Contador acquitted

[Publicus]

Oh, I understand this. It's not Bert's fault that he ingested contaminated meat, because there's so precious little of it in Spain, how could anyone be faulted for eating meat? And I agree with this logic, too.

It's the swept away part I don't get. How the name of the game suddenly became the prosecution having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (or strong preponderance, whatever) that the meat was clean, when it should be Bert having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was contaminated.

Common sense does not say that this is both plausible and contradictory. It says it is contradictory, period. If the incidence of contamination is too low to blame someone for eating a source of that contamination, it is also too low to serve as proof in lieu of the actual meat.

It never became the prosecutions obligation to prove anything. Because of the absence of the meat--eat was consumed--it is impossible to prove with direct evidence that it contained clen other than the fact that the amount was found in his blood. That's where he has to knocked down all of the alternative methods that clen could have gotten in his system (microdosing, blood transfusion, etc.). If the UCI and/or WADA appeal, they will have the job of proving that it could have been one of those alternative methods (they don't have to establish that food contamination wasn't the culprit, but it would bolster their case).

All of that being said, I think WADA/UCI's job just got demonstrably harder with the Pellizotti case unless the rumored plasticizers test has in fact been validated.

Again, Bert's team noted that about 8500 cattle had to be tested for a 1% error (see various discussions on this subject for the meaning of error in this context). Far more cattle are tested in Spain than this number. It is not a "small sample size", unless you mean small relative to the total number of cattle present. But sampling is always small in this sense. Thus the argument of Bert's lawyers that 99.75% of the cattle were not tested is disingenuous. In any sampling procedure, the vast majority of subjects are not tested.

That's not what they meant. EU standards say that 1% of cattle should be tested in connection with clen. That's the standard. If I recall correctly (please correct me if I am wrong here), the amount tested in the region was less than 100, which if my math is correct is far less than 1% of the cattle in the region (assuming there are 850,000 cattle in the region, the 100 represent .0012%). So it doesn't matter how many cattle were tested in OTHER regions of Spain, if they can establish that very little testing was done on a relatively large population. So while on the whole it is relatively improbable to eat clen tainted meat in the EU, without knowing the sampling error for the particular region, you cannot make that same argument. There are still farmers using clen in their livestock, that much is certain (recall there was a positive case out of all of the EU testing and then recent arrests related to clen and livestock and athletes too).

But I do agree pointing to the 99.75% is more than a bit disingenuous. I don't think it invalidates the point they are making though.

 

[c&cfan]

franco's ban really showed how wada\uci believe in the bio-passport system.

if contador really proved that blood contamination was impossible an then shows to cas his bio-passport (really regular), what can they do?

people, please read hrotha's post. especially the beretta. ups, sniper.

p.s: based on sniper, anyone that tries to look to evidence and see that if what rfec said it's true, he cant\should be banned, is a fanboy. but please look at his answer to hrotha's post. laugh at will. the guy clearly isnt a kid full of hate.

how childish..

 

[Merckx index]

Contador's defense is perfectly sound and logical: if it can be established that the clen positive couldn't be the result of a blood transfusion (or any other doping practice), then yes, he should walk away unscathed. The Sherlock Holmes defense is perfectly fine - the alternative would be punishing riders even if we knew for a fact they were completely innocent (no fault or negligence of their own).

Since no evidence is ever going to be 100%, I think, as I posted on another thread, that it amounts to a balance. The likelihood of transfusion vs. the likelihood of meat. Based on what has come out so far, it seems highly unlikely that he ate contaminated meat, but can he show that it is even more unlikely that he transfused blood with CB in it? He can’t and shouldn’t be expected to rule out blood transfusion absolutely, but if he can show that it is more unlikely than contaminated meat, I agree that is the best he can do.

The issue should be whether Contador has actually proved that a blood transfusion must be ruled out as the origin of the clen. The RFEC says he has, and we won't know until we see the doctor's report but we have reason to suspect that's bogus. That's what you guys should be criticizing, not the Sherlock Holmes defense which makes perfect sense.

Agreed. I think LMG hit the nail on the head. If Bert can show he tested negative for CB in June, during the period when he most likely would have transfused, that is strong evidence against transfusion, maybe strong enough to counteract the lack of evidence for contaminated meat. IMO, a clean passport during this period is not strong enough evidence that he didn’t withdraw blood. The two recent cases not withstanding, a passport test can be beaten.

That's not what they meant. EU standards say that 1% of cattle should be tested in connection with clen. That's the standard. If I recall correctly (please correct me if I am wrong here), the amount tested in the region was less than 100, which if my math is correct is far less than 1% of the cattle in the region (assuming there are 850,000 cattle in the region, the 100 represent .0012%). So it doesn't matter how many cattle were tested in OTHER regions of Spain, if they can establish that very little testing was done on a relatively large population. So while on the whole it is relatively improbable to eat clen tainted meat in the EU, without knowing the sampling error for the particular region, you cannot make that same argument. There are still farmers using clen in their livestock, that much is certain (recall there was a positive case out of all of the EU testing and then recent arrests related to clen and livestock and athletes too).

There is no mention in the RFEC report of a 1% testing standard, as far as I can see. If you see it there, or found a link for it somewhere else, I would be interested. However, I can assure you it’s not necessary. In order to obtain a significant value--with an error of 1%, or any other value desired--the ONLY THING that matters is the ABSOLUTE NUMBER of cattle tested--NOT the % of the total tested. This is why, in electoral polls, one can query only one thousand voters out of millions or hundreds of millions, and still have a fairly low error. It's why the EU can test only 0.25% of its cattle--as Bert's team pointed out after the RFEC decision, without ever mentioning a 1% standard. And it’s why Bert’s team said, in the RFEC report: “For best results from a statistical point of view (i.e., with a confidence level of 95% and a prediction error of 1%), 8,586 cattle should have been analyzed in 2007,which contrasts with the 97 cattle actually analyzed that year.” Again, it doesn’t matter whether that 8586 is 10%,1% or 0.1% of the total cattle present, the error is THE SAME. (See http://www.rogerwimmer.com/mmr/mmrsampling_error.htm

for a calculator that determines the error at 95% confidence limits for different size samples. If you plug in 8586, you get 1.06%).

In the following statement, they say, “with the sample of animals tested, the probability of identifying animals in the Basque Autonomous community contaminated with clenbuterol is extremely low, 0.001221 in 2007.” I frankly don't know what this means, the passage doesn't make sense to me. It might be saying that the 97 animals tested is 0.1221% of the total animals in that region. IOW, there are about 80,000 cattle in the entire region. If you or someone else can make better sense of this, let me know, all I can say is my problem here is not because it's in Spanish.

But it really doesn't matter, as far as I can see. What matters is the 97. This corresponds to a higher error, about 10% (see the link I provided above. Also note that there is a power relationship involved in error estimates. That is, to reduce the error by two, you must increase the number sampled by four. 97 is about 100x lower than 8586, which means the error is about ten times higher).

To understand these statistical measurement, it might be helpful to think of a coin toss. If you toss a coin, the probability of getting a head should be 50%. If you toss the coin ten times, the number of heads you get will be within some error of 50%, or five heads. If you toss the coin one hundred times, the error will be smaller, that is, the number of heads will usually be closer to 50%. If you toss the coin one thousand times, the number of heads will be still closer to 50%. The more tosses, the smaller the error.

Now suppose you toss the coin ten times, and repeat the ten times a number of times. In 95% of these repeats, the number of heads will be within the error. E.g., the error is about 30% or 5 heads plus or minus 1.5 heads. If you toss the coin one hundred times and repeat many times, in 95% of the repeats, the number of heads will be within some smaller error, 10% (50 heads plus or minus 5 heads). For one thousand tosses, it will be 500 plus or minus 15 heads.

It's basically the same with cattle testing. So when Bert's team says that 8586 cattle must be tested for a confidence level of 95% and a prediction error of 1%, they mean that if you tested a random sample of 8586 cattle over and over, 95% of the time the number of contaminated cattle would be within 1% of the value actually obtained. So if one hundred cattle were contaminated in the test of 8586, you could conclude with 95% certainty that the % of contaminated cattle in the entire population corresponds to 99-101 per 8586.

And their further point is that when you test just 97 cattle, the result you get has a 95% certainty for only a much larger error--in this case, about 10%. So if ten cattle out of the 97 tested positive, the 95% confidence limits wqould be 9-11. Note that that is still a fairly small % of the 97 cattle. And since in fact zero cattle tested positive, the 95% confidence limits involve a much smaller number of cattle. I'm not sure how many, but suppose there was one contaminated steer in the 97. You can conclude with 95% confidence that the proportion of contaminated cattle in the entire population is no more than 1.1/97, or about 1.1%. So obviously, even only 97 catttle indicate that there is a very low probability of contamination.

And remember, this calculation concedes that Bert's argument about the 97 being too low has validity. In fact, by the usual rules of sampling, it does not. By the usual rules, you assume that the % of contaminated cattle is determined by the tests of the entire area, Spain, unless you have an a priori reason for believing that the Basque region is different. But even allowing them this argument, they still can't come up with a number that suggests a very strong possibility of contamination.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

franco's ban really showed how wada\uci believe in the bio-passport system.

if contador really proved that blood contamination was impossible an then shows to cas his bio-passport (really regular), what can they do?

people, please read hrotha's post. especially the beretta. ups, sniper.

p.s: based on sniper, anyone that tries to look to evidence and see that if what rfec said it's true, he cant\should be banned, is a fanboy. but please look at his answer to hrotha's post. laugh at will. the guy clearly isnt a kid full of hate.

how childish..

I will say that in my opinion there is no way that the ToyPistol can prove he did not have a blood transfusion and that the MEAT was contaminated. He just was lucky to have a federation that were looking for any help to ensure their hero could ride the pro tour.

 

[webvan]

+1 and in light of the CAS' hard line on the Pellizotti, he might as well plan around not being around for two years starting whenever he stops racing.

 

[Oldman]

Agreed. I think LMG hit the nail on the head. If Bert can show he tested negative for CB in June, during the period when he most likely would have transfused, that is strong evidence against transfusion, maybe strong enough to counteract the lack of evidence for contaminated meat. IMO, a clean passport during this period is not strong enough evidence that he didn’t withdraw blood. The two recent cases not withstanding, a passport test can be beaten.
QUOTE]

I'll apologize again for abbreviation but this is where he opens the door for subjective justice. It may be real justice but as a defense he is giving the stronger hand to CAS. This may reveal politically how they want the UCI to view their Bio-passport results in the future. If the UCI wants to remain a viable entity they better f*cking pay attention. Unfortunately for them if the message doesn't include a check they don't provide a receipt.

 

[python]

a clean passport during this period is not strong enough evidence that he didn’t withdraw blood. The two recent cases not withstanding, a passport test can be beaten.
QUOTE]

any test can be beaten.

the thing that matters is that those anti-doping tools used to ruin careers or promote a fair competition...that the tools are used consistently both ways. if the tools are dull they should be held back until they're sharp enough.

i don't know if the biopassport is ready to be sharp enough, but if cas says it is, i will accept it both in pelli's and conta cases.

i wont accept a logic that selectively applies the same set of tools depending on someone's subjective feeling about the case. here's an example..

it was widely reported that ashenden was part of the uci's 5-men super team sent to cas to defend biopassport. needless to mention, ashenden is widely considered an expert by both the majority of his peers and many fans. will you double guess his opinion if he steps forward in defence of his work regarding conta as strongly as he did with texas ?

 

[theswordsman]

I originally typed this as part of the Contador side discussion on the Pellizotti thread, but moved it here. Cheers.

I expect the Contador case to be focused on the law, and procedural mistakes that were made as well.

Contador's newest lawyer is known for bringing free agency to football, changing the rules.

Contador said that id he had been sanctioned a year, he would have appealed, but not to CAS.

We don't know just how badly the UCI screwed things up, but Contador's people called them on it. We do know that they didn't announce the positive to the media, that they imposed a gag order on him, and that they recommended DeBoer for his defense when he asked, and still trusted them.

I've read that they didn't notify Alberto of the positive on the day that they found out.

It may have just been poor writing, but in their official statement, they made it sound like they tested his B Sample before even telling him about the Adverse Finding. If so, that was a get out of jail free card at CAS for Wen Tong. It wasn't allowed to be used as evidence - similar to something the police found during a search without a warrant.

They sent the RFEC a separate document illustrating the four ways that the Clenbuterol could have entered his body, but violated basic discovery by not copying Contador.

Who knows what else they might have done wrong. Then there's the point by point stuff. Either Andy Ramos or Fran said that they'd contacted 15 or 16 top scientists, given them Alberto's data, and challenged them to build a case against him. Nobody took them up on it. We were told in the press how perfect the Spanish meat tracking system is, but Contador did file a complaint, and the Basque government couldn't track down the animal. The information at the butcher was for a much different sized animal, and they only narrowed it down to three possible sources, one who had been in trouble for Clenbuterol before. They've got the six samples in a row, tons of Biological Passport data, studies they commissioned like the one where a professor tested meat with Clenbuterol to see how much would appear in urine. They showed that the amount was too tiny for anyone to have spiked his food. They showed it couldn't have come from transfusion.

WADA officials like the woman who runs the Montreal lab say that tiny amounts of Clenbuterol just mean that someone was adjusting their dosage, or that they can't have a minimum threshold because they might miss someone who cheated three months earlier. No one ever asks them the specific follow-up question saying that's all well and good for someone who's not tested often, but in this specific case there were two clean days just before the positive, and a lot more tests as well, so they know the amount was never more than that.

I don't know if the UCI will appeal. Three million Euros is a pretty strong incentive. At the same time, their own mistakes would be made public. And they make them - Mosquera is still hanging out there and his B sample wasn't even tested, for a substance that's only illegal by injection. That's sketchy.

WADA seems really interested in protecting the status quo. I wonder if the Chinese government will give them accurate data about Clenbuterol use? I kind of doubt it, but at the same time, their athletes are the most vulnerable when more labs reach the Cologne standard. A minimum threshold could keep a lot of their athletes from missing the Olympics, so they're better off telling the truth.

Meanwhile, the UCI played the "we didn't get it yet" game again. After the RFEC decision, they tried to cover up their own lack of participation by saying they didn't get the Contador documents in time, contradicting the specifics that were in their own press release. Now McQuaid says they got it on the 24th, they have a month, so they'll decide by the 24th. But February has 28 days, so if the rule is thirty calendar days, not a month, or thirty working days, that means the 26th.

Sorry, I'm hopped up on Diet Mountain Dew, and frustrated that CAS thinks the Bio Passport works. .

 

[Mestre]

Josephine Onyia was down at the butcher's, too

I knew I'd seen it somewhere:

http://www.marca.com/2010/11/09/atletismo/1289302421.html

Fuentes cercanas a la investigación consideraron que las dudas surgían por un doble motivo: primero, porque la cantidad de clembuterol aparecida era mínima, y segundo, porque dos días antes y dos días después Onyia pasó controles con resultados negativos. Los partidarios de su exculpación aseguraron que podía obedecer a una ingestión de carne contaminada.

Sources close to the investigation considered that there were two reasons for doubting the outcome: first, because only a minimum quantity of clembuterol was detected and, secondly, because tests carried out on Onyia tweo days before and two days after returned negative results. Those in favour of her exoneration claim that the positive may have resulted from her having eaten contaminated meat.

 

[hrotha]

We don't know just how badly the UCI screwed things up, but Contador's people called them on it. We do know that they didn't announce the positive to the media, that they imposed a gag order on him, and that they recommended DeBoer for his defense when he asked, and still trusted them.

Gag order? That's quite the misrepresentation. It was more like "Okay, if you don't tell anyone, we won't tell anyone, we'll sort this out and no one needs to find out." You make it sound like it wasn't in Contador's best interest to play along. He was complicit in it.

It may have just been poor writing, but in their official statement, they made it sound like they tested his B Sample before even telling him about the Adverse Finding. If so, that was a get out of jail free card at CAS for Wen Tong. It wasn't allowed to be used as evidence - similar to something the police found during a search without a warrant.

They sent the RFEC a separate document illustrating the four ways that the Clenbuterol could have entered his body, but violated basic discovery by not copying Contador.

The RFEC's final decision dismissed these claims.

 

[c&cfan]

I will say that in my opinion there is no way that the ToyPistol can prove he did not have a blood transfusion and that the MEAT was contaminated. He just was lucky to have a federation that were looking for any help to ensure their hero could ride the pro tour.

now that's stupid...

if they really said and proved tha contador didnt had a blood transfusion, and the only thing left as a possibility is food contamination, how can you say that?? see.. guys like you are only taking a dum in this thread. personal opinion does not matter here! what does matter is discussing facts!


if they ban contador, even with the clen (ups clean) biopassport and the "proof" that blood transfusion didnt happen, i hope the biopassport is eliminated. still, it controls the "heavy" juicers..

did ricco even had a problem with the bio passport? if not, f+ck it.

 

[Merckx index]

any test can be beaten.

Yes and no. A CB test can be beaten, but the question is, could it be beaten if the transfusion scenario is correct? In order to test at 50 pg/ml of CB in the urine within 24 hours of transfusion, the transfused blood must have contained on the order of 100-200 ng. This is consistent with daily dosing with 40 ug for several days, or possibly a single dose of 50 ug or more.

Could a rider on this schedule beat the CB test? Possibly, if he took a single dose, and was tested with relatively insensitive equipment several days later. But if he took CB daily for a week or so, which seems to be what is required for much of a weight loss effect, even a relatively insensitive test would probably catch him at any time during that week, and for at least several days after he stopped taking CB. Not absolutely certain, but IMO very likely. This is why if Bert got tested sometime after the DL last year, it would help his case enormously.

Either Andy Ramos or Fran said that they'd contacted 15 or 16 top scientists, given them Alberto's data, and challenged them to build a case against him. Nobody took them up on it.

If their case was so good, why didn’t they display it in the RFEC report? The “evidence” in that report is a joke. As far as the CB contamination part of the story goes, what they presented makes an excellent case for the prosecution, not the defense. Nothing else is backed up with any numbers at all, just a bald statement that this is so, this isn’t so. If I had been one of the scientists contacted, and I had concluded I couldn’t build a case against Bert, I would have been absolutely aghast at the total lack of evidence for that conclusion in the report.

Even if one wants to cling to the notion that RFEC, for reasons known only to them, chose to hide all the critical studies and data and arguments from the public, what they did reveal doesn't make sense. As I noted above, the arguments used by the defense to argue against CB contamination actually make an excellent case for the prosecution. The defense went beyond the prosecution by arguing, rather spuriously, that one should only consider the number of tested cattle in the Basque region. But even this argument, which no statistician could possibly accept without qualification, shows to a very high probability that the meat Bert ate was not contaminated. What kind of idiots put calculations like these--which enhance the prosecution's case--in a final report, the only one available to the fan base, then argue that they prove the athlete's innocence? And how can you trust any real scientist connected with this case--either side of it--who doesn't call them on this?

We were told in the press how perfect the Spanish meat tracking system is, but Contador did file a complaint, and the Basque government couldn't track down the animal.

Couldn't, or didn't want to? All the numbers indicate that had they found that animal, it would have been the final nail in Bert's coffin.

They've got the six samples in a row, tons of Biological Passport data, studies they commissioned like the one where a professor tested meat with Clenbuterol to see how much would appear in urine. They showed that the amount was too tiny for anyone to have spiked his food. They showed it couldn't have come from transfusion.

The six samples in a row rule out intentional dosing with CB during the TDF. Period.

We don’t know how much passport data they have, but all the negative data in the world don’t prove that a withdrawal/transfusion didn’t take place, particularly if there were no passport tests during the period when these events most likely would have occurred. And no one has come forward that I know of and has said they did or didn’t, certainly this wasn’t mentioned in the RFEC report.

The WADA files show very clearly that a) there are no cattle in Spain or in the Basque region in particular that haven’t passed the CB test, for the most recent year that data are available; and b) the CB level in Bert’s urine could not have come from meat that passed inspection. The WADA files also argue--and no convincing counter-arguments were made by the defense--that even contaminated meat very likely would not have resulted in Bert's positive. Way back last summer, an expert in the field argued the same thing.

There is nothing in the report made public that shows that the CB positive couldn’t have come from transfusion, no data or references to tests other than passport tests. OTOH, simple calculations, in another thread, show that if Bert had undergone a regimen or even a single dose of CB well within the range used for weight loss, enough would have gotten into his blood to account for the urine positive following withdrawal/transfusion.

WADA officials like the woman who runs the Montreal lab say that tiny amounts of Clenbuterol just mean that someone was adjusting their dosage, or that they can't have a minimum threshold because they might miss someone who cheated three months earlier. No one ever asks them the specific follow-up question saying that's all well and good for someone who's not tested often, but in this specific case there were two clean days just before the positive, and a lot more tests as well, so they know the amount was never more than that.

This is correct. I never understood why Ayotte made that remark, since it does not apply to Bert’s situation. The argument for a minimum threshold is unaffected, though, just because Bert’s situation is unusual. Most athletes who test positive for CB don’t have a negative test the day before.

WADA seems really interested in protecting the status quo. I wonder if the Chinese government will give them accurate data about Clenbuterol use? I kind of doubt it, but at the same time, their athletes are the most vulnerable when more labs reach the Cologne standard. A minimum threshold could keep a lot of their athletes from missing the Olympics, so they're better off telling the truth.

Very good point. OTOH, given all the help the Chinese government gives its athletes, it wouldn’t be difficult to ensure that they have clean meat, meat not available to the general public.

 

[GreasyMonkey]

<Snip>
WADA seems really interested in protecting the status quo. I wonder if the Chinese government will give them accurate data about Clenbuterol use? I kind of doubt it, but at the same time, their athletes are the most vulnerable when more labs reach the Cologne standard. A minimum threshold could keep a lot of their athletes from missing the Olympics, so they're better off telling the truth.

I can say with 100% confidence that the Chinese government does NOT have accurate data on Clen use......

Having lived there, and married to a local (from a small farming family), I would say that in general they (collective levels of government) would not have a CLUE about what is Clenbuterol, let alone how much is present in bovine's!

Their only interest is clinging to power, PERIOD.

 

[Speedzero]

In order to obtain a significant value--with an error of 1%, or any other value desired--the ONLY THING that matters is the ABSOLUTE NUMBER of cattle tested--NOT the % of the total tested.

Merckx, your discussion is cogent and quite correct, provided one important assumption is made: the sample of cattle tested is chosen at random. You draw an analogy to political polling, in which small samples are taken. In that industry, a great deal of effort is devoted to ensuring that the samples are random and representative of the overall population, and not skewed in any way.

I don't have any knowlege of whether the clen testing of cattle in Spain meets these standards, but I wanted to point out that it is an important assumption. How much effort is put into making sure the testing of such a localized industry, spread out over a large area, is randomized? Are the inspectors more likely to test in certain areas, and do the farmers know this? Moreover, is there corruption in the system? Do farmers bribe inspectors? Are they able to present certain cattle for testing and hide others? They certainly have an incentive to do so -- and the government has an incentive to present a clean industry.

I do not mean to make accusations, and I don't want to overstate the point. But we are all rightly skeptical of a claim by a rider that a negative test demonstrates the absence of PED use. Similarly, negative tests for clen on Spanish cattle may or may not demonstrate that there is no significant clen issue with the cattle. I am not sure that the statistics on clen in Spanish cattle presented really provide the level of comfort that is sometimes claimed for them.

 

[python]

once again, as i have pointed out above, statistical arguments about petty technicalities is missing forest for the trees. rfec not only accepted wada's clen incidence statistics, they endorsed it. that's not were the problem is and that's not the biggest challenge for cas. as long as cas accepts that contamination was possible, however small probability, contador's arguments may stand. and again, rfec postulated that the meat origin is possibly both domestic or foreign. no ue statistics can address the foreign element and it's difficult to discount.

 

[Merckx index]

Merckx, your discussion is cogent and quite correct, provided one important assumption is made: the sample of cattle tested is chosen at random. You draw an analogy to political polling, in which small samples are taken. In that industry, a great deal of effort is devoted to ensuring that the samples are random and representative of the overall population, and not skewed in any way.

I don't have any knowlege of whether the clen testing of cattle in Spain meets these standards, but I wanted to point out that it is an important assumption. How much effort is put into making sure the testing of such a localized industry, spread out over a large area, is randomized? Are the inspectors more likely to test in certain areas, and do the farmers know this? Moreover, is there corruption in the system? Do farmers bribe inspectors? Are they able to present certain cattle for testing and hide others? They certainly have an incentive to do so -- and the government has an incentive to present a clean industry.

I do not mean to make accusations, and I don't want to overstate the point. But we are all rightly skeptical of a claim by a rider that a negative test demonstrates the absence of PED use. Similarly, negative tests for clen on Spanish cattle may or may not demonstrate that there is no significant clen issue with the cattle. I am not sure that the statistics on clen in Spanish cattle presented really provide the level of comfort that is sometimes claimed for them.

I assume that the branch of government that set up the testing system would understand the importance of taking random samples. The rough figures from EU, Spain and Basque country certainly suggest proportionate allotment. It may be that not as much care is taken to insure randomness as in political polling, because cattle testing is not just about, maybe even not mainly about, getting a handle on how much doping is going on. It's also about having a deterrent effect.

But even if one wants to argue that the statistics are not as solidly based as in electoral polling, there is another key point: they have tested tens of thousands of cattle, in Spain and the rest of the EU, and found most recently no positives at all. Under these circumstances, the is-it-random argument loses most of its steam. This argument mostly applies to a situation where you have a significant number of positives. Then you can argue that that number may be skewed. But when you have no positives at all, it’s more difficult to make that argument.

Corruption is another matter. It’s certainly possible that there is corruption in the testing system--though I note that Spain‘s largest association of meat producers has strongly repudiated Bert‘s implications:

"The rider attacks this production sector with impunity and falsifies the truth, calling into question the exhaustive control systems that are applied to bovine meat in the European Union and also in our country," Asoprovac declared.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/spanish-meat-production-association-denies-contadors-allegations

Sure, that statement, for all we know, may have no more credibility than a positive-testing athlete who swears he didn’t dope. Another Spanish agricultural representative complained that meat imported from South America (see below for further discussion) is not subjected to the same controls, that there is a nod and wink system going on that allows contaminated meat to get into Spain. But like the other rep quoted above, he has an obvious vested interest in making this claim--he’s in competition with South America, and losing rather badly at the moment--and unlike that other rep, all he can do to back up his claim is report one anecdotal story.

But suppose we accept all this. The Spanish testing system is a farce, contaminated meat is getting through to the consumer left and right. If that’s the case, then one might as well eliminate all the statistical arguments in the case, and let Bert off. This seems to be close to what Python is saying--or what he is saying that RFEC, and maybe CAS, is thinking. And to be fair, we better let off other athletes who test positive for small amounts of CB.

Let me emphasize again: It’s one thing to attack a charge in a variety of ways, hoping one or more approaches will stick. I understand this is the way legal procedures operate. So you throw out many different arguments, recognizing that some are stronger than others. One of these arguments might be that the testing system can’t be trusted. Another might be foreign meat in Spain (see below). But you don’t use an argument that not only does not help your case at all, but supports the position of the other side. That is a sign that you don’t know what you’re talking about, and that one shouldn’t trust anything you say. That calls into question whether any of your arguments have validity, or whether you are just using them in the hope that they sound good.

once again, as i have pointed out above, statistical arguments about petty technicalities is missing forest for the trees. rfec not only accepted wada's clen incidence statistics, they endorsed it. that's not were the problem is and that's not the biggest challenge for cas. as long as cas accepts that contamination was possible, however small probability, contador's arguments may stand. and again, rfec postulated that the meat origin is possibly both domestic or foreign. no ue statistics can address the foreign element and it's difficult to discount.

There are two arguments here, as highlighted . I’ve had my say on the first, and won’t say more, except to point out that there is always a possibility of anything. That’s why we have statistics, to put numbers to the possibility. When the number becomes low enough, we dismiss the possibility. RFEC or CAS are no different from anyone else here. The only question is how low the probability has to go before they accept that it’s not a reasonable excuse. And they ought to be upfront about that. One in ten? One in a hundred? One in a thousand? Everyone has a standard, and in a case with the ramifications of this one, we are owed a clarification of what it is.

With regard to the second point: This imported meat is supposed to be subject to the same controls that Spanish-raised lifestock is:

Due to the fact that Spain is a member of the European Union, Spain's major food import laws come from the E.U.'s legislation on the matter. Currently, imported food must pass certain requirements before shipment to ensure the safety and quality of food for the European consumer. Throughout the process of raising livestock for food, a competent veterinarian who can properly inspect and guarantee that the resulting food product came from a healthy animal and is safe for human consumption must be present. The food source must comply with E.U. chemical regulations to limit or eliminate pesticide, chemical residue and contaminant levels.

Read more: Import Laws in Spain | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/list_7238325_import-laws-spain.html#ixzz1G9evjxzu

Now maybe this is all a joke. As noted above, a representative of a Spanish Agricultural Association thinks so. I think it’s highly unlikely that all meat coming into Spain circumvents controls, but maybe some of it does. We have no idea how much, but at least we can ask how much meat is involved. According to the same source who criticized the testing system:

The European Union has signed an agreement with Mercosur, South America's common market, to import 20 million tons of meat over three years for the 27 European countries. Spain, which is meat-deficient, receives a minumum of two million tons

That’s two million tons over three years, which compares with Spanish production of 4.2 million tons in 2001, the most recent year for which I could find data. So about 13-14% of the meat consumed in Spain might be of South American origin. That is a sizeable fraction to be sure, but even if all of it is contaminated, which I very much doubt, the odds are still considerably against any particular meat consumed being tainted.

There are other factors that could come into play. If one of the main import points is close to where the meat was supposedly bought, as the representative stated, maybe the % should go up further. OTOH, a much smaller fraction of S.A. meat is subject to a lower tariff. This is higher quality meat, which one might imagine Bert’s chef would be more likely to choose, and it is probably more likely to be clean. There may also be other countries with looser standards importing meat into Spain, which would have to be taken into account, though I'm pretty sure S.A. is by far the largest exporter of meat in the world now.

So statistics, while not nearly as clear-cut, are not completely irrelevant here. I don’t find it acceptable to wave one’s hands and say, it could have been from South America, all their meat is suspect, end of story. There are numbers one can appeal to that provide at least a rough idea of the possibilities we’re dealing with. If someone believes that all of the meat from S.A. is suspect--that we can’t PROVE that it ISN’T--then the odds of Bert having eaten such meat rise to a level that many might find acceptable for acquittal--IF he can cast significant doubt on the transfusion alternative. Others might reasonably ask, are there other numbers out there that could help us judge this case?

 

[D-Queued]

Well thought out, but my money is on AC trying to cast doubt inappropriately.

Sure, it is possible that there is corruption. Stupidity. Poor controls. etc.

But, not so long ago the prospect of mad cow disease just about killed the beef industry on more than one continent.

The BSE outbreak in England was responsible for the death of nearly 200,000 cattle, and led to the pre-emptive slaughter of four and a half million non-infected cows. Clearly, this loss was devastating to the English agricultural sector, and it is estimated the British economy bore over two billion dollars in costs to handle the disease.

Turns out that Spain - which detected its first case in 2000 - has some pretty good quality control and science programs and the University of Santiago de Compostela in Spain is doing key research comparing North American and European BSE strains.

My bet would be that there are pretty good testing protocols in place in Spain for its beef industry, and that AC's defense is about as far fetched as a UFO delivery of Aldirto's steak.

Dave.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

now that's stupid...

if they really said and proved tha contador didnt had a blood transfusion, and the only thing left as a possibility is food contamination, how can you say that?? see.. guys like you are only taking a dum in this thread. personal opinion does not matter here! what does matter is discussing facts!


if they ban contador, even with the clen (ups clean) biopassport and the "proof" that blood transfusion didnt happen, i hope the biopassport is eliminated. still, it controls the "heavy" juicers..

did ricco even had a problem with the bio passport? if not, f+ck it.

didnt had .....nice.... good luck with that. Notice I did not call your take ...stupid or any other negative. Try to get along Toy****tol fan boy. Good luck in the future. I sure hope for sake of fanboys that he does not have any negative result in any upcoming appeal etc. GLHF

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Well thought out, but my money is on AC trying to cast doubt inappropriately.

Sure, it is possible that there is corruption. Stupidity. Poor controls. etc.

But, not so long ago the prospect of mad cow disease just about killed the beef industry on more than one continent.



Turns out that Spain - which detected its first case in 2000 - has some pretty good quality control and science programs and the University of Santiago de Compostela in Spain is doing key research comparing North American and European BSE strains.

My bet would be that there are pretty good testing protocols in place in Spain for its beef industry, and that AC's defense is about as far fetched as a UFO delivery of Aldirto's steak.

Dave.

be careful Dave ...CandCfan will call your post STUPID. least he forget that stupid is as stupid does...etc....etc.....etc.........

 

[Oldman]

be careful Dave ...CandCfan will call your post STUPID. least he forget that stupid is as stupid does...etc....etc.....etc.........

Whoa now there fella! I've been overusing that Gumpism and didn't give up the franchise just yet.

 

[sniper]

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

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





Asked about the plasticisers theory that also appeared in the press, Contador replied: “In no part of the UCI’s dossier were plasticisers mentioned. It’s a method that still needs to be verified, but I will go further: let them freeze my blood and urine and analyse them in a few years when it has been verified. My biological passport has not got a stain on it, the UCI admits this. A transfusion would change some of the parameters.”



If you read that, the subtitle of the article seems quite misleading:

Tour de France champion offers his samples up for retrospective testing

 

[Benotti69]

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

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





Asked about the plasticisers theory that also appeared in the press, Contador replied: “In no part of the UCI’s dossier were plasticisers mentioned. It’s a method that still needs to be verified, but I will go further: let them freeze my blood and urine and analyse them in a few years when it has been verified. My biological passport has not got a stain on it, the UCI admits this. A transfusion would change some of the parameters.”



If you read that, the subtitle of the article seems quite misleading:

Tour de France champion offers his samples up for retrospective testing

YEAH, like he also offered his DNA for the Op Puerto with Fuentes but it never happened. SSDD.

His argument about minute traces of Clen not enough to performance enhance, well we have all heard that it is to reduce fat and lean up muscles so he dont fool the clinic. but i dont see any evidence that he didn't dope in this article.

He is obviously preparing to take it beyond CAS and to a european court and probably hoping to keep riding all the while and the final decision will be after he is retired like Bosman.

 

[Race Radio]

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

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





Asked about the plasticisers theory that also appeared in the press, Contador replied: “In no part of the UCI’s dossier were plasticisers mentioned. It’s a method that still needs to be verified, but I will go further: let them freeze my blood and urine and analyse them in a few years when it has been verified. My biological passport has not got a stain on it, the UCI admits this. A transfusion would change some of the parameters.”



If you read that, the subtitle of the article seems quite misleading:

Tour de France champion offers his samples up for retrospective testing

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

 

[Publicus]

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

He said he was tested during the DL and BEFORE the Tour, which is the window that folks suggest is when he was doping with clen. At least that's what I recall from the discussions, but admittedly, I've not followed it as close as some.

 

[Colm.Murphy]

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

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

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

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