Michael Rogers positive for clenbuterol

[melkemugg]

You both have a full and comprehensive understanding of how doping works and specifically clenbuterol?

Good, please explain the PED use of Clen for a cyclist.

We do? From what i read, which is all i can do unless i actual test it, it is mainly used for treating animals, and even if it may be effective, which is also debatable its also proved to be more than dangerous enough and can cause heart attacks and its very very very very very detectable. The last one is probably the most important factor if you want to dope and not get caught.

But maybe they are so hazed by all the drugs they, according to your rhetoric, -obviously take all day, all year that they just cant help themselves.

 

[Benotti69]

We do? From what i read, which is all i can do unless i actual test it, it is mainly used for treating animals, and even if it may be effective, which is also debatable its also proved to be more than dangerous enough and can cause heart attacks and its very very very very very detectable. The last one is probably the most important factor if you want to dope and not get caught.

But maybe they are so hazed by all the drugs they, according to your rhetoric, -obviously take all day, all year that they just cant help themselves.

Thanks for not explaining how Clen benefits riders.

 

[Benotti69]

Didn't want to repost the details as B69 already has and offered his glib thoughtless reply.
Nice to see you bothered to look it up.

Too many think anti doping is clairvoyant or should be. I guess there are a few here that understand the process.
Thanks for the post.

Everytime i kick the corpse that is the UCI you take it personal. Your problem.

 

[veganrob]

People tend to forget that the Contador and Rogers case are driven by the anti-doping rules of the UCI. Contador was popped (and it may be he was being targeted) but he could not prove his excuse. Rogers was popped and could prove his excuse. The operable sections of the rules are 295 and 296 as follows,

Elimination or Reduction of the Period of Ineligibility for Specified Substances under Specific Circumstances

295. Where a Rider or Rider Support Personnel can establish how a Specified Substance entered his body or came into his possession and that such Specified Substance was not intended to enhance the Rider’s sporting performance or mask the use of a performance-enhancing substance, the period of Ineligibility for a first violation found in article 293 shall be replaced with the following: at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility from future Events, and at a maximum, two (2) years of Ineligibility.

To justify any elimination or reduction, the License-Holder must produce corroborating evidence in addition to his word which establishes to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel the absence of an intent to enhance sport performance or mask the use of a performance-enhancing substance. The License-Holder’s degree of fault shall be the criterion considered in assessing any reduction of the period of Ineligibility.


Elimination or Reduction of Period of Ineligibility based on Exceptional Circumstances

No Fault or Negligence

296. If the Rider establishes in an individual case that he bears No Fault or Negligence, the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility shall be eliminated. When a Prohibited Substance or its Markers or Metabolites is detected in a Rider’s Sample as referred to in article 21.1 (presence of a Prohibited Substance), the Rider must also establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his system in order to have the period of Ineligibility eliminated. In the event this article is applied and the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable is eliminated, the anti-doping rule violation shall not be considered a violation for the limited purpose of determining the period of Ineligibility for multiple violations under Articles 306 to 312

I don't see how Rogers "proved his excuse".
He was not able to prove that meat he consumed was tainted. There is no evidence to indicate that at all. Merely being in a country with a clenbuterol problem is not enoiugh.
I think this is a case of UCI just not wanting to sanction him. Every rider an team was well aware they should not eat the meat there.
I know you are not making the argument that he has no motivation to dope, but anyone making that is weak. Whatever his motivation might be, it is his and his alone.

 

[melkemugg]

Thanks for not explaining how Clen benefits riders.

Your welcome?

I dont think Clen benefits the rider enough because the chance of getting caught by using it is too high. Tests actual seem to work for that specific drug and it stays in the system for several days after you use it. Why on earth would a rider on this level take that chance? Im sure there are newer and cooler drugs they can use instead. I dont have this opinion because i want to annoy you, or because i think cycling is clean. I just dont think they are that stupid to use this specific drug. If you disagree, you have to convince me otherwise.

On the other hand, this might be the spark that tells the riders that they can get away with it so we can also argue that the penalty for not being careful enough when eating abroad is to low.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

I don't see how Rogers "proved his excuse".
He was not able to prove that meat he consumed was tainted. There is no evidence to indicate that at all. Merely being in a country with a clenbuterol problem is not enoiugh.
I think this is a case of UCI just not wanting to sanction him. Every rider an team was well aware they should not eat the meat there.
I know you are not making the argument that he has no motivation to dope, but anyone making that is weak. Whatever his motivation might be, it is his and his alone.

Well you have identified the problem of lack of transparency in doping matters and one would think after all the problems at the UCI with Verbruggen and McQuaid they would have learned. The Cycling News report of April 23 says,

“Upon careful analysis of Mr Rogers’ explanations and the accompanying technical reports the UCI found that that there was a significant probability that the presence of clenbuterol may have resulted from the consumption of contaminated meat from China – where he had taken part in a race before travelling to Japan,” said a statement issued by the UCI on Wednesday.

The problem is we do not know the details of Rogers explanations. If the UCI is to have any credibility with the fans and the public they have to be more transparent. Otherwise it is not possible to know if the UCI did not want to sanction him or not, justifying your point of view.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Your welcome?

I dont think Clen benefits the rider enough because the chance of getting caught by using it is too high. Tests actual seem to work for that specific drug and it stays in the system for several days after you use it. Why on earth would a rider on this level take that chance? Im sure there are newer and cooler drugs they can use instead. I dont have this opinion because i want to annoy you, or because i think cycling is clean. I just dont think they are that stupid to use this specific drug. If you disagree, you have to convince me otherwise.

On the other hand, this might be the spark that tells the riders that they can get away with it so we can also argue that the penalty for not being careful enough when eating abroad is to low.

Here's proof that riders use it and have been doing so for some time: http://www.dopeology.org/products/Clenbuterol/

You sound very confident that people taking clenbuterol are easily caught.

Iin 2012, the average urine tests per rider, OOC was 3.1. Of those, only 73% were tested for EPO.

Keep in mind, anyone in Colombia has not been OOC tested since BP inception in 2008.

Out of 320 days for the year, the average pro cyclist has to be in a known location for 1 hour. Of those 320 days, less than 1% of them will involve you giving a urine sample.

Of those 3 samples through the year, only 2 of them will make it to the lab for EPO testing.

No figures are provided for Clen testing as yet, but at a guess, it won't be more than EPO testing.

So hypotehtically speaking, you have a .63% chance of your urine being tested for Clen during any part of your OOC phase.

Clen lasts a week or so in your system, so yes, detection is easier. But we don't know if all the labs are up to Cologne's detection levels, nor what % of urine samples are tested.

I do not share your confidence that it's easy to be caught using Clen.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

You sound very confident that people taking clenbuterol are easily caught.

Iin 2012, the average urine tests per rider, OOC was 3.1. Of those, only 73% were tested for EPO.

Out of 320 days for the year, the average pro cyclist has to be in a known location for 1 hour. Of those 320 days, less than 1% of them will involve you giving a urine sample.

Of those 3 samples through the year, only 2 of them will make it to the lab for EPO testing.

No figures are provided for Clen testing as yet, but at a guess, it won't be more than EPO testing.

So hypotehtically speaking, you have a 2% chance of your urine being tested for Clen during any part of your OOC phase.

Clen lasts a week or so in your system, so yes, detection is easier. But we don't know if all the labs are up to Cologne's detection levels, nor what % of urine samples are tested.

I do not share your confidence that it's easy to be caught using Clen.

I think the half life of clen is a day or a day and a half based on an article I read by a guy named Anthony Colpo who has a blog and some pharmacologist creds. He is from down your way.

Is the problem money to carry out the tests or manpower or what

 

[Catwhoorg]

36-48 hours for the half life is usually the range I have seen cited.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Is the problem money to carry out the tests or manpower or what

Money to carry them out. The breakdown of costs goes something like (2010-2011):

Transport: 7%
Interpretation: 7%
Collection & analysis: 86%

 

[pastronef]

Mick is already rolling and riding LBL http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/rogers-returns-to-racing-at-liege-bastogne-liege

 

[melkemugg]

Here's proof that riders use it and have been doing so for some time: http://www.dopeology.org/products/Clenbuterol/

You sound very confident that people taking clenbuterol are easily caught.

Iin 2012, the average urine tests per rider, OOC was 3.1. Of those, only 73% were tested for EPO.

Keep in mind, anyone in Colombia has not been OOC tested since BP inception in 2008.

Out of 320 days for the year, the average pro cyclist has to be in a known location for 1 hour. Of those 320 days, less than 1% of them will involve you giving a urine sample.

Of those 3 samples through the year, only 2 of them will make it to the lab for EPO testing.

No figures are provided for Clen testing as yet, but at a guess, it won't be more than EPO testing.

So hypotehtically speaking, you have a .63% chance of your urine being tested for Clen during any part of your OOC phase.

Clen lasts a week or so in your system, so yes, detection is easier. But we don't know if all the labs are up to Cologne's detection levels, nor what % of urine samples are tested.

I do not share your confidence that it's easy to be caught using Clen.

Confidence? Well that is kind of stretching it. When people (in this case Benotti) use rhetorics that resembles white power enthusiasts or religious fundamentalists in the darker places of the internet i automatically resist it like the plague.

Those numbers are OOC, as you state yourself. This is IC, isnt it? How are the numbers IC on a pro-tour level?

Ive read Clen is only detectable for 4-5 days, which still IMO is long enough to be way too risky to be used IC.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Confidence? Well that is kind of stretching it. When people (in this case Benotti) use rhetorics that resembles white power enthusiasts or religious fundamentalists in the darker places of the internet i automatically resist it like the plague.

Those numbers are OOC, as you state yourself. This is IC, isnt it? How are the numbers IC on a pro-tour level?

Ive read Clen is only detectable for 4-5 days, which still IMO is long enough to be way too risky to be used IC.

I don't blame other posters for how or what I post. I prefer to accept full responsibility for my actions.

You state the ease of being caught as a fact - if you're not confident, your language is not supporting that lack of confidence.

IC is less - 2.5 urine tests / rider, but consider: if you're not winning a stage or GC that % goes down markedly. eg: a quick glance at 2013 TdF shows only 13 stage winners from 21 stages.

No plasticizer test was done (or mentioned) for Rogers, so the discussion of IC use seems moot. I'd wholeheartedly agree IC Clen use is stupid, but would not discount a transfusion towards the end of your contract with few points on the board to help ensure victory. It seems a logical choice to me - where the risk of not gaining points + no contract increases the potential reward for doping and winning.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

There's mention of a hair test that can show ongoing use vs one-off. Not sure if Mick's hair is long enough to do a sample in the first place, but you'd think it not being mentioned would indicate it was not done.

The lack of transparency is unfortunate.

 

[melkemugg]

I don't blame other posters for how or what I post. I prefer to accept full responsibility for my actions.

You state the ease of being caught as a fact - if you're not confident, your language is not supporting that lack of confidence.

Ouch, and cheers! I probably deserved that one but i would rather say that my language was a result of ignorance and not that i thought i had the facts.

 

[spanky wanderlust]

sorry, i don't have the time or the stomach to read this whole thread. although i'm sure what i'm looking for is in here somewhere.

can someone give me a quick rundown of the substantive differences btwn the rogers and contador cases that led to a different verdict? aside from china/spain and different riders, the defenses look identical to me.

i'm particularly curious what the relative levels found in their blood were? i remember contador's being really low. was there some chemical reason they could use to determine the origin of contador's clen vs rogers'?

thanks. i don't have the stomach for this clinic stuff in general, but this ruling really bothers me.

 

[Justinr]

You think you read something, therefore it proves UCI (or whoever) are doing something right?

From memory it may have been in the Walsh article in the ST, and article that I have said before was as boring as hell but fundamentally if he said that CF was tested 3 times that day then I believe him. Your comment really is just a bit of a baiting one ...

 

[Master50]

Everytime i kick the corpse that is the UCI you take it personal. Your problem.

What I take personal is that all you do is kick things. You never told me what you do for the sport besides complain about it?

 

[Master50]

sorry, i don't have the time or the stomach to read this whole thread. although i'm sure what i'm looking for is in here somewhere.

can someone give me a quick rundown of the substantive differences btwn the rogers and contador cases that led to a different verdict? aside from china/spain and different riders, the defenses look identical to me.

i'm particularly curious what the relative levels found in their blood were? i remember contador's being really low. was there some chemical reason they could use to determine the origin of contador's clen vs rogers'?

thanks. i don't have the stomach for this clinic stuff in general, but this ruling really bothers me.

the difference is no one believed AC and they believed MR. That there were a lot of positive meat tests for Clen in both Mexico and in China gives MRs story credibility. Ac hoped the steak would stick but the panel only gave him credit it might have been tainted supplements, an excuse not generally accepted by most AD agencies. I guess the debate is whether this is justice upheld or failed. Since this thread is in the Clinic, I would guess the majority view is MR just got away with cheating. I also think most here think AC got what he deserved if not for the Clen then for being a bike racer.

 

[Benotti69]

What I take personal is that all you do is kick things. You never told me what you do for the sport besides complain about it?

But you taking shots at me aint fixing it either!

 

[spanky wanderlust]

the difference is no one believed AC and they believed MR. That there were a lot of positive meat tests for Clen in both Mexico and in China gives MRs story credibility. Ac hoped the steak would stick but the panel only gave him credit it might have been tainted supplements, an excuse not generally accepted by most AD agencies. I guess the debate is whether this is justice upheld or failed. Since this thread is in the Clinic, I would guess the majority view is MR just got away with cheating. I also think most here think AC got what he deserved if not for the Clen then for being a bike racer.

thanks for the response. my problem with this is that geography does not add credibility to rogers' defense. if rogers' defense holds up then it IS possible to get clen contamination from tainted beef. and, while not as big a problem in spain, it is a known fact that clen is used in beef production there. so geography works AGAINST rogers and in favor of ac if you think about it, as athletes have been specifically warned to not eat beef in china, which wasn't the case in france or spain at the time, iirc. so at best, geography is a wash.

my questions are: was there some chemical reason why alberto's clen was proved to be not from steak as he argued? if there is no substantive difference, given the obvious inconsistency, is the new ruling a farce? or was alberto's ban a farce?

or is the rogers ruling legit for some reason i don't see?

rogers came through quick step and t mobile, so i can't see why he could be somehow more believable or less suspect than conta, character-wise.

 

[spanky wanderlust]

also, does anyone know the specific levels of clen discovered in both rogers and alberto?

 

[LaFlorecita]

also, does anyone know the specific levels of clen discovered in both rogers and alberto?

The clen level in Rogers' sample was never made public, Contador's was 50 pg/mL or 0.000 000 000 05 g/ml.

 

[Nilsson]

Alberto's was 50 pg/ml. I don't know Rogers, but I guess it was more.

Jonathan Breyne, who also tested positive, told: “The amount [of clenbuterol] found in [Alberto] Contador’s urine, the UCI told me, were tiny compared to mine.”

http://road.cc/content/news/103851-...pts-suicide-after-positive-result-clenbuterol

 

[Justinr]

Alberto's was 50 pg/ml. I don't know Rogers, but I guess it was more.

Jonathan Breyne, who also tested positive, told: “The amount [of clenbuterol] found in [Alberto] Contador’s urine, the UCI told me, were tiny compared to mine.”

http://road.cc/content/news/103851-...pts-suicide-after-positive-result-clenbuterol

Shouldn't matter - there is no natural way Clen can be in your system. And if you have been in a country where it is well known (ie NOT Spain / France) that Clen is used in meat then you need to be VERY careful, especially as there have been previous warnings about it.

MR was either:

1. Doping and thinking he wouldn't get caught (silly given his result).
2. Doping and thinking he would get off with the "Clen in Meat" argument (VERY risky, but actually may have worked).
3. Had a Blood Bag from a glowing day and was popped.

Which one do you believe ...