Contador and Spanish cycling

[DirtyWorks]

Jose Luis Lopez Cerron has been elected President of the Spanish Cycling Federation.

He is the guy who delivered the "contaminated steak" which Alberto claims was responsible for his elevated clenbuterol levels.

You are telling me, the guy that brought doping controversy to Spain is now running the federation? Something tells me the steak story was a lie. No.... It couldn't be so.. Has Contador and the head of the Spanish cycling federation lied to fans and anti-doping agencies? That's never happened in cycling before....

Now we all know for sure how that positive controversy was contained anyway.

Here's a copy of the story in English: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/01/us-cycling-spain-federation-idUSBRE8B00AH20121201

 

[GJB123]

p.s.
You weren't posting here yet when we discussed the Clen positive, correct? You wouldn't believe that around half of the Clinic posters took the contaminated steak story seriously.

You know very well that is at the least a gross over-exaggeration. Do you do that on purpose or what?

Sniper, I'm way beyond being surprised by anything now

You shouldn't be taking sniper's summary if discussions that went on too seriously. He has a tendency to summarize people wrongly to suit his agenda.

 

[Merckx index]

You know very well that is at the least a gross over-exaggeration.

It really isn’t. And to be fair to those who bought this story, for a long time it was difficult for any of us to assess how likely it was that the meat could have been contaminated. Experts both in support of and against the possibility were weighing in. It was only when the details of the inspection system were publicized that it became possible to rule out contamination as highly unlikely.

I don’t see that Lopez’ election should be regarded as more evidence of corruption of the Spanish system, though. It’s not like he knew in advance that Bert might test positive for CB, and so bought some meat that could be used as an excuse. Procuring the meat, of and by itself, is/was completely irrelevant to any actions Bert took to protest his innocence. Not unless one believes that the meat story was a total fabrication, and that Bert in fact never even ate meat that night. It was simply one of those facts that, once having occurred, could and predictably would be used by a rider desperate to wiggle out of a sanction. Lopez later tried to furnish details about where the meat was from, but given Bert’s claim, this was the proper thing to do.

I’m not saying Lopez is a great guy for this position, or that he might not have aided and abetted Contador. But his having bought the meat, while it makes it sound like he masterminded the whole contamination excuse, really doesn’t factor into this.

 

[DirtyWorks]

But his having bought the meat, while it makes it sound like he masterminded the whole contamination excuse, really doesn’t factor into this.

The point is the tainted meat story was another ridiculous anti-doping lie on the scale of ephemeral twins and a majority of the people that voted him in know it.

Had the guy actually brought this controversy to their TdF winner, he would have been out of Spanish cycling.

 

[hrotha]

I don’t see that Lopez’ election should be regarded as more evidence of corruption of the Spanish system, though. It’s not like he knew in advance that Bert might test positive for CB, and so bought some meat that could be used as an excuse. Procuring the meat, of and by itself, is/was completely irrelevant to any actions Bert took to protest his innocence. Not unless one believes that the meat story was a total fabrication, and that Bert in fact never even ate meat that night. It was simply one of those facts that, once having occurred, could and predictably would be used by a rider desperate to wiggle out of a sanction. Lopez later tried to furnish details about where the meat was from, but given Bert’s claim, this was the proper thing to do.

I agree, the steak itself is a red herring. What matters here is that he's a personal friend of Contador and he's defended him publicly, but rest assured, so had the other candidates.

 

[sniper]

You know very well that is at the least a gross over-exaggeration. Do you do that on purpose or what?



You shouldn't be taking sniper's summary if discussions that went on too seriously. He has a tendency to summarize people wrongly to suit his agenda.

it just struck me back then that I was ridiculed by, ehm, you for instance for suggesting the HUMO story was most likely correct. Then when guys such as Ashenden and RaceRadio reinforced that view as indeed being by far the most plausible scenario, you remained silent.

 

[GJB123]

it just struck me back then that I was ridiculed by, ehm, you for instance for suggesting the HUMO story was most likely correct. Then when guys such as Ashenden and RaceRadio reinforced that view as indeed being by far the most plausible scenario, you remained silent.

You insist on misrepresenting what I said. I have always allowed for the possibility that AC took Clen knowingly and even that he transfused. What I tried to establish, and what you consistently failed to understand, is the case that 50 picograms could be consistent with contamination and that therefore the zero tolerance-rule is technically and terminally flawed. The rule needs a threshold.

Look at Nielsen, look at the Mexican football players. They all had higher amounts of Clen than AC and we all accept that there positive was a result of food contamination. We had Hardy who was a victim of food supplement contamination. As long as athletes, be it AC, Nielsen, Mexican soccer players, Otcharov or Jessica Hardy can produce a positive for Clen by ingesting it unknowingly, the rule needs to change from zero tolerance to a threshold and/or abolish the shifting of he burden of proof on the athlete, since that burden of proof is impossible to meet.

Now I have gone on record right after the CAS-verdict that I can fully accept their verdict on AC and the punishment laid down therein. So stop acting like you were somehow victimized by some of the Clinic-visitors or they that you are some kind of lonely martyr for the good cause of anti-doping, because you are not. Quite the contrary really.

Regards
GJ

 

[sniper]

..snipped for brevity....

Your best guess back then was that Contador was innocent wrt the Clen positive (though you admitted he may well have doped). Your best guess was therefore that the HUMO story, which provided a straightforward account for the Clen positive, was incorrect.
All the evidence was out there written on the wall: the plasticizer positive, the clen positive, the correlation with the TdF restday.
We didn't even need to connect the dots, as the Humo insider did it for us!
It was a 1+1=2 story from the beginning, but you refused to see it.

 

[Nilsson]

Your best guess back then was that Contador was innocent wrt the Clen positive (though you admitted he may well have doped). Your best guess was therefore that the HUMO story, which provided a straightforward account for the Clen positive, was incorrect.
All the evidence was out there written on the wall: the plasticizer positive, the clen positive, the correlation with the TdF restday.
We didn't even need to connect the dots, as the Humo insider did it for us!
It was a 1+1=2 story from the beginning, but you refused to see it.

If you try to make a point, try to make a whole point. The Humo story was found incorrect as well. At least in relation to the clenbuterol positive. Contador might have undergone a transfusion or not, he might have drawn blood or not at the Dauphiné, but there is simply nothing that constitutes the relation with clenbuterol.

As a matter of fact, if Contador transfused blood he drew after the Dauphiné (which in itself could be very well possible) it's an extra argument that connecting the dots doesn't add up this time. I can understand you like to connect dots, sometimes we all do, but the manner in which you sometimes present such superficial analyses as being 'the truth' isn't correct.

 

[sniper]

If you try to make a point, try to make a whole point. The Humo story was found incorrect as well. At least in relation to the clenbuterol positive. Contador might have undergone a transfusion or not, he might have drawn blood or not at the Dauphiné, but there is simply nothing that constitutes the relation with clenbuterol.

As a matter of fact, if Contador transfused blood he drew after the Dauphiné (which in itself could be very well possible) it's an extra argument that connecting the dots doesn't add up this time. I can understand you like to connect dots, sometimes we all do, but the manner in which you sometimes present such superficial analyses as being 'the truth' isn't correct.

iirc, the humo insider said contador had been on a clen program during or shortly after the dauphiné. that's quite a direct relation with clen, isn't it?
he said the clen positive in dirty's sample was a residue of clen left in the blood Contador had withdrawn while using clen and then re-infused during the TdF.
couldn't be more straightforward than that.

 

[GJB123]

iirc, the humo insider said contador had been on a clen program during or shortly after the dauphiné. that's quite a direct relation with clen, isn't it?
he said the clen positive in dirty's sample was a residue of clen left in the blood Contador had withdrawn while using clen and then re-infused during the TdF.
couldn't be more straightforward than that.

Yes, but as you may well remember the numbers didn't add up for that scenario as well. I will leave it to MI and python to go over it all again, but the Clen-positive stemming from a withdrawal after the DL was also deemed highly unlikely due to the pharmokinetics involved.

 

[Nilsson]

iirc, the humo insider said contador had been on a clen program during or shortly after the dauphiné. that's quite a direct relation with clen, isn't it?
he said the clen positive in dirty's sample was a residue of clen left in the blood Contador had withdrawn while using clen and then re-infused during the TdF.
couldn't be more straightforward than that.

Apart from the fact that it is close to impossible. I suppose you are aware of the implications of the pharmacokinetics involved and the contents of WADA-theory? Firstly, the plasma (because it's a plasma transfusion that, in that scenario, should have triggered the clen positive) couldn't have come from Contador himself. The amounts you have to take are way to high for an athlete, if not toxic (especially for a small guy like Contador), and combined with length of treatment he would have been a certain positive for over a month. It's therefore that the idea of a malicious or stupid plasma donor was brought assumed by WADA, to make the theory stick.

Secondly, withdrawing blood after dauphiné doesn't really favor separation of RBC and plasma (which is the theory in this case, and necessary to explain the separated findings of and clenbuterol, for example) but does favor whole blood transfusion - which is more convenient in cycling, like the use of saline instead of plasma.

Thirdly, the 1 pg/ml clen (blood sample) finding in the morning doesn't correspond with the 50 pg/ml urine finding later that day, and doesn't favor intravenous administration as the most likely cause of the clenbuterol positive. An eventual plasma transfusion, in this theory, would take place before the blood test (to manipulate - lower - Ht and Hb) and if it was the cause of the clenbuterol, you'd expect the finding to be much and much higher.

 

[sniper]

...snipped...

i don't have the know-how to follow your arguments.

my whole point was that this was a 1+1=2 case, and that no complicated formulas (such as yours above) were needed to understand what had really happened.
a straightforward case.
we know Dirty used clen post-Dauphine. We know he transfused on the TdF restday.
If your pharmacokinetic calculations don't match this hypothesis, I'd suggest you revisit your dataset.

Iirc, Ashenden had no problems with a plasma transfusion theory. Au contraire.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Apart from the fact that it is close to impossible. I suppose you are aware of the implications of the pharmacokinetics involved and the contents of WADA-theory? Firstly, the plasma (because it's a plasma transfusion that, in that scenario, should have triggered the clen positive) couldn't have come from Contador himself. The amounts you have to take are way to high for an athlete, if not toxic (especially for a small guy like Contador), and combined with length of treatment he would have been a certain positive for over a month. It's therefore that the idea of a malicious or stupid plasma donor was brought assumed by WADA, to make the theory stick.

Secondly, withdrawing blood after dauphiné doesn't really favor separation of RBC and plasma (which is the theory in this case, and necessary to explain the separated findings of and clenbuterol, for example) but does favor whole blood transfusion - which is more convenient in cycling, like the use of saline instead of plasma.

Thirdly, the 1 pg/ml clen (blood sample) finding in the morning doesn't correspond with the 50 pg/ml urine finding later that day, and doesn't favor intravenous administration as the most likely cause of the clenbuterol positive. An eventual plasma transfusion, in this theory, would take place before the blood test (to manipulate - lower - Ht and Hb) and if it was the cause of the clenbuterol, you'd expect the finding to be much and much higher.

Very interesting

 

[airstream]

I don't quite get one elementary thing. Do probes show main blood values or not? Lance laid out his blood values after the 2009 Tour being absolutely confident in his impunity. Armstrong's hc went up by 2-3 points straight before Mont Ventoux. Obvious blood doping. Why can't uci implement such an easier procedure to catch dopers? Or??? Then they should have kicked half peloton away from the race?

 

[Grandillusion]

Very interesting

Is Dr Ashenden in agreement with Nillson's take on this though?

Who has the most credible haematological analysis credentials, and the requisite objectivity?

Genuinely interested, not suggesting Nillson has any lack of objectivity or dearth of blood analysis qualifications.

 

[sniper]

Is Dr Ashenden in agreement with Nillson's take on this though?

Who has the most credible haematological analysis credentials, and the requisite objectivity?

Genuinely interested, not suggesting Nillson has any lack of objectivity or dearth of blood analysis qualifications.

"very interesting" is LaFlorecita's way of saying "wtf is that guy talking about?"

 

[DirtyWorks]

I don't quite get one elementary thing. Do probes show main blood values or not? Lance laid out his blood values after the 2009 Tour being absolutely confident in his impunity. Armstrong's hc went up by 2-3 points straight before Mont Ventoux. Obvious blood doping. Why can't implement such an easier procedure to catch dopers? Or??? Then they should have kicked half peloton away from the race?

Two things I can contribute without any blood biology knowledge.

#1 If JV is to be believed in one of his posts he claims results vary anyway. Is the rider dehydrated at test time was one possible factor he threw out.

#2 Testing for many PED compounds is not a True/False outcome. There tends to be a range of results from negative->suspicious->positive. In those results, is a strong bias against a false positive so result ranged in suspicious are probably real-world positives. The probability of a false negative is not well known, but some research suggests it is very high for EPO-like drugs at WADA certified labs.

Finally, Clenbuterol just happens to be a compound that does not occur naturally in the body. It's a rare true/false test. The precision of which apparently surprised Contador's doping program manager.

 

[Grandillusion]

"very interesting" is LaFlorecita's way of saying "wtf is that guy talking about?"

Yeah I know, but she seems sweet, & anyway I ain't no haematologist either so can't really comment on Nillson's expertise

 

[sniper]

Yeah I know, but she seems sweet, & anyway I ain't no haematologist either so can't really comment on Nillson's expertise

she seems sweet, indeed.
she's a wolf in sheep's clothes.

 

[Grandillusion]

she seems sweet, indeed.
she's a wolf in sheep's clothes.

I'll learn I'm sure. Giving the benefit of the doubt until bitten

 

[Dazed and Confused]

This is about as bad as having Bugno representing today's clean riders.

 

[LaFlorecita]

"very interesting" is LaFlorecita's way of saying "wtf is that guy talking about?"

I'm not stupid

 

[LaFlorecita]

Yeah I know, but she seems sweet, & anyway I ain't no haematologist either so can't really comment on Nillson's expertise

she seems sweet, indeed.
she's a wolf in sheep's clothes.

Thanks guys

 

[Nilsson]

Is Dr Ashenden in agreement with Nillson's take on this though?

Who has the most credible haematological analysis credentials, and the requisite objectivity?

Genuinely interested, not suggesting Nillson has any lack of objectivity or dearth of blood analysis qualifications.

I guess you are missing a very important nuance. Ashenden, however, does not. In the interview (I guess you posted again recently, IIRC) he had to stipulate this very delicate problem himself multiple times, because the interviewer didn't get it.

It's a two step theoryl. Firstly, you have to establish a transfusion, or (more corectly, if it is not clear, like in this case) if a blood transfusion could have been possible. Secondly, how it clarifies the presence of clenbuterol in the urine sample (mainly the pharmacokinetics of clenbuterol - in the light of a transfusion. In other words: how many clen should have been ingested to get a certain amount of clenbuterol in a urine sample, and is this possible through transfusion). You need both steps to be able to conclude a transfusion is the most likely scenario. A (possible) transfusion alone doesn't explain the presence of clenbuterol, it also has to be possible that

Ashenden solely looked at the first question, and concluded that however he could not say there has been a transfusion, a transfusion could have been possible. Also, he has an (supporting) opinion about the the first part of the second step, namely that it would have required a separate transfusion (of RBC in a DEHP bag on day one, explaining the high level of plasticizers, and plasma in a non-DEHP bag the day after, containing the clenbuterol) to explain the findings.