Michael Rogers positive for clenbuterol

[LaFlorecita]

I believe he ate contaminated food because I don't see why he would transfuse blood for the freaking Japan Cup. And I don't think he'd take clen and then go on to win the race as that would basically guarantee a positive test.

 

[LaFlorecita]

my questions are: was there some chemical reason why alberto's clen was proved to be not from steak as he argued?

Nope

if there is no substantive difference, given the obvious inconsistency, is the new ruling a farce? or was alberto's ban a farce?

I think neither is/was a farce.

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

The idea is that an athlete is much more likely to involuntarily ingest clenbuterol in countries like China and Mexico than in Europe. That is why Rogers was acquitted and Contador wasn't. Of course you could argue that the riders were warned, but then again in China it is very hard to completely avoid meat.

 

[spanky wanderlust]

Quote:
Originally Posted by spanky wanderlust View Post
my questions are: was there some chemical reason why alberto's clen was proved to be not from steak as he argued?
Nope

Quote:
if there is no substantive difference, given the obvious inconsistency, is the new ruling a farce? or was alberto's ban a farce?
I think neither is/was a farce.

Quote:
or is the rogers ruling legit for some reason i don't see?
The idea is that an athlete is much more likely to involuntarily ingest clenbuterol in countries like China and Mexico than in Europe. That is why Rogers was acquitted and Contador wasn't. Of course you could argue that the riders were warned, but then again in China it is very hard to completely avoid meat.


so, in your opinion, alberto was doping and deserved a ban. whereas, mr simply made a mistake and ate some tainted meat.

the geography argument is, to say the least, uncompelling. like i said before, rogers was warned and alberto was not. probability is not an issue. it just has to be possible that alberto got a tainted steak in spain, which it is. it was always my understanding that they didn't buy into the steak argument because they didn't think it was possible to ingest enough clen that way. now they are clearly saying it is possible. just saying there is less clen-tainted meat in spain is not enough then. there is tainted meat there and according to everyone now, it is possible that alberto ate some. the level he measured supports this.

anyway, alberto is not the issue here. that's water under the bridge. the issue at hand is rogers, and why he wasn't banned for something we've already seen a significant high-profile rider banned for, while using the exact same defense.

the geography argument not only doesn't hold water, it actually weighs heavily to the side of a ban for rogers, as he was specifically warned and ac was not.

so aside from that, is there other evidence/arguments that exonerate mr?

ftr, i was never a fan of the decision to sanction contador. they banned him. fine. but then you have to ban all the other riders in the same circumstances.

 

[neineinei]

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 ...

Why do you find it plausible that he could think that he could dope, test positive and get away with it, but don't consider that he could have thought he could eat meat and get away with it? He probably has eaten meat before in China without problems, maybe even in Mexico and other places with clen use in the meat industy.

Also, even if he got away with it, he was suspended for months and not able to ride all spring. These cases takes time to sort out, it could have taken even longer, maybe no Giro, no Tour, most of the season lost for a win in the Japan Cup?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

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 ...

I am sorry you feel baited. When I post about things that support my arguments I do my damnedest - particularly for the first instance - to post a link to support my memory / claim.

But then, I don't just accept what people say hook, line and sinker either, so I guess we probably differ in more than one way.

I have never heard of Froome being tested 3 times on the rest day and was exceedingly disappointed that you could not be bothered supplying anything harder than "I think I read it somewhere" to support your claim.

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

I believe he ate contaminated food because I don't see why he would transfuse blood for the freaking Japan Cup. And I don't think he'd take clen and then go on to win the race as that would basically guarantee a positive test.

Correct. Unless he was in a moment of suicide mode, the most likely thing is he indeed ate poisoned meat. Thus the acquittal is the only logical outcome.

 

[Night Rider]

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

To the paragraph I quoted in red: I don't think anyone is forgetting the cases are driven by the rules of the UCI, it's that we want some transparency.

For the record, you have actually quoted the wrong articles. Rogers was let off on article 239 i.e. prior to any license holder federation hearing. The onus is on the rider to prove why the ingestion was accident or that he/she bore no fault or negligence. It makes a mockery of Rogers claiming the reasons are "complicated". Is it really too much for the UCI to release the detail?

The articles you have quoted relate to a national federation hearing, which is what Contador went through. Then to CAS.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

To the paragraph I quoted in red: I don't think anyone is forgetting the cases are driven by the rules of the UCI, it's that we want some transparency.

For the record, you have actually quoted the wrong articles. Rogers was let off on article 239 i.e. prior to any license holder federation hearing. The onus is on the rider to prove why the ingestion was accident or that he/she bore no fault or negligence. It makes a mockery of Rogers claiming the reasons are "complicated". Is it really too much for the UCI to release the detail?

The articles you have quoted relate to a national federation hearing, which is what Contador went through. Then to CAS.

Well Articles 295 and 296 are directly from the UCI rules and not the specific rules of a national anti-doping agency.

The press release of the UCI in Rogers did not state what article they relied on or give us Rogers explanation which supports your concern (and mine) about ongoing lack of transparency. So it seemed to me 295 and 296 would apply. I have now looked at 239 and I can understand why it would apply. But again I wish the UCI was more clear for the basis of their decisions.

When a rider is caught it boils down to who caught him a. the UCI or b. a national anti-doping agency as to who takes the lead in the results management process. Keep in mind that virtually every national anti-doping federation adopts the rules of the UCI so yes they would also be used in NADA cases.

In this case it was the UCI who caught Rogers, so it would be the UCI rules that apply and not the rules of a NADA.

 

[Netserk]

If both Contador and Rogers ate contaminated meat (IF), shouldn't Contador receive no ban, and Rogers a 1-year ban because he had been warned?

 

[Justico]

If both Contador and Rogers ate contaminated meat (IF), shouldn't Contador receive no ban, and Rogers a 1-year ban because he had been warned?

Contador got a ban cause he tested positive in the middle of the TdF

Rogers got no ban because he tested positive at a criterium in the winter, when "i eat steak" defense is not totally ridiculous (but still a lie).

Nobody ever took "Contador and Rogers ate contaminated meat (IF)" seriously because it's just a funny excuse.

 

[frenchfry]

I believe he ate contaminated food because I don't see why he would transfuse blood for the freaking Japan Cup. And I don't think he'd take clen and then go on to win the race as that would basically guarantee a positive test.

So he could win it?

Nope

The idea is that an athlete is much more likely to involuntarily ingest clenbuterol in countries like China and Mexico than in Europe. That is why Rogers was acquitted and Contador wasn't. Of course you could argue that the riders were warned, but then again in China it is very hard to completely avoid meat.

The Chinese must all be lean mean fighting machines with all that Clenbuterol ingestion.

Although I am sure Contador was doping with clen, there is a legitimate argument that he got a raw deal compared to others.

 

[Justinr]

I am sorry you feel baited. When I post about things that support my arguments I do my damnedest - particularly for the first instance - to post a link to support my memory / claim.

But then, I don't just accept what people say hook, line and sinker either, so I guess we probably differ in more than one way.

I have never heard of Froome being tested 3 times on the rest day and was exceedingly disappointed that you could not be bothered supplying anything harder than "I think I read it somewhere" to support your claim.

Sorry my posting isnt up to your standard - but lets not get heated about things. You may notice that i type similar to how i would talk - hence the "i think i read" type words, and to be honest i read stacks of papers and webpages about all sorts of things that i dont always remember where. Its only fair that you should ask for a link though.

Anyway below is a link that mentions it. It also links to the ST story - its behind a pay wall though.

http://cycling-passion.com/2013/07/21/david-walsh-i-chris-froome-worthy-winner-tour-de-france/

It was on the last but one stage not the rest day (see - bad memory again...)

 

[Justinr]

So he could win it?



The Chinese must all be lean mean fighting machines with all that Clenbuterol ingestion.

Lol. Maybe it doesnt work after all.

 

[SundayRider]

I believe he ate contaminated food because I don't see why he would transfuse blood for the freaking Japan Cup. And I don't think he'd take clen and then go on to win the race as that would basically guarantee a positive test.

I mentioned it before - he hadn't won a race last year...until then, perhaps he has/had a bonus his contract wherby he got X amount of money if he won a race during the season.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Sorry my posting isnt up to your standard - but lets not get heated about things. You may notice that i type similar to how i would talk - hence the "i think i read" type words, and to be honest i read stacks of papers and webpages about all sorts of things that i dont always remember where. Its only fair that you should ask for a link though.

Anyway below is a link that mentions it. It also links to the ST story - its behind a pay wall though.

http://cycling-passion.com/2013/07/21/david-walsh-i-chris-froome-worthy-winner-tour-de-france/

It was on the last but one stage not the rest day (see - bad memory again...)

Thanks for the link. I take it you have read the actual article behind the pay wall? I don't think I can stomach paying for flowery fanboyism from Walsh despite its relative cheap price of admission.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Lol. Maybe it doesnt work after all.

Or they just don't ingest enough clenbuterol. Just like it was argued during the Contador case that 50 pg/mL could not be performance enhancing.

 

[Justinr]

Thanks for the link. I take it you have read the actual article behind the pay wall? I don't think I can stomach paying for flowery fanboyism from Walsh despite its relative cheap price of admission.

I bought the ST when it was published. The article is crap mainly because it is so boring and doesnt really go in to much detail. Mind you i guess we wouldnt expect too much in a 2 page news article. I might have more of a dig around later to see if there are 'copies' hanging around.

 

[Franklin]

I think it is a reasonable decision - I also think the majority of doubters (which is also the majority in this thread ) owe Franklin an apology.

No need, but that made me grin

Like everyone in here, even Benotti, I don't know if he did or didn't take clen knowingly and willingly. I try to stick to the facts and in this case recent cases on Clen show that MR had a good chance to walk.

And about the AC case? I have no facts here, so this is my opinion, based on pretty much no real evidence: I think it was just as much a way to get him than a real positive. They knew by his associations with certain people in cycling that he was almost certainly doping (add a plasticizer marker that was not admissable). They had the CB positive and jumped on it.

What I do dare to say is that if it would have happened the last years that he probably would have walked due to the precedence of the other cases.

 

[Ryo Hazuki]

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 ...

lol maybe try living a little less in your fantasy world

 

[Benotti69]

lol maybe try living a little less in your fantasy world

A fantasy world where Colombians dont dope?

 

[veganrob]

A fantasy world where Colombians dont dope?

Boss, It's de plane.

 

[Not Riding Enough]

I live in Beijing and eat a fair bit of meat but unfortunately I don't seem to be ingesting enough clenbuterol to help with my weight management or as an appetite suppressant.

I did meet Michael Rogers here after the end of that Tour of Beijing and of course he was skinny (like most of the riders) and came across as a nice guy.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I live in Beijing and eat a fair bit of meat but unfortunately I don't seem to be ingesting enough clenbuterol to help with my weight management or as an appetite suppressant.

I did meet Michael Rogers here after the end of that Tour of Beijing and of course he was skinny (like most of the riders) and came across as a nice guy.

I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles.

 

[el_angliru]

According to Anti Doping Denmark, they're developing a new test which will be able to distinguish between remnants of clebuterol consumed through food and clenbuterol used medicallly (or for doping purposes). Hopefully it won't take too many years. There are no specific details in the brief news article (in Danish!).

 

[Not Riding Enough]

I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles.

I do want to believe in the miracle of eating a lot of meat here in China to lose weight (can't do it by riding with the air here (unlike in "Sunny Australia")).