Official Alberto Contador hearing thread

[just some guy]

Any news on what happened today ?

 

[GJB123]

It seems to me that there are a lot of assumptions in what is supposedly WADA's theory. To a laymen, like myself, it even sounds a little bit like they made the assumptions to get at the desired outcome of 50 picograms. How on earth are they going to proof this and if they don't will all the supposed detail bite then in the a** during the hearing (as Publicus more or less stated).

Perhaps it is only to show that transfusion isn't far fetched and that you could get at 50 picograms with assumptions that are at least not out of this world. But sitting with lawyers, judicial minds in the panel will they be susceptible to this scientific line of reasoning or will it it look like smoke and mirrors from their point of view?

Regards
GJ

 

[luckyboy]

Suppose I should say I hope he gets a ban but in reality seeing Scarponi and Andy inherit his victories is gonna suck.

 

[Merckx index]

I think you are getting this one wrong. If they show transfusion is more likely than food contamination, they are still a long way off in proving he actually did transfuse. The burden of proof for that is lot higher than mere probability. So a sanction for CB does not make a sanction for transfusion a given. All they aim to establish is that food contamination is not the most likely reason for the CB-prositive without ruling contamination out completeley (there is no need for that). Most lawyers will just try to meet the burden of proof they have bene goven. They are not prone to go for a slam dunk if a neat two points will also do. I think you are reading way too much into this.

This sounds like lawyer double-speak to me. I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that there are two different burdens of proof. The burden of proof in doping cases is defined as between greater than 50% and less than beyond a reasonable doubt (maybe 99%). The arbs are given flexibility in deciding how high the % has to be, but somewhere in this range. If you are more than 50% sure it’s not contamination, you are also more than 50% sure it’s transfusion, which is enough to sanction on the latter. Or any other % in that range that the arbs decide to come down on.

I do understand, however, that lawyers get away with this kind of obscurantism all the time, and may well do so in the hearing.

La acusación dibuja el caso de una persona que se inyecta durante tres semanas dosis diarias de 200 microgramos de clembuterol y que 24 horas después de la última se extrae sangre, la divide por aféresis en plasma y glóbulos rojos y varias semanas después se reinfunde 200 mililitros de plasma. Si pesara unos 66 kilos y orinara cada tres horas poco más de un litro diario, en su orina se encontrarían entre 12 y 24 horas después de la reinfusión unos 50 picogramos de clembuterol, que es la cantidad que se halló en Contador. Según esta teoría, Contador se haría una transfusión el día 20, el día que subieron los plastificantes en su orina, y el día 21, el día del clembuterol, para diluir la sangre y bajar la hemoglobina se habría reinfundido el plasma.

This calculation requires a very high dose of CB, 200 ug, and taken daily for some time, partly because they assume only 200 ml was re-infused, and partly because they make some conservative assumptions that aren’t necessarily true (you can get 50 pg/ml with less than half of that 200 ug dose if you make some very reasonable, and documented, assumptions). But otherwise it is quite in keeping with discussions/calculations we had on this forum last Feb/March.

This just confirms my deep suspicion that there is indeed nothing new in this case that was not thoroughly hashed out in this forum. The science really is not that complex. You can get that urine level with transfusion. You definitely cannot with meat that passes the Euro standard.

One thing they will want to be sure of, though, is that Bert was not tested during that hypothetical three week period. Because if he was, with that daily dose of CB, he would have been a definite positive even at a lab with a less sensitive level of detection.

 

[GJB123]

This sounds like lawyer double-speak to me. I don’t know where you’re getting the idea that there are two different burdens of proof. The burden of proof in doping cases is defined as between greater than 50% and less than beyond a reasonable doubt (maybe 99%). The arbs are given flexibility in deciding how high the % has to be, but somewhere in this range. If you are more than 50% sure it’s not contamination, you are also more than 50% sure it’s transfusion, which is enough to sanction on the latter. Or any other % in that range that the arbs decide to come down on.

I do understand, however, that lawyers get away with this kind of obscurantism all the time, and may well do so in the hearing.

You can call it whatever you like, but both things are quite different legally whether you like it or not.

We have a 100% positive for Clen that can only be made to go away of Contador's team can establish that the most likely source is contaminated food and that Contador cannot be blamed for ingesting it. WADA on the other hand is trying to push another theory as most likely. Most likely not being equal to proof for any of the possibilities, however much you or Alberto's fans want it to be just that.

If they want to prove transfusion, that is exactly what they will have to do. Not make it likely he transfused, prove it. They need the smoking needle in some shape or form and finding the Clen isn't it. Even if CAS deems transfusion the most likely theory, that doesn't exclude any of the other theories by definition, it just renders them less likely. Without plasticizers or other proof of transfusion (as in the Vino- and Kashetskin-cases, the transfusion story will go no further than helping getting Contador sanctioned for Clen use imnsho.

Regards
GJ

 

[richwagmn]

this thread is 2 months too early and 18 months too late...as the decision wont be known until january 2012 and, so far, there's little that hasn't appeared in the dozen+ previous threads on the same topic.

personally i'm confident that cas is independent enough to arrive at a factual and evidence-based decision rather than a political one.

I wish I had your confidence in a scientific outcome. Perhaps you have some examples to share?

 

[lean mean &green]

The alternative would be to begin two years minus the five and a half months after CAS announces the decision, but then wouldn’t Bert be allowed to keep the 2011 results? Are you seriously suggesting this? Not that I know, but I would have thought the 2011 results would have to go.

i seriously think this is what a suspension will look like, assuming CAS overturns the RFEC decision of course.

my interpretation of the rules and judging from past practice i believe the only result he'll lose is the 2010 tour because he tested positive in it. he keeps 2011 results and gets a 2 year suspension minus time already served from the provisional suspension.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

What bothers me the most if this transfusion theory turns out to be true is that this would certainly not be the first time he would have done it, and all those previous times resulted in a negative test result.

So, what exactly is the point of the blood passport? If he's transfusing, your only hope of catching him is if he screws up and refills with a contaminated bag.

 

[Caruut]

What bothers me the most if this transfusion theory turns out to be true is that this would certainly not be the first time he would have done it, and all those previous times resulted in a negative test result.

So, what exactly is the point of the blood passport? If he's transfusing, your only hope of catching him is if he screws up and refills with a contaminated bag.

One of the blood passport's biggest problems is the people it's used on - endurance athletes. No-one is the world is likely to have blood values that swing as wildly as them, so you really have to set the parameters quite high.

As I understood it, the blood passport was mainly used to work out who to test, and provide supplementary evidence, rather than to be the mainstay of a case.

 

[Benotti69]

What bothers me the most if this transfusion theory turns out to be true is that this would certainly not be the first time he would have done it, and all those previous times resulted in a negative test result.

So, what exactly is the point of the blood passport? If he's transfusing, your only hope of catching him is if he screws up and refills with a contaminated bag.

This is the whole point of the blood passport. it is the anti-doping program designed to keep riders doping and as managed properly by the team and riders they use it to boost their performances and probably more importantly training without fear of getting caught unless one screws up.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I think this case is a perfect test for the system. As we have seen in this thread, various probable outcomes are explored and laid against the rules. It would be nice if someone with the least bit of understanding of the regulations would come up with a list of the possible bans and the case needed to justify that decision. What I've read so far is that a one-year ban would be very unusual given the regulations and Iuris Prudentia and would therefore for me require a good argument. If true, the only justifiable decisions would be no ban, two years or maybe even a four year of lifetime ban. When exactly would a four year or lifetime ban be justified according to regulations?

Let me preface this and say I have no legal training and that the opinions are my own interpretations - so if someone wants to correct those interpretations please do. I am also ignoring the technicalities of testing/notification etc and for the purposes of this assuming that the procedures were adhered to.

All of the interpretations are from the UCI Anti-Doping rules unless otherwise stated.

Firstly - clenbuterol is listed on the WADA Prohibed List as a "Prohibited Substance", of note is that Clen is not a "Specified Substance".


Contador has violated UCI rule 21.1 for the presence of a Prohibited Substance.
The burden falls firstly on the UCI to "comfortably satisfy" that a doping violation has taken place (rule 22) - in ACs case as he falls under 21.1 he must satisfy the "balance of probability" (rule 22).

The Licence Holder is provisionally suspended when notified of violation - as I stated earlier he was told on 24th August 2010, but it was 2 days later that he was notified officially by the UCI, (rule 236) so his provisional suspension started 26th August 2010 and ran until 15th February 2011.
If sanctioned this would be set aside any suspension as per rule 317.

Sanctions and Consequences:
Disqualification - if found guilty AC would fall under rule 291.1 -his results up to the 21st July 2010 in the Tour would remain, but all results after that date in the event would be disqualified.

The period of Ineligibility imposed for a first anti-doping rule violation under article 21.1 is 2 years. (rule 293)
Contadors case does not satisfy other criteria for longer which can only be given for Aggravating Circumstances (rule 305) or a reduction for "specified substances" (rule 295).

Contadors defense:
As we know AC has stated the clenbuterol came from contaminated food.
So he is hoping to show either No Fault or Negligence (rule 296) which would eliminate any sanction or No Significant Fault or Negligence (rule 297), so that "the period of Ineligibility may be reduced, but the reduced period of Ineligibility may not be less than one-half of the period of Ineligibility otherwise applicable" - ie it cannot be less than 1 year as per 293 earlier.

To satisfy either criteria Contador "must also establish how the Prohibited Substance entered his system".

Disqualification of Results in Competitions subsequent to
Anti-Doping Rule Violation:
Although Rule 313 states that all results after a violation would be disqualified.

But this is a tricky one - as it relates to the time of notification to being heard, this would be until Contador was cleared by RFEC.
Two cases heard by CAS might give an indication is in their rulings on Valverde and Keisse - both were allowed hold on to their results they obtained while awaiting their hearings with CAS.

Hope that helps.

 

[Polish]

One thing they will want to be sure of, though, is that Bert was not tested during that hypothetical three week period. Because if he was, with that daily dose of CB, he would have been a definite positive even at a lab with a less sensitive level of detection.

If memory serves, Alberto was having allergy issues that spring and withdrew to do private training for those 3 weeks in May.

But doing such large amounts of clen during that timeframe seems awfully risky. Maybe Alberto was using allergy meds that he thought were OK? But something went terribly wrong? Pepe booboo?

 

[Caruut]

If memory serves, Alberto was having allergy issues that spring and withdrew to do private training for those 3 weeks in May.

But doing such large amounts of clen during that timeframe seems awfully risky. Maybe Alberto was using allergy meds that he thought were OK? But something went terribly wrong? Pepe booboo?

If it was allergy meds, he'd have said so, surely, rather than try and invent some contaminated meat.

 

[Polish]

If it was allergy meds, he'd have said so, surely, rather than try and invent some contaminated meat.

It would be tricky for Alberto to explain how allergy meds taken in May show up in a July test? Time release capsules?

 

[BroDeal]

So what is up with WADA's complicated theory that Contador infused plasma a day after transfusing red blood cells? It sounds suspiciously like, "His blood values don't show the pattern we would like so he must have adjusted them." Or, in other words, "The lack of evidence does not mean he did not transfuse. It means he must have covered it up with another procedure, of which we also have no evidence."

Or is there something they can point to, beyond reasonable blood variations, that shows an infusion of plasma?

 

[LaFlorecita]

Contador has spent 4,25 million krones on his defence, which is 571037 euros and 768507 dollars.

 

[LaFlorecita]

So what is up with WADA's complicated theory that Contador infused plasma a day after transfusing red blood cells? It sounds suspiciously like, "His blood values don't show the pattern we would like so he must have adjusted them." Or, in other words, "The lack of evidence does not mean he did not transfuse. It means he must have covered it up with another procedure, of which we also have no evidence."

Or is there something they can point to, beyond reasonable blood variations, that shows an infusion of plasma?

I really hope this is the case, because I can't see how they're going to get the transfusion theory through without hard evidence.

 

[ElChingon]

Some photo's:

 

[ElChingon]

 

[ElChingon]

Video Summary (in Spanish):

http://www.as.com/ciclismo/video/alberto-contador-enfrenta-juicio-final/20111121dasdascic_1/Ves

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Contador has spent 4,25 million krones on his defence, which is 571037 euros and 768507 dollars.

Hardly particularly surprising, when you consider that a much greater sum of money hinges on the outcome from his perspective. If he is suspended for two years, he would lose millions in salary, plus prize money, plus endorsements.

 

[I Watch Cycling In July]

So what is up with WADA's complicated theory that Contador infused plasma a day after transfusing red blood cells? It sounds suspiciously like, "His blood values don't show the pattern we would like so he must have adjusted them." Or, in other words, "The lack of evidence does not mean he did not transfuse. It means he must have covered it up with another procedure, of which we also have no evidence."

Or is there something they can point to, beyond reasonable blood variations, that shows an infusion of plasma?

The thing that confuses me with this argument is why he would do the red cells one day and the plasma the next. I would have thought he needs to get the plasma in straight away otherwise his hemoglobin concentration will be too high if the vampires visit. Unless he is having plasma most days to mask what would otherwise be an ongoing very high hemoglobin concentration.

Whats the story with plasma sources anyway? There are tests for homologous blood, but does someone else's plasma show up in the same way? Just wondering whether it might have been someone else's plasma and someone else's clen. That would be taking "contaminated supplements" to a new level.

If anyone has the technical background to respond to these tangential musings, I would be interested to understand the possibilities better.

 

[sniper]

Hardly particularly surprising, when you consider that a much greater sum of money hinges on the outcome from his perspective. If he is suspended for two years, he would lose millions in salary, plus prize money, plus endorsements.

then why didn't he take the one year ban?
perhaps he knew WADA would appeal the one year ban anyway.

 

[Publicus]

then why didn't he take the one year ban?
perhaps he knew WADA would appeal the one year ban anyway.

There's the other possibility (I hope you are sitting down for this one) that he actually believes he's innocent.

 

[Merckx index]

If they want to prove transfusion, that is exactly what they will have to do. Not make it likely he transfused, prove it.

Define your terms, GJB. What does “prove” mean, to you, that you distinguish it from “likely”? Most people take “likely” to mean preponderance of evidence, which is the minimum standard WADA needs to prove, by their code’s definition, doping. So if it is concluded that transfusion was likely, that is sufficient for a sanction. Likely in this case is the same thing as proof.

As I said before, the arbs can use a higher standard of proof than bare preponderance or “likely”, 60%, 70%, 90%, whatever. If it is 90%, you could say that likely, in the minimum sense, is not the same thing as proof. But if it is 90%, that means this standard is applied to contaminated meat. IOW, if the arbs decide on 90%, then WADA has to prove it is 90% certain that it wasn’t contaminated meat, or if you prefer, no more than 10% chance that it was.

And if it is 90% certain that it is not contaminated meat, then it is 90% certain that it is transfusion. Because, again, everyone agrees, beginning with RFEC, that those are the only two reasonable possibilities. If you want, you can assign a 1% possibility to each of the other alternatives, but that does not significantly alter this fact.

If you can show me where in the WADA code it states two different standards, then I’ll change my mind, but I’ve never seen that mentioned.

edit: Courtesy of I watch cycling (posted below):

Its in article 3.1

The standard of proof for anti doping violations is "comfortable satisfaction", lying between balance of probability and reasonable doubt. The standard of proof for athletes rebutting established facts is only balance of probability.

So if it is concluded to 51% certainty that Bert transfused, that is enough to sanction him for CB—as it prevents him from satisfying the balance of probability for contamination—but does not rise to the necessary level for sanction for transfusion.

OK, I’ll buy that. I stand corrected. So he might get sanctioned for CB while avoiding a sanction for transfusion, if the probability for transfusion is deemed to fall somewhere between 50+% and whatever the level of comfortable satisfaction is. Outside of that range, he could still be liable for transfusion sanction.

However, now that I have revisited the DEHP test situation (see below), I’m inclined to believe WADA is going to have some problem reconciling the discrepancy in time of peaks for DEHP vs. CB. That being the case, I think it will be hard to prove transfusion to comfortable satisfaction.

If memory serves, Alberto was having allergy issues that spring and withdrew to do private training for those 3 weeks in May.

This most likely would not have been May. It would have been in June after the DL. If he was on a withdrawal-transfusion cycle, storing the blood refrigerated, he would have to withdraw every five weeks, at most. His TDF blood would then be withdrawn in June. And the window between the DL and the TDF was only about three weeks IIRC. I always felt this was helpful to Bert's case, that there wasn't a lot of time to take CB then.

The thing that confuses me with this argument is why he would do the red cells one day and the plasma the next. I would have thought he needs to get the plasma in straight away otherwise his hemoglobin concentration will be too high if the vampires visit. Unless he is having plasma most days to mask what would otherwise be an ongoing very high hemoglobin concentration.

If I understand this argument correctly, it’s made to explain the fact that DEHP metabolites appeared in the urine before CB. Some of us have been saying this can probably be explained by differences in pharmacokinetics. If WADA is seriously pushing this scenario, they must believe that the pharmacokinetic argument will not work. After doing some digging around and some thinking, I think indeed it won't.

I have some links below that indicate that DEHP is cleared from plasma much faster than CB. But times of peak urine concentrations of the substances would not differ that much, not by twenty-four hours. So I'm inclined to think that pharmacokinetics alone will not explain the discrepancy, unless the samples taken on those two days were much closer than 24 hours apart, or unless the timing of the first sample was just right. But the mere fact that one has to go to such extremes to make the argument work is a sign that the argument is weak.

But the proposed explanation in El Pais is rather weak, too. if you buy the scenario where plasma was infused later, there should be two DEHP peaks, one for the red cells and one for the plasma, and the plasma peak should be higher. There was only one peak on that graph that appeared on the internet last year, but since we know nothing more about the situation, including how accurate that graph was, I can't really say more.

Here is the relevant kinetic information:

DEHP appears to be cleared from the body quite fast. Here is a passage from an old review:

Whether administered by oral or parenteral routes, DEHP and di-n-butylphthalate(DBP), the two compounds studied most extensively, are rapidly cleared from the body (3-6,15).The bulk of the chemicals is cleared within 24hr and nearly none is left 3-5 days after exposure; there is little or no evidence of tissue accumulation or prolonged tissue retention.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1569014/pdf/envhper00462-0010.pdf

These studies were in rats. However, clearance is also very fast in humans:

Human metabolism of di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) was studied after a single oral dose of 48.1 mg to a male volunteer. To avoid interference by background exposure the D4-ring-labelled DEHP analogue was dosed. Excretion of three metabolites, mono(2-ethyl-5-hydroxyhexyl)phthalate (5OH-MEHP), mono(2-ethyl-5-oxohexyl)phthalate (5oxo-MEHP) and mono(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (MEHP), was monitored for 44 h in urine and for 8 h in serum. Peak concentrations of all metabolites were found in serum after 2 h and in urine after 2 h (MEHP) and after 4 h (5OH-MEHP and 5oxo-MEHP). While the major metabolite in serum was MEHP, the major metabolite in urine was 5OH-MEHP, followed by 5oxo-MEHP and MEHP. Excretion in urine followed a multi-phase elimination model. After an absorption and distribution phase of 4 to 8 h, half-life times of excretion in the first elimination phase were approximately 2 h with slightly higher half-life times for 5OH- and 5oxo-MEHP. Half-life times in the second phase-beginning 14 to 18 h post dose-were 5 h for MEHP and 10 h for 5OH-MEHP and 5oxo-MEHP. In the time window 36 to 44 h, no decrease in excreted concentrations of 5OH- and 5oxo-MEHP was observed. In the first elimination phase (8 to 14 h post dose), mean excretion ratios of MEHP to 5oxo-MEHP and MEHP to 5OH-MEHP were 1 to 1.8 and 1 to 3.1. In the second elimination phase up to 24 h post dose mean excretion ratios of MEHP to 5oxo-MEHP to 5OH-MEHP were 1 to 5.0 to 9.3. The excretion ratio of 5OH-MEHP to 5oxo-MEHP remained constant through time at 1.7 in the mean. After 44 h, 47% of the DEHP dose was excreted in urine, comprising MEHP (7.3%), 5OH-MEHP (24.7%) and 5oxo-MEHP (14.9%).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14576974

This compares with a slower, bi-phasic elimination of CB. As reported in articles previously discussed here, CB does accumulate in tissues, and only about 20% of a single dose is excreted within three days. Half life of clearance from blood was 35 hours. So while these studies involved oral administration, whereas what is relevant to transfusion is direct administration into the bloodstream, it seems fairly clear that DEHP is cleared from the blood much faster than CB.

But the key point is that once a drug gets into the blood it starts being cleared immediately, which means the peak urine concentration occurs quite soon. This is true unless the half-life is really long, or unless it has weird kinetics (as is the case, e.g., for marijuana metabolites, where urine concentrations can go up and down). I did see one study of CB in cows, which have a faster half-life of humans, where the peak might have been delayed as much as eight hours, but a twenty-four hour delay seems unlikely.