Contador acquitted

[python]

I am puzzled, he says he was tested at the DL and the Tour.....Is he saying he was not testing between these two? If that is the case there is something wrong

that's not how i read it. here's the direct quote again

..dates on which I underwent controls during the Dauphin&#233]or before the Tour[/B] and if I’d taken clenbuterol it would have shown up on those days.”

the part i bolded reads to me as he's talking about some tests between the dl and the tour. if so, it's a significant statement provided it was properly translated. i'll look up an original later on..

i would reasonably speculate that he was almost certainly blood passport tested during a week or so prior to the tour - this is the typical uci tactic for top 10-15 riders every year. But if contador was urine tested within a week or 10 days after the dl a negative would enhance his case. the interview does not provide any such information.

 

[D-Queued]

I am puzzled, he says he was tested at the DL and the Tour.....Is he saying he was not testing between these two? If that is the case there is something wrong

That part.

Dave.

 

[python]

Yes, there is. If he had not been tested from the end of DL, to the start of Le Tour, that is a glaring issue.

I especially appreciated the Contador comment as to "freezing" his samples, as freezing his blood would render it mostly useless.

Alberto, I have something for you... Enjoy.

this statement, as some of your other statements about doping technicalities, reveals that you don't understand some of it. blood can be frozen. easily. including it's cellular and plasma content. the question is what is it going to be tested for ? if they want to look for clen in blood, they would look at plasma, which can be stored frozen for 1-2 years.

but so far every clen test he underwent was on his urine. paying attention would create less confusion.

 

[webvan]

Sounds like a lot like the old "I never tested positive" defense...

"We’re are considering issuing a lawsuit against that magazine" - hum...and when was that article published ? 6 months ago if memory serves and that threat was made before. One has to wonder why it still hasn't happened. I'm guessing Bertie and his lawyers don't want to take any chances with the backup Humo would have to show...

 

[sniper]

that's not how i read it. here's the direct quote again

the part i bolded reads to me as he's talking about some tests between the dl and the tour. if so, it's a significant statement provided it was properly translated. i'll look up an original later on..

i would reasonably speculate that he was almost certainly blood passport tested during a week or so prior to the tour - this is the typical uci tactic for top 10-15 riders every year. But if contador was urine tested within a week or 10 days after the dl a negative would enhance his case. the interview does not provide any such information.

On the other hand, if he was tested between the DL and the Tour, the samples almost surely weren't sent to Cologne. So he may still have been microdosing with CLEN in that period.

 

[hrotha]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contador-this-scar-will-stay-with-me-forever

Asked about an allegation which came from within his former Astana team and appeared in Belgian magazine Humo that the clenbuterol was the remains of a slimming treatment that appeared in his blood after a transfusion, Contador responded: “We’re are considering issuing a lawsuit against that magazine. The argument is impossible. It talks about dates on which I underwent controls during the Dauphiné or before the Tour and if I’d taken clenbuterol it would have shown up on those days.”

Why the rolleyes? The claim that he was tested between the Dauphiné and the Tour is new and highly relevant. Moreover, it should be falsifiable.

 

[sniper]

Sounds like a lot like the old "I never tested positive" defense...

"We’re are considering issuing a lawsuit against that magazine" - hum...and when was that article published ? 6 months ago if memory serves and that threat was made before. One has to wonder why it still hasn't happened. I'm guessing Bertie and his lawyers don't want to take any chances with the backup Humo would have to show...

..sounds like we have a winner..

 

[sniper]

Why the rolleyes? The claim that he was tested between the Dauphiné and the Tour is new and highly relevant. Moreover, it should be falsifiable.

I agree. Rolleyes were in regard to his threat to sue the HUMO.

 

[El Pistolero]

..sounds like we have a winner..

Humo never posted that article. Humo has nothing.

And I buy every edition of Humo there is.

 

[python]

On the other hand, if he was tested between the DL and the Tour, the samples almost surely weren't sent to Cologne. So he may still have been microdosing with CLEN in that period.

good point but we really don't know were his pre-tour urine (underlined b/c some people, not you equate piss to blood) samples went to. the much discussed super sensitivity of cologne lab is probably an urban myth (i explained it some place). it was borne out of onya cas ruling were her lawyers (and subsequently contador's legal team) whined about the issue because it helps their other arguments.

 

[python]

Humo never posted that article. Humo has nothing.

And I buy every edition of Humo there is.

wrong. it was in their paper edition and there were many threads proving it. but it does not change the content.

 

[lean mean &green]

Why the rolleyes? The claim that he was tested between the Dauphiné and the Tour is new and highly relevant. Moreover, it should be falsifiable.

according to the IO report, all athletes provide a passport sample about 3 days "before" the tour. that isn't a game changer at all. if he were tested for the presence of clenbuterol at any other time during those approximately 3 weeks b/t races it could be significant, but i seriously doubt this occurred or it would have been made very public already.

 

[hrotha]

As far as I know, no info about those post-Dauphiné tests has been disclosed officially, but I would assume any competent anti-doping organization would have taken a look at those samples and sent them to Cologne or any other precise enough lab to retest them and see what the dates tell us about the transfusion theory. Would microdosing clen below the usual detection thresholds after the Dauphiné and before drawing the blood have been possible and coherent with the positive results during the Tour? Would microdosing clen that way have worked well enough in such a short time (remember Contador had to wait for the clen to disappear from his body, then withdraw his blood then wait for his blood levels to recover)? Questions, questions.

 

[sniper]

Humo never posted that article. Humo has nothing.

And I buy every edition of Humo there is.

Why you buy that journal? they only publish diffamating rumors.

Anyway, AC's reaction reminded me alot of Armstrong's reaction to Floyd's accusations about the Tour deSwiss positive.

AC: The argument is impossible. It talks about dates on which I underwent controls during the Dauphiné or before the Tour and if I’d taken clenbuterol it would have shown up on those days.”
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contador-this-scar-will-stay-with-me-forever

Armstrong (answering the question: "Did you ever pay the UCI [International Cycling Union] any money?"):

Absolutely not. No. That is the other thing, if you get into it. Obviously we’ve seen the email and that is not correct. But a lot of other things in the email, the timeline is off, if you go year by year.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...rong-press-conference-transcript-in-full.html

 

[Publicus]

On the other hand, if he was tested between the DL and the Tour, the samples almost surely weren't sent to Cologne. So he may still have been microdosing with CLEN in that period.

I have to say that it is irrelevant, so long as it was tested at a WADA compliant laboratory. But it does highlight I think the biggest problem I have with this case--the differing standards/sensitivities depending on the lab. To me, all of the labs should be on the same standard or only send samples to the labs with the most sensitive equipment.

 

[El Pistolero]

wrong. it was in their paper edition and there were many threads proving it. but it does not change the content.

It never was in the edition of Humo you can buy. Never seen anything except an article about Contador that was talking about something else.

 

[Publicus]

Why you buy that journal? they only publish diffamating rumors.

Anyway, AC's reaction reminded me alot of Armstrong's reaction to Floyd's accusations about the Tour deSwiss positive.

AC: The argument is impossible. It talks about dates on which I underwent controls during the Dauphiné or before the Tour and if I’d taken clenbuterol it would have shown up on those days.”
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contador-this-scar-will-stay-with-me-forever

Armstrong (answering the question: "Did you ever pay the UCI [International Cycling Union] any money?"):

Absolutely not. No. That is the other thing, if you get into it. Obviously we’ve seen the email and that is not correct. But a lot of other things in the email, the timeline is off, if you go year by year.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...rong-press-conference-transcript-in-full.html

Careful, I think you are letting your bias against Contador get the best of you with that comparison. IIRC, Armstrong was attempting to discredit Floyd's recollection because Floyd mentioned 2002 when Armstrong hadn't ridden the Tour de Suisse that year. However, Armstrong was either misreading or intentionally misreading what Floyd was saying. Floyd was recounting the tale from 2002 and he was referencing the prior year's results when Armstrong had won the Tour de Suisse. [EDIT: My dates could very well be wrong, but the overall point is accurate; Floyd was recounting the conversation with Armstrong during year x where Armstrong was talking about a positive at the Tour de Suisse in the prior year]

No way you can equate AC's statement with Armstrong's obfuscation.

 

[lean mean &green]

As far as I know, no info about those post-Dauphiné tests has been disclosed officially, but I would assume any competent anti-doping organization would have taken a look at those samples and sent them to Cologne or any other precise enough lab to retest them and see what the dates tell us about the transfusion theory. Would microdosing clen below the usual detection thresholds after the Dauphiné and before drawing the blood have been possible and coherent with the positive results during the Tour? Would microdosing clen that way have worked well enough in such a short time (remember Contador had to wait for the clen to disappear from his body, then withdraw his blood then wait for his blood levels to recover)? Questions, questions.

we (merckx index and myself) covered this a few days ago. the concentrations are so low after a transfusion that you don't have to "wait for it to clear the body" before a withdraw in order to arrive at contador's values.

it's my opinion (you can decide what that's worth) that clenbuterol isn't a drug that's microdosed in the traditional sense of the term. an athlete might use clen at normal or only slightly lower amts in a shortened cycle (1 or 2 weeks instead of 8 for instance) to avoid detection in the same spirit as microdosing but in practice it would look much different.

 

[sniper]

Careful, I think you are letting your bias against Contador get the best of you with that comparison. IIRC, Armstrong was attempting to discredit Floyd's recollection because Floyd mentioned 2002 when Armstrong hadn't ridden the Tour de Suisse that year. However, Armstrong was either misreading or intentionally misreading what Floyd was saying. Floyd was recounting the tale from 2002 and he was referencing the prior year's results when Armstrong had won the Tour de Suisse. [EDIT: My dates could very well be wrong, but the overall point is accurate; Floyd was recounting the conversation with Armstrong during year x where Armstrong was talking about a positive at the Tour de Suisse in the prior year]

No way you can equate AC's statement with Armstrong's obfuscation.

ok, but there are some parallels:

1. both are struggling to discredit sources that in turn have discredited them,

2. every sane guy/girl in the clinic knows that both Landis and the HUMO story are as true as the sun going down (notwithstanding minor details that may be off).

3. Neither AC nor LA will be suing nobody.

 

[Publicus]

Sounds like a lot like the old "I never tested positive" defense...

"We’re are considering issuing a lawsuit against that magazine" - hum...and when was that article published ? 6 months ago if memory serves and that threat was made before. One has to wonder why it still hasn't happened. I'm guessing Bertie and his lawyers don't want to take any chances with the backup Humo would have to show...

Probably has to do with (1) the source was anonymous and (2) HUMO would not be liable unless it posted the article with the knowledge that the source was lying. The second point is probably the biggest deterrent to a lawsuit in this case. The former basically makes it impossible to go after the person who allegedly slandered him.

So it's not out of fear of Humo have anything to back it up--one assumes that they in fact got the quote from someone attached to Astana. They simply wouldn't be liable for publishing that quote unless one could show that they knew it was false.

 

[Publicus]

ok, but there are some parallels:

1. both are struggling to discredit sources that in turn have discredited them,

2. every sane guy/girl in the clinic knows that both Landis and the HUMO story are as true as the sun going down (notwithstanding minor details that may be off).

3. Neither AC nor LA will be suing nobody.

There are no parallels. You are stretching Sniper.

1. The source is unknown in AC's case.
2. I think some folks place a great deal of undue credit on the statements of an anonymous individual with some ties to Astana. Until that person's credibility can be ascertained, it's value is dubious at best.
3. As I noted in my previous post, in AC's case, if he knew who the individual was that made the comment to Humo and still didn't move forward, then you might have a point. But he doesn't and without it, there's no basis to move forward.

 

[sniper]

There are no parallels.

Didn't I just point out three parallels?

 

[Oldman]

I have to say that it is irrelevant, so long as it was tested at a WADA compliant laboratory. But it does highlight I think the biggest problem I have with this case--the differing standards/sensitivities depending on the lab. To me, all of the labs should be on the same standard or only send samples to the labs with the most sensitive equipment.

This makes so much sense. It does take the opportunity to "manage" sampling away from the UCI in the same manner and they may not be ready to play it straight.

Contador's current PR willingess to have samples retested is interesting but it's doubtful if he'd ever follow through.

 

[sniper]

There are no parallels. You are stretching Sniper.

1. The source is unknown in AC's case.
2. I think some folks place a great deal of undue credit on the statements of an anonymous individual with some ties to Astana. Until that person's credibility can be ascertained, it's value is dubious at best.
3. As I noted in my previous post, in AC's case, if he knew who the individual was that made the comment to Humo and still didn't move forward, then you might have a point. But he doesn't and without it, there's no basis to move forward.

I think it was Hrotha who recently pointed out that Barca moved forward when LeMonde accused Barca of ties with with Fuentes. Here too, the source was unknown, but still Barca saw a basis to move forward. Indeed, they won the case.

 

[Publicus]

Didn't I just point out three parallels?

No, as my comments were designed to show.