• 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 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
*** edited by mod***

LONDON (AP)—The World Anti-Doping Agency’s updated list of banned substances offers no change to its evaluation of clenbuterol, the drug that could strip Alberto Contador of his third Tour de France victory.

Contador blamed contaminated meat for his positive test on route to winning the 2010 Tour.

WADA’s 2012 list released Tuesday allows for asthma drug formoterol when inhaled in “therapeutic doses,” while beta blockers have been allowed in such sports as wrestling, sailing and modern pentathlon.

Nicotine was not added to the prohibited list but has been placed on WADA’s monitoring program going into the Olympic year.

http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/news?slug=ap-wada-2012dopinglist

Too many pseudo-scientists working for WADA, obviously. But stay tuned, this threshold debate will continue.

From the WADA site (Q & A on the 2012 list):

Clenbuterol is a prohibited substance and there is no threshold under which this substance is not prohibited.

At present, and based on expert opinions, there is no plan to introduce a threshold level for clenbuterol.

It is possible that under certain circumstance the presence of a low level of clenbuterol in an athlete sample can be the result of food contamination. However, each case is different and all elements need to be taken into account, along with the context of the case.

Under the World Anti-Doping Code, result management of cases foresees the opportunity for an athlete to explain how a prohibited substance entered his/her body

WADA is working closely with countries, International Federations and event organizers to help minimize the risk of contamination through the monitoring of meat to official hotels and restaurants. This is a government issue and not a WADA issue.

The second bolded statement has been my view all along. If evidence accumulates that CB contamination in food and/or water is increasing to the point where very low levels can be detected in much of the population, then I think a threshold could be in order. But again, the level Bert exhibited is well above what such a threshold would need to be.

So here, Python, is a summary of your position on the threshold, as stated in this thread:

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.

so what we essentially have is that the cattle can be doped (to a limit of course), but the human athletes can't have any because of wada's idiotic political adherence to zero tolerance.

So when you don’t agree with a WADA decision, it’s because of their “idiotic political adherence”. But when I might not agree with a CAS decision (we don’t even know yet what it will be), it’s because I’m a pseudo-scientist. We are supposed to wait and let CAS in their wisdom decide about Bert—for which the case is really quite simple, and the evidence clear-cut-- but we can call WADA politically-motivated idiots because they don’t agree with your position on a contentious and complex issue for which the most relevant evidence has not been obtained (and you are on record in this forum of ridiculing suggestions that we try to obtain it).

And btw, zero-tolerance is of course incorrect, as recent cases have made it clear that there is a tolerance for CB if the rider makes a case it came from contaminated food.

Also of interest from WADA is there is no change in the status of actovegin, which has been discussed here before:

It has not changed from last year and Actovegin is not prohibited in sport under the WADA List except if it is used by intravenous infusion.
Intravenous infusions are prohibited according to section M2 (Chemical and Physical Manipulation) of the List.

Intravenous injections with a simple syringe are permitted if the injected substance is not prohibited, the volume does not exceed 50 mL, and the intravenous injections are given at intervals equal or greater than six hours.

(Additional information can be found in the Medical Information on Intravenous Infusion, available here.)

Actovegin is a deproteinized ultrafiltrate of calf serum and does not contain blood cells susceptible to increase oxygen transport. It was tested by anti-doping laboratories and no growth hormone or prohibited hormones were found.

However, WADA is aware of its use in some sports, possibly in conjunction with other substances that may be prohibited. WADA will therefore continue to closely monitor Actovegin.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
local pseudo-scientist patting himself said:
Translation: "I'm desperate so i'll quote what everyone with any idea knew well in advance- wada's bureaucracy can not change their immediate code for 2012 so so soon after a meetin that took place only days ago. if this simple fact gets lost on the local pseudo, he needs to go back to posting science fiction threads.
 
Jul 30, 2009
1,735
0
0
Visit site
Quite surprised by this WADA/Clen announcement.

I fully expected some kind of minimum.

cet par AC banned would be good for me as a Brit, except now the Schlecks are with The Hog, I would rather see AC riding even if its just to stop Schlecklet winning.
 
python said:
everyone with any clew knew well in advance- wada rules/code and their bureaucracy can not change their immediate code for 2012 so soon after a meeting that took place only days ago.

Which you clearly alluded to when you said the following?

there is plenty of hard evidence (and it was brought over here dozens of times) in the published media that many wada lab directors (not all, of course) are for introducing some kind of threshold for clen

I've searched through some of your posts, and I sure didn't see you telling all the speculators on this thread that there was no possibility of changing the situation this year. The theme of this thread was "will they or won't they?", providing an excellent opportunity for you to point out to all of us that "everyone" knew "well in advance" that the answer was definitely they would not. But somehow you neglected to point that out until after the fact?

And this is why the WADA site said "there is no plan". Not "it is still under consideration", not "it is possible in the future", not "we need more time", but "there is no plan"?

Sure, as I noted above, it's still an ongoing debate, but there is nothing in their (lack of) action this year to suggest that a large majority opinion was overruled simply because of time constraints.

iow, given the bureaucracy, the process of having/not having the clenbuterol threshold on the banned list was set forward in march and could not have been affected by a meeting in september 2011. mind you, only several days ago.

that's how all big entities/corporations work.


So this statement, widely circulated in the press,

The World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) will discuss controversial changes to drug rules at a meeting this weekend.
In Switzerland, Wada officials will consider relaxing the absolute ban on the drug clenbuterol, used illegally by athletes to build muscle.

was wrong? Why didn’t you tell everyone this and save the trouble of having the thread?

So there was no talk at all of a threshold before last March? That assuming the wheels were set in motion then, there was no possibility that the groundwork could have been laid at that time, so a decision could have been made now?

You knew all of this, but didn’t tell anyone?
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
Winterfold said:
Quite surprised by this WADA/Clen announcement.

I fully expected some kind of minimum.

cet par AC banned would be good for me as a Brit, except now the Schlecks are with The Hog, I would rather see AC riding even if its just to stop Schlecklet winning.
you need not be surprised at all though. i understand your sentiment...

as was pointed out above via the the contributions of several members (dr mas and others who took pains to read the wada code), the final banned list for the coming year (2012 in this case) and the complexities involving it come from the comments by the member nations and those take many months to resolve. eventually, the working comments are settled to the (often political) satisfaction of the dozens up on dozens of diverging bodies, federations and interests.

only then, the final code and the banned list have to be approved by the executive committee.

iow, given the bureaucracy, the process of having/not having the clenbuterol threshold on the banned list was set forward in march and could not have been affected by a meeting in september 2011. mind you, only several days ago.

that's how all big entities/corporations work.

if someone is trying to take advantage of the decision's natural inertia whilst pounding own chest in about 1/3 of his post 'i'm a scientist just read my handle' they are either deliberately spinning or , equally likely, ignorant.

the local pseudo-scientist is a spinner as proven by his propensity to start science fiction threads.
 
python said:
.

as was pointed out above via the the contributions of several members (dr mas and others who took pains to read the wada code), the final banned list for the coming year (2012 in this case) and the complexities involving it come from the comments by the member nations and those take many months to resolve. eventually, the working comments are settled to the (often political) satisfaction of the dozens up on dozens of diverging bodies, federations and interests.

only then, the final code and the banned list have to be approved by the executive committee.

Again, you are distorting the truth. What Dr. Mas actually said was:

If (and it is still an 'if') they put in place a threshold for clenbuterol it will only come in to effect on 1st January 2012.
Even if a threshold is put in place it will have no bearing on the ongoing Contador case as he is in violation of rules already in place.

Mas never said that a decision to establish a threshold this month was not possible, only that it would go into effect at a later date. (And for the record, some commentators disagreed with the notion that if a threshold was instituted, it would have no effect on Contador. You yourself said the "buzz", whatever that means, might help him). Nor have I seen any evidence that the decision was made six months ago, other than your vague, self-serving reference to "all large institutions do this." In any case, a threshold was talked about long before March, before the RFEC decision which was in February. So they could have begun that process at a time when there was a lot of push for a threshold. Your implication that the situation has changed drastically in the last six months is, again, a distortion of the truth. There is a lot of talk about a threshold now, but there was a lot back then, too.

If any mods are reading this thread, I suggest you tell the editors at CN they should publish a correction or retraction of their article. Like other news sources, CN printed that WADA was "considering" instituting a threshold for CN. If Python is correct, and anyone with a "klew" knew that they were not going to change the status of CB, then the article disseminated a falsehood. If someone has no intention of doing something, and this decision is made six months in advance, then it's false to say they were "considering" doing it. Likewise, CN should correct their current article, which reports that there had been "speculation" that they would establish a threshold, to "speculation by uninformed individuals." If CN does not do this, I will take it as evidence that they do not agree with Python's take on this.

Do not understand why there are minimums for certain other drugs, but not for this one.

In many cases, because the drug is approved for certain medical uses, e.g., salbumatol. The rider with a TUE is allowed to take the drug up to certain limits. This doesn't prevent doping with the drug, but is a compromise. CB is not approved for medical use. No one should have any trace of it in his body, unless from contamination.
 
based on what CC published yesterday, WADA is trying to play the issue the "safe" way-by acknowledging the validity of argument for food contamination-and yet standing firm on the "threshold" limit. I honestly won't be surprised if the AC case gets dragged to a fierce battle up to next year if something goes wrong for him.....
 
Jul 3, 2009
305
0
0
Visit site
Sure they won't do that. AC has absolutely no valid proof (I guess) for his food theory. So why should WADA and UCI acknowledge this BS? As far as I am aware, AC has the burden of prove that he did not take this drug on purpose (and that might be difficult, even if he didn't, which I seriously doubt).

They will argue: 1. Contaminated food theory is just a mere allegation which is not supported by any objective evidence.
2. 2 positives by AC for Clen, no threshold.

AC will argue: I didn't do it.

CAS will hopefully rule: 2 year ban from November 2011. Cancellation of all results since and including Tour 2010.
 
SiAp1984 said:
CAS will hopefully rule: 2 year ban from November 2011. Cancellation of all results since and including Tour 2010.
Why would they take his post-dope results, but not Valverde's? the guy pretty much doubled his win list after getting caught, his lawyers needlessly dragging his case longer.
I agree though, the punishments are too mind too take so long to get to.
 
Cloxxki said:
Why would they take his post-dope results, but not Valverde's? the guy pretty much doubled his win list after getting caught, his lawyers needlessly dragging his case longer.
I agree though, the punishments are too mind too take so long to get to.

I think SiAp taking that poit of view has more to do with an intrisic hatred of AC rather tah a sense of justice.

Regards
GJ
 
Merckx index said:
If any mods are reading this thread, I suggest you tell the editors at CN they should publish a correction or retraction of their article. Like other news sources, CN printed that WADA was "considering" instituting a threshold for CN. If Python is correct, and anyone with a "klew" knew that they were not going to change the status of CB, then the article disseminated a falsehood. If someone has no intention of doing something, and this decision is made six months in advance, then it's false to say they were "considering" doing it. Likewise, CN should correct their current article, which reports that there had been "speculation" that they would establish a threshold, to "speculation by uninformed individuals." If CN does not do this, I will take it as evidence that they do not agree with Python's take on this.

Did CN also report when WADA was planning to introduce a clen-threshold they were currently considering? Because if not Python might still be correct in that they were considering a threshold but were never or could never have been planning to introduce it starting 2012.

Regards
GJ
 
CAS will hopefully rule: 2 year ban from November 2011. Cancellation of all results since and including Tour 2010.

I doubt it. If he is sanctioned, the thinking seems to be he will lose all results up to now, beginning with the 2010 TDF, and will be eligible to ride in the Vuelta next year. I don’t see why he should have to be banned for an additional two years. He probably shouldn’t have been racing during this limbo period, but he was officially cleared by Spain, and though I may disagree with that decision, once made, he should be allowed to compete until the decision is reversed. Of course, it would be a real mess revising all the finishes of those races, especially the Giro, which is sure to weigh heavily on the minds of those who decide his fate.

I think SiAp taking that poit of view has more to do with an intrisic hatred of AC rather tah a sense of justice.

Possibly. But I’m quite sure that for many people, taking the point of view that Bert should get off has more to do with their being fans than a sense of justice. I would be very curious to see how many fans of Bert think he should be sanctioned. Sometimes I wonder if I’m the only one on this forum.

Did CN also report when WADA was planning to introduce a clen-threshold they were currebtly considering? Because if not Python might still be correct in that they were considering a threshold but were never or could never have been planning to introduce it starting 2012.

I see Susan has already stepped in and deleted some posts. Let me try to respond to this without stirring the pot too much more--then I, too, will let it go.

The notion that they could have been considering a threshold but were unable to act was one of my points. If that is or was the case, neither Python, nor anyone else on this forum, or anyone in the media I’m aware of, ever pointed this out, but simply let everyone speculate on this thread over whether there would be a threshold. The notion that they never could have instituted a threshold at the meeting—regardless of when it was actually put into practice—was never raised until after they announced there was no threshold. Sorry, but Python’s raising it now smells very strongly of defensiveness. He’s in favor of a threshold—nothing wrong with that, though I disagree that it’s needed—and his point clearly was that this lack of action means nothing, because if they are going to change it, it will happen not this year or Jan. 2012, but later.

But it is highly unlikely to happen next year, either, because WADA stated on its website that there “was no plan” for a threshold. I think a reasonable interpretation of that statement is that, barring some unusual future events that persuade them to change their mind, they are not “considering” a threshold next year.

So take your pick. If they were “considering” a threshold, then the idea has pretty clearly been rejected, not just for this year, but for the foreseeable future. In which case Python's strong implication that this is still very much a live issue is almost certainly incorrect. OTOH, if the possibility is still in play, it’s because they haven’t really considered it yet--in which case all these media stories missed something important. And I'll just add I certainly don't know which of these two possibilities is the case, and I doubt anyone not closely connected with WADA (if even those) knows, either.

Regardless of the choice, it does not justify ridiculing the announcement of no change in CB’s status as meaningless. If they really were considering a threshold, as all the media reported, this no change is highly meaningful. They could have said, we are considering/looking very closely at this matter, but simply said, no plan. It would only be meaningless if they were not considering it, but then again no one including Python ever made this claim.

If Python had just said, I don’t think this means a lot, this will take a lot more time to play out, stay tuned (which I did say when I posted the news), I would have had no problem. But what he said was that anyone who wasn’t totally uninformed knew that there would be no change in CB. This is gratuitious, it is false, it adds nothing of value to the discussion.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
GJB123 said:
Did CN also report when WADA was planning to introduce a clen-threshold they were currebtly considering?
i don't know if the cn reported that but there were plenty of articles that shed enough light on the issue and, more importantly, outlined wada's process with regard to any changes. this was discussed here to death but i'll summarize it again.

It's not a secret that the growing number of lab directors have strongly advocated a threshold. british cowan is just the last voice we heard. in june this year there was a working meeting on clenbuterol. note these were wada technical and science people, lab directors, not wada officials and politicians who know less about the issue than susan's cat.

at that time there were several articles that clearly stated that if any changes were coming, they'd have to get approved by the wada executive committee (sitting in each september) and could take place no earlier than 2012 or 2013.

the 2011 september meeting of the politicians just ended and no changes in 2012 will take place.

is it really a surprise ?

of course not.

only, poorly uninformed or intentionally invested would expect wada to stupidly undermine it's own legal position in the middle of at least two ongoing appeals !


you are a lawyer, this should be common sense to you. :)

clearly, the presence or absence of the threshold (and the timing of it's introduction) depends on both the scientific and legal-political issues.

scientists may or may not have reached a consensus, but science may be irrelevant altogether right now, as everyone on all sides would like to factor in an hugely weighty, authoritative input like cas's resolution of the ongoing appeals.

Because if not Python might still be correct in that they were considering a threshold but were never or could never have been planning to introduce it starting 2012.Regards
GJ
i am pretty sure i am correct. always take those who instead of being patient, tell cas how to rule with the sack of salt.

I hope the above explanation makes it clear why the big largely political decision was never an issue for 2012. the politicians, perhaps wisely, are doing what they do best - put it off. by 2013, and this was reported widely too, wada congress in s. africa may be ready.

but i would not count on that either. like many questionable things on wada banned list, clenbuterol threshold may be a border line case with the red line migrating back and forth.
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Visit site
Merckx index said:
But it is highly unlikely to happen next year, either, because WADA stated on its website that there “was no plan” for a threshold. I think a reasonable interpretation of that statement is that, barring some unusual future events that persuade them to change their mind, they are not “considering” a threshold next year.
.

Would the "no plan" be changed if CAS accepted AC and RFEC's contention of contamination? I bet backing off of their stance of zero threshold would be considered then.

The fix is in IMO. I would bet AC gets off, and a clen threshold is all of a sudden "considered", and I don't agree that would be a bad thing.

I follow your argument (though I did not check your numbers) of the likelihood that contamination in AC's levels was not possible. But, I don't hang my hat on random cattle testing over Europe to exclude the possibility this might happen. And, if it is possible the athlete should be given the benefit of the doubt IMO.

AC should not get off, and I agree with you and Doc on this because the rules in place at the time which are zero threshold. But, that doesn't mean it is right across the board. Our perspectives may be skewed because we know AC is dirty and throw caution to the wind on circumstances that may erroneously catch people that are not so obviously dirty. You know, better to let 10 guilty go instead of convicting one innocent.
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
Visit site
ChrisE said:
Would the "no plan" be changed if CAS accepted AC and RFEC's contention of contamination? I bet backing off of their stance of zero threshold would be considered then.

The fix is in IMO. I would bet AC gets off, and a clen threshold is all of a sudden "considered", and I don't agree that would be a bad thing.

I follow your argument (though I did not check your numbers) of the likelihood that contamination in AC's levels was not possible. But, I don't hang my hat on random cattle testing over Europe to exclude the possibility this might happen. And, if it is possible the athlete should be given the benefit of the doubt IMO.

AC should not get off, and I agree with you and Doc on this because the rules in place at the time which are zero threshold. But, that doesn't mean it is right across the board. Our perspectives may be skewed because we know AC is dirty and throw caution to the wind on circumstances that may erroneously catch people that are not so obviously dirty. You know, better to let 10 guilty go instead of convicting one innocent.

problem is nobody gives a **** about thresholds until it's someone like ac. that chinaman could have walked in with a philly cheesesteak oozing clen all over the place and he was still gonna be ****ed. thresholds, remote possibility of contamination, it's all smoke and mirrors. they're making up the rules as they go along, and there are still people
stupid enough to buy into it.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
funny, it's pretty easy here to sort out the artificial, biased arguments from those made in the abstract -about the threshold itself (which should not be very difficult given the the number of the threads about contador).

of course the 2 are connected, but the the efforts at trying to separate or merge the 2 issues go long way to show who's who and why.

of course we have some famous mind readers here as opposed to what's written readers.

but that's another issue, for the mods to deal with.
 
ChrisE said:
Would the "no plan" be changed if CAS accepted AC and RFEC's contention of contamination? I bet backing off of their stance of zero threshold would be considered then.

I don’t think the one would affect the other. If AC gets off, it will be because of some argument other than the actual level of his CB. I do think the WADA scientists are bright enough to see that just because someone gets off (and remember, it’s already happened) doesn’t mean a threshold is needed. The arguments pro and con for threshold are a little more complex than that.

By the way, anyone who believes there should be a threshold for CB should answer this question: what level should it be? If 50 pg/ml or >, Bert's level, then this threshold will allow riders to get off by claiming they ate meat at a contamination level that is well beyond the maximum allowed level in Europe. If the level is lower, say, 10-20 pg/ml, then Bert's case really shouldn't be relevant to a threshold, except that it raises awareness of the higher sensitivity of today's technology.

I follow your argument (though I did not check your numbers) of the likelihood that contamination in AC's levels was not possible. But, I don't hang my hat on random cattle testing over Europe to exclude the possibility this might happen. And, if it is possible the athlete should be given the benefit of the doubt IMO.

If you don’t believe the random testing data, I strongly advise you not to eat meat when you’re in Europe. I don't eat meat, but I can tell you honestly that if I did, and if I believed there was a reasonable chance of eating meat as contaminated as that Bert would have had to ingest, I definitely would pass on it. If you don’t believe in statistics, then who knows, the polls may be all wrong and Herman Cain will be our next President.

I think you forget that the burden is not, or is not supposed to be, for WADA to prove that Bert did not eat contaminated meat. The burden is supposed to be on Bert to prove that he did. You say you won the lottery but lost the ticket. Do I have to point out that the odds of your winning the lottery are astronomically low, or can we just agree that without a ticket (or at least evidence that you made a purchase in a store that sold tickets) you’re going to have a problem proving that you won?

Our perspectives may be skewed because we know AC is dirty and throw caution to the wind on circumstances that may erroneously catch people that are not so obviously dirty.

Speak for yourself! I would love to see him get off if it’s based on a convincing argument. I just haven’t seen a convincing argument yet.
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Visit site
Merckx index said:
I don’t think the one would affect the other. If AC gets off, it will be because of some argument other than the actual level of his CB. I do think the WADA scientists are bright enough to see that just because someone gets off (and remember, it’s already happened) doesn’t mean a threshold is needed. The arguments pro and con for threshold are a little more complex than that.

By the way, anyone who believes there should be a threshold for CB should answer this question: what level should it be? If 50 pg/ml or >, Bert's level, then this threshold will allow riders to get off by claiming they ate meat at a contamination level that is well beyond the maximum allowed level in Europe. If the level is lower, say, 10-20 pg/ml, then Bert's case really shouldn't be relevant to a threshold, except that it raises awareness of the higher sensitivity of today's technology.

If you don’t believe the random testing data, I strongly advise you not to eat meat when you’re in Europe. I don't eat meat, but I can tell you honestly that if I did, and if I believed there was a reasonable chance of eating meat as contaminated as that Bert would have had to ingest, I definitely would pass on it. If you don’t believe in statistics, then who knows, the polls may be all wrong and Herman Cain will be our next President.

I think you forget that the burden is not, or is not supposed to be, for WADA to prove that Bert did not eat contaminated meat. The burden is supposed to be on Bert to prove that he did. You say you won the lottery but lost the ticket. Do I have to point out that the odds of your winning the lottery are astronomically low, or can we just agree that without a ticket (or at least evidence that you made a purchase in a store that sold tickets) you’re going to have a problem proving that you won?



Speak for yourself! I would love to see him get off if it’s based on a convincing argument. I just haven’t seen a convincing argument yet.

I believe you know my background so you know I believe in statistics, etc. But, stuff happens. People get food poisoning at restaurants, in spite of FDA guidelines for storing and preparing food, kitchen inspections, etc. What are the statistics for getting food poisoning vs every time somebody in the US eats in a restaurant? Probably about as small as clen being used in cattle in Europe. I would bet large sums of money that if I go eat at a the random restaurant tonight I will not get food poisoning. I would also bet large sums of money that the random cattle tested in Europe will be negative for clen. That is irrelvant to my argument. People get food poisoning, the rogue rancher uses clen in his cattle and doesn't get caught because it is impossible to monitor everything. All of this in spite of statistics......

I agree with you that AC should not get off because of the zero threshold rule in place at the time and your analysis of his levels being too high, plus the statistics you cite on cattle testing. Those 3 things added up make me solely in your corner if no other evidence is produced. And, I agree with you that the burden should be on him to prove contamination, not WADA.

But, what if his levels were lower, somewhere in the range you calculated was possible by ingestion? Is it fair to have a zero threshold rule then?

There will always be people that get over on rules, and people will get over if a threshold is put in place. Somebody could get clen from a transfusion (as most of us suggest AC did here) and it could be a small amount under whatever threshold would be used. Somebody could be tested after the body rids itself of 99.99% of it, putting them under the threshold. That is just the breaks IMO and I don't concern myself with that. IF AC would have gotten tested a couple of days later and his level was very low you might have a different position, because your argument about his level not being indicative of accidental ingestion would then fall flat. Of course, then AC would have eaten that meat a couple of days later. ;)

My position in summary is that there should be a threshold because of the possibility, however remote, of accidental ingestion. It could more than likely established along the lines of your calculations of what is possible. Anything above that, then guilty with no more shenanigans.
 
The funny thing is that in the case of the German ponger, in which WADA accepted that is must have been accidental ingestion (hence the non-appeal to CAS), where the levels were higher than AC's levels. So how much meat did the German ponger eat?

Regards
GJ
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
GJB123 said:
The funny thing is that in the case of the German ponger, in which WADA accepted that is must have been accidental ingestion (hence the non-appeal to CAS), where the levels were higher than AC's levels. So how much meat the German ponger eat?

Regards
GJ

Are you referring to the athlete who had been competing in China and his fellow mates also had high levels of contamination?????
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
Benotti69 said:
Are you referring to the athlete who had been competing in China and his fellow mates also had high levels of contamination?????

...and who had furthermore done a hairtest to prove his innocence in an uncomplicated manner...