Contador acquitted

[Hugh Januss]

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

What? You don't see it?

 

[python]

What? You don't see it?

reported. sorry hugee. i'm interested in the actual thread discussions.

 

[patricknd]

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.

maybe one day you'll get a sense of humor and then you'll get the jokes just like all the other people. you really need to learn how to laugh at yourself, because every one else laughs at you.

 

[python]

maybe one day you'll get a sense of humor and then you'll get the jokes just like all the other people. you really need to learn how to laugh at yourself, because every one else laughs at you.

i hope one day you'll contribute a useful post to any thread because everyone else is clear you aren't capable of adding any. your record could not be more compelling.

 

[Merckx index]

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 ?

Bert's history of negative CB tests might count for something, but I think not very much. It can always be argued that most (if not all?) of those tests did not make use of the latest technology allowing for lower detection limits. Not to mention that even if Bert had been using CB periodically throughout his career, he might very well have dodged positives just by being careful. This one time, as often happens eventually, he got careless. Surely, we in the clinic have long mocked the "I never tested positive" defense in other cases, why would it count for very much here?

All of us here who have examined the situation have come to the agreement that the only two possibilities are contaminated meat and transfusion. Given that he can't produce this contaminated meat, anything Bert can do to cast doubt on the transfusion scenario is a big plus.

Here is what I would have advised him. Make some rough calculations. Assume he did transfuse in June, and at the time he was taking the minimum dose of CB that could possibly be performance enhancing in some manner, including weight loss. Calculate the amount that could have gotten into his hair follicles, and from there the amount that could be in his hair at specific times later.

Of course these are very rough calculations, but they are better than nothing. If they show that there wouldn't be enough to detect, change the starting assumptions. Assume he was taking a larger dose of CB in June. Maybe that still indicates that his hair sample would be negative. But if the calculations suggest an ambiguous conclusion, go with it. You can then say, if I had been transfusing while I was taking CB--THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE TO MEAT CONTAMINATION--then I likely would have tested detectably in the hair test. That's why you have expensive lawyers. To juggle the figures and suggest the possibility.

And don't forget hair that isn't cut, like pubic hair. That could be tested even now. Make the case. If he really is innocent, what in the world is there to lose? The worst case outcome is that everyone will look at the figures and say, nah, a negative hair test means nothing. But the upside is possibly throwing significant scientific evidence against the possibility of a transfusion.

 

[Hugh Januss]

reported. sorry hugee. i'm interested in the actual thread discussions.

I'm sorry too, sorry you don't have the time to take a minute to laugh, in between saving the world and all.

 

[python]

I'm sorry too, sorry you don't have the time to take a minute to laugh, in between saving the world and all.

reported because i want to address merxck's post.

 

[Cal_Joe]

I'm sorry too, sorry you don't have the time to take a minute to laugh, in between saving the world and all.

Any chance you two could go get a room somewhere so this thread stays on topic? I'll pitch in 50 euros.

 

[patricknd]

Bert's history of negative CB tests might count for something, but I think not very much. It can always be argued that most (if not all?) of those tests did not make use of the latest technology allowing for lower detection limits. Not to mention that even if Bert had been using CB periodically throughout his career, he might very well have dodged positives just by being careful. This one time, as often happens eventually, he got careless. Surely, we in the clinic have long mocked the "I never tested positive" defense in other cases, why would it count for very much here?

All of us here who have examined the situation have come to the agreement that the only two possibilities are contaminated meat and transfusion. Given that he can't produce this contaminated meat, anything Bert can do to cast doubt on the transfusion scenario is a big plus.

Here is what I would have advised him. Make some rough calculations. Assume he did transfuse in June, and at the time he was taking the minimum dose of CB that could possibly be performance enhancing in some manner, including weight loss. Calculate the amount that could have gotten into his hair follicles, and from there the amount that could be in his hair at specific times later.

Of course these are very rough calculations, but they are better than nothing. If they show that there wouldn't be enough to detect, change the starting assumptions. Assume he was taking a larger dose of CB in June. Maybe that still indicates that his hair sample would be negative. But if the calculations suggest an ambiguous conclusion, go with it. You can then say, if I had been transfusing while I was taking CB--THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE TO MEAT CONTAMINATION--then I likely would have tested detectably in the hair test. That's why you have expensive lawyers. To juggle the figures and suggest the possibility.

And don't forget hair that isn't cut, like pubic hair. That could be tested even now. Make the case. If he really is innocent, what in the world is there to lose? The worst case outcome is that everyone will look at the figures and say, nah, a negative hair test means nothing. But the upside is possibly throwing significant scientific evidence against the possibility of a transfusion.

dont be too sure on the pubic hair. i had an employee come in for drug testing and it was all gone. eyebrows and all the rest. of course he was fired, but it was hilarious.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Bert's history of negative CB tests might count for something, but I think not very much. It can always be argued that most (if not all?) of those tests did not make use of the latest technology allowing for lower detection limits. Surely, we in the clinic have long mocked the "I never tested positive" defense in other cases, why would it count for very much here?

Have they done much (or any) general population testing at this lower detection level to see if there is any minute basal level of clen in everything that we eat, kind of like mercury?
Maybe there are no cases of contamination in Spain simply because the Spain Govt. doesn't have their samples tested by that particular lab.

 

[patricknd]

i hope one day you'll contribute a useful post to any thread because everyone else is clear you aren't capable of adding any. your record could not be more compelling.

reported for off topic. i'd rather respond to merckx index.

 

[Hugh Januss]

Any chance you two could go get a room somewhere so this thread stays on topic? I'll pitch in 50 euros.

Sorry I tried he won't even accept (not except) PM's.

Edit: Any chance you would still send the Euros, I take paypal or Visa/MC.

 

[Martin318is]

Okay - put them away folks.

Enough with the sniping and ad hominem attacks. All the usual responses by moderators will apply and we are now watching this thread thanks to the behaviour of a few.

regards,
Martin

 

[ksmith]

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.

If he does ride, he'd better be up there! If not I guess it's open season

 

[python]

Bert's history of negative CB tests might count for something, but I think not very much. It can always be argued that most (if not all?) of those tests did not make use of the latest technology allowing for lower detection limits.

true, but in a legal sense, if you're negative, you are not positive. the technology level is discounted by wada itself when they wrote down a minimum performance level of 2 ng/ml whilst a level 50 times lower is routinely detectable.

the agreement that the only two possibilities are contaminated meat and transfusion. Given that he can't produce this contaminated meat, anything Bert can do to cast doubt on the transfusion scenario is a big plus.

that's why if the rfec decision is confirmed, i can only see his blood passport uncertainty as his saving grace (uncertainty meaning not breaking the barrier of the suspicion or an aaf))

Here is what I would have advised him. Make some rough calculations. Assume he did transfuse in June, and at the time he was taking the minimum dose of CB that could possibly be performance enhancing in some manner, including weight loss. Calculate the amount that could have gotten into his hair follicles, and from there the amount that could be in his hair at specific times later.

Of course these are very rough calculations, but they are better than nothing. If they show that there wouldn't be enough to detect, change the starting assumptions. Assume he was taking a larger dose of CB in June. Maybe that still indicates that his hair sample would be negative. But if the calculations suggest an ambiguous conclusion, go with it. You can then say, if I had been transfusing while I was taking CB--THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE TO MEAT CONTAMINATION--then I likely would have tested detectably in the hair test. That's why you have expensive lawyers. To juggle the figures and suggest the possibility.

i don't think his model was that sophisticated b/c the hair test is not accepted by wada even as a screen. he's, most likely, been using freeze blood storage and micro blood infusions as needed. if clen got in his blood, it was likely during the off-season allergy fighting b/c clen is more effective than salbutamol he's got a tue for.

 

[RGScales]

normal human beings are not tested on picograms of clenbuterol in their body. there weren't any tetsing methods for this until last year. and since then a dozen of athletes in multiple sports have been caught on this and all have been acquitted except fuyu li who was majorly screwed as it now seems

Not a single post you have made thus far has had an ounce of validity...just saying. He had Clenbuterol in his body...end of story. I wont even get into the plasticizers that were reportedly found. He is dirty (not the only one by far) and his government is again covering for a spanish athlete.
It really doesnt matter anyhow as I highly doubt ASO will allow him to contest the Tour if his case is still in arbitration.

 

[luckyboy]

Meh, can't say I'm that bothered by this news. Don't have much/any faith anymore. Wonder how long he'll be racing for before this goes to CAS and he is inevitably suspended?

The question then is what will happen with his ban.
a. They will do a Piti-esque thing and void his results from this year + the Tour, with his ban starting August 2010.
b. They will do the same thing with all the results, and start the ban from when the CAS case finishes
c. They will leave his results apart from Tour 2010, and start the ban when the case finishes.

(Don't know if this has been discussed, but I'm not going to plough through 28 pages)

 

[barn yard]

It really doesnt matter anyhow as I highly doubt ASO will allow him to contest the Tour if his case is still in arbitration.

lance was allowed to ride the tour while under investigation by the united states government, just saying

 

[webvan]

Yes, the TDF dropped the ball on doping in 09/2008 when Clerc was "resigned", guess it was too tough of a fight for one single guy and he got tired of it, can't blame him.

I wonder if this latest "joke" isn't going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back for the public...

 

[auscyclefan94]

How likely is it that the case will go to CAS?

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

How likely is it that the case will go to CAS?

me thinks very likely based on all the posturing by the UCI chiefs whilst RFEC was evaluating the case.

 

[TubularBills]

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.

+1

Contador keeps his hair high and tight. But apparently, as seen in this photo, some of his team mates don't.

He also admits in the original explanation - press conference? - that he and some of the team ate the same infamous 'meat'.

So, following your logic, couldn't they just test the teammates hair who shared the meal?

If they all test negative, (A) Contador is lying - Or, they all test positive (B), and he has the seemingly only available substantiating evidence of inadvertent clenbuterol contamination.

That is, unless, they were all doping with non-performance enhancing quantities of clen or all bagged blood for the tour and were inadvertently transfused with blood that still contained trace amounts from a team wide post Dauphine Clen fiesta.

It boggles the mind. I'll apologize for being convinced that Contador is a Doper and a Liar if (B) turns out to be true.

 

[python]

the uci sanctioned it ?

am i reading this right or something is lost in translation ?

Es.com says that the uci came to the same conclusion as the disciplinary committee that the only explanation for a positive was food contamination.

En este informe final, de 36 páginas, exponía que debe ser absuelto, ya que tanto el Comité, como la Agencia Estatal Antidopaje (AEA) y la Unión Ciclista Internacional (UCI) concluyen en sus respectivos dossieres que la única explicación al positivo es la intoxicación.

that would not be a shocking news in and of itself but we haven't heard it from the uci yet...does this mean only wada may appeal or there was a handshake there too ?

 

[Paco_P]

Nothing implicates Contador as well as his ridiculous defense.

Fortunately, the Spanish president has absolved him via Twitter, just in time for the clowns running the Spanish cycling circus to have a moment of lucidity, and perceive the national importance, in a time of crisis, of having champions we can all believe in.

Here's a question for the experts on the rules: suppose the UCI now decides to sanction Contador anyway (which I guess it won't, so as not to **** off the clowns running the Spanish cycling federation) - does this whole farce of one-year, sorry, do-over somehow save him the TdF title?

 

[JPM London]

am i reading this right or something is lost in translation ?

Es.com says that the uci came to the same conclusion as the disciplinary committee that the only explanation for a positive was food contamination.

En este informe final, de 36 páginas, exponía que debe ser absuelto, ya que tanto el Comité, como la Agencia Estatal Antidopaje (AEA) y la Unión Ciclista Internacional (UCI) concluyen en sus respectivos dossieres que la única explicación al positivo es la intoxicación.

that would not be a shocking news in and of itself but we haven't heard it from the uci yet...does this mean only wada may appeal or there was a handshake there too ?

Is there anything out there about how they've been able to exclude blood doping? It may have passed me right by, but as I remember some other statements the other day said the same thing about other theories not being possible...