Others have commented on how generally empty Ramos’ article is. But I find it revealing (not intentionally on his part) in a couple of ways. First, it now seems very clear that their entire case for CB-tainted beef does indeed rest on this brother of a dealer who was busted. More than ten years ago, no less. They apparently are not going to argue that the meat came from outside the country. Given the strict standards in Spain, I think this really damages their case. The issue is not whether some farmers give CB to cattle. Both prosecution as well as defense in RFEC agreed that they probably still do. The question is whether they let it clear enough to pass the test, and the statistics indicate that they do.
The tainted meat eaten by Alberto Contador was likely purchased from a company owned by two brothers, and one of them was sanctioned in 2000 for fattening cattle with clenbuterol. After an intense investigation, the Basque Country Government determined that the most likely source was the meat from the company owned by the two brothers.
Second, Ramos argues that CB has to be taken over a period of two weeks to be useful for weight loss. He makes this argument in the context of the negative before and after evidence, which as we all know, is not what this case is about. It’s about transfusion. If you follow the link Ramos provides, you find this statement:
As a stand alone steroid Clenbuterol cycle is two weeks on and two weeks off at 120-140mcgs a day for men and 80-100mcgs for women
What I find most interesting about this statement is that the dosage is much higher than I had assumed Bert or any other rider would be taking. A dose this high would be consistent with transfusion of even a very small amount of blood, or with transfusion of the usual amount following a single dose, let alone a daily regimen. And it also has relevance to the case of Neilsen, the Danish rider. I thought his reported urine level, 300 pg/ml, was too high to likely result from transfusion. But if he was taking doses of 100 ug or more, no problem at all.
Athletes, of course, have to balance performance enhancing effect against likelihood of getting caught. It seems to me that with CB, you would want to reduce the time of taking it. Two weeks is a long window of vulnerability (plus several days or more to clear from the system), particularly in Bert’s case, where the alleged window between the DL and the TDF was I think less than a month. If CB really has to be taken for two weeks to be useful, I think this would be significant evidence against the transfusion theory; not proof, by any means, but a very reasonable objection.
I imagine that some benefit would result from a shorter period of time. And in the context of a doping trial, such psychological considerations generally carry little or no weight, anyway--e.g., Ramos's point that a TDF leader would not dope in the middle of the race. It's supposed to be about science, not abou what a rider would or wouldn't do. But for a personal opinion of whether he doped or not, the length of time required to take CB seems to me a fair point to raise.