to be some sort of bombshell, and what came of it? NOTHING.


Cloxxki said:
It's not so hard for WADA to send out an official warning that it's come to their attention certain PEDs are contaminating grocery store and specialty shop foods. Have your food tested, or risk the ban. Make it a one-year ban then, for PEDs that exist in commercial foods. The no tolerance rule could be for top level athletes, the limit for those who are less likely (lower level of professionalism, money) to have expensive docs keeping them just-clean.

You're straight-up buggin' on this. How elite athletes are supposed to keep away from foods that may or may not be contaminated is really something that has no correlation with reality.

I think you're letting your zealous attitude towards doping seriously compromise your views.


Cloxxki said:
Another approach would be to have a threshold OoC, and a lower one or no tolerance in-competition. Like cocaine. Cool to get high OoC, not cool to still be positive by the time your next race is contested.

No. The only approach would be to realize that such a minute amount of clenbutarol, regardless of how it got into a rider's system, has no performance-enhancing benefit whatsoever. You don't strip a man's Tour title over something so insignificant. That is, unless you are either an anti-doping yahoo or just a Contador hater.
 
Cloxxki said:
Innocence cannot be proven in case of clen. Few positive cows, lots of clen positives. In Contador's case, the rumored plasticizer test thing complicates it further.

No, it doesn't complicate it further. Plasticizers aren't part of the anti-doping protocol. That's it. Only those who want to hang Contador in the court of public opinion want to make this a point of contention.

I put the plasticizers controversy right up there with that interview by the alleged Astana "insider" in the Belgian magazine HUMO. That too was supposed to be some sort of bombshell, and what came of it? NOTHING.


Cloxxki said:
It's not so hard for WADA to send out an official warning that it's come to their attention certain PEDs are contaminating grocery store and specialty shop foods. Have your food tested, or risk the ban. Make it a one-year ban then, for PEDs that exist in commercial foods. The no tolerance rule could be for top level athletes, the limit for those who are less likely (lower level of professionalism, money) to have expensive docs keeping them just-clean.

You're straight-up buggin' on this. How elite athletes are supposed to keep away from foods that may or may not be contaminated is really something that has no correlation with reality.

I think you're letting your zealous attitude towards doping seriously compromise your views.


Cloxxki said:
Another approach would be to have a threshold OoC, and a lower one or no tolerance in-competition. Like cocaine. Cool to get high OoC, not cool to still be positive by the time your next race is contested.

No. The only approach would be to actually test riders when you're supposed to test them. The bio-passport may have a chance to work if it were actually implemented with some semblance of frequency, but it's not.
 
@Berzin
I agree that riders (and non-riders) need to be tested when they're supposed to. And WADA is now saying they want more blood tests, hard and expensive as they may be. Urine along doesn't track all PEDs taking.

I posed the question of a suspected athlete goin on a looooong altitude camp in the USA, and when it would be best to come and test. National anti-doping agencies need to get informed, and figure out hard-predict timing pattern which will still heavily interfere with possible PED use, among which the types of CB.

A rider should never have confidence that a certain time and place, he'll have a week of quietness to take PEDs, let them do their work, and leave the body to get under threshold levels. More tests, and better timed. No place on earth can get you out of interest from testers. Say, I decide to go for a team building trip of 3 weeks to Tibet. Get some altitude while I'm there, and then arrive in Europe a week before worlds. I should fully expect to have the whole team tested twice there, perhaps not all on the same dates either.
Budgets are essential, obviously. It's not like Nike says, nothing to it but to do it.
 
hrotha said:
Bullying? I don't think hoping someone's acquitted regardless of the facts is a healthy position to hold. I just said I said I wanted those facts to be properly established. That's all.

I forgot the :p.

I don't think hoping someone's acquitted regardless of the facts is a healthy position to hold

Okay, that's your opinion. For me, it doesn't matter what way he's aquitted, as long as he is.
 
python said:
the very fact that one of the local pseudo-scientists continues to cling on to the plasticizer tests (whilst it's not even been the intent of the thread originator nor was it mentioned by cowan when speaking of the clen thresholds), is evidence enough of the desperation of the said individual

having cornered yourself by statements like 'i will not accept the cas decision unless it meets my criteria', tells me enough about your 'science'.

Again and again, your responses to my posts are tainted by your desire to see me in some bad light. For the record, I have been a long time fan of Bert's, and hoped he would rack up many GT wins, but that doesn't stop me from viewing him as very likely guilty. Unlike some in this forum, I can judge the facts of this case independently of how much I might wish that Bert could keep riding. I put the new DEHP study in this thread as an alternative to digging up the old one--which must be buried many pages down in this forum--or starting a new one. I thought some people here might be interested in knowing that these studies are still going on. (And I repeat: if these studies are such a waste of time, why are they being carried out?}

Of course I retain the right to come to my own decision. If Bert is let off, and the decision is transparent and publicized and convincing, I will accept it. But everything in the RFEC decision indicates that Bert's team has in fact no convincing defense, so either some key fact/argument was not mentioned in that report, or they have come up with a new one for CAS. If the CAS decision lets off Bert, using the same arguments that RFEC made, yes, I will definitely regard that decision as not fulfilling my criteria. If you have a problem with that, if your view is "accept what CAS says, because they have authority, and I accept authority", then you are the one who is not practicing good science, not I.

But I note that as a prominent Armstrong detractor (and here I agree with you quite strongly) you have no problem at all challenging the decisions of major sporting bodies when they contradict some strongly held view of yours. When evidence came out earlier this year that LA might have had a positive covered up, did you accept the word of those in UCI who denied this? Did you accept the report that cleared LA of taking EPO in 1999? Did you accept the official explanation of the back-dated TUE? Again, you're being inconsistent. When evidence emerges that supports a position of yours, you accept it, regardless of what the official story is. Then you turn around and criticize me for taking the same approach on Bert's case.

And again I challenge you, Python: show me the evidence that Bert is not guilty. If you can't do that, I really don't see why you would make a big deal out of my opinion.
 
Jun 16, 2011
260
0
0
Visit site
I hope to see Contador acquitted.

It's difficult to see past the glare of Lance Armstrong and find Alberto Contador or anyone as guilty in cycling as LA. All dopers get a pass until cycling comes to its senses imo in a sport where clean is a matter of degree. If one didn't test positive it certainly doesn't mean they were innocent or in truth, cleaner than the one who did test positive. Fix the problem with Lance first or it's just hypocrisy when punishing smaller, less successful cheaters.

Contador is someone to be vilified and that whole ruse surrounding Lance is protected? I didn't resent Lance when I started watching cycling, but that summer watching TdF in 2009 when I did pay close attention for 3 weeks, what stood out to me was 1) i loved the sport and 2) what an enormous **** Armstrong was to his teammate. Armstrong is the main character in this story and an immoral person in ways that beg justice. But how can justice be found in a seriously flawed and unbalanced system that rewards perhaps the biggest conniving cheat to make a mockery of cycling?

It even seems an absurdity to have Landis sacrificed for justice. After such a humiliation as losing a TdF title, Floyd's witness against Armstrong can effectively be lampooned, discredited and portrayed as rantings. Now comes Contador: Contador is no small sacrifice. Contador is a huge talent and a threat, a true rival to Armstrong. Sacrificing Contador does what to change the drug culture in cycling? Okay, more than busting Landis perhaps. Cycling would benefit more from the cheater and most notable TdF winner (to never test positive) of this generation being held accountable.

The 2 cases, Contador and Armstrong, were running at the same time in the media last spring and had me wondering about the obvious. Armstrong is a clever, wealthy con with the resources to cover-up his cheating. He makes a mockery of cycling with his deception and walks away with all his TdF titles. Take down Landis > take down Contador > Armstrong goes free but the message is the same: don't get caught. And i've only started learning about other names beyond Landis and Contador. Every time I read about a cyclist caught and punished, I think about their life and family while the biggest doping influence smugly gets away. It's impossible to feel anything but sympathy for those who doped with Lance Armstrong's legacy preserved.

it just looks all too hypocritical and ridiculous. I hope Alberto is acquitted and allowed to ride next year.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
another long-winded post from the local pseudo-scientist that even managed to drag armstrong in here, confuse my position on him and contador and misrepresent the actual facts.

you are desperate, sir, since you cornered yourself with unsupportable self-declared reality.

let cas do their job, wait for the facts we don't know yet and stop confusing science with science fiction.
 
Excellent post, Gingerale.

You made many points that I've felt are true but was never able to articulate in such a concise fashion.

Along the lines of what you spoke about, how about this for sheer hypocrisy-with indictments coming down from the Federal government, Bruyneel is allowed to put together a super-team to challenge for the Tour next year.

If the Schlecks burst out the gates riding like gangbusters, we'll know why.

And there will be people still screaming about Contador's clenbutarol positive.
 
Gingerale said:
I hope to see Contador acquitted.

It's difficult to see past the glare of Lance Armstrong and find Alberto Contador or anyone as guilty in cycling as LA. All dopers get a pass until cycling comes to its senses imo in a sport where clean is a matter of degree. If one didn't test positive it certainly doesn't mean they were innocent or in truth, cleaner than the one who did test positive. Fix the problem with Lance first or it's just hypocrisy when punishing smaller, less successful cheaters.

IOW, if you can’t convict someone who committed a murder, the next best thing is to let off a rapist.

Have you considered writing to Bert’s legal team and telling them their defense should consist of pointing out that since Armstrong and many others got away with doping, so Contador should, too? While you’re at it, maybe you could defraud the government of some entitlement money. A lot of other people are getting away with that now. If you’re uncomfortable with that, you could at least exceed the speed limit by 15-20 mph next time you’re driving. “Everybody else” does it.

P.S. – Could you direct me to your numerous posts defending Ricco? I must have missed them.
 
Jun 16, 2011
260
0
0
Visit site
Merckx index said:
IOW, if you can’t convict someone who committed a murder, the next best thing is to let off a rapist.

Have you considered writing to Bert’s legal team and telling them their defense should consist of pointing out that since Armstrong and many others got away with doping, so Contador should, too? While you’re at it, maybe you could defraud the government of some entitlement money. A lot of other people are getting away with that now. If you’re uncomfortable with that, you could at least exceed the speed limit by 15-20 mph next time you’re driving. “Everybody else” does it.

P.S. – Could you direct me to your numerous posts defending Ricco? I must have missed them.

Clearly I was expressing an opinion and I'm not a lawyer. But I don't see where Lance Armstrong is like a murderer nor is Contador like a rapist. the analogy is wrong. Lying is lying. and lying about EPO, blood doping, and peds -cheating in the sport and the way its set-up, someone is rewarded the most for being good at cheating and not getting caught. It's not the direct offense of taking a life or raping. but I do think Armstrong has had a negative influence and in an indirect way is accountable for damaging lives, and bullying. i wouldn't want to know him or be on a team with him. Tiger Woods used to be someone i admired. Lance is down there with him now.

Oh, please. I am aware that what i posted would NOT be a good defense of Contador. It's not pleasant to be skeptical. What I am saying is that I resent Lance and see him as a mainstay of doping culture in this generation and the model of clever, wealthy, con that didn't get caught. I stand by my feeling of hoping Contador is acquitted.

Ha! right. your reaction is rude and unreasonable with your suggestions about what i should do:D. and i see i shouldn't be responding to you. but whether you agree with what i wrote, that's entirely your business.

i've not posted in the clinic except on nadal and djokovic (i don't think.) i like tennis, but find their performances unbelievable. i don't propose to have solutions for doping in sports or world hunger for that matter. cycling at least is trying - but i would think stripping lance sends a bigger message than stripping a name of lesser consequence. the most level playing field possible in the sport would be a nice goal. as it is, the most clever con with the most resources for a cover-up protects his legacy. life will never be fair, but professional cycling could be more fair about who is punished.

i love cycling but think it's naive to think it's a clean sport, yet it's struggling to make progress and credit for that. Lance is likely the least clean and king offender in this generation. he's lying imo, and he has a huge amount of power and influence, thus more responsibility. well, i worked hard on that one post above. Berzin noticed, thank you, Berzin.:)
 
Jun 16, 2011
260
0
0
Visit site
Berzin said:
Excellent post, Gingerale.

You made many points that I've felt but was never able to articulate in such a concise fashion.

Along the lines of what you spoke about, how about this for sheer hypocrisy-with indictments coming down form the Federal government, Bruyneel is allowed to put together a super-team to challenge for the Tour next year.

If the Schlecks burst out the gates riding like gangbusters, we'll know why.

And there will be people still screaming about Contador's clenbutarol positive.

it will be interesting to see super team radioshack - leopard trek in action. not sure what to think. was wanting to believe the rumor about astana and saxobank after hearing of leopard shack to balance things out. also wanted to imagine the rumor true about samuel sanchez going to a team with contador. but that won't happen.

as it turns out, now i'm cynical. positive results on anyone will not be surprising again. it's confusing. and the more i read about the history of cycling and cyclists, i just can't believe there were clean eras. i fall into the camp of those believing every era had its dope of choice. the dope in this generation is perhaps cleaner, if one has the money to access the best programs.

back to bruyneel. maybe he can help both schlecks tt skills. but is that even possible with drugs? nobody answer that. can he safely turn them into levi on a TT bike? or will andy simply drink beer and shop faster? stay tuned.
 
Jul 19, 2010
347
0
0
Visit site
Siriuscat said:
So the abbatoir they raided in northern Spain not long after the positive was announce which had cattle full of various chemicals including Clenbuterol is a unique establishment in Europe?? Like drugs cheats, I suspect there are hundreds of farmers trying to squeeze that extra euro any way they can, it's going on everywhere!

If there's a way that WADA can set a level that takes accidental ingestion into account the that has to be a good thing

I don't recall any such raid. Could you point me to a news account of it?
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Paco_P said:
I don't recall any such raid. Could you point me to a news account of it?

there was no 'raid' as far as i have read.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...lawyer-explains-u-turn-over-proposed-ban.html

The Basque Government gave us three possibilities [of different cattle], and curiously enough, the owner of the one that was most likely to be it is in partnership with his brother, who was penalised a few years back for using clenbuterol."

http://velonews.competitor.com/2010...-insist-their-beef-is-clenbuterol-free_147753

The president of the Basque regional government, Patxi López, vigorously backed the quality of Basque Country beef during a recent speech in front of the Basque parliament.

“The consumer, whether he’s a cyclist or not, can have all the possible guarantees that the meat they buy does not contain residues like that of clenbuterol,” López was quoted by the Spanish wire service EFE. “The controls performed in (Basque Country) are the strictest possible and the products are of the highest quality.”

López also said beef produced within the Basque Country as well as products brought in from other parts of Spain undergo a “strenuous series of controls to guarantee their quality.”

Over the past decade, Spain has tightened controls on beef in large part following an outbreak of “mad cow disease” (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Since then, Spain has rigorously controlled the origin, diet and transport of beef to prevent further outbreaks and to comply with strict EU rules to assure that beef is safe for human consumption.

but the canary islands might not be so good for its steaks :rolleyes:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2010...nbuterol-ring-used-in-horses-livestock_147239

maybe this why so many pros like to train there;)
 
May 26, 2009
460
0
0
www.parrabuddy.blogspot.com
Mid August i posted a new thread " Clem...limits ?" in which it was my opinion that there would be discussion of this subject at the UCI conference this week . At that time i was not aware of WADA having a conference and have read all comments to this thread with interest .
Still in Austria where we have snow to 600m in the past day , so should have gone to Copenhagen after all to enjoy better weather if nothing else .

With the scientific people working so hard to find ways to test blood and how it is administered and stored , it makes me wonder whether the London Olympic Games will produce a fresh crop of " Failed punters " ?

Anyone thinking that they can beat the " odds " are dreaming ! Reminds me of the " Gold Rush era " when the shout was " Thars Gold in them hills " and all and sundry from all over the world cogregated and poured their money down the drain . Certainly there were a few winners and a few resisted the temptation and stayed home .

THere are those who are promoting " Short cut products " and they should be rounded up and " dosed " with their products then locked up on an " ice flow" to enjoy the remainder of their life out of the reach of civilisation and it's comforts .

Let's hope that CAS does not spend 2012 trying to decide how to deal with the " Contador case " because whichever way the decision goes there will be controversy !
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
so sad that the local pseudo-scientist now has to start baiting fantasy threads because he can not deal with the topic at hand - wada's potential introduction of threashold for clen.

it's not very cool to box yourself into an untenable position and use science as a back door to justify it.

it should be the other way around, pseudo...
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
Visit site
skippy said:
Mid August i posted a new thread " Clem...limits ?" in which it was my opinion that there would be discussion of this subject at the UCI conference this week . At that time i was not aware of WADA having a conference and have read all comments to this thread with interest .
Still in Austria where we have snow to 600m in the past day , so should have gone to Copenhagen after all to enjoy better weather if nothing else .

With the scientific people working so hard to find ways to test blood and how it is administered and stored , it makes me wonder whether the London Olympic Games will produce a fresh crop of " Failed punters " ?

Anyone thinking that they can beat the " odds " are dreaming ! Reminds me of the " Gold Rush era " when the shout was " Thars Gold in them hills " and all and sundry from all over the world cogregated and poured their money down the drain . Certainly there were a few winners and a few resisted the temptation and stayed home .

THere are those who are promoting " Short cut products " and they should be rounded up and " dosed " with their products then locked up on an " ice flow" to enjoy the remainder of their life out of the reach of civilisation and it's comforts .

Let's hope that CAS does not spend 2012 trying to decide how to deal with the " Contador case " because whichever way the decision goes there will be controversy !

It's actually an "ice floe"...

Nonetheless, don't count on the IOC busting any big-timers at their show.

They've got a sweet track record of holding results quiet until they get their money out of the spectacle. No one likes a sad ending...
 
hfer07 said:
Do you realize how unrealistic your approach can be for an athlete to do "in-house" testing for clen every time he/she fancies an stake? let alone the fact that riders "travel" constantly and have to rely on In situ food-and BTW even if they get to make a deal with a cattle farmer-how can the athlete manage to transport and preserve the meat during the calender? :confused:

This argument is filled with falsehoods just to make your point. Using an extreme case doesn't make your case any better.

There's no valid discussion to be had about athlete's watching their own meat supplies in the EU, U.S. and Australia. Riders can have full confidence the meat sources are clen free in these locales.

While testing for clen is straightforward and there's no natural reason for it to appear in the body, the protocol isn't perfect. If a whereabouts factor was included in positives, it would control for being in places where meat isn't as well regulated.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
1
0
Visit site
DirtyWorks said:
This argument is filled with falsehoods just to make your point. Using an extreme case doesn't make your case any better.


there are absolutely no falsehoods or "extreme cases" in the comment to which you were responding

DirtyWorks said:
There's no valid discussion to be had about athlete's watching their own meat supplies in the EU, U.S. and Australia. Riders can have full confidence the meat sources are clen free in these locales.

no offense, but this is one of the most naive statements I've seen on the internet in a long, long time. Where there's money, there's cheating. And there's a lot more money in the agribusiness world than in cycling.

DirtyWorks said:
While testing for clen is straightforward and there's no natural reason for it to appear in the body, the protocol isn't perfect. If a whereabouts factor was included in positives, it would control for being in places where meat isn't as well regulated.

You, and others, seem to be viewing this strictly as a "tainted meat" issue. That may have been true when the labs had much higher resolution for a "positive" test. With the amounts that can be currently found, trace amounts could literally appear anywhere, in almost any processed food and even the water supply. There's a reason that the director of the Colgne lab suggested setting a threshold limit for Clen long before Contador's positive test result. This is not a defense of Contador, is a defense of simple logic.
 
131313 said:
You, and others, seem to be viewing this strictly as a "tainted meat" issue. That may have been true when the labs had much higher resolution for a "positive" test. With the amounts that can be currently found, trace amounts could literally appear anywhere, in almost any processed food and even the water supply. There's a reason that the director of the Colgne lab suggested setting a threshold limit for Clen long before Contador's positive test result. This is not a defense of Contador, is a defense of simple logic.

While CB has been detected in discharges of some water treatment facilities, the amounts are quite low, generally less than 100 pg/ml:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...njKav4Wd1CXd7tOMvXmVyxwbQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://hatzso.web.elte.hu/szakiroda...lants%20and%20rivers%20%20%20%20%20Ternes.pdf

http://scholar.googleusercontent.co...NNXe7JwJ:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

In one study of drinking water, CB was not detected at a limit of 10 pg/ml:

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es060528p

At a concentration of 10 pg/ml., one would have to drink about 50 liters in a fairly short period of time to achieve the level Bert tested at. A threshold of 10-20 pg/ml in the urine (Bert’s level was 50) might address the possibility of contamination, but since any level, no matter how low, could result from doping if the test were conducted long enough after the use of the drug, it does not seem that a threshold will be very helpful (Bert was tested on 3 of the subsequent four days after his initial positive, and in every case was below 20 pg/ml).

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. Barring that, or even with that information in hand, taking into account where the athlete obtained his allegedly contaminated food and water seems to be the fairest approach.