Contador acquitted

[FGimondi]

To quote the unforgettable words of Ian Hislop; If this is justice, I'm a banana!

 

[Cobblestones]

I'll play along as soon as someone shows me the sampling error, especially for the region where the beef was raised/slaughtered--and I'm almost certain it is higher than you expect (small sample sizes produce large sampling errors).

Listen, I'm not defending Alberto or his argument any further than to say it remains plausible, however unlikely folks may contend that it is.

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

 

[Merckx index]

Don't disagree. Just pointing out that it is never, ever, ever, ever zero. And so far as I know, no one has provided the sampling error. So it's difficult to assess how accurate the very small ratio actually is, especially when you drill down into the unique data sets.

That is good news for me! I now realize that the chance of someone of my age and athletic ability winning the TDF is never, ever, ever, ever zero. Particularly since the sampling error for my age group is so large. So if I claim to someone who has not followed the TDF closely that I once won it, and they look at me in disbelief, I will refer them to your post.

OTOH, as a scientist, I have never, ever, ever, ever heard of a 1/20,000 overall chance (based on a sample size of millions) that, as a result of sampling error was "really" less than one in a hundred. If you would like to provide an example, I'm all ears.

 

[rhubroma]

To quote the unforgettable words of Ian Hislop; If this is justice, I'm a banana!

Me think-est you are a banana.

The irony is that this has always been somewhat farcical, like condemning a murderous criminal merely for tax evasion like Al Capone.

I suppose that if there were any justice to be found, it's in seeing Contador reinserted among his colleagues who have not had to risk for their own doping practices. Unless we can believe that the other podium finishers at the Tour were on bread and water alone. I can't. And this is what Torri's provocative, and much criticized, comment was intended to address.

And this has also become the huge problem with the entire anti-doping agenda, namely that you have to be most unfortunate to actually get caught. I'm not defending dopers, but can we really be satisfied, let alone claim that justice has been done, in giving last year's Tour victory to Andy Shleck?

For this to happen, let's at least have something on the guy other than some miniscule and insignificant traces of clen. Or if that's enough for indictment, then we would at least hope something of equally paltry quantities were to show up in the blood of the runner up and of that who arrived in third place and preferably down to say the 32nd position.

That way we can just clean house, pun intended , and say that the 33rd placed rider was actually the winner. At least we would have a fighting chance that he was actually clean.

In other words it is not very ingratiating of the anti-doping system to remove the honors from one doper, only to pass them on to another. But I know mine is only wishful thinking.

 

[131313]

There is fanaticism afoot and the assumption that there is all-pervasive corruption at an organizational level at not just the UCI now, but the Spanish federation, is becoming to sound unbalanced and paranoid.

I agree. The other overwhelming theme seems to be "well, he doped his own blood and the plasticizer test proves that, so let's just sanction him for this.

That just doesn't cut it for me. Contamination happens, and ultimately this whole thing is WADA's fault for not instituting threshold levels when it was suggested to them by the lab doing the testing.

If people want to bring up the blood doping/plasticizer test, then let the test finish the final stages of validation and then evaluate the tests of all of the riders. This really seems like a back-door approach. The bottom line is that contamination happens, and strict liability for substances which can (and ARE) contained in the food and water supply (and no, not just in 4th world countries) is a lousy policy.

 

[131313]

OTOH, as a scientist, I have never, ever, ever, ever heard of a 1/20,000 overall chance (based on a sample size of millions) that, as a result of sampling error was "really" less than one in a hundred. If you would like to provide an example, I'm all ears.

I'm still all ears (or eyes) to see, in print, the origin of the 1 in 20,000 chance of testing positive" claim; something besides "I read somewhere" and "some guy said".

 

[joe_papp]

Wrong.

Apparently there's places where clen is used to such a degree that people get clenbuterol poisoning. That means you might ingest a pretty hefty dose by accident. So, if you want to set a threshold which eliminates positives from all accidental contamination from food, you'd have to set it so high that any testing would be meaningless. Hence, you have to put it at some arbitrary lower value. But then you'll still get cases of accidental contamination. So you haven't really gained anything. Better leave it where it is. If accidental contamination can be shown then it can be shown. It really doesn't matter what level it leads to as long as it's accidental.

Who/what are you arguing with? It certainly can't be me because I don't know what you're attacking - it isn't the fact that I mentioned what SI reported the Cologne lab claimed to have determined:

"LONDON (AP) - A study by a German doping laboratory has found that humans can inadvertently ingest clenbuterol from eating meat, a finding that would support claims by Alberto Contador and other athletes that contaminated beef caused their positive drug tests.
The German Sports University lab in Cologne - accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency - is warning athletes of the risks of accidental clenbuterol doping when traveling to China."

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...enbuterol.study.0711/index.html#ixzz1E6Vjodbj
​

 

[hubbard]

contador, what a legend. onwards and upwards.

 

[Porphyry]

Very glad to see Contador cleared. It's not right to sanction an athlete for testing positive for a minute amount of a banned substance that can be picked up inadvertantly through food and could not have had performance-enhancing effects.

 

[minessa]

Thanks for clarifying Lanark. If I was Li, then I would be more than a little upset. Did he appeal his ban to CAS?

Li can not prove that he has not used clenbuterol in high doses. Here would help a hair test, but Li did not have the support (such as Ovtcharov) of the best German anti-doping experts.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

But if "contamination happens", how far back to you re-write the books? To what level? And who's to determine just how much has been contaminated? Is it just this case, and this amount of clen? Why didn't the "accidental ingestion through contamination" defense work for Li? Maybe he was unfairly sanctioned?

As I said before, if this is allowed to pass, then everyone who tests positive with something small, or obscure, will attempt to claim contamination in the future, with this case as the precedent. What do we do then?

 

[rata de sentina]

I'm still all ears (or eyes) to see, in print, the origin of the 1 in 20,000 chance of testing positive" claim; something besides "I read somewhere" and "some guy said".

I too would like to know the derivation of the 1/20000 statistic. I have read the EU reports on residue testing and the results even in recent times seem to fluctuate from year to year and definitely geographically. Going by some data in some years you might infer almost no chance of a contamination while in others it could be 1/2000 or less. Furthermore, that is across the whole EU while most positives occur in one or two countries so if you are eating meat from those countries probability is going to be greater. Unfortunately EU testing data is not full broken down by country although the data on positives is.

Of course for food residue testing the EU mandates a maximum residue level for compliance.

 

[Paco_P]

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

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

Contador's defense is implausible. However, it's just plausible enough that in a courtroom, where the legal standard was that the burden of proof of the accusation is the accuser's, it would constitute a reasonable defense. However, the rules in cycling and the law related to doping place the burden of proof on the cyclist who has tested positive, and Contador has done nothing like prove that he ingested contaminated meat, nor that such a claim is plausible.

Anyone claiming the plausibility of Contador's defense has to consider the following: there is not (otherwise) a documented case of clenbuterol poisoning from ingestion of beef in Spain in recent years. The parsimonious hypothesis, because he is a cyclist, is that Contador got the clenbuterol from doping.

Is the current rule reasonable? Perhaps not. What bothers me more is the Spanish president wasting his time defending Contador, and the evident hypocrisy and inconsistency of the process against him (others in his position have been sanctioned). The outcome is almost neither here nor there. Contador is surely doping; so too would be whoever replaced him. If one thinks that is a problem, then it is what one should worry about - and the problem is exactly the hypocrisy, inconsistency, and bad faith on the part of the relevant authorities. Without changes in the administration of the sport, the behavior of cyclists won't change. Fo many folks it's worth doping if it gives you the chance to double or triple your income.

 

[warmfuzzies]

So when I read this I just can understand that you rly think that Cycling was cleaner before Contador positive right?

Professional cycling deserves equal respect with the WWE. Pretty clear that both sets of athletes dope, scriptwriters determine who wins, and there is a lot of manufactured drama. This Contador plot development is intentionally keeping the sport in the news through the off-season. Vince McMahon could not have done any better with his WWE characters. Anybody really believe Ullrich "lost" to Armstrong all those years because he wasn't as strong? The guy was always so calm about being #2. Eerie, don't you think? And where does Landis keep getting his money to write books, show up at bike races, and generally stir the pot? Pro cycling should explore more cross marketing with the WWE/monster truck/NHRA fans in America. There is a big market in the US for staged spectacle.

 

[Ferminal]

Isn't that the point of drug testing? To catch and ban athletes with banned substances in their system?

Yes, of course it is. But should testing be accepted 100% of the time? Should we not bother with due process anymore, and just instantly ban everyone for two years once the B sample comes back positive?

"Somebody spiked my water bottle. I can't prove it but it's the truth."

"A road side spectator jammed a syringe in my *** when I rode by. I didn't inject that EPO."

How is this relevant? No made up anecdotes are useful to the Contador case or any other cases of claimed contamination. How about we assess the information available rather than 100% dismissing the defense because we disagree with the principle idea. Are there any cases where someone has escaped sanction because their defense was "someone spiked my bottle" (instead of being a comprehensive package aimed at proving that was most likely the case)?

Contador's defense isn't "That clenbuterol came from a steak I ate"... it's a comprehensive package aimed at convincing the prosecuting panel that food contamination is by far the most plausible scenario. This includes studies of contamination in Europe and across the world, previous contamination cases, biopassport analysis, explanation of the source.

Anybody can make up a BS story about how something got into their system. Unless they can prove it, they should be sanctioned.

Yes, I agree (with the latter - Contador's defense is far from a simple "BS story"), but in RFEC's mind it seems the defense has done enough to "prove" the case for contamination. Like I said before, I don't necessarily agree with this decision. What I can do is understand the principles behind it. The case is not over and will be taken to CAS, we shouldn't be arguing about this unless it is accepted by the highest authority (in this case CAS) or not appealed in the first place. If CAS returns the sanction, then ultimately the process achieves your desired aims, so don't jump the gun. RFEC's decision could have been a misinformed or improper one which is the exact reason why there is an appeals process.

 

[guncha]

Bad news for cycling.
This decision will be appealed, Contador will get well deserved ban.
And the crap will made from races in which Contador will participate.

 

[python]

Li can not prove that he has not used clenbuterol in high doses. Here would help a hair test, but Li did not have the support (such as Ovtcharov) of the best German anti-doping experts.

correct.

you and me from the early days posted links and sources referring to the parallels/differences between ovcharov's and conta cases. of course, most will only read selectely (not a snide)

one thing that's been posted many times (but is being asked over and over) is that li and the chinese federation are on record saying they may reconsider his verdict if conta is acquitted.

mind you, li (and everyone else found with clen) may have a good reason but
each case is different.. even ovcharov and contador with their immense support, are very different.

under the current strict liability rules, an athlete has to be immensely lucky to have any chance.

for example, we know that in ovcharov's case his luck consistent of the following elements:

(i) 2 bests anti-doping experts in germany took his case
(ii) 4 of his teammates happen to be tested the next day giving him a basis
for a comparison (contador would love this circumstance but it was not to be
(iii) wada is undecided as to how strong they have to come down on the role of the controversial hair test.

etc
etc

li is a nice guy but he may never have had a chance unless wada changed it's strict liability rules retroactively. fat chance in hell.

 

[rata de sentina]

Anyone claiming the plausibility of Contador's defense has to consider the following: there is not (otherwise) a documented case of clenbuterol poisoning from ingestion of beef in Spain in recent years. The parsimonious hypothesis, because he is a cyclist, is that Contador got the clenbuterol from doping.

There are plenty of valid arguments regarding the implausibility of AC's food contamination defence but the one you use here is irrelevant. The levels of clenbuterol required to produce the symptoms of poisoning are orders of magnitude higher than ACs levels.

 

[roundabout]

Very glad to see Contador cleared. It's not right to sanction an athlete for testing positive for a minute amount of a banned substance that can be picked up inadvertantly through food and could not have had performance-enhancing effects.

Regarding the performance-enhancing effects of low doses of clenbuterol this argument has already been rejected by CAS, so i would prefer not to see it brought up.

 

[sniper]

all i got from that clip that contador did not give a hair sample during the last 30 days

+1
well, that, and that he's not as convincing as lance when lying.

 

[Finbouy]

You's all still think the lads guilty don't ya's....

 

[webvan]

Who doesn't !

 

[Aguirre]

Cyclingnews.com continues poisoning the public opinion when releases this headline: McQuaid criticises Spain after Contador decision

well, I have read what Pat says and I don't see any critic to RFEC, his reaction is measured and based in "we have to study the papers, he is allowed to race, etc".

The same poison was applied last night when using the spanish flag as a patriotic affaire.

 

[Lanark]

Cyclingnews.com continues poisoning the public opinion when releases this headline: McQuaid criticises Spain after Contador decision

well, I have read what Pat says and I don't see any critic to RFEC, his reaction is measured and based in "we have to study the papers, he is allowed to race, etc".

The same poison was applied last night when using the spanish flag as a patriotic affaire.

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

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

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

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

 

[hrotha]

He does however criticize the involvement of top political figures like Zapatero. That's what the article is talking about, as should be clear from the first paragraph.
edit: ninja'd

Also:

"We got 35 pages from the Spanish Federation yesterday, which has to be translated and studied, and then we'll discuss it with WADA. We'll wait for the full documentation from the Spanish Federation and then we've got 30 days to decide whether we appeal or not. It's a UCI decision."

Why wouldn't they have sent the full documentation from the get go? I assume that includes the appendices, including the scientific reports we're all dying to see - the ones that rule out a blood transfusion.