Cologne Lab was not required to report Contador positive

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
A little more about confidentiality and the Code:

14.1.5 Confidentiality
The recipient organizations shall not disclose
this information beyond those Persons with a
need to know (which would include the
appropriate personnel at the applicable
National Olympic Committee, National
Federation, and team in a Team Sport) until the Anti-Doping Organization with results
management responsibility has made public
disclosure or has failed to make public
disclosure as required in Article 14.2 below.
So the only concern is that the National Federation, etc. can't be notified until the athlete's national ADA makes the public disclosure.
 

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
0
0
MacRoadie said:
That kinda flies in the face of section 14.2.1 of the 2009 WADA Anti-Doping Code:

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:

14.1.2 reads:

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
The only point I disagree with is that it is the "athletes own ADA" (NADO?) that makes an announcement, as it is the UCI (or IF) usually do the 'Results Management' before the case is sent on to the anti doping agencey of the athelete.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
Dr. Maserati said:
The only point I disagree with is that it is the ADA that makes an announcement, as it is the UCI (or IF) usually do the 'Results Management' before the case is sent on to the ADA.
Well, it very clearly states:

"by the Anti-Doping
Organization
with results management
responsibility"
The UCI is not an Anti-Doping Organization

At any rate, it can be made public after the A Sample gives an AAF.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
0
0
MacRoadie said:
Well, it very clearly states:



The UCI is not an Anti-Doping Organization

At any rate, it can be made public after the A Sample gives an AAF.
to the bolded...that's my understanding too and, what's significant, this appears a change from the earlier versions when both a and b samples where required before public announcement. landis's 'big deal indignation' comes to mind when reviewing this issue.

as to terminator's loose rhetoric, it's not the first time he tries to lecture people in things he has a spotty knowledge in and he often resorts to absolutist statements (instead of quoting sources and providing links as you did) because he claims to be an 'insider with special knowledge'. i recently exposed him as just another poser.
***edited by mod ***
 
Jul 3, 2009
305
0
0
TERMINATOR said:
Contador is another Spanish doper in a long line of Spanish dopers. 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.
Word. There is nothing more to say on AC. Hope the cycling-world will forget him soon...
 
Dec 5, 2010
86
0
0
$2000 to get to the Canary Islands? Maybe if you fly Air Lance. Regular flights cost no where near that amount from Europe (best I've found to Gran Canaria is £29 - approx $42 - each way).

I think you'll find that Teams use of the Canary Islands has more to do with the consistent climate, the relatively low cost of high class accommodation and the many, many miles of very well maintained roads and fantastic sporting facilities.

But hey, you could be right. It could be all about the $
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Velocentric said:
$2000 to get to the Canary Islands? Maybe if you fly Air Lance. Regular flights cost no where near that amount from Europe (best I've found to Gran Canaria is £29 - approx $42 - each way).

I think you'll find that Teams use of the Canary Islands has more to do with the consistent climate, the relatively low cost of high class accommodation and the many, many miles of very well maintained roads and fantastic sporting facilities.

But hey, you could be right. It could be all about the $
dont forget Dr Fuentes is a resident of the Canary Islands:rolleyes:
 
TERMINATOR said:
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.

.
Hardly. Tenerife, is one of the best all year round training destinations available. Not many places you can climb from sea level to well over 2000 metres in guaranteed year round sunshine.
$2000 to send a tester there? Does WADA not have any European based testers? try more like $200 max.
 
Aug 31, 2010
48
0
0
TERMINATOR said:
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).
Do you have a link for these test results? Contador's lawyers have a different view of what WADA did:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contadors-legal-team-hit-back-at-wada-report

“In fact, all the work of the detective is limited to asking the butcher in question if there the meat is sold with all the necessary health requirements, receiving the expected response and saying who their suppliers are. This was taken on their word, without any kind of questioning. The same was done with several suppliers. In the documentation sent there is not evidence that WADA has made any kind of analysis at the butcher in question, much less at the slaughterhouses which are mentioned.”
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
if i read the CN article correctly it looks like Contador is gonna walk

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hair-tests-could-prove-deliberate-clenbuterol-abuse

it seems a hair test could prove that it was contamination and not doping.

the article doesn't say when they would need the hair sample. contador's test was over 6 months ago. so is he gonna walk because of this line of think.

"Clenbuterol sticks at least 20 times better to dark hair than to blonde," Detlef Thieme, director of Germany's WADA-accredited lab in Kreischa, told AP. After Ovtcharov's hair test was negative, it offered additional evidence that he didn't cheat. Had Ovtcharov been blonde, that result would have been "rather vague," added Thieme, whose lab performed the test.
but if you have blonde hair its no so reliable. will we see lots of dyed blonde riders, will peroxide hair affect the test?

it really is a mess

this is strange comment and makes me think we will see Contador on the start line at this years 2011 TDF

Germany's Thieme suggested loosening the rules temporarily, while scientists pinpoint the risk of meat contamination with greater certainty. "That would be smart," he said.

Mods; if this needs to be a separate thread feel free to move.
 
Dec 30, 2010
850
0
0
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Andynonomous said:
If a hair test could disprove long term clen usage, why didn't Contador ask for a test immediately after he found out that he tested positive (if his positive was caused by a one-time ingestion of tainted meat) ?
I've asked the same question a couple of times, but a satisfactory answer never came.
one problem is: we don't know whether he did or not.
Of course, if he did it, and the results were in his favor, we would expect them to have been made public.
My guess is he never did the test, but we can't be sure.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
sniper said:
I've asked the same question a couple of times, but a satisfactory answer never came.
one problem is: we don't know whether he did or not.
Of course, if he did it, and the results were in his favor, we would expect them to have been made public.
My guess is he never did the test, but we can't be sure.
my guess is he did a test in the time that he knew about it and we didn't and found it to be positive.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Benotti69 said:
my guess is he did a test in the time that he knew about it and we didn't and found it to be positive.
could be.
anyway, it seems to me that a precondition for AC's defense to be valid is that the hairtest was negative. So without a hairtest, I don't see how he's going to be acquitted.
I mean, a negative hairtest would by itself not be enough for his defense, but it's a precondition, i.e. he must be able to show a negative hairtest for his defense to stand a chance in the first place. am I right?
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,217
1
0
andy1234 said:
Hardly. Tenerife, is one of the best all year round training destinations available. Not many places you can climb from sea level to well over 2000 metres in guaranteed year round sunshine.
$2000 to send a tester there? Does WADA not have any European based testers? try more like $200 max.
Don't bother trying to introduce facts with the TURDINATOR, you'll get nowhere. Unlike the other trolls that roll through here and irritate with their attitude or aplogist talking points, the TURDINATOR will populate posts and entire threads with absolute rubbish posing as "facts".
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
sniper said:
could be.
anyway, it seems to me that a precondition for AC's defense to be valid is that the hairtest was negative. So without a hairtest, I don't see how he's going to be acquitted.
I mean, a negative hairtest would by itself not be enough for his defense, but it's a precondition, i.e. he must be able to show a negative hairtest for his defense to stand a chance in the first place. am I right?
i cant see how he can get off, it is black and white. he tested positive for a substance that was banned at any and all thresholds, but reading the German scientists comments on 'loosening the rules' it seems like he will.:(
 
Apr 1, 2010
459
0
0
Andynonomous said:
If a hair test could disprove long term clen usage, why didn't Contador ask for a test immediately after he found out that he tested positive (if his positive was caused by a one-time ingestion of tainted meat) ?
he needed to get an appointment to get his hair cut first??:D
 
Apr 30, 2009
130
0
0
TERMINATOR said:
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. 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.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I don't see where Astana went to the Canary Islands that year. Perhaps you can enlighten us again.
 
Oct 8, 2010
451
0
0
Susan Westemeyer said:
This is a Contador thread. Please drop the 9/11 discussion.

Thank you.

Susan
Once you allow someone to inject something off-topic into a thread, you have to allow it to be refuted - especially if it's being employed in an incredible reckless way, as is the case here.

So whoever first injected 9-11 is to blame and your comments should be directed solely towards that individual.

I never brought up 9-11.
 
TERMINATOR said:
Once you allow someone to inject something off-topic into a thread, you have to allow it to be refuted - especially if it's being employed in an incredible reckless way, as is the case here.

So whoever first injected 9-11 is to blame and your comments should be directed solely towards that individual.

I never brought up 9-11.
Yes you did. And I am now going to go back and delete all other references to it in this thread. Do not discuss it here again.

Susan
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY