• 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 5 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Benotti69 said:
Are you referring to the athlete who had been competing in China and his fellow mates also had high levels of contamination?????

Ah, the usual suspects again with an effort to cloud the discussion. Yes, I am well aware of the differing circumstances in each case, but according to Merckx Index Contador should have eaten half a cow in order to get to the level of CB he had in his blood. If that is true, how much should the German ponger have eaten? Half a herd? Please explain that away.

Regards
GJ
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
GJB123 said:
Ah, the usual suspects again with an effort to cloud the discussion. Yes, I am well aware of the differing circumstances in each case, but according to Merckx Index Contador should have eaten half a cow in order to get to the level of CB he had in his blood. If that is true, how much should the German ponger have eaten? Half a herd? Please explain that away.

Regards
GJ

indeed my previous comment wasn't very pertinent to the discussion.
The answer to your question, I believe, is of a geographical nature.
In china, they can boost their stock with clen, without risking getting fined for it.
In spain, if at all they use clen to boost their stock, they use it at a low level in order to avoid getting caught, I assume.

In any case, it's relatively clear that the ponger simply had bad luck, and even clearer that dirty had been on a clen-diet between dauphiné and tour.
i think ones thought process (and ones attempts to explain thinks away) will be more effective if one takes that sound assumption as a starting point.
 
I think it's not so much using clen at a low level as waiting for the animal to clear the clen out of its system before slaughtering it to avoid the risk (great or small) of being caught. It's just a matter of days anyway. But in theory of course it's possible to get such levels and even higher anywhere.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
if you don't drink coffee, you perhaps taste wine occasionally or another socially-acceptable (or not) substance...

now, if you never noticed it, think of how long it takes for you to feel the effect of the drink ?

it could be minutes, hours... and will depend on many factors - your individual health, tolerance, amount drunk gender...even your race.

clenbuterol is just like that too. the amount found in your bio fluids is subject to all those factors i listed plus the most important the majority constantly ignores over and over - timing you gave the sample after the substance entered your body.

any amount found in your body is just a telltale but could be highly insufficient to conclusively determine guilt or innocence.
 
Related to Python's post, the thing is Contador's case is not really representative because he had tested negative on one day and positive the next day or a few days after that (I forget), which more or less allows us to calculate roughly how much clen he must have originally had in his system. That's not going to be the case with 99% of people who test positive for clen.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
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?????
you are quite correct about the main reason he was acquitted and why wada did not dare to appeal (we've covered that before). though the amounts found in his teammates were NOT huge, they were barely detectable.

the poor ponger would have been sidelined had it not been the ultra sensitive german lab and those meticulous german scientists who don't support wada rules on clen and took the fortunate ponger's case personally to prove a point.

by the same token and reasoning, including my post above this one, a 'clean' spanish cow would almost certainly be doped in germany as the there is no such thing as uniformity in science.

but the misplaced and self-righteous utterance about 'holy' science and 'irrefutable' eu statistics will continue.

it's like arguing about my god is better than your god - pointless, unless many more factors are diligently woven together.

this rant, benotti, is not aimed at you :)
 
hrotha said:
Related to Python's post, the thing is Contador's case is not really representative because he had tested negative on one day and positive the next day or a few days after that (I forget), which more or less allows us to calculate roughly how much clen he must have originally had in his system. That's not going to be the case with 99% of people who test positive for clen.

Considering pro atletes and soigneurs have publically explained the common practice of blood bag juggling, it's not much of a mystery really.
The mistery is where to find a piece of clen-fected food where in hundreds or thousands of tests within the same 3 weeks, no-one else managed.
Which explanation is more probable?
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
python said:
you are quite correct about the main reason he was acquitted and why wada did not dare to appeal (we've covered that before). though the amounts found in his teammates were NOT huge, they were barely detectable.

the poor ponger would have been sidelined had it not been the ultra sensitive german lab and those meticulous german scientists who don't support wada rules on clen and took the fortunate ponger's case personally to prove a point.

by the same token and reasoning, including my post above this one, a 'clean' spanish cow would almost certainly be doped in germany as the there is no such thing as uniformity in science.

but the misplaced and self-righteous utterance about 'holy' science and 'irrefutable' eu statistics will continue.

it's like arguing about my god is better than your god - pointless, unless many more factors are diligently woven together.

this rant, benotti, is not aimed at you :)

Pointless arguing about god as there isn't one and if there is he would also test pos for minisucle amounts of clen by a german lab.....:D
 
Cloxxki said:
Considering pro atletes and soigneurs have publically explained the common practice of blood bag juggling, it's not much of a mystery really.
The mistery is where to find a piece of clen-fected food where in hundreds or thousands of tests within the same 3 weeks, no-one else managed.
Which explanation is more probable?
I'm not saying Contador is innocent. I'm pretty sure he isn't and I want him banned. I'm just saying using Contador's case as a justification to change the rules is tricky, because his case is exceptional.
 
according to Merckx Index Contador should have eaten half a cow in order to get to the level of CB he had in his blood. If that is true, how much should the German ponger have eaten? Half a herd? Please explain that away.

Not half a cow, but considerably more than he apparently did eat, or that anyone would eat. The amount Bert had to eat assumes that the meat was within the standard of 100 ng/kg. The ponger got off by claiming (rightly or wrongly) that his meat was much more contaminated, ergo, not necessary to eat as much.

But your question is still a good one, because really high levels of contamination seem to be fairly rare. This is why I believe the Mexican soccer players doped, and was glad to see that WADA challenged the decision to let them off.

now, if you never noticed it, think of how long it takes for you to feel the effect of the drink ?

it could be minutes, hours... and will depend on many factors - your individual health, tolerance, amount drunk gender...even your race.

There is some truth to this, but you have exaggerated it. Why do you suppose we can have a uniform standard of what counts for DUI? And why do you think that this corresponds to a reasonable figure on the “drinks per hour” chart? Of course there are individual differences, but they generally are not order of magnitude.

Contador's case is not really representative because he had tested negative on one day and positive the next day or a few days after that (I forget), which more or less allows us to calculate roughly how much clen he must have originally had in his system. That's not going to be the case with 99% of people who test positive for clen.

Correct, and very good point which I have emphasized here before. We not only know that Contador could not have doped with CB directly during the Tour, we also have a pretty good idea of how much he did ingest.

a 'clean' spanish cow would almost certainly be doped in germany as the there is no such thing as uniformity in science.

but the misplaced and self-righteous utterance about 'holy' science and 'irrefutable' eu statistics will continue.

As discussed here before, eating meat from a clean Spanish cow (or clean German cow, for that matter) might result in detectable levels of CB if all the stars aligned just right. Or might not. But it would not result in Bert’s level, which is the beginning and the end of the use of EU statistics. Again, no one has to believe me on this. WADA says so, too.

Science is at least more uniform than your posts, that say one day that anyone against a threshold is ignorant, the next day that some WADA scientists are against it, that discuss one day the possibility that WADA will approve a threshold, the next day that anyone who thought WADA was able to consider a threshold this year was ignorant, the day after that that it was being considered.

But you are uniform in your attitude towards me, I will give you credit for that consistency.

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......

You say you respect statistics, but then you say “stuff happens”. This is precisely what someone says who doesn’t want to accept conclusions based on statistics. “Stuff happens” is just a euphemism for “a one in a thousand occurrence could explain why I tested positive”. Floyd Landis’s supporters used the same argument (among others) to claim that his levels of carbon isotope were not indicative of doping. Some people have naturally high isotope ratios. Likewise, some people have naturally high T/E levels, and some people have naturally high levels of certain EPO isoforms. IOW, there is always a chance of a false positive. The idea is that a doping criterion is set so that false positives are very rare. If one still tests positive in that paradigm, then we are in the “stuff happens” zone.

“Stuff happens” is not wrong. It’s just very unlikely, and puts you on a slippery slope. The logical conclusion of the “stuff happens” argument is not to sanction anyone for a positive, because there is always a non-zero chance that it could be a false positive. At least there is for testosterone, for EPO, and for CB (in the latter case, it’s not really a false positive, but the effect is the same).

Also, the “stuff happens” argument works against the threshold that you say you favor. If you are going to accept the possibility that Bert or some other athlete ate the rare piece of meat that exceeded the Euro standard, then there is no obvious limit to how contaminated that meat could have been. If the meat was contaminated enough to result in 50 pg/ml, why not contaminated enough to result in 100, 200 or 500 pg/ml? If you’re going to break the rules, dope your cattle, not give them enough time to pass most of it before slaughter and take your chances that the meat won’t be tested, it doesn’t much matter how much over the limit you are. If you’re way over you will be flagged, but if you’re barely over you will be in the same position. As I noted above, really high levels are rare even in third world countries, but once we’re in the “stuff happens” zone, that argument loses much of its force.

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?

I used that argument only to highlight the difficulty Bert specifically would face in using a threshold to support his case—though since there will be no threshold for at least another year, that is academic. But the more fundamental problem with any threshold is, as you are aware, it allows some dopers to get through. Does this mean there should be no threshold? Not necessarily. The rational way to address this is to compare the likelihood of a doper sailing through with the likelihood that someone eating meat will test at some particular low level.

We don’t have the data to decide this, but we could very easily get them by testing populations. As I said before, I really think we should do this. It’s a simple way of cutting through all the rumors and suspicions that more meat is contaminated than is supposed to be, and finding out the real extent of CB. It would also allow us to get an idea of the baseline for someone who eats legal meat. If you eat Spanish meat, could you test positive in Germany? Nobody really knows for sure. Such a study would have value beyond the implications for doping in sports. Any society that wants to protect its citizens should want to know what the levels of various hormones and other additives in people really are.

If we did this, I suspect we would find that the incidence of CB in Europe and the U.S. is extremely low, so low that detection in an athlete is far more likely to indicate doping. But I could very well be wrong, and if I were, I would advocate a threshold. If it turned out, for example, that the probability of having a level of CB of 10 pg/ml or higher in the urine within twenty-four hours of eating meat was greater than 1%, I think we would have to have a threshold to protect athletes. While any single athlete would still be unlikely to test positive, the probability that one athlete out of several hundred elite cyclists is positive becomes very significant.

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.

Agreed. I think Bert would have a better case if he had not had that first test, and only his subsequent levels were detected. As I said before, a level of less than 10-20 pg/ml could indicate meat that passed the Euro standard. It’s still stretching it a lot, most pharmacokinetic models that WADA used at the RFEC hearing suggest that his level would have to be a lot lower than this. It would be one of those situations where you could strongly suspect doping, but nevertheless feel you had to give him the benefit of the doubt.

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.

Even if there is a threshold, I don’t think that being above it should be an automatic sanction. Any reasonable threshold could be exceeded by eating meat that is contaminated beyond the Euro standard, and in some countries the evidence is that meat like that is not so very rare. Hence the ponger had a higher level than Bert. Threshold or not, I think other factors do deserve consideration. Either that, or advise athletes to eat meat in those countries at their own risk.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
all my posts are consistently under 1000 words. ;) and the examples were simple and from real life and sports. it seems there is more backdoor logic in use again.

that you expect (or more likely disingeniously pretend it is very complicated) wada to undermine it's own legal position in the middle of two ongoing clen appeals and pass a threshold, speaks volumes about the 'scientist' you are.