Contador positive!!!!!

[warmfuzzies]

never heard a such stupid argument, listen, you are mixing up very different human attitudes, according to your argument, he should be what... a pedofile!

or a terrorist?

You mention pedophile. . . did you see Contador's children's book he's selling on his website? How many professional athletes sell a book to children? It's not exactly Michael Jackson having sleepovers with boys, but it is a bit creepy. . .

 

[Intelligent Being]

You mention pedophile. . . did you see Contador's children's book he's selling on his website? How many professional athletes sell a book to children? It's not exactly Michael Jackson having sleepovers with boys, but it is a bit creepy. . .

Is it a book that teaches children about drugs?

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Other than that, as a preventative measure, I have a suggestion to make. Why not allow two dopers of any given nationality per annum, and if a third (that would be the turd) is found, all participation is barred from international competitions for one year for competitors of that nationality? Wouldn't that make the national authorities everywhere get serious about doping? Russia has been under that threat, and their cross-country skiers risk being barred from participating in their own olympics in Sotchi unless.....

This is a good idea. FIS also made Russia get rid of dodgy coaches and doctors.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=7891

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

You bet there were. To his fans it was a "lovely victory" over a doped to the gills di Luca.

Menchov ain't been the same rider since. Wonder why.

Did you miss this years Tour?

Again, Humanplasma's doping business ceased in 2006 after the winter olympics.

 

[JRTinMA]

Oh, I stand corrected then.



Well, he said what he said. He's a huge figure in the sport, doping issues, and he's very, "talkative," which is his prerogative.

Maybe on the accidental injestion angle, the experts don't know much more than the keyboard warriors? Didn't Catlin defend the American swimmer who said she injested Clen from supplements?



He was positive 2 days in a row, and then negative?

The data that was published said he tested positive two days in a row, it never mentioned a third so we would have to assume he was not tested or he was negative. It seems so long ago but as I recall it was the rest day and the day after, the result the second day was half again the first. Which would be pretty typical for Clen.

 

[Parrot23]

Did you miss this years Tour?

Again, Humanplasma's doping business ceased in 2006 after the winter olympics.

You like echoes, don't you

 

[doxter]

Some good quotes from some highly respected anti-doping experts including Bowdry. I like how Damsgaard called it a "Landis", classic.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5...Results+|+VeloNation.com)&utm_content=Twitter

does the radioshack FL case match that pattern too ?

 

[JRTinMA]

does the radioshack FL case match that pattern too ?

Its the suggestion that it had to come from a transfusion. For the record Landis rode for Phonak at the time and he has maintained he never took testosterone during that tour, he still maintains this premise. He has admitted to blood doping using transfusions and EPO. Damsgaard suggest that Landis probably stored packed cells when he was doing testo, by accident one could only assume. He then tops off for his big comeback ride and trips a POS for testo ratio.

 

[offbyone]

I think it is obvious what happened here. On rest day Contador downed several shots of contaminated whiskey.

I hear Landis sent him a good luck 6 pack.

 

[doxter]

yes i get the assertion that its a transfusion in both cases that introduced the offending substances - question is the relationship of the AC and RadioShack rider Fuyu Li results - both showing 'very low' levels of Clenbuterol - same argument for that positive , that a transfusion took place ???

 

[Barrus]

The data that was published said he tested positive two days in a row, it never mentioned a third so we would have to assume he was not tested or he was negative. It seems so long ago but as I recall it was the rest day and the day after, the result the second day was half again the first. Which would be pretty typical for Clen.

After the second day there were still minute traces, but not as much that it was really able to show as a positive, which does correspond with the half life of clen

 

[sheenyp]

i understand the confusion (btw, mods, this post may be an indication why we may need more than one super long thread as some people already explained this). math aside, i'll try too...

there are 30+ wada labs around the world. each has it's own funding limit, resources and research potential. in an attempt to standardize dope testing wada issues 'harmonizing' standards or technical documents. for some substances they are very prescriptive, for other they are loose and tbh poor or in wada's lingo 'non-specific'.

the 2ng/ml limit is what wada expects any wada laboratory to detect, identify and quantify (where applicable). some labs due to use of very sensitive methods can beat the minimum by hundreds of times. iow, their own validated methods have limit of detection (lod, yet a different term which is also a statistical term) that very much beats the wada expected 2 units. in the contador's case, he was unlucky that the german lab (yes, it was german not french) can detect clen in the pico gram range. the quantification of 50 pico gram is an approximation (as the limit of qaontification - loq) was not applied in this case per de boer.

that's why all the numbers and multipliers whist important should not be obsessed over. the important thing is that a non-indigenous substance was detected in berto's biological fluid in any detectable amount.

Yes I fully understand that different labs can detect at different levels and I fully understand that 2ng/ml is the minimum concentration that all labs must be able to detect and I fully understand that any level of Clenbuterol detected is a failure and that had these samples been tested elsewhere they may not have been detected.

The point remains that the UCI released a press statement relating to quite possibly the biggest doing case in cycling ever with incorrect information. I would have expected better oh then again .............

 

[icefire]

Yes I fully understand that different labs can detect at different levels and I fully understand that 2ng/ml is the minimum concentration that all labs must be able to detect and I fully understand that any level of Clenbuterol detected is a failure and that had these samples been tested elsewhere they may not have been detected.

The point remains that the UCI released a press statement relating to quite possibly the biggest doing case in cycling ever with incorrect information. I would have expected better oh then again .............

That question has been answered. UCI wanted to dismiss the case but it had to go public because of leaks to the German press.

Next thing UCI will do is not sending test samples to German labs.

 

[Publicus]

I think swordsman brings up some good points. But bad luck or not, I don't see how he escapes this without some sort of intervention from the UCI changing their rules just for him. And even if they do, it's still a real black mark against AC, and another against the sport.

I have to wonder if they let this go as "contaminated meat" just how many riders will use the excuse in the future? And when they do, what standards will the UCI point to if they don't give them a pass as well? And how many riders will actually believe this was from contamination, and go on a Leipheimer-type diet?

Here's what I don't understand, is if the minimum thresholds are in place for every WADA lab, why wouldn't that figure serve as a de facto threshold? In this case, if AC's sample had been tested at another lab with not quite as sensitive equipment, but still well below the threshold levels, we wouldn't be having these discussions. I think the UCI and WADA have a responsibility here to make sure that there is uniformity in each of the labs they use so that this isn't an issue going forward.

 

[kurtinsc]

Here's what I don't understand, is if the minimum thresholds are in place for every WADA lab, why wouldn't that figure serve as a de facto threshold? In this case, if AC's sample had been tested at another lab with not quite as sensitive equipment, but still well below the threshold levels, we wouldn't be having these discussions. I think the UCI and WADA have a responsibility here to make sure that there is uniformity in each of the labs they use so that this isn't an issue going forward.

I think what they're saying is this:

1. Any sign of the drug in your system is against the rules.

2. For a lab to be useable by WADA, they have to be able to detect that drug at a certain minimum concentration.

3. If a lab can detect at a lower concentration, they'll use that because of point 1.


The rule for a Lab is simply a minimum level of effectiveness necessary for the lab to be used. It's doesn't mean any results that are detected at a lower level are ignored.

 

[Publicus]

I think what they're saying is this:

1. Any sign of the drug in your system is against the rules.

2. For a lab to be useable by WADA, they have to be able to detect that drug at a certain minimum concentration.

3. If a lab can detect at a lower concentration, they'll use that because of point 1.


The rule for a Lab is simply a minimum level of effectiveness necessary for the lab to be used. It's doesn't mean any results that are detected at a lower level are ignored.

I understand what they are saying, but I don't agree with it. There should be uniformity amongst WADA certified labs. Minimum levels create the possibility that one lab may detect a sample where another (equally certified WADA lab) would not. If I understand it correctly if his sample was sent to another WADA certified lab with less sensitive equipment (but which met the existing thresholds), there would be no discussion here.

I'd be all for each year resetting the thresholds based on advances in testing and charging the events/organisers additional amounts for providing the testing (pass through the costs). At least we would know that each sample would be treated the same regardless of the WADA lab used. At present that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

yes i get the assertion that its a transfusion in both cases that introduced the offending substances - question is the relationship of the AC and RadioShack rider Fuyu Li results - both showing 'very low' levels of Clenbuterol - same argument for that positive , that a transfusion took place ???

Pick one:

A) Fuyu had some contaminated meat.
B) Fuyu thought the clen had cleared his system by the time he was tested (and it almost had).

 

[hfer07]

I understand what they are saying, but I don't agree with it. There should be uniformity amongst WADA certified labs. Minimum levels create the possibility that one lab may detect a sample where another (equally certified WADA lab) would not. If I understand it correctly if his sample was sent to another WADA certified lab with less sensitive equipment (but which met the existing thresholds), there would be no discussion here.

I'd be all for each year resetting the thresholds based on advances in testing and charging the events/organisers additional amounts for providing the testing (pass through the costs). At least we would know that each sample would be treated the same regardless of the WADA lab used. At present that doesn't seem to be the case.

I agree with some of your ideas-however-what I find more damaging than anything else is the UCI mishandling of the situation, by making the information available a month after the fact, and by conflicting their own criteria with WADA for what a minimum threshold is fully accepted to determine a positive... at this point whatever Contador says is irrelevant...

 

[Escarabajo]

I understand what they are saying, but I don't agree with it. There should be uniformity amongst WADA certified labs. Minimum levels create the possibility that one lab may detect a sample where another (equally certified WADA lab) would not. ...

Partly I agree with you because Conti would have never been positive had the samples gone to a different lab. hec, maybe the one in Paris don't have that capability.

 

[Escarabajo]

That question has been answered. UCI wanted to dismiss the case but it had to go public because of leaks to the German press.

Next thing UCI will do is not sending test samples to German labs.

+1.

LOL.

Pat screwed up.

 

[hektoren]

I understand what they are saying, but I don't agree with it. There should be uniformity amongst WADA certified labs. Minimum levels create the possibility that one lab may detect a sample where another (equally certified WADA lab) would not. If I understand it correctly if his sample was sent to another WADA certified lab with less sensitive equipment (but which met the existing thresholds), there would be no discussion here.

I'd be all for each year resetting the thresholds based on advances in testing and charging the events/organisers additional amounts for providing the testing (pass through the costs). At least we would know that each sample would be treated the same regardless of the WADA lab used. At present that doesn't seem to be the case.

In addition, at which level should a positive be dismissed? You'll find trace elements of a lot of substances where you least expect it, if you look closely enough. You'll find trace elements of eight different narcotics on your body if you swim in the waters of nature parks in and around Valencia (Probably in any town of a certain size anywhere in the western world). You'll find cocaine on most dollar bills if you look closely enough. You will find mercury in wet and healthy kidney tissue at concentrations far beyond the concentration of clenbuterol found in the samples of Mr. Contador, even without any experience of amalgam fillings in your teeth.

All and sundry seem to agree on one thing: The levels of Clenbuterol here doesn't constitute an advantage performance-wise, and it can be detected only as trace elements. It might come from food, or it might appear as the result of a blood transfusion, for which no testing protocol exists. So???

 

[fcojavier]

"For a Non-Threshold Substance prohibited in-competition only, it is not recommended that Laboratories report below 10% (1/10th) of the MRPL. "

From an already posted WADA Technical Document – TD2009MRPL .

The lab should not have reported the positive as WADA rules?

 

[Escarabajo]

"For a Non-Threshold Substance prohibited in-competition only, it is not recommended that Laboratories report below 10% (1/10th) of the MRPL. "

From an already posted WADA Technical Document – TD2009MRPL .

The lab should not have reported the positive as WADA rules?

You are wrong. Read the whole thread and you'll find the answer.

Go to Dr. Maserati's posts and it will get you the answer faster. Alpe d'Huez posts are also helpful on this.

 

[theswordsman]

I think what they're saying is this:

1. Any sign of the drug in your system is against the rules.

2. For a lab to be useable by WADA, they have to be able to detect that drug at a certain minimum concentration.

3. If a lab can detect at a lower concentration, they'll use that because of point 1.


The rule for a Lab is simply a minimum level of effectiveness necessary for the lab to be used. It's doesn't mean any results that are detected at a lower level are ignored.

Let's look at it another way for a minute. Pretend that we're talking about athletes being tested by their national doping agencies with samples going to labs in their own countries. Wouldn't German athletes whose samples go to the Cologne lab be held to a higher standard than athletes in a different country where the lab can only do the bare minimum? Would athletes know which countries have the "super labs" and be less willing to compete there because there's a bigger risk of losing their livelihood due to some tainted every day product?

I'm not saying that applies to Contador necessarily, but there are guys here talking about a level playing field. Maybe one guy doesn't get to go to the London Olympics because his country has more money or better technology?

I've done some more reading, and watched a poor Eurosport video from the press conference. I say poor, because the guy mentioned a couple of times that Contador is in Australia, and when they showed video of like twenty Astana riders at training camp, he said it was from this year's Tour de France.

Anyway, I found this article about the chef from the Tour telling the story, and it didn't mesh perfectly with Alberto's. It is a couple of months later, and each obviously had a different focus at the time, but there are discrepancies. The video is at AlbertoContadorNotebook.Info

http://www.marca.com/2010/09/30/ciclismo/1285847818.html

I'd really like to know if Contador really injured his knee, or if that was a coverup story to hide his suspension as a reason he couldn't race Basso in that crit. If he lied about it, that's enough for me. I really hate the position fans are in today. And the whole German story seems really sketchy to me.

 

[Mshort]

"For a Non-Threshold Substance prohibited in-competition only, it is not recommended that Laboratories report below 10% (1/10th) of the MRPL. "

From an already posted WADA Technical Document – TD2009MRPL .

The lab should not have reported the positive as WADA rules?

Nice thought but the wrong interpretation of the document. The 1/10th rule applies only to Narcotics, Stimulants, and Beta Blockers. Other non threshold substances have zero tolerance.