Michael Rogers positive for clenbuterol

Page 11 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Catwhoorg said:
I think calling Clenbuterol non performance enhancing is a bit of stretch.

Burns fat like crazy at the very least.

I'm sure it is effective and the guys who banned the substance know why they did it. What I was trying to say is that you probably need more than Clenbuterol to push the watts as he did last year while riding the Sky train.

It might come to a surprise for Tinkov that he was a bit misunderstood. Instead of clean cycling his riders are doing clen cycling.
 
Rollthedice said:
.. some non performance enhancing drugs which nevertheless are on the banned list.

It's on the banned list because it definitely enhances performance. This is an excellent drug for endurance athletes.

My non-technical comprehension of what clen does is rebuild/build muscle and lean out the body AND apparently assists in oxygen transport as well.

The bad news for dopers is it does not occur naturally in the body, so any trace of it is a positive.

I don't doubt the guy is a rolling pharmacy. We know many riders are at crazy low levels of body fat in 2012/13 with the ability to sustain EPO-like wattage, so much more at play.

He just failed the IQ test.
 
Apr 21, 2012
412
0
9,280
DirtyWorks said:
I don't doubt the guy is a rolling pharmacy. We know many riders are at crazy low levels of body fat in 2012/13 with the ability to sustain EPO-like wattage, so much more at play.

Not EPO like wattage IMO, but EPO like W/kg, which is a bit different. Anyway, you're certainly right about Clen as a weight loss drug.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,853
2
0
GuyIncognito said:
You're devastated that a guy named in two previous doping scandals, that has one of the worst possible doped reputations of anyone in the history of the sport, has been nailed?

That doesn't reflect very well on you.
however, it does raise a dilemma. Can you accept the sanction on something that did not occur, based on a convincing history of doping involvement without sanction?
 
Although it might be satisfying to see Rogers finally go down and ironic that it is for something he likely did not do, this case highlights how the anti-doping framework has been set up by zealots and corrupt bureaucrats. Having no lower limit on a substance that is a known food contaminant in many countries shows how little care has been taken to align the doping regs with the realities of international competition. It has led to people's lives being destroyed for little fault of their own.

Aside from the fanatics like Tygart, the anti-dopers are cynical people engaged in a public relations effort. If innocent athletes get destroyed, even though guilty ones get away, then that is okay because the authorities can point to the poor SOB who ate at the wrong restaurant and say, "We caught one and we going to throw the book at him." This is just another form of corruption.

Things will get even worse if WADA moves to four year bans. While it is easy to say that Rogers had it coming, what about the young Belgian rider?

This ends justifies the means approach to fighting doping is little different than the way Armstrong justified his own actions.
 
blackcat said:
however, it does raise a dilemma. Can you accept the sanction on something that did not occur, based on a convincing history of doping involvement without sanction?

Bingo.... and that's where I stand on the AC conviction. I have no doubts AC was juicing. But Clen? It's a strange choice. It's effectiveness is certainly not as uncontested as the latest posters make it out to be and it's about as detectable as ephedrine (shows up even in urine).

Why microdose and do minor blooddoping and then add a rather nasty marker? The "it's used in the offseason" does not make much sense if it's primary usage is weightloss. So if they use it, it must be used close to your target race, but in AC's case he must have taken it during the race. Now call me old fashioned, but trying to loose weight during a TdF seems like realy loving to gamble as you also run an energy deficit in important stages. And again, you know that it shows up in pee as well as blood.

Of course, perhaps he took Clen (as I said, I'm sure he transfuses), but it seems like a dumb move from a guy (r his entourage) who has been pretty much teflon considering he survived Puerto, Discovery, Astana.

And that's something similar with MR. Why Clen at that race? Now we do not know the values, but it seems such a dumb move from a guy who has been able to avoid everything even when named in a big scandal and riding for crazy dirty teams.

Had it been Rico or Di Luca I would be a tad more willing to believe he tossed the dice, but it MR... if anyone knows what not to do it should be him.

So yeah, both AC and MR it could be seen as a Karma thing and a long overdue just punishment, but I simply have severe moral issues with abusing one case to punish someone simply because you can't get a case closed.

Clearly I'm not alone on this one and pointedly it's not the starry eyed fanboys who feel uncomfortable about these cases.
 
DirtyWorks said:
He just failed the IQ test.

If he intentionally charged with clen to win the japan cup circuit race*, but gets off because of the Chinameat excuse, then it will seem to me like he aced that test.

*alone in the rain gaining ground all the way to the line a la LL Sanchez
 
Jul 6, 2010
2,340
0
0
I agree with Franklin and BroDeal.

As a caveat, I'd like to add that clen is certainly not a "weight loss" drug.

It does help with that, but it's an @ss-kicking steroid and a great bronchodilator. Makes you feel like a bull, makes your lungs feel huge, and increases lean mass.

Sound like a pretty effective off-season/shoulder season drug?

Antoine Vayer was tweeting yesterday that the arguments of it being old-school and ineffective are red herrings.

Now, if you start pulling and storing blood during these 'shoulder seasons' and reintroduce it prior to an effective and sensitive test... Well...
 
Jun 25, 2013
1,442
0
0
GuyIncognito said:
You're devastated that a guy named in two previous doping scandals, that has one of the worst possible doped reputations of anyone in the history of the sport, has been nailed?

That doesn't reflect very well on you.

Yep devastated. I couldn't give two hoots as to how it is perceived. :(
 
Jun 25, 2013
1,442
0
0
veganrob said:
HOw is Mick Rogers or anyone else a victim of the clinic? This is an internet forum. :confused:

It is just my take from reading the reactions of the news on this thread. That's all. ;)
 
Mar 17, 2009
42
0
0
Aside from the contaminated meat theory, he could argue Clenbuterol is not performance enhancing. But I do know someone who can squat 350lbs, bench press 340 and could quite simply snap an S-works frame with his bare hands.
Though on the serious side, why compete in such insignificant races in China and Japan, where the meat is known to be dodgy.
 
python said:
...the above statement is based on 3 scientific easily verifiable facts: (i) we more or less know clen's clearance rates from human body (ii) the number of days rogers claims passed between the fatal chinese meal and the test...

I'm not sure the bolded is a verifiable scientific fact ;)
 
May 19, 2010
1,899
0
0
no_slipstream said:
Aside from the contaminated meat theory, he could argue Clenbuterol is not performance enhancing. But I do know someone who can squat 350lbs, bench press 340 and could quite simply snap an S-works frame with his bare hands.
Though on the serious side, why compete in such insignificant races in China and Japan, where the meat is known to be dodgy.

The Tour of Beijing is a world tour race, ergo Saxo Tinkoff had to be there. It also is/was Heins race, and you better turn up, or else....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGkWO5woEtE
 
darwin553 said:
Well he has drawn the line in the sand which proclaims his innocence, there is no turning back now.

Awesome article!

We need more guys like Rogers. He's part of the new generation in the clean era of cycling.

Rogers has spoken out publicly against doping throughout his career, given riders later found guilty of doping offences had previously denied him major international medals.
 
Netserk said:
Not that I know very much (if any) about how this works, but wouldn't it (the glow-time after he left China) also depend on how many days he ate meat in China? I'd guess that if it took 2-3 days after one meal (Assumption as I don't know which amounts the 2-3 days refer to), then it should take longer if he ate plenty for a whole week, right?

The first point to be made is that it’s unlikely that every meat sample he might have eaten would be contaminated, even in China. The odds are that most would not be. But assuming they all were, at the same level, a study discussed here back during the Contador case found that blood levels of CB under these conditions reach a plateau, about twice what is found after a single dose. So yes, it would take somewhat longer to clear, in fact about one additional half-life or thirty-six hours to reach a particular level.

But as I noted earlier, and Python has also pointed out, we really need to know the urine level of his CB. I’m guessing that the lab that tested his sample did not have the ultra-sensitive technology at Cologne that caught Contador, but I could be wrong. The Japanese, of course, love technology, I just don’t know what the funding situation for anti-doping is there.

The lower the level of CB, obviously, the more plausible the contaminated meat story becomes. But there is no level that in any way proves it has to be meat. He could have micro-dosed, or taken a large dose long before he was tested. I'm assuming he was tested just that once, and was not tested at any time in the previous days or weeks? If he was, and was clean, that would help us interpret the situation, too, just as it did with Contador.
 
Ferminal said:
In that case I'm still waiting for the plausible explanations for not doping whilst paying Michele Ferrari tens/hundreds of thousands.

And for doing this in 2012 :eek:

1z3mb7q.jpg
 
BroDeal said:
Although it might be satisfying to see Rogers finally go down and ironic that it is for something he likely did not do, this case highlights how the anti-doping framework has been set up by zealots and corrupt bureaucrats. Having no lower limit on a substance that is a known food contaminant in many countries shows how little care has been taken to align the doping regs with the realities of international competition. It has led to people's lives being destroyed for little fault of their own.

Aside from the fanatics like Tygart, the anti-dopers are cynical people engaged in a public relations effort. If innocent athletes get destroyed, even though guilty ones get away, then that is okay because the authorities can point to the poor SOB who ate at the wrong restaurant and say, "We caught one and we going to throw the book at him." This is just another form of corruption.

Things will get even worse if WADA moves to four year bans. While it is easy to say that Rogers had it coming, what about the young Belgian rider?

This ends justifies the means approach to fighting doping is little different than the way Armstrong justified his own actions.

Well said.

In an ideal world such a tight standard wouldn't be an issue. However, anti-doping is far from ideal so these cases do nothing for the "integrity" of sport
 
Jun 29, 2010
139
0
0
What I don't get with the contaminated meat argument is how does China compete in anything anywhere with out a fair percentage of their athletes testing positive for it since it's a banned WADA substance ? How many members of the Chinese team tested positive to Clenbuterol at the Olympics? If it is widely used in livestock you would imagine a fair few positives would appear.....yet strangely they don't :confused: