Michael Rogers positive for clenbuterol

Page 23 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
The German tourist study did not and could not specify if
those tourists that had clen in their systems ingested the
tainted food in China or on the airline flight out of China.

It is also possible a cyclist may have consumed tainted
airline food on a flight leaving China.
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Dazed and Confused said:
People gotta make a living Benotti somehow, Benotti.
Take that opportunity away and its chaos.
Remember, they are all just dopers.

Sarcasm...........;)
 
Franklin said:
You do understand that not every piece of meat is being inspected right?

Do you understand anything about statistics? That if random samples are taken, it isn't necessary to test every sample?

Now don't be shocked... but obviously everyone here missed a massive 2013 scandal that hit the best European contries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_meat_adulteration_scandal

"Amusing" fact, in the samples they did not just find horsemeat, but also pig meat. And that has been going on for years.

Again, I'm not arguing that there aren't problems with the food supply, I'm arguing that the odds of ingesting enough CB to test positive are very small. Most of the adulterated samples did not contain large amounts of horse meat.

Composite food is not just canned meart. It's also packaged soup and pizza's etc. And don't say with a straightface tha athletes don't eat pizza :D

The point here is that people generally don't eat large amounts of meat in these products. Even if you happen to eat meat from some country like China, and even if it contains CB, you are very unlikely to ingest large amounts of CB.

Go back to that Greek study that you linked. The highest concentration of CB they found in meat was about 1 ug/kg. Suppose it were one hundred times as high in some meat sample, which is very rare, and puts it in the range of causing symptoms of food poisoning. Suppose this heavily contaminated sample made up 10% of some composite. Even if you ate 200 g of that composite, which is probably a lot more meat than in one very large pizza, you would end up with a peak value--if you were tested shortly after eating--of maybe 1 ng/ml. After 2-3 days, it would be much lower. Many testing facilities aren't even that sensitive, 2 ng/ml is the minimum required sensitivity.

So while again, I'm not dismissing the problems with adulterated food, the odds of it's resulting in a CB positive in America or Europe really are quite small.

1. The Beef scanadal which you completely missed. Notice the amounts of meat involved....
2. You are telling here, in the clinic, that by ctaching one sipment that made it to the market the EC has blocked the whole influx of bad meat? I'm not sure how to react on this insane statement. Especially when I pointed out the enormous scandal this year that had been going on for years (huzzah for meat relabeling). Yet somehow the EC has airtight control.

If they catch one shipment you should wonder "but how many got through?". Considering the haphazard testing and the relabeling going on at the fringes of Europe (and then sent into the heartlands!)it's hardly reassuring.

To repeat, the problem with American beef is not CB. It’s other substances.

Aha... but did I say there was a significant risk? Read my posts a few times, it might help a bit. I never said it was a big risk. I said it's plausible.

Maybe you need to define your terms. If the risk is not significant, then the discussion belongs on another thread.
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Merckx index said:
A couple of years ago, in the wake of the Contador decision, WADA considered instituting a threshold for CB, and decided not to. Why not? Because, as I noted, there is no level so low that it can't indicate doping, nor any level so high it can't indicate contamination. In fact, I don't think any study exists that challenges the assertion that there is no correlation between level of CB in the body and the origin of the drug. IOW, there might not be any level at which you would get significant separation between those who doped and those who ate contaminated meat.
....

Yes! I agree. I am not sure where we are losing eachother MI.

My position is that this doesn't matter. There is a possibility that it could be ingested accidentally. Some level of agreement on what that concentration in a test could be is warranted. Because we can't 100% agree on this number is semantics. That level will mean some cheats go free. I have no problem with that.
 
We know Contador got his clen from a contaminated blood transfusion. The clen used during training wasn't out of his system yet when he extracted the blood for later use.

But now you guys are seriously discussing if Rogers could have gotten it from meat as well? Complete amnesia to the Contador case?
 
ChrisE said:
Yes! I agree. I am not sure where we are losing eachother MI.

My position is that this doesn't matter. There is a possibility that it could be ingested accidentally. Some level of agreement on what that concentration in a test could be is warranted. Because we can't 100% agree on this number is semantics. That level will mean some cheats go free. I have no problem with that.

Reading your post makes me realize this problem is worse than I thought. Yes, some cheats will go free. But it also means that some meat eaters will get sanctioned.

The problem is whether there is any relationship between level in the body and likelihood of doping. If there is none—if at a level of 20 pg/ml, a rider is just as likely to be doping as at a level of 2 ng/ml—then a threshold is useless. You could set it anywhere and get the same number of false negatives--but also the same number of false positives. IOW, you might as well take all CB positives, regardless of the level you set, put the names of all of them in a hat, and randomly draw out the % who are to be sanctioned.

I know that sounds weird, and obviously that could never be done, but that in effect is what you would be doing if there is no correlation between level in the body and origin of CB. There has to be some correlation, or a threshold is pointless.

So if there is no relationship, the real issue is, what is that % of false positives? If it's very significant, then you have to either

a) stop testing for CB entirely, and let riders take it to their heart's content, OR

b) give all positives a reduced sanction, say one year, with the understanding that even if they got it from meat, they're at fault for not being more careful.

I think it's this conundrum that leads WADA to treat positives on a case by case basis. If the rider can provide evidence of contaminated meat, then he has a chance to get off. If there really is no or even very little correlation between level and origin, then this all they can do.
 
Apr 7, 2010
612
0
0
Almeisan said:
But now you guys are seriously discussing if Rogers could have gotten it from meat as well? Complete amnesia to the Contador case?

english speaking athletes do not cheat, don't you know anything?
 
Merckx index said:
Do you understand anything about statistics? That if random samples are taken, it isn't necessary to test every sample?

Seriously. Food testing is as bad as doping testing. I know farmers and you would be amazed and shocked by the issues. That you are even arguing this is cute, but is ill befitting of the clinic.

Again, I'm not arguing that there aren't problems with the food supply, I'm arguing that the odds of ingesting enough CB to test positive are very small. Most of the adulterated samples did not contain large amounts of horse meat.

Flat out false. Seriously. There werrte cmplete steaks of horsemeat. So how you make up that they were only partly horsemeat is flat out false. And yes, this was extremely widespread. And yes, the origin of the meat was well obscufated by relabeling.

I made my point beyond any refutal. It's plausible you run into bad meat in Europe. All the facts and evidence make this absolutely true.

The point here is that people generally don't eat large amounts of meat in these products. Even if you happen to eat meat from some country like China, and even if it contains CB, you are very unlikely to ingest large amounts of CB.

Unlikely. Thank you for fully agreeing that indeed it is possible. it's easier to say: "Well, I have to agree that your facts show it's possible. That really changes the discussion. Thank you for these facts."

Go back to that Greek study that you linked. The highest concentration of CB they found in meat was about 1 ug/kg. Suppose it were one hundred times as high in some meat sample, which is very rare, and puts it in the range of causing symptoms of food poisoning. Suppose this heavily contaminated sample made up 10% of some composite. Even if you ate 200 g of that composite, which is probably a lot more meat than in one very large pizza, you would end up with a peak value--if you were tested shortly after eating--of maybe 1 ng/ml. After 2-3 days, it would be much lower. Many testing facilities aren't even that sensitive, 2 ng/ml is the minimum required sensitivity.

Again, thank you for fully agreeeing. Not sure what you are arguing, but thank you.

So while again, I'm not dismissing the problems with adulterated food, the odds of it's resulting in a CB positive in America or Europe really are quite small.

Thank you. Argument closed.

To repeat, the problem with American beef is not CB. It’s other substances.

Sorry, that's false. The veterinary organisation has been sending out warnings again and again. I'm not sure how to explain this, so I'll try it in a way clinic people understand.

1. It's money.
2. A lot of money.
3. More than cycling ever will see.
4. It's criminal
5. Food has really, really criminal maffia.
6. The controlling instances are underfunded.
7. There are corrupt officials.
8. There are loopholes
9. It's at least as bad as the UCI/IOC

Now read that a few times, compare with the issues with cycling and all of a sudden a lightbulb will go up: Well... crap... our food is not as clean as I thought! Usually it's within limits, but indeed, you could be unlucky even in our saintly first-world where no crime should ever occur.Sorry for being so bloody pedantic, but I am so amazed that those who becry the UCI are maintaining the food supply is fully under control even when the scandals are hapening this year fully spread out through the media. I can only conclude this is because it does not fit in our anger at the athletes.

Maybe you need to define your terms. If the risk is not significant, then the discussion belongs on another thread.

No. In fact this is exactly why it belongs here, but I assume you know this. This is about riders indeed having a risk of getting a positive beyond their control. And that this is indeed plausibly true for the whole world, not just Evil China and Rotten Mexico.

As you begrudgingly have conceeded the points about food I know you can't get to a different conclusion.

Sorry for being pedantic, but jeez Louise. There's nothing more annying than having to point out facts, especially when they are a lot more established than what we usually argue about here.

And be damned that throwing up undeniable facts somehow will make me seen as an appologist. Cycling can only be clean if we agree it's not always black and white.

Voltaire said:
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Cycling can only be clean when the culture to dope is truly extinguished and that takes a monumental effort from someone with black and white thinking from someone truly enlightened about what sport should be, mean and played!

To quote Voltaire without understanding how he would have viewed cycling in the same manner as he viewed the bourgeoisie, the aristocrats, the church etc of his time. Tut tut.
 
Franklin said:
.....
And be damned that throwing up undeniable facts somehow will make me seen as an appologist. Cycling can only be clean if we agree it's not always black and white.

Fact: Rogers was tested positive for clenbuterol.

You do appear to have trouble with this.

I agree it's not always black and white. The fact that contamination can occur from eating meat containing clenbuterol is obviously a problem with regards to doping testing. However this doesn't mean that because contamination is possible that it is the reason for Rogers' positive. It also doesn't mean it isn't, thus the complexity of the debate. There is also very little chance that we will ever find the truth about the source of the clenbuterol that was in Rogers' body, so any debate is destined to remain theoretical.

According to the rules though, athletes are responsible for what they ingest, whether you find this fair or not.
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Merckx index said:
Reading your post makes me realize this problem is worse than I thought. Yes, some cheats will go free. But it also means that some meat eaters will get sanctioned.

The problem is whether there is any relationship between level in the body and likelihood of doping. If there is none—if at a level of 20 pg/ml, a rider is just as likely to be doping as at a level of 2 ng/ml—then a threshold is useless. You could set it anywhere and get the same number of false negatives--but also the same number of false positives. IOW, you might as well take all CB positives, regardless of the level you set, put the names of all of them in a hat, and randomly draw out the % who are to be sanctioned.

I know that sounds weird, and obviously that could never be done, but that in effect is what you would be doing if there is no correlation between level in the body and origin of CB. There has to be some correlation, or a threshold is pointless.

So if there is no relationship, the real issue is, what is that % of false positives? If it's very significant, then you have to either

a) stop testing for CB entirely, and let riders take it to their heart's content, OR

b) give all positives a reduced sanction, say one year, with the understanding that even if they got it from meat, they're at fault for not being more careful.

I think it's this conundrum that leads WADA to treat positives on a case by case basis. If the rider can provide evidence of contaminated meat, then he has a chance to get off. If there really is no or even very little correlation between level and origin, then this all they can do.

As a qualifier to this response I admit that I have not read in depth, meaning really researched deeply about it, about the concentration issue you have been stating on this and other threads. This concentration issue has your attention, and I have read your posts and take your position at face value because I trust your opinion. If it was somebody else and I was interested then I may dig deeper...

That being said, depending on statistical elements of tested meat and the statistical likelihood of X amount being in X meat is still irrelevant in my book. There is a possibility that some meat "get's through", or some level is greater than others. I think it is folly to assume govt's threat of testing and their threat of X testing frequency will result in little or no use of clen, and that there will not be beef producer cheats. It is also against the law to speed, and yet people do it and with more frequency now with the cutbacks in law enforcement around the nation, and along with other idiotic austerity measures who knows what is tested. And I am just talking the US which is supposedly developed, just think of other countries who give less of a shyt or may have more corruption than the US.

Also, I am against using testing "statistics" to argue guilt. I do not boil down an athlete losing his right to compete over a statistic, when it all depends on the amount of oversight by all govts. and fear of the beef producers all over the world, to keep in line. And, when a small amount is present then an athlete has to do idiotic things like sniper suggested and spend their own $ to defend themselves. Then factor in the accuracy of the testing methods of various labs and it is not a fair process for the innocent athlete.

To your bolded above, some testing on humans with various concentrations of consumption can be done and a likely threshold can be derived. As I have stated and you have noted even at that there will still be false negatives, meaning somebody like AC will get off because his concentration was so low.

Also your analogy in the bolded is also off IMO inre to my position and the goal of a threshold. Obviously, if you set the threshold way high then the false negatives will be numerous. If you have no threshold then the false negatives will be zero. It is not random as you suggest the closer you get to the extremes. Nobody will get off due to contamination (unless they use their own resources and even then who knows the result) if there is no threshold, and nobody would be sanctioned if it was too high.

This conundrum is still irrelevant to me because I accept the fact that some cheats will get off with a threshold, regardless of what it is. It is more important to me that some innocents remain employed than catching all cheats. It all boils down to that for me.

I say "some" innocents because where to set the threshold as you state? As I stated I think this can be arrived at after analysis that will be good in most contamination instances. It may be impossible to determine what the max concentration could be due to contamination, and besides maybe that would be too high IMO. "Impossible" to be 100% right on the threshold number does not preclude coming up with one greater than zero that shields most of the innocent.
 
.............

barn yard said:
english speaking athletes do not cheat, don't you know anything?

many members have highlighted the fact that english speaking athletes have

been sanctioned too..............please try and keep up

rogers has done enough dodging flying under the radar for too long

Mark L
 
Franklin, I think you make some good points, but you are conflating contamination of the food supply—a point, which to repeat a second time, I don’t disagree with—with a significant risk of testing positive for CB. The two do not necessarily go hand and hand, and none of the links you have provided indicate that the one results in the other.

Seriously. Food testing is as bad as doping testing. I know farmers and you would be amazed and shocked by the issues. That you are even arguing this is cute, but is ill befitting of the clinic

I’ll note in passing the irony of this statement. All your evidence of meat contamination is based on such testing. E.g., you completely accept the results of testing that revealed horse or pig meat in beef. But you apparently don’t accept the same testing when it comes to safeguarding imported meat.

I think what you mean is that, just as dopers can beat the tests in cycling, they can beat the tests in livestock, too. We discussed this during the Contador case. Dopers beat the tests in cycling by making sure most or all of the drug has left their bodies by the time they’re tested. Ranchers do the same. To the extent that they’re successful, there isn’t a contamination problem.

OTOH, if what you mean is that the tests are a joke, that ranchers bribe their way past controls, or have positives covered up, you will have to provide more evidence that this is widespread. It may happen occasionally, I haven’t seen evidence that it happens a large proportion of the time with beef and CB. Again, the scandal you refer to is horsemeat, and the main concern is phenylbutazone. CB is not even mentioned in that article.

Flat out false. Seriously. There were cmplete steaks of horsemeat. So how you make up that they were only partly horsemeat is flat out false. And yes, this was extremely widespread. And yes, the origin of the meat was well obscufated by relabeling.

I said “most”. The link you provided documents this. I read through it. E.g.:

Of the ten burger products that tested positive for equine DNA, all but one was at low levels

Of the 37% of beef products tested positive for horse DNA, Tesco's inexpensive Everyday Value Beef Burgers tested at 29.1%. All other reported brands had less than 0.3% horse DNA.

The Swiss-based company Nestlé reported on 18 February 2013 that it had found more than 1% horse DNA in two beef pasta products.

Further, contamination levels were low:

A subsequent review of 206 horse carcasses slaughtered in the UK between 30 January and 7 February 2013 found eight were contaminated with phenylbutazone.

Another report found that between two and five percent of samples tested between 2007 and 2011 had phenylbutazone contamination

In 2012, 145 carcasses had been tested, and two out of the nine carcasses found positive for bute

the FSA reported it had not only found more than 1% horse DNA in Asda's 340 gram tins of "Smart Price Corned Beef" but it also contained four ppb of phenylbutazone

This goes back to your misunderstanding or ignoring of statistics. The fact that there is “a lot” of contaminated meat out there doesn’t mean that there is a large proportion of it. Tens of billions of pounds of meat are consumed in America and Europe annually. Even a hundred million pounds of contaminated meat would be a drop in the bucket. Have you seen any studies estimating the probability that any one individual actually ate this meat?

And even if someone does eat it, it doesn’t mean there is a high risk of its containing bute, let alone CB. And even if it does contain CB, that doesn’t mean it contains enough to trigger a positive test.

I will say yet again I’m not pooh-poohing the dangers to human health. Modern societies are supposed to do everything possible to prevent even one person from dying or getting seriously ill from eating contaminated meat. It doesn’t follow that every time there is a failure to do this that the probability of testing positive for CB goes up.

Again, thank you for fully agreeing. Not sure what you are arguing, but thank you.

So you really don’t understand my argument, but like the old pro-war Senators, are going to declare victory and withdraw. If you can’t understand simple statistics, and if you can’t understand how much contamination is required to test positive, then you can’t understand that the fact that our food supply is contaminated—which to repeat for the third time, I don’t disagree about—does not mean that the possibility of testing positive for CB is significant.

Sorry, that's false. The veterinary organisation has been sending out warnings again and again. I'm not sure how to explain this, so I'll try it in a way clinic people understand.

Then provide a link documenting this. You haven’t so far.

Chris:

There is a possibility that some meat "get's through", or some level is greater than others.

Sure. But my point was, a threshold doesn’t solve this problem.

Obviously, if you set the threshold way high then the false negatives will be numerous.

No, my point was that what seems to be obvious may in fact not be true.

There are two main factors that determine the CB level in the body: 1) the amount ingested; and 2) the time after ingestion of testing. Generally speaking, a doper will ingest more than someone eating contaminated meat. I imagine a doper takes at least 5-10 ug per day. To get that much from a meal, the meat would have to contain roughly 20-50 ug/kg, which is very heavy contamination. This I think is the reasoning you have in mind, even if it’s not with specific numbers, when you say that a high threshold will increase false negatives. Since dopers are ingesting more CB than meat eaters, it seems natural to conclude that the higher the threshold, the more likely a doper taking large amounts gets off.

But that ignores the second factor, the timing of testing. A doper will attempt to take CB at a time when he least expects to be tested, and maybe will even make himself scarce at that time. He certainly won’t take it right before or during a race. Someone eating meat, even with all the warnings out there, will not be so careful. So the odds are that dopers will be tested at longer periods of time after ingestion than meat eaters, when more of the CB has been eliminated from the body. To the extent that this occurs, it means a higher level means doping is less likely, not more likely. You might actually have fewer false negatives, and yes, more false positives, with a higher level.

Nobody knows, of course, to what extent this second factor is in play. My point is just that to the extent that it does occur, it opposes 1), with the result that there tends to be no correlation of level with origin (doping or meat) at all. But since we don't know, we really don't know that a threshold will help separate dopers from accidental ingestion.

Of course, a threshold at any level will ensure that some athletes get off, and some of them will be meat eaters. So in that sense, you're right that a threshold will have some benefit. But again, in the absence of knowing the relationship between a threshold and origin of CB, you could achieve the exact same result simply by declaring a certain random % of positives as getting off. That will have the same effect of ensuring some accidental ingesters get off, and the same price of letting off many dopers.
 
Dec 18, 2009
451
0
0
This is a clear case of calculated risk from Rogers.

He knew this wasn't being tested for in China, took it , knowing he would have a ready made excuse in food contamination if he subsequently got busted.
 
Jun 30, 2012
109
0
0
thehog said:
But at 142km my feelings is that Rogers doped on the rumour they were not testing for Clen. Perfect Clen distance. One half an hour before the start and another mid race. Kaboom!

Would you mind explaining how that works? Is that using clen as a kind of amphetamine? Because I thought the main use was in 2 week cycles to achieve weight loss, during which the dose, at the peak, is up to 10 tabs/day.
 
Jack (6 ch) said:
Would you mind explaining how that works? Is that using clen as a kind of amphetamine? Because I thought the main use was in 2 week cycles to achieve weight loss, during which the dose, at the peak, is up to 10 tabs/day.

This. Clen is for weight loss. It is an incredibly poor drug for race day performance. It is easily detectable. The body quickly develops a tolerance for it so doses have to be steadily increased, so it is not something that would be microdosed. The regular drug screen detects it, just like amphetamines. With current lab sensitivity, it remains detectable for quite a long time. Similar race day effects can be obtained with a TUE for other drugs allowed by a bogus asthma diagnosis.

Also using it in China knowing a few days later he will do a race in Japan, a race he was targeting, makes no sense.
 
Jack (6 ch) said:
Would you mind explaining how that works? Is that using clen as a kind of amphetamine? Because I thought the main use was in 2 week cycles to achieve weight loss, during which the dose, at the peak, is up to 10 tabs/day.

Yes it can used as described but also works well as a short burster.

Weight loss is one side effect of the drug. It's main use is to be open the airways and give you wings.

It's used in training to lift harder but can used as a one day race smash and grab. Just not too much as you tend to vomit.

Training is used to get the dosage right :rolleyes:

But agree with Bro above. There are better drugs to use then Clen if you want to dope and win a one day race.
 
Dec 18, 2009
451
0
0
proffate said:
this seems to be a matter of some debate. Could you cite your source for this claim?

I've ridden against people who are on it. It certainly aids more than weight loss. It was in the off season and they flew up the climbs and kept going for 30% longer than normal.
 
Jun 30, 2012
109
0
0
proffate said:
this seems to be a matter of some debate. Could you cite your source for this claim?

Any bodybuilding discussion will talk about how they alternate between periods of eating and training big, to bulk up, and then doing 2 weeks or so on the clen for what they call 'cutting' - taking out the fat.

http://forum.simplyshredded.com/topic/2875/page/1/clenbuterol-cycle/


In this context clen appears to work mainly by pumping up the heart rate.

Plenty of other media talk about clen as 'Hollywood's new slimming wonder drug' used by skinny celebs.

You will also read of clen being cited as beneficial to asthma sufferers - as Hog kindly reminded me, it opens the airways.

Bit of an IQ test failure to be caught with it though.
 
Jack (6 ch) said:
Any bodybuilding discussion will talk about how they alternate between periods of eating and training big, to bulk up, and then doing 2 weeks or so on the clen for what they call 'cutting' - taking out the fat.

http://forum.simplyshredded.com/topic/2875/page/1/clenbuterol-cycle/


In this context clen appears to work mainly by pumping up the heart rate.

Plenty of other media talk about clen as 'Hollywood's new slimming wonder drug' used by skinny celebs.

You will also read of clen being cited as beneficial to asthma sufferers - as Hog kindly reminded me, it opens the airways.

Bit of an IQ test failure to be caught with it though.

If I were to use it I'd take for a short race like a crit. Mix it with a high dose of caffeine for an extra hit. You'll break the field in half.

I've used similar and it does have the desired effect but if you're going to dope there are better drugs to choose.

The one part of Clen I'd like is actually for climbing. When your on the limit and you need to spit out he saliva and gunk in your lungs you can lose a breath in doing this. Doesn't matter much in the flat but on a climb that's a big deal. Clen makes sure here's no mucus.


PS I would add that you shouldn't look at these drugs in isolation. They are part of a group of drugs used together. Clen maybe the drug you get caught with but it may have been used as a mask or to subvert the effect of another drug.

PPS I'd also add a drug like Clen is good for jet lag and also when you want to race and not eat. Eating and racing is bad. No one wants to eat during a race. You do it because you have to. At 142km with some Clen and no food you'll fly. Try racing with no food. Best feeling ever!