Contador acquitted

[warmfuzzies]

The Conti acquittal is a bold signal to dopers to keep up the good work. Why spend the time and $ constructing a facade of dope-free racing? Instead, show the "sport" for what it really is - a WWE-esque doping free-for-all. Have the commentators crack jokes about the "training" champions endure, and create a jersey like yellow/green/polka dot for best doper. Enable the fans to vote for the 'dopers jersey' in each race. And create an ESPY for best doper in sport.

 

[Cimber]

As long as the sample is statistically representative, the actual percentage of livestock tested is irrelevant.

Indeed, but it seems that part of his defense claims that 1/400 it is not statistically representative. But the most interesting part for me is that someone in the the likely supply-chain of the meat has formerly been penalized for clen in cattle

 

[Cimber]

Using a term that's been thrown around a lot lately, you've still got to 'connect the dots' to come anywhere close to a conclusion that exonerates him. I am still to see or hear hard physical evidence to show it was consumed through beef by mistake, and that's because he cannot come up with the goods. Strict liability has failed spectacularly if he does not get a ban.

As far as I have understood the way that the defense was presented was by presenting evidence ruling out all the faul-play scenarios as being extremely unlikely thereby making the meat story the only plausable option. I know WADA ruled the meat story as "very unlikely", but with that the 0,25 tested animals and especaily the guy with the clen penalty in the meat supply-chain might make that not so very unlikely after all. Will be interesting to the final outcome in this case.

 

[Cimber]

If one percent of cows is tested, and all are clean, then that's A LOT of beef to make a meal from, for demanding guests.
If one percent of cars of a certain model will explode unannounced, but there is a simple test to know it will happen or nor, what do you buy? Yes, you could just eat chicken. But the responsibility when eating beef is all yours.
Contador needs to be banned, and for a full 2 years, starting a day in July.

1st its 0,25% not 1%. Secondly there is a clause freeing the rider from strict reliability if f.x he digested food which should not contain the illigal drug, as the case is with meat in EU.

using your example, what if a rider ate a chicken and got contaminated by some illigal drug which wasnt supposed to be in there? same story again.

And finally its not like you can go down to the supermarket and choose among those 0,25% which have been tested. There is noway to pick out meat that has been tested voer meat that hasnt been. And as Chris Anker Sorensen stated "it would be ridiculous if we end up in a situation where u have to save a piece of the meat everytime u eat a steak".

 

[Benotti69]

So not much meat is tested? So if we took a random selection of the European population that ate beef the evening before we should get what percentage of positives for Clen?

Smoke and mirrors is what they are trying to force on us. It doesn't prove that Contador's meat was from an animal that was injected with Clen. If Contador actually ate a piece of meat from an animal that was injected with Clen it would mean that a farmer or a lot of farms were using the product due to aspect of human nature that if you get away with it keep doing it especially if it is putting money in your pocket. We see it with doping in cycling strangely enough.

But we still have no farm, no farmer, no positive cattle and no vials of Clen in the barn and we are asked to believe that poor little Bertie was unlucky to get a magical filet mignon on the rest day with Clen in it.

Well as i also understand it is illegal to use it in animals so where are the investigations into this meat and the area it came from trying to get the farmer and his dealer??

Still stinks of doping and not the four legged animal variety that's for sure.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Sampling proceeds quite mechanically. First, you ask the question: How many cattle do I have to test in order to estimate the prevalence of clenbuterol in cattle in the population?

Second, you ask: What is the relative precision I want to achieve? Do I want to come within 5% or 10% of the population proportion?

Third, you ask: How confident do I want to be that my sample estimate comes within X% of the population proportion? Usually, you'd want to be 95% or maybe even 99% confident.

The actual size of the cattle population is irrelevant. The only time it can be relevant is if your sample size may exceed 5% of the total population, in which case you'd need to apply a finite population correction.

But that's it. Now, the above steps have to do with precision. They do not really have to do with sampling bias. Sampling bias is solved by taking a random sample.

 

[Cimber]

If Contador actually ate a piece of meat from an animal that was injected with Clen it would mean that a farmer or a lot of farms were using the product due to aspect of human nature that if you get away with it keep doing it especially if it is putting money in your pocket. We see it with doping in cycling strangely enough.

But we still have no farm, no farmer, no positive cattle and no vials of Clen in the barn and we are asked to believe that poor little Bertie was unlucky to get a magical filet mignon on the rest day with Clen in it.

This is why I find this piece of the article quite interesting:

Ramos also revealed that Basque authorities traced the supplier of the offending piece of beef back to three possible sources. The meat in question was bought by Spanish cycling organiser, Jose Luis Lopez Cerron, a friend of the Astana team chef who had complained of poor quality meat at the hotel where the team was staying on July 20.

"Curiously enough, the owner of the [supplier] one that was most likely to be it is in partnership with [the supplier's] his brother, who was penalised a few years back for using Clenbuterol," he said.

 

[sniper]

So not much meat is tested? So if we took a random selection of the European population that ate beef the evening before we should get what percentage of positives for Clen?

Smoke and mirrors is what they are trying to force on us. It doesn't prove that Contador's meat was from an animal that was injected with Clen. If Contador actually ate a piece of meat from an animal that was injected with Clen it would mean that a farmer or a lot of farms were using the product due to aspect of human nature that if you get away with it keep doing it especially if it is putting money in your pocket. We see it with doping in cycling strangely enough.

But we still have no farm, no farmer, no positive cattle and no vials of Clen in the barn and we are asked to believe that poor little Bertie was unlucky to get a magical filet mignon on the rest day with Clen in it.

Well as i also understand it is illegal to use it in animals so where are the investigations into this meat and the area it came from trying to get the farmer and his dealer??

Still stinks of doping and not the four legged animal variety that's for sure.

+1

0.25 % is still a lot of cattle. If clen is used in the spanish cattle industry, the chances it pops up in at least one of these 0.25 percent tested animals is still a couple of times higher than poor aldirty testing positive on the restday.

and as if our intelligence had not yet been insulted enough by the steak-story, they come up with a story about the-sun-of-a-friend-whose-sister-is-the-neighbor-of-a-colleague's-brother, who had a farm where in some undocumented past clen was presumably used to raise cattle.
very likely.

 

[Benotti69]

This is why I find this piece of the article quite interesting:

Ramos also revealed that Basque authorities traced the supplier of the offending piece of beef back to three possible sources. The meat in question was bought by Spanish cycling organiser, Jose Luis Lopez Cerron, a friend of the Astana team chef who had complained of poor quality meat at the hotel where the team was staying on July 20.

"Curiously enough, the owner of the [supplier] one that was most likely to be it is in partnership with [the supplier's] his brother, who was penalised a few years back for using Clenbuterol," he said.

But no one is being investigated now and no one has been charged for what is an extremely serious accusation by Contador's legal team???

Well if this is acceptable to let Contador off the charge of doping, let's flip it back onto Contador, we have traced Contador to a team owned by a guy who admitted to cheating by using huge amounts of dope to win the TdF in 1996.

 

[sniper]

But no one is being investigated now and no one has been charged for what is an extremely serious accusation by Contador's legal team???

Well if this is acceptable to let Contador off the charge of doping, let's flip it back onto Contador, we have traced Contador to a team owned by a guy who admitted to cheating by using huge amounts of dope to win the TdF in 1996.

My guess is that, instead of being charged, the respective suppliers have received considerable amounts of dough on their bankaccounts for them not to file charges against AC for defamation, and go lay down on the beach instead.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

The problem when you have NASA-like precision in the testing that can detect Clen in concentrations of parts per TRILLION is that the cow you're eating doesn't have to have been administered clen. If you eat a hamburger and some previous cow processed through the same meat grinder was given Clen, you could get concentrations that high.

 

[python]

But no one is being investigated now and no one has been charged for what is an extremely serious accusation by Contador's legal team???

if this is a question, then you must have missed that the association of basque beef producers has asked a public prosecutor to investigate. this has been all over the news. don't know how serious is the investigation and how far they've gone but i welcome it as i want to see the truth.

 

[Merckx index]

Python:

yes, you did and your self-serving answer has been among the few i tried to entertain.

you're free to assume anything you wish, you can dream anything that makes your day but it wont make a whiff of difference in cas. you certainly can win or lose on internet forums depending on who logs in near your posting time. but i repeat, it's arguing in your own head, not the way cas would.

the fact that you and other english-speaking media are so ignorant is unfortunate. almost all major official papers were posted in this very thread. it took only 10 pages of back and forth to throw a discussion completely off track and come back to what’s been killed 10 times.

Yeah, I saw your post on this before, Python. Funny thing, you never provided a link to back up your claim that DEHP was not mentioned. What you did say was this:

if contador was indeed tested for plasticizers, why was it not mentioned in any of the 600 pages sent to contador ? (it’s almost a certainty it was NOT mentioned b/c none of the official rebuttals contain the word 'plasticizer')

In other words, you haven’t read the 600 pages, either, and you don’t know. But since I admitted in my earlier post that it might well be true that DEHP was not mentioned, I addressed that possibility, too.

The rest of your post #992 has been addressed many times. Only an incompetent or stupid defence team will act the way you want them to and comment on rumours to say nothing of addressing them in the official papers.

If all the points made in that post have been addressed even once, yet alone many times, it sure is news to me. Some of them have, of course. The vast majority of points made in this forum by anyone--including you--have been made by others many times. But I don’t think that all the suggestions I made have been posted here before.

Yes, Bert can play the BS lawyer game or he can get creative, go over the heads of the usual players and appeal directly to his fans. I know, it would be something very different and unusual, and IMO, refreshing to see an accused athlete actually act like he was innocent and willing to do the things that might help confirm that innocence. And yes, I understand that is exactly what lawyers advise their clients not to do. I still think it’s BS.

But the main point in your post I want to respond to is: “you're free to assume anything you wish, you can dream anything that makes your day but it wont make a whiff of difference in cas”, I never said I was trying to get inside the heads of CAS, and predict what decision they will make. You have been trying to tell us how decisions will go, and why. Fine, I have no problem with that, we need someone in this forum trying to do that. But this is a forum where we’re free to express our opinions, and I often use it to that way. And since DEHP is very relevant to my opinion (and I’m not alone here in that regard), and since as I said before, no one has come forward to definitively debunk the DEHP results, I will refer to them. If GJ, RC and others want to think differently, I have no problem. But some of us think the DEHP results are real, and if they are, why shouldn’t they affect the opinion we form of the RFEC decision?

GJ, RC and others are of the opinion that since RFEC knows more about what is going on than we on the forum do, we shouldn't challenge their decision. I simply don't buy that. If RFEC, WADA or someone else comes out and definitively debunks the DEHP data AND demonstrates that CB contamination is far more common than generally believed, then maybe I will buy into that reasoning. But they haven't done that, and I'm by far not the only one who thinks their decision was a very poor one. Either those sticking points remain, or RFEC is acting really weirdly by not telling anyone that those points have been resolved.

Btw, of course my answer is “self-serving”. Does anyone post anything in a forum that isn’t self-serving? You certainly don’t, Python, and I wouldn’t expect you to. You post material that you believe backs up the conclusions you have come to. IOW, it serves your view. You have even been known to utter words such as “I’m gratified that some people here are finally coming around to my view”, or “are beginning to appreciate the research on this I have done”, or words to that effect. If that isn’t a self-serving statement, I don’t know what is, and again, I regard that as normal here.

GJ

So we have an "unnamed source" (that is not Mr Howman then) who said that the push for approval "could be linked" to Contador's case. The "they" in the next paragraph, and this is simple comprehensive reading, can only link back to the unnamed source and not to Mr Howman. So my question remains where did Howman explictly confirm the positive plasticizer-test for Contador as you claim he did. Bewcause this link proves nothing to that effect. And if he did so, why wasn't it in the WADA-file, although he himself claims it could (and should) be used as supporting evidence? Please show me the link.

Let’s back up to your post 970:

You cannot defend yourself against a mirage DEHP test if yiu are not given the results. Do I have to spell it out for you, are you stupid? It wasn't in the file that WADA sent to Spanish cycling federation, hence AC's team couldn't refute it

I responded to that by pointing out that Howman, a WADA director, had said the DEHP test could be part of the evidence. You responded in a later post by saying there was nothing in that story that indicated Howman thought Contador’s DEHP test was real. In response, I quoted the passage that you have reproduced in your latest post.

So no, this latest passage does not and was not intended by me to show that Howman thinks the test results were real. It simply addresses your original question about WADA. You said that the DEHP test was not in the WADA file. Well, that is what you and Python and some others presume, and maybe you’re right. But my point is, this test still appears to be on WADA’s radar, as indicated by that passage. That passage suggests that this unnamed source thinks the DEHP test was real. And if he is close to the scientific committee of WADA, that suggests to me that others in WADA do, too, Probably including Howman, but it really doesn’t matter, the point here is WADA.

only 0,25% of the cattle in EU is tested for clen.

Those of you who live in the U.S. may be aware that almost all elections here, involving millions or tens of millions of votes, are successfully predicted with exit polls involving a sample of a few hundred voters. Barring major swings in voter moods, such elections are frequently successfully predicted weeks ahead of time with polls involving less than a thousand subjects.

IOW, 0.25% is certainly a large enough number to give a very good indication of the amount of CB contamination IF the contaminated cattle are scattered somewhat randomly across the country and IF the sampling is carried out in an informed, expert fashion. I don’t know if both those conditions have been met, but the point is, the proportion of cattle tested, in and of itself, is not a problem here.

 

[sagard]

Random sampling and extrapolating. It is not a new science, nor is it witchcraft. Every statistic will have a confidence level.

I would be a lot more comfortable Contador's team just shut up. The more they cling to the tainted meat story, the more I assume they are complete liars.

Let him race, but don't go blaming the meat or assume all people have no understanding of statistics.

 

[sniper]

crucial evidence in favor of AC revealed:

http://www.larazon.es/noticia/509-vinokourov-no-creo-que-contador-se-haya-dopado

 

[python]

Python:

a very jumbled, long and incoherent post.

you made a bunch of statement about a plasticicer test and you went on and on building a case on "if and if" that turns exactly what it was iffy.

because, it was explained to you several times, only a stupid and incompetent team will act the way you want them to.

regarding your self-serving argument and my responses to other posters you will fully confused my positive sentiment that some posters realize the complexities of the case, not my opinion of the guilt/no guilt.

if you missed the very original documents in this very thread it's your responsibility, not anyone's else. i did not miss them and i read them. if you can't apply a simple logic to a simple fact - if plasticizers are not mentioned in the rebuttals, b/c they are not part of the charge, you're not worth my time.

 

[Benotti69]

if this is a question, then you must have missed that the association of basque beef producers has asked a public prosecutor to investigate. this has been all over the news. don't know how serious is the investigation and how far they've gone but i welcome it as i want to see the truth.

I want to see the truth but we won't, the big wigs in Spain are gonna ensure Contador stays on his bike no matter what. From the very beginning this has not been conducted in a fair and honest manner. It has all the hall marks (or dots to use the flavour of the month term) of a cover up to protect Contador, the sport, the ASO and Spain's reputation for sporting cleanliness. Contador could have threatened to blow open the doping by it's footballers.

As for the PR speak from the Basque Beef Producers assoc. Let's hear that there is actually an ongoing investigation? I imagine that if Spain is caught with cattle and meat with clen in it they face serious trouble from the EU, in the meantime let's see that Contador is banned according to the rules as they have failed trace the meat to an exact source and therefore it has to be presumed he took the substance to dope as it was found in his test sample. As soon as they locate the source of contamination he gets the ban lifted and get's on his bike again. Or is this according to standard procedure and we don't follow that for winners only losers.

 

[Escarabajo]

....

Python, or to Whom it may concern:

Some questions. I know it has been commented in here but maybe not to the detail that I want it. Can WADA focus just on obtaining a hair sample? I have heard in the past that drugs residues stay in the hair for few years after the person has even stopped. Would that be the case for Clenbuterol? If the test is positive then the case is closed. Now if he was an occasional user, then the question would be if that would be enough to show today in his hair sample?

Thanks.

 

[python]

Python, or to Whom it may concern:

Some questions.<snip>

i followed the case pretty closely and read quite a few studies including many on hair testing. not an expert but here’s my own current sense of the questions you’ve asked.

Can WADA focus just on obtaining a hair sample?

brief answer: no. a longer answer: wada generally as of yet does not condone hair testing. one can gain some clues as to how wada would react to the hair testing is by examining 2 unconnected facts - their refusal to appeal ovchrarov’s case that was partially (only partially !) based on his hair test and how afld apply the hair tests methodology (french are the only nado i know of applying it). bottom line, for various reasons, in anti-doping, the hair test is currently only used as a general confirmation test or a trending tool. anti-doping remains largely a domain of urine and (only recently) blood testing. that said, cas and various anti-drug authorities have taken a different position. they increasingly take the hair test more seriously as evidenced by gasquett's acquittal. read that case. it’s fascinating. contador’s definitive ruling by rfec appeals to gasquett’s case several times.

I have heard in the past that drugs residues stay in the hair for few years after the person has even stopped. Would that be the case for Clenbuterol?

don’t know about other drugs but the studies i saw refer to 30-to-90 day window for clenbuterol in hair. german anti-doping scientists are currently at the forefront of applying hair testing. the hair test’s ability to look back much longer than a urine test is it’s main attractiveness. but in combination with frequent urine tests, it is a very powerful tool indeed.

If the test is positive then the case is closed. Now if he was an occasional user, then the question would be if that would be enough to show today in his hair sample?

you just hit the nail on the head. Iow, the hair test answers one question only - if negative, the owner was likely not, a long term user. if positive, likely was an abuser. the fact that contador’s defence team did not seem to comment on his hair tests (despite some early mutterings by his lawyer ramos) is interesting if not suspicious. contador had much to gain (at least in a pr sense) if he tested negative. yet, we officially never heard that though his brother recently hinted that conti did not need the hair test b/c he had other frequent negative clen urine tests. my feeling - his team of lawyers realised the risk of testing inconclusive and advised him not to test. wada wont pursue it. but it will always remain a question - did he miss a good opportunity or was he covering up a transfusion ?

regardless, if i was contador and i was sure i was clean, i’d go for it in split second. he did not

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

IOW, 0.25% is certainly a large enough number to give a very good indication of the amount of CB contamination IF the contaminated cattle are scattered somewhat randomly across the country and IF the sampling is carried out in an informed, expert fashion. I don’t know if both those conditions have been met, but the point is, the proportion of cattle tested, in and of itself, is not a problem here.

Not "SOMEWHAT" randomly, but RANDOMLY, period. If it's not carried out randomly, there are no confidence intervals, etc. It's a convenience sample, and any extrapolation outside of the sample is inappropriate.

As I mentioned, the proportion of cattle tested is irrelevant as long as the precision and confidence criteria are met. However, since neither of these have been provided, nor are we assured that the sample was selected in random fashion, I'm not sure why people are automatically relying on this sample to make statements about the cattle population at large.

 

[Andynonomous]

Wada looks likely to appeal.

IOC member disputes Contador defence.

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2011/02/25/ap-interview-ioc-official-dispels-food-defense/

 

[Escarabajo]

answers ...

Thanks. This is what I needed to know. Let's see how WADA handles this one.

 

[131313]

IOC member disputes Contador defence.

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2011/02/25/ap-interview-ioc-official-dispels-food-defense/

Wow, I really don't know how to even respond to this, except that I'm dumbfounded that someone this clueless can be in a position of power:

"The IOC's top anti-doping official said he has seen no convincing evidence that athletes can inadvertently test positive for clenbuterol or other banned drugs by eating contaminated meat.....You have to make sure yourself that you don't get banned substances into your body in whatever way," he said."

First off, he's categorically wrong. Secondly, holding people responsible for trace elements of things in the food and water supply is ridiculous.

He seems more interesting in demonstrating positive tests to give the appearance of being "tough on doping" than actually promoting clean sport. People like this have no business being in positions of authority.

 

[psychlist]

I think that it is ridiculous to allow Contador to skate by using the ignorance defense. In order to use such a defense they should at first have to prove conclusively that the Clen came from tainted meat.

Somebody correct me if I missed something but that has not been proven, has it?

 

[Cimber]

But no one is being investigated now and no one has been charged for what is an extremely serious accusation by Contador's legal team???

We dont know if some1 are being investigated, now do we? We naively keep believing we have all of the informations in the case. And what about those plasticizer? Thats only a rumour, though alot of ppl here take it as a fact. Whats really annoying in this discussion is that 90% of the ppl here seem to believe any rumour or claim that points towards Berti being guilty while dismissing any information pointing towards innocense. Ppl are so extremely biased that it is impossible to try to carry out a constructive and even less so objective debate. Ppl mix in personal feeling to much in this debate.

Those of you who live in the U.S. may be aware that almost all elections here, involving millions or tens of millions of votes, are successfully predicted with exit polls involving a sample of a few hundred voters. Barring major swings in voter moods, such elections are frequently successfully predicted weeks ahead of time with polls involving less than a thousand subjects.

I am going totally off-topic here (no relevance to cycling or Beri), but I find it interesting: Its the same in other countries too and in in some European countries the media and academics have been discussing that exit polls work like self-fulfilling prophecies. That ppl vote a certain way cos they have already seen the exit polls so to speak. In some countries it has even been debated to prohibit exit polls (to be honest I think exit polls are illegal in some countries).