Contador and Froome: Clean or Dirty?

[Almeisan]

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.

Which Contador denies. So it is either the steak (haha) or the blood bag. Or he did inject himself that day.

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.

So where did it come from? It wasn't the food supplement.

Also, this all doesn't matter. Athlete is responsible. If WADA has to prove first that a substance is in the body, then that the substance is indeed causing performance enhancing at the measured level and then prove it was found in the body because the athlete put it there, then prove the athlete put it there to improve performance, you can just as well allow all forms of doping because in practice both come down to the same.

What is your point?

It wasn't a contaminated supplement. It wasn't a steak. It wasn't an injection on the 20th. So what is left? That's the point.

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 are we gonna allow absurdly low levels of recombinant EPO? You dodge the point.
Neither ought to be in an athletes body. We know 90% of athletes dope. Then we catch a few of them with clen or epo or stanzolol and you want to let them go free anyway?

We aren't talking about cannabis here. Clen is there to cheat because it helps. When ether it helps a little or a lot is irrelevant. Contador cheated. Got caught. Then lied about it. And now he plays fair?

There was absolutely no evidence the clen in Contador came from a blood bag. The CAS agree this was the case.

CAS are an authority on science now? CAS do legal procedures and CAS are corrupt anyway. There's evidence. But he wasn't on trait for blood doping. He was on trial for clen use. Many there wasn't enough evidence to ban an athlete for 4 years for blood doping. But the clen was there and it wasn't implanted into Contador by pixies.

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.

See. Scientifically it was proven. But legally it didn't exist. Yes, plasticizers alone are not strong evidence. But there was also the clen, the blood values, the doctors he works with, etc etc.

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.

Why a threshold? It is an exogenous substance. Problem with catching cheats is that tests often aren't sensitive enough. People can just cycle them off and pass tests. Then we do have a test that does give positives on cheats and you argue it is too sensitive?

You want to catch cheaters through tests or not? That's the logic. If we aren't going to use the few affordable tests we do have, what is the alternative? Ban by wattage?

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.

So he failed the IQ test and the stuff that did improve his performance that day, he got away with. Nice.

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.

I have a M.Sc. degree in molecular life science at Wageningen Uni and a degree of a medical laboratory analyst. I have the qualifications to apply for the position heading a anti doping lab.

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,

He cheated. It was a simple case. It was dragged out for 500 days and he got only a 2 year ban.
Clen threshold? Haha...

Blood alcohol: I have ethanol in my blood right now but I don't drink a single drop. I also have methanol in my body. I'm sure I didn't drank that stuff.
Those are not exogenous substances. If you have no threshold level everyone tests positive for 'drinking alcoholic beverages'.

See the difference?
Makes no sense.


Only point for having a clen threshold is to deliberately allow a little cheating.
Only reason. Why not have it for all other substances as well?
Surely every PE substance can be present at a low enough level to have no effect.
Even in places like Mexico and China, you shouldn't be caught. I think Rogers should have been banned, 100%. I didn't see what evidence he could provide the UCI, but unless he froze up part of the tainted steak he ate, he should be banned.

We can't let cheats like Contador off the hook, when we finally get lucky, because some other athletes are so stupid they accidentally contaminate themselves with sources of know clen contamination (pssst, it isn't filet mignon anno 2008).

And if anything, the low concentration of clen found in Contador proves it wasn't a meat contamination. If it was, it would have been higher.

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.

He tested positive for doping, got banned for 2 years for doping but there is no evidence he doped?

Let me get this straight. Almost every top rider in cycling dopes. But they all didn't get caught.
But then we have this one guy that did ride clean, mr Contador, but he got a false positive test?

Aah, the irony...

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.

Contador fanboy...

You believe it's just Contador that is clean? Or that everyone is? What about Schleck? Was he spiked by Riis?
At least Schleck tested for a masking agent. He is innocent as well?

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.

Almost all pro athletes dope. If you don't dope, someone else takes your spot. It's cutthroat competition. And cycling is known to be very sensitive to doping.
Substances are available.
Motivation and incentive is there.
Risk of getting caught is small.
Risk-reward model for cheating in cycling is pretty good.
Contador was a top rider.
Contador was always on doped up teams with doping coaches.
Tested positive, clen, blood bag.
He lied about the origin of the clen.

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?

The whole scientific community fell over CAS and the Contador case. You are faking your outrage.

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.

lol

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.

Yeah, Contador CAS case was a perfect example of how fair the trial system in sports is. No sign of bureaucracy. No corruption in sports regulatory bodies anywhere. In fact, even FIFA and Blatter, 100% honest and bonafide.

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

lol

Let's forget that if Contador's positive clen test wasn't leaked, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now

Yeah, you are right. The whole Contador case wasn't a farce.


Before I continue this, show me one reason why you are worth any more of my time.

 

[Almeisan]

what a pathetic comment

Doping is safe?

Look. Contador is kind of a victim of the system. He wants to be a pro cyclist. He has invested his life in this. Then he finds out he has to put his health on the line because the way science works is that it is 100x harder to catch doping cheaters than it is to create a doping cheater.

Sometimes, doping goes wrong. Look at him shaking there lying on the asphalt. You like how that looks?

For this I don't blame Contador. I blame those defending a system that forces people to take these risks.
Maybe it is not a lie that his family has a genetic disorder causing cerebral cavernoma, it is hard for us to make this out. We don't know what substances Contador put in his blood to worsen it. And if a serial liar tells the truth about something very unlikely, how are we to know?

It is as unlikely as Armstrong's cocktail of drugs having no effect on the tiny tumor he had before he developed cancer. Those GHG and test molecules, once their reached the capilaries leading into the neoplastic tissue, they all went one way, avoiding it and not bestowing their anabolic effects on it, speeding up the process. That never happened, folks.

 

[Almeisan]

lol I see now that 100% of RobbieCanuck's posts are about defending Contador on the clen case.

If you are gonna sockpuppet, at least read the documentation twice and read on up the science once you realize you don't get it.

I believe you read it, because you obsess about it. But you are still ignorant about interpretation. You namedrop Ashenden, but you don't get the meaning of what he says.

Sad.

I'd link the old Rendell piece, but the link is broken.

I'd post this instead:
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2010/10/more-on-contador-the-transfusion-theory/

 

[The Hitch]

Robbie believes all top athletes are clean.
He believes the NHL is the model of cleanliness. Doesn't agree with his compatriot **** Pound on that front.

Pound said a 3rd of the NHL was doping.

Of course Pound is a known cynic who knows nothing about sport and hides behind an anonymity on an internet board.

Or did he run the World Anti doping agency for a decade.

je ne me souviens pas

 

[Almeisan]

It seems he was smacked around the head with the same arguments years ago, by people, who were actually unqualified to make them (Like Alex Simmons), but he is still making them.


Guy is a troll apparently.

 

[noddy69]

Doping is safe?

Look. Contador is kind of a victim of the system. He wants to be a pro cyclist. He has invested his life in this. Then he finds out he has to put his health on the line because the way science works is that it is 100x harder to catch doping cheaters than it is to create a doping cheater.

Sometimes, doping goes wrong. Look at him shaking there lying on the asphalt. You like how that looks?

For this I don't blame Contador. I blame those defending a system that forces people to take these risks.
Maybe it is not a lie that his family has a genetic disorder causing cerebral cavernoma, it is hard for us to make this out. We don't know what substances Contador put in his blood to worsen it. And if a serial liar tells the truth about something very unlikely, how are we to know?

It is as unlikely as Armstrong's cocktail of drugs having no effect on the tiny tumor he had before he developed cancer. Those GHG and test molecules, once their reached the capilaries leading into the neoplastic tissue, they all went one way, avoiding it and not bestowing their anabolic effects on it, speeding up the process. That never happened, folks.

If the part in bold were true would it not be recurrent? With his prep and who presided over it I would have questions over the genetic disorder and what actually brought on the fit. Still not a nice vid.

As for contador being clean now, not a chance and I think full *** is coming back to the bunch. Nico winning, Contador goading Froome with pics of 2011 Giro form, Froome puffing on an inhaler and getting steroids to win, climbing times right up there with Lance/pantani's best......We would be stupid to believe anything has changed. In fact they are so complacent right now that its back to as bad we have just bought the spin of a cleaner bunch.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Robbie believes all top athletes are clean.
He believes the NHL is the model of cleanliness. Doesn't agree with his compatriot **** Pound on that front.

Pound said a 3rd of the NHL was doping.

Of course Pound is a known cynic who knows nothing about sport and hides behind an anonymity on an internet board.

Or did he run the World Anti doping agency for a decade.

je ne me souviens pas

You have taken what I said out of context. What I believe is that the best athletes in most sports do not have to dope because of their skill.

Cycling is a bit different because the culture was so ingrained. But on a theoretical level I assert that Armstrong, Hincapie, Leipheimer, Andreu, Barry, Jaske, Hamilton, Vander Velde, Vaughters, Zabriske i.e. all of the USPS bandits would have simply been mediocre middle of the pack riders without dope because they didn't have the talent.

It has been suggested that Armstrong for example who was a good athlete-cyclist would have finished no better than 35th in a GT without doping. Even Armstrong who was a good triathlete could not break 3 hours in his first marathon after his first retirement. That is not the mark of a good athlete who wants to compete in triathlons!

I am not saying and have never said doping does not exist in other sports. I just don't have the extreme ad nauseam fixation, biases, negativity, pre-conceived beliefs, cynicism and concrete thinking you do. Pound because of his position when he was at WADA was a neo-ultra alarmist. If you talk to him today, he believes there has been considerable improvement in all sports but that cycling is still a mess.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Except anyone who ever played any sport requiring skill, even once, would know when you get tired your skill level drops.

So doping to stay as fresh as possible means you can continue to express your skill to the best of your ability.

Hence Fuentes having muchos soccer clients.

 

[SiAp1984]

Of course I can understand if people have doubts in Froomes performances. However, I prefer to trust in him (maybe because I am used to be dissapointed by my cyclong idols, since Ulle was caught in 2006).

However, there is an important difference between Froome and AC: one may BELIEVE that Froome dopes. But we KNOW that AC dopes.

- He tested positive
- He raced for Saiz, Bruyneel and Riis in teams which are known for systematic doping
- He (for obvious reasons) never took a stance against doping
- He beat an in-form Cancellara in a time trial at the Tour

To be honest, I am convinced that AC is a decent one-week-racer who - by a ruthless program - was transformed to a great GT rider (similar to Armstrong). He may well be - together with Valverde - is the last representative of the so-called "old generation", i.e. guys who dope and feel right doing it..

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Of course I can understand if people have doubts in Froomes performances.
...
To be honest, I am convinced that AC is a decent one-week-racer who - by a ruthless program - was transformed to a great GT rider
...

And what of Froome and his ability. Where would you rank him, pre-2011 Vuelta? And how would you explain 2011 Vuelta onwards?

 

[Jspear]

Of course I can understand if people have doubts in Froomes performances. However, I prefer to trust in him (maybe because I am used to be dissapointed by my cyclong idols, since Ulle was caught in 2006).

However, there is an important difference between Froome and AC: one may BELIEVE that Froome dopes. But we KNOW that AC dopes.

- He tested positive
- He raced for Saiz, Bruyneel and Riis in teams which are known for systematic doping
- He (for obvious reasons) never took a stance against doping
- He beat an in-form Cancellara in a time trial at the Tour

To be honest, I am convinced that AC is a decent one-week-racer who - by a ruthless program - was transformed to a great GT rider (similar to Armstrong). He may well be - together with Valverde - is the last representative of the so-called "old generation", i.e. guys who dope and feel right doing it..

Yes, because we all know we can only KNOW that someone is doping if they are caught. The evidence has been shown many times (by posters alot smarter than me), that Froome is dirty. You say AC IS dirty because he never took a stance against doping. Well Armstrong DID take a strong stance against doping, but he was doping. Just read around on this forum - there are plenty of reasons that show how we KNOW Froome is doping. I mean just this year in Romandie, Froome took a derivative of a banned substance while racing! Come on and tell me that's not fishy!

 

[noddy69]

Of course I can understand if people have doubts in Froomes performances. However, I prefer to trust in him (maybe because I am used to be dissapointed by my cyclong idols, since Ulle was caught in 2006).

However, there is an important difference between Froome and AC: one may BELIEVE that Froome dopes. But we KNOW that AC dopes.

- He tested positive
- He raced for Saiz, Bruyneel and Riis in teams which are known for systematic doping
- He (for obvious reasons) never took a stance against doping
- He beat an in-form Cancellara in a time trial at the Tour

To be honest, I am convinced that AC is a decent one-week-racer who - by a ruthless program - was transformed to a great GT rider (similar to Armstrong). He may well be - together with Valverde - is the last representative of the so-called "old generation", i.e. guys who dope and feel right doing it..

Actually we know Froome dopes, he just used the Armstrong tactic of a TUE but got it before he raced unlike Armstrong who had to get it backdated. Froome and Sky were clever about it. Whatever way you look at it he doped. Yes within the rules but still doping.
As for Bertie being transformed into a 3 week tour great, cmon now do you really buy the silly disease lark that Sky spin for Froome?
As for Bertie being the last representitive of the old generation, seriously ? Cancellara-Horner- two recent winners of big races. The list could go on but I won't bore you any more.

 

[LaFlorecita]

If the part in bold were true would it not be recurrent? With his prep and who presided over it I would have questions over the genetic disorder and what actually brought on the fit. Still not a nice vid.

It doesn't have to be recurrent. In most cases cerebral cavernomas are present at birth and don't just pop up out of nowhere over the years. But yes, it's possible it will happen again, which is why he frequently visits his neurologist.

As for the genetic part, his brother has a brain condition related to this disorder.

http://www.snc.md/conditions-treatments/cavernous-malformation-cavernoma

 

[LaFlorecita]

Of course I can understand if people have doubts in Froomes performances. However, I prefer to trust in him (maybe because I am used to be dissapointed by my cyclong idols, since Ulle was caught in 2006).

However, there is an important difference between Froome and AC: one may BELIEVE that Froome dopes. But we KNOW that AC dopes.

- He tested positive
- He raced for Saiz, Bruyneel and Riis in teams which are known for systematic doping
- He (for obvious reasons) never took a stance against doping
- He beat an in-form Cancellara in a time trial at the Tour

To be honest, I am convinced that AC is a decent one-week-racer who - by a ruthless program - was transformed to a great GT rider (similar to Armstrong). He may well be - together with Valverde - is the last representative of the so-called "old generation", i.e. guys who dope and feel right doing it..

Let's see those four points:

1 He tested positive
Indeed he did. Luckily, Froome can get TUEs for products similar to the one Contador tested positive for.
2 He raced for teams known for systematic doping
True - though Froome raced for a team that employed Leinders - and raced for Barloworld
3 He never took a stance against doping
Incorrect. He, ironic as it may be, called for life bans a while back
4 He beat Cancellara in a TT
Yeah, and Froome beat Tony Martin in a TT and came close to beating on various other occasions.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Let's see those four points:

4 He beat Cancellara in a TT
Yeah, and Froome beat Tony Martin in a TT and came close to beating on various other occasions.

Froome beat Contador.


*boom*

 

[inri2000]

I was willing to give Froome some benefit of doubt before he sprinted up the mountain like a motorcycle in one of the TDF stages last year. I have not seen anything so ridiculous since Landis and to an extent Ricco.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Froome beat Contador.


*boom*

Haha

 

[djpbaltimore]

I was willing to give Froome some benefit of doubt before he sprinted up the mountain like a motorcycle in one of the TDF stages last year. I have not seen anything so ridiculous since Landis and to an extent Ricco.

Or Contador at Verbier. The doping playing field might be level between the two, but I think they are way ahead of the rest of the pack with respect to their doping programs.

 

[inri2000]

Or Contador at Verbier. The doping playing field might be level between the two, but I think they are way ahead of the rest of the pack with respect to their doping programs.

Yes Contador in 2007 and 2009 was a little too good as well, but since then I feel his performances have been at least believable.

 

[melkemugg]

Contador is more believable today than he was in the past. But I'm sure hes allowing himself a little help now and then. Froome is the dirtiest in the field today.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Yes Contador in 2007 and 2009 was a little too good as well, but since then I feel his performances have been at least believable.

2011 Giro?

I'm bummed Nibali isn't on the same traincar as Froome and Contador. That would be a battle for the ages.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Let's see those four points:
1 He tested positive
Indeed he did. Luckily, Froome can get TUEs for products similar to the one Contador tested positive for. QUOTE]

Yes he did, on the basis of absolute liability for a drug, the quantity of which was so minisucle, that it had no performing enhancing on AC, nor any effect whatsoever on his winning the 2010 Tour.

One of the biggest travesties in cycling history!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[inri2000]

2011 Giro?

I'm bummed Nibali isn't on the same traincar as Froome and Contador. That would be a battle for the ages.

The field was pretty weak that year and don't forget Rujano was able to follow Contador to the end on two stages.

 

[King Boonen]

Let's see those four points:

1 He tested positive
Indeed he did. Luckily, Froome can get TUEs for products similar to the one Contador tested positive for.

So could any cyclist in the professional peloton if they have a need, or a brain. That says a fair bit about Contador to be honest...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

So could any cyclist in the professional peloton if they have a need, or a brain. That says a fair bit about Contador to be honest...

Not in competition if they are a member of MPCC.