Confidentiality/cover-up confirmed?

[Polish]

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.

Exactly.

In addition, it sounds like clenbuterol would be fairly easy to come by - what with all the Spanish cattle ranchers using it....

Drifting slightly off topic - one has to wonder if Alberto will be taking "his advisors" with him to Sunguard/Specialized. Pepe and the Gang. Or will Riis say "no can do".

 

[Cobblestones]

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.

Total transparency is the only option. And the clinic would be so much more fun, too.

Which reminds me, has anyone seen the passport values of Pellizotti? And wouldn't it be sweet to have Contador's and Schleck's profiles online to discuss? That together with results of the phthalate tests. Fun fun fun.

 

[Tubeless]

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?

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.

I thought we already went through the benefits issue. Are you claiming the following positives were all cases of food contamination? Or that these athletes, 4 of which are from endurance sports, got no benefit from taking the drug?

In 2010, a number of athletes were banned after using the drug, including Polish canoeist Adam Seroczynski, British hurdler Callum Priestley and Chinese Olympic judo champion Tong Wen......In May 2010, the UCI suspended Italian cyclist Alessandro Colo and Chinese rider, Li Fuyu, a member of Team RadioShack, was suspended after testing positive for the drug during a Belgian race.

American swimmer Jessica Hardy tested positive at the U.S. trials in July 2008. She served a one-year suspension, having claimed that she unknowingly took the drug in a contaminated food supplement. Former New York Mets clubhouse employee Kirk Radomski admitted to distributing clenbuterol to dozens of current and former Major League Baseball players and associates in his plea deal.

In September 2010, St. Louis Cardinals minor league shortstop Lainer Bueno received a 50-game suspension for the 2011 season as a result of testing positive for clenbuterol.

The following list has 10 more cases of doping with clenbuterol, including another cyclist, a speedskater and 4 more swimmers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_sport

How do you think the clenbutarol ended up in Contador's urine? The meat theory is just too elaborate, unlikely and convenient. Do you have a better explanation?

 

[131313]

I thought we already went through the benefits issue.

And I refuted them. Honestly, I'm not trying to be terse, but please go back and read my response. The link you provided to demonstrate the drug's "benefits" plays very hard and loose with the actual pharmacodynamics of the drug.

Are you claiming the following positives were all cases of food contamination? Or that these athletes, 4 of which are from endurance sports, got no benefit from taking the drug?

Neither. I don't know about the specifics of any of the other cases. Here's what I do know: In the 90's, when the thermogenic effects were understood but the cardiovascular effects weren't completely known, endurance athletes experimented with large doses, probably to a negative outcome.

I also suspect that some used it as a bronchodilator, either because they didn't have a TUE in place, they were careless, the didn't think they'd be tested or sanctioned, etc (has a tennis player ever actually been sanctioned?). Point is, I really don't know. How many of those athletes were found to have 50 pcg/ml in their system?

How do you think the clenbutarol ended up in Contador's urine? The meat theory is just too elaborate, unlikely and convenient. Do you have a better explanation?

Tainted dietary supplement, byproduct of any vitamin-fortified food product, milk or other dairy product, a blood transfusion which contained trace amounts of unintentionally-ingested Clenbuterol, or even, yes, a tainted piece of meat. I think any of the above are likely scenarios.

The reality is that the most honest response would have been "we have no idea how it got there", but I suspect he'd be vilified even more if he had taken that approach.

 

[Tubeless]

And I refuted them. Honestly, I'm not trying to be terse, but please go back and read my response. The link you provided to demonstrate the drug's "benefits" plays very hard and loose with the actual pharmacodynamics of the drug.

Neither. I don't know about the specifics of any of the other cases. Here's what I do know: In the 90's, when the thermogenic effects were understood but the cardiovascular effects weren't completely known, endurance athletes experimented with large doses, probably to a negative outcome.

I also suspect that some used it as a bronchodilator, either because they didn't have a TUE in place, they were careless, the didn't think they'd be tested or sanctioned, etc (has a tennis player ever actually been sanctioned?). Point is, I really don't know. How many of those athletes were found to have 50 pcg/ml in their system?

Tainted dietary supplement, byproduct of any vitamin-fortified food product, milk or other dairy product, a blood transfusion which contained trace amounts of unintentionally-ingested Clenbuterol, or even, yes, a tainted piece of meat. I think any of the above are likely scenarios.

The reality is that the most honest response would have been "we have no idea how it got there", but I suspect he'd be vilified even more if he had taken that approach.

Contador is a professional doper. His doctors would have never allowed him to be tested with the full complement of drugs in his system. The tiny amount defense would be effective for TdF - if there wasn't the blood transfusion possibility. With a proven positive, it is Contador's responsibility to debunk that as not possible / feasible. It does not matter that he would have used an ineffective drug, as you seem to suggest. He used a banned drug - that is all that matters.

I don't believe you need to be a doctor to see what may have happened here. I have provided a link to an opinion of an anti-doping org (a Danish one), a a dozen cases of other endurance athletes getting caught for taking the same drug and a common-sense claim that Contador has now broken an anti-doping rule and awaits a mandatory sanction of 2 years, unless HE proves he did not take the drug intentionally. Even then, the rulebook says he can at most reduce his sanction to 1 year.

Where do you get this apparent authority or knowledge to declare what the drug does or doesn't do? Have you used this drug yourself - or witnesses its use on others? Can you provide CAS cases when the "Contador defense" has worked - or where arguing that since clenbutarol is thought to be ineffective should be grounds enough to dismiss the positive?

 

[131313]

With a proven positive, it is Contador's responsibility to debunk that as not possible / feasible. It does not matter that he would have used an ineffective drug, as you seem to suggest. He used a banned drug - that is all that matters.

That's not "all that matters", neither according to the rules nor to any reasonable ethical standard, but unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the prevailing wisdom here. The fact is, WADA was already made known over a year ago of the possibility of unintentional trace amounts of Clenbuterol returning positive controls. They didn't do anything about it. As far as I'm concerned, the onus should really be on them as much as on Contador.

I don't believe you need to be a doctor to see what may have happened here.

I don't think so either, but I do think one needs to look at this issue objectively.

I have provided a link to an opinion of an anti-doping org (a Danish one),

again, the content of which is easily debunked

a a dozen cases of other endurance athletes getting caught for taking the same drug

I'll ask again, how many of those athletes tested positive for 50pcg of Clenbuterol? That right there makes it an apples to oranges comparison.

and a common-sense claim that Contador has now broken an anti-doping rule and awaits a mandatory sanction of 2 years, unless HE proves he did not take the drug intentionally. Even then, the rulebook says he can at most reduce his sanction to 1 year.

I've seen others post on here that the potential sanction is less, but honestly I don't know.

Where do you get this apparent authority or knowledge to declare what the drug does or doesn't do?

I'm not "declaring" anything, that's for those who've researched the drug. My knowledge comes from my day job and studies which involves a lot of research in areas related to pharmacodynamics. That said, this information is in the public domain for anyone who is willing to look. It has nothing to do with my bike racing, and no, I've never (intentionally) ingested the drug. I'll admit though that my interest in the subject is related to my biggest fear, which is blowing a positive control for a substance I unintentionally ingested.

"Can you provide CAS cases when the "Contador defense" has worked - or where arguing that since clenbutarol is thought to be ineffective should be grounds enough to dismiss the positive?

I don't think that "it's not effective" is on its own a reason to dismiss the positive. Is a guy with a bunch of vials of saline marked "Aranesp" guilty of doping? In the eyes of WADA, yes (and in my opinion that's the correct call).

I think the primary argument for dismissing it is that WADA was already alerted to the fact that in clinical research, trace amount of the drug from residue were registering positive controls, and that they should implement threshold levels of the drug.

 

[cathulu]

you sound like an early landis defender. The likely story is blood transfusion - that is natural logic in action.

 

[131313]

you sound like an early landis defender. The likely story is blood transfusion - that is natural logic in action.

In my opinion that's not logic, it's careless speculation. I say careless because it still ignores too many other facts about the drug and its use.

If it makes everyone feel better, I'll say that I think the most likely scenario is that is was from a blood transfusion; blood which contained trace amounts from contamination. Given the stability of Clenbuterol in frozen blood, this isn't a stretch at all and would explain the small levels.

Also, if the DEHP levels are as elevated as reported, I think it's probably evidence of either a transfusion or eating a bunch of Chinese plastic toys. As I said all along, I have no interest in defending dopers. I do think that people should be punished for their actual offense.

 

[Tubeless]

How many of those athletes were found to have 50 pcg/ml in their system?

The ability to test minute amounts is new. This is why there have been no positives with this little to show before. And it's likely also why Contador was caught - his private testing showed zero clenbuterol left, hence it was safe to draw some blood for storage.

Tainted dietary supplement, byproduct of any vitamin-fortified food product, milk or other dairy product, a blood transfusion which contained trace amounts of unintentionally-ingested Clenbuterol, or even, yes, a tainted piece of meat. I think any of the above are likely scenarios.

Ironically, Contador's ability to explain the positive away by contamination is more limited that in prior cases. As the yellow-jersey holder, he was tested regularily - and the drug was detectable only on two days. So it could not have been a vitamin supplement he's taking daily. Neither some food item he was eating often. Milk is not likely as others would have surely been caught as well. For the same reason, it could not be a meal cooked by the hotel staff. It had to be a piece of Spanish meat that the team cook prepared on their bus exclusively for Contador & his closest teammates. Twice.

If this ends up in CAS, you can expect a key argument against Contador's position to be the following: if Clenbuterol contamination in such minute amounts is so commonplace, why were there no other positives during the entire Tour de France - the total # of urine samples tested must be in the hundreds, covering dozens and dozens of riders?

You do realize that one of your possible explanations is a bit self-defeating - "blood transfusion which contained trace amounts of unintentionally-ingested Clenbuterol"?

 

[131313]

You do realize that one of your possible explanations is a bit self-defeating - "blood transfusion which contained trace amounts of unintentionally-ingested Clenbuterol"?

It's only self-defeating if I had an agenda to defend Contador. I don't. I do think it's important that people understand that trace amounts of banned substances can register during a control at no fault of the the athlete, and the "athlete is responsible for what he puts into his body" rubric is incredibly simplistic. I also believe in logic, and I see no logical reason for him to be doping with Clenbuterol. Absolutely none whatsoever.

I actually think the above is the most likely scenario if the DEHP levels are in fact what they're reported to be.

If that is the case, then it raises a legitimate ethical question: do you throw the book at Contador for the Clenbuterol positive since you know that it'll be a huge legal battle to prove the transfusion case?

 

[yourwelcome]

I do think it's important that people understand that trace amounts of banned substances can register during a control at no fault of the the athlete, and the "athlete is responsible for what he puts into his body" rubric is incredibly simplistic.

+1

With testing now reaching unprecedentedly small trace amounts, who knows what could be found within anybody living in the modern world. Let alone athletes working in pro situations.

The UCI may yet turn out to not have been so venal to consider this positive warranted further work before hanging somebody out to dry. They have a duty of care to the rider tested too.

 

[rolfrae]

+1

With testing now reaching unprecedentedly small trace amounts, who knows what could be found within anybody living in the modern world. Let alone athletes working in pro situations.

The UCI may yet turn out to not have been so venal to consider this positive warranted further work before hanging somebody out to dry. They have a duty of care to the rider tested too.

So all they have to do is test a cross-section of Contador's samples from throughout the Tour and/or season. If there is no spike in plastic levels in the sample and they are consistently high then he is free to go.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

+1

With testing now reaching unprecedentedly small trace amounts, who knows what could be found within anybody living in the modern world. Let alone athletes working in pro situations.

The UCI may yet turn out to not have been so venal to consider this positive warranted further work before hanging somebody out to dry. They have a duty of care to the rider tested too.

I agree with your first paragraph but the UCI's duty of care is to the sport, not the athlete.

What is making a mockery of this case is the UCI did not afford the same concerns to riders like Fuyu Li etc.

 

[lean mean &green]

It's only self-defeating if I had an agenda to defend Contador. I don't. I do think it's important that people understand that trace amounts of banned substances can register during a control at no fault of the the athlete, and the "athlete is responsible for what he puts into his body" rubric is incredibly simplistic. I also believe in logic, and I see no logical reason for him to be doping with Clenbuterol. Absolutely none whatsoever.

I actually think the above is the most likely scenario if the DEHP levels are in fact what they're reported to be.

If that is the case, then it raises a legitimate ethical question: do you throw the book at Contador for the Clenbuterol positive since you know that it'll be a huge legal battle to prove the transfusion case?

agree, clen is hardly worth the risk for AC. there are many explanations but the safest assumption is accidental contamination prior to a withdraw.

the dialogue needs to shift...the clen sets up a penalty for a hard to prove autologous transfusion. the only debate is whether or not the ends justify the means. rhetorically, are you ok with a few month to possibly a 2 year suspension for clen which in reality is a suspension for an auto transfusion? ie the clen positive spurs investigators on to dig deeper into the plasticizer data.

it is scary to think that such low levels of clen result in a 2 year suspension when contamination is a real threat. i actually had mixed feelings about the Fuyu Li positive when that news first hit, the rumor was that clen contamination was very well documented and much more recently in parts of the world where he is from. a lower acceptible limit needs to be established, and quite possibly for other substances as well. i think i'm done here.

 

[Tubeless]

It's only self-defeating if I had an agenda to defend Contador. I don't. I do think it's important that people understand that trace amounts of banned substances can register during a control at no fault of the the athlete, and the "athlete is responsible for what he puts into his body" rubric is incredibly simplistic. I also believe in logic, and I see no logical reason for him to be doping with Clenbuterol. Absolutely none whatsoever.

I actually think the above is the most likely scenario if the DEHP levels are in fact what they're reported to be.

If that is the case, then it raises a legitimate ethical question: do you throw the book at Contador for the Clenbuterol positive since you know that it'll be a huge legal battle to prove the transfusion case?

I'd like to see some statistics from one of these labs who have the new super-sensitive equipment as to what percentage of athletes test positive for clenbuterol - unless there's a comparable statistic available of the general population. I was able to find only 6 positives for this drug in 2010, presumably tests done with the more sensitive detection, which argues against believing in the common contamination theory.

The Contador defense uses two principles:

- the amount was so small, that it's not performance-enhancing
- the tiny amount could only caused by contamination

But both theories can be dismissed with the blood transfusion theory. It is interesting that Contador's own defense thus far does not include your chief argument, that this drug is not performance-enhancing and hence would be illogical to use as a cyclist. They've also failed to provide any scientific data to show that such low levels of clenbutarol exist in the general population at frequencies that would support a likely case of random contamination.

It is a valid theory - but there needs to be some proof that a reasonable percentage of the general population has tiny amounts of clenbutarol in their system. And this % would have to be more than 1 in 1,000 as we'll have to discount that athletes are still more likely to put that substance in their bodies intentionally.

It's all to coincidental to just dismiss the case as a false positive - even if he did indeed do the blood transfusion.

 

[pedaling squares]

Sorry if this has been discussed, I'm dropping in on p.17. Speaking of cover ups is there any recent news on the Astana transfusion kit affair of 2009? Having Bertie and Lance go down in the same investigation would be a nightmare for the UCI.