Contador positive!!!!!

[thehog]

One reason to give the rider the benefit of the doubt is that he wouldn't be the first Spaniard to be contaminated by meat containing clenbuterol, the drug he tested positive for in minute quantities. Dozens of people were sickened in 1992 in Spain's Catalonia region by eating clenbuterol-laced veal liver or veal tongue and cannelloni, also thought to have been contaminated. Similar poisonings have cropped up in Italy, France and Portugal.

In other words, clenbuterol has been known to find its way into the food chain. For that, blame farmers who use it to make their cows, pigs and other animals grow big and strong.

 

[roundabout]

Contaminated by meat, lol.

But seriously Contador should produce something more tangible than words.

 

[meandmygitane]

Wow. I had not seen your comment. Thanks. I had used 20% in my calculations. Now they say that you can only get contaminated if you eat liver. LOL.

Chances of Contador telling the truth:

50% x 0.044% x 50% x 30% = 0.0033%

And this is being extremely generous.

Looks like the Drake equation


Just a question, did Contador eat the meat at two separate occasions? I think someone said this on the forum or am I mistaken? Was he tested on July 22?

In my mind I see this:
-Eat meat 20:th
-Get tested 21:st - traces
-Eat meat again the 21:st
-Get tested the 22'd

Wouldn't the second test show larger amounts of Clenbuterol than the first?

All this only if the premisses above are correct ofc..

Please help prove or disprove this hypothesis with any links which deals with the conspumption of meat and/or testing would be interesting.

 

[Escarabajo]

You mean this one

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/depo...ar/Contador/elpepidep/20101002elpepidep_2/Tes

I still can't get over the shock.

LOL. They were in the process of covering up. Now this is a good example of why WADA was complaining about having direct results report from the lab. They are doomed now.

 

[Escarabajo]

Looks like the Drake equation


Just a question, did Contador eat the meat at two separate occasions? I think someone said this on the forum or am I mistaken? Was he tested on July 22?

In my mind I see this:
-Eat meat 20:th
-Get tested 21:st - traces
-Eat meat again the 21:st
-Get tested the 22'd

Wouldn't the second test show larger amounts of Clenbuterol than the first?

All this only if the premisses above are correct ofc..

Please help prove or disprove this hypothesis with any links which deals with the conspumption of meat and/or testing would be interesting.

No need for links. that's what he said in the press conference. And you are correct the levels should be higher for the second day not with traces. That means that he put out an excuse that now is coming back to bite him. LOL.

 

[krebs303]

Please help prove or disprove this hypothesis with any links which deals with the conspumption of meat and/or testing would be interesting.

I posted this in the Clenbuterol & half-life thread.
The pharmacokinetics and residues of clenbuterol in veal calves
The results of this study indicate that
application of clenbuterol as a growth promotor
in veal calf production using 5 to 10 times
higher doses than are required for therapeutic
purposes leads to a residue accumulation, the
absence of a withdrawal period seems to be
infeasible. A prolonged withdrawal (1 to 2 mo)
may be needed to arrive at levels c .08 ng/g in
all edible tissues. Residue screening is most
practical by analyzing urine. Levels in urine
are mostly < 1 ppb after 4 d of withdrawal, at
which time levels in edible tissues are reduced
and strong pharmacologic effects to the consumer
can not be expected. Because it accumulates
relatively more clenbuterol than other
tissues, the eye seems to be a superior
indicator of the absence of residues of other
tissues.

 

[thehog]

No need for links. that's what he said in the press conference. And you are correct the levels should be higher for the second day not with traces. That means that he put out an excuse that now is coming back to bite him. LOL.

Why would the levels be higher after the 2nd test?

With the levels so low you'd expect the half life of the drug along with the excess intake of water that any remnents would have disappeared. Even wIth further ingestion of the contaminated meat.

So much for science class on this forum. So much lack of thought.

 

[meandmygitane]

Why would the levels be higher after the 2nd test?

With the levels so low you'd expect the half life of the drug along with the excess intake of water that any remnents would have disappeared. Even wIth further ingestion of the contaminated meat.

So much for science class on this forum. So much lack of thought.

But!

I've read (where was that?) that he had a smaller fraction of Clenbuterol the day after the first positive test (that is the second test), and a smaller still on the third.

So if your theory is correct then the third test should have the same level as the first. This I don't think the numbers will show.

I think the numbers will be consistent with a small intake of Clenbuterol on day 0 and decaying exponentially and exclude intake two days in a row.

Let's look at the numbers as soon someone digs them up.

"No Clenbuterol was detected in any of the tests prior to July 21.

An extremely low trace concentration of Clenbuterol was found in the urine sample taken on July 21; the concentration found in the urine sample taken on July 22 was even lower.

The half-life of Clenbuterol is 25-39 hours."
http://www.bikerumor.com/2010/09/29...erol-experts-say-its-from-food-contamination/

So:

Pick your conclusion:
a) He lied about eating the meat twice (why would he?) and ate only one steak which had Clen
b) He had a extreme bad luck getting a lot of Clen in steak no1 but not in no2 (how likely is this?)
c) The whole "meat defense" is a SHAM!


EXEUNT OMNIS!

 

[thehog]

So based on this theory a contaminated piece of meat will be infected with the drug equally through it's entire portion?

Not possible.

So the sum of parts is always equal regardless of how those parts are separated?

Again lunchtime science going on here. Very very poor.

I'm not sure if people are just stupid or they actually believe what they are writing.

Let's also add to this that one test is on a restday the 2nd is after a intense day of cycling with dehydration then hydration. The test conditions are not the same. You cannot compare the two.

But!

I've read (where was that?) that he had a smaller fraction of Clenbuterol the day after the first positive test (that is the second test), and a smaller still on the third.

So if your theory is correct then the third test should have the same level as the first. This I don't think the numbers will show.

I think the numbers will be consistent with a small intake of Clenbuterol on day 0 and decaying exponentially and exclude intake two days in a row.

Let's look at the numbers as soon someone digs them up.

"No Clenbuterol was detected in any of the tests prior to July 21.

An extremely low trace concentration of Clenbuterol was found in the urine sample taken on July 21; the concentration found in the urine sample taken on July 22 was even lower.

The half-life of Clenbuterol is 25-39 hours."
http://www.bikerumor.com/2010/09/29...erol-experts-say-its-from-food-contamination/

So:

a) Either he lied about eating the meat twice (why would he?) but the meat is to be blamed anyways
b) He had a extreme bad luck getting a lot of Clen in steak no1 but not in no2 (how likely is this?)
c) The whole "meat defense" is a SHAM!


EXEUNT OMNIS!

 

[meandmygitane]

If you want to believe alternative b) it is OK.
But it seems to me that you agree that all three possibilites exist.

It is up to me and you to choose which one we think are most likely.
You chose b) and I chose c).

C) isn't proof that he is guilty of using either blood doping or Clenbuterol as a PED. It is however "circumstantial evidence".

 

[Joe in LA]

One reason to give the rider the benefit of the doubt is that he wouldn't be the first Spaniard to be contaminated by meat containing clenbuterol, the drug he tested positive for in minute quantities. Dozens of people were sickened in 1992 in Spain's Catalonia region by eating clenbuterol-laced veal liver or veal tongue and cannelloni, also thought to have been contaminated. Similar poisonings have cropped up in Italy, France and Portugal.

In other words, clenbuterol has been known to find its way into the food chain. For that, blame farmers who use it to make their cows, pigs and other animals grow big and strong.

That's 18 years ago. Unless he was eating some incredibly old beef, it doesn't have any reasonable connection to 2010.

 

[Paco_P]

He's guilty

It's one of those common sense things. There's clenbuterol in his blood. It got there somehow. How exactly we'll probably never know unless he turns into Floyd Landis. His eating meat story doesn't hold water. Consider this - the known cases of clenbuterol contaminated meat not only occurred long ago (15+ years) but involved many people (!) - no cow gets eaten by just one fellow - and no cow that's going to get slaughtered gets fed loads of clenbuterol by itself. The whole thing is just a well concocted story that passes for plausible in the shallow media, and is buyable by Contador's public in Spain, which is what he really cares about (that and not being banned) - also it's just plausible enough to make it difficult for the UCI to ban him outright. The Contador defenders will say - but then how and why did he have clenbuterol in his blood - the response is simple - he did - and the burden is on him to convincingly answer those questions - which he hasn't.

In the end common sense has always said: Of course Contador is a doper. He won the Tour de France.

 

[thehog]

If you want to believe alternative b) it is OK.
But it seems to me that you agree that all three possibilites exist.

It is up to me and you to choose which one we think are most likely.
You chose b) and I chose c).

C) isn't proof that he is guilty of using either blood doping or Clenbuterol as a PED. It is however "circumstantial evidence".

I don't believe in any. What I do know your conclusions are based on faust science.

The test conditions between the three tests specified are not the same. You cannot draw a conclusion as you have.

Flip it around.

For you to be correct Contador would have one piece of meat broken into two parts. Each piece is equally infected with the drug and each test is taken on a rest day.

You cannot know the concentration of the drug in meat and which parts of the meat were infected most. Perhaps Clem absorbs deeper into the marrow and not the meat itself. On day one he ate the marrow and not the meat?

There are way too many variables in your conclusions. It's eaiser to disprove your theory than Alberto's.

 

[thehog]

It's one of those common sense things. There's clenbuterol in his blood. It got there somehow. How exactly we'll probably never know unless he turns into Floyd Landis. His eating meat story doesn't hold water. Consider this - the known cases of clenbuterol contaminated meat not only occurred long ago (15+ years) but involved many people (!) - no cow gets eaten by just one fellow - and no cow that's going to get slaughtered gets fed loads of clenbuterol by itself. The whole thing is just a well concocted story that passes for plausible in the shallow media, and is buyable by Contador's public in Spain, which is what he really cares about (that and not being banned) - also it's just plausible enough to make it difficult for the UCI to ban him outright. The Contador defenders will say - but then how and why did he have clenbuterol in his blood - the response is simple - he did - and the burden is on him to convincingly answer those questions - which he hasn't.

In the end common sense has always said: Of course Contador is a doper. He won the Tour de France.

It was found in his urine not blood. Shows how much you know. Another schoolboy scientist!

 

[robow7]

What are the chances that somewhere in Spain, a rancher is getting a call that goes something like this,

"Here's the deal, you admit to using clen with your beef for a short time this past year, you get fined, but we pay the fine and make sure there's a nice bonus in it for you. Alberto and the country's reputation is at steak (pardon the pun) here so we'll take care of you."

 

[meandmygitane]

There are way too many variables in your conclusions. It's eaiser to disprove your theory than Alberto's.

When I can't get reality to make sense with my mental picture, I must try to explain it.

I hope that someone can really disprove this argument against Contador and if it is simple to do so then Contadors defense will be improven.

Sometimes you just have to deduct all "impossible truths" to arrive at the correct one, please show me that this is impossible or at least improbable.

 

[Escarabajo]

Why would the levels be higher after the 2nd test?

With the levels so low you'd expect the half life of the drug along with the excess intake of water that any remnents would have disappeared. Even wIth further ingestion of the contaminated meat.

So much for science class on this forum. So much lack of thought.

I see someone with more knowledge on this topic giving you a better explanation. Besides I still think it is very simple logic that the second steak theory does not apply unless it was not contaminated (how likely is that???). Otherwise levels should have at least be constant or higher than just traces.

Forget the decaying values from the contaminants. Just answer this question:

How likely is for Contador to eat red meat during the Tour two days in a row in the heat of the battle? Just give me a percentage number.
Thanks.

 

[robow7]

Did he or the chef say it was the same cut of meat served two days in a row? Did Vino avoid the second team meal as well or was he not tested after that second day?? Just curious.

 

[Der_Gestreifte]

So based on this theory a contaminated piece of meat will be infected with the drug equally through it's entire portion?

Not possible.

This is the way testing on meat has been done for ages: carve out a piece of muscle, test it an then declare all of the meat of that animal fit or unfit for human consumption.
BTW: the EU has installed a tracking system, which enables identifiying the lot of livestock a piece of meat came from (some organic hippie farmers (and I wouldn´t wonder if s.o. who wants to buy "a really good piece of meat" would choose this) even allow tracking individiual animals). Why would someone install such an expensive system if one cm³ of meat would be so much different to its neighbouring cm³s?

So the sum of parts is always equal regardless of how those parts are separated?

Of course it not the sum which makes it look a litte strange, it´s:
part - decay [get sample 1] + part - decay [get sample 2] - (decay [get sample 3](repeat ad infinitum/Paris))

Let's also add to this that one test is on a restday the 2nd is after a intense day of cycling with dehydration then hydration.

Don´t they take the blood right after the riders cross the finish line? That would rule out the "then hydration"-part.
And wouldn´t any sbstance appear in a higher concentration if the urin is more concentrated due to dehydration (note: I have no idea if the samples are "normalized" in any way before the tests)?
Also, your theory of a completely controlled an normalized testing environment can´t be applied to testing in sports. In fact it would render all testing useless, as one day it´s cold, another day the rider drinks less, then sleeps bad, etc. No matter what the circumstances are, at the end of the day it comes down to "this is the red line, you crossed it".

Don´t get me wrong, I do see the possibility of eating contaminated meat, this can´t be ruled out. I just see too many oddities in the way this meat got into Contadors guts.

 

[Der_Gestreifte]

Did he or the chef say it was the same cut of meat served two days in a row?

Contador said he ate from the meat on two occasions.

But it must have been a somehow different meat as Contador says it was brought from spain wheras the cook in an interview during the Tour said he bought on the market at Pau (someone posted a link to http://www.sport.es but I can´t find it).

 

[nicholaaaas]

That's 18 years ago. Unless he was eating some incredibly old beef, it doesn't have any reasonable connection to 2010.

yes all farmers worldwide stopped ALL their unscrupulous practices. maybe farmers have gotten better at their doping too

 

[thehog]

This is the way testing on meat has been done for ages: carve out a piece of muscle, test it an then declare all of the meat of that animal fit or unfit for human consumption.
BTW: the EU has installed a tracking system, which enables identifiying the lot of livestock a piece of meat came from (some organic hippie farmers (and I wouldn´t wonder if s.o. who wants to buy "a really good piece of meat" would choose this) even allow tracking individiual animals). Why would someone install such an expensive system if one cm³ of meat would be so much different to its neighbouring cm³s?

But you reference a test of the meat itself not if it's contents and how it's ingested by a human being under separated test conditions.

The fact that Contador and De la Fuente did not become sick from the meat and that the levels he tested positive for were a miniscule amount it would be suggested that the levels of Clem were so low it would not trigger an EU qualitative test.

 

[Joe in LA]

yes all farmers worldwide stopped ALL their unscrupulous practices. maybe farmers have gotten better at their doping too

I wasn't suggesting it is impossible that some farmer somewhere was acting impropertly, but to suggest that something that happened in 1992 makes it likely in 2010 is silly.

 

[thehog]

Don´t they take the blood right after the riders cross the finish line? That would rule out the "then hydration"-part.
And wouldn´t any sbstance appear in a higher concentration if the urin is more concentrated due to dehydration (note: I have no idea if the samples are "normalized" in any way before the tests)?
Also, your theory of a completely controlled an normalized testing environment can´t be applied to testing in sports. In fact it would render all testing useless, as one day it´s cold, another day the rider drinks less, then sleeps bad, etc. No matter what the circumstances are, at the end of the day it comes down to "this is the red line, you crossed it".

I agree with you. It was the previous poster who was making a comparative study between the 3 tests. Each test can only be taken in isolation as each of the circumstances under the the test was taken is different.

 

[thehog]

I see someone with more knowledge on this topic giving you a better explanation. Besides I still think it is very simple logic that the second steak theory does not apply unless it was not contaminated (how likely is that???). Otherwise levels should have at least be constant or higher than just traces.

Forget the decaying values from the contaminants. Just answer this question:

How likely is for Contador to eat red meat during the Tour two days in a row in the heat of the battle? Just give me a percentage number.
Thanks.

He explained this. Meat is full of protein and steak due to it's very low carbohydrate levels doesn't put on weight. Contador wanted to be lean as possible for the Tourmalet. Protein on a rest day it vital. It helps repair muscle damage and aids recovery.