Contador and Froome: Clean or Dirty?

[del1962]

Contador is a convicted doping cheat, but in this particular case "convicted" and "doping cheat" are separate. He's a doping cheat who, on top of that, happens to have been convicted for something else on paper. Emphasis on "on paper" - we all know what was behind his clen positive.

When you say we all know are you talking about plasticisers in the blood or some dark behind the scenes set-up?

 

[hrotha]

When you say we all know are you talking about plasticisers in the blood or some dark behind the scenes set-up?

Plasticizers.

 

[Pack Fodder]

Plasticizers.

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Plasticizers (UK: plasticisers)

 

[hrotha]

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

I wasn't correcting his spelling, I was answering his question (using the spelling I personally favour and which comes naturally to me).

 

[LaFlorecita]

Really??????

Yes

He got caught and sanctioned (after a long appeals process) with an illegal performance enhancing drug in his system. So ya, Contador is a convicted doping cheat.

Hrotha has the perfect answer.

Contador is a convicted doping cheat, but in this particular case "convicted" and "doping cheat" are separate. He's a doping cheat who, on top of that, happens to have been convicted for something else on paper. Emphasis on "on paper" - we all know what was behind his clen positive.

Exactly

 

[LaFlorecita]

alberto...............busted! da dawg.................getting away with it ...for now

Mark L

Ebandit you almost gave me a heart attack

 

[Pack Fodder]

I wasn't correcting his spelling, I was answering his question (using the spelling I personally favour and which comes naturally to me).

I apologise. My mistake.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

He got caught and sanctioned (after a long appeals process) with an illegal performance enhancing drug in his system. So ya, Contador is a "convicted doping cheat"

Contador was convicted of having 50 pictgrams of clen in his body on July 21, 2010. This is equal to 50 trillionths of a gram. Everyone who understands pharmacology and the CAS is in agreement that the amount under any circumstances could not have had a performance enhancing effect.

Clenbuterol is not a performance enhancing drug under certain levels and Contador was massively under the thresh-hold.

None of Contador's blood samples in the 2010 TDF before July 21, 2010 indicated any amount of clen.

So yes Contador had a prohibited drug on July 21, 2010 that would have no performance enhancing effect and would not have given him one iota of advantage in that years TDF. He was convicted on the highly suspicious basis of strict liability since this drug under certain levels does not have a performance enhancing effect.

Your statement is a pretty specious basis for saying he is a convicted doping cheat especially since at no other time in his career has he been found in contravention of the WADA rules.

 

[King Boonen]

It is very obvious, to anyone who works in the area, that Contadors positive was most likely due to clenbuterol in a blood bag he had infused, the concentration is irrelevant.

 

[Almeisan]

Contador was convicted of having 50 pictgrams of clen in his body on July 21, 2010. This is equal to 50 trillionths of a gram. Everyone who understands pharmacology and the CAS is in agreement that the amount under any circumstances could not have had a performance enhancing effect.

That's not the point. He is not allowed to put performance enhancing substances in his blood.
Also, when the clen was measured it was at a level below where it has PE effects. You are saying Contador injected himself with a dose that would be high enough to test positive but too low to have an affect?

Anyway, we both know he had such low levels of clen in his blood all the sudden because of trace amounts of clen in the blood bag he used on the rest day.

Clenbuterol is not a performance enhancing drug under certain levels and Contador was massively under the thresh-hold.

So we are gonna allow superlow doses of EPO as well?

None of Contador's blood samples in the 2010 TDF before July 21, 2010 indicated any amount of clen.

So why is that? He injected himself with a superlow dose on July 20? Or was it the blood bag?

So yes Contador had a prohibited drug on July 21, 2010 that would have no performance enhancing effect and would not have given him one iota of advantage in that years TDF. He was convicted on the highly suspicious basis of strict liability since this drug under certain levels does not have a performance enhancing effect.

So if we are gonna let riders slip that test positive for stuff that doesn't enhance performance are we also gonna ban riders that do use PEs at concentrations that enhance performance but that don't test positive?

Your statement is a pretty specious basis for saying he is a convicted doping cheat especially since at no other time in his career has he been found in contravention of the WADA rules.

Wut. He was banned for 2 years. Why? Because he broke the WADA rules and most importantly, he got caught.
http://www.wada-ama.org/en/media-center/archives/articles/wada-statement-on-clenbuterol/
Human body doesn't produce any amount of clen. Even if someone has 1 molecule in a swimming pool of urine, he broke the WADA rules.

Contador failed the IQ test. He doped all his career, together with hundreds of others, but he tested positive because someone finally slipped up and made a mistake. And you want to let it slip? Why even bother with any doping controls? It isn't gonna catch athletes that carry out their doping program as intended. And now you want to let athletes that accidentally trip the wire go as well?


On top of that, he still hasn't told us the truth.

You want to see Contador do this again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfuqvG6xJdk


Kind of silly the arguments you make. It makes Contador look worse than what he was banned for. That CAS ruling made 0 sense at all. Instead of agreeing with Contador's lawyers, who presented contradictory arguments to defeat separate points, because the legal process apparently worked on a point by point basis, CAS came up with something even more absurd to explain the clen levels.

Reading the Contador court case at CAS was hilarious. His lawyers said one thing to dodge one point and something completely different on another point. So CAS conceded both points to the Contador team because while they presented a scientifically impossible story, they won both arguments on legal points.

It was my intention to link the Randell article, but it seems it was deleted.

 

[Andynonomous]

I stated in a previous post what RobbietheCanuck would say (post #84)

So, the guy who claims
...
- that we should ignore convicted doping cheat Contador's conviction because the level of clen wasn't high enough to be performance enhancing, even though it almost certainly came from an illegal blood transfusion, and was likely at a much higher density when the blood was extracted,
...

So, how does he answer ?

Contador was convicted of having 50 pictgrams of clen in his body on July 21, 2010. This is equal to 50 trillionths of a gram. Everyone who understands pharmacology and the CAS is in agreement that the amount under any circumstances could not have had a performance enhancing effect.

Clenbuterol is not a performance enhancing drug under certain levels and Contador was massively under the thresh-hold.

None of Contador's blood samples in the 2010 TDF before July 21, 2010 indicated any amount of clen.

So yes Contador had a prohibited drug on July 21, 2010 that would have no performance enhancing effect and would not have given him one iota of advantage in that years TDF. He was convicted on the highly suspicious basis of strict liability since this drug under certain levels does not have a performance enhancing effect.

Your statement is a pretty specious basis for saying he is a convicted doping cheat especially since at no other time in his career has he been found in contravention of the WADA rules.

And you get angry at US ?

You keep using the same lame arguments over and over, knowing damned well that they are illegitimate. You sir are a TROLL !

Again, why the fudge are you here ?

 

[RobbieCanuck]

I stated in a previous post what RobbietheCanuck would say (post #84) So, how does he answer ? And you get angry at US ? You keep using the same lame arguments over and over, knowing damned well that they are illegitimate. You sir are a TROLL ! Again, why the fudge are you here ?

I am not angry with you. What is abundantly clear however is you simply do not understand basic logic or reason. You continue to hack away that Contador is a "convicted doping cheat" which technically is correct.

But what your rather simple mind cannot grasp however is the cogent, reasonable and logical argument that the "conviction" is a purely technical one, that is not supported by the science and under no circumstances did it have a performance enhancing effect which is the raison d'etre of doping regulation.

Your response is childish, puerile and ignorant, because of your blinkered thinking and negative bias towards Contador. You are intellectually dishonest.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

It is very obvious, to anyone who works in the area, that Contadors positive was most likely due to clenbuterol in a blood bag he had infused, the concentration is irrelevant.

That conclusion is sheer speculation. It is based on an incorrect premise that the urine sample in fact showed plasticizers that specifically came from a blood bag when plasticizers come from a myriad of plastic products including water bottles.

So it is not obvious at all. It is only obvious to you because you are a cynical Contador hater.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

So it is not obvious at all. It is only obvious to you because you are a cynical Contador hater.

You could not be more wrong about King Boonen.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Almeisan

That's not the point. He is not allowed to put performance enhancing substances in his blood.

While the rules do not allow Contador or any cyclist to have clen in their body there is no proof, nor was there any at the CAS hearing that Contador intentionally put clen in his body. The CAS concluded that it probably came from a supplement and that Contador did not know it contained clen. Read the CAS decision and educate yourself.

Also, when the clen was measured it was at a level below where it has PE effects. You are saying Contador injected himself with a dose that would be high enough to test positive but too low to have an affect?

He did not "inject" himself with clen. EVERY test AC took before July 21, 2010 showed there was NO presence of clen in his samples. Therefore the absurdly minute amount on July 21, 2010 could not have come from a greater dose. Your logic is absurd.

Anyway, we both know he had such low levels of clen in his blood all the sudden because of trace amounts of clen in the blood bag he used on the rest day.

What is your point?

So we are gonna allow superlow doses of EPO as well?

Of course not. Don't be ridiculous Anyone who understands the difference between clen and EPO which you clearly do not, knows that any amount of EPO has a performance enhancing effect. Read any of Dr. Ashenden's articels about EPO. That is not the case with clen especially at the absurdly lows levels that were in Contador.

So why is that? He injected himself with a superlow dose on July 20? Or was it the blood bag?

There was absolutely no evidence the clen in Contador came from a blood bag. The CAS agree this was the case. If there was evidence of plasticizers in AC's sample there are a zillion reasons that could be including plastic residues from a water bottle. Besides which the test used for plasticizers on his samples was not an approved test, but I gather that fact does not keep you from speculation.

So if we are gonna let riders slip that test positive for stuff that doesn't enhance performance are we also gonna ban riders that do use PEs at concentrations that enhance performance but that don't test positive?

This comment is painfully illogical. What is needed with clen is a threshold test, where the amount found is so miniscule that no reasonable interpretation could be made that the amount found in the test came from a greater amount that would be performance enhancing.

In spite of every argument you biased, cynical Contador haters make, you cannot deny two basic facts. Firstly there is no suggestion the 50 picograms in AC came from a greater amount, and secondly, that the actual amount was so insignificant it could not possibly have had a performance enhancing effect. Learn to live with facts and not speculation.

Wut. He was banned for 2 years. Why? Because he broke the WADA rules and most importantly, he got caught.url]http://www.wada-ama.org/en/media-center/archives/articles/wada-statement-on-clenbuterol/[/url]

He was banned because of strict liability. IMO the CAS decision says no more or no less. Rather than cite the judgement why don't you read it because it is obvious by your ridiculous comments you have not or if you did you clearly do not understand it.

Human body doesn't produce any amount of clen. Even if someone has 1 molecule in a swimming pool of urine, he broke the WADA rules.

Yes as the rules currently are set he broke the rule. But it is a pretty stupid rule that suspends a rider for 2 years when the amount is so minute, so small it could not under any circumstances have had a performance enhancing effect. What is needed with clen is a threshold rule, otherwise the rule makes a mockery of the intent of WADA rules. The analogy is you do not get charged with impaired driving unless your blood alcohol exceeds a baseline limit.

Contador failed the IQ test. He doped all his career, together with hundreds of others, but he tested positive because someone finally slipped up and made a mistake. And you want to let it slip? Why even bother with any doping controls? It isn't gonna catch athletes that carry out their doping program as intended. And now you want to let athletes that accidentally trip the wire go as well?

The IQ test? Given your rather substandard arguments this is like you the kettle calling the pot black. There is absolutely no evidence Contador doped all of his career. This is sheer feckless unsubstantiated, baseless speculation. You have been suckered into this belief by the negative Contador haters in the Clinic, who also cannot accept the logic of the contradictory nature of his violation.

I challenge you here and now to prove with logical, cogent arguments that Contador has doped all his career. You simply will not be able to do it. But go for it if you have the cojones to do so. But you better be able to make a persuasive argument based on fact and not conjecture.

Kind of silly the arguments you make. It makes Contador look worse than what he was banned for. That CAS ruling made 0 sense at all. Instead of agreeing with Contador's lawyers, who presented contradictory arguments to defeat separate points, because the legal process apparently worked on a point by point basis, CAS came up with something even more absurd to explain the clen levels.

Are you seriously suggesting that the CAS arbitrators who were trained lawyers, who have had years of experience in dealing with doping cases, understand the legislation, understand the probative value of evidence and have a vast understanding of the doping scene are less qualified to judge the case than you? What are your qualifications? I note you, like so many of the strident unqualified speculating posters in the Clinic have not posted a single thing in your profile that qualifies you to make the outrageous and specious claims you make.

Reading the Contador court case at CAS was hilarious. His lawyers said one thing to dodge one point and something completely different on another point. So CAS conceded both points to the Contador team because while they presented a scientifically impossible story, they won both arguments on legal points.

Your interpretation of the Contador CAS decision is laughable because it doesn't even come close to an accurate assessment of the arguments in the case. If your are going to make such a baseless argument then cite those excerpts from the CAS decision verbatim that support your point. Not doing so is a pretty sloppy and lazy way to try to make a point.

The fact is AC is the best cyclist of his era based on pure natural talent. Live with it.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

You could not be more wrong about King Boonen.

Okay KB fanboy. Why not? What information are you hiding from us? If you are going to post any kind of conclusion in the Clinic substantiate it rather than just saying it.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

@ Afrank

Do you now understand what I was saying in my private message to you? Read posts 97 to 105 inclusive.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Okay KB fanboy. Why not? What information are you hiding from us? If you are going to post any kind of conclusion in the Clinic substantiate it rather than just saying it.

@ Afrank

Do you now understand what I was saying in my private message to you? Read posts 97 to 105 inclusive.

To be honest, I think people should discuss doping in the clinic, which is what it was set up for. Discussing other posters is not only off-topic, but pretty much against the intent of the forum.

My information is based on reading most of King Boonen's posts, given he knows what he is talking about due to work and what not, when it comes to lab based stuff.

He is clearly intelligent and capable of rational thought, and is not stuck to one agenda or dogma.

Your continual ranting and raving at posters adds no value whatsoever. IF anything it makes you look like you forgot to take your medication.

 

[stutue]

Discussing other posters is not only off-topic, but pretty much against the intent of the forum.

Indeed. Its such a shame you then go on to do exactly that with a nasty personal attack implying mental illness

Your continual ranting and raving at posters adds no value whatsoever. IF anything it makes you look like you forgot to take your medication.

Classy.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Indeed. Its such a shame you then go on to do exactly that with a nasty personal attack implying mental illness



Classy.

No less classy than the constant cries of posters "frothing at the mouth" - implying people have rabies or similar. Didn't see you *****ing about those posts? Oh wait. They were your buddies. NO worries.

You can take it to the extreme of an impication, or as it was intended - that he should probably take a break because every.single.post is a rant and a rave. Obectivity clearly gone, I doubt it's good for his health by now.

 

[stutue]

No less classy than the constant cries of posters "frothing at the mouth" - implying people have rabies or similar. Didn't see you *****ing about those posts? Oh wait. They were your buddies. NO worries.

So two wrongs make a right do they?

"My buddies"? My buddies exist in real life although some of them originate from other cycling forums. These are people I meet in real life on a near weekly basis. One of them is the godfather of my children.

You can take it to the extreme of an impication, or as it was intended - that he should probably take a break because every.single.post is a rant and a rave. Obectivity clearly gone, I doubt it's good for his health by now.

On the contrary, I think it is you that needs to take a break. Listen to yourself.

I'm actually quite surprised at you. I had you down as one of the good guys. I understand that its easy to get overexcited on this bizarre clinic forum. I've got a bit trigger happy these last 24 hours, having so far managed to resist provocation.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I had you down as one of the good guys.

I have you down as a troll. So what?

 

[Andynonomous]

I am not angry with you. What is abundantly clear however is you simply do not understand basic logic or reason. You continue to hack away that Contador is a "convicted doping cheat" which technically is correct.

But what your rather simple mind cannot grasp however is the cogent, reasonable and logical argument that the "conviction" is a purely technical one, that is not supported by the science and under no circumstances did it have a performance enhancing effect which is the raison d'etre of doping regulation.

Your response is childish, puerile and ignorant, because of your blinkered thinking and negative bias towards Contador. You are intellectually dishonest.

And you sir, keep going back to legalistic arguments, rather than living in the real world.

Let me explain how the legalistic system worked in this case (and you ALREADY KNOW THIS, BUT YOU ARE TRYING TO WIND PEOPLE UP).

Contador tested positive for a small amount of clen, mid-race. He almost certainly did not intentionally take it to enhance his performance directly at the TDF, but to train before the TDF. Wada tried to argue that because he tested positive for plasticizers, he had infused blood tainted from clen ingestion by Contador well before the start of the TDF. This is almost certainly the case, however, because the plasticizer test was not sanctioned, the committee could not officially conclude this.

Contador's explanation was simply not believable, so they had to come up with another explanation (tainted supplements), which they KNEW was bogus, but they had to come up with something, that was not relying on an unsanctioned test. Since Contador had the burden of proof, this BS explanation would be good enough.



You criticize others for giving bogus arguments, yet you claim someone could test positive for plasticizers (at the appropriate dosage) from drinking from a plastic bottle. You argue that it is a "fact" that Contador is the best natural talent in a generation. Something you could never prove (unless they all raced clean).


You say that I have a simple mind, then you throw some big words at me (trying to sound smart), yet you go back to the same lame argument that the clen level was too small to be performance enhancing, when you know damned well that it was likely too small to be performance enhancing because it came from an infusion, thereby diluting the clen levels.


You say that I am ignorant, and have a blinkered, and biased view of a guy who

- comes from a country that has a reputation for doping it's athletes
- is known to be a "climber"
- has ridden on a number of teams that have doping reputations
- is suspected of being a client of the doping doctor Fuentes
- has performed extremely well in a sport that has a doping problem (I believe Armstrong when he says, you can't win the TDF today without doping)
- Is still performing today at a very high level (after a drop-off, after being caught)
- Almost certainly took performance enhancing levels of clen in the lead-up to the 2010 TDF
-Almost certainly infused a bag of blood during a rest day at the TDF

And it is me that is biased by suspecting Contador dopes, and you are not biased by arguing he is clean ?


Really ?


It is not me who is intellectually dishonest.

 

[stutue]

I have you down as a troll. So what?

OK you win. I'm a troll.

I'm deleting all my posts that involve you.

Good luck with your life.

 

[LaFlorecita]

You want to see Contador do this again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfuqvG6xJdk

what a pathetic comment