Confidentiality/cover-up confirmed?

[Cobblestones]

The bit in bold is absolutely critical. I would like to have a convincing explanation why this particular test is not considered to be a positive .I would like to hear a convincing explanation why a governing body should suggest a course of defense for a sportsman who tested positive. I would like to hear why result management process is taking so long in this particular case. I would like to know when WADA was notified of the positive.

I am hopeful that this information will be revealed at an appropriate time.

+1

These are precisely the questions which need to be asked.

Maybe a journalist could help us out? Do you think there are any journalists who read CN and this forum?

ETA: let me also make a comment on the tainted steak. If I were working in the Spanish FDA (whatever their name is), and someone came to me saying: 'either we have a huge food scandal with clenbuterol-tainted beef on our hands, ... or a cyclist doped', how would I react? Not that agriculture in the EU is a squeaky clean business, far from it. But cycling is still way dirtier. Sadly.

 

[HoustonHammer]

People can express doubts all they want when some reporter calls them.

However, the vast majority of reported cases of human clenbuterol toxicity from eating meat have been a result of eating liver:

http://tinyurl.com/32l8qps

If the safety of the Spanish beef supply was ever REALLY in question, why wasn't a massive food safety investigation launched as soon as the positive test was announced to WADA? They have a responsibility to public health, as a government-funded organization.

The issue of past cases is interesting to me from the perspective of what it says about the probability of Clen contamination by the means AC has offered.

I made a really rough attempt at guessing that probability:

- Assume there are 40 million people in Spain, and they eat one meal per day that includes some kind of beef. In any given year, that would be about 14.6 billion beef meals consumed.
- Assume that in the early 1990's, about 200 people per year were reported as having been poisoned with Clen (probably a wild exaggeration, but let's roll with it). Let's also assume that only 1 in 100 people were poisoned severely enough to show symptoms and for their situation to be detected and reported. That gives about 20,000 people poisoned per year.
- Based on these assumptions, the probability of poisoning was 20K/14.6B, or about 1 in 730,000.

So, if the Spanish agricultural authorities did nothing since the early 1990's to reduce ranchers' use of Clen,
AC would have had one chance in 730,000 to get Clen poisoning from his meal of Spanish meat.

I'd be interested to hear others' thoughts or alternative calculations on the probability of poisoning.

How can the authorities seriously turn a blind eye to somebody who has failed a doping control, and then offered an explanation that has essentially million-to-one odds against being true?

 

[DirtyWorks]

Right Idea

A better control group is all other cyclists whose urine samples were tested by the same super-sensitive equipment.

This is the test I would love to see results on.

As for "not testing positive," that doesn't mean the negative test results were accurate. The Ashenden interview mentioned all over this forum and riders telling their stories about days of passing tests before a positive makes it clear the tests are not simple and not easy to establish results.

As much as I don't want dopers in the peloton, the system that tests them needs to be open to legitimate critical examination. Examine a randomized group of samples from the same event, same days and see how many clembuterol positives appear.

 

[TdFLanterne]

Clenbuterol in meat

If someone ate beef tenderloin that had a high enough concentration to render a blood clenbuterol level that is SIMILAR to oral ingestion of clenbuterol - then presumably the liver of that cow would have high enough levels to make a person ill from eating it.

If there was a cow that got clenbuterol, someone ate its liver too. That threat of toxicity is certainly sufficient that public health authorities should have been notified immediately upon any positive test with allegations that it came from tainted meat, and there should have been extensive efforts made in utilizing the EU tracking system to trace the beef to the source on the farm.

IF those allegations were credible, that is.

 

[131313]

It seems that the levels of clenbuterol measured in Contador's and Fuyu Li's blood are precisely the levels seen in oral ingestion of clenbuterol, so they're not all that infinitesimal as everyone is saying:

http://tinyurl.com/247uacg

Furthermore, clenbuterol is not a muscle-building steroid, as I've heard bandied about. It's a bronchodilator and fat-loss aid - precisely the thing that climbers would want to use.

Your post goes directly to the issue at hand, and shows why people are so badly misinformed on the issue.

You can't have it both ways. You're either using a therapeutic does for its bronchodilation-properties, OR for its thermogenic properties, NOT both.

If the former, then yes, a 20mcg dose would be appropriate (and potentially yield a similar test result in urine as was found). Sure, he could have been using it as a bronchodilator, but why, when he already has a TUE for one which is equally (or more) effective?

On the other hand, the dosage required to increase lean muscle mass and decrease adiposity is several orders of magnitude higher. High enough that it both would be easily detectable and moreover would almost definitely have a detrimental effect on cardiovascular performance.

There's no "micro-dosing" with Clenbuterol. The effects of the drug are well-researched and well-established by now, and there seems to be a constant shell game of sorts going on with respect to its use.

 

[131313]

I made a really rough attempt at guessing that probability:

- Assume there are 40 million people in Spain, and they eat one meal per day that includes some kind of beef. In any given year, that would be about 14.6 billion beef meals consumed.
- Assume that in the early 1990's, about 200 people per year were reported as having been poisoned with Clen

You can stop right there. Contador wasn't "poisoned" with Clenbuterol, he had a trace amount in his system, so the rest of your calculations are completely irrelevant.

There's a massive difference between having a trace mount of something and having an adverse reaction. There are acceptable threshold levels of pretty much every chemical (including Clentbuterol) all through the food supply. This has nothing to do with being poisoned.

 

[Tubeless]

This is the test I would love to see results on.

As for "not testing positive," that doesn't mean the negative test results were accurate. The Ashenden interview mentioned all over this forum and riders telling their stories about days of passing tests before a positive makes it clear the tests are not simple and not easy to establish results.

As much as I don't want dopers in the peloton, the system that tests them needs to be open to legitimate critical examination. Examine a randomized group of samples from the same event, same days and see how many clembuterol positives appear.

No one thus far has questioned the accuracy of the positive test. Simply arguing that the amount found was tiny, and could have come from eating a "juicy" steak for lunch AND dinner.

Also, there's no claim that the WADA lab was looking for clenbuterol only in Contador's sample. They were testing all unire samples for all banned substances. Note that the lab did not know which sample was Contador's.

My point is that there were dozens of riders at TdF who were tested for clenbuterol. Only Contador failed this test. It's a red herring that it was a tiny amount. The rules don't make an exception for small amounts of clenbuterol - similar to small amounts of synthetic testosterone or EPO. If there's even a trace amount left in your urine, enough for the equipment to detect, it's a positive.

And the likely reason for the tiny amount is not contamination from meat, but a "professional accident" - Contador's doctors did not realize that the labs now have more sensitive equipment to detect this substance, much longer after consumption was stopped than used to be the case. I.e. a blood transfusion with clenbuterol left over.

 

[131313]

And the likely reason for the tiny amount is not contamination from meat, but a "professional accident" - Contador's doctors did not realize that the labs now have more sensitive equipment to detect this substance, much longer after consumption was stopped than used to be the case. I.e. a blood transfusion with clenbuterol left over.

Really? Because to me this is where the "he was doping with Clenbuterol" argument really makes the least sense.

So in your opinion, for what purpose was he taking it?

 

[Francois the Postman]

The only think that is nonsensical is your suggestion that an investigation can only be triggered by health concern while there's an actual possibility that farmers might be contravening EU regulations on clenbuterol use in livestock. If you think that it's ok to exceed concentration limits set by EMA as long as nobody gets sick than there's zero sense in discussing the matter with you any further.

You are moving goal posts. You were not arguing for investigating this incident. You argued for increased industry wide testing as not being an alarmist reaction to this incident, without even knowing if there is actually a meat related incident (and even if it was, it would be one that triggered zero health issues) And apparently also ignoring the fact that there is already ongoing industry wide testing that is successful in what it sets out to do.

I didn't say it "can't be" either, I said it is unlikely it will, if there is no reported illness, nor a much clearer indicator that beef is indeed the most likely source.

And from someone who avoids just about all weak points I raise with you about the case you make, whilst I address the issue raised with me at length, threatening to stop "discussing" this, based on putting words in my mouth, is a bit rich.

 

[gjdavis60]

Clearly, the cow should receive a full 2 year suspension. If not, I can't see how CADA would not intervene.

Honestly, as disillusioned as I become with pro cycling, it's stuff like this that keeps me watching. It's like passing a car wreck on the highway: you know you shouldn't stare, but you just can't help it.

"There is a time to laugh and a time not to laugh, and this is not one of them."
- Inspector Clouseau

 

[Tubeless]

Really? Because to me this is where the "he was doping with Clenbuterol" argument really makes the least sense.

So in your opinion, for what purpose was he taking it?

This is from http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=10387&page=2

Anti Doping Danmark says Clenbuterol in higher doses has muscle anabolic effects. It also has effects like stress hormones like adrenaline (epinephrine) and noradrenaline (norepinephrine). So the motive to use it out of competition unfortunately is there.

If Clenbuterol was deemed of no benefit for cycling, it would not appear on the banned substance list. There has been no talk, thus far, to remove it based on this case - or others before this.

The one aspect you can wonder is that if Contador doped with it, how was he able to avoid the out-of-competition tests as this drug stays in the body long enough to create a real risk for such tests. The answer may be a private agreement with UCI - similar to Armstrong - that tests would be announced or agreed upon. As we've already seen from the handling of the Contador case by UCI, that he's indeed considred a "protected" rider.

Out of competition tests could also be done by the Spanish anti-doping folks, but they have not exactly been active on that front.

 

[HoustonHammer]

You can stop right there. Contador wasn't "poisoned" with Clenbuterol, he had a trace amount in his system, so the rest of your calculations are completely irrelevant.

There's a massive difference between having a trace mount of something and having an adverse reaction. There are acceptable threshold levels of pretty much every chemical (including Clentbuterol) all through the food supply. This has nothing to do with being poisoned.

Sorry. Poison, contaminate, foul, taint, pollute etc. Pick the synonym you prefer, but I wasn't referring to any kind of Wylie Coyote or other cartoonish scenarios. Just talking about taking in Clen accidentally.

The perp is pointing to these cases as evidence that it happens. Fair enough. What's the probability of if happening?

 

[131313]

This is from http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=10387&page=2

"Anti Doping Danmark says Clenbuterol in higher doses has muscle anabolic effects. It also has effects like stress hormones like adrenaline (epinephrine) and noradrenaline (norepinephrine). So the motive to use it out of competition unfortunately is there."

Sorry, but again this is the constant shell game which is going on:

-He used a small amount, and that's why it showed up in that amount
-He used a huge dose for its thermogenic effects

Which one is it??

Secondly, in a high enough dosage to have these thermogenic effects, it has a negative impact on cardiovascular performance. Using it makes absolutely no sense.

If Clenbuterol was deemed of no benefit for cycling, it would not appear on the banned substance list. There has been no talk, thus far, to remove it based on this case - or others before this.

WADA doesn't ban drugs in a sports-specific manner. I have no question that the drug could be effective for some sports, just not endurance cycling. It's also banned because when used as a thermogenic aid, it's potentially quite harmful.

The one aspect you can wonder is that if Contador doped with it, how was he able to avoid the out-of-competition tests as this drug stays in the body long enough to create a real risk for such tests. The answer may be a private agreement with UCI - similar to Armstrong - that tests would be announced or agreed upon. As we've already seen from the handling of the Contador case by UCI, that he's indeed considred a "protected" rider.

Out of competition tests could also be done by the Spanish anti-doping folks, but they have not exactly been active on that front.

I don't disagree with any of that. If I thought there were a sensible reason to use the substance, then I'd say it's conceivable. But I don't.

 

[HoustonHammer]

This is from http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=10387&page=2



If Clenbuterol was deemed of no benefit for cycling, it would not appear on the banned substance list.

Strictly speaking, I don't think that's true. The labs are testing against the WADA code list, which is not cycling-specific.

But I agree with your main point, which is that there could be out-of-competition benefits.

Incidentially, DEA indicates that Clen use in athletes is often done in combination with HGH. I thought that was interesting, too.

 

[131313]

Sorry. Poison, contaminate, foul, taint, pollute etc. Pick the synonym you prefer, but I wasn't referring to any kind of Wylie Coyote or other cartoonish scenarios. Just talking about taking in Clen accidentally.

You can gloss over the distinction if you want, but there's a significant difference between having a trace amount in your bloodstream and being adversely affected by it.

The perp is pointing to these cases as evidence that it happens. Fair enough. What's the probability of if happening?

I don't know exactly, because the studies on low-level Clenbuterol levels have, to my knowledge, not been published yet (since testing to this degree of resolution is fairly new). I will say though that the incidence is high enough that it led the direct of the Colonge lab (the one responsible for Contador's test) to say this:

"In a 2009 scholarly paper co-authored by Prof. Wilhelm Schaenzer, the Cologne lab director, he and two other German experts concluded: "With a detectability of clenbuterol at this low concentration, positive findings in residue analysis and doping control could be due to the consumption of trace amounts found in [livestock] feed or principally also in the water supply. Threshold concentration amounts for clenbuterol in doping control have, therefore, to be considered in the future."

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/columns/story?columnist=ford_bonnie_d&id=5634190

So, without quantifying it, the Cologne lab director feels that residue analysis merits setting threshold levels.

 

[Tubeless]

Sorry, but again this is the constant shell game which is going on:

-He used a small amount, and that's why it showed up in that amount
-He used a huge dose for its thermogenic effects

Which one is it??

Secondly, in a high enough dosage to have these thermogenic effects, it has a negative impact on cardiovascular performance. Using it makes absolutely no sense.

WADA doesn't ban drugs in a sports-specific manner. I have no question that the drug could be effective for some sports, just not endurance cycling. It's also banned because when used as a thermogenic aid, it's potentially quite harmful.

I don't disagree with any of that. If I thought there were a sensible reason to use the substance, then I'd say it's conceivable. But I don't.

The plausible theory is that Contador used clenbuterol in large-enough amounts to get whatever benefit he was seeking. He stopped the use, waited long enough to have a friendly Spanish lab prove via a urine sample the drug was indeed gone from his system - then extracted blood to be transfused back on the 2nd rest day at TdF.

This could have happened last fall, when Contador was trying to rebuild his muscles into leaner form, during a period when he was less concerned about the drug's side effects - it was the off-season, no racing.

The "professional" mistake was that the friendly lab's testing equipment is not as sensitive as the Cologna lab's - and he gets caught.

 

[scribe]

The plausible theory is that Contador used clenbuterol in large-enough amounts to get whatever benefit he was seeking. He stopped the use, waited long enough to have a friendly Spanish lab prove via a urine sample the drug was indeed gone from his system - then extracted blood to be transfused back on the 2nd rest day at TdF.

This could have happened last fall, when Contador was trying to rebuild his muscles into leaner form, during a period when he was less concerned about the drug's side effects - it was the off-season, no racing.

The "professional" mistake was that the friendly lab's testing equipment is not as sensitive as the Cologna lab's - and he gets caught.

Looks really good to me. Contador will have a chance to, at minimum, prove this was not possible or service a 2 year ban from competition. Anything less cheapens the work and gains the testing is making.

 

[131313]

The plausible theory is that Contador used clenbuterol in large-enough amounts to get whatever benefit he was seeking.

But WHAT BENEFITS???

The ONLY potential beneficial use would be as a bronchodilator and a mild stimulant?? Otherwise, the substance is going to do more harm than good?

He stopped the use, waited long enough to have a friendly Spanish lab prove via a urine sample the drug was indeed gone from his system - then extracted blood to be transfused back on the 2nd rest day at TdF.

This could have happened last fall, when Contador was trying to rebuild his muscles into leaner form, during a period when he was less concerned about the drug's side effects - it was the off-season, no racing.

Sorry, but this makes zero sense. In large doses the drug potentially causes myocite-specific cell death and aptosis of the heart muscle. These are permanent, life-long effects. The likelihood that he'd be taking this to "lean out for the off season" and risk permanent cardiovascular damage is much more far-fetched than the probability that the amount was accidentally ingested.

 

[TdFLanterne]

You're talking about someone (Contador) who dropped out of school at age 16, remember? He's going to put his trust in someone else to tell him exactly what to take every day, off-season and on. It doesn't have to make any sense to him.

His advisors may believe some odd things about clenbuterol, but it HAS been used/abused by elite athletes in the past and is banned for the reason that it can potentially affect muscle development, body composition, respiration, and thereby athletic performance.

 

[mastersracer]

do some more homework before claiming positives for clenbuterol are somehow inexplicable - there are plenty of recent high profile cases of athletes being suspended for Clenbuterol positives: Adam Seroczynski, Callum Priestley, Fuyu Li etc.

 

[scribe]

Has someone collated all of the associated benefits of this substance, or is there a nice, easy to read artcle online?

This seems to be contador's last line of defense. They said epo was easy to test for and largely avoided, but landis revealed to us it is anything but a method of the past.

 

[131313]

You're talking about someone (Contador) who dropped out of school at age 16, remember? He's going to put his trust in someone else to tell him exactly what to take every day, off-season and on. It doesn't have to make any sense to him.

I don't disagree with that at all, though I don't think education and decision-making ability are necessarily linked. Actually, every day I'm beginning to believe they're inversely proportional, but that's a different story.

His advisors may believe some odd things about clenbuterol, but it HAS been used/abused by elite athletes in the past and is banned for the reason that it can potentially affect muscle development, body composition, respiration, and thereby athletic performance.

Yeah, I guess that's possible, but it just seems really unlikely to me given the level of sophistication in today's doping. You aren't going to beat the biopassport by relying on shade-tree doping mechanics. The level of sophistication seems pretty high to me, particularly for the guys at the top of the sport.

 

[TdFLanterne]

What's the most likely?

Personally, I think the most likely scenario we are looking at right now is a) blood doping with old blood that had clenbuterol in it; or b) using some Nutritional Supplement X or Dope Y (possibly obtained from black market sources) that was contaminated with clenbuterol.

Without more details and a timeline and some meat sample followup, the Tainted Tenderloin excuse seems fairly preposterous to me.

 

[offbyone]

I don't care if the UCI hides all cases until an investigation is done or if they disclose positives immediately, but the point is they need to have a consistent policy that is adhered to with no exceptions.

 

[TdFLanterne]

At this point I'm so fed up with doping in pro cycling that I'd like to see them just publicly post the lab results on the Internet the same day they run them along with the names and then let justice proceed from there. Seems the fairest way. OK, maybe not the same day because then DSs would use them for racing strategy against the guys with low hematocrits. Maybe a 48-hour delay, then post 'em all and let the Internet sort it out.