Cologne Lab was not required to report Contador positive

Feb 14, 2010
2,202
0
0
Mods - I apparently had wireless keyboard failure - could you please add the "Col" to the start of the subject line? Thanks


Someone here called me a "deluded Contador fan" the other do, so I thought I'd go for it. There's a new online article by La Gazzetta dello Sport with a brief summary of the Contador case. They repeated something that I recalled reading at a Spanish site at the time Contador and his lawyers submitted the defense to the Competition Committee. I never did see it repeated in English, but I think it's kind of a big deal.

Contador's positive sample was taken on July 21. The Cologne Lab notified the UCI, and they Contador, on or around August 25. The UCI kept it secret, and insisted that Contador do so, until a German journalist gained knowledge of the positive from someone at the lab. Remember on later days, at least one person from the lab, possibly two (The New York Times and another publication gave different accounts from their own source), leaked info about alleged plasticizer results, etc. The people at the Cologne Lab seem to be a chatty bunch.

Anyway, part of the Contador defense states that according to some WADA policy, labs aren't required to report Clenbuterol levels under 200 picograms. According to the AMA Independent Observer Report from the Tour, only ten samples went to the Cologne Lab. Everything else went to Lausanne, which by written agreement, returned results within 72 hours. I always wondered why it took the Cologne Lab more than a month. I doubt that Contador's attorneys would try to pass off a rule that's easily enough checked to the Competition Committee.

That means that some individual, at some level of the Cologne Lab, made the decision that this is a doping case. Within their own rules, it apparently didn't have to happen, even with all the bluster in the media about Strict Liability. It could have legally just been filed away. Was it some lab tech that made the decision? Was the positive found much earlier, and did someone at the lab take time to make the decision? Did they wait until they knew who it was before they went for it? Flame away

expertise - Contador's defense, represented for the Spanish lawyer Andy Ramos, submitted a dossier defense of nearly one hundred pages (excluding annexes), which argues the involuntary intake of clenbuterol through contaminated meat: l ' topic that Contador beats from the beginning and that has angered even the producers of beef in Spain. To demonstrate this we present two studies: one conducted by Professor Martin Jimenez Tomas University of Tennessee and one from the Dutch doctor Douwe de Boer. The latter also states that WADA laboratories are not required to declare the amount of clenbuterol below 200 picograms to milliliter.
http://www.gazzetta.it/Ciclismo/22-01-2011/contador-giallo-doping-712573058909.shtml
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
theswordsman said:
Mods - I apparently had wireless keyboard failure - could you please add the "Col" to the start of the subject line? Thanks

Someone here called me a "deluded Contador fan" the other do, so I thought I'd go for it. There's a new online article by La Gazzetta dello Sport with a brief summary of the Contador case. They repeated something that I recalled reading at a Spanish site at the time Contador and his lawyers submitted the defense to the Competition Committee. I never did see it repeated in English, but I think it's kind of a big deal.

Contador's positive sample was taken on July 21. The Cologne Lab notified the UCI, and they Contador, on or around August 25. The UCI kept it secret, and insisted that Contador do so, until a German journalist gained knowledge of the positive from someone at the lab. Remember on later days, at least one person from the lab, possibly two (The New York Times and another publication gave different accounts from their own source), leaked info about alleged plasticizer results, etc. The people at the Cologne Lab seem to be a chatty bunch.

Anyway, part of the Contador defense states that according to some WADA policy, labs aren't required to report Clenbuterol levels under 200 picograms. According to the AMA Independent Observer Report from the Tour, only ten samples went to the Cologne Lab. Everything else went to Lausanne, which by written agreement, returned results within 72 hours. I always wondered why it took the Cologne Lab more than a month. I doubt that Contador's attorneys would try to pass off a rule that's easily enough checked to the Competition Committee.

That means that some individual, at some level of the Cologne Lab, made the decision that this is a doping case. Within their own rules, it apparently didn't have to happen, even with all the bluster in the media about Strict Liability. It could have legally just been filed away. Was it some lab tech that made the decision? Was the positive found much earlier, and did someone at the lab take time to make the decision? Did they wait until they knew who it was before they went for it? Flame away


http://www.gazzetta.it/Ciclismo/22-01-2011/contador-giallo-doping-712573058909.shtml
the doping in cycling is a big issue and was reported extensively in the German media according to some posters in the clinic. the German cycling authority and media seem to have taken a dim view of doping in cycling, with German TV pulling the plug on covering the TdF, so it is conceivable that a lab tech knew it was a doping case or that they are even a cycling fan.

the month thing could be because it was a new test? or maybe the uci instructed them to wait a month?
 
May 12, 2010
1,998
0
0
Nothing more than a bad translation. Douwe de Boer advises a rule change. Now every level of clenbuterol that can be detected is an adverse analytical finding, he says that because of improved testing equipment this will lead to an increase in false positives. Currently al labs have to be able to detect at least 2 ng/ml, he suggest that levels of les than 10% (so 0.2ng/ml, or 200pcg) shouldn't be reported.

So this is nothing more than a suggestion by Contador's legal team.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Lanark said:
Nothing more than a bad translation. Douwe de Boer advises a rule change. Now every level of clenbuterol that can be detected is an adverse analytical finding, he says that because of improved testing equipment this will lead to an increase in false positives. Currently al labs have to be able to detect at least 2 ng/ml, he suggest that levels of les than 10% (so 0.2ng/ml, or 200pcg) shouldn't be reported.

So this is nothing more than a suggestion by Contador's legal team.
is there a possibility it was held for a month to blackmail Contador?
 
Mar 19, 2009
32
0
0
Benotti69 said:
is there a possibility it was held for a month to blackmail Contador?
Well, the timing of the leak did coincide with the Worlds, a time when the topic could get maximum (international, live) coverage.
 
Oct 8, 2010
451
0
0
theswordsman said:
Someone here called me a "deluded Contador fan" the other do, so I thought I'd go for it. There's a new online article by La Gazzetta dello Sport with a brief summary of the Contador case.

Contador's positive sample was taken on July 21. The Cologne Lab notified the UCI, and they Contador, on or around August 25. The UCI kept it secret, and insisted that Contador do so, until a German journalist gained knowledge of the positive from someone at the lab.

Under the WADA Code, the UCI was not obligated to disclose it to the public, and was right in keeping it "secret." Disclosing it to the public (or keeping it secret) is meaningless. I don't know why you people read all this meaning into the disclosure aspects when the UCI did NOT violate any WADA rules.
 
Oct 8, 2010
451
0
0
theswordsman said:
Contador's positive sample was taken on July 21. The Cologne Lab notified the UCI, and they Contador, on or around August 25. The UCI kept it secret, and insisted that Contador do so, until a German journalist gained knowledge of the positive from someone at the lab.

Anyway, part of the Contador defense states that according to some WADA policy, labs aren't required to report Clenbuterol levels under 200 picograms. According to the AMA Independent Observer Report from the Tour, only ten samples went to the Cologne Lab. Everything else went to Lausanne, which by written agreement, returned results within 72 hours. I always wondered why it took the Cologne Lab more than a month. I doubt that Contador's attorneys would try to pass off a rule that's easily enough checked to the Competition Committee.

That means that some individual, at some level of the Cologne Lab, made the decision that this is a doping case. Within their own rules, it apparently didn't have to happen, even with all the bluster in the media about Strict Liability. It could have legally just been filed away. Was it some lab tech that made the decision? Was the positive found much earlier, and did someone at the lab take time to make the decision? Did they wait until they knew who it was before they went for it? Flame away

You and this Spanish journalist are wrong about this 200 picogram limit. That might be a minimum level required for labs to detect, but they can go lower and many labs have done it. I'm not sure why you're so focused on the amount of clenbuterol in his body.

Nothing you said strikes me as important because Contador does NOT contest the results of the test or that clenbuterol was in fact in his body. He claims contaminated meat, which makes this entire concentration argument moot.

You want to know why the concentration of clenbuterol was so low? It's because Clentador's blood bag handler didn't realize that re-infusing blood contaminated with clenbuterol back into Clentador could cause him to test positive.

The low concentrations are due to the fact that Contador took clenbuterol to get his weight down on one of his Canary Island "training camps" months before the Tour and then donated blood at that time when traces of the steroid were still in his system. He then re-infused that contaminated blood back into his system, which is why the amounts were super low.

Incidentally, the reason why cyclists go to the Canary Islands is because they know the testers won't fly out there to test him. You do know that, right? Surely you don't think the Canary Islands is this great Mecca to train. When teams go to the Canary Islands, they are relying on the fact that WADA won't want to spend $2,000 to send a tester out there to collect a sample.

Contador is another Spanish doper in a long line of Spanish dopers. --edited by mod--There hasn't been a single rider on Contador's team who hasn't been implicated in blood doping or caught for it.

This case is a no brainer. Stop acting like it's a big mystery or conspiracy against Contador. The guy is another dirtbag doper and is going to get 2 years.

Only Bjarne Riis and Contador's lawyers are dumb enough to think he has a snowball's chance in hell of getting off.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
TERMINATOR said:
Under the WADA Code, the UCI was not obligated to disclose it to the public, and was right in keeping it "secret." Disclosing it to the public (or keeping it secret) is meaningless. I don't know why you people read all this meaning into the disclosure aspects when the UCI did NOT violate any WADA rules.
When the story came out (leaked by Contadors spokesman in anticipation of the German media being on the case) both A & B samples had shown the presence of Clen, for which there is no threshold.

Why it is brought up is that this was completely different to how the UCI dealt with Fuyu Li, who the UCI publicly named on the exact day that they received notification of his A sample.

Why the difference in standard?
 
May 5, 2009
696
1
0
this is no news. it was already reported at the time when the negative result was released, that the cologne lab is currently the only one in the world capable of detecting such small levels of clenbuterol.

but i don't care. we don't need to discuss whether a certain level of illegal substances is okay or not. dopador is no better than Pharmstrong and the other peleton of liars. get your ban.

what's really scandalous is the different treatment of different riders by the UCI. if i worked in a lab and had learned about a positive test that was supposed to be covered up, i'd do the same and leak it to the media. cheaters shall have no place to hide. not in sports, not in real life.

what confirms that he is not telling the truth is firstly the ridicolous meat excuse and now lawyers trying to find other ridicolous loopholes...

and if anybody still has any doubt about dopador being clean, watch the 2007 showdown vs rasmussen again... outraging... full to the eyeballs..
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Benotti69 said:
is there a possibility it was held for a month to blackmail Contador?
probably we can't call it blackmail in the strict sense.
but I think Pat at least gave AC the time to come up with a decent offer.

on all the other points I agree with Terminator. The case is cristal clear.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
TERMINATOR said:
Under the WADA Code, the UCI was not obligated to disclose it to the public, and was right in keeping it "secret." Disclosing it to the public (or keeping it secret) is meaningless. I don't know why you people read all this meaning into the disclosure aspects when the UCI did NOT violate any WADA rules.
Wrong, after A&B samples are shown to be positive they are obligated to tell the public.
 
Aug 11, 2009
729
0
0
My understanding of the protocol is that the lab tech cannot have known whose sample he/she was reporting on; otherwise, this would be the sort of technicality for which Contador could be set free.

As to reporting an amount small enough as to be not required and not detectable in some labs, I guess that could be labeled really bad luck for Contador (and might make you wonder about what some riders who did not test positive may have taken), but you still can't feel too badly for him if the test is still a fair indication that he doped. The only thing that would make me feel differently is a convincing argument that a false positive was likely.
 
TERMINATOR said:
The low concentrations are due to the fact that Contador took clenbuterol to get his weight down on one of his Canary Island "training camps" months before the Tour and then donated blood at that time when traces of the steroid were still in his system. He then re-infused that contaminated blood back into his system, which is why the amounts were super low.
My understanding is that you can't use blood that's older than a month and a half (or thereabouts?) unless it's been centrifuged and frozen, in which case it wouldn't show clen traces. If Contador used blood he drew during his pre-season, then the clen must actually be due to contaminated meat. If the clen got in his system through a transfusion, as seems likely, that means Contador must have taken the clen between the Dauphiné and the Tour.

I'm not sure at all this is the case, though. It's what I've picked up reading this forum and I could be remembering things wrong.
 
Oct 8, 2010
451
0
0
Dr. Maserati said:
When the story came out (leaked by Contadors spokesman in anticipation of the German media being on the case) both A & B samples had shown the presence of Clen, for which there is no threshold.

Why it is brought up is that this was completely different to how the UCI dealt with Fuyu Li, who the UCI publicly named on the exact day that they received notification of his A sample.

Why the difference in standard?
I think the UCI handled Contador's case differently because he was the Tour de France winner and they knew he was going to contest it with a massive kitchen sink legal defense given the steaks (pun intended). Li would likely not contest it. So they had to line up all their ducks. WADA is the reason for the delay because they wanted to get a sample of meat from the butcher and test it (the tests came out negative). This took weeks to do, if not months.

WADA also conducted an investigation into the slaughterhouse to rule out any possibility that Contador's story had any veracity to it (they didn't believe him but they wanted to mount the defense to preempt Contador's lawyers). They also ran the plasticizer test. All these things took months to do and that is likely why McQuaid was reluctant to hand it over to the corrupt Spanish federation like a regular case.

Where you come up with McQuaid was trying to cover it up is beyond me given that WADA knew and would never let such a thing happen. McQuaid can't cover up a positive test run by a WADA lab unless WADA goes along with it.

Given that McQuaid knew that WADA knew of Contador's positive test, on what basis can you conclude McQuaid was even in a position to cover it up?

And the other thing that really annoys me about you and a lot of other people around here is you INCORRECTLY think McQuaid was covering up a positive test because he kept it "secret." WADA rules require McQuaid to keep it secret. But you and everyone making this claim don't seem to know that so you erroneously conclude that silence equates to a cover-up.

If you don't know the WADA Code, then don't start threads about "violations" that are really nothing but your ignorance of the actual WADA Code.
 
Oct 8, 2010
451
0
0
Race Radio said:
Wrong, after A&B samples are shown to be positive they are obligated to tell the public.
Wrong. You really annoy me with your ignorance of the WADA Code. The public is only obligated to know after an athlete pleads guilty or is found guilty, neither of which has occurred as of yet. Having a positive analytical test is absolutely not grounds to disclose it to the public.

There are numerous cases of professional cyclists who had positive tests and it was never disclosed to the public until after the arbitration case verdict was rendered. Literally dozens of U.S. cyclists.

In fact, McQuaid was obligated to keep it secret under the WADA Code.
 
Oct 8, 2010
451
0
0
hrotha said:
My understanding is that you can't use blood that's older than a month and a half (or thereabouts?) unless it's been centrifuged and frozen, in which case it wouldn't show clen traces. If Contador used blood he drew during his pre-season, then the clen must actually be due to contaminated meat. If the clen got in his system through a transfusion, as seems likely, that means Contador must have taken the clen between the Dauphiné and the Tour.

I'm not sure at all this is the case, though. It's what I've picked up reading this forum and I could be remembering things wrong.
I don't know where you get your blood expiration dates from, but you can re-infuse blood far longer than 45 days old so long as its refrigerated and the proper anti-coagulants are added (i.e. EDTA). Even if Contador transfused his blood within that 45-day window, I'm not so sure what your point is with this blood expiration time window.

The contaminated meat story is Contador's burden to prove, which he will not be able to do. His attorneys are kidding themselves if they think proof of contamintion of meat is to tell a story. What they need is a sample of the contaminated meat, which they don't have.

The fact that Contador's legal team didn't even run any tests on meat from the butcher pretty much tells you their entire defense is fraudulent.

How come WADA ran tests on the meat from the butcher and Contador's team didn't? It's like they don't even believe their own story.

The fact that Contador's legal team didn't test the meat proves beyond any reasonable doubt they are lying. Because if you really believed your client ate contaminated meat, you would sure as heck get samples and test it. How come they didn't do that?
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
TERMINATOR said:
I think the UCI handled Contador's case differently because he was the Tour de France winner and they knew he was going to contest it with a massive kitchen sink legal defense given the steaks (pun intended). Li would likely not contest it. So they had to line up all their ducks. WADA is the reason for the delay because they wanted to get a sample of meat from the butcher and test it (the tests came out negative). This took weeks to do, if not months.

WADA also conducted an investigation into the slaughterhouse to rule out any possibility that Contador's story had any veracity to it (they didn't believe him but they wanted to mount the defense to preempt Contador's lawyers). They also ran the plasticizer test. All these things took months to do and that is likely why McQuaid was reluctant to hand it over to the corrupt Spanish federation like a regular case.

Where you come up with McQuaid was trying to cover it up is beyond me given that WADA knew and would never let such a thing happen. McQuaid can't cover up a positive test run by a WADA lab unless WADA goes along with it.

Given that McQuaid knew that WADA knew of Contador's positive test, on what basis can you conclude McQuaid was even in a position to cover it up?

And the other thing that really annoys me about you and a lot of other people around here is you INCORRECTLY think McQuaid was covering up a positive test because he kept it "secret." WADA rules require McQuaid to keep it secret. But you and everyone making this claim don't seem to know that so you erroneously conclude that silence equates to a cover-up.

If you don't know the WADA Code, then don't start threads about "violations" that are really nothing but your ignorance of the actual WADA Code.
I'm sorry that you are annoyed - funny thing is I never ever suggested that McQuaid was trying to cover up Contadors test nor did I start this thread.

I asked why the difference between Fuyu Li & Contador - since you appear familiar with the WADA code perhaps you can show me the rule that says its ok to name one rider but not the Tour winner.

The UCI kept it quiet to allow AC come up with a defence - not to coverup the positive.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
TERMINATOR said:
Wrong. You really annoy me with your ignorance of the WADA Code. The public is only obligated to know after an athlete pleads guilty or is found guilty, neither of which has occurred as of yet. Having a positive analytical test is absolutely not grounds to disclose it to the public.
That kinda flies in the face of section 14.2.1 of the 2009 WADA Anti-Doping Code:

14.2.1 The identity of any Athlete or other Person who
is asserted by an Anti-Doping Organization to
have committed an anti-doping rule violation,
may be publicly disclosed by the Anti-Doping
Organization with results management
responsibility only after notice has been
provided to the Athlete or other Person in
accordance with Articles 7.2, 7.3 or 7.4, and to
the applicable Anti-Doping Organizations in
accordance with Article 14.1.2
.
The notification can be made while the positive is still ASSERTED by the ADA.

BTW, Sections 7.2. 7.3 and 7.4 deal with the following:

7.2 Notification After Initial Review Regarding
Adverse Analytical Findings
7.3 Review of Atypical Findings
7.4 Review of Other Anti-Doping Rule
Violations Not Covered by Articles 7.1–7.3
14.1.2 reads:

14.1.2 Notice to National Anti-Doping Organizations,
International Federations and WADA
The same Anti-Doping Organization shall
also notify the Athlete’s National Anti-Doping
Organization, International Federation and
WADA not later than the completion of the
process described in Articles 7.1 through 7.4.
The results of the A sample AND the B Sample results can be made public after notification of the athlete. No "plead guilty" or "found guilty" in there.

The only other point I would make is that the announcements wouldn't be made by WADA or the UCI, but by the athlete's own ADA.

2009 WADA Code
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY