Contador acquitted

[Colm.Murphy]

Yes, I sure was! Inconsequential picograms of clenbuterol IS NOT bags full of stale blood. When everybody learns to start differentiating what falls under the general umbrella of "Doping" we will all be better off. Until then, it's all the Big Joke I mentioned earlier.
Let me ask you this. Going back a few years, If Vaughters had clandestinely taken some benadryl(or whatever the anti inflammatory was) to reduce the swelling around his closed eye, after a bee sting, so that he could finish his first TdF, and lets say he had been tested, and busted for that dose of BENADRYL. Would he have gone into the "Doper" Hall of Shame?? Like I said, it's a joke.
Call me a hypocrite if you need to. It's like water off a ducks back.
In fact, if I get a lot of feedback, maybe I'll change user name to Hippocrit to satisfy the name calling. I'm sorry I can't take it as bitterly as some folks here do. I'm just a spectator, there are many more important things in my life.

You're barking at the wrong crowd. You've missed the point and don't seem to grasp the issues, either with your arguments or within the sport.

Why don't you go attend to those things in your life that are more important?

 

[Finbouy]

I'm going to celebrate that he's been let off, I'm going to celebrate that he can ride, I'm going to celebrate the fact that I can see him riding hard on his bike and I'm sure as hell gonna enjoy watching him in the TdF..

Whooooop!!

 

[Colm.Murphy]

I agree that the plasticizer finding is interesting but the fact of the matter is that if you were tested for plasticizers right now you would test positive...the test needs to be refined to show what levels people will have once they have been hooked up to IV tubing and bags.

This is not true.

It is not about "finding" plasticizer, it is about finding dramatic spikes and fluctuations in plasticizer. It is not true that "you would test positive right now".

The theory for the test principle is that changes in concentrations of plasticizers come from specific sources, of which most would be considered against the WADA code, unless there was a medically necessary need that can explain the spike(s). The test developers, scientists and doctors, already know what levels occur when a person gets an IV, or a transfusion, as well as base environmental exposure levels present in modern living. The fine tuning of the test is in validating the various profiles and standards/departures relative to the different types of plasticizers and fluid types, as saline and blood leech different molecules at different rates.

 

[richwagmn]

This is not true.

It is not about "finding" plasticizer, it is about finding dramatic spikes and fluctuations in plasticizer. It is not true that "you would test positive right now".

The theory for the test principle is that changes in concentrations of plasticizers come from specific sources, of which most would be considered against the WADA code, unless there was a medically necessary need that can explain the spike(s).

We have ZERO hard evidence on plasticizer in AC's blood. Nada, nothing, zilch. Until this result is released, we just don't know.

Am I absolving AC? No. But people talk of the plasticizer finding as if it's a fact. So far I've seen nothing but rumors.

 

[Aguirre]

the question is, how much UCI and WADA risks appealing to CAS? A lot, I highly doubt they will appeal if there is a chance they can lost the case.

And right now, AC has done a great job, even considering UCI's first call in august was about food contamination being plausible, then?

 

[nowhereman]

What a mess.

Months later and all it adds up to that everyone who had a theory or a conspiracy going in has been given enough cause to be even more "ever so totally convinced" that they were right, even if some of the theories in this thread are diametrically opposed.

Meanwhile, actual facts on the ground are still very thin. We are still speculating about the procedure -or trying to figure out- the actual rules that affect the case, who did what when, the actual defence, even the content actual findings, advice, etc.

I find it nigh impossible to come to any opinion how much justice is done here. From both an employment law pov, cycling rules pov and a doping pov. [I fear that my suspicions about the latter are on slightly firmer ground though, but ultimately speculative to a large degree too].

If the blood passport is used by Contador as a defence, that pretty much buries the usefulness of that program. Whoever takes this to arbitration would have to argue that complying dots don't mean a clean rider, but odd dots do suggest a doper. So "over the year" it really means nada, despite the fanfare with which it is paraded about. A lot of costs for not much (although I do credit it -my impression- that it has capped excessive doping to some extent).

if it is true that the UCI had expert papers that eliminated all but a contaminated steak and that that didn't make it to the defense team, wow. Either someone completely messed up due process, or was trying to withhold crucial defence, assuming that the papers that were passed on kept a positive as a result of blood doping firmly on the table as the only realistic option here. Either way is bad bad bad.

if it is true that clen (and other zero tolerance substances) is actually present in trace amounts that can give genuine innocent folk positives as suggested by lab directors, and WADA and the UCI is still not adjusting it rules to match the level of detection now possible, or the ad-hoc testing environment, or addresses the fact that some people are tested to much tighter controls than others, and the victory baton can be passed onto someone who might well have failed the same level of tests, or that the rules itself might well breach EU employment law...... phhhhhhhhhhhhh.

I will await the exact facts on what "got him off the hook" (for now). But it sure looks like Contador got away with fiddling at the margins (I suspect). And he would have stayed well within the margins if not for all but one giant self-inflicted ****-up.

That doesn't affect my conviction that the standards for "positives" should be set at a level that makes false positives impossible. And that everyone is tested to the standards. And that there should be a reasonable chance that a doper is nailed to start with, rather than this incidental scape-goating.

Zero-tolerance rules, when we can now peek at individual atoms, will also need to be brought into the 21st century. Pronto.

I am still not clear if the clen tests on cattle is done to the same standard that is applied to Contador (I doubt it). So 20,000 clean tests might not be what it seems at all. Even if clen isn't applied directly to cattle, it might well have been applied and mixed up into the stuff that they get fed, as god knows what actually happens in the Hakuna Matata food circle of intense farming life these days.

[Even if this might well be just a side note in this sage] We can only have rules that make sense for the environment that we live in. I have lost all confidence that the current rules match that criteria.

Anyhoo. Another moment when not a lot of parties look good. They all came out with fingers burnt and black marks against them, I think. Not a good day for the sport, whichever way you turn it. I just hope lessons are learned and something constructive will come out of it. I suspect that will be a lot less than needed, given past experiences with "watershed" doping moments in cycling.

Francois, You are THE MAN! Loved that post. Lots of circumspect thought, some humor, and all of it, right on the money. And may I say I totally agree with you, in regard to a need to revise the rules to bring anti doping into the 21st century! Bravo! well spoken!

 

[Saint ATN]

What a joke.

Can't really disagree with this. With the ongoing issue of what to believe with the issue of doping this one confounds me. I don't believe him or that the sport can really stop doping. I want to believe it, but as soon as I do, another doper falls into the media spotlight. The black eye continues on our sport.

Reading articles like this
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/7...ors-expected-clearing-of-doping-charges.aspx?

leaves me skeptical of his presumed innocence or guilt for that matter. Without clarity or clarifying and escaping on technicalities, it does not leave me with a feeling that he is innocent.

I don't know what to believe, but I believe his clearance was more political then science, as science is still playing catch up and the peleton is still trying to stay one step ahead of it all.

 

[jaylew]

my opinion is nuanced and was explained before in many threads. here's the summary...

-the whole 1-year suspension is clearly contradictory to the applicable wada rule. 1-year suspension implies no significant negligence or fault but this is a case of no fault or fault (long story, but a steak purchased in europe unlike a supplement or a mexican or chinese steak can not be attributed to limited liability on simple odds of eu meat testing results)

- the weakness of blood transfusion theory, provided the plasticizer test has never been 'officalized', looks plausible (plausable does not mean there was no transfusion) based on 5 expert opinions about his passport
- other routes, like a supplement or an intentional microdosing with clen, are easy to show not being consistent with the evidence, therapeutic doses, and the timing of the tests...

This whole thing is due to WADA's incompetence. Having no minimum threshold on a substance with known food contamination issues is stupid. It ensares the innocent who travel to places like Mexico, and it allows the guilty in countries without contamination problems to claim that they too are victims. The Cologne lab warned that the ever more sensitive limits of detection could causes problems. WADA did nothing. Now the anti-doping framework looks foolish and unfair.

i condemn those that use epo cera when the others arent using that just like i condemn anyone that was using something unique\very rare.

but 50pico of clen? bust him for something that's worth.
not only that, do you want andy as the winner?

These come closest to how I feel. I think it's entirely possible that intentional doping was involved somehow (blood transfusion), but bust him for that if you can prove it. I'm all for a 2-year ban if blood doping can be proven, but not for an amount of Clen that wouldn't have done anything for him.

And don't forget hair that isn't cut, like pubic hair.

I don't know. These days, a lot of guys do a little manscaping.

 

[auscyclefan94]

I am ****ed but not surprised. This is an absolute farce. I hope he is taken to court and banned. His defence is totally not plausible and he hasn't proved otherwise why the clen is in his system. A 1 year ban was pretty good. I don't see how it is different to any other case. His defence is less plausible than Fuyu Li's. More riders would be testing positive to this substance if it were really the case about Clen.

 

[RGScales]

Yes, I understand that, I was replying to Snipers thoughts about the plasticizer test being a smoking gun (not hating on Sniper) in and of itself. I was simply trying to point out that all we have heard is that plasticizers were found in his body...and that its not saying much until we know more about it.

 

[Señor_Contador]

Have you read the RFEC's ruling proposal?

The Real Federación Española de Ciclismo came out with a ruling proposal??? That's news to me. Are you sure you're not talking about AC's alegations to the RFEC? I don't think the RFEC is in the business of proposing rules, it makes decisions (rules) and expects its afiliates to either accept them or appeal them.

It says the UCI and the RFEC considered four theories: food contamination, blood transfusion, clen microdosing and supplements.

I definitely think you're talking about Alberto's alegations to the RFEC.

It also says the three latter theories were found to be highly improbable or impossible, so that only the food contamination theory stood. Allegedly, they examined and tested these hypotheses. The ruling proposal said Contador hadn't proved it was food contamination, but the whole point is he's getting off because the alternative hypotheses were dismissed. This is why we're talking about transfusions here, and the plasticizers test has NOTHING to do with this. Contador's passport wasn't the reason why the blood transfusion theory was ruled out.

First of all, put it all in perspective here because I think we're mixing things up. First of all, Alberto Contador tested positive for clenbuterol. Initially, his strategy was solely based on proving to the UCI that 1) there was a contaminated steak out there, 2) that it was purchased in a butcher shop in Spain, and 3) that he had a receipt for the steak(s). When the UCI didn't buy the alegations and passed the case to the RFEC (along with a penalty recommendation), Alberto's strategy changed to proving how the other hypothesis being discussed amongst the public and experts (but not the UCI or the RFEC) were not plausible, so as to make his case more credible.

And this is where the issue of the transfusion comes into play, because Alberto knew that 1) the plasticizers test was not going to be taken into account (for obvious reasons), and 2) that the blood passports was not indicative of anything out of the ordinary. And this is where I came in... And you guys "attacked" me.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

We have ZERO hard evidence on plasticizer in AC's blood. Nada, nothing, zilch. Until this result is released, we just don't know.

Am I absolving AC? No. But people talk of the plasticizer finding as if it's a fact. So far I've seen nothing but rumors.

I am making no claim about plasticizer relative to AC. I was replying to the poster who seemed confused over what a plasticizer test is or what is would do.

Regarding AC, what I have heard, from a very accurate (so far) and trusted source (again, so far) is that AC's urine has been subjected to the plasticizer review (not technically a test yet) and it indicates a spike in plasticizer that would coincide with what most scientist believe indicate a blood transfusion.

The risk for AC is that the test gets validated for immediate use and he gets hammered on that as this plays out. Not going to end well for AC, no matter what RFEC decides.

 

[Cobblestones]

Inconsequential picograms of clenbuterol IS NOT bags full of stale blood.

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.

 

[Christian]

How long do the appeals to the CAS usually take (regardless of the outcome)? I seem to remember Valverde's took pretty long.

Sad, sad - I was hoping at least to get an open Paris-Nice ...

 

[Sofía_]

a sad day for the cycling community

 

[Barrus]

Thank you Friebe
My argument a lot better articulated:

My feeling is that this case (and more generally article 296 of the UCI’s regulations) sets an extremely dangerous precedent. The UCI couldn’t show conclusively that Contador had deliberately taken clenbuterol? OK, does that mean the same now applies when a rider tests positive for EPO? Does the testing or judging authority now have to produce a blood-spattered syringe as well as the electropherogram that used to suffice?

Or am I missing something here? Because if I’m not, the days of parched Tour de France riders declining the water-bottles handed to them by spectators on Alpine and Pyreneen climbs could be a thing of the past; whereas once a contaminated drink was those riders’ greatest fear, now it could be the perfect, fictitious alibi for a positive test.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/media-reactions-to-contadors-clearing-on-doping-charges

 

[sniper]

We have ZERO hard evidence on plasticizer in AC's blood. Nada, nothing, zilch. Until this result is released, we just don't know.

Am I absolving AC? No. But people talk of the plasticizer finding as if it's a fact. So far I've seen nothing but rumors.

-1
nobody talks of it as a fact. not even me.

I am making no claim about plasticizer relative to AC. I was replying to the poster who seemed confused over what a plasticizer test is or what is would do.

Regarding AC, what I have heard, from a very accurate (so far) and trusted source (again, so far) is that AC's urine has been subjected to the plasticizer review (not technically a test yet) and it indicates a spike in plasticizer that would coincide with what most scientist believe indicate a blood transfusion.

The risk for AC is that the test gets validated for immediate use and he gets hammered on that as this plays out. Not going to end well for AC, no matter what RFEC decides.

+1
note that this was also the initial rumor. still, some here try to silence everybody who even speculates about it.

 

[Rominger]

I have been a cyclist for over 20 years now and always as a huge fan of the professionals, this is too much for me to stomach and I have lived through the real ****... Festina, Telekom, Puerto, Hamilton, Flandis, etc... the man is guilty and has gotten off on a technicality (until the appeal to WADA at least) if he is in the Tour this year it will be the first time since 1987 that I do not watch it. I suspect that alot of pros are not racing on bread and water alone but I can kid myself when it is just a suspicion, however, to be caught and still get more money in a year than I will earn as a teacher in my life means that there is something very rotten in the state of Denmark. I would hate to turn my back on the sport which has given me so much pleasure for so long but if he rides then so do I... away from any television coverage of any race here his name in on the start sheet. So what? he may say, but if enough fans do this the sponsors will leave and cycling will be forced to face its demons and as a sport do the right thing.

 

[Digger]

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.

Great post thank you.

 

[Publicus]

I am making no claim about plasticizer relative to AC. I was replying to the poster who seemed confused over what a plasticizer test is or what is would do.

Regarding AC, what I have heard, from a very accurate (so far) and trusted source (again, so far) is that AC's urine has been subjected to the plasticizer review (not technically a test yet) and it indicates a spike in plasticizer that would coincide with what most scientist believe indicate a blood transfusion.

The risk for AC is that the test gets validated for immediate use and he gets hammered on that as this plays out. Not going to end well for AC, no matter what RFEC decides.

I think this is the biggest risk for AC and everyone else that finished in the top 10 at the TdF.

EDIT: Let me co-sign, great post by Cobblestones--especially shedding some more light on the plasticizers issue.

 

[Peterg]

All you guys/girls; I know you just LOVE posting & ranting, but would like to remind you that, in LAW, the presumption is INNOCENCE!!
It's time we started to apply this to athletes.
If Contador is guilty of something, prove it BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT, *** edited by mod ***

 

[sniper]

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.

splendid indeed.
and parts of this were indeed already known, but silenced about by AC-loverboys.

 

[Señor_Contador]

All you guys/girls; I know you just LOVE posting & ranting, but would like to remind you that, in LAW, the presumption is INNOCENCE!!
It's time we started to apply this to athletes.
If Contador is guilty of something, prove it BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT, or F**k off, stop whining, & get out & ride your bikes more instead of sitting around all day typing ****!

Although I can't agree with you more... what I find terribly insulting from cycling fans, some of whom probably haven't ridden their bicycles since Nixon was president, is how quickly they turn their backs on the cyclists.

To me, people like Landis, Hamilton, Contador, Pantani or Ulrich are still heros. I don't really care what they took to get to where they got. I really don't.

 

[Rominger]

All you guys/girls; I know you just LOVE posting & ranting, but would like to remind you that, in LAW, the presumption is INNOCENCE!!
It's time we started to apply this to athletes.
If Contador is guilty of something, prove it BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT, or F**k off, stop whining, & get out & ride your bikes more instead of sitting around all day typing ****!

Indeed, until proven guilty by something like... oh I dont know.... a positive test maybe? He had his reasonable doubt when he was implicated in Puerto, will it take him coming to see you with a needle in his arm and a bag of blood on the other end?

 

[Lanark]

Thank you Friebe
My argument a lot better articulated:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/media-reactions-to-contadors-clearing-on-doping-charges

There is no dangerous precedent. Article 296 only applies in extremely rare circumstances. The rider has to prove how the prohibited substance got in his system, and the method where he got the substance in his body showed no fault or negligence on his part.

He is wrong when he says that Contador isn't suspended because the UCI couldn't prove that it wasn't meat contamination. Contador was aquitted because the RFEC thinks that meat contamination is, based on the evidence produced by Contador, the most likely cause of the clenbuterol in his system. His EPO-example doesn't hold. The UCI doesn't have to prove anything beyond the positive test, if someone wanted to use article 296 in an EPO-positive he would have to prove (for example) that a competitor sneaked in his room and injected him with EPO.