Contador acquitted

[Publicus]

I remember 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.

If I am reading your comment correctly, Barca KNEW LeMonde made the accusation--which would mean that the source was not unknown.

 

[JPM London]

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.

I don't think the liability thing holds water - AFAIK they'd have to corroborate the info with an additional source. Otherwise it'd be perfectly ok for all kinds of media to publish anything if they could just get anyone to say anything.

 

[sniper]

If I am reading your comment correctly, Barca KNEW LeMonde made the accusation--which would mean that the source was not unknown.

The source for the LeMonde-article (and the accusations expressed therein) was anonymous, just as the source for the humo-article. I don'T see much of a difference there.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

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.

Sorry for your confusion. I thought I qualified my view by stating "mostly useless"... Yes, blood can be frozen. Though doing so renders any examination of the red blood cell population useless, which to my view is quite important as the evidence of a transfusion would need to come from, or be supported by, his blood profile. Also, they would not look for clen in blood, or plasma. That is not the approved test, and rather useless given the clearance rate of clen from the blood, which I read is about 2-3 days, since I was paying attention.

Yes, the clen detection is part of the urine test. Metabolites of the clen. Don't act like you are the only one with any sense of things, or who pays attention. Smugness doe not fit you very well.

 

[Publicus]

I don't think the liability thing holds water - AFAIK they'd have to corroborate the info with an additional source. Otherwise it'd be perfectly ok for all kinds of media to publish anything if they could just get anyone to say anything.

That's not true here in the States, the limit of my knowledge on the legal rights of the press and defamation.

 

[Publicus]

The source for the LeMonde-article (and the accusations expressed therein) was anonymous, just as the source for the humo-article. I don'T see much of a difference there.

My bad, I read LeMonde and thought Greg. Fair point.

EDIT: I just read a poorly translated version of the Le Monde story and I can see why they were sued. It doesn't contain any allegations, as far as I can tell, from an individual. Le Monde claimed to have access to certain documents establishing a link between Fuentes and couple of football teams. That would be like HUMO publishing an article saying that it documents establishing that AC took clen on these particular days. The source of the allegations, in both cases, would be known: the publisher.

But that's based on my reading of an admittedly bad translation. If someone has a cleaner summary of the facts of the Le Monde case, then please pass it along. Thanks in advance.

 

[webvan]

In any case the bottom line is that it's just gesturing and idle threats from the Contador camp...Clearly if that story had been totally fabricated they would have sued immediately, even if that meant being rebuked in court for legal reasons (protection of sources for instance). Just like the "hair test" that they didn't deem necessary to do but that wouldn't have hurt if it had come back negative.

I'm surprised no one was able to find that guy. You'd think that there are a limited number of Flemish speaking guys in the Astana entourage...

As for the fanboys in blind denial who claim the story was never printed, it was, read this thread http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=10540&page=44

 

[Publicus]

In any case the bottom line is that it's just gesturing and idle threats from the Contador camp...Clearly if that story had been totally fabricated they would have sued immediately, even if that meant being rebuked in court for legal reasons (protection of sources for instance). Just like the "hair test" that they didn't deem necessary to do but that wouldn't have hurt if it had come back negative.

I'm surprised no one was able to find that guy. You'd think that there are a limited number of Flemish speaking guys in the Astana entourage...

As for the fanboys in blind denial who claim the story was never printed, it was, read this thread http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=10540&page=44

That's just not how lawsuits work. All sorts of folks would like to suit 'x' or 'y' or 'z' but chose not to because of valid factors. From what I can tell, unless the source steps forward, any lawsuit would be a waste of time and resources (resources that are needed to defend against the sanction) if all it did was validate his resolve to folks in this forum.

As for the hair test, Ovtcharov HAD to do it, since he wasn't tested regularly (and certainly nothing like a professional cyclist of AC's caliber), did not have a bio-passport and was not tested in and around the test, all of which were present in AC's case.

 

[python]

Sorry for your confusion.

clearly you are not only confused regarding testing technical details but self-righteously so. and because you refuse to doubt your own ignorant writing, i will take some time debunking it here.

In your post # 1327 you used a phrase that was supposed to mean irony as if you knew something special. in fact, you don't. ..

Your words:

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

this is patently misleading and false. the article referred to both freezing urine and blood samples. it’s an absolutely valid and correct statement. you are misleading because urine samples are frozen everyday and it’s normal practice. false, because as i explained above, blood consists of several components, each of which can be frozen for very long storage depending on the tests desired. this includes red blood cells. if you did not know that freezing red blood cells the right way is not going to render them useless, including for things like hct and hg, you are ignorant and owe yourself some reading about nitrogen-glycerol method of storing rbcs. yes it can be used with blood samples and don catlin proposed this method to armstrong when the Texan hired him. so what contador proposed, is perfectly doable. it‘s another matter if he‘ll be taken on by wada and if he is bluffing.

Don't act like you are the only one with any sense of things, or who pays attention.

clearly as i showed above the acting was attempted by you, not me. you did not know that rbc can be frozen and retested if required at later dates. that’s why i suggested you pay attention. I tried to caution you another time, when you went on and on about testing Armstrong’s 99 samples for dehp - a blood transfusion test having nothing to do with 99 samples - (which, luckily, you realized was a confusion). it’s one thing to come up with zingy thread titles that deservedly get attention, and it's quite another, to poke irony with catchy pictures, on the basis of faulty knowledge.

 

[sniper]

That's just not how lawsuits work. All sorts of folks would like to suit 'x' or 'y' or 'z' but chose not to because of valid factors. From what I can tell, unless the source steps forward, any lawsuit would be a waste of time and resources (resources that are needed to defend against the sanction) if all it did was validate his resolve to folks in this forum.

As for the hair test, Ovtcharov HAD to do it, since he wasn't tested regularly (and certainly nothing like a professional cyclist of AC's caliber), did not have a bio-passport and was not tested in and around the test, all of which were present in AC's case.

I might agree with your first point. but definitely not with the second.

A positive hairtest is as waterproof as it gets. it would silence all of us critics.
If AC is so concerned about his repuatation as he just said he is (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contador-this-scar-will-stay-with-me-forever), then why on earth no hairtest?

 

[D-Queued]

clearly you are not only confused regarding testing technical details but self-righteously so. and because you refuse to doubt your own ignorant writing, i will take some time debunking it here.

In your post # 1327 you used a phrase that was supposed to mean irony as if you knew something special. in fact, you don't. ..

Your words:
this is patently misleading and false. the article referred to both freezing urine and blood samples. it’s an absolutely valid and correct statement. you are misleading because urine samples are frozen everyday and it’s normal practice. false, because as i explained above, blood consists of several components, each of which can be frozen for very long storage depending on the tests desired. this includes red blood cells. if you did not know that freezing red blood cells the right way is not going to render them useless, including for things like hct and hg, you are ignorant and owe yourself some reading about nitrogen-glycerol method of storing rbcs. yes it can be used with blood samples and don catlin proposed this method to armstrong when the Texan hired him. so what contador proposed, is perfectly doable. it‘s another matter if he‘ll be taken on by wada and if he is bluffing.

clearly as i showed above the acting was attempted by you, not me. you did not know that rbc can be frozen and retested if required at later dates. that’s why i suggested you pay attention. I tried to caution you another time, when you went on and on about testing Armstrong’s 99 samples for dehp - a blood transfusion test having nothing to do with 99 samples - (which, luckily, you realized was a confusion). it’s one thing to come up with zingy thread titles that deservedly get attention, and it's quite another, to poke irony with catchy pictures, on the basis of faulty knowledge.

Easy python... there may be some confusion with respect to Tyler's frozen Olympic B sample which was rendered unusable (denatured?) through freezing:

Two days after the announcement of his positive test at Athens, the IOC announced Hamilton would keep his medal because results could not be obtained from the second sample. The Athens lab had frozen the backup, which made it impossible to repeat the test

Arguably, even your explanation is an over-simplification. Yes, blood can be frozen - but only within a certain temp range.

Dave.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Easy python... there may be some confusion with respect to Tyler's frozen Olympic B sample which was rendered unusable (denatured?) through freezing:

Two days after the announcement of his positive test at Athens, the IOC announced Hamilton would keep his medal because results could not be obtained from the second sample. The Athens lab had frozen the backup, which made it impossible to repeat the test

Arguably, even your explanation is an over-simplification. Yes, blood can be frozen - but only within a certain temp range.

Dave.

It has been such a long time since that happened. Frozen samples can be damaged from what you have pointed out in your post.

I guess there is no other way to long term store samples? Irradiation would damage them also?

Anyhow those are some loose words by the ToyPistol. He just wants the appearance that he is willing to undergo any testing.

 

[Publicus]

I might agree with your first point. but definitely not with the second.

A positive hairtest is as waterproof as it gets. it would silence all of us critics.
If AC is so concerned about his repuatation as he just said he is (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contador-this-scar-will-stay-with-me-forever), then why on earth no hairtest?

I guess I would look at it like this: if I am relying on negative tests from prior periods and the bio-passport to establish that I did not transfuse, why on earth would I raise the implication that those tests are inadequate (in that the fact they are negative does not mean that I was not doping) by taking another test???? If those tests are sufficient to sanction a rider in the absence of a positive test, then surely they are surely sufficient to establish that a rider is clean. [Not that I believe that, that's just the argument I would make]

And again, in Ovtcharov's case, he didn't have a lot of test in the relevant window he could point to establish that he was not using over some earlier period. The hair test was really all that was available to him to make the point.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I guess I would look at it like this: if I am relying on negative tests from prior periods and the bio-passport to establish that I did not transfuse, why on earth would I raise the implication that those tests are inadequate to establish that I was clean before????

From what we see and read anyone can claim that their Biopassport is clean. I doubt ToyPistol’s passport is 100% proof CLEAN. Hell according to some experts on this thread there is only 1 or 2 forum members who can read and comprehend what is going on with all the reports etc.

 

[Publicus]

From what we see and read anyone can claim that their Biopassport is clean. I doubt ToyPistol’s passport is 100% proof CLEAN. Hell according to some experts on this thread there is only 1 or 2 forum members who can read and comprehend what is going on with all the reports etc.

UCI and WADA will have a difficult time arguing against the bio-passport unless they have existing data that suggest AC was being targeted for suspicious values (a la Pellizotti). I'm not saying it is impossible, I just think it will require a combination of legal and scientific gymnastic and a bit of needle threading to do so without compromising the validity of the passport going forward.

 

[Escarabajo]

I guess I would look at it like this: if I am relying on negative tests from prior periods and the bio-passport to establish that I did not transfuse, why on earth would I raise the implication that those tests are inadequate (in that the fact they are negative does not mean that I was not doping) by taking another test???? If those tests are sufficient to sanction a rider in the absence of a positive test, then surely they are surely sufficient to establish that a rider is clean. [Not that I believe that, that's just the argument I would make]

And again, in Ovtcharov's case, he didn't have a lot of test in the relevant window he could point to establish that he was not using over some earlier period. The hair test was really all that was available to him to make the point.

I won't say that the hair test would be inadequate, it is just a different type of test that would increase the probability of success and the certainty of him not being a Clen abuser.

It would be an added bonus to his defense, don't you think?

It makes me wonder why he did not want it from the beginning.:confused

 

[python]

Easy python... there may be some confusion with respect to Tyler's frozen t[/URL]

where did you see me taliking about tyler frozen samples in my respoce to colm

i explicitly mentioned catlin's offer to armstrong to freeze his samples to posterior use.

i'll spare you reading, dave, read just a post or two above. tyler's b-sample test failure (a test for homologus blood transfusion) has nothing to do with armstrong's example i gave. tyler's case in athens had to do with improper sample handling (freezing it in stead of keeping it at 2C, that destroyed rbcs needed for flow cytometry). what catlin offered to texas was freezing his blood samples by using nytrogen-glycerol method for posterior testing in case new tests come up. exatctly the same what the article says contador offered.

 

[sniper]

I guess I would look at it like this: if I am relying on negative tests from prior periods and the bio-passport to establish that I did not transfuse, why on earth would I raise the implication that those tests are inadequate (in that the fact they are negative does not mean that I was not doping) by taking another test???? If those tests are sufficient to sanction a rider in the absence of a positive test, then surely they are surely sufficient to establish that a rider is clean. [Not that I believe that, that's just the argument I would make]

And again, in Ovtcharov's case, he didn't have a lot of test in the relevant window he could point to establish that he was not using over some earlier period. The hair test was really all that was available to him to make the point.

I like how you exclude sentiments from your reasoning and keep it strictly legal. You might be right when you say that a hairtest wouldn't have helped AC in any legal way.

However, I agree with Escarabajo, in that a negative hairtest would have given AC a lot of options in terms of PR management. He could have fully exploited the parallel to Ovtcharov's acquittal in support of his innocence.

For me, the fact that AC doesn't have a hairtest speaks volumes. Well, not legally, but in terms of credibility.
On the other hand, credibility in and by itself doesn't count much in the juditial system.

 

[Publicus]

I won't say that the hair test would be inadequate, it is just a different type of test that would increase the probability of success and the certainty of him not being a Clen abuser.

It would be an added bonus to his defense, don't you think?

It makes me wonder why he did not want it from the beginning.:confused

I'm not saying the hair test is inadequate. I'm saying that introducing a new test would cast doubt on the other blood tests and urine tests he was subjected to prior to the Tour and over the course of 2010. Unlike Ovtcharov, he also has to establish that he wasn't micro-dosing or transfusing, and he's relying on the bio-passport and those other tests to establish that. Instead of arguing over the accuracy of the hair test, he can point to the results of tests conducted by the UCI at WADA approved laboratories at a time when he was not trying to prove his innocence. The bio-passport and his previous negative results are, to my mind, the linchpin of his defense, and frankly it puts the UCI and WADA in the odd position of arguing that a negative is not proof that he was clean, or in the case of his bio-passport, that the absence of suspicious fluctuations doesn't mean that he wasn't transfusing.

Plus, recall when he was notified of the positive--almost a month after the sample was taken (if I recall correctly). It is also possible that the window for the hair test to prove conclusively that he was not a clen abuser had already passed or that he had gotten a haircut in the interim. All of that is speculation and I have no idea if it has any merit or any bearing on their decision not to conduct a hair test. I just don't find the absence of the test all that odd.

 

[Publicus]

I like how you exclude sentiments from your reasoning and keep it strictly legal. You might be right when you say that a hairtest wouldn't have helped AC in any legal way.

However, I agree with Escarabajo, in that a negative hairtest would have given AC a lot of options in terms of PR management. He could have fully exploited the parallel to Ovtcharov's acquittal in support of his innocence.

For me, the fact that AC doesn't have a hairtest speaks volumes. Well, not legally, but in terms of credibility.
On the other hand, credibility in and by itself doesn't count much in the juditial system.

Thanks. I try to keep this as objective as possible. We are all discussing this in a considerable knowledge vacuum, so no point in getting huffy about my opinion.

IMO, the hair test shouldn't in any way impact AC's credibility. It's not a UCI/WADA mandated test so the fact that he didn't conduct one is irrelevant in my opinion. If a hair test were mandated, or if they approached him for a sample and he refused, that would be a significant basis to question AC's credibility. Seems to me that either the UCI or WADA could have simply asked him for a hair sample.

I don't think AC could have fully exploited the Ovtcharov's case any better than he has done so far unless the steak was shipped in from Mexico, Argentina or China. The fact would remain, that folks would question the probability that one can eat a clen tainted piece of meat in the EU, especially when the athlete participates in a sport with such an advance reliance on blood transfusions and micro-dosing--I can't see a table tennis player needing to do either.

 

[Hugh Januss]

If Contador knew that a hair test would be negative because he knew that he had not used clen. earlier in the year then it would be stupid not to have it done, even if it only bolstered the rest of his case a little bit. The only reason I can see for his not having the test done would be that he was afraid of what it might show. That is where it hurts his credibility.

 

[Publicus]

If Contador knew that a hair test would be negative because he knew that he had not used clen. earlier in the year then it would be stupid not to have it done, even if it only bolstered the rest of his case a little bit. The only reason I can see for his not having the test done would be that he was afraid of what it might show. That is where it hurts his credibility.

Well I guess it's a good thing he wasn't presenting his case to the Clinic.

 

[D-Queued]

where did you see me taliking about tyler frozen samples in my respoce to colm

i explicitly mentioned catlin's offer to armstrong to freeze his samples to posterior use.

i'll spare you reading, dave, read just a post or two above. tyler's b-sample test failure (a test for homologus blood transfusion) has nothing to do with armstrong's example i gave. tyler's case in athens had to do with improper sample handling (freezing it in stead of keeping it at 2C, that destroyed rbcs needed for flow cytometry). what catlin offered to texas was freezing his blood samples by using nytrogen-glycerol method for posterior testing in case new tests come up. exatctly the same what the article says contador offered.

You misunderestimated me.

I applaud your knowledge of the subject matter.

I was just suggesting that Colm could have had a recollection (even unwitting) that was based on incidents around Tyler.

I know I get confused about what you can and cannot do... a picture would help:

From Wikipedia:

Routine blood storage is limited to 21 days at 1°-6°C when treated with ACD, CPD or CP2D and 35 days when treated with CPDA1 (5 for WB, 6 for RBC), and involves refrigeration but usually not freezing

Units of WB and RBC are both kept refrigerated at 1-6 C, with maximum permitted storage periods (shelf lives) of 35 and 42 days respectively.

Red Blood Cell units can also be frozen when buffered with glycerol, but this is an expensive and time consuming process, and is rarely done. Frozen red cells are given an expiration date of up to 10 years and are stored at -65C

Platelets are stored at room temperature (20-24C) and must be agitated

Dave.

 

[python]

You misunderestimated me.

I applaud your knowledge of the subject matter.

i appreciate the compliment but there is nothing i stated about long-term storage of red blood cells that hasn't been discussed for years and known for years. in fact, (i have to put this in big fat letters because even after mentioning it 4 times already somehow it gets no notice

nitrogen-glycerol method of storing rbcs
nitrogen-glycerol method of storing rbcs
nitrogen-glycerol method of storing rbcs

I was just suggesting that Colm could have had a recollection (even unwitting) that was based on incidents around Tyler.

whatever you or colm may have had recollected or alluded to has nothing to do with the armstrong-catlin example i cited. tyler example is useless, his case is different. i explained it.

From Wikipedia:

again, only the last part of the wiki example is applicable here.

edit: the last example refers to the nitrogen-glycerol method i keep talking about. rbc are soaked in glycerol so that they don't burst and then frozen to around 70C. i read there are 2-3 major methods.

 

[Merckx index]

the three-time Tour de France winner revealed that the saga left him unable to sleep and even losing his hair

Well, at least I know a good purpose that that lost hair could have been put to.

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.

As LMG notes, covered here before. The answer IMO is probably no. That is, IF he took enough CB before/during blood withdrawal to show up at 50 pg/ml in his urine following transfusion, then PROBABLY he would test positive during this period of CB use. As I discussed earlier, a rough estimate is 40 ug daily dose for several days, or 50-60 ug single dose. To make this very clear, he could NOT have waited for the CB to clear his body before withdrawal; if he had done this, a transfusion would not have resulted in 50 pg/ml in his urine. He must have withdrawn the blood while he was using the CB or very soon after he stopped using it. As LMG has pointed out, the relatively low blood levels of CB during usage may have lulled athletes into thinking they can withdraw blood while they are taking the drug. The CB test is carried out on urine, which has a considerably higher concentration than blood beginning some hours after first use and maintained that way throughout use and withdrawal.

In the former case (40 ug daily dose), he would be vulnerable to a positive test throughout the period he was taking CB ( I would guess at least a week), plus at least three days following termination of the program. In the latter case (single somewhat higher dose), the window of testing vulnerability would be very short, just a few days, but probably a single dose wouldn’t help him much with weight loss. I agree with LMG that CB probably is not micro-dosed in the usual sense of that term, certainly not in the way EPO can be. In any case, IMO, if he had used doses much lower than what I have stated here, a blood withdrawal/transfusion would not have resulted in the positive CB test at the Tour.

Whether he could escape detection does depend on the sensitivity of the CB test.If the 2 ng/ml minimum required level was all that was detected, then he might have snuck through. That is, he might have avoided a positive test conducted, say, a day or two after a single dose, or even a day or two after a daily routine was stopped. But even then, unlikely, IMO. And if he was taking CB regularly for a period of time, I would think it highly unlikely that a test during that period would not be positive.

I tend to agree with another poster who said that if Bert had been tested for CB during this critical period in June, it would have been mentioned in the RFEC report,, and/or come out before now. It is a very critical piece of evidence, it could be a game-changer in his case. I am definitely on the skeptic side, and I would be very impressed if it turned out he had passed a CB test between the DL and the Tour. But like other posters here, I interpret “before” the Tour in the interview as ambiguous. Right before the Tour? Doesn’t help much. A week or more before? Helps a lot.

To speculate a little, I would think that he if were going to withdraw blood, it would be immediately after the DL, for two reasons. First, he was tested during that race, you would think they would not test him for at least a little while after, when he is not in competition. And second, he needs to give his body as much time as possible to recover the lost blood before the Tour starts. Of course, his HT would presumably be a little depressed after the DL, so he might want to wait a couple of days for a little recovery. But I'm thinking a CB test in the ten days following the DL would be of maximum help for his case.

If those tests are sufficient to sanction a rider in the absence of a positive test, then surely they are surely sufficient to establish that a rider is clean.

That’s faulty logic. It does not necessarily follow that if all suspicious passports indicate blood doping, then all blood doping results in suspicious passports. In a legal sense there is a relationship that can be exploited for his benefit, but a negative passport is never proof of no doping. Floyd explained how the test is beaten.