Clen has no threshold but other drugs do?

Does anybody know why clenbuterol has no threshold for testing (any amount=positive)? Pretty sure artificial EPO has a threshold, which is pretty staggering seeing as its, well, artificial.

This quote from CN made me think of this.

"While some banned drugs like the steroid nandrolone have limits above which an athlete's sample must test in order to bring about an "adverse analytical finding", any amount of Clenbuterol, no matter how minute, if found in a sample, can cause a rider to be suspended."
 
Oct 8, 2010
451
0
0
luckyboy said:
Does anybody know why clenbuterol has no threshold for testing (any amount=positive)? Pretty sure artificial EPO has a threshold, which is pretty staggering seeing as its, well, artificial.

This quote from CN made me think of this.

"While some banned drugs like the steroid nandrolone have limits above which an athlete's sample must test in order to bring about an "adverse analytical finding", any amount of Clenbuterol, no matter how minute, if found in a sample, can cause a rider to be suspended."
No, EPO does not have a threshold. Nandrolone likely has a threshold because of its known issue in supplemental contamination. Most steroids do not have any low threshold limit.
 
natural occurrence-- Clen isn't so therefore has no threshold allowance-but you're raising a good point missing by the anti-doping authorities which is the enhancing level of a substance based on its quantity regardless its origin....
 
luckyboy said:
Does anybody know why clenbuterol has no threshold for testing (any amount=positive)? Pretty sure artificial EPO has a threshold, which is pretty staggering seeing as its, well, artificial.

This quote from CN made me think of this.

"While some banned drugs like the steroid nandrolone have limits above which an athlete's sample must test in order to bring about an "adverse analytical finding", any amount of Clenbuterol, no matter how minute, if found in a sample, can cause a rider to be suspended."

The same article you quote from explains why Clenbuterol has a zero threshold for testing. That is, it can be taken well before competition and it's benefits are long lasting unlike other drugs which are performance enhancing in the short term. If you find any clen in an athlete's system it's like the canary in the coal mine, it's an indicator of a more extensive program. Even though in Contador's case it was a tiny amount by the time they found it, he may have gained significant benefits from it leading up to the TdF in terms of gaining muscle mass, losing fat and breathing better.

Clenbuterol breaks down very slowly in the body and the effect is long term, hence the decision by the anti-doping authorities to look for tiny traces of the drug........ If I took a lot and you tested me an hour later, I might still have a lot in my system, but if you tested me in four or five days, it might be there in small quantities and you wouldn’t know what effect it had had
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ghent-lab-chief-dismisses-contadors-calls-for-clenbuterol-cut-off
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
Polyarmour said:
The same article you quote from explains why Clenbuterol has a zero threshold for testing. That is, it can be taken well before competition and it's benefits are long lasting unlike other drugs which are performance enhancing in the short term. If you find any clen in an athlete's system it's like the canary in the coal mine, it's an indicator of a more extensive program. Even though in Contador's case it was a tiny amount by the time they found it, he may have gained significant benefits from it leading up to the TdF in terms of gaining muscle mass, losing fat and breathing better.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/ghent-lab-chief-dismisses-contadors-calls-for-clenbuterol-cut-off

Right, but I was quoted the half-life is 24-36 hours. That's not very long before it is out of your system from the minimum required for testing by the labs, and for example the 40 times less than that for AC. That's 5-6 days at the quickest degradation between what was found in AC and what the minimum testing requirement is.

Is this small window important enough to ignore the possibility of a positive by contamination by putting thresholds, in the spirit of making sure all alleged dopers are caught?
 
Apr 22, 2009
190
0
0
ChrisE said:
Right, but I was quoted the half-life is 24-36 hours. That's not very long before it is out of your system from the minimum required for testing by the labs, and for example the 40 times less than that for AC. That's 5-6 days at the quickest degradation between what was found in AC and what the minimum testing requirement is.

Is this small window important enough to ignore the possibility of a positive by contamination by putting thresholds, in the spirit of making sure all alleged dopers are caught?
Part of the issue is that the 'prohibited list' contains agents and methods prohibited for all sports, not just cycling. So, while there may be debate about the effectiveness of Clen as a cycling-specific doping agent, there are other sports where its benefits are less ambiguous. The policy decision by the international sporting movement (embodied I guess by WADA) is to have one set of doping rules that covers everybody. We can certainly argue the wisdom of that decision, but for now, that's the way it's done.

On the issue of accidental Clen contamination, everything I've read, certainly in the context of Europe, suggests that folks on this forum have wildly exaggerated its probability. The testing in recent years by European agricultural authorities suggests that farmers are simply not dosing beef with Clen anymore. Which means if a guy has Clen in his system, the odds are probably 1000 to 1 or better that the reason is that he *took it purposely with the intent to dope*. If this is true, and I'll admit I don't have all the facts about Clen prevalence, why would WADA want to establish a threshold?
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
HoustonHammer said:
Part of the issue is that the 'prohibited list' contains agents and methods prohibited for all sports, not just cycling. So, while there may be debate about the effectiveness of Clen as a cycling-specific doping agent, there are other sports where its benefits are less ambiguous. The policy decision by the international sporting movement (embodied I guess by WADA) is to have one set of doping rules that covers everybody. We can certainly argue the wisdom of that decision, but for now, that's the way it's done.

On the issue of accidental Clen contamination, everything I've read, certainly in the context of Europe, suggests that folks on this forum have wildly exaggerated its probability. The testing in recent years by European agricultural authorities suggests that farmers are simply not dosing beef with Clen anymore. Which means if a guy has Clen in his system, the odds are probably 1000 to 1 or better that the reason is that he *took it purposely with the intent to dope*. If this is true, and I'll admit I don't have all the facts about Clen prevalence, why would WADA want to establish a threshold?
Don't take my opinion on minimum thresholds as defense of a likelihood that AC or anybody else uses clen. I believe he is guilty, and if it is found in a test it is a high probability they used it. Of course my opinion is tempered by my belief that he has doped all along with other things. That does not make me back off from what I think is right for a particular singular issue like clen positives with minute amounts.

I believe it is possible to get contamination. I believe rules are broken every day, and I would bet money that somebody somewhere is using clen in livestock. Somebody somewhere is speeding, somebody is getting mugged, somebody is getting killed. All of those are illegal as well, but they happen.

For drugs that have smaller effects on athletes like clen, who have the possibility of getting in their system by contamination, I believe there should be minimum thresholds. Clen is not EPO.

My opinion is regardless of the facts you quote for example which wander into the realm of what human nature decides to do at a certain time, regardless of legality. It blows my mind there is no basic minimum set for something that can get into your system by contamination, or maybe not. YMMV.
 
ChrisE said:
My opinion is regardless of the facts you quote for example which wander into the realm of what human nature decides to do at a certain time, regardless of legality. It blows my mind there is no basic minimum set for something that can get into your system by contamination, or maybe not. YMMV.
When Alessandro Colo was suspended the other day for having Clen in his system the Italian Olympic Committee believed his story of accidental contamination and cut his suspension in half to one year as allowed by the WADA Code.

At the end of the day though what they reaffirmed was that the athletes are responsible for what they take into their body. If you want to be sure your meat has no Clen in it, you can. You only buy from preapproved organic farms with a secured supply chain, from farm to table etc.

I was watching a video the other day where the Astana cook makes a big deal about how the riders open their own bottles of water (ie they won't drink it if it is already opened). Athletes already go to great lengths to avoid contamination. Taylor Phinney won't take a vitamin tablet, Cav won't swallow an aspirin. Meat is just another issue that they need deal with.... And they can.
 
Jul 22, 2009
3,355
0
0
Polyarmour said:
When Alessandro Colo was suspended the other day for having Clen in his system the Italian Olympic Committee believed his story of accidental contamination and cut his suspension in half to one year as allowed by the WADA Code.

At the end of the day though what they reaffirmed was that the athletes are responsible for what they take into their body. If you want to be sure your meat has no Clen in it, you can. You only buy from preapproved organic farms with a secured supply chain, from farm to table etc.

I was watching a video the other day where the Astana cook makes a big deal about how the riders open their own bottles of water (ie they won't drink it if it is already opened). Athletes already go to great lengths to avoid contamination. Taylor Phinney won't take a vitamin tablet, Cav won't swallow an aspirin. Meat is just another issue that they need deal with.... And they can.

Great post. No way the top of the cycling food chain behaves this recklessly.

Let's just say this story about the beef is easy for the vast majority of the public to consume.
 
Jan 19, 2010
214
0
0
luckyboy said:
The positivity threshold you mention is there because your body makes its own EPO. The test detects both the natural and synthetic forms. In order to be declared positive, there has to be a ratio between the synthetic and natural EPO that crosses a specific value.

In the near future I can see AC funding scientists in Spain running a large number of test on beef bought at random stores in Spain and Pau in order to try to find some level of contaminated meat.

I think the only way he gets off now is if he can prove that there is a level of contaminated meat in the spanish meat supply that makes it probable that his positive test was due to consumption of contaminated meat.
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
Squares said:
The positivity threshold you mention is there because your body makes its own EPO. The test detects both the natural and synthetic forms. In order to be declared positive, there has to be a ratio between the synthetic and natural EPO that crosses a specific value.
I don't think there is any ratio for EPO, there is for Testosterone (epitestosterone to testosterone). EPO is a naturally occurring substance in the human body but, as I understand it, the test looks for synthetic EPO of any level.

In the near future I can see AC funding scientists in Spain running a large number of test on beef bought at random stores in Spain and Pau in order to try to find some level of contaminated meat.

I think the only way he gets off now is if he can prove that there is a level of contaminated meat in the spanish meat supply that makes it probable that his positive test was due to consumption of contaminated meat.
He'd have to show that Spain has levels of contamination that would effectively kill off their meat industry. Colo had 4 times the concentration in his test in a country that has an official contamination level of 18%, so Contador would have to show Spain has 4.5% contamination. Problem is Mexico has not got the level of regulation that we have in Europe, hence the lack of outrage about their meat. Based on the reaction to the BSE outbreak in the UK that would be catastrophic.
 
Squares said:
The positivity threshold you mention is there because your body makes its own EPO. The test detects both the natural and synthetic forms. In order to be declared positive, there has to be a ratio between the synthetic and natural EPO that crosses a specific value.
But the point was that any amount of synthetic EPO should trigger a positive.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
Polyarmour said:
When Alessandro Colo was suspended the other day for having Clen in his system the Italian Olympic Committee believed his story of accidental contamination and cut his suspension in half to one year as allowed by the WADA Code.

At the end of the day though what they reaffirmed was that the athletes are responsible for what they take into their body. If you want to be sure your meat has no Clen in it, you can. You only buy from preapproved organic farms with a secured supply chain, from farm to table etc.

I was watching a video the other day where the Astana cook makes a big deal about how the riders open their own bottles of water (ie they won't drink it if it is already opened). Athletes already go to great lengths to avoid contamination. Taylor Phinney won't take a vitamin tablet, Cav won't swallow an aspirin. Meat is just another issue that they need deal with.... And they can.
And I'd take that a step further and eliminate TUEs. If you are afflicted with an illness that requires drugs; don't compete until you are healed and cleared to go. The riders certainly should know when that point in time would be and could behave more transparently. If the affliction is a chronic condition then you either shouldn't be competing or attempting to "level" the playing field by treating a genetic fault. Granted this is a harsh line and am open to discussion.
 
Oct 22, 2009
66
0
0
luckyboy said:
But the point was that any amount of synthetic EPO should trigger a positive.
No amount of synthetic EPO is OK. When people refer to a positivity threshold I think they are referring to the amount of synthetic EPO that must be seen in order for the tester to be sure it isn't a false positive. Synthetic EPO can be distinguished from natural EPO in lab tests but some judgment is involved. It's not like a pregnancy test where the litmus paper turns blue if synthetic EPO is there but not if it doesn't.
 
Aug 9, 2009
52
0
0
Polyarmour said:
Even though in Contador's case it was a tiny amount by the time they found it, he may have gained significant benefits from it leading up to the TdF in terms of gaining muscle mass, losing fat and breathing better.
Pros do not use Clen. Easy to get a TUE for Salbutamol. Salbut has all the benefits you describe and in addition it is more anabolic than Clen. That makes me believe that AC had a much higher concentration of Salbut than Clen :D

Phtalates is another story. Most probably the result of a saline IV solution taken together with an insulin shot for recovery. Timing fits well.

Do not worry, his blood bags, he reinfused them way before.
 
Apr 5, 2010
68
0
0
Contador

Okay let be very very objective here what ever happen he has too happen how can you explain 2 riders going flat out in the montagne living all the others behind then one sucking the wheel of the others then suddenly sprint and attack hahaha what a joke you all know even you are very fit after along ride then you can be supreme huhuhuhu impossible without help of something??????????
gentlemen one of you or write on this forum must be a ex professional rider you know what going on in the peloton do not denied all of them taking a substance he always been that way then it will happen again but riders have the best trainers or know or try too bet the system of course in the testing hes negative well you can say i never take drug but they do that the life in the peloton many books has been published .
anywhere i beleived too be all equal he should be legalised has long he do not harm any of the riders they are they choice so why not.
 
May 18, 2009
3,758
0
0
ellenbrook2001 said:
Okay let be very very objective here what ever happen he has too happen how can you explain 2 riders going flat out in the montagne living all the others behind then one sucking the wheel of the others then suddenly sprint and attack hahaha what a joke you all know even you are very fit after along ride then you can be supreme huhuhuhu impossible without help of something??????????
gentlemen one of you or write on this forum must be a ex professional rider you know what going on in the peloton do not denied all of them taking a substance he always been that way then it will happen again but riders have the best trainers or know or try too bet the system of course in the testing hes negative well you can say i never take drug but they do that the life in the peloton many books has been published .
anywhere i beleived too be all equal he should be legalised has long he do not harm any of the riders they are they choice so why not.
I don't know what is going on here but this is classic. In all my sockpuppet pasttimes I could not write something this good to throw you guys off. Bravo.
 
ultimobici said:
He'd have to show that Spain has levels of contamination that would effectively kill off their meat industry. Colo had 4 times the concentration in his test in a country that has an official contamination level of 18%, so Contador would have to show Spain has 4.5% contamination.
Colo's accidental contamination story was believable because of the 18% national Mexican contamination however it only resulted in his suspension being halved to one year instead of two. Will Contador be able to provide enough evidence that he was subject to an accidental contamination? I'm not sure that 4.5% is the right number, but he certainly needs to show that Clen contamination is still possible in Spain, or he'll be looking at 2 years.
 
Jul 28, 2009
898
0
0
luckyboy said:
But the point was that any amount of synthetic EPO should trigger a positive.
The relates to the nature of the test. As I understand the EPO test doesn't actually measure levels. Setting the criteria for positivity in that test is really more about the reliability of the test and setting parameters so that background 'noise' is excluded. Basically the test can reliably and reproducably detect a certain level of synthetic EPO but below that it is a bit dodgy.

FWIW I agree with Chris E on this one. Potential contamination of foods is a completely different circumstance in my opinion to the more frequent occurance of an athlete taking some sort of supplement which happens to contain some undocumented component.

In addition most of the food safety concerns relates to the possibilties of causing harm to the consumer as with some of these poisoning episodes in the past. The focus is on detection of levels which might have some biological effect.
 
Mar 17, 2009
1,863
0
0
Polyarmour said:
Colo's accidental contamination story was believable because of the 18% national Mexican contamination however it only resulted in his suspension being halved to one year instead of two. Will Contador be able to provide enough evidence that he was subject to an accidental contamination? I'm not sure that 4.5% is the right number, but he certainly needs to show that Clen contamination is still possible in Spain, or he'll be looking at 2 years.
I merely divided the Mexican level by 4, hence 4.5%. In any event he should be banned for a year at least. Any less will be a travesty.
 
luckyboy said:
But the point was that any amount of synthetic EPO should trigger a positive.
Clenbuterol does not occur naturally in the body. So, it amounts to a true/false test with apparently great sensitivity. The half-life data is out there somewhere. I believe it to be a blood-related test.

EPO occurs naturally and the test is apparently quite sophisticated and requires some experience looking at natural vs EPO induced blood values. The consequences of this are that there are suspicious, but non-positive values. Given the heavy bias towards eliminating false positives, lots of opportunity to use EPO. Clenbuterol is comparatively easy case to win.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY