Contador acquitted

[Benotti69]

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

who is biased, he was found with Clen is his system and to be cleared without proving how i got there? He said he ate something, so no evidence and now cleared.

Without the plasticzer test he has to prove he unknowingly ate something that contained traces of a banned substance. I have not seen/read proof that it was a genuine mistake, have you?

 

[roundabout]

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

Your last sentence sums up your post pretty well too, btw.

Although i would think the irony of that might be lost on you.

 

[Dallas_]

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

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

Dead right. I am confidant AC will not pass muster at CAS. If he does, I will eat my hat.

 

[Benotti69]

Dead right. I am confidant AC will not pass muster at CAS. If he does, I will eat my hat.

bet it's the only hat that contains a banned substance and when you go back to the milliner you'll find that less than 1% of hats are tested

 

[sniper]

How dirty is Berti?

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

It is a fact, not a rumor, that the initials AC, a rider from Libertine Seguros, were on Fuentes' shopping list.
You're right though, it was only a dirty, biassed rumor that these initials belonged to Alberto.

 

[The Hitch]

It is a fact, not a rumor, that the initials AC, a rider from Libertine Seguros, were on Fuentes' shopping list.
You're right though, it was only a dirty, biassed rumor that these initials belonged to Alberto.

I think you mean Liberty Seguros

 

[sniper]

I think you mean Liberty Seguros

oops.
i guess its her avatar messing with my brains.

 

[The Hitch]

oops.
i guess its her avatar messing with my brains.

Hes a she ?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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



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

Politics are a horrible thing to discuss when the topic is ContraDope.

 

[The Hitch]

In some countries it has even been debated to prohibit exit polls (to be honest I think exit polls are illegal in some countries).

Actually it so happens that in Spain any poll in the days before an eletion is not allowed. So in the election that gave Contadors guardian angel a second term, foreign newspapers took polls and could publish them, but they could not be published in the country itself.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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


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

don’t know about other drugs but the studies i saw refer to 30-to-90 day window for clenbuterol in hair. german anti-doping scientists are currently at the forefront of applying hair testing. the hair test’s ability to look back much longer than a urine test is it’s main attractiveness. but in combination with frequent urine tests, it is a very powerful tool indeed.
you just hit the nail on the head. Iow, the hair test answers one question only - if negative, the owner was likely not, a long term user. if positive, likely was an abuser. the fact that contador’s defence team did not seem to comment on his hair tests (despite some early mutterings by his lawyer ramos) is interesting if not suspicious. contador had much to gain (at least in a pr sense) if he tested negative. yet, we officially never heard that though his brother recently hinted that conti did not need the hair test b/c he had other frequent negative clen urine tests. my feeling - his team of lawyers realised the risk of testing inconclusive and advised him not to test. wada wont pursue it. but it will always remain a question - did he miss a good opportunity or was he covering up a transfusion ?

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

Thats because he is a dirty PED abusing ToyPistol! BANG BANG

 

[Merckx index]

Wrt the reported 0.25% figure for cattle being tested. The size of the population being sampled is generally irrelevant. What matters is the size of the sample. A sample size of 1000 results in a 3% error, a sample size of 10,000 in a 1% error. (Further discussion of the significance of this error estimate is given in the first link below). For a sample size of 0.25%, this corresponds to 400,000 and 4 million cattle, respectively. There are about 87 million head of cattle in the EU, and since the population of Spain is 9% of the population of the EU, I roughly estimate the population of cattle in Spain to be 8 million (I‘m sure the actual figure is available, I just haven‘t bothered to look for it in this rough calculation). So clearly if 0.25% of the cattle in Spain are sampled, the estimated error is quite low.

In any sampling, there is the potential for bias, which generally increases the error or decreases the accuracy of the estimate. However, I would think that testing for a chemical substance is likely to be more accurate than opinion polling (perhaps the best known and most widely used example of this kind of sampling) in many respects, because one does not have to worry about human factors. In opinion polling, these include non-response bias (selected people don’t answer the survey), response bias (people provide inaccurate answers to the questions), and coverage bias (for example, people who communicate only with mobile phones generally can‘t be reached by the pollsters). None of these factors, obviously, is an issue with chemical testing of cattle.

One can always argue that CB use may be concentrated in a few farms or a small region of one country, so that sampling taken from all over the country provides an inaccurate picture of the prevalence of cattle doping. But that cuts both ways. If that were the case, it would be highly unlikely that a random person eating meat--and in this discussion, Bert is a random person--would be supplied meat from one of these small areas. So as I see it, if the sample size is large enough, and it clearly is if the 0.25% figure is accurate, and if the sampling is carried out all over the country--and here I have no information, I simply assume without knowing that there would be no point to doing the sampling if it were not carried out in this way--then whatever figures they come up with are likely to be meaningful. So for example, if one in a thousand cattle test positive, I think this is a good estimate of the likelihood that someone eating meat will be exposed to CB.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_poll

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_statistics

Here’s an article surprisingly sympathetic to Bert. I say surprisingly, because it appeared in a meat industry publication: http://www.cattlenetwork.com/cattle-news/latest/Bad-beef-brouhaha.html?ref=109

Cycling certainly doesn’t have any broad appeal among Americans. But beef-eating definitely does, and this sad saga darkens the image of that all-American pastime far worse than any lingering effects the Contador case might have on professional cycling.

I have to say that if Bert’s case persuades people to stop eating meat, I’m all for that. It shouldn't take fear of exogenous chemicals for someone to make that decision, but it's a start.

 

[Merckx index]

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

Here is a study, actually more than ten years old, claiming that CB can be detected in hair up to six months after use:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...575b3bb6288fe7e0c2855960a9d882d2&searchtype=a

The detection limit of the method was approximately 4 ng clenbuterol/g hair when 25 mg hair material were processed and 2 ng/g for 50 mg hair samples (corresponds to 4 pg per injection). The method allows clenbuterol to be measured retrospectively for up to at least six months. The levels of clenbuterol determined in hair ranged from 2 to 236 ng/g.

This was with the detection limits at the time, which would have been much greater (i.e., less sensitive) than is the case today. Thus 4 ng/g corresponds to 100 pg in the 25 mg. In 2002, a study detected CB in hair at levels as low as 15 pg/mg. Though that is greater per mg. than in the earlier study, I believe (haven't accessed the full article) that they were able to assay smaller amounts of material because of greater sensitivity. The subjects in this latter study, body-builders, had urine levels of CB of 200-300 pg/ml, about 4-6 times Bert's tested level. Today, levels of 10 pg/ml or less can be detected.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=13706827

So with today's much more sensitive detection limits, it should be possible to detect CB in hair for even longer periods of time. Whether a single dose of CB--which would be the case if it entered the body through contaminated meat or a transfusion--would be detectable over long periods is questionable. But if a rider were using CB regularly during a period when he withdrew blood for later transfusion. a hair test might reveal this after the fact for quite a long period of time. Again, I can't emphasize enough that the greater sensitivity of today's assays opens up new possibilities.

So again, I’m a little surprised that Bert has not taken advantage of this chance to help his case. In addition to the PR value of a hair test, it now seems that it might have real scientific value as well. A negative test could possibly be used as evidence to rule out chronic use of CB at certain levels within a certain time frame. The actual levels and the actual time frame could be estimated from the sensitivity of the test, along with published data of the kind I have referred to here. It might turn out that the test would be (would have been, in retrospect) capable of ruling out chronic usage of performance enhancing doses of CB up to a year before the positive test was announced. Even only a partial vindication--say, ruling out fairly large doses, and/or for six months back, would obviously have helped his case.

Indeed, if the DEHP test results are for whatever reason not going to be allowed to serve as evidence against him, as some here seem to think, establishing that he did not take CB during a certain time period in the past would be tantamount to ruling out transfusion.

Also, hair testing has been carried out on cattle. The rationale here is that CB administration is generally stopped some time before slaughter, to let the drug clear the system and avoid a positive test. The hair test should reveal fairly definitively if the animal was given CB at any time while being raised. So it could be that, in the absence of hair testing, the % of cattle treated with CB is significantly underestimated. OTOH, whether the meat of cattle treated in this way contain enough CB to trigger a positive urine test in someone eating that meat is another question.

 

[Escarabajo]

Here is a study, actually more than ten years old, claiming that CB can be detected in hair up to six months after use:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...575b3bb6288fe7e0c2855960a9d882d2&searchtype=a



This was with the detection limits at the time, which were much greater (i.e., less sensitive) than is the case today. Even in 2002, a study detected CB in hair at levels as low as 15 pg/mg. The same subjects, body-builders, had urine levels of CB of 200-300 pg/ml, about 4-6 times Bert's tested level.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=13706827

So with today's much more sensitive detection limits, it should be possible to detect CB in hair for even longer periods of time. Whether a single dose of CB--which would be the case if it entered the body through contaminated meat or a transfusion--would be detectable over long periods is questionable. But if a rider were using CB regularly during a period when he withdrew blood for later transfusion. a hair test might reveal this after the fact for quite a long period of time. Again, I can't emphasize enough that the greater sensitivity of today's assays opens up new possibilities.

Also, hair testing has been carried out on cattle. The rationale here is that CB administration is generally stopped some time before slaughter, to let the drug clear the system and avoid a positive test. The hair test should reveal fairly definitively if the animal was given CB at any time while being raised. So it could be that, in the absence of hair testing, the % of cattle treated with CB is significantly underestimated. OTOH, whether the meat of cattle treated in this way contain enough CB to trigger a positive urine test in someone eating that meat is another question.

Thanks. Nice information.

Certainly based on the levels detected by the Cologne lab, we might be looking at more than 6 months. Obviously I don't know what is the time rate at which Clen leaves the system so it is unknown if by know a test would do any good. As Python said, the fact that he did not offer his hair sample from the beginning supports the theory that he was a regular user, or abuser for that matter.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

I hve removed a number of off-topic and insulting postings. Those involved have also been given a short time off to think about their forum behaviour.

Susan

 

[TubularBills]

the damage is done - his career, popular opinion and fan base decimated... he may still make money via the systemic corruption... but the fans will never forget. Look for some scathing tarmac quotes come July.

 

[Barrus]

the damage is done - his career, popular opinion and fan base decimated... he may still make money via the systemic corruption... but the fans will never forget. Look for some scathing tarmac quotes come July.

There is a problem that I have with this. It is not that I don't believe he is a doper, but really what is what the fans won't forget? The minimum amount of Clen, or the leaking of supposed plasticizer test, of which there is no official confirmation. I believe it is mainly the latter in which case Berto is unfairly painted, as we don't know the legitimacy of the test and we don't know the test results of any of the other riders.

 

[Benotti69]

There is a problem that I have with this. It is not that I don't believe he is a doper, but really what is what the fans won't forget? The minimum amount of Clen, or the leaking of supposed plasticizer test, of which there is no official confirmation. I believe it is mainly the latter in which case Berto is unfairly painted, as we don't know the legitimacy of the test and we don't know the test results of any of the other riders.

what is really interesting about some posters on here is some feel the amount of Clen in his system was so minute that it couldn't performance enhance! I hope they realize the Clen is not taken for racing purposes but rather part of a training regime of doping. Hence why i believe it was in his blood bag, contained within blood taken before the TdF while he was in preparation for the TdF and re-infused on the rest day in question.

Now why are the riders not up in arms about this test and threatening bans? Such a minute amount can't performance enhance and it could ruin a rider's career if he ate something that less than 1% of animals are tested for? Yet they are up in arms about radios FFS? That says a lot about the state of cycling and the opinion of the peloton about whether Contador is innocent does it not!

Also the riders are not calling for the plastizer's test to prove they dont transfuse blood and are clean. I haven't heard a peep from any of the 'clean' teams commenting and hoping this test works and can be introduced ASAP???

 

[sniper]

what is really interesting about some posters on here is some feel the amount of Clen in his system was so minute that it couldn't performance enhance! I hope they realize the Clen is not taken for racing purposes but rather part of a training regime of doping. Hence why i believe it was in his blood bag, contained within blood taken before the TdF while he was in preparation for the TdF and re-infused on the rest day in question.

Now why are the riders not up in arms about this test and threatening bans? Such a minute amount can't performance enhance and it could ruin a rider's career if he ate something that less than 1% of animals are tested for? Yet they are up in arms about radios FFS? That says a lot about the state of cycling and the opinion of the peloton about whether Contador is innocent does it not!

Also the riders are not calling for the plastizer's test to prove they dont transfuse blood and are clean. I haven't heard a peep from any of the 'clean' teams commenting and hoping this test works and can be introduced ASAP???

great points.
I wonder how many riders would really want their samples to be tested retrospectively for plasticizers.

 

[imp167]

what is really interesting about some posters on here is some feel the amount of Clen in his system was so minute that it couldn't performance enhance! I hope they realize the Clen is not taken for racing purposes but rather part of a training regime of doping. Hence why i believe it was in his blood bag, contained within blood taken before the TdF while he was in preparation for the TdF and re-infused on the rest day in question.

The ruling includes statements from Contador's experts that Clen transfer from blood bags is not consistent with current scientific knowledge (NB: this section poorly translates automatically). I know there is the issue about objectivity of each sides experts but an opposing view does not make it into the ruling .

The main point seems to be that his accusers need to prove to a standard approaching 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the blood doping took place if they wish to nail him on this issue. If not, and it is considered unfair strict liability should be applied to such a small ingested doses, he walks free.

Apart from the sentence at the end of Banifi's opinion in 4.1.3 there is no suspicion of blood manipulation let alone clear evidence submitted on which the panel could pass judgement.

 

[The Hitch]

There is a problem that I have with this. It is not that I don't believe he is a doper, but really what is what the fans won't forget? The minimum amount of Clen, or the leaking of supposed plasticizer test, of which there is no official confirmation. I believe it is mainly the latter in which case Berto is unfairly painted, as we don't know the legitimacy of the test and we don't know the test results of any of the other riders.

Most people wont know what Clen is, nor the significance of the low score.

They just see that he is a cyclist (they all dope, unlike real sportsmen) and that he tested positive for something. Hence he is tainted.

Even if he won all 3 grand tours and a certain "clean" sprinter won the 100m again, the Laureus award for example would still go to Bolt for that 10 second effort because Contador, no matter how much he has done or how controversial the actual incident was, will always be seen as another cyclist who has tested positive.

Hell he wont even be nominated.

 

[sniper]

http://www.nachrichten.at/sport/mehr_sport/art109,562830
Werner Franke, German Anti-Doping specialist (well-respected, I might add),
complains about Matschiner's book ("he was convicted, but in his book he reveals nothing") and about the delay of the process against Walter Mayer.
Furthermore, he notes with respect to Mayer: "If the State files charges against someone, you can be sure they have some hard evidence".

In good German fashion, he finishes with slamming AC and Spanish anti-doping policies:

QS: Der dopingverdächtige Radprofi Alberto Contador wurde in Spanien kürzlich freigesprochen. Verständlich für Sie?

Franke: Auf gar keinen Fall. Aber es war auch nicht anders zu erwarten. Das, was dort in punkto Doping-Gesetzen herrscht, nenne ich Mittelmeer-Recht. Da werden Sportler von der spanischen Regierung beschützt. Contador hätte man doch schon 2006 aus dem Verkehr ziehen müssen nach der Fuentes-Affäre (Anm.: der Doping-Arzt Eufemanio Fuentes versorgte viele Spitzensportler mit Dopingmitteln). Ich habe die Ermittlungsdokumente der Guardia Civil selbst zuhause. Contador wird dort mehrfach als Kunde erwähnt. Doch das ist scheinbar egal.

Summary: AC's acquittal by the RFEC is a joke, but nonetheless merely predictable, considering the way Spain deals with its doped athletes. Franke says AC should been taken out of competition a long time ago, given that Contador is mentioned several times as a Fuentes-customer in the OP-documents of the Guardia Civil. Franke has these documents at home.

 

[Benotti69]

The ruling includes statements from Contador's experts that Clen transfer from blood bags is not consistent with current scientific knowledge (NB: this section poorly translates automatically). I know there is the issue about objectivity of each sides experts but an opposing view does not make it into the ruling .

The main point seems to be that his accusers need to prove to a standard approaching 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the blood doping took place if they wish to nail him on this issue. If not, and it is considered unfair strict liability should be applied to such a small ingested doses, he walks free.

Apart from the sentence at the end of Banifi's opinion in 4.1.3 there is no suspicion of blood manipulation let alone clear evidence submitted on which the panel could pass judgement.

The current rules state that there is no thresh hold for any amount of the substance found is an automatic 2 year ban. No one had a problem when Li Fuyu got a 2 year ban.

There is no need to prove the rider infused blood. It is up to rider to prove that he unknowingly took the substance through another method to doping, ie a piece of meat, a drink etc....

I have yet to see how that has been proven, have you?

 

[cycleclean]

So far only the Spanish have found him innocent. I wouldn't proclaim him "clean" yet.

Maybe when an actual anti-doping proceeding takes place we'll find out the truth.

I am just happy that Flecha didn't win today. Score one for the clean teams.

 

[Benotti69]

So far only the Spanish have found him innocent. I wouldn't proclaim him "clean" yet.

Maybe when an actual anti-doping proceeding takes place we'll find out the truth.

I am just happy that Flecha didn't win today. Score one for the clean teams.

when did Rabobank become a clean team????