Contador and Spanish cycling

[Dr. Maserati]

No, why should European athletes be held to higher standards than elsewhere and flagrant assumptions be made about European food standards and their effectiveness of applying them.

They are not.
You even brought up the case of Philip Nielsen, a Danish rider.

Yes, global, one rule for all... the clue is in the W of WADA. Otherwise split the UCI into continental sized chunks, and similarly WADA, and keep the sides apart.

Your clue ADA. Those rules are for all athletes.
WADA cannot control how individual countries have different standards on their food.
Thats why WADA correctly looks at each possible contamination violation individually.

If my arguments are two years old that would be because the subject matter of the post they were originally directed toward was also two years old, and frankly it's not a matter I choose to debate beyond addressing the flame-baiting and diversionary nature of that post and affiliation of the poster. But for the courtesy of replying to your remarks, having genuinely, and generally, long regarded your contribution to this board, I would not have done so.

To be clear this isn't about Contador's sanction or guilt specifically for my part, I'm fine with it, although I sense it might be for you... I don't agree that there is consistency within this sport, or across sports in general, nor do I necessarily see the merit in perusing athletes for substances that are common contaminants.

Being that we are unable to agree why not let the tread get back on topic, namely chastisement of Spanish riders based on reportage in the press.

Great, we are both fine with Contadors guilt.
Good to know.

 

[LaFlorecita]

For me the unbelievable part of Contador's story is that he asked an acquaintance to bring Spanish beef to him during the TDF. This just doesn't pass the smell test for me, who would actually make a request like this? If it was beef he had actually eaten while in Spain at least I wouldn't have the impulse to laugh at how ridiculous this excuse is.

It is true though. The Astana chef still had the receipt.

 

[airstream]

It is very informative to discuss with the poster who entirely sticks to Contador's offical version and even idealizes it. So much new.

 

[Nilsson]

It's corroborated, not collaborated.

What do you mean by "he used methods and definitions that aren't accepted scientifically"?

He was stopped from giving an explanation by the legal process followed during the hearing, and was quite clear about the enormous frustration he felt at being silenced.

If ever I've read a more cogent and convincing description of a process than the one Ashenden gave in that interview, then I've yet to read one.

Awful mistake, damn. My bad.

On topic. With 'not accepted scientifically' I meant the methods he used (he calls it cross-examination, I believe) do not really exist and can't be used. Particularly not in an (eventual) Passport Case. Something this case (not without reason) wasn't and probably why he went 'rogue'. He simply had to dig deeper, look at the numbers in a different way to establish a transfusion was possible (not that he definitely transfused).

For instance he tried to establish a normal retic percentage, that in itself doesn't exist, and did that by cherry picking in the available data (and therefore leave out those that didn't fit in his theory, without explaining).

I can understand Ashenden's frustration about not being allowed to answer some questions, although I do not agree with it, since the only thing he could have said (mainly about the existence of DEHP-free bags for plasma) has not been an argument for CAS to disfavor the transfusion theory. Besides, the existence of such bags were confirmed by Scott and CAS explicitly took notion of it. I understand he would have liked to explicate this issue himself, but it more likely than not wouldn't have mattered.

In the end CAS rejected the theory not (only) because a transfusion could not be made clear (enough, which is only step 1 of the theory) but because of (step two) making a possible transfusion the cause of the clenbuterol positive was too thin. I recall the high amounts of clen that must have been used, the need of a ('mentally ill' and stupid) plasma donor to make it all stick, while on the other hand they should except a very sophisticated doping program.

 

[Le Baroudeur]

They are not.

Yes they are, athletes based in Europe have been treated differently to when they are based elsewhere.

You even brought up the case of Philip Nielsen, a Danish rider.

I did indeed because his case highlights inconsistency, and yes he was cleared by his federation being that he tested positive in Mexico providing the explanation of contaminated meat, and yet hounded by WADA until they dropped the CAS appeal when the news broke about the U17 tournament In Mexico.

Your clue ADA. Those rules are for all athletes.
WADA cannot control how individual countries have different standards on their food.
Thats why WADA correctly looks at each possible contamination violation individually.

So they drop cases based on failed test in Mexico when to continue with the appeal would be profoundly embarrassing, yet pursue them when failing a test in Europe despite having the same body of evidence available.

Fair enough, if they insist upon non uniform and regional treatment then disband them. Their stated role is to Harmonise not regionalise. I'm all for individual appraisal of cases but do we need a body for that rather than an agreed rule book? If a rule is not able to be uniformly applied and they insist on maintaining a common contaminant in a globally traded product on the banned list without a threshold, and then regionalise the approach to cases they are failing their purpose.

UKADA advise athletes to avoid liver, Don't eat meat in China, Mexico etc. but eat it in the UK because we don't have problem with the illicit use of meat conditioners contrary to findings.

Great, we are both fine with Contadors guilt.
Good to know.

Yes we agree he was found guilty of involuntary consumption of a banned substance by way of a contaminated supplement having concluded it more likely than the consumption of contaminated meat.

Consistency... Conformity in the application of something, typically that which is necessary for the sake of logic, accuracy, or fairness:

 

[Nilsson]

Hope this is not off-topic (I don't think it is), but does anybody know the current APMU expert-panel member-list?

Also, when were Michele Ferrari, and Dr Fuentes (maybe Conconi too?) given the heave ho? They were all new members in early April this year according to Cyclismas (but it's a self-described satirical site, so maybe it was just a joke).

Cyclismas is indeed a satirical website, so it's just a joke. None of them has been member of the expert panel.

I don't know about the panel right now, because it has changed into the AMPU. I guess that it will be more or less the same (external) people, except for Ashenden.

These were the originals:

• Michael Ashenden (Australia), Project coordinator, Science and Industry Against Blood Doping Research Consortium, on the Gold Coast, in Australia, and member of the World Anti-Doping Agency working group on blood parameters.

• Michel Audran (France), Professor, biophysical and bioanalysis laboratory, Faculty of Pharmacy at the University of Montpellier I, France. Professor Audran is also a member of the World Anti-Doping Agency working group on blood parameters.

• Bo Berglund (Sweden), Professor, departments of medicine and of chemistry at Karolinska University Hospital in Stockholm, and member of the medical and anti-doping committee of the International Canoe Federation. Professor Berglund is also a member of the World Anti-Doping Agency working group on blood parameters. In addition, he is chief physician of the Swedish Olympic Committee.

• Giuseppe D’Onofrio (Italy), Professor of haematology and Director of the transfusion department at the Policlinic A. Gemelli in Rome. He is also a member of the World Anti-Doping Agency working group on blood parameters.

• Pierluigi Fiorella (Italy), sports doctor, cardiologist, Director of the Olympus Medical Centre in Ravenna, member of the scientific and technical commission of the Italian Athletics Federation, member of the health protection commission of the Italian Cycling Federation and consultant for FC Inter-Milan.

• Giuseppe Fischetto (Italy), specialist in sports medicine, internal medicine and pneumology. He is Head of the emergency department at the Frascati-Marino Hospital in Rome, member of the medical and anti-doping commission of the International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF) and Head of the medical department of the Italian Athletic Federation. He is also a member of the World Anti-Doping Agency working group on blood parameters.

• Olivier Hermine (France), Professor, service of adults haematology and service of infectious and tropical diseases at Necker Hospital in Paris. Professor Hermine is also haematology consultant for the French Cycling Federation.

• Robin Parisotto (Australia) is an independent research scientist. He worked of many years with the Australian Sports Institute.

• Olaf Schumacher (Germany), works in the department of sports medicine at the University of Freiburg, in Germany. He is a member of the UCI Security and Safety Conditions Commission and is currently chief physician of the German Cycling Federation.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Yes they are, athletes based in Europe have been treated differently to when they are based elsewhere.

This is what you said:
"why should European athletes be held to higher standards than elsewhere..."

So - its not the athlete nationality, but where they might have consumed something contaminated.

I did indeed because his case highlights inconsistency, and yes he was cleared by his federation being that he tested positive in Mexico providing the explanation of contaminated meat, and yet hounded by WADA until they dropped the CAS appeal when the news broke about the U17 tournament In Mexico.

Mexico allows clenbuterol - so having a group of athlete get off for consuming and applying that rule to Nielsen is consistent.

So they drop cases based on failed test in Mexico when to continue with the appeal would be profoundly embarrassing, yet pursue them when failing a test in Europe despite having the same body of evidence available.

Europe has a ban on clenbuterol - quite rightly it should require further investigation.

Fair enough, if they insist upon non uniform and regional treatment then disband them. Their stated role is to Harmonise not regionalise. I'm all for individual appraisal of cases but do we need a body for that rather than an agreed rule book? If a rule is not able to be uniformly applied and they insist on maintaining a common contaminant in a globally traded product on the banned list without a threshold, and then regionalise the approach to cases they are failing their purpose.

UKADA advise athletes to avoid liver, Don't eat meat in China, Mexico etc. but eat it in the UK because we don't have problem with the illicit use of meat conditioners contrary to findings.

To the highlighted......to harmonize what?
Thats right, their rules. Indeed Contador like Nielsen was afforded the opportunity to show 'No Fault or Negligence' unlike Nielsen, Contador failed.

Yes we agree he was found guilty

Agree

of involuntary consumption of a banned substance by way of a contaminated supplement having concluded it more likely than the consumption of contaminated meat.

Disagree.

Consistency... Conformity in the application of something, typically that which is necessary for the sake of logic, accuracy, or fairness:

The rules are consistent.

 

[Grandillusion]

Awful mistake, damn. My bad.

On topic. With 'not accepted scientifically' I meant the methods he used (he calls it cross-examination, I believe) do not really exist and can't be used. Particularly not in an (eventual) Passport Case. Something this case (not without reason) wasn't and probably why he went 'rogue'. He simply had to dig deeper, look at the numbers in a different way to establish a transfusion was possible (not that he definitely transfused).

For instance he tried to establish a normal retic percentage, that in itself doesn't exist, and did that by cherry picking in the available data (and therefore leave out those that didn't fit in his theory, without explaining).

I can understand Ashenden's frustration about not being allowed to answer some questions, although I do not agree with it, since the only thing he could have said (mainly about the existence of DEHP-free bags for plasma) has not been an argument for CAS to disfavor the transfusion theory. Besides, the existence of such bags were confirmed by Scott and CAS explicitly took notion of it. I understand he would have liked to explicate this issue himself, but it more likely than not wouldn't have mattered.

In the end CAS rejected the theory not (only) because a transfusion could not be made clear (enough, which is only step 1 of the theory) but because of (step two) making a possible transfusion the cause of the clenbuterol positive was too thin. I recall the high amounts of clen that must have been used, the need of a ('mentally ill' and stupid) plasma donor to make it all stick, while on the other hand they should except a very sophisticated doping program.

I've just read the article again a couple of times, and I don't see Ashenden as someone with a bias or agenda which might lead him to try and pull the wool over peoples eyes with cherry-picked data.

His job was to examine the possibility that Contador's defence wasn't wholly credible, and that transfusions could have led to the elevated clenbuterol levels. He looked at all the available and reliable data, and came to a considered objective opinion, using mathematical/statistical tools. Where do you get the idea he cherry-picked? Do you know about the data Ashenden "deliberately" left out because it didn't fit his theory?

You seem to be implying that he had some (anti-Contador? anti-Spanish?) agenda, when I simply see a man trying his best to get at the truth.

Obviously I'm no haematologist or statistician but Ashenden seems very credible to me.

 

[Le Baroudeur]

So - its not the athlete nationality, but where they might have consumed something contaminated.

Where they reside or ply their trade in the lottery of food policy. Many things are banned in Europe but are still widely used.

Mexico allows clenbuterol - so having a group of athlete get off for consuming and applying that rule to Nielsen is consistent.

Not really considering they only dropped the appeal to CAS on the eve of the hearing and only because of the U17 Footballers.

Disagree.

I agree to disagree with your reasoning on consistency then, and will leave it at that.

 

[Grandillusion]

Hi Nillson, just seen your reply re: the AMPU question - thanks very much for all the info

Apologies for my corroborate/collaborate pedantry - unneccessary & pathetic

 

[Nilsson]

I've just read the article again a couple of times, and I don't see Ashenden as someone with a bias or agenda which might lead him to try and pull the wool over peoples eyes with cherry-picked data.

His job was to examine the possibility that Contador's defence wasn't wholly credible, and that transfusions could have led to the elevated clenbuterol levels. He looked at all the available and reliable data, and came to a considered objective opinion, using mathematical/statistical tools. Where do you get the idea he cherry-picked? Do you know about the data Ashenden "deliberately" left out because it didn't fit his theory?

You seem to be implying that he had some (anti-Contador? anti-Spanish?) agenda, when I simply see a man trying his best to get at the truth.

Obviously I'm no haematologist or statistician but Ashenden seems very credible to me.

I'm absolutely not implying that Ashenden has any kind of vendetta (let alone against Contador or the Spanish specifically) and there is no doubt about his work-ethic, quality or anything. I'm only trying to explain and value his opinion and findings (in the light of his assignment).

His assignment was neither examine the defense of Contador (or its credibility) nor to constitute the complete transfusion scenario. He was particularly responsible for the first step, the possibility of a transfusion (which, in itself, has nothing to do with clenbuterol, just yet). In order to do that, he had to examine AC's values, and since they were 'clean', he had to dig deeper - and use the methods he used. By doing that, he was able to determine that a transfusion was possible (but not that AC definitely transfused, that's something very different).

Ashenden himself said it like this:

In the CAS-report: Dr Ashenden, member of the UCI’s Blood Passport
Expert Panel, after analysing Mr Contador’s parameters available from 2005 to 2010, found that the blood parameters of Mr Contador during the 2010 Tour de France were not normal, even though no blood manipulation can be positively proven

With respect to the haemoglobin concentration, Dr Ashenden concludes that the 2010 Tour de France values are not normal for Mr Contador compared to the values collected during the seasons 2007 and 2008. They are higher than normal, like the reticulocyte values. However, Mr Contador’s haematological values during the 2010 Tour de France do not, in themselves, provide indications of transfusion or manipulation. In that respect, Dr Ashenden agrees with Mr Contador’s expert.

Or in the interview:

My role at the hearing was to help the panel evaluate, based on the evidence available, whether a transfusion could have taken place. Experts from WADA attended the hearing to help the panel understand whether, if a transfusion had taken place, it could have led to the clenbuterol concentrations found in Contador’s urine.

MA: First I need to clarify a misconception - when you say I was there to evaluate his passport profile, in fact this was not an Athlete Passport case. I realise the confusion has been propogated by the panel’s use of the abbreviation ‘ABP’, which they mistakenly apply whether talking about actual Athlete Biological Passport data (which is the correct use of ‘ABP’) or blood data in general. I was there to evaluate his blood results, period.

As I explained before, my role was not to establish whether Contador had blood doped, but instead I was required to explain for the panel's benefit whether in my opinion it was possible that a transfusion had occurred.

MA: First of all, let me reiterate that I did not say Contador transfused. I said that its possible that he transfused, and I presented the panel with one coherent scenario, that was consistent with the facts at hand, to demonstrate that possibility.

As you can see, he had to explicate this a lot in the interview. Certainly with this kind of complexity, and a interviewer who may already have a strong opinion of himself, it's a very difficult balancing exercise.

In regard to his cross-checking, he explains in the interview what he did and why CAS didn't think it was sufficient.

During the hearing, I helped the panel to objectively evaluate for themselves just how unusual Contador's reticulocyte results were during the 2010 Tour. They refer to this in paragraph 368. I presented a probabilistic evaluation which replaced my subjective opinion with mathematical odds. The calculation found that the probability of Contador's four highest results occurring at a single race was less than 1 in 7000. However, the panel concluded that probability calculations, which had been scrutinised by two colleagues each with a PhD in statistics, were not a sufficiently secure method of establishing inconsistencies.

As I explained earlier, I regard haemoglobin and reticulocytes as separate entities and when I examined Contador's haemoglobin values during the 2010 Tour I found his results to be more or less what I would have expected. However since I already had his data from previous major victories in hand, I went ahead and compared his 2010 haemoglobin results with those other races and I was concerned that I was not able to see consistency between races. In very general terms, you'd expect the same rider to show the same response each race. There is a dilution of the haemoglobin as the cumulative impact of multiple days of stage racing leads to an influx of water into the circulation. Whereas I would have been reassured to find the same characteristic signature in Contador during every one of his victories, I did not.

In the CAS-report:

359. However, Mr Scott does not agree with Dr Ashenden’s assessment that the Athlete’s 2010
Tour de France haemoglobin concentration or reticulocyte percentages are atypical or
suspicious; Mr Scott finds them decidedly not atypical.
360. Mr Scott agrees that on the basis of blood values alone, the blood transfusion theory
described by Dr Ashenden cannot be ruled out as impossible. However, other data make
this scenario implausible.
361. Mr Scott’s main argument in his expert report is that there is no such thing as “natural” reticulocyte percentages. Instead, that “natural” value must be expressed with a reasonable range bracket and that range bracket must include experimental error and expected physiological variation. This range bracket is accounted for in setting thresholds in ABP and 3G models, but is not accounted for in an analysis of the form Dr Ashenden conducted with regard to Mr Contador’s 2010 Tour de France samples. To determine if Mr Contador’s 2010 Tour de France samples are atypical with regard to reticulocyte percentages, the use of ABP or 3G analysis is necessary in order that the appropriate range bracket is taken into account.
362. During the hearing, in the framework of the experts’ conference, Dr. Ashenden and Mr Scott discussed the method of calculation of these natural values. Mr Scott notes that during the February 2006 tests run in the Lausanne WADA-accredited Laboratory, six collections were taken and not three as alleged by Dr Ashenden. Calculating Mr Contador’s natural value based on these six collections does not lead to a significant difference compared to the data presented by Dr Ashenden based on three collections. However, without adequate explanation as to why some values were excluded and others were not, Mr Scott feels it is only appropriate to use the full set of data available.
363. Another argument put forward by Mr Scott is that Dr Ashenden refers to two papers that indicate that the expected reticulocyte percentage values should be lower than those of an athlete’s out-of-competition values. None of the papers makes any attempt to evaluate a “natural” value for an athlete’s reticulocytes nor makes any claims regarding such a “natural” value. Furthermore, those papers are only studies and there is no controlled experiment to test a hypothesis.
365. During the hearing, the discussion between Dr Ashenden and Mr Scott mainly focussed on how the Athlete’s “natural” blood values are to be established. If the normal procedure is followed and the comparison is made against the whole range of data in Mr Contador’s ABP, no abnormal results are found. However, if Mr Contador’s blood values during the Grand Tours between 2007 and 2010 are taken separately, then the values during the 2010 Tour de France are “unusual”.
366. In his closing submissions, the UCI noted that the Athlete’s blood values may well be within the limits as argued by Mr Scott. However, the UCI added that this is not surprising because it is the purpose of manipulation.

 

[Grandillusion]

Many thanks for taking the time to give such a detailed reply Nilsson, it's very interesting and much appreciated. I wonder what is Ashenden's response to Dr Scott's critique of his input?

 

[Grandillusion]

Edit previous post: Mr Scott, not Dr.

 

[del1962]

Just out of interest who is Mr Scott?

 

[Grandillusion]

Just out of interest who is Mr Scott?

Yeah, that's what I'd like to know! Someone not as qualified as Dr Ashenden, but who feels they have the technical insight to criticise & qualify Ashenden's input.

No reply from Nillson to my query as to Ashenden's response to Scott's reasoning.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Yeah, that's what I'd like to know! Someone not as qualified as Dr Ashenden, but who feels they have the technical insight to criticise & qualify Ashenden's input.

No reply from Nillson to my query as to Ashenden's response to Scott's reasoning.

http://scottanalytics.com/about/index.html

 

[Grandillusion]

http://scottanalytics.com/about/index.html

Thanks LaFlorecita. So he's a patent attorney? A lawyer. Does this qualify him to second-guess haematologists & PhD qualified statisticians?

 

[LaFlorecita]

Thanks LaFlorecita. So he's a patent attorney? A lawyer. Does this qualify him to second-guess haematologists & PhD qualified statisticians?

I guess he knows what he's talking about otherwise Alberto wouldn't have hired him.

 

[Grandillusion]

I guess he knows what he's talking about otherwise Alberto wouldn't have hired him.

Oh, was he hired by Alberto? I really want to know what Dr Ashenden thinks about Scott's analysis.

Thanks for the reply La Florecita

 

[LaFlorecita]

Oh, was he hired by Alberto? I really want to know what Dr Ashenden thinks about Scott's analysis.

Thanks for the reply La Florecita

Yea by Alberto or his team of lawyers and experts

 

[GJB123]

This is what you said:
"why should European athletes be held to higher standards than elsewhere..."

So - its not the athlete nationality, but where they might have consumed something contaminated.

Mexico allows clenbuterol - so having a group of athlete get off for consuming and applying that rule to Nielsen is consistent.


Europe has a ban on clenbuterol - quite rightly it should require further investigation.



To the highlighted......to harmonize what?
Thats right, their rules. Indeed Contador like Nielsen was afforded the opportunity to show 'No Fault or Negligence' unlike Nielsen, Contador failed.


Agree
Disagree.

The rules are consistent.

So what you are basically saying is go on training camp in Mexico, use all the Clen you want and then claim it came from contaminated meat. I know this discussion has been done to death already but the Clen-rules just don't stand up to legal scrutiny as far as I am concerned.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

So what you are basically saying is go on training camp in mexico, use all the Clen you want and then claim it came from contaminated meat. I know this discussion has been done to death already but the Clen-rules just don't stand up to legal scrutiny as far as I am concerned.

Nope, that's not what I am saying.

Nielsen & others started showing up with Clen in their system from China & Mexico. It was shown that they were eating contaminated meat and would have had no reasonable way of knowing it so they could avoid it - it is the perfect example of No Fault or Negligence.
But WADA & other ADAs have highlighted the problem, so any athlete can no longer claim they could not have known.
That's actually the rules working well and fairly.

 

[Grandillusion]

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.

Great news! A powerful signal that the Movement for Change has real momentum. Let's hope this brave move leads to a domino effect cleansing the whole sport. Fingers crossed!

 

[sniper]

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.

Great news! A powerful signal that the Movement for Change has real momentum. Let's hope this brave move leads to a domino effect cleansing the whole sport. Fingers crossed!

Yep, Spain have always been frontrunners in the fight against doping. It's why clean teams such as Garmin, Greenedge and United Healthcare are based there.

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.

 

[Grandillusion]

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