Contador acquitted

[Oldman]

I hadn’t heard this before. Rather strange, because the longer the half-life, the HIGHER the estimated amount of CB ingested, which is just what you don’t want when you’re making the case for meat contamination. Twenty-four hours definitely helps Bert, using that value, the estimate of ingested CB could be lowered to 55 ng. But that value--which assumes no tissue absorption at all, which is almost certainly not the case--still implies eating a lot of meat that passed inspection: 10 ng per 100 g. And it is also consistent, of course, with transfusion scenarios in which even lower doses of CB were used during the withdrawal period.

Interestingly, if Bert’s team could make a case for a much higher amount of CB ingested, say 1 ug, they might have a better case. Transfusion is a much more likely explanation than contamination for values over 30-40 ng. But for really high values like 1ug, transfusion is unlikely. To ingest 1 ug of CB by transfusion, you would probably have to take around 150 ug or more of CB once or twice daily for several days, then withdraw/re-infuse 500 ml of blood. That is a pretty large dose, almost certainly larger than is used for weight loss, and might cause very noticeable side effects. You would be unlikely to ingest 1 ug from contaminated meat, either, but as the Mexico studies show, it is possible. There is meat out there with the required levels. It would still be a very low probability event, but as you push the estimate of the amount of ingested CB up, it seems to me that you dramatically lower the odds of transfusion.

I really appreciate the serious expertise brought to this discussion and am learning a great deal.
On a parallel universe note: I was poolside in Vegas this weekend talking about sports careers with a 35+ year old construction manager. Out of the blue he mentioned he was p*ssed at his 15 year old Goddaughter's volleyball coach for getting her a prescription for Chlenbuterol to help her lose weight! He remembered getting it to help make weight himself in high school wrestling and thought everyone knew about it.
And people think these investigations are a waste of taxpayers money...

 

[lean mean &green]

I hadn’t heard this before. Rather strange, because the longer the half-life, the HIGHER the estimated amount of CB ingested, which is just what you don’t want when you’re making the case for meat contamination.

a bit of an oops on my part. i assumed Budden took 35 hours from de Boer's report but i reviewed it and to de Boer's credit he actually works out scenarios based upon 24, 32, and 40 hour half lives. i don't know where Budden got 35 hrs?

EDIT: he probably took it from this now very familiar research article - they estimate a 35 hour half life: LINK. (to be fair to Budden, he also references this article at times)

 

[Merckx index]

a bit of an oops on my part. i assumed Budden took 35 hours from de Boer's report but i reviewed it and to de Boer's credit he actually works out scenarios based upon 24, 32, and 40 hour half lives. i don't know where Budden got 35 hrs?

Thirty-five hours is what was reported in the Yamamoto paper that Budden and many other people cite as a source of human pharmacokinetic data. I thought this was fairly well accepted, not as an exact figure, of course, but as a very good approximation. Cattle are reported to have a 24 hour half-life, at least in the articles I cited, and they might be used in some kinetic models, since there are studies you can do with them that you can't with humans (e.g., the amount of CB found in various tissues at various times). But there is sure to be some variation among individuals, and other factors (dosage, whether you had a recent heavy meal, could also play a role). And it is well-established that that half-life only covers 2-3 days, after which a different kinetic process kicks in. But Bert's test was well within that time frame.

There are really two strikes against Bert here. First, as covered extensively in this thread, transfusion is much more easily explained as the source of the relatively high levels of CB than is contamination. Second, a given amount of CB taken via transfusion is subject to less absorption, so more of it gets into the urine faster than is the case with an oral dose (not to mention an oral dose that first has to be digested). So working backward from a given urine level of CB, the calculated amount of CB ingested is lower for transfusion than for oral intake. Both these factors work against Bert.

 

[rata de sentina]

Again, I welcome you to jump into this discussion.

My point is that I don't think there is enough data or I am not convinced of its' relevance to do other than speculate. My comment about the mexican reference wasn't necessarily directed at you but rather at the blog you cited because I rather easily found a much more scientifically rigorous study (which may or may not be more relevant, impossible to say) of a similar vintage. So for the moment you'll have to be content with me sniping from the sidelines

I will say, however, that I spent about an hour on medline the other day for my own interest and I am content that ACs story is still plausible but unlikely. If additional information is forthcoming that may swing either way.

 

[rata de sentina]

in conclusion, i would expect the amount of the drug budden predicted within contaminated meat to be underestimated using his methods. as merckx index suggests, an animal can only be given so much clenbuterol without making the animal very sick or raising other red flags and it appears we're approaching those boundaries. the deeper you investigate, the less contador's meat story seems plausible.

Well it is quite possible for animals dosed with CB to have very high levels in the meat. This was shown in previous poisoning episodes where 1000ug/kg was reported. Admittedly, that is not what is being discussed here but it shows that the practicality of those concentrations are not at issue. It is more about the likelihood in circumastances wher farmers are trying to avoid detection.

 

[Merckx index]

My point is that I don't think there is enough data or I am not convinced of its' relevance to do other than speculate.

The more relevant question, I think, is, does Bert's team have access to data that we don't? If they don't, and so far there is nothing to indicate that they have very much more, then they are speculating as much as we are. Which means that his fate is going to be determined by speculation, a game anyone informed can play.

Presumably those involved in the case do know a few things I can't find out, such as how much meat Bert ate, how long after the meal he was tested, and the volume of his urine. But one can provide a range for all of these values that surely includes the actual numbers.

My comment about the mexican reference wasn't necessarily directed at you but rather at the blog you cited because I rather easily found a much more scientifically rigorous study (which may or may not be more relevant, impossible to say) of a similar vintage.

Based on your original description of this study, I assume it was the one I subsequently cited, or at least very similar to it. What I find most significant about the results of that study was not how heavily some Mexican meat may be contaminated, but how much of the meat sampled, though contaminated, was still at levels that would not account for Bert's positive.

I will say, however, that I spent about an hour on medline the other day for my own interest and I am content that ACs story is still plausible but unlikely. If additional information is forthcoming that may swing either way.

"Plausible" can mean just about anything, particularly if it is not considered inconsistent with "unlikely". I hope the final judgment will be based on numbers, i.e., we consider the probability of his having obtained CB from meat to be such-and-such, and from transfusion such-and-such. If no such numbers are presented, but only words like "plausible" are used, I will regard the decision as a fraud. Decisions as important as these should not be based on subjective factors.

Someone might define plausible as having at least a one in ten chance occurring, or one in twenty, fifty, one hundred, whatever. But I hope the final decision is honest and transparent enough to use such definitions, and back them up with whatever data are relevant.

 

[python]

i still don’t understand why people don’t learn that ‘this is how things should be’ (though perfectly fine for a forum), often result in disappointments. strange enough, things often have their own way of how they ‘should be‘. isn’t this only a less a arrogant way of saying, ‘unless it’s my way, it’s totally unacceptable‘ ? I’d completely understand the turn of phrase if one’s own neck was hanging there…

fair enough, this internet speculation about a multi-dimensional pharmacokinetics model with a myriad of uncertainties is fun, isn’t it ? but is it fraud if the fun ends up not as expected ? or perhaps it was a self -delusion not fit for firm conclusions when dose size, test and dinner timing, rate of urination, bio-availability, individual metabolism, half-life etc etc were and still are unknown ?

with so much uncertainty, hearing such strong language (scientist or not) wrapped in the cold steel-reinforced concrete of rhetoric is just as strange to my ears as the ’zero tolerance’ utterances of anti-doping politicians !

agree or disagree with cas, but time and again cas’s decisions are remarkably consistent. they tell us exactly the criteria and how it was applied. it takes reading through just few of those rulings, to realise what to expect for the criteria: ‘to the comfortable satisfaction of the panel’, ‘preponderance of evidence‘. fractions and decimals figure only to extent they support those exact legal terms. never for the sake of numbers supporting numbers.

yet, time and again, regardless of the objective examples, even the thoughtful and well meaning will tell cas what their criteria should be, ‘otherwise it’s fraud‘.

funny, i just recalled the best investment advice i ever received, ’ read what the markets did on a day rather than ‘this is how things should have been’ if they moved against you'.

 

[lean mean &green]

Well it is quite possible for animals dosed with CB to have very high levels in the meat. This was shown in previous poisoning episodes where 1000ug/kg was reported. Admittedly, that is not what is being discussed here but it shows that the practicality of those concentrations are not at issue. It is more about the likelihood in circumastances wher farmers are trying to avoid detection.

1000 micrograms per kilo of bodyweight?!

most poisonings i've seen involve consumption of liver tissue, i admit i would be a bit suprised to see the above concentration in skeletal muscle (steak).

in very simple terms, the likelihood of a farmer using considerable amounts of clenbuterol on an animal about to be slaughtered, let alone a calf intended to be slaughtered as veal (already low in fat) seems extremely low. that's just my opinion.

 

[D-Queued]

1000 micrograms per kilo of bodyweight?!

most poisonings i've seen involve consumption of liver tissue, i admit i would be a bit suprised to see the above concentration in skeletal muscle (steak).

in very simple terms, the likelihood of a farmer using considerable amounts of clenbuterol on an animal about to be slaughtered, let alone a calf intended to be slaughtered as veal (already low in fat) seems extremely low. that's just my opinion.

There is so much 'fat' in the beef industry that they just throw money at all kinds of crazy things.

(Yes, this is sarcasm. The Beef industry is like most of agriculture, and operates on very thin margin.)

Dave.

 

[Escarabajo]

Merckx Index & Lean, mean, & Green

Thanks for your input in this subject. It has been very helpful.

 

[Merckx index]

i still don’t understand why people don’t learn that ‘this is how things should be’ (though perfectly fine for a forum), often result in disappointments. strange enough, things often have their own way of how they ‘should be‘. isn’t this only a less a arrogant way of saying, ‘unless it’s my way, it’s totally unacceptable‘ ?

I hear what you're saying, but to put this in perspective, my reaction to any final decision in Bert's case will be considerably milder than the reaction of many here if the LA investigation concludes there is no evidence that he ever doped, or committed any crimes related to use of PEDs. There are always two ways to look at it: my way or the highway, I know it better than anyone else; or I will think for myself, and not accept a decision just because it was made through official channels.

is it fraud if the fun ends up not as expected ?

The key issue for me is not “not as expected” but “not backed up with evidence”. The RFEC decision was not backed up with evidence, at least not evidence made publicly known. If CAS backs up any decision it might make with transparent evidence, I will certainly judge them less harshly.

or perhaps it was a self -delusion not fit for firm conclusions when dose size, test and dinner timing, rate of urination, bio-availability, individual metabolism, half-life etc etc were and still are unknown ?

Again, there is a difference between not knowing the precise values of parameters, and not knowing the range in which they fall. Most of these parameters can be known at least in regard to a range. To the extent that variability still remains (individual variation, e.g.), CAS or any other official organization is flying just as blind as everyone else. Just what assumptions they make in these cases will tell us a lot about their judgment process.

with so much uncertainty, hearing such strong language (scientist or not) wrapped in the cold steel-reinforced concrete of rhetoric is just as strange to my ears as the ’zero tolerance’ utterances of anti-doping politicians !

Scientists tend to be low or zero tolerance with regard to process, not conclusions. Hence the overwhelming support for evolution, which is based on evidence, and hostility towards Creationism, which isn’t. Not to say that scientists don't have their own biasses. They can be very resistant to dropping their pet theory. But most scientists will eventually change their minds when presented with enough evidence in support of a different view.

agree or disagree with cas, but time and again cas’s decisions are remarkably consistent. they tell us exactly the criteria and how it was applied. it takes reading through just few of those rulings, to realise what to expect for the criteria: ‘to the comfortable satisfaction of the panel’, ‘preponderance of evidence‘. fractions and decimals figure only to extent they support those exact legal terms. never for the sake of numbers supporting numbers.

No problem here. That was the point I made when I said terms like “plausible” should be defined in terms of numbers. Though I think a word like plausible is is understood too differently by people to be used in legal decisions. Better terms are preponderance, as you say, and "reasonable doubt", for example. These terms are actually in the WADA code, they are understood by most people in roughly the same way, and can be translated at least approximately into numbers.

funny, i just recalled the best investment advice i ever received, ’ read what the markets did on a day rather than ‘this is how things should have been’ if they moved against you'.

Yeah, but don’t discount the possibility that they are rigged, either. The Dow was not by anyone’s understanding supposed to have dropped nearly a thousand points in a few minutes last summer.

 

[hrotha]

According to As, the RFEC is pretty sure the UCI will appeal.

 

[sniper]

yes, it's also on cyclingnews
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/spanish-federation-believe-uci-will-appeal-contador-case

 

[sniper]

Federation president Juan Carlos Castaño revealed that he had spoken to UCI president Pat McQuaid in the wake of the Contador decision. “He congratulated us on the work we’d done, but complained about political intervention,” said Castaño. This followed comments made by Spanish prime minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, who posted a message on Twitter saying that there was no judicial reason why Contador could be found guilty of doping.

Castaño said the intervention had not affected the decision of the competitions committee, but added: “That indirect interference did seem inopportune to me. The image that it gave abroad was that those declarations did play a role in exonerating him.”
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/spanish-federation-believe-uci-will-appeal-contador-case


DUUHHH

the comment speaks volumes, though: apparently, the RFEC was always going to clear AC, also without Zappa's interference.
Question then remains: why?

 

[Moondance]

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-sport/two-year-ban-for-hockeyroo-squad-member-20110315-1bv38.html

Don't know whether this has been posted yet, but I thought this was interesting. Jane Bennett, and Australian pro field hockey player, has just received a two-year ban for testing positive for clenbuterol. Unfortunately no mention of how much clen was found.

 

[Dimtick]

Federation president Juan Carlos Castaño revealed that he had spoken to UCI president Pat McQuaid in the wake of the Contador decision. “He congratulated us on the work we’d done, but complained about political intervention,” said Castaño. This followed comments made by Spanish prime minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, who posted a message on Twitter saying that there was no judicial reason why Contador could be found guilty of doping.

Castaño said the intervention had not affected the decision of the competitions committee, but added: “That indirect interference did seem inopportune to me. The image that it gave abroad was that those declarations did play a role in exonerating him.”
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/spanish-federation-believe-uci-will-appeal-contador-case


DUUHHH

the comment speaks volumes, though: apparently, the RFEC was always going to clear AC, also without Zappa's interference.
Question then remains: why?

I think the article was pretty clear. The RFEC is begging the CAS to appeal so that they can take all responsibility for the final outcome and RFEC can save face with the Spanish politicians. Bunch of spineless lawyers. not only was RFEC begging for an appeal, they also said on what grounds it should be appealed. Entire interview was nothing but lawyer double speak. Now that RFEC has ruled i don't think it's allowed to have communication with UCI so they are finding ways to pass coded messages.

 

[roundabout]

I like how Sanz admits that the RFEC decision and Contador's arguments have to be revised

 

[spalco]

I think the article was pretty clear. The RFEC is begging the CAS to appeal so that they can take all responsibility for the final outcome and RFEC can save face with the Spanish politicians. Bunch of spineless lawyers. not only was RFEC begging for an appeal, they also said on what grounds it should be appealed. Entire interview was nothing but lawyer double speak. Now that RFEC has ruled i don't think it's allowed to have communication with UCI so they are finding ways to pass coded messages.

I'm not sure I buy that theory. That would be quite the price to pay from the Spanish cycling federation, to look like complete fools - not only corrupt but incompetent too, if the CAS overrules their acquittal. And for what? Contador's getting banned either way.

No, I think if they acquitted Contador despite the evidence compelling them to ban him (which I strongly believe is true) they did so with the hope of getting him off for good imo.

 

[Merckx index]

I like how Sanz admits that the RFEC decision and Contador's arguments have to be revised

Yeah, I think that is an extraordinarily revealing thing to say. It is about as close to admitting publicly that the decision was wrong that he could possibly come. He could have said something like, we based our decision on very strong evidence, and I'm confident that when CAS sees all that evidence, they will come to the same conclusion. Contador said essentially this after the decision was announced, as did Zapatero. Sanz is pretty clearly contradicting them.

Even more remarkable, to me, is that this statement was made before UCI has made a clear commitment to appeal. As Dimtick says, Sanz is basically inviting them to bring it on. How can UCI pass on an appeal when an RFEC spokesman describes some of the evidence behind the decision as weak?

I also take Sanz's statement as further evidence that there is no magic bullet in the files that were not made public. Contador has recently said, if I understand his statement correctly, he was not tested for CB during the DL-TDF period when he most likely would have withdrawn blood with CB in it. That removes a major argument against transfusion. If they had some other very convincing argument, either for contamination or against transfusion, why would Sanz have to concede that some of the evidence was weak?

No, I think if they acquitted Contador despite the evidence compelling them to ban him (which I strongly believe is true) they did so with the hope of getting him off for good imo.

One would certainly think so. Maybe they were hoping there would not be an appeal, but now that they think there will be one, they are anticipating a possible reversal by admitting that the decision was not a slam dunk. So they can say, well, we always thought it was possible it could go the other way. They have their opinion, we have ours. We don't agree, but we accept their decision as final.

 

[rata de sentina]

1000 micrograms per kilo of bodyweight?!

most poisonings i've seen involve consumption of liver tissue, i admit i would be a bit suprised to see the above concentration in skeletal muscle (steak).

in very simple terms, the likelihood of a farmer using considerable amounts of clenbuterol on an animal about to be slaughtered, let alone a calf intended to be slaughtered as veal (already low in fat) seems extremely low. that's just my opinion.

I'm tempted to reply "do a search" but for once I'll relent.

Barbosa J et al Food Addit Contam. 2005 22:563-6
meat 0.3-1.2mg/kg liver 1.2-1.4mg/kg

Brambilla G et al Toxicol Lett. 2000 114:47-53.
meat 1.14-1.48 mg/kg

 

[Merckx index]

I'm tempted to reply "do a search" but for once I'll relent.

Barbosa J et al Food Addit Contam. 2005 22:563-6
meat 0.3-1.2mg/kg liver 1.2-1.4mg/kg

Brambilla G et al Toxicol Lett. 2000 114:47-53.
meat 1.14-1.48 mg/kg

Did they ever trace the source of the meat? I’m wondering if the CB was injected directly into the muscles of the animals. In the first place, liver concentrations are generally 5-10x higher than muscle following oral administration, so the first article’s data, where muscle levels are nearly as high at those in liver, seem strange. Is it possible they administered both orally and IM? An alternative possibility is that when animals are given really high doses of CB, the ability of the liver to detoxify is overwhelmed, and the drug ends up in higher concentrations in other tissues.

This brings me to the second point. The amount of CB injected orally to get this amount in the muscles involves amounts that sh-tload doesn’t do justice to. For example, in one of the calf studies I cited earlier, they administered CB at a dose of 5 ug/kg twice daily for three weeks. At the end of this period, the liver concentration was about 40 ug/kg, and the muscle about 5-10 ug/kg. IOW, liver levels were 30-35 times lower than reported by Barbosa et al., while muscle levels were as much as 300 times lower than some of the values reported in these two studies. This was before any withdrawal at all. Following three days of withdrawal (in the calf study I was citing), levels in liver had fallen 20-fold, those in muscle 30-60-fold

So it seems that if the animals in these studies were given oral doses, the dose must have been on the order of 0.25-1 or more mg/kg,, or 20-100 or so mg per animal. This is based on linearity of dose/tissue relationships, maybe not the case, but surely we can agree that a huge dose of CB was involved. Twice a day for at least several days, then the animals slaughtered immediately.

Or maybe they died from CB toxicity? Anyone who would give animals this much CB would probably sell meat from calves that died from it. IMHO.

 

[quarterpounder]

McQuaid and Contador

For years McQuaid has been telling us that Contador is a clean rider. Now that he has been proven correct by the spanish federation you would think he would be happy right? But no.. he wants to appeal. Tell me, how does that make sense?

 

[hrotha]

Uh, because new evidence surfaced and it suggests he might have doped?

Seriously, McQuaid is a crook, but you're grasping at straws here.

 

[lean mean &green]

I'm tempted to reply "do a search" but for once I'll relent.

you're too kind

except there's no need to do such a search. even you seemed to suggest your contribution was mostly irrelevant - this isn't about toxic megadoses and nowhere have i said contamination is impossible, just an unlikely event on top of numerous very unlikely variables in "the official contador story".

the only thing our recent discussions have made clear is that transfusion is far from being disproved and in the case of contamination an animal would have to have been given considerable amounts of the drug and been given very little time for clearing. the necessity for clearing time (if you've done your research ) has been widely understood for a few decades now.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Clentador's b*tchin' argument...

Check out this article:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/contadors-lawyer-weve-got-an-extremely-solid-case

Here are some quotes that, for me, stand out:

"The one-year sanction was a proposal for a sanction made by the examining judge. But she didn't interpret the UCI's regulations correctly, specifically regulation 296 that holds that an athlete should not be sanctioned if they bear no fault or negligence for the presence of the illegal substance in their body."

Actually the judge did do it right. It's up to Clenny to prove otherwise.

"As far as the plasticisers story goes, that came from ARD in Germany first and was then picked up by The New York Times. But in the 2000-page report we got from the Spanish federation there was not one mention of the word plasticisers."

Would it be up to the Spanish fed to disclose the DEHP?

"Alberto has gone further on this issue and said that he is willing to freeze his samples so that they can be tested in future when that plasticisers test has been validated because he is so sure of his innocence."

And yet no willingness to go for a hair-test, not even mentioned. Also absent is the teeter-totter of availing himself for a DNA test during Puerto.

"With regard to the message of support from Prime Minister Zapatero, we're happy to receive messages of support from anyone who wants to offer them. But the key thing is to focus on the resolution and want that says, to see the scientific facts and also bear in mind the regulations laid down in the UCI's anti-doping code. It's not as if it was government policy to support Alberto,"

No no no... Of course not. Anyone feeling a sense of deja vu all over again? Didn't AC's mentor/nemesis just pull this one...

"This case is not about Alberto alone but about all athletes. Three years ago the testing procedures were not as sophisticated as they are now and five years ago no one would have been able to detect such minute amounts of clenbuterol as those detected in Alberto's sample."

Ah, the defense of an ignorant testing program. I think the argument's backwards. Sounds like they prefered the old testing protocols.

Alright. Let me have it...