Clenbuterol threshold? Pros and Cons

[Merckx index]

Bert’s case, along with several more recent ones involving CB positives, has many people arguing that there should be a threshold for CB. My impression, which may be wrong, is that most scientists and anti-doping officials think this is a mistake. At least some, like Howman and Ayotte, have argued publicly against it. But as Python noted, the recent rash of acquittals by national federations is possibly suggestive of a movement afoot to change the rules of the game.

What is the case for and against a threshold? Here’s how I see it:

For:

1) CB is known to be a contaminant of meat, particularly in third world areas like Mexico, South America and China. Many significant bike races are held in these parts of the world, where riders are at significant risk from eating this meat. Moreover, meat from some of these areas is sold in Europe.

2) New advances allow CB to be detected in extremely low levels, as low as 5-10 pg./ml of urine. Levels this low could in theory result from ingestion of even meat that had passed EU inspection standards (100 ng/kg). Since it is widely accepted that even in the EU, CB is probably used by many ranchers to bulk up cattle, followed by a period of clearing to pass the test, it is reasonable to suppose that much of the meat that passes inspection may have a level of CB in it not far below the limit. Since this level is not considered harmful to the public, there is no need to reduce it, but it can nevertheless trigger doping positives.

Against:

1) CB is not an endogenous substance. Therefore, other than through contaminated food or supplements, no amount, no matter how small, should be present in the body.
2) Since most CB is cleared from the body in a period of several days to a week or so, the high sensitivity of detection now possible significantly extends the window in which a doper can be caught. It also has the potential to increase the value of CB detection in bodily tissues, particularly hair, which might establish use of the drug months or even years after termination.
3) As illustrated by the Contador case, even when direct and intentional ingestion of CB can be ruled out, there is the possibility of it entering the body through another doping procedure, blood transfusion. The amounts ingested in this manner will necessarily be much lower than those through direct ingestion. Therefore, it’s essential to allow even very low urine levels as evidence.
4) While CB ingestion from contaminated meat can pose a problem, since the areas where meat is not subjected to inspection limits are well known, each case can be judged on its individual merits, rather than using a blanket threshold. Thus if a rider can establish that he ate meat from one of these third world areas, and/or if other riders also ate this meat and also tested positive, these can serve as significant pieces of evidence supporting his innocence.

On the whole, I find this a very tough call.. On the one hand, the fact that a rider should be able to demonstrate whether his meat originated from an area with no inspection standard serves as potentially strong protection against most cases of contamination. On the other hand, since very low levels of CB could result even from meat that passed inspection, I think a good case can be made for some threshold. IMO, this threshold should be very low, much lower than the 50 pg/ml Bert tested for. As always, one has to balance false positives against false negatives.

 

[bhilden]

The problem is that unless you test a rider every day for clenbuterol there is no way of knowing what is really happening. Say I take clenbuterol in June, but by the time you test me for clenbuterol at the Tour de France it is almost completely metabolized out of my system. If I am below some threshold then I am supposedly 'clean.'

One huge mistake that people make when discussing doping positives is that the drug testing laboratories don't run every possible test on each sample. There are literally hundreds of tests that can be run on a sample. Unfortunately, because of both money and time only five to ten of the possible hundreds of tests are run on a given sample.

If someone all of a sudden tests positive for a particular substance at a race that might be because it is the first time that particular test was run for that particular athlete.

 

[TERMINATOR]

Bert’s case, along with several more recent ones involving CB positives, has many people arguing that there should be a threshold for CB. My impression, which may be wrong, is that most scientists and anti-doping officials think this is a mistake. At least some, like Howman and Ayotte, have argued publicly against it. But as Python noted, the recent rash of acquittals by national federations is possibly suggestive of a movement afoot to change the rules of the game.

What is the case for and against a threshold? Here’s how I see it:

For:

1) CB is known to be a contaminant of meat, particularly in third world areas like Mexico, South America and China. Many significant bike races are held in these parts of the world, where riders are at significant risk from eating this meat. Moreover, meat from some of these areas is sold in Europe.

I completely disagree with your use of the word "significant" risk. The risk is in fact statistically miniscule.

Second, in none of these cases of supposed meat contamination has the athlete provided a sample of the supposed contaminated meat, including Contador. In cases of contaminated supplements, it is the athlete's burden of proof to show the show the product they used was actually contaminated with the drug in question, and this is routinely done in contaminated supplement cases (i.e. Jessica Hardy). Alberto and his so-called stellar legal team forgot to do the only thing that matters when alleging contamination: that is, show a positive sample of meat from the butcher that is contaminated.

All those cases where national federations let their riders off is nothing but old school corruption and politics...no different than if you let Lance's buddies at USA Cycling decide a doping case against him.

The fact that you equate NATONAL FEDERATIONS with an organization like USADA tells me you are out of the loop.

If WADA or the UCI appeals Clentador's case (they will), he will lose with CAS because he failed to provide a sample of contaminated meat from that butcher or their meat supplier. His failure to even test the meat shows they don't even believe in their own defense!

Also, from a probability statistics standpoint, athletes in other sports would have to test positive for clenbuterol at the same rate as cyclists. Yet we don't see that. It's only cyclists getting caught with clenbuterol at a disproportionate rate compared to other athletes. And it just so happens that clenbuterol is widely used by cyclists as a performance enhancing drug. Go figure.

Disclaimer: the case of the German ping pong player (Ovtcharov) is slightly different. China is not Spain. There is a far higher incidence of clenbuterol use in farming there; in Europe, the substance was banned in 1996.

According to the Associated Press, 83,203 animal samples in Europe between 2008 and 2009 were tested and just one of those was positive. During the same period, Spain tested 19,431 samples in those years. No traces of the drug were found.

Why do you call odds of 0 out of 19,431 a "significant" risk? You sound like one of Contador's math-challenged attorneys.

And the ping pong player who tested positive submitted a hair sample which showed him to be clean. Contador submitted no such hair sample. Surely his lawyers would have done that if they knew he was innocent.

It seems awfully strange to me how Contador's lawyer keep citing the ping pong player's acquittal as some type of precedent for Alberto but fail to acknowledge that the ping pong player submitted a hair sample that tested negative whereas Contador did not. It is fair to assume that Contador already had his hair sample tested, and it tested positive and thus his lawyers knew they couldn't use that as a defense.

Finally Jessica Hardy - a U.S. swimmer - tested positive for clenbuterol but was able to prove it came from her supplements. She was still given a 1-year ban that was upheld by CAS (the same place Contador is going). It is germane to note that Hardy's 1-year ban was upheld by CAS despite the fact that she was able to show a positive sample of clenbuterol from her supplement.

Contador, on the other hand, provided no such positive meat sample, no such hair sample, and gets off with nothing?

Sorry, but somethin' smells fishy here. And that fishy smell smells an awful lot like the corrupt stink of RFEC.

It is also interesting to note that WADA took the liberty to get samples of meat from the butcher and slaughter house Contador claimed caused his positive and test them for clenbuterol (all tested negative..gee what a surprise). Shouldn't Contador have done this? Contador failed to even test the meat...gee, I wonder why that was the case....surely a guy who claimed he ate contaminated meat would have told his lawyers to gets some samples and test the meat, no?

Alberto Contado is major league doper. His denials are just as adamant and comprehsive as Tyler Hamilton and Flyod Landis.

Fool me once shame on you...fool me twice shame on me. Fool me 3 times....

 

[TERMINATOR]

Bert’s case, along with several more recent ones involving CB positives, has many people arguing that there should be a threshold for CB. My impression, which may be wrong, is that most scientists and anti-doping officials think this is a mistake. At least some, like Howman and Ayotte, have argued publicly against it. But as Python noted, the recent rash of acquittals by national federations is possibly suggestive of a movement afoot to change the rules of the game.

What is the case for and against a threshold? Here’s how I see it:

For:

1) CB is known to be a contaminant of meat, particularly in third world areas like Mexico, South America and China. Many significant bike races are held in these parts of the world, where riders are at significant risk from eating this meat. Moreover, meat from some of these areas is sold in Europe.

2) New advances allow CB to be detected in extremely low levels, as low as 5-10 pg./ml of urine. Levels this low could in theory result from ingestion of even meat that had passed EU inspection standards (100 ng/kg). Since it is widely accepted that even in the EU, CB is probably used by many ranchers to bulk up cattle, followed by a period of clearing to pass the test, it is reasonable to suppose that much of the meat that passes inspection may have a level of CB in it not far below the limit. Since this level is not considered harmful to the public, there is no need to reduce it, but it can nevertheless trigger doping positives.

Against:

1) CB is not an endogenous substance. Therefore, other than through contaminated food or supplements, no amount, no matter how small, should be present in the body.
2) Since most CB is cleared from the body in a period of several days to a week or so, the high sensitivity of detection now possible significantly extends the window in which a doper can be caught. It also has the potential to increase the value of CB detection in bodily tissues, particularly hair, which might establish use of the drug months or even years after termination.
3) As illustrated by the Contador case, even when direct and intentional ingestion of CB can be ruled out, there is the possibility of it entering the body through another doping procedure, blood transfusion. The amounts ingested in this manner will necessarily be much lower than those through direct ingestion. Therefore, it’s essential to allow even very low urine levels as evidence.
4) While CB ingestion from contaminated meat can pose a problem, since the areas where meat is not subjected to inspection limits are well known, each case can be judged on its individual merits, rather than using a blanket threshold. Thus if a rider can establish that he ate meat from one of these third world areas, and/or if other riders also ate this meat and also tested positive, these can serve as significant pieces of evidence supporting his innocence.

On the whole, I find this a very tough call.. On the one hand, the fact that a rider should be able to demonstrate whether his meat originated from an area with no inspection standard serves as potentially strong protection against most cases of contamination. On the other hand, since very low levels of CB could result even from meat that passed inspection, I think a good case can be made for some threshold. IMO, this threshold should be very low, much lower than the 50 pg/ml Bert tested for. As always, one has to balance false positives against false negatives.

If, according to you, the risk of ingesting clenbuterol-contaminated meat is so high - "significantly high" to use your words - then according to the WADA Code, athletes are that much more culpable for knowingly ingesting such substances. According to you, athletes are knowingly ingesting food that they know has a "significantly high" risk of clenbuterol contamination, and then claiming they should get off because they "didn't know." Doesn't make any sense.

Under the WADA Code - in a strict liability system - athletes are responsible for testing positive due to contaminated foods that - according to you and all these athletes - is "widely known" to be contaminated with clenbuterol, thereby making the athlete even more culpable for ingesting known contaminated foods, not less, no?

So any athlete who claims the risk of ingesting clenbuterol due to contaminated meat is extremely high as a defense, are essentially arguing against themselves in a strict liability system.

Alberto's lawyers are complete clowns and think they are big shots just because they were able to soft pedal a pathetic argument before a corrupt bunch of Spanish gerbils on the RFEC. Wait until he gets to CAS and finds out the arbitrators don't toast champagne when Contador wins a stage in the Tour de France...then you'll see how bankrupt Spanish boy's lame defense really is.

Contador comes from a country where killing bulls by stabbing it to a slow and painful death is universally celebrated as masculine and sporting. No wonder why the Spanish riders dope...they live in a culture that embraces frauds and pretenders and doesn't see Alberto for who he really is: a doper.

Ask Alberto Contador and Valverde if they too were innocent and see what they say. It is worthwhile to note that RFEC exonerated Valverde too. And then CAS got ahold of the case and righted this wrong by giving Valverde a 2-year ban. Contador is nothing but the next Spanish doper about to be convicted in a long line of Spanish dopers.

Stop being fooled by these corrupt national federations and bullfighting fans.

 

[Merckx index]

Terminator, you obviously haven’t read any of my previous posts. But that’s Ok, it’s rather refreshing to be accused of being a Contador apologist for a change.

I completely disagree with your use of the word "significant" risk. The risk is in fact statistically miniscule.

Nope, not in Mexico. See link in one of my previous posts. About 80% of meat sampled had CB contamination above the Spanish allowed llimit.

Second, in none of these cases of supposed meat contamination has the athlete provided a sample of the supposed contaminated meat, including Contador. In cases of contaminated supplements, it is the athlete's burden of proof to show the show the product they used was actually contaminated with the drug in question, and this is routinely done in contaminated supplement cases (i.e. Jessica Hardy). Alberto and his so-called stellar legal team forgot to do the only thing that matters when alleging contamination: that is, show a positive sample of meat from the butcher that is contaminated.

Again, you haven’t read my earlier posts, where I made much the same point. Apparently, you didn’t even read the post you are replying to, where I said I believed any threshold should be well below what Bert tested for.

All those cases where national federations let their riders off is nothing but old school corruption and politics...no different than if you let Lance's buddies at USA Cycling decide a doping case against him.

I made this point wrt RFEC. I wouldn’t be as quick as you to assume that ALL the other cases were the outcome of corruption. But maybe you have insights others in this forum don’t have?

The fact that you equate NATONAL FEDERATIONS with an organization like USADA tells me you are out of the loop

Where did I do that? USADA wasn’t even mentioned in my post. But please, elaborate on why USADA should not be considered a national federation.

If WADA or the UCI appeals Clentador's case (they will), he will lose with CAS because he failed to provide a sample of contaminated meat from that butcher or their meat supplier. His failure to even test the meat shows they don't even believe in their own defense!

I think he will lose too, though I’m not as certain of that as you seem to be.

Also, from a probability statistics standpoint, athletes in other sports would have to test positive for clenbuterol at the same rate as cyclists. Yet we don't see that. It's only cyclists getting caught with clenbuterol at a disproportionate rate compared to other athletes. And it just so happens that clenbuterol is widely used by cyclists as a performance enhancing drug. Go figure.

What stats are you referring to? A handful of cyclists doesn’t constitute a significant sample of anything.

Disclaimer: the case of the German ping pong player (Ovtcharov) is slightly different. China is not Spain. There is a far higher incidence of clenbuterol use in farming there; in Europe, the substance was banned in 1996.

No kidding!?! I guess you have read a few posts on this forum, after all.

According to the Associated Press, 83,203 animal samples in Europe between 2008 and 2009 were tested and just one of those was positive. During the same period, Spain tested 19,431 samples in those years. No traces of the drug were found.

Why do you call odds of 0 out of 19,431 a "significant" risk? You sound like one of Contador's math-challenged attorneys.

Actually, I sound like you. I made the same point in several posts.

In your rush to debunk my post, you didn't notice that I made a distinction between countries like Mexico and China, which may have a fairly high incidence of contaminated meat, and Spain, where the evidence is that very little meat has a CB level over the 100 ng/kg. limit. You also don't seem to understand that if the CB detection limit is low enough, even inspected meat in Spain will be able to trigger a CB positive.

And the ping pong player who tested positive submitted a hair sample which showed him to be clean. Contador submitted no such hair sample. Surely his lawyers would have done that if they knew he was innocent.

If you keep repeating points I made on this forum a long time ago, I may sue you for plagiarism!

It seems awfully strange to me how Contador's lawyer keep citing the ping pong player's acquittal as some type of precedent for Alberto but fail to acknowledge that the ping pong player submitted a hair sample that tested negative whereas Contador did not. It is fair to assume that Contador already had his hair sample tested, and it tested positive and thus his lawyers knew they couldn't use that as a defense.

Again, your assumptions go well beyond what evidence can support. But hair samples have been discussed extensively on the forum by me and others.

Finally Jessica Hardy - a U.S. swimmer - tested positive for clenbuterol but was able to prove it came from her supplements. She was still given a 1-year ban that was upheld by CAS (the same place Contador is going). It is germane to note that Hardy's 1-year ban was upheld by CAS despite the fact that she was able to show a positive sample of clenbuterol from her supplement.

What!? A non-cyclist caught with CB? There goes the neighborhood.

Contador, on the other hand, provided no such positive meat sample, no such hair sample, and gets off with nothing?

Sorry, but somethin' smells fishy here. And that fishy smell smells an awful lot like the corrupt stink of RFEC.

Next time, Term, it’s helpful to read a few previous posts by someone before accusing him of believing in all manner of things he doesn’t believe in.

Fool me once shame on you...fool me twice shame on me. Fool me 3 times.... If, according to you, the risk of ingesting clenbuterol-contaminated meat is so high - "significantly high" to use your words - then according to the WADA Code, athletes are that much more culpable for knowingly ingesting such substances. According to you, athletes are knowingly ingesting food that they know has a "significantly high" risk of clenbuterol contamination, and then claiming they should get off because they "didn't know." Doesn't make any sense.

Finally you make a sensible point. I considered discussing this in the OP, but thought I’d wait to see if someone brought it up. Riders in a country like Mexico basically have two choices: 1) Don’t eat meat at all; or b) save samples of meat for possible later testing, and make sure that if you get tested, others who ate the meat also do at the same time. The first possibility could be difficult, since protein is important, and many riders like to eat meat (though as a mostly vegetarian, I would support it). The second possibility requires strict controls, otherwise it would be possible to spike the meat later.

Alberto's lawyers are complete clowns and think they are big shots just because they were able to soft pedal a pathetic argument before a corrupt bunch of Spanish gerbils on the RFEC. Wait until he gets to CAS and finds out the arbitrators don't toast champagne when Contador wins a stage in the Tour de France...then you'll see how bankrupt Spanish boy's lame defense really is.

Contador comes from a country where killing bulls by stabbing it to a slow and painful death is universally celebrated as masculine and sporting. No wonder why the Spanish riders dope...they live in a culture that embraces frauds and pretenders and doesn't see Alberto for who he really is: a doper.

Ask Alberto Contador and Valverde if they too were innocent and see what they say. It is worthwhile to note that RFEC exonerated Valverde too. And then CAS got ahold of the case and righted this wrong by giving Valverde a 2-year ban. Contador is nothing but the next Spanish doper about to be convicted in a long line of Spanish dopers.

Stop being fooled by these corrupt national federations and bullfighting fans.

Thanks for making these points, Term. After reading them, my intellectual opponents on this issue will realize what a reasonable guy I am.

 

[Michael Brown]

Keep the rule as it is. Teams and riders should keep all their receipts.

 

[Lanark]

Couldn't they do something like with the biological passport:

Above 200 picogram (just a suggestion, I don't know where you should place the limit): start legal proceedings.

Below 200 picogram: the athlete should appear before a commission behind closed doors, where he is given the opportunity to explain how the drugs got in his system. If he could for example show through a hair test that the low dose wasn't the tail end of therapeutic dose, and het can show he was in a country where clenbuterol use in lifestock is regular, there will be no legal proceedings. If he can't convince the commission, open a procedure against the athlete. During this proces, the athlete is allowed to compete (no temporary suspension)

The problem with no-limit is that eve if the athlete is acquitted, a case could take a couple of months, so even if you don't get banned, you've still lost a couple of months of your carreer.

 

[B_Ugli]

Maybe I am just looking at this in a black and white way:

If CB is as prevelant in imported Beef as some are suggesting then surely you would expect to see bucket loads of positive tests from CB within the European cycling community - that is unless the whole peleton is vegetarian.

There a few hundred guys in the Pro-Tour and even more hundred at Elite level in Europe who are being routinely tested every year on a regular basis.

But only one guy tests positive.

One guy who is a Multi Tour Winner
Who used to ride for Manolo Saiz
Who used to ride for Johan Bruyneel (formerly managed by Saiz)
Who last year rode for Vinokourov (who transfused blood during a Tour de France)
Who now rides for Riis (a confessed EPO tour user)

 

[Cobblestones]

I assume that a threshold is supposed to take care of the 'beef excuse'?

Except, that it doesn't.

There's no limit to how much clen you can get in your system from eating contaminated beef. It mainly depends how contaminated it is. Worst case: clen was given shortly before slaughter and you're eating the precise cut of meat where clen was injected.

In other words: no matter how much clen is detected in your system, the 'beef excuse' card will be played. No threshold of any kind will ever rule out the 'beef excuse'.

There's no point to a threshold IMHO.

 

[Benotti69]

The threshold will definitely be changed if the UCI wants to create a world wide serious of races that it controls the tv rights too. So in order for pros to race in China they need to allow for possible contamination.

 

[hfer07]

the threshold limit is the correct way to address the problem once for all- and this opinion isn't subject to AC's case, since there are many cases in other Sports that have been affected by the current ruling on Clen. I'd add that although the threshold must be raised, the appearance of it in any doping control should be held accountable for some penalty, since is clear that Clen is by nature exogenous.--perhaps a short penalty might help-but not a full ban for a very minuscule amount, like it was EPO.

 

[richwagmn]

Second, in none of these cases of supposed meat contamination has the athlete provided a sample of the supposed contaminated meat, including Contador. In cases of contaminated supplements, it is the athlete's burden of proof to show the show the product they used was actually contaminated with the drug in question, and this is routinely done in contaminated supplement cases (i.e. Jessica Hardy). Alberto and his so-called stellar legal team forgot to do the only thing that matters when alleging contamination: that is, show a positive sample of meat from the butcher that is contaminated.

Why would anyone keep the actual sample of meat for later testing (though I don't know, maybe they should from now on).

Second, if all they needed was a contaminated piece of meat from a butcher I don't think that would be hard to intentionally produce do you? So even if they had a sample, it doesn't disprove that the clen positive wasn't from a transfusion (how do we know if the sample presented is what he actually ate?)

Contador may indeed be lying, but clen contanimation is a real possibilty depending on where you live. A threshold makes sense to me.

Finally, if AC transfused, shouldn't we find something in his blood profile like a sudden spike of hemoglobin? What's the point of transfusing if you keep your same blood values?

 

[biopass]

the threshold limit is the correct way to address the problem once for all- and this opinion isn't subject to AC's case, since there are many cases in other Sports that have been affected by the current ruling on Clen. I'd add that although the threshold must be raised, the appearance of it in any doping control should be held accountable for some penalty, since is clear that Clen is by nature exogenous.--perhaps a short penalty might help-but not a full ban for a very minuscule amount, like it was EPO.

What Contadors lawyers didnt tell is that Clen is actually a medication against breathing disorders such as asthma. It is not only a weight losing drug as stated by the lawyers, it also makes breathing easier, increases the aerobic capacity and oxygen transportation. So in a way, it is like EPO.

 

[lean mean &green]

The threshold will definitely be changed if the UCI wants to create a world wide serious of races that it controls the tv rights too. So in order for pros to race in China they need to allow for possible contamination.

the UCI follows the code, they don't write it. the UCI and national federations are responsible for discipling athletes and can clear athletes on the basis of no fault/negligence but WADA still has oversight on that too. WADA (who actually writes the code) could take into consideration the gobalization of cycling but honestly, bike racing is only one of countless sports effected by the code. the concerns of cycling are only a small part of the decision making process. the code has to work for athletes in many sports/leagues all around the world. plenty of athletes have successfully competed and will continue to compete day after day in parts of the world most effected by this type of contamination while producing very few AAF's. i'm not sure WADA is in a rush to establish a threshold for clenbuterol and even if they did, i'm not sure it accomplishes much other than allowing a few clenbuterol abusers through the antidoping net.

it's a little messy right now but clenbuterol should probably remain a no threshold substance. by all means, suspensions should be drastically reduced if a strong case can be made for no sig fault/negligence. losing a few months while your case remains on the docket isn't that much of a concern for me either as it's good disincentive for eating dodgy meat of south american origin, chinese supplements, or spanish veal

 

[Merckx index]

it's a little messy right now but clenbuterol should probably remain a no threshold substance. by all means, suspensions should be drastically reduced if a strong case can be made for no sig fault/negligence. losing a few months while your case remains on the docket isn't that much of a concern for me either as it's good disincentive for eating dodgy meat of south american origin, chinese supplements, or spanish veal

Again, the one point that I think forces consideration of a threshold is the possibility of testing positive from eating “non-contaminated” meat. In the RFEC decision, WADA claimed that Bert’s level of 50 pg/ml could only have been obtained by eating meat that at a minimum had a little over 300 ng/kg, three times the allowable limit. But suppose his level was 15 pg/ml? Then by the most generous estimate his positive could have resulted from eating meat that passed inspection. When you push down the detection limit to 5-10 pg/ml, the possibility becomes even greater.

If someone can test positive as a result of eating ordinary meat, the kind sold everywhere and which is considered safe, then you have a problem. Would some dopers get by using this threshold? Sure. But not very many, because now you very near the detection limit. You are talking about clearing someone who tested positive on one day who would have had indetectable levels if tested a day or two later, anyway. Not such a huge deal, IMO.

 

[lean mean &green]

Again, the one point that I think forces consideration of a threshold is the possibility of testing positive from eating “non-contaminated” meat. In the RFEC decision, WADA claimed that Bert’s level of 50 pg/ml could only have been obtained by eating meat that at a minimum had a little over 300 ng/kg, three times the allowable limit. But suppose his level was 15 pg/ml? Then by the most generous estimate his positive could have resulted from eating meat that passed inspection. When you push down the detection limit to 5-10 pg/ml, the possibility becomes even greater.

If someone can test positive as a result of eating ordinary meat, the kind sold everywhere and which is considered safe, then you have a problem. Would some dopers get by using this threshold? Sure. But not very many, because now you very near the detection limit. You are talking about clearing someone who tested positive on one day who would have had indetectable levels if tested a day or two later, anyway. Not such a huge deal, IMO.

i'll just assume your numbers are correct (i'm honestly too lazy to work thru them again)... under normal circumstances there are very long odds against the scenario you've described. ie an athlete eating meat contaminated at the very top of the "legal" limit and then being tested in the first 24 hours but of course it's possible.

as i understand it, 10 pg/mL is essentially the bottom of what can be reliably measured for now. to me, that is essentially the same as no threshold but if you'd like to establish a 5 or 10 pg/mL threshold for arguments sake i'm perfectly ok with your logic.

 

[Merckx index]

under normal circumstances there are very long odds against the scenario you've described. ie an athlete eating meat contaminated at the very top of the "legal" limit and then being tested in the first 24 hours

Yes, that's a good point. But if the athlete can establish that he did eat meat in that period, I could understand his getting off with a really low value.

Actually, though, the low values might linger for a while. Bert tested positive four different times over a period of five days, and the last value was somewhat higher than one of the earlier values. A lot of that probably reflects error in the measurement, but it's suggestive of a plateau of urine levels. It's known that after CB ingestion there is an initial fairly rapid clearing into the urine, first-order I think, followed by a much slower rate. The latter occurs presumably because some of the CB initially went into various tissues, then later slowly leaks out. So possibly detectable values could exist for several days after eating meat. Not for extended periods of time, of course.

 

[TERMINATOR]

Why would anyone keep the actual sample of meat for later testing (though I don't know, maybe they should from now on).

If, according to all these cyclists, that there's so much contaminated meat everywhere that is responsible for a half dozen cases a year, you would absolutely keep samples of your meat. But this won't happen, of course, because deep down inside, every cyclist and athlete knows that every single athlete who tested positive for clenbuterol didn't get it from contaminated meat.

So that's the real reason they don't keep samples of their meat...

Second, it is STANDARD PRACTICE, in cases where the athlete asserts "contaminated" food (or supplements) in a doping case is to get a sample and test it. Scott Moninger did this (and won a settlement). Jessica Hardy did this. Kicker Vencill did this (and won a $600,000 settlement)

But for some strange reason, Contador's supposed 5-star legal team has done no such sample testing of meat from the butcher in question. How come?

And then when you couple that fact with the fact that WADA took the liberty to get samples of the meat from the butcher, they all came up negative. Gee, go figure.

Contador's legal team are incredibly remiss and their client will get a 2-year ban once CAS reads the absurd garbage they are trying to pass off as "proof" of contamination.

Contador will soon find out his stellar legal team is as incompetent as Valverde's legal team, and Kashechkin's legal team...and Hondo's legal team.., and Hamilton's legal team, etc.

Contador's failure to show any contamination from the butcher in question means he's getting 2-years. WADA's testing that showed no contamination from the same butcher means CAS will render this decision very easily and without any compunction whatsoever.

Contador has been duped by his reckless lawyers into thinking he has a strong case just because the Spanish bullfighter federation gave him a pass. Let's not forget that this is the same federation that didn't find a DNA match of Valverde's blood to Operacion Puerto blood to be compelling evidence either. Yeah, okay. The RFEC is pretty much the OJ Simpson jury. They are an embarrassment to the sport of cycling; they are corrupt organization, and they are ruining this sport with decisions that are disgusting compared to how USADA does business.

Do you think USADA acted like a cheerleader for Landis? Hell no. And luckily they didn't because we now know Floyd Landis was really Fraud Landis.

 

[TERMINATOR]

Why would anyone keep the actual sample of meat for later testing (though I don't know, maybe they should from now on).

Second, if all they needed was a contaminated piece of meat from a butcher I don't think that would be hard to intentionally produce do you? So even if they had a sample, it doesn't disprove that the clen positive wasn't from a transfusion (how do we know if the sample presented is what he actually ate?)

It actually would be very hard to do because it is likely you would have to synthesize the excreted metabolized molecule of clenbuterol as well and then plant it. And second, no lawyer would do this unless they wanted to get disbarred and go to jail.

Why would they take such a risk when they can collect even more legal fees from Contador by having him found guilty and then defending him on appeal? Lawyers are more about the money...they don't care if they're client goes to jail or is found guilty of doping.

Third, if they did that, they would be implicating a specific meatpacker, which would then be investigated by the Spanish regulators (who would turn up nothing). So where did the clebuterol come from?

And then finally, in order to plant clenbuterol in meat, that means the lawyers would have to physically acquire it...and all it would take is some low-level dope dealer to squeal to the police that he just sold Contador's lawyer a vial of clenbuterol. How could you, as a lawyer, be sure nobody would sell you out? You can't. Surely the guy who sells Contador's lawyer some clebuterol could sell his story to L'Equipe for a petty penny (not to mention Walsh or Kimmage).

And since Alberto clearly lied to his attorneys, they would have no reason to believe they needed to plant evidence in a case where they have the truth on their side. After all, who plants evidence when they think they have the truth on their side?

Alberto is duping his lawyers, and his lawyers are, in turn, duping Alberto into thinking he is going to win his appeal. Just like Valverde's stupid lawyers did to him. Any lawyer who would try to negate a DNA match is an idiot and a loser.

I am 100% certain Alberto is getting 2 years. 100%. His case is a joke and his lawyers are an even bigger joke.

 

[TERMINATOR]

Yes, that's a good point. But if the athlete can establish that he did eat meat in that period, I could understand his getting off with a really low value.

That's irrelevant. The burden of proving contaminated meat is with the athlete. Contador needed to show a positive "cut of meat" from the same butcher he claims the meat he ate came from. He failed to do this.

Under the WADA Code, if an athlete cannot show actual contaminated product, there is absolutely no reason for the CAS to simply assume it is. That is why Contador is going to lose his case - he failed to show the meat was contaminated. And to the best of my knowledge, he likely failed to introduce evidece that he even ate the meat in question.

CAS will not accept a receipt as proof Contador actually ingested the meat in question. And links to cyclingnews articles about quotes from the team manager about Contador definitely eating the meat is not admissible. Did Contador's lawyers forget to get direct testimony from the cook and from other people who saw bertie eat the meat (i.e. including the buyer of the meat)?

His lawyers are so stupid, I wouldn't put that oversight past them. And we already know they are stupid because - for the record - they failed to:

1.) Test Alberto's hair and show it to be negative. They then turn around and have the audacity to cite the ping pong player case as a good precedent for their client, failing to even realize the ping pong player had a negative hair sample as part of his evidence!

2.)Test any meat from the butcher in question, which is the first thing any lawyer in the U.S. does when he's hired to fight a contaminated supplement case.

How come Contador's lawyer didn't even test a 'cut of meat' from the butcher in question? Yet WADA did??????? ....and they all came up negative, of course.

Contador's lawyers engaged in massive legal malpractice. And he's too stupid to know any difference. He's as drunk with his lawyers as Valverde, Hamilton, Hondo, and Kashechkin were with their reckless attorneys' pathetic legal arguments.

For the record, Valverde's lawyers argued a DNA match was irrelevant. Why? Because the blood was obtained in violation of his "human rights." Okay, sounds good, you idiot.

Hamilton's lawyers argued a vanishing twin. We later find out the guy's off-score was 132 and the infamous fax to Haven Parchinski, his wife, that he still owes 40,000 Euros for doping products.

Hondo argued human rights violation as did Make Glorious Nation Kashechkin's lawyers.

And now we have Contador's legal team citing ping pong player cases but failing to get hair samples and failing to test the meat at all.

These European lawyers are all scam artists. Honestly, you won't see U.S. lawyer Howard Jacobs making such legally bankrupt arguments.

 

[Skandar Akbar]

Terminator cliff notes = everybody is stupid.

Are the lawyers stupid for doing the minimum to defend their client successfully without further incriminating him? Is AC stupid for fighting this? I think he is guilty and hope he loses the appeal but with your line of thinking the whole trial by jury thing is stupid in courts of law. Why don't the stupid people that know they are guilty stop duping their stupid lawyers who in turn stop duping their stupid clients into thinking they have a right to a fair trial, all the while getting rich? That stupid appeals process needs to be scrapped except for the smart people that are innocent.

On topic there needs to be a threshold for the reasons the op states. I think those reasons are much more compelling than the reasons not to. It is impractical to be luggging around baggies of food from all over the world and impossible to know all food suppliers are following the law.

 

[hfer07]

What Contadors lawyers didnt tell is that Clen is actually a medication against breathing disorders such as asthma. It is not only a weight losing drug as stated by the lawyers, it also makes breathing easier, increases the aerobic capacity and oxygen transportation. So in a way, it is like EPO.

having in consideration that AC has allergy issues, It wouldn't make sense for him to use CLen to resolved his "breathing issues" rather than having a TUE(which I believe he has BTW). as I wrote - I'm not inclined exclusively on AC's case- the Clen issue has broaden questions regarding its threshold, since minuscule amounts aren't useful to enhance performance-as you described- & can appear in doping tests by involuntary ingestion-that's the key- So if a limit is set-it will provide a permanent solution to the problem-rather than coming up with lame explanations/excuses on how "accidentally" got inside the athlete's system.

 

[TERMINATOR]

Terminator cliff notes = everybody is stupid.

Are the lawyers stupid for doing the minimum to defend their client successfully without further incriminating him? Is AC stupid for fighting this? I think he is guilty and hope he loses the appeal but with your line of thinking the whole trial by jury thing is stupid in courts of law. Why don't the stupid people that know they are guilty stop duping their stupid lawyers who in turn stop duping their stupid clients into thinking they have a right to a fair trial, all the while getting rich? That stupid appeals process needs to be scrapped except for the smart people that are innocent.

On topic there needs to be a threshold for the reasons the op states. I think those reasons are much more compelling than the reasons not to. It is impractical to be luggging around baggies of food from all over the world and impossible to know all food suppliers are following the law.

AC is stupid for fighting this because in the end he's getting 2 years. Fighting this just makes him lose an additional two million Euros in attorneys fees. No rider with a positive analytical sample has ever skated. But Contador thinks he's going to be the first. He's an idiot.

Clenbutador's attorneys are actually so stupid and so inexperienced, that they don't actually know they are going to lose at CAS. They think CAS is like the braindead sycophants on the RFEC.

Wait until Contador and his dumb bullfigting lawyers find out the arbitrators on CAS don't celebrate stage wins in the Tour de France by Contador with champagne like the idiots who presided over the case on the Spanish federation do.

Second, there is no need to carry around plastic bags of the food you ate. If you test positive for contaminated meat, you should be able to go back to where ever you got the meat and any random sample should also test positive. If that doesn't happen, then you must be one seriously unlucky person to have eaten the only piece of contaminated meat. Actually, you're more likely to be a doper who doesn't need to carry around samples of meat you ate anyway because you know that the clenbuterol you tested positive for came from the transfusion bag you re-infused the week of the test.

That's the real reason cyclists continue to eat meat and not keep samples...because to date, not a single one has ever eaten contaminated meat. They all know - even the cyclists who don't know Contador - where the clenbuterol came from. This whole contaminated meat thing is just a ruse for the stupid public.

Let me ask you something. If high school students across the country started testing positive for marijuana and said it must have come from contaminated lunches they ate at school, would you:

1.) Start an investigation into the food suppliers (which of course would result in negative test results, as WADA confirmed when they tested the meat from the butcher Contador used)

2.) Tell the high school students to drop the stupid fvcking act.

You seem like you would be inclined to do #1. I would do #2.

 

[El Pistolero]

AC is stupid for fighting this because in the end he's getting 2 years. Fighting this just makes him lose an additional two million Euros in attorneys fees. No rider with a positive analytical sample has ever skated. But Contador thinks he's going to be the first. He's an idiot.

Clenbutador's attorney's are actually so stupid and so inexperienced, that they don't actually know they are going to lose at CAS. They think CAS is like the braindead sycophants on the RFEC.

Wait until Contador and his dumb bullfigting lawyers find out the arbitrators on CAS don't celebrate stage wins in the Tour de France by Contador with champagne like the idiots who presided over the case on the Spanish federation do.

Second, there is no need to carry around plastic bags of the food you ate. If you test positive for contaminated meat, you should be able to go back to where ever you got the meat and any random sample should also test positive. If that doesn't happen, then you must be one seriously unlucky person to have eaten the only piece of contaminated meat. Actually, you're more likely to be a doper who doesn't need to carry around samples of meat you ate anyway because you know that the clenbuterol you tested positive for came from the transfusion bag you re-infused the week of the test.

That's the real reason cyclists continue to eat meat and not keep samples...because to date, not a single one has ever eaten contaminated meat. They all know - even the cyclists who don't know Contador - where the clenbuterol came from. This whole contaminated meat thing is just a ruse for the stupid public.

Let me ask you something. If high school students across the country started testing positive for marijuana and said it must have come from contaminated lunches they ate at school, would you:

1.) Start an investigation into the food suppliers (which of course would result in negative test results, as WADA confirmed when they tested the meat from the butcher Contador used)

2.) Tell the high school students to drop the stupid fvcking act.

You seem like you would be inclined to do #1. I would do #2.

Lol, there are lots of cyclists that weren't banned after testing positive. Some of them tested positive for Clenbuterol. These "stupid" attorneys got the likes of Tom Boonen free to ride the Tour. Yeah, so inexperienced

The only reason why you think it's stupid for him to fight this case is because you're **** hurt and only care about doping and not the sport. Just look at the time you made your account and all your posts go about one person lol. Did Contador kill your mom or something?

 

[TERMINATOR]

Terminator cliff notes = everybody is stupid.

Are the lawyers stupid for doing the minimum to defend their client successfully without further incriminating him? Is AC stupid for fighting this? Why don't the stupid people that know they are guilty stop duping their stupid lawyers who in turn stop duping their stupid clients into thinking they have a right to a fair trial, all the while getting rich? That stupid appeals process needs to be scrapped except for the smart people that are innocent.

On topic there needs to be a threshold for the reasons the op states. I think those reasons are much more compelling than the reasons not to. It is impractical to be luggging around baggies of food from all over the world and impossible to know all food suppliers are following the law.

Yes, most jury trials are stupid. And most juries are stupid. That's why innocent people are convicted all the time.

The bottom line is you need to have professional juries. CAS is a professional jury. RFEC is like the OJ Simpson jury who can't be swayed by DNA evidence because a DNA match of OJ's blood at the murder scene doesn't explain how OJ gained 237 yards against the Chicago Bears in the '74 playoffs (don't worry if it doesn't make sense to you, it makes perfect sense to stupid people).

Stupid people (and stupid juries) are ruining this world. So far, Contador thinks he's ahead in the game because he "won" his case with his stupid hometown jury of cycling fans at the RFEC.

Wait until he finds out the arbitrators on CAS don't play fantasy cycling and don't even know what the Vuelta is.