ContadorÂ’s legal team hit back at WADA report

[Altitude]

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/6633/Alberto-Contador-using-Gasquet-and-Ovtcharov-cases-in-his-defense.aspx

"Not one of the scientists we have worked with has said it couldn't have been anything but contamination," Ramos told the AP in a telephone interview. "The levels are ridiculous -- it couldn't be anything else."

^^ Does this mean that all of the scientists have said that it could be anything other than contamination? Or some of the scientists said.. possibly something other than contam... this Chewbacca defense is pretty effective.

 

[biopass]

"Not one of the scientists we have worked with has said it couldn't have been anything but contamination," Ramos told the AP in a telephone interview. "The levels are ridiculous -- it couldn't be anything else."

Let me rewrite that to:
"We paid all those scientists to support Contadors meat story".

 

[theswordsman]

Juliet Macur in the New York Times resurrected a quote from WADA's Montreal Lab head discussing Contador and Clembuterol. At least one other site is treating the times article as if WADA had fired a fresh shot. The quote was actually from, or a verbatim repeat, of an interview from October 14th that was well covered by ESPN's Bonnie Ford. I read it again last night, and think a reminder of how WADA thinks is in order.

For one thing, the professor dismisses the idea of a transfusion completely. She disregards that there were six Contador samples in a row, with the first two days and the fifth and sixth day having zero Clenbuterol. She cites heart palpatations and headaches as strong side effects, but isn't aware that Contador has to take daily medication to avoid seizures, thanks to the scar tissue on the chunk of metal in his head.

She believes the Clenbuterol was a hundred percent about weight loss, apparently on the one day. On the previous day, Contador and the rest rode over 120 miles, with climbs up Cols de Peyresourdes, Aspin, Tourmalet, and Aubisque. And she seems to believe that after that he would try a one day weight loss attempt, like a wrestler or a boxer who has to make weight. She states that any trace finding would be "suspect". But under WADA rules, it's guilt, period, not suspicion. She's concerned that if Contador gets off based on contamination, some guilty athlete might also get off. This is WADA, people, and they're screwing around with people's lives.

As for Contador, there's been widespread speculation that clenbuterol could have entered his system via transfusion. Ayotte calls that "an interesting hypothesis," but essentially shrugged it off.

"This is a case involving clenbuterol," Ayotte said firmly, and she isn't hesitant to extrapolate from that fact. Contamination is possible, but not plausible given stricter regulations in the agricultural industry, she said. Based on years of context, she believes clenbuterol is almost always prima facie evidence of cheating.

Ayotte said the miniscule volume found in Contador's sample is typical of any clenbuterol case -- and there are 50 to 70 reported annually by WADA-accredited labs. She said the drug's potency and potentially sickening side effects, which include headaches, high blood pressure and heart palpitations, mean athletes know a little goes a long way. Conversely, detection has become easy at extremely low levels.

"You'll never find a ton of it, because the doses are really small," she said. "Most of the samples are below one nanogram [a billionth of a gram]." That's many times the 50 picograms [trillionths of a gram] reported to be present in Contador's sample, but Ayotte said her lab has frequently found levels that low.

"It's used in sports where they need to cut weight," she said. "Just because it's small doesn't mean it's not doping. ... This is just the dopers adjusting, or misadjusting, to the testing."

WADA regulations set no minimum threshold for the drug. Ayotte doesn't favor setting one as she considers any trace finding to be suspect.

"We can't link content in urine to performance, because we don't know the time, the mode of administration or the dose," she said.

http://espn.go.com/olympics/blog/_/name/olympics/id/5685675

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Juliet Macur in the New York Times resurrected a quote from WADA's Montreal Lab head discussing Contador and Clamberer. At least one other site is treating the times article as if WADA had fired a fresh shot. The quote was actually from, or a verbatim repeat, of an interview from October 14th that was well covered by ESPN's Bonnie Ford. I read it again last night, and think a reminder of how WADA thinks is in order.

For one thing, the professor dismisses the idea of a transfusion completely. She disregards that there were six Contador samples in a row, with the first two days and the fifth and sixth day having zero Clenbuterol. She cites heart palpitations and headaches as strong side effects, but isn't aware that Contador has to take daily medication to avoid seizures, thanks to the scar tissue on the chunk of metal in his head.

No - Ayotte does not dismiss "the idea of a transfusion completely" - she is quoted as saying it is "an interesting hypothesis".

To the blue - of course she disregards it, does she or you know who tested the previous samples? If done in Lausanne then Clen would not show.

Where she cites heart palpations etc is saying why those using Clen use very small doses. Small doses = small traces in samples.

She believes the Clenbuterol was a hundred percent about weight loss, apparently on the one day. On the previous day, Contador and the rest rode over 120 miles, with climbs up Cols de Peyresourdes, Aspin, Tourmalet, and Aubisque. And she seems to believe that after that he would try a one day weight loss attempt, like a wrestler or a boxer who has to make weight. She states that any trace finding would be "suspect". But under WADA rules, it's guilt, period, not suspicion. She's concerned that if Contador gets off based on contamination, some guilty athlete might also get off. This is WADA, people, and they're screwing around with people's lives.

http://espn.go.com/olympics/blog/_/name/olympics/id/5685675

Professor Ayotte is head of the doping laboratory at the INRS-Institut Armand-Frappier in Montreal, a WADA accredited lab - so she is not an employee or representative of WADA.

 

[D-Queued]

Juliet Macur in the New York Times resurrected a quote

... This is WADA, people, and they're screwing around with people's lives.

"It's used in sports where they need to cut weight," she said. "Just because it's small doesn't mean it's not doping. ... This is just the dopers adjusting, or misadjusting, to the testing."

http://espn.go.com/olympics/blog/_/name/olympics/id/5685675

Thanks for the quote. Some interesting insight indeed.

As for the interpretation of it? Bizarre.

Are you suggesting that:
1. Cyclists are not concerned about weight? Or that weight is not a factor in cycling?
2. Athletes who dope do not try and avoid detection?

Dave.

 

[Oldman]

Thanks for the quote. Some interesting insight indeed.

As for the interpretation of it? Bizarre.

Are you suggesting that:
1. Cyclists are not concerned about weight? Or that weight is not a factor in cycling?
2. Athletes who dope do not try and avoid detection?

Dave.

And we know that they are, of course concerned about weight. A couple of pounds is the difference between hanging on to Schlecklet's wheel on that last monumental mountain stage or standing on the second step. It still seems more likely that there was other monkey business going on and that Clen was part of a training cycle. It would seem risky to attempt a weight adjustment and race the next day as too many other metabolic factors could be affected.

 

[GJB123]

No - Ayotte does not dismiss "the idea of a transfusion completely" - she is quoted as saying it is "an interesting hypothesis".

To the blue - of course she disregards it, does she or you know who tested the previous samples? If done in Lausanne then Clen would not show.

Where she cites heart palpations etc is saying why those using Clen use very small doses. Small doses = small traces in samples.


Professor Ayotte is head of the doping laboratory at the INRS-Institut Armand-Frappier in Montreal, a WADA accredited lab - so she is not an employee or representative of WADA.

Oh and that makes everything hunkydory, I guess. No chance then that Ayotte is preaching the WADA-gospel for any other reason than being a true believer? And who pays for her lab do the (WADA accredited) tests? How much money would she or her lab stand to lose if she was no longer to be accredited? How critical can WADA-accredited labs be without losing their accreditation?

Don't bite the hand that feeds you might very well apply in this case too. It's back to the old adagium: follow the money!

Regards
GJ

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Oh and that makes everything hunkydory, I guess. No chance then that Ayotte is preaching the WADA-gospel for any other reason than being a true believer? And who pays for her lab do the (WADA accredited) tests? How much money would she or her lab stand to lose if she was no longer to be accredited? How critical can WADA-accredited labs be without losing their accreditation?

Don't bite the hand that feeds you might very well apply in this case too. It's back to the old adagium: follow the money!

Regards
GJ

If you were following this thread I was correcting an often stated error "WADA say.....", when very often these people quoted have nothing to do with WADA.

Professor Ayotte is not "preaching the WADA gospel" - she is applying the WADA rules, which is there is no threshold for Clenbuterol and it does get detected between 50 & 70 times a year.

As to your question "How critical can WADA-accredited labs be without losing their accreditation?" - well how is it other directors have been critical of some WADA rules and are still accredited?
For accreditation it is not "follow the money" - it is follow the rules.

 

[GJB123]

Not working for WADA hey?

http://www.wada-ama.org/en/About-WA...earch-Committee/Laboratory-Working-Committee/

WADA also funds research into doping and doping related matters. Guess who is one of the beneficiaries of those funds?

Now, I am not saying that every WADA-accredited lab is corrupt or that Prof. Ayotte is corrupt, I 'm just saying that it is always better not to be naïve and not to take things at face value. All people involved have their own interest to look out for and we can be pretty sure that all WADA-accredited labs have a vested interst in fighting doping to make sure they stay well funded. Whether or not that affects their objectivity needs to be judged invidually, but there is no reason take their rosy, anti-doping cheeks prima facie as them being as innocent as the undriven snow.

Regards
GJ

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Not working for WADA hey?

http://www.wada-ama.org/en/About-WA...earch-Committee/Laboratory-Working-Committee/

WADA also funds research into doping and doping related matters. Guess who is one of the beneficiaries of those funds?

Now, I am not saying that every WADA-accredited lab is corrupt or that Prof. Ayotte is corrupt, I 'm just saying that it is always better not to be naïve and not to take things at face value. All people involved have their own interest to look out for and we can be pretty sure that all WADA-accredited labs have a vested interst in fighting doping to make sure they stay well funded. Whether or not that affects their objectivity needs to be judged invidually, but there is no reason take their rosy, anti-doping cheeks prima facie as them being as innocent as the undriven snow.

Regards
GJ

Actually as Ayotte is part of an expert group confirms that she is not a WADA employee.

Would you prefer if WADA had an expert group made up of Coal Miners, Chimney sweepers etc or people who have the expertise (< big hint there) in what they are doing?

Professor Ayotte has made some comments - so rather than insinuate that she or WADA may be corrupt - could you point out exactly what she said that is not factual?

 

[GJB123]

You stated that she was not speaking on behalf of WADA, which is correct, but she might still be preaching the WADA-gospel for easons I have mentioned before. WADA make the rules, including the no-threshold for clen and the strict liability natura of that rule. That rule sucks imho (and you can read why in the pages before).

All she does is to say that the rules state strict liability and no threshold. I already know that WADA-gospel, thank you very much, and it would become her if she would be a bit more critical of that rather than just stating that the rules are the rules (which is a very eary and dangerous stament to boot).

Regards
GJ

 

[Señor_Contador]

Contamination is possible, but not plausible given stricter regulations in the agricultural industry

Ah, yes, regulations. AS IF stringent regulations have kept the European cattle sector from doing really, really, really dumb things.

Exhibit # 1:

Note: Mad cow disease.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

You stated that she was not speaking on behalf of WADA, which is correct, but she might still be preaching the WADA-gospel for easons I have mentioned before. WADA make the rules, including the no-threshold for clen and the strict liability natura of that rule. That rule sucks imho (and you can read why in the pages before).

All she does is to say that the rules state strict liability and no threshold. I already know that WADA-gospel, thank you very much, and it would become her if she would be a bit more critical of that rather than just stating that the rules are the rules (which is a very eary and dangerous stament to boot).

Regards
GJ

So, in short - you don't like this lady because she abides by the rules. So you have nothing to question her 'objectivity' or to say that WADA are corrupt.

 

[theswordsman]

I just came to post a new link and noticed there were some responses to an earlier post of mine on Professor Ayotte. In the interview, she was stating her own opinion. If you can't see that, I can't help you.

Contador had Clenbuterol in his system on July 21 and 22. WADA had urine samples of his from July 19, 20, 23 and 24. Those did not have any Clenbuterol. In a high profile case where scientists from around the world were given two months to build a case, does anyone believe that with B samples available, the urine samples from the 19th and 20th, the ones that could prove intentional doping, would not have been tested at the highest standards? They would spend money on reports, and coming up with 600 pages of documents to be turned over, without checking to see if a higher level of clenbuterol was in his system the day before? Give me a break.

I'm going at this from the point of view of evidence actually involved in the case, which doesn't include alleged high plasticizer levels in an unapproved test by an anonymous source. So the question isn't whether or not pro cyclists need to lose weight, it's a question of whether Contador would do a one day, high risk weight loss drug after riding 120 miles including four major climbs including the Tourmalet, with another trip up the following day? No, and no expert I've seen has said that he would receive any performance benefit from the amount in his system.

This case has nothing to do with blood doping or transfusions. There was never an official announcement about either by WADA or the UCI. Contador gave permission to have all of his samples from the Tour saved and retested when the plasticizer test is approved. But for now, a case about blood transfusions only exists in forums, not in real life.

"It's used in sports where they need to cut weight," she said. "Just because it's small doesn't mean it's not doping. ... This is just the dopers adjusting, or misadjusting, to the testing."

Doesn't apply when they had six consecutive days to look at.

Based on years of context, she believes clenbuterol is almost always prima facie evidence of cheating.

This is an opinion

We can't link content in urine to performance, because we don't know the time, the mode of administration or the dose," she said

This is an admission that there's a lot they don't know, again disregarding the particular case of 6 tests in a row.

WADA regulations set no minimum threshold for the drug. Ayotte doesn't favor setting one as she considers any trace finding to be suspect.

The problem is that the current policy means that all "suspects" are punished as guilty, not just investigated. Picture a cop show where every suspect is punished.

"If this case is lost because they're concluding the amount is too small, that would be a major problem. It's not the end of the world, but if competent arbitrators decide that, my heart would break.

I haven't seen anything in the WADA publications about broken hearts, so I suggest this is also an opinion. And one from which I kind of infer that she'd rather see an innocent person punished than a doper to get away with it.

http://espn.go.com/olympics/blog/_/name/olympics/id/5685675

 

[theswordsman]

A fresh article about approved labs confirming it's very possible for athletes to get clenbuterol via food contamination. Some athletes are refusing to compete in places like South America because they don't want to risk a year or two of their careers. Representatives for tennis and basketball are pushing to get WADA to set a minimum threshold for a positive.

http://www.sport.es/default.asp?idpublicacio_PK=44&idioma=CAS&idnoticia_PK=733187&idseccio_PK=1268

 

[sniper]

The subtitle of that story is clearly misleading.
How in the name of Santa Claus does this confirm AC's story?
AC's meat came from Pais Vasco. No chance he can proof it came from South America. We've had long discussions on this Forum about why the meat contamination story is complete crap, at least, when the meat was bought in Pais Vasco (or any other European country for that matter).

Another great piece of Spanish anti-doping journalism.

 

[icefire]

The subtitle of that story is clearly misleading.
How in the name of Santa Claus does this confirm AC's story?
AC's meat came from Pais Vasco. No chance he can proof it came from South America. We've had long discussions on this Forum about why the meat contamination story is complete crap, at least, when the meat was bought in Pais Vasco (or any other European country for that matter).

Another great piece of Spanish anti-doping journalism.

I'm afraid you haven't got a clue of what the article is saying. The subtitle and the article just states that labs have verified the possibility of testing positive for clen due to food contamination. It doesn't say that this or that positive was due to food contamination. And the letter addressed to the Director of the Spanish Antidoping Agency is asking for a list of recommendations to avoid positive tests in athletes who compete in countries where treating cattle with clenbuterol is not forbidden.

 

[biopass]

and no expert I've seen has said that he would receive any performance benefit from the amount in his system.

That is so naive. Its only a academic discussion whether 50 picogram of Clen is performance enhancing or not. And even before you start discussing that question, you need to define what performance enhancing is. Is loosing weight performance enhancing or is it not? Of course it is no surprise that Contadors layers, and thoose scientist whos been paid by Contador, is claiming that 50 picogram of clen has no performance enhancing effect, since it doesnt help Contador produce a higher energy output.

But honestly, why do soccerplayers, even when they are not injuried, take pain relievers before every match? Why do cyclist take pain relievers before timetrial? Does pain relievers give them more skills? Better techniques? No, but just as Contador would have a lower performance, if his weight was higher, pain relievers sure helps soccerplayers and timetrialist perform better than they would if they werent taking it.

 

[sniper]

To Icefire:

Read between the lines.
The subtitle says: "Los laboratorios acreditados verifican la teoría de la carne contaminada". If that aint an allusion to AC's case, then I'm Santa Clause.
To use LA's words, it doesn't take a Nobel prize to see that the whole article is a plea for AC's innocence.

 

[D-Queued]

... does anyone believe that with B samples available, the urine samples from the 19th and 20th, the ones that could prove intentional doping, would not have been tested at the highest standards?

...

This case has nothing to do with blood doping or transfusions. There was never an official announcement about either by WADA or the UCI. Contador gave permission to have all of his samples from the Tour saved and retested when the plasticizer test is approved. But for now, a case about blood transfusions only exists in forums, not in real life.

...

That is so naive. Its only a academic discussion whether 50 picogram of Clen is performance enhancing or not.

....

I agree with biopass.

Moreover, on your claims with respect to whether these discussions are limited only to Forums, you should have read the WADA Independent Observer Report more closely:

Analysis Type

With respect to the type of testing conducted it was interesting to note that when the riders were present the UCI did not take full advantage by collecting more sample types...

...only a reasonably small number of blood samples were collected for analysis for CERA, HBOC or HBT (aka blood transfusion!)...

There are also new substances and/or methods that can now be detected or suspected, yet the UCI only sent ten target test samples to the WADA-Accredited Laboratory of the German Sports University, Cologne, for additional analysis for new substances and/or methods.

This statement says three things:

1. AC was thrown under the bus by the UCI
2. The information about new tests being available is public information. The knowledge that Cologne is where these test capabilities exist is public information.
3. WADA and the UCI were aware of new tests possible for blood transfusion

Dave.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I agree with biopass.

Moreover, on your claims with respect to whether these discussions are limited only to Forums, you should have read the WADA Independent Observer Report more closely:



This statement says three things:

1. AC was thrown under the bus by the UCI
2. The information about new tests being available is public information. The knowledge that Cologne is where these test capabilities exist is public information.
3. WADA and the UCI were aware of new tests possible for blood transfusion

Dave.

Dave, It is impossible to convince members to believe that the tiny pistol could be a doper. A and B test is conclusive. He is a horrible PED abuser.

 

[Merckx index]

Wordsman, you are correct about your criticisms of Ayotte, I made this point a long time ago. Yes, the evidence indicates quite clearly that Bert did not take CB intentionally during the Tour.

But we have already settled that on this forum a long time ago. The possibility that it got into his system through blood transfusion remains, and there are two major indicators that he may have:

1) the DEHP (plasticizer) test. The fact that it is not a validated test does not mean that that any results of this test can't be used as contributing evidence towards a decision. Again, we have been over all of this a long time ago.
2) the possibility of contamination. If the CB did not get into Bert's system via transfusion, then the only reasonable alternative is contaminated meat. But as has been noted ad nauseum on this forum, that possibility, though not zero, is extremely small.

To the best of my knowledge, no new information that might help decide between the two possibilities has appeared in several months. All discussion of this, whether by Bert and his lawyers, Ayotte and other anti-doping researchers, or people in this forum, is pure speculation based on the same old information that has been out there for a long time. And unless the lab that allegedly performed the DEHP test is more forthcoming, that is likely the way the situation will remain right up to and including the time of the final decision.

 

[D-Queued]

Dave, It is impossible to convince members to believe that the tiny pistol could be a doper. A and B test is conclusive. He is a horrible PED abuser.

Thanks Glenn,

Hard to give up hope! Surprising and refreshing (and I respect the broad demographic) that it isn't just an American dopers who get this kind of support.

Dear Merckx index,

Let me try again:


From the WADA Independent Observer Report on the 2010 Tour de France:

Analysis Type

With respect to the type of testing conducted it was interesting to note that when the riders were present the UCI did not take full advantage by collecting more sample types...

...only a reasonably small number of blood samples were collected for analysis for CERA, HBOC or HBT (aka blood transfusion!)...

There are also new substances and/or methods that can now be detected or suspected, yet the UCI only sent ten target test samples to the WADA-Accredited Laboratory of the German Sports University, Cologne, for additional analysis for new substances and/or methods.

Connecting those dots for you.

The UCI elected to send Contador's samples to Cologne. And, the UCI elected not to send many other samples from other riders that they might otherwise have chosen.

WADA has questioned the subjectivity of their choices and the extremely small number of samples sent.

The UCI knew that Cologne had the capability of the tighter Clenbuterol sensitivity. They also almost certainly knew of tests, like the plasticizer test, that could and would be conducted.

WADA has questioned why more samples from more riders were not subject to more regular (e.g. EPO) and advanced tests (e.g. blood transfusions)

The UCI threw your beloved Contador under the bus/to the wolves.

He performed, or at least his samples performed, admirably. You should be proud of him.

Dave.

 

[Merckx index]

Dave, I'm not sure why you describe him as my "beloved Contador", since I have stated here that I think he probably transfused. None of the dots that you connect,though certainly interesting, are relevant to the points that I made, and in particular, the point that there has been no new relevant information to emerge in this case in some time.

As usual, most forum members are focussing on the politics, while I'm focussing on the science. The great thing about politics is that everyone can have a different opinion. The tough thing about science is that everyone can not have different facts.

 

[Berzin]

1) The DEHP (plasticizer) test. The fact that it is not a validated test does not mean that that any results of this test can't be used as contributing evidence towards a decision.

This is absolutely not true. The science behind it has to be validated and accepted by WADA for any sanction to be based either totally or in part on the results of this test.

You don't know what you're talking about.