• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Contador taking or have taken lie-detecting test?

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Nov 20, 2010
786
0
0
Visit site
Moose McKnuckles said:
Better yet, throw him in the water and see if he floats!
I've always been partial to trial by fire. Make him hold a red hot iron bar in his hands. If he's burned, he's guilty. If he's innocent Lance, er, I mean God, will protect him.
 
Aug 3, 2009
169
0
0
Visit site
Of course 61% is good enough. We already shown that the 99.999% of the livestock in Spain being clean wasn't what we are looking for, so let's go with the 61%.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
LaFlorecita said:
You forgot that 97% of the livestock isn't tested, and farmers who use illegal hormones usually know the tricks to circumvent the tests.

so why have not seen a lot of positives for minutes traces of clen in europe?
 
Sep 5, 2009
1,239
0
0
Visit site
Moose McKnuckles said:
Better yet, throw him in the water and see if he floats!

During medieval times in a trial by ordeal the sinkers were innocent and the floaters were guilty.

Very attuned to UCI thinking as you get the result you want :)
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Visit site
Moose McKnuckles said:
Small number of tests + small amounts + few places that can detect such trace amounts = few positives

Did this years 3 GTs not test for clen, well i doubt the Vuelta did, but the others?
 
Aug 3, 2009
169
0
0
Visit site
LaFlorecita said:
Read it somewhere, maybe even in the resolution of his case...

Testing 3% of meat seams VERY high to me. However there is some VOODOO math using crazy terms like statistical sampling that much of the analytical world believes in.

Truth is I hope he is allowed to race. He is no more dirty than most and is clearly far more entertaining than most. I just wish he'd sound less like Armstrong instead of more like him.
 
Pet Peeve Warning

Cloxxki said:
So the chance that he can beat the test is 40%. If you'd have 3 defendants, and they'd all have themselves tested, at least one would find it advantageous to use it for their defence. Hmmm....

Nothing personal, this is a pet peeve of mine. The chances are much greater than 40% he can beat the test because the false positive and false negative rates are not zero.

It is worth repeating, a 60% success rate is awful. Dr. Nick from the Simpsons and Dr. Spaceman from 30 Rock have better results.
 
LaFlorecita said:
You forgot that 97% of the livestock isn't tested, and farmers who use illegal hormones usually know the tricks to circumvent the tests.

This bears no resemblance to the truth about the EU meat supply. Where did you get this 3% magic number? That's quite a bit of meat to test. That's why it's at minimum a misquote.

The meat supply is very clean in the EU. If it wasn't there would have been numerous clenbuterol positives and MAJOR meat industry investigations. Exactly like what just happened in Mexico only the regulators have much more influence in the EU.

It's time to accept the meat explanation is a lie to cover clenbuterol use at some point in Pharmador's training.
 
DirtyWorks said:
Nothing personal, this is a pet peeve of mine. The chances are much greater than 40% he can beat the test because the false positive and false negative rates are not zero.

It is worth repeating, a 60% success rate is awful. Dr. Nick from the Simpsons and Dr. Spaceman from 30 Rock have better results.
That's cool.
Not a joke, but as a kid I actually scored better than 60% at coin flipping. Just call it, flip it a couple dozen times with the thumb in one "ping" and slap on the back of my hand. The more I increased the data set, the further above 60% I got. Never got to 70% though.
 
hrotha said:
Why wouldn't the Vuelta test for clen?

IIRC clen is part of the standard tests - ie. you don't need to be testing specifically for clen to find its traces, if they exist.

How do you know the test was done? If I am not mistaken, the outside world does not know the testing protocols at any given race nor do we know who is paying for testing and who is carrying out the testing until way too late.

We know whomever pays for testing gets to pick tests. We don't know any more than that. I'd like to be wrong about this. Please correct me if I am wrong.
 
DirtyWorks said:
How do you know the test was done? If I am not mistaken, the outside world does not know the testing protocols at any given race nor do we know who is paying for testing and who is carrying out the testing until way too late.

We know whomever pays for testing gets to pick tests. We don't know any more than that. I'd like to be wrong about this. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I do not know per se, but I remember (hence the IIRC which acknowledges I could be wrong) reading that clen is checked in every test. I probably read it in the wake of the announcement of Contador's positive.
 
DirtyWorks said:
This bears no resemblance to the truth about the EU meat supply. Where did you get this 3% magic number? That's quite a bit of meat to test. That's why it's at minimum a misquote.

The meat supply is very clean in the EU. If it wasn't there would have been numerous clenbuterol positives and MAJOR meat industry investigations. Exactly like what just happened in Mexico only the regulators have much more influence in the EU.

It's time to accept the meat explanation is a lie to cover clenbuterol use at some point in Pharmador's training.

It's .25 percent, not 3, as per Contador's atty:


"We showed that the testing for clenbuterol [in livestock] is not infallible in Europe," Ramos told The Independent.
"There is a European Union norm - 96/23/CE, dating from 1996 - which states that only 0.25 per cent of cattle should be tested for clenbuterol. So 99.75 per cent are not."
"During the very same period the Spanish Ministry of Agriculture says that there have been no positives for clenbuterol in [Spanish] cattle. But we've shown that the police have gone on arresting people for using clenbuterol and other banned substances in their livestock."

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news...lawyer-explains-u-turn-over-proposed-ban.html
 
In Contador's attorney's shoes I would have focused on the wording of the directive which as far as I understand it says that the minimum percentage of cattle that should be tested for clenbuterol is actually 0.0125%.

Not that it really changes a lot but the number looks even better.