• 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's meat defense - disproven?

In your opinion what is more likely?

  • I don't agree with the premises and/or I think there is another conclusion to be drawn.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jul 5, 2010
462
0
0
Visit site
I will try to show that Contadors meat defense story, as given by the press conference is not plausible.

The Premises:
a) Contador said he ate the meat twice, two days in a row, 20-21 July.
b) Clenbuterol has a half-life of 25-39 hours.
c) No Clenbuterol was detected prior July 21.
d) The Clenbuterol levels on July 22 were lower than in the sample taken July 21.
e) The Clenbuterol intake by eating meat two days in a row should have resulted in a accumulation of Clenbuterol and higher concentrations.

e) and d) are mutually exclusive and from this (if all premises are true) there are three possible outcomes.

Conclusions:

These possibilites arise:

1) He lied about eating the meat twice but the meat is the source of Clenbuterol
2) He had the bad luck of getting a lot of Clenbuterol in the first steak but not so much in the second.
3) The whole "meat defense" is a fabricated lie.


About Clenbuterols half-life and samples taken:
"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/...contamination/

Please keep the discussion to critique of the premises, logic and conclusion of this hypothesis. Also relevant links and citations are welcome to prove or disprove this post.
 
Did this really need it's own thread after it was debunked on another thread?

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 three tests.
 
Jul 5, 2010
462
0
0
Visit site
thehog said:
Did this really need it's own thread after it was debunked on another thread?

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 three tests.

Yes, I believe so, since it was not proven to be false in the other thread and may or may not trap Contador in a deliberate lie.

It is good that you critisize the premises, but I like more critique and relevant links (such as to the dispersion of Clenbuterol and in meat products and changed metabolism of Clenbuterol due to physical exercise).

As of yet I haven't seen any hard evidence against this theory, but it may come up.

I value your critizism and give my Best regards
 
Jul 5, 2010
462
0
0
Visit site
krebs303 said:
Since Clenbuterol is stored longer in the fat. One veal steak may have been leaner.

A good point.

But if someone can find the test values for July 21-23 we can discern the truth - especially if we have three values for two ingestions.

If it shows that the second beef had for example a tenth of the total Clenbuterol it would seem to disprove the "leaner theory"

We could also see that if we use day 1's Clenbuterol value as starting point, and get a good fit with a exponential model using the half-life as tau = 24-39 then it would also point to disproving the "leaner theory".

From http://www.sportsscientists.com/2010/09/contador-tests-positive.html we have:
On the 21st, the level is 50 pg/ml, it falls to 20 pg/ml on the 22nd, and then none is found on either the 23rd or 24th. Based on these findings, and the half-life of clenbuterol, it is concluded that the clenbuterol was administered (either deliberately or via food) after the 20th.


Here more exact times would be useful, but let's assume 24h inbetween.

Observed Assuming tau=25 Assuming tau = 39
Day 1: 50 50 50
Day 2: 20 19.14 27.02
Day 3: 0 7.33 14.60

So even with the fastst decay the meat must have contained approxmiately fifty times less Clenbuterol than the first.
Is this reasonable?

This is of course a very simplified analysis, but I think it shows that it is improbable.

Those with a more complex model of Clenbuterol behaviour are welcome to improve on this
 
Are you guys serious? You have no substantial data / evidence to support any reasonable conclusion about this.

There is a saying that I am reminded of..."How many angels can sit on a pinhead?"- look it up if you are interested.

Do we really need to look much further than reality of where the sport has been and where it likely still is? If it smells like a fish it probably is a fish!

If you have more to say can you do it in one of the other 25 Contador threads.

Thanks

Terry
 
Status
Not open for further replies.