Contador acquitted

[auscyclefan94]

Do you understand that a 1 in 20,000 chance is a meaningful number when the population of cattle slaughtered in the EU is somewhere around 28,000,000? Not to mention the millions of carcasses that are imported from Brazil and elsewhere? Not to mention, once you start dealing with statistical sampling, there is this thing called a sampling error that must be account for in your analysis.

Simply declaring his defense as implausible because, well you declared it, doesn't carry any more weight than someone saying he didn't do because he didn't. That may work in the school yard (and the clinic), but that won't get you pass elementary logic in most high schools.

It is implausible because no matter how you lawyers like to spin things it less than 1 in 20000. Doesn't matter the total amount of cattle because 20,000 is a significant number and with the sampling of this number the variation would be very very slim. It is highly improbable. The fact that he had it in his system should warrant a 1 year ban even if it is unintentionally in his body. He should be accountable for everything that is or could be in his body.

If the defedant does not put up a a plausible explanation of why clenbuterol was in his sample, then the defendant should be found guilty because the evidence is in the sample and they win by default because no proper defence is evident.

And those defending RFEC, let me ask you this. When you have the president of RFEC, the Spanish sports minister and the Spanish Prime minister or president defending Contador, even when he has tested positive, he is still defended. Now I would question that hardly any countries would have people who are running either a governing body or are in Parliament would back someone up who has tested positive.

 

[hrotha]

The 20,000 figure is for the whole of the EU, I think. The Basque sample was 97. Statistics are a double-edged sword.

 

[Blakeslee]

On related news, Ricco is laying down in bed in a hospital due to a bad blood transfusion. What an irony.

The connection between what happened with Ricco and the decision in the Contador case is not being talked about nearly enough. This is one of the things that angers me the most about the ruling by the Spanish Cycling Federation, a ruling that was downright irresponsible in light of what happened with Ricco.

It would be easy due to Ricco's track record to dismiss him as one bad apple who did something stupid, but does anyone honestly believe that he has been the only rider blood doping? It is becoming increasingly clear that cycling continues to have a widespread problem with blood doping and you have to wonder how many other riders are out there transfusing their own blood under similar dangerous and unsupervised medical conditions.

While nobody can say for sure where the Clenbuterol came from, I still feel the most likely explanation was that Contador was blood doping. This case represented a chance for cycling's governing bodies to establish a precedent that might have at least made riders start to think twice about blood doping. If WADA and the UCI fail to appeal this decision they will be giving the green light for other riders to continue blood doping, it will be just a matter of time before someone doesn't get lucky like Ricco and ends up dead.

Where are the riders on this issue? Will any of them have the guts to put their own interests aside and have the courage to criticize the Contador decision and start talking openly about blood doping? In light of all that is going on I have to applaud riders like Kohl and Landis who flawed as they are at least finally showed some responsibility by talking about what has been going on with blood doping.

 

[Cimber]

Anyone claiming the plausibility of Contador's defense has to consider the following: there is not (otherwise) a documented case of clenbuterol poisoning from ingestion of beef in Spain in recent years.

Because only 3 labs in the world can detect quantities that small and you would never know you have such a small quantity in your body - your simple wouldn’t feel it. Such a small quantity isn’t poisoning.

 

[Aguirre]

Maybe you should actually read the headline. He criticises Spain, not the RFEC. And he clearly does:

"I wasn't surprised when you see it's Spain. Nothing surprises me that comes from Spain. But it's disappointing," he said.

"It's up to sport to police itself. I don’t think it should be interfered with by politicians who don’t know the full facts of the cases and then make statements that are purely political statements.

“I don’t think we can blame the Spanish federation. They've done a good job. I think it [political pressure] is unwarranted and doesn’t help. It doesn’t help the image of Spain either. It showed that they're biased in supporting their own regardless of what the facts of the case might be."

sorry, I didn't see the botom part of the article.
Anyway, once again he is talking too much rather that keeping things into a confidentiality

 

[sniper]

I don't like McQuaid for several reasons.
But I completely digg the way he openly criticizes Spain's way of (not) dealing with doping.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mcquaid-criticises-spain-after-contador-decision
After scoring multiple -1's, he know deserves a modest +1.

 

[craig1985]

I guess this what happens when you get the best lawyers in Spain. So now the verdict going to be appealed to CAS, and Contador is still racing and wins, will his wins still count?

 

[auscyclefan94]

Hypothetically, if this case goes to CAS, why are people so sure that AC will get a ban? Is it just that they have a a high conviction rate whenever a case is taken there?

 

[sniper]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contador-there-are-times-when-i-cried

"there were times when I cried" (AC).

Etxebarría couldn't have been more spot-on.
Don't cry now when before you were silent.

 

[sniper]

Hypothetically, if this case goes to CAS, why are people so sure that AC will get a ban? Is it just that they have a a high conviction rate whenever a case is taken there?

Indeed, there is a difference between "he should" and "he will" receive a ban.
The first, no doubt, the second, premature.

 

[Dallas_]

Anyway, IMHO there's no way you can prove that the level of clen found in the test cannot come from transfusing clen-contaminated blood. If they'd found a huge amount, then maybe, because you cannot get a huge amount from one tiny bag. But the whole point is that they found a tiny amount. Also, what kind of science are they going to cite? I doubt there's a study on how clen survives in bloodbags and what to expect when you transfuse back a 'dirty' bag.

agree with that Cobblestones

And if I may add. It has been stated there are only 3 labs in existence that can detect 50pg. How long have those 3 labs had that ability?

Is it plausible AC has been boosting with clen for years? And if his sample had gone to a lab, other than Colone, he would not be in the current situation!

cheers

 

[L'arriviste]

"there were times when I cried" (AC).

Well, I guess he's laughing at us all now.

You can imagine the kind of "editorial proviso" that the mainstream journos are going to have to write come July:

...a big acceleration from Spain's Alberto Contador on the lower slopes with 15km still to go. Contador, whose Tour victory was under threat for a time last year after he tested positive for the banned substance Clenbuterol, said: "I saw Andy and he looked tired...

 

[Cimber]

Seems as if the majority in here argue that "you are guilty even if proven innocent".

Now I too am a bit sceptical about RFEC, but if CAS aquit him or if UCI/WADA decide not to appeal I think its tasteless if ppl still go on about him being guilty. Its like a street-mob mentality: "hang him! hang him! We dont care what the outcome of the trial is! Hang him! hang him!"

Think it boils down to the fact that alot of ppl dont like him, so they wanna se him hung.

I am not saying he is innocent. Wont judge that till the case is 100% closed. But what I am saying is that we should respect and accept the outcome if CAS aquit him or if UCI/WADA dont appeal.

 

[Berzin]

Think it boils down to the fact that a lot of ppl don't like him, so they wanna see him hung.

This is it, in a nutshell.

People came up with some very plausible conclusions that were not substantiated by the anti-doping science, yet they decided to take it upon themselves to go with the conclusions as airtight proof.

Plasticizer test-sounds very plausible, could very well be an explanation for the clen positive via a transfusion, but no proof of transfusion could be proven.

The small amount of clenbuterol actually found, thus turning a molehill into a mountain.

The fact that only a select amount of Tour samples (does anyone know how many?) were sent to the lab in Cologne, Germany. Very selective testing protocols, wouldn't you agree?

Tour samples destroyed three months after the race-you think the UCI wants these samples tested years down the road? Of course they don't.

I have a friend who told me he wanted to see Contador go down because of what he did to Schleck when Andy had his mechanical at the Tour. As if one thing had anything to do with the other.

I'm glad Contador's allowed to go back to racing. We need to put this behind us and go on to the next farce. This one has been totally beaten to death already.

 

[RGScales]

Except, if the transfusion theory is correct, then his inconsequential picograms of clen are precisely equal to bags full of stale blood.

If (and I'm saying this only for the sake of the argument) the clen is from tainted beef and it could be proven (to a reasonable degree), I think everybody would agree to let Dertie go.

The point is that a lot of people here don't believe this scenario.

What I want to see is a good argument why the transfusion theory was ruled out. Such an argument has to show data and have a good scientific foundation. This has not been forthcoming so far. If the UCI, the Spanish federation, Contador, or anybody else invested in this mess wants to come out with a shred of credibility, such an argument has to be made public. The sooner the better. But I'm not holding my breath because I think that such an argument cannot be made with a straight face.


About the plasticizer: a lot of misinformation has been put forth which we had cleared up before. So I'm dismayed to see a lot of that cr@ppy 'science' pop up again.

Just to remind you about the most often repeated nonsense:

1) People handle plastic cr@p all the time, hence it's no wonder they test positive for plastic/plasticizer etc.

No. The plasticizer test measures metabolites in the urine. Metabolites!!! Look it up if you don't know what it means.

2) People drink out of plastic bottles. Hence they ingest plastic/plasticizer etc and therefore it's no wonder they test positive.

No. Blood bags are a bit special because they're medical supplies. The plastic used for blood bags is very carefully chosen. It's a very specific plastic, with a very specific plasticizer which isn't used all that much in other areas. You cannot simply change one model against a different with different plastic because it requires a lot of testing. In fact people very much would like to change to a different model precisely because of the amount of plasticizer which becomes dissolved in the blood and enters the bloodstream upon transfusion.

This brings me to the third point:

3) Every person has this kind of metabolites.

Yes, but the amount is relatively small. Plasticizer concentration really, really spikes after a transfusion because (i) the stuff is injected directly and (ii) the precise plasticizer isn't really in use in many other plastic objects, so the 'background' level is relatively small. You get a pretty good signal-to-noise ratio from the test.

Remember the plasticizer is there to make the plastic of a blood bag really really soft and squishy. Plastic bottles, on the other hand, you want to have stiff. So you use much less plasticizer to begin with. Meaning, there's much less going over into the water you drink etc. etc.

This is a great, great post and you said much more eloquently what I was trying to get at yesterday. I make a (bad) habit out of trying to over simplify what I say about certain topics and I certainly do not have the knowledge of this topic that you have so I just wanted to say thank you for wrapping this up in a neat little package in a way that everyone can understand. Well done.

 

[hrotha]

It's very condescending to suggest this all boils down to people disliking Contador, really. Maybe you guys should try reading more.

I admit I dislike Contador intensely, but my dislike stems from the fact that he's a liar. Prior to this case and his "never saw anything, beacon of clean cycling" allegations I didn't care much about him.

 

[uspostal]

Sampling error is almost irrelevant here. Even if it is as high as 100% (which I don't believe it is), that means that the number of contaminated cattle is estimated between 0 and 2000 per year. Or 0 to 6 per day. Doesn't make much of a difference.

Ok lets run with this 3 per day number. 3 cows per day divided by how many countries, then divide by how many stores and shops that sell the beef. Then further divide that by how many people eat beef per day. I'm not sure what that number is but its got to be real small, thats the chance he accidently ingested it.

 

[Cimber]

It's very condescending to suggest this all boils down to people disliking Contador, really. Maybe you guys should try reading more.

I admit I dislike Contador intensely, but my dislike stems from the fact that he's a liar. Prior to this case and his "never saw anything, beacon of clean cycling" allegations I didn't care much about him.

But honestly dont you think that UCI/CAS/WADA/RFEC and the scientific and legal experts they use know a bit more about this whole thing that we do? We should trust them to make the right decisions and when the final verdict has been made by those agencies we should accept that.

Miscarriage of justice is not the road we should take and neither is mob mentality.

Personally I dont like him that much either. I have always hated his "pistolero salute" and I hated when he attacked Andy Schleck when he had a mechanical problem. But we need to look at this objectively (and sadly I think alot of ppl dont) and let the "real" experts make the final verdict and then accept that verdict either way it goes.

 

[patricknd]

It has happened to a number of other athletes. Why bend the rules for Aldirto? Until that rule is changed, you can't just pick and choose who gets sanctioned and who doesn't. Unlike most other athletes, he could easily take a 2 year holiday doing nothing but training, then have teams lining up for him when he got back. It'll be hard to feel sympathy when he eventually gets his ban.

i think that's the whole problem. plasticiser tests and all the other crap aside, that's the whole issue. why didn't they just backdate a tue and avoid all this waste of time?

 

[hrotha]

But honestly dont you think that UCI/CAS/WADA/RFEC and the scientific and legal experts they use know a bit more about this whole thing that we do? We should trust them to make the right decisions and when the final verdict has been made by those agencies we should accept that.

I see your point, but the fact is some of these bodies have a long history of questionable and shady behaviour. Who's fault it is if we feel we can't trust the UCI (playing favourites and protecting some riders) or the RFEC (who didn't do squat about Puerto)?

 

[Cimber]

I see your point, but the fact is some of these bodies have a long history of questionable and shady behaviour. Who's fault it is if we feel we can't trust the UCI (playing favourites and protecting some riders) or the RFEC (who didn't do squat about Puerto)?

Partly agree. But there is still WADA who can appeal and CAS to make the final verdict. I have faith in those two agencies.

 

[Francois the Postman]

Sampling error is almost irrelevant here. Even if it is as high as 100% (which I don't believe it is), that means that the number of contaminated cattle is estimated between 0 and 2000 per year. Or 0 to 6 per day. Doesn't make much of a difference.

Since you put much stock in the number of contaminated cattle, can you tell me what threshold cattle meat needs to be passed before it is "positive", and/or how capable the measuring equipment was? Are these tests done in one of those 3 labs to the same standards that Contador's sample was tested?

Can you quote any reports that looked at the actual levels of Clen in European meat? Any reports that look at the actual levels of Clen in the average Euopean as a result?

I find those far more interesting things to look at than staring myself blind on "only 0-2000 contaminated animals in Europe", knowing full well that the meaning of that figure depends heavily on how the tests are done. And I have heard far too little about that by the people that jump on the figure as "meaningful".

Where are meat samples taken? What do we know about the grey or black meat circuit? [are samples taken in official slaughterhouses or at points of consumption/sale?] What equipment and bench marks are used? [are we talking about "clean meat" results after tests by the various labs that would have missed Contador's pico amounts too, or are these tests done of the 3 that has the capacity to register minute traces - in other words: what does "clean" actually mean?]. What is the Clen amount in your average (meat eating) European at the moment?

This is not about Contador for me, I couldn't care one way or the other. But I hear far too many "science that proves" being thrown about, without hearing what it actually means in detail, what the figures actually mean.

The one thing I have learned about science: detailed insight in the process is crucial before you can start to presume to understand the findings.

You might well have accurate answers to these cobblestones. But if you don't, I will reserve judgement until I get some hard answers, before walking after your train of thought that "positive cattle reports" stack up to the conclusion you have drawn.

 

[scribe]

Contador: "There are times when I cried"

Am I the only *** that laughed out loud when I saw the title to the article?

 

[roundabout]

Since you put much stock in the number of contaminated cattle, can you tell me what threshold cattle meat needs to be passed before it is "positive", and/or how capable the measuring equipment was? Are these tests done in one of those 3 labs to the same standards that Contador's sample was tested?

Can you quote any reports that looked at the actual levels of Clen in European meat? Any reports that look at the actual levels of Clen in the average Euopean as a result?

I find those far more interesting things to look at than staring myself blind on "only 0-2000 contaminated animals in Europe", knowing full well that the meaning of that figure depends heavily on how the tests are done. And I have heard far too little about that by the people that jump on the figure as "meaningful".

Where are meat samples taken? What do we know about the grey or black meat circuit? [are samples taken in official slaughterhouses or at points of consumption/sale?] What equipment and bench marks are used? [are we talking about "clean meat" results after tests by the various labs that would have missed Contador's pico amounts too, or are these tests done of the 3 that has the capacity to register minute traces - in other words: what does "clean" actually mean?]. What is the Clen amount in your average (meat eating) European at the moment?

This is not about Contador for me, I couldn't care one way or the other. But I hear far too many "science that proves" being thrown about, without hearing what it actually means in detail, what the figures actually mean.

The one thing I have learned about science: detailed insight in the process is crucial before you can start to presume to understand the findings.

You might well have accurate answers to these cobblestones. But if you don't, I will reserve judgement until I get some hard answers, before walking after your train of thought that "positive cattle reports" stack up to the conclusion you have drawn.

According to WADA and one of the companies that produces clenbuterol it's concentration had to be between 3 to 110 times higher than the minimal detection level set in the EU. With this in mind let's edit your post

Can you quote any reports that looked at the actual levels of Clen in European meat? Any reports that look at the actual levels of Clen in the average Euopean as a result?

I find those far more interesting things to look at than staring myself blind on "only 0-2000 contaminated animals in Europe", knowing full well that the meaning of that figure depends heavily on how the tests are done. And I have heard far too little about that by the people that jump on the figure as "meaningful".

Where are meat samples taken? What do we know about the grey or black meat circuit? [are samples taken in official slaughterhouses or at points of consumption/sale?] What equipment and bench marks are used?
What is the Clen amount in your average (meat eating) European at the moment?

This is not about Contador for me, I couldn't care one way or the other. But I hear far too many "science that proves" being thrown about, without hearing what it actually means in detail, what the figures actually mean.

The one thing I have learned about science: detailed insight in the process is crucial before you can start to presume to understand the findings.

You might well have accurate answers to these cobblestones. But if you don't, I will reserve judgement until I get some hard answers, before walking after your train of thought that "positive cattle reports" stack up to the conclusion you have drawn.

 

[GJB123]

It really doesn't matter what level it leads to as long as it's accidental.

In the famous words of one John McEnroe: "You cannot be serious."

At least introducing a threshold would seriously limit the number of false positives, for lack of a better word. Now that might mean zilch to you, but to most rational people with any sense of justice or law, that is a big thing.

Add to that the problem that it is nigh impossible to prove accidental ingestion, because basically you have digested the evidence itself. So either you introduce a threshold and/or remove strict liabililty rules and/or you allow evidence in the sense that you can prove something by showing other options te be less likely (as in this case). In a perfect legal world we would do all three.

Regards
GJ