Official Alberto Contador hearing thread

[Dr. Maserati]

was discussed and addressed. i agree it would be a powerful evidence if it goes his way. but we have also discussed the issues that may have prevented him from using it (apart of course from hiding doping), such as learning of his test almost 2 months after he gave the sample...hair grows you know.

Contadors sample was taken on the 21st July and he was informed by the 26th August.
Dimitrij Ovtcharov, sample was taken 23rd August, he was informed 22nd September.

not a bad idea but contador has stated many times he welcomes any tests on his samples going back. so it seems it's up to wada and the uci to take him up on his word. any testing he'd done outside the wada/uci system would instantly be termed as suspicious and invalid. i'm speculating there are some of his samples around. we also don't know if wada hasn't try to do it. if i was wada i would certainly ask and pay for the dehp tests. not sure if wada would be interested in making public they found nothing...just another point to consider.

The DEHP test?

read your statement again...with my substitutes - in the vast majority of cases, the drug is cleared from the ATHLETE before testing, precisely that he tests clean. how realistic is that with the UCI and why shouldn't it apply to other spheres of life ?

Ok - read your statement again - if an athlete is cheating they may know what levels of clen can be detected in standard labs.
We know from the 2010 TdF IO report certain samples were sent to Cologne for analysis for the express reason to detect new substances or methods.

 

[Merckx index]

was discussed and addressed. i agree it would be a powerful evidence if it goes his way. but we have also discussed the issues that may have prevented him from using it (apart of course from hiding doping), such as learning of his test almost 2 months after he gave the sample...hair grows you know.

As I posted here a while back, studies show that CB can be detected in the hair at least 6 months after taking it. Yes, we did go over this a lot, and if Bert took CB during the offseason, as the double transfusion scenario strongly suggests, it might very well not show up in the hair. But I was responding to the poster in the vein of, what could someone do to demonstrate a belief in innocence. Even if the hair test didn't prove anything, willingness to take it would be a helpful gesture. It makes the statement, I have nothing to hide.

i'm speculating there are some of his samples around. we also don't know if wada hasn't try to do it. if i was wada i would certainly ask and pay for the dehp tests. not sure if wada would be interested in making public they found nothing...just another point to consider.

Very interesting speculation. But my point was not that Bert should demonstrate that he is clean in DEHP tests. Actually, the point is kind of the opposite. Since high levels indicate transfusion, and the double transfusion scenario suggests off season withdrawal and only a very few transfusions (as opposed to the Fuentes method of numerous withdrawal/transfusion cycles throughout the season), one wouldn't expect to find high DEHP levels very often. Most of the time, a rider like Bert is not walking around with freshly transfused blood in his system--probably only a few times in a season. So my point was that tests like this could rule out the possibility that Bert has naturally high levels of DEHP, perhaps from unusual dietary or environment exposure. If he doesn't, the reported spike in his DEHP in July would be very damning.

read your statement again...with my substitutes - in the vast majority of cases, the drug is cleared from the ATHLETE before testing, precisely that he tests clean. how realistic is that with the UCI and why shouldn't it apply to other spheres of life ?

False analogy. The cattle are not taking it for PE effects (race horses are, but that's a different matter). IOW, beyond issues of animal cruelty (and I don't mean to belittle these issues), no one cares if the animals are doped to the gills or not, as long as the meat is clean. Human health is the issue, and the meat from a doped animal from which the drug clears is essentially the same from this point of view as the meat from an undoped animal. Indeed, the reason there is a threshold level of CB allowed for cattle is just because everyone knows they are getting doped. If doping at any level were seriously frowned upon, there shouldn't be any allowable threshold at all. If meat with any detectable level at all were barred from the market, almost all doping would have to stop.

I grant you that the health dept. would greatly prefer that these animals are not doped, because preventing that is the first line of defense against contaminated meat. But as long as the meat tests clean, and the sampling procedures are in order, the job has been done.

 

[Ripper]

We all know the answer is dirtie bertie dopador is going to get off. The external controversies would not have delayed matters if it was a guilty verdict, and remember that CAS has supposedly already come to a decision, they are just taking time putting ink to paper. The reason for the delay - gotta explain things more carefully every time more stuff hits the fan

Man, this case stinks. Let's just wrap it and move on.

 

[python]

As I posted here a while back, studies show that CB can be detected in the hair at least 6 months after taking it. Yes, we did go over this a lot

and i saw and posted other studies that point to an optimum time for a hair test 2-3 months. again, why should anyone resort to an action which could be produce a false positive and cause more trouble than good. yes it was discussed. again, he learned of his positive almost 2 months after he gave a sample. under such scenario, being advised by a good lawyer NOT to test, is reasonable.

but of course, his dinner mates should have tried. at least quietly. we don't know if they did

Very interesting speculation. But my point was not that Bert should demonstrate that

i perfectly understood your point. but again, expecting someone to behave illogically given the situation they are in only to satisfy someone's internet rhetorical questions is yes, silly. contador may have transfused but it's up to wada that proposed the theory and owns the samples to to test them. so your rhetorical suggestion, if i was contador, is a bad idea.

False analogy.

the analogy was good it's that you failed to appreciate it including its irony.

athletes cheat just like the farmers cheat. both are attempting to evade controls. doping techniques evolve to stay ahead of the tests. there is absolutely no reason to assume that cheating farmers will stop evading controls by NOT experimenting with doses and etc. assuming a fixed window for cheating like wada did and you seem to repeat is too simplistic.

besides, both operate in the corrupt environment.

But as long as the meat tests clean, and the sampling procedures are in order

again, we've been through these simplistic assumptions many times. that's why i brought the analogy above.

we've been through this multiple times -- the same athlete, same sample, same lot number is positive if tested in germany but is perfectly 'clean' if tested in another country. why do you simplistically assume that testing a farming animal is less messy ? of all the posters you should know better that test sensitivities differ widely. besides, as far as i know, the very sensitivity of the spanish 'farmer's labs has never been adequately addressed in comparison to 'human' labs. more over, clen can be legally present in the animal up to mrl, whereas an athlete is allowed zero.

again, simplistic assumptions, is probably why contador may walk even though he likely doped.

 

[doolols]

again, he learned of his positive almost 2 months after he gave a sample

That's twice you've said that.

Contadors sample was taken on the 21st July and he was informed by the 26th August

I make that a month and 5 days. "Just over a month" would be more accurate than "nearly two months".

 

[python]

That's twice you've said that.

and i'm going to say for the 3d time and repeat as often as it takes it was almost 2 months.

I make that a month and 5 days. "Just over a month" would be more accurate than "nearly two months".

here sits the very problem with what i so persistently criticized - lack of willingness to check facts - like you did here - and blindly taking red herring from the one who wants to yell the loudest and has little understanding of the testing process.

up on learning of his a-positive, contador requested his b-sample tested which was confirmed on 8 september. now do the math.

it's reasonable to start acting only when it's confirmed you are positive because rumours of hectic actions only add oil to the fire.

but again, if you read the bigger answer i gave, testing hair was certainly a smart move but under the circumstances, there is a possibility it would be counterproductive after so much delay. besides, there are other uncertainties involved in testing hair samples.

 

[RownhamHill]

As I posted here a while back, studies show that CB can be detected in the hair at least 6 months after taking it. Yes, we did go over this a lot, and if Bert took CB during the offseason, as the double transfusion scenario strongly suggests, it might very well not show up in the hair. But I was responding to the poster in the vein of, what could someone do to demonstrate a belief in innocence. Even if the hair test didn't prove anything, willingness to take it would be a helpful gesture. It makes the statement, I have nothing to hide.

Hi Merckx index, can you clarify something about your suggested hairtest for me? I think you're suggesting that the hair test would establish that Clen wasn't present before the positive test, hence supporting Contador's argument it was a one off contamination. (And apologies if I've misunderstood the argument in principle here, if so it may render the rest of the post redundant!)

But I thought that Contador's had already made that argument by pointing to all the tests he took prior to the positive (as he'd been in yellow for a few days before hand, and had been tested prior to the TDF?). And indeed, from what I gather there doesn't seem any question from anyone that the Clen positive itself wasn't caused by some exogenous contamination on the rest day (or the day before, whenever it was) - the argument in CAS seems to centre around what caused the contamination (transfusion or steak)

So, I wonder what additional value does the hair test add to Contador's argument against a transfusion? Equally what value does it add to the (seemingly already accepted) argument that contamination in some form happened on the rest day?

I'm not seeing how a clear hair test could be used to cast substantive doubt on the transfusion theory (over and above whatever other evidence there is of a transfusion), as presumably all it would show was that he would have had to have withdrawn the blood before the Spring and stored it (which doesn't seem outside the realms of the possible?).

Sorry if I've missed something obvious here, I'm just curious about this as I've seen a hair test mentioned a few times over the last year, and I've never really understood the argument one way or the other.

 

[python]

RownhamHill,

i'll chip in quickly and let the rest be answered by m.index. this idea was widely discussed here and the gist is as follows...

the idea of a hair test for contador, if a negative was returned, would support a line of reasoning that contador was not a regular habitual user of clen.
that logic was part of ovcharov's defence. the main value of a hair test is it's ability to look further back than a urine test.

the idea of testing hair is not unreasonable for contador, but as pointed out above, the optimum window might have been missed...

added: a negative hair test would count towards a defensive strategy that was based on excluding each possible scenario - intentional long-term use to lose weight is one of such scenarios.then, when weighing btwn meat and a transfusion - blood passport and the dehp evidence would apply etc

 

[GJB123]

@ RownhamHill,

It was also centred around the idea that AC used Clen between the Dauphiné and the Tour to quickly shed some weight. That could still leave the hair test within the window of oppurtunity and could have shown whether or not AC took larger doses of Clen shortly before the Tour ruling out the contamination theory.

As it stands, in the alleged, leaked WADA transfusion theory WADA suggests that AC used Clen earlier in the season or in the off-season, which would render the hair test obsolete anyway because it would fall out of the window of oppurtunity (well outside the 6 month period that MI indicated). So even WADA might not have pushed or asked for a hair test as it wouldn't do aything to support their alleged, leaked transfusion theory.

Besides that I think one is correct in assuming that AC will have pointed to earlier tests in the season that also didn't highlight any Clen-use. In that respect the ponger was much more dependent on the hair test than AC.

Lastly WADA's alleged, leaked transfusion theory, if I recollect correctly, hinged on a period in May, in which AC wasn't tested because he wasn't competing at that time and apparently hadn't been subject to an out-of-competition test. Clen use should have occurred in that period along with the withdrawal of blood. This again points to the fact that AC argues that he must have been clean in other months because he was tested enough during those month, something that WADA apparently didn't dispute.

Regards
GJ

 

[Benotti69]

and i'm going to say for the 3d time and repeat as often as it takes it was almost 2 months.


<snip>

What is the evidence that Contador was only told on the 24th August 2010 and not sooner? I would imagine that the McQuaid in trying to cover the whole thing up did so with Contador, with possible ideas of a new blood testing machine in mind!

 

[RownhamHill]

So essentially, if I've got this right, if WADA's argument is that there was a clen tainted withdrawl in May or between the Dauphine and Tour (which is late June isn't it?) then the hair test would be relevant.

If it's argument is that the withdrawl happened earlier (or indeed, it makes no argument to the exact time of the withdrawl on the basis that that is unknown and unknowable with the available evidence) then the hair test is a red-herring?

 

[python]

What is the evidence that Contador was only told on the 24th August 2010 and not sooner? I would imagine that the McQuaid in trying to cover the whole thing up did so with Contador, with possible ideas of a new blood testing machine in mind!

i sure get your irony and share it

 

[python]

So essentially, if I've got this right, if WADA's argument is that there was a clen tainted withdrawl in May

the leaked wada argument was about injection in may.

somewhere up-thread there is the link to equipe's article that bert's haemoglobin went up to 18.5 in may. the rest is speculative and would really depend on the specific blood transfusion technique wada had in mind. as far as i understood wada's theory (recalling from memory, so it might be inaccurate) wada put forward an idea that bert used 200 mc gr. of clen a month before the tour. that would imply that wada believes into the so called 'blood banking method where an athlete withdraws and re-injects appr every 30 days.
---
added: a reference to wada theory of clen use
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/engl...ut/his/defense/elpepueng/20111123elpeng_3/Ten

The prosecution's theory is that Contador followed a course of injections of 200 micrograms of clenbuterol for three weeks and then his blood was extracted and through apheresis, the plasma was divided from the red blood cells. Several weeks later 200 milliliters of plasma was reinjected.

as we know from another source, ashenden asserts the injection of plasma (that allegedly contained clen) took place on the 21st, aday after the injection of rbcs. this puts wada thinking of the withdrawal to somewhere....in june ('several week before')

 

[Nilsson]

So essentially, if I've got this right, if WADA's argument is that there was a clen tainted withdrawl in May or between the Dauphine and Tour (which is late June isn't it?) then the hair test would be relevant.

If it's argument is that the withdrawl happened earlier (or indeed, it makes no argument to the exact time of the withdrawl on the basis that that is unknown and unknowable with the available evidence) then the hair test is a red-herring?

For WADA the hair test could be relevant in the first situation. For Conatdor, obviously, not. Nevertheless, Contador is an extremely often tested athlete (in the first six months of 2010 over thirty times alone, which WADA could re-test) whereby the hair test isn't as important as it was for Ovtcharov...

I can't even exclude the only reason Ovtcharov did a hairtest, was the fact that he tested positive 'out of the blue' with very little data to work with. Unlike Contador who tested positive in a series of tests, which pointed to contamination in some form already (for all parties concerned), and lots of data to work with (not in the least the biological passport for WADA)...

 

[GJB123]

the leaked wada argument was about injection in may.

somewhere up-thread there is the link to equipe's article that bert's haemoglobin went up to 18.5 in may. the rest is speculative and would really depend on the specific blood transfusion technique wada had in mind. as far as i understood wada's theory (recalling from memory, so it might be inaccurate) wada put forward an idea that bert used 200 mc gr. of clen a month before the tour. that would imply that wada believes into the so called 'blood banking method where an athlete withdraws and re-injects appr every 30 days.
---
added: a reference to wada theory of clen use
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/engl...ut/his/defense/elpepueng/20111123elpeng_3/Ten



as we know from another source, ashenden asserts the injection of plasma (that allegedly contained clen) took place on the 21st, aday after the injection of rbcs. this puts wada thinking of the withdrawal to somewhere....in june ('several week before')

Sorry, I seemed to have my dates mixed up with WADA's alleged, leaked transfusion theory.

Regards
GJ

 

[RownhamHill]

For WADA the hair test could be relevant in the first situation. For Conatdor, obviously, not.

Well, unless I suppose, the theoretical hair test had shown he was clear of Clen in that period?

Anyway, thanks for the clarification from everyone, it's all very helpful.

 

[LaFlorecita]

the leaked wada argument was about injection in may.

somewhere up-thread there is the link to equipe's article that bert's haemoglobin went up to 18.5 in may. the rest is speculative and would really depend on the specific blood transfusion technique wada had in mind. as far as i understood wada's theory (recalling from memory, so it might be inaccurate) wada put forward an idea that bert used 200 mc gr. of clen a month before the tour. that would imply that wada believes into the so called 'blood banking method where an athlete withdraws and re-injects appr every 30 days.
---
added: a reference to wada theory of clen use
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/engl...ut/his/defense/elpepueng/20111123elpeng_3/Ten



as we know from another source, ashenden asserts the injection of plasma (that allegedly contained clen) took place on the 21st, aday after the injection of rbcs. this puts wada thinking of the withdrawal to somewhere....in june ('several week before')

Almost. It went up to 17.9 while 16 to 16.5 is regular for Alberto.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That's twice you've said that.


I make that a month and 5 days. "Just over a month" would be more accurate than "nearly two months".

Shut up, even though your maths are correct you are clueless as you do not see the big picture.

and i'm going to say for the 3d time and repeat as often as it takes it was almost 2 months.

here sits the very problem with what i so persistently criticized - lack of willingness to check facts - like you did here - and blindly taking red herring from the one who wants to yell the loudest and has little understanding of the testing process.

up on learning of his a-positive, contador requested his b-sample tested which was confirmed on 8 september. now do the math.

it's reasonable to start acting only when it's confirmed you are positive because rumours of hectic actions only add oil to the fire.

but again, if you read the bigger answer i gave, testing hair was certainly a smart move but under the circumstances, there is a possibility it would be counterproductive after so much delay. besides, there are other uncertainties involved in testing hair samples.

Ah so, it only becomes reasonable to start acting when you get the B sample - A sample, what A sample.

Contador's sample was taken 21 July, was informed of A sample 26 August - his B sample was confirmed 8th September.
Ovtcharov's sample was taken 23 August, was informed of A sample 22 Sept - his B sample was confirmed 1st October.

 

[doolols]

Shut up, even though your maths are correct you are clueless as you do not see the big picture.

Maybe I should take my hater blinkers off?

Ah so, it only becomes reasonable to start acting when you get the B sample - A sample, what A sample.

Indeed. Had I been innocent and received a positive A-sample test, I would do whatever I could to support my "innocent" claim, as soon as possible.

But I'm betting I'll be wrong on this, too

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Hi Merckx index, can you clarify something about your suggested hairtest for me? I think you're suggesting that the hair test would establish that Clen wasn't present before the positive test, hence supporting Contador's argument it was a one off contamination. (And apologies if I've misunderstood the argument in principle here, if so it may render the rest of the post redundant!)

But I thought that Contador's had already made that argument by pointing to all the tests he took prior to the positive (as he'd been in yellow for a few days before hand, and had been tested prior to the TDF?). And indeed, from what I gather there doesn't seem any question from anyone that the Clen positive itself wasn't caused by some exogenous contamination on the rest day (or the day before, whenever it was) - the argument in CAS seems to centre around what caused the contamination (transfusion or steak)

So, I wonder what additional value does the hair test add to Contador's argument against a transfusion? Equally what value does it add to the (seemingly already accepted) argument that contamination in some form happened on the rest day?

I'm not seeing how a clear hair test could be used to cast substantive doubt on the transfusion theory (over and above whatever other evidence there is of a transfusion), as presumably all it would show was that he would have had to have withdrawn the blood before the Spring and stored it (which doesn't seem outside the realms of the possible?).

Sorry if I've missed something obvious here, I'm just curious about this as I've seen a hair test mentioned a few times over the last year, and I've never really understood the argument one way or the other.

Just to chip in and answer the highlighted.

Cologne is the laboratory with the sensitive test for clenbuterol. Contadors samples before the 21st July (the date of the first positive) were done in a different laboratory in Lausanne.

 

[Nilsson]

Maybe I should take my hater blinkers off?



Indeed. Had I been innocent and received a positive A-sample test, I would do whatever I could to support my "innocent" claim, as soon as possible.

But I'm betting I'll be wrong on this, too

No you're not wrong on this, except for the fact that a hair test wouldn't be decisive in Contador's case because it's different than Ovtcharov's...

As I said before:

Ovtcharov: not much data, with a postive test 'out of the blue' (with every possibility open). The hair test was advised by Wilhelm Schänzer (director of Cologne Lab, and probably the reason why WADA backed out at the last minute) who supported his acquittal. The hair test proved he wasn't a regular user, so it very likely must have been contamination (contaminated meat)...

Contador: lots of data, with a positive test in the middle of a succession of testing. It soon was very clear to all parties involved it wasn't a normal case, but a contamination case. In that discussion a hair test isn't of very much use (but just an extra element - and extra discussion with pro's and con's for both sides)...

 

[roundabout]

I would have thought that a hair test of the other beef eaters who weren't drug tested would have been somewhat useful.

 

[Nilsson]

Just to chip in and answer the highlighted.

Cologne is the laboratory with the sensitive test for clenbuterol. Contadors samples before the 21st July (the date of the first positive) were done in a different laboratory in Lausanne.

Didn't they re-test (some) TDF-samples? At least I would would have expected that.

Originally just a few samples (from different riders) were sent tot Cologne. I thought re-testing was the reason why they found the samples containing minimal traces in Contador's samples from the days after the 'positive' one...

Even the plasticizer test was done in Cologne, with a sample that first had been analyzed in Laussane (and I presume samples from the following days have been checked on DEHP as well - but not containing high levels allegedly). In Laussane they only started their own programme (based on the Barcelona and Cologne programs) last year, didn't they?

I'm not all sure, but I guess there's a lot of confusion about which samples are tested (and re-tested) at what lab...

 

[Cloxxki]

I would have thought that a hair test of the other beef eaters who weren't drug tested would have been somewhat useful.

No-one ate the steak but Contador. Bought especially for him, same quality as his mom makes for him. Or that kind of story. A lot of extra effort and then catch the one cow that died too shortly after being doped.

 

[roundabout]

No-one ate the steak but Contador. Bought especially for him, same quality as his mom makes for him. Or that kind of story. A lot of extra effort and then catch the one cow that died too shortly after being doped.

Good one.