Contador acquitted

[scribe]

What you suggest is impossible unless you live like the boy in the plastic bubble and have every drop and every morsel of everything you ever ingest laboratory tested before you consume it.

I can't figure how you'd ride a bicycle in that get-up.

The rest of the peleton must be in bubbles, because their positives are nowhere to be found.

 

[BroDeal]

Well if there is no problem in spain then that disproves contador's entire meat theory and your point as well. Unless I a missing something, did the meat contador ate come from mexico now?

Yup. You are missing something. Go back and read what I originally wrote more carefully. I'll quote it here:

Having no minimum threshold on a substance with known food contamination issues is stupid. It ensares the innocent who travel to places like Mexico, and it allows the guilty in countries without contamination problems to claim that they too are victims.

Read it several times if that's what it takes.

Look contador isn't the only athlete the cologne lab has tested for. If it is common, we would see frequent positives.

We have seen a lot. Your paying attention to the news does not seem to any better than your reading comprehension. The amounts have been getting ever smaller, so small that the director the lab said that it could become a problem.

And who gives a crap about how much beef is contaminated with clen unless that translates to a positive for someone that eats the meat. There have been studies posted in threads here that show how unlikely that is. This theory of meat driven positives is rubbish until I see some proof.

It did. In Mexico. 18% of the beef is contaminated. It may be why all the fat asses are scarfing down burritos at Taco Bell. They get their beef fix and weight loss drug in a single tortilla wrapped package.

They could just take all the samples from last year's vuelta and rescan them at cologne for clen.

I am sure the UCI will get right on that...right after they finish testing the 2008 Giro samples for CERA.

Don't be a hypocrite, if you support wada doing a better job then it starts with enforcing the rules w/o exception.

I support WADA doing a competent job. They had warnings and plenty of time to be proactive. They could have fixed the threshold problem before it blew up on them. Those lazy bastards did nothig, and it has now damaged the credibility of the anti-doping framework.

 

[offbyone]

based on your previous posts i seriously doubt you know the difference.

Personal attacks are not necessary, if you disagree with my post feel free to point out why.

The science here is simple. The gist of the study would be to have people ingest different portions of clen tainted meat and test them at different time intervals until you discover reasonable guidelines. Of course you would want to put the results in context of various demographics such as body weight and maybe even other factors like gender.

 

[sniper]

i generally agree but what you missed, or assumed w/o any verification, that the hair test was NOT done. someone already told you, if you did not hear about it, it does not mean it did not happen. secondly a hair test has it's limitations too. a negative test with what generally reported a 30-to 60 day detectability window, was a tough choice for contador's hairstylist. contador learned about his positive 5 weeks after he gave the sample. generally, 3-5 cm of hair is required to look back 30-60 days. this means contador had to stop cutting his habitually short hair as soon as he leaned about his positive if he was properly advised. even then it was a toss.

this is simply not the case if you read the disciplinary commission's 32 page document. blood transfusion evaluation is the centre piece there.

Ok, I'd been wondering about just that. tanx for the clarification.
Though you seem to be right saying that a hairtest would have been useless, do recall that a German press release yesterday expressed the same doubts about the missing hairtest. (I'm just pointing that out as fact, not interpreting it in any way). If perception is reality, the missing hairtest is making AC look bad abroad.

By the way, I meant AC's public appearences of course, in which he repeatedly stresses that the small amount is not performance enhancing, while systematically avoiding the terms micro-dosing, plasticizers, or bloodtransfusions. Perception is reality.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

A hair test would serve little purpose in Contador's case. Ovtcharov took a hair test so that he could prove that his positive was not the result of a therapeutic does declining over time to the level detected. Contador did not need this because he already had negative tests in the days before his positive. Those negative tests conclusively prove that the tiny amounts of Clen detected in Contador were not the tail end of normal dose. If he proves that he did not take Clen in the last three months, he still could have harvested blood in January.

We do not know if the sample taken the day before was tested in Cologne - only 10 samples from the entire went to Cologne.

As for Ovtcharov - he did have his team mates tested also to show the presence of Clen, AC could have done the same with all the members of the Astana team.

I never mentioned Spain. Read more carefully.

Not only did WADA hear the director of the Cologne lab saying that the super low detection level could result in positives due to contamination. WADA had an actual example when an athlete's lawyer showed that 18% of the beef in Mexico was contaminated. There have been several cases in China where contamination is reasonably suspected. WADA did nothing. They sat around gazing at their navels with their thumbs up their butts waiting for the issue to blow up on them. Now it has.

I do find it funny that some of those who are most outraged about Contador getting off are the same homers who are outraged that Armstrong might not get away with it. Those seven GTs will soon be matched by Contador--maybe this year. Then it is onward and upward.

I do see what you are saying about WADA and at first agreed, but the Ovtcharov case has shown that if you can put a plausible scenario then you can escape sanction.
Obviously we have to wait until the full facts of ACs case come out, but what has been reported in the media it doesn't look like he met that standard.

 

[python]

Personal attacks are not necessary, if you disagree with my post feel free to point out why.

The science here is simple. The gist of the study would be to have people ingest different portions of clen tainted meat and test them at different time intervals until you discover reasonable guidelines. Of course you would want to put the results in context of various demographics such as body weight and maybe even other factors like gender.

there was no personal attack, there was an observation - you have little actually demagogic, understanding of what it takes to dissect a complex issue.

i disagree with you because when i saw how you invoked 'rules and real science' it immediately yelled at me, you have not researched the issue.

clen contamination studies in humans exist and some of the very scientists who catch dopers advocate introducing a threashold for clen. that fact that YOU don't know about it, does not mean the science is lacking.

 

[offbyone]

Yup. You are missing something. Go back and read what I originally wrote more carefully. I'll quote it here:



Read it several times if that's what it takes.

It is still not clear to me what your point is. Are you are suggesting that contador previously ate some mexican beef? If so then why is he suggesting that is was from a very specific piece of spanish beef?

While there is a lacking of studies on this it is pretty clear that clen isn't going to last forever in your system, so why are we talking about mexican beef?

We have seen a lot. Your paying attention to the news does not seem to any better than your reading comprehension. The amounts have been getting ever smaller, so small that the director the lab said that it could become a problem.

Yeah so? Where are all the positives then?

It did. In Mexico. 18% of the beef is contaminated. It may be why all the fat asses are scarfing down burritos at Taco Bell. They get their beef fix and weight loss drug in a single tortilla wrapped package.

I will repeat my self again, please respond to what I actually write this time.
The percentage of beef contaminated with clen is irrelevant until we know if that translates to a positive after the meat is processed and eaten. You see if beef treated with clen 100% of the time and that still doesn't result in clen being detected in the person eating it then this information is useless.

I am sure the UCI will get right on that...right after they finish testing the 2008 Giro samples for CERA.

I support WADA doing a competent job. They had warnings and plenty of time to be proactive. They could have fixed the threshold problem before it blew up on them. Those lazy bastards did nothig, and it has now damaged the credibility of the anti-doping framework.

Well if they ever want to change the rules then they are going to have to perform some type of scientific research. I would think if contador is really considered such an asset to cycling then they would take such steps.

The credibility of the anti-doping framework will be much further damaged if you make exceptions to the rule based on things like the "meat defense".

There is no real proof that the clen positive came from meat. But I can see you want to bend the rules based on your gut, or your personal feelings about contador. While that is all good, that is still changing the rules.

 

[Beech Mtn]

the 132-page document that explained the basis for the 1-year preliminary suspension, is available on line and was posted some place here too. it's in spanish, i read some passages.

regarding the two 'killer' arguments submitted during the 10-d appeal window, aside from a politically staged explanation, i can think of only the following:

mind you, these are mere speculations...
(i) somehow increased confidence level that the blood passport did not provide evidence of blood transfusion. this could be another weighty expert opinion, or most likely, a nod from the uci (consolidating their wagons before pelli's appeal case at cas in 2-3 weeks)
(ii) ovcharov case may have given some members of disciplinary panel 2nd thoughts and more courage.
(iii) as i have covered in several threads, if the meat purchase receipt was shown to be authentic, this may give the stake contamination theory an additional notch of credibility since the coincidence of a positive tests and a teak purchase would be unlikely otherwise..perhaps some element in 'receipt authentication' process just materialized...

just brainstorming..but this all pales in comparison to a politically staged scenario.

There was also this business of the illegal slaughterhouse where employees were arrested and charged with crimes against public health.
Original story in Spanish here

Article summary in English at the Contador Notebook fansite. Scroll down.

 

[offbyone]

there was no personal attack, there was an observation - you have little actually demagogic, understanding of what it takes to dissect a complex issue.

i disagree with you because when i saw how you invoked 'rules and real science' it immediately yelled at me, you have not researched the issue.

clen contamination studies in humans exist and some of the very scientists who catch dopers advocate introducing a threashold for clen. that fact that YOU don't know about it, does not mean the science is lacking.

Well then why don't you be so kind to point me to what you consider to be a scientifically sound clen contamination study that would support the threshold case? Because I have yet to see one.

 

[python]

Ok, I'd been wondering about just that. tanx for the clarification.
Though you seem to be right saying that a hairtest would have been useless, do recall that a German press release yesterday expressed the same doubts about the missing hairtest. (I'm just pointing that out as fact, not interpreting it in any way). If perception is reality, the missing hairtest is making AC look bad abroad.

again and again it's missing in the press you read just as plasticiser test is missing in the official documents we know aboat but present in the press you read. one needs to make a distinction and i know you are intelligent enough to do so.

By the way, I meant AC's public appearances of course, in which he repeatedly stresses that the small amount is not performance enhancing, while systematically avoiding the terms micro-dosing, plasticizers, or bloodtransfusions. Perception is reality.

i personally heard and read his interviews where he categorically denied blood transfusions. just ask the swordsman, and he'll flood you with links. again, he could have been lying through his teeth but it contradicts your your assertion of him never addressing blood doping.

 

[Merckx index]

And I thought the phrase "too big to fail" referred only to large corporations...

contador learned about his positive 5 weeks after he gave the sample. generally, 3-5 cm of hair is required to look back 30-60 days. this means contador had to stop cutting his habitually short hair as soon as he leaned about his positive if he was properly advised. even then it was a toss.

Yes, but now that the detection limits for CB are being pushed to ever lower levels, it might be possible to extend that window further. Drugs like CB concentrate in the hair follicle, from which they gradually leak into the growing hair. So when the hair is cut, all the drug does not disappear; there is still a residual amount in the follicle, which will continue to leak into the newly sprouting hair. In theory, with a low enough detection limit, one could detect a drug in hair over a period of many months and several haircuts. Thus IN THEORY it is POSSIBLE that EVEN NOW Bert's hair could have some CB in it. Or that he could have transfused in early 2010 and still tested hair positive in August or September.

In actual practice, I don't know (and I very much doubt anyone else does, though it probably could be calculated) how long the window of detection in hair could be. My guess is you are probably right, and that when Bert was notified, it would have been unlikely that CB even from a hypothetical post-Dauphine transfusion in June would have shown up. Certainly that unlikeliness is a good enough rationalization for not submitting to the test.

Yet as others have pointed out, submitting to the test would have been good for his PR campaign. Looking at those documents his lawyers submitted, it was clear they were using any argument, no matter how scientifically tenuous, to proclaim his innocence. A negative hair test would have fit in very well there.

 

[sniper]

We do not know if the sample taken the day before was tested in Cologne - only 10 samples from the entire went to Cologne.

As for Ovtcharov - he did have his team mates tested also to show the presence of Clen, AC could have done the same with all the members of the Astana team.





I do see what you are saying about WADA and at first agreed, but the Ovtcharov case has shown that if you can put a plausible scenario then you can escape sanction.
Obviously we have to wait until the full facts of ACs case come out, but what has been reported in the media it doesn't look like he met that standard.

+1

Yet as others have pointed out, submitting to the test would have been good for his PR campaign. Looking at those documents his lawyers submitted, it was clear they were using any argument, no matter how scientifically tenuous, to proclaim his innocence. A negative hair test would have fit in very well there.

+1

I'm nodding my head like a crazy mf here.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Probably not, it was not the case with all the races Valverde rode, with most media this will just be a backdrop

Contador is a much bigger name than Valverde. Arguably not as talented a cyclist, but a much bigger name.

To the non-specialist media, after Armstrong he is the closest thing a minor sport like cycling has to a face. And Valverde wasn't riding the race that gets 90% of cycling's mainstream media coverage as the hot favourite while waiting for the other shoe to drop. Contador, if he rides the Tour, will almost certainly be in the top 2 for much of the race.

 

[Beech Mtn]

This whole thing is due to WADA's incompetence. Having no minimum threshold on a substance with known food contamination issues is stupid. It ensares the innocent who travel to places like Mexico, and it allows the guilty in countries without contamination problems to claim that they too are victims. The Cologne lab warned that the ever more sensitive limits of detection could causes problems. WADA did nothing. Now the anti-doping framework looks foolish and unfair.

Very well said. No minimum threshold + strict liability for known environmental contaminants = a sketchy rule.

 

[nowhereman]

This whole thing is due to WADA's incompetence. Having no minimum threshold on a substance with known food contamination issues is stupid. It ensares the innocent who travel to places like Mexico, and it allows the guilty in countries without contamination problems to claim that they too are victims. The Cologne lab warned that the ever more sensitive limits of detection could causes problems. WADA did nothing. Now the anti-doping framework looks foolish and unfair.

+1, Sorry, been away all day skiing. But that was excellently articulated.

 

[Hugh Januss]

you're bs-ing trolling hugee again.

i'm very sorry to point out facts to your hypocritical face because in just few post earlier you asked a question that was a bait but was in fact designed to look sincere ( 'OK I don't claim to have as much dope knowledge as you. Where did I go off beam?').

you got an answer, as substantive as i could give you provided the time i have, just as you asked..and now you attempt to profess your own ignorance as my problem ?

My god you are a prickly SOB. What answer did you give other than "I am smarter than you are so there"?
Why can we not assume that the answer that makes the most sense is that the clen came from blood that Contador banked earlier in the year when he was using clen?
How can Contador prove that he got it from steak and not blood, given that there apparently is this plasticizer test result, which is (as I understand it) not admissible in and of itself to prove blood doping at this time, but could be used to show a very posible source of contamination other than steak?
Could that test resurface in front of CAS to disprove Contador's claim?


Finally, how have I been a hypocrite, now or at any time on this forum?
I have poked fun at you because you seem to be a individual who is entirely devoid of a sense of humor, and for that I appologize, but FFS man you really are a little bit too tightly wound for your own good.

I'd like to appologize to everyone else for the noise level, but I am not used to letting an attack go unanswered. (Also not sure what brought on the level of attack.)

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

The rest of the peleton must be in bubbles, because their positives are nowhere to be found.

I guess you missed THE FACT that none of the rest of the peloton was tested by the same lab, one of the few with the ability to test for such minute concentrations. Which means you also missed THE FACT that Contador was singled out for special treatment.

 

[Hugh Januss]

I agree it was probably from blood. Personally, I think it's just as likely that it was unintentionally ingested when the blood was withdrawn, but that's speculation on both of our parts; fact is though, blood tainted with Clen (regardless of how it got there) is the most likely scenario. So I say sanction him for that. Sure, it's a harder case to make, but in a certain sense sanctioning him for the Clen positive is even more a case of "sweeping it under the rug" than not, i.e. "it's too much work to get him for blood doping, so let's just sanction him for this because it's easy". Mission accomplished...

...but not really. Should we then proclaim some other guy the "winner" of the tour, even if that guy has plasticizer results similar to Contador's (if that's the case). Personally, I don't think so.

I agreed with Bro that WADA is to blame, but even more I think it is UCI.
If it would have been AFLD instead of UCI running the testing there probably would have been an approval for the plasticizer test in place and it would have made 2008's CERA bloodbath look like a walk in the park.

 

[python]

My god you are a prickly SOB. What answer did you give other than "I am smarter than you are so there"?

my god, in jest, but you must be some royal sob b/s it's obvious, you are a seriously intellectually insecure man if you could read so much into my responses to the questions you asked, i don't know how else to say it. you asked, you got honest answers. what is your problem ?

the rest of your questions is not worth my time as i once tried and you wasted it.

I have poked fun at you because you seem to be a individual who is entirely devoid of a sense of humor, and for that I appologize

apology is excepted but i poked holes in your ignorance because you seem to be a person whose sense of humour has to be at the expense of others therefore you must be prepared to receive what you dispense. for that I DONT apologize. particularly, when one compares your disproportionately strong opinions to the level of ignorance you displayed.

i hope you don't get this the wrong way.

 

[Hugh Januss]

my god, in jest, but you must be some royal sob b/s it's obvious, you are a seriously intellectually insecure man if you could read so much into my responses to the questions you asked, i don't know how else to say it. you asked, you got honest answers. what is your problem ?

the rest of your questions is not worth my time as i once tried and you wasted it.
apology is excepted but i poked holes in your ignorance because you seem to be a person whose sense of humour has to be at the expense of others therefore you must be prepared to receive what you dispense. for that I DONT apologize. particularly, when one compares your disproportionately strong opinions to the level of ignorance you displayed.

i hope you don't get this the wrong way.

Well then I guess I accept your non apology. Or should I take exception to it?

 

[patricknd]

Well then I guess I accept your non apology. Or should I take exception to it?

you know he won't get it, right?

 

[Hugh Januss]

you know he won't get it, right?

No, but I bet I'll "get it".*

























* the wrath of the pyton

 

[python]

And I thought the phrase "too big to fail" referred only to large corporations...




Yes, but now that the detection limits for CB are being pushed to ever lower levels, it might be possible to extend that window further. Drugs like CB concentrate in the hair follicle, from which they gradually leak into the growing hair. So when the hair is cut, all the drug does not disappear; there is still a residual amount in the follicle, which will continue to leak into the newly sprouting hair. In theory, with a low enough detection limit, one could detect a drug in hair over a period of many months and several haircuts. Thus IN THEORY it is POSSIBLE that EVEN NOW Bert's hair could have some CB in it. Or that he could have transfused in early 2010 and still tested hair positive in August or September.

In actual practice, I don't know (and I very much doubt anyone else does, though it probably could be calculated) how long the window of detection in hair could be. My guess is you are probably right, and that when Bert was notified, it would have been unlikely that CB even from a hypothetical post-Dauphine transfusion in June would have shown up. Certainly that unlikeliness is a good enough rationalization for not submitting to the test.

Yet as others have pointed out, submitting to the test would have been good for his PR campaign. Looking at those documents his lawyers submitted, it was clear they were using any argument, no matter how scientifically tenuous, to proclaim his innocence. A negative hair test would have fit in very well there.

all reasonable points that don't disagree with my projections...but let's get back to the purpose of the hair test when we (you, me and others) discussed it at the time of ovcharov acquittal by the german ping-pong fed.

the acquittal documents described it as the means to show lack of long term, sustained abuse with therapeutic doses. iow, if ovcharov was a habitual user (in sufficiently high dozes) it would show up in his hair weeks if not months prior to the clen positive urine test.

now, the logic of his defence was an exclusionary one - 'if he's not a long term user... if he is not to theoretically benefit from clen doping based on the motor functions invoked in the sport... if his teammates showed traces of clen, then it must be involuntary ingestion.

the same logic would apply to contador, except he needs to show lack of blood transfusion. i agree the hair test would greatly benefit his cause, but he also can point out to his lack of clen positives during the career 500 tests or the dozens he had been exposed to in 2010.

again, his defence would certainly benefit from a lack of a positive hair test but his focus must be on lack of transfusion, because that was the onl plausible alternative.

does this make sense ?

 

[The Hitch]

No, but I bet I'll "get it".*

























* the wrath of the pyton

I keep waiting for the giant picture between your 2 sentences, to appear.

 

[python]

you know he won't get it, right?

this is your 5th useless post in the thread. the previous 4 claimed humour that proved to be stupid. do you mind if i call this one idiotic even for a texan ? do you have anything to add to the content, ignorant.