Official "another interesting piece I found on Alberto Contador" Thread

[Mr. O'Clock]

Kim age needs to get off his angry bitter jealou train and enjoy cycling. Alberto is the finest cyclist since Armstrong, please those who hate cycling, get offend bus, or the bus, or the bus will roll over you, thuh dump thu dump.

 

[Andynonomous]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[LaFlorecita]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[LaFlorecita]

Edit: No longer relevant.

 

[LaFlorecita]

*** edited by mod ***

 

[Andynonomous]

We all KNOW what happened.

as I said, we all believe Dirty will be absolved.
we were discussing whether Mondenard's words suggest that he believes Dirty is really innocent, or whether he merely believes Dirty will be absolved by CAS, regardless of whether he's innocent.
I don't see what credibility has to do with it.

For all intents and purposes, we all KNOW how Contador got caught. It was because he used autologous blood doping, together with Clenbuterol.

Contador tested positive for a banned substance, and didn't come anywhere close to prove that he got it from tainted meat. It is a slam dunk guilty.

All that needs to be answered now, is what damage the UCI, WADA, and the CAS will now do to their reputations.

 

[zastomito]

It is of no importance whatsoever. The point is that they couldn't prove that he blood doped so they tried to get him for clen. Only it was so minute amount that he was able to come up with a plausible explanation. It is irrelevant if they know that he doped, the trick is to prove without any doubt that he couldn't intake clenbuterol unless he blood doped. And that cannot be done. All it takes is one dirty cow.

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

Everybody stop right now with the personal stuff.

Susan

 

[LaFlorecita]

Everybody stop right now with the personal stuff.

Susan

Thank you Susan

 

[Mr. O'Clock]

Rather than getting huffy about whether Alberto did or did not, we need to respect the decisions and arbitration, wads, USDA,uci, tour organizers findings and decisions.

 

[Andynonomous]

Shifting burden of proof.

It is of no importance whatsoever. The point is that they couldn't prove that he blood doped so they tried to get him for clen. Only it was so minute amount that he was able to come up with a plausible explanation. It is irrelevant if they know that he doped, the trick is to prove without any doubt that he couldn't intake clenbuterol unless he blood doped. And that cannot be done. All it takes is one dirty cow.

That is not the way the rules are written. When you test positive for a banned substance, the burden of proof shifts to the accused. Of course, if the UCI/WADA/CAS are corrupt, and don't follow the rule of their own laws, then Contador could be "aquitted".

 

[this_is_edie]

Rather than getting huffy about whether Alberto did or did not, we need to respect the decisions and arbitration, wads, USDA,uci, tour organizers findings and decisions.

Why do you feel we need to respect them? Do you feel they deserve respect?

 

[Mr. O'Clock]

Why do you feel we need to respect them? Do you feel they deserve respect?

your point is taken. Unfortunatley the sport of cycling and the drug testers, IOC,uci etc. Are most likely corrupt, however if we dispute their findings, we are playing the same game as the drug cheats, which of course is no faith in or respect for the monitoring of cheaters. Cycling follows politics completely in that respect. The choices are to change the system from the inside out, respect the system while being cynica, and dubious, or anarchy.

 

[zastomito]

That is not the way the rules are written. When you test positive for a banned substance, the burden of proof shifts to the accused. Of course, if the UCI/WADA/CAS are corrupt, and don't follow the rule of their own laws, then Contador could be "aquitted".

I agree to the point but the first thing that comes to mind in this particular case is why is there a requirement regarding the labs that do the testing to be able to detect certain amount of clenbuterol? Is it because that is the level which proves without a doubt that it couldn't been digested with contaminated meat or because there are only few labs that could detect such small amounts? Either way it seems that UCI doesn't care much beyond the certain level. I believe that CAS will ask the same question and that they will acquit him.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I agree to the point but the first thing that comes to mind in this particular case is why is there a requirement regarding the labs that do the testing to be able to detect certain amount of clenbuterol? Is it because that is the level which proves without a doubt that it couldn't been digested with contaminated meat or because there are only few labs that could detect such small amounts? Either way it seems that UCI doesn't care much beyond the certain level. I believe that CAS will ask the same question and that they will acquit him.

You ask a question and then answer it to suit your preference - and unfortunately it is wrong.

The threshold is set for labs as a minimum that they need to be able to detect to get accreditation.
It has nothing to do with contamination or anything else, there is no minimum that the labs are allowed test for and WADA have said they review Clenbuterol positives on a case by case basis.

 

[zastomito]

You ask a question and then answer it to suit your preference - and unfortunately it is wrong.

The threshold is set for labs as a minimum that they need to be able to detect to get accreditation.
It has nothing to do with contamination or anything else, there is no minimum that the labs are allowed test for and WADA have said they review Clenbuterol positives on a case by case basis.

Not a Contador fan. So the reason threshold is set is so that there would be enough labs to do the testing. But doesn't the threshold itself says that there is a limit below which they do not really care? I mean, what was their reasoning when they set the given threshold? They are interested in the cases above but not the ones below? If clenbuterol is so potent in any amount there should of been no threshold.
I believe Contador doped but unfortunately don't think he is gonna get banned.

 

[hrotha]

Not a Contador fan. So the reason threshold is set is so that there would be enough labs to do the testing. But doesn't the threshold itself says that there is a limit below which they do not really care? I mean, what was their reasoning when they set the given threshold? They are interested in the cases above but not the ones below? If clenbuterol is so potent in any amount there should of been no threshold.
I believe Contador doped but unfortunately don't think he is gonna get banned.

No, the threshold is just a technical one. It doesn't mean they don't care if you're below it, it just means you need to get the best labs to analyze those samples. Any amount of clen is a positive, but I doubt any labs can currently detect zeptograms or whatever. You have to draw the line of what a good enough lab is at some point, but that doesn't mean you're not guilty if some other lab can't detect the traces in your samples.

Clenbuterol is not "so potent", that's beside the point.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Not a Contador fan. So the reason threshold is set is so that there would be enough labs to do the testing. But doesn't the threshold itself says that there is a limit below which they do not really care? I mean, what was their reasoning when they set the given threshold? They are interested in the cases above but not the ones below? If clenbuterol is so potent in any amount there should of been no threshold.
I believe Contador doped but unfortunately don't think he is gonna get banned.

There is no threshold for the amount of Clenbuterol found in an athletes sample.

There is a threshold that testing laboratories must be able to detect to.

 

[zastomito]

Clear as day, nobody questions that.

 

[zastomito]

No, the threshold is just a technical one. It doesn't mean they don't care if you're below it, it just means you need to get the best labs to analyze those samples. Any amount of clen is a positive, but I doubt any labs can currently detect zeptograms or whatever. You have to draw the line of what a good enough lab is at some point, but that doesn't mean you're not guilty if some other lab can't detect the traces in your samples.

Clenbuterol is not "so potent", that's beside the point.

How come? I thought that is exactly what it means. If Contadors samples were tested in some other lab he wouldn't get caught.

 

[Lanark]

How come? I thought that is exactly what it means. If Contadors samples were tested in some other lab he wouldn't get caught.

That he wouldn't be caught doesn't mean he wouldn't be guilty. Why do you think we always laugh about those 'I never tested positive' arguments?

 

[Merckx index]

obviously de mondenard has earned the right to look down on the clinic pseudoscience.

I agree. But he doesn’t look good when he ignores the basic issue.

I wonder if de Mondenard even read the RFEC decision. I tend to think he didn’t, because if he had, he would have discovered that everyone, including Bert’s own lawyers, agrees that Bert’s CB could not have resulted from eating meat that passed the Spanish inspection standard (100 ng/kg).

That’s why they began their attempted rebuttal of WADA’s pharmacokinetic argument (based on data and discussions with the manufacturers of CB; I guess Python regards these people as pseudoscientists) by an estimation of how much CB Bert could have ingested eating meat from a steer doped with CB then allowed to withdraw (“retirado”) for a variable period of time. If you believe someone can test at Bert’s level from eating meat that passes the inspection standard, the whole “retirado” argument is beside the point. The entire argument is based on the notion that the steer is doped to the gills, then allowed to pass some of the CB before being slaughtered. It assumes that the meat is going to be over the inspection limit and somehow avoid detection. It only establishes that if it does avoid detection, there could be enough CB remaining from the original dosage to the cattle to result in Bert’s positive.

That’s also why Bert’s laywers made an elaborate (though flawed) argument intended to show that despite the lack of a single CB-positive sample of meat among tens of thousands tested in Spain, it was still possible that such a contaminated sample could have turned up in Basque country, which provided relatively few samples.

It’s also why they later claimed that the brother of someone who might have supplied Bert’s meat was busted years ago for doping cattle.

It’s also why some have argued that Bert might have eaten meat that was imported from Mexico or some South American country where standards are lax, and why (because imported meat must also pass the same standard) these supporters have also suggested that there could have been bribery, allowing the contaminated meat to be sold in Spain.

All of these points have been raised to support the claim that Bert could have eaten contaminated meat. Because—to repeat and emphasize—meat that passes the Spanish inspection system does not have enough CB to account for Bert’s positive. The prosecution provided arguments to back up this claim at the RFEC hearing, and Bert’s lawyers never even attempted to refute them.

OK? Everyone understand that? So what is the point of feeding volunteers contaminated meat and determining their CB levels (as DeMondenard suggests)? We already know—Bert’s team has already conceded—that if the level of CB is below the inspection standard, the result will be a lower level than what Bert tested for. All this proposed study can possibly show is how much above the inspection standard meat has to be in order to account for Bert’s test.* But this is irrelevant. Once you accept that the meat must have been above the inspection limit, the only thing that is relevant is how likely it is that Bert could have eaten such contaminated meat, however far above the standard it was. That is a matter of testing statistics, such as those provided by the prosecution at RFEC, and also of the kind I suggested.

So DeMondenard’s suggestion, while it might be useful for future cases of CB positives, is completely irrelevant to Bert’s case. I won’t call it pseudoscience. It’s just the wrong answer to the question.

*WADA provided a range of estimates for this in the RFEC report. Here is a simple argument that provides a minimum estimate. The actual test data in the RFEC report showed that Bert was positive for CB for at least four days. Using the concentrations given there, and assuming he passed a typical 1.5 liters of urine a day, we can estimate that Bert passed about 150 ng of CB in those four days. But he must have ingested a lot more than this, because it’s known that CB excretion exhibits second order kinetics, i.e., after an initial rapid phase of elimination, there is a much slower rate. A study by Yamamoto et al (1985), linked and discussed here previously, found that only about 20% of a single CB dose taken orally was eliminated after three days. Applying this to Bert’s data, he ingested a minimum of 650 ng of CB.

I don’t know how much meat Bert ate—the RFEC report only says “two fillets”—but I think 12 oz. (about 340 g) would be a reasonable maximum estimate. It could be more, but probably not a great deal more. This amount of steak provides about 650-700 calories. GT riders eat a ton of food—6000-8000 calories a day—and perhaps 3000-4000 of these might have been consumed at dinner. This would provide 15-25% of the calories in the form of animal protein. (Edit: actually a little less, because about a third of the calories in a typical steak come from fat).

If he ate 340 g of meat and consumed 650 ng of CB, the steak would contain about 1900 ng/kg, which is 19 times the limit. If you assume that more than 20% is eliminated in three days you could lower this, but even if you assume all if it was eliminated in the four days for which actual test data were available, you would get a value of over 400 ng/kg. This value could be lowered further by assuming Bert ate more than 12 oz of meat, and/or by assuming a smaller volume of urine. In fact, in the RFEC report WADA provided a value of 312 ng/kg as the lowest possible estimate, and 11,000 ng/kg as the highest estimate. The low value suggests to me that my estimate of 340 g of meat is in the right ballpark (presumably WADA has a better idea of how much meat Bert ate than I do), and the huge range indicates they were being extremely liberal with assumptions in both directions, trying to cover every possible variable or uncertainty.

As I have discussed here before, even Mexican meat bought off the street rarely reaches levels of contamination this high. In fact, from this calculation, we can see that the five Mexican players who were recently cleared from a CB positive probably did not ingest the CB from contaminated meat, either. All but three of the total of nine players reported positive had higher levels of CB in the urine than Bert, in some cases far higher. For example, one of the lower values reported was 200 pg/ml. Assuming that level was recorded within 24 hours of ingestion (which would result in a minimum estimate of CB ingested; if the level was recorded several days later, the estimate would be considerably higher), that would correspond to a total of about 2500 ng or 2.5 ug CB ingested. For a 12 oz steak, the contamination would be about 7.5 ug/kg. This is extremely high, and though I’m sure there is meat in Mexico this contaminated, studies suggest it is quite rare. Not to mention that one of the players tested at a level more than 20 times higher than this.

 

[minessa]

No, the threshold is just a technical one. It doesn't mean they don't care if you're below it, it just means you need to get the best labs to analyze those samples. Any amount of clen is a positive, but I doubt any labs can currently detect zeptograms or whatever. You have to draw the line of what a good enough lab is at some point, but that doesn't mean you're not guilty if some other lab can't detect the traces in your samples.

Clenbuterol is not "so potent", that's beside the point.

FIFA disagrees http://www.record.com.mx/copa-oro/2011-07-02/exclusiva-record-orozco-torrado-reyna-y-osorio-tenian-clembuterol

Google translation:
"This Friday, Jiri Dvorak, Chief Medical FIFA announced that four players with traces of clenbuterol in his system, then it was known that the Mexican had five positive doping cases ingestion of contaminated meat .

RECORD obtained the document that sent the UCLA lab, which specifies that a first control were 14 players on 21 May, and then made ​​another, the 25th of that month, six remaining elements.

In the letter we have identified as Gerardo Torrado, Ángel Reyna, Ricardo Osorio and Jonathan Orozco are the players who have traces of the banned substance, and reveals the presence of clenbuterol in the analysis of these elements of Tri.

Torrado, Reyna Orozco and tested negative for doping with 30 pg of clenbuterol, while Ricardo Osorio was 200 picograms.

"Of all the players in group A (Exhibit A), 9 of them were detected clenbuterol in biological samples (5 with adverse analytical finding and 4 negative presence of the offending substance)," describes the document with the results.

Decio de Maria, Secretary General of the Femexfut, and Jiri Dvorak, chief medical officer of FIFA, said Friday that it was important to reveal the rest of those involved in the doping prevented the participation of Guillermo Ochoa, Francisco Javier Rodriguez, Christian Bermudez, Edgar Duenas and Antonio Naelson 'Sinha' in the Gold Cup, they said their levels of clenbuterol could not be considered positive in a doping control."

 

[hrotha]

FIFA's decision is not in accordance with WADA code. If WADA doesn't appeal it'll be because football is too hard a nut to crack.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

FIFA disagrees http://www.record.com.mx/copa-oro/2011-07-02/exclusiva-record-orozco-torrado-reyna-y-osorio-tenian-clembuterol

Google translation:
"This Friday, Jiri Dvorak, Chief Medical FIFA announced that four players with traces of clenbuterol in his system, then it was known that the Mexican had five positive doping cases ingestion of contaminated meat .

RECORD obtained the document that sent the UCLA lab, which specifies that a first control were 14 players on 21 May, and then made ​​another, the 25th of that month, six remaining elements.

In the letter we have identified as Gerardo Torrado, Ángel Reyna, Ricardo Osorio and Jonathan Orozco are the players who have traces of the banned substance, and reveals the presence of clenbuterol in the analysis of these elements of Tri.

Torrado, Reyna Orozco and tested negative for doping with 30 pg of clenbuterol, while Ricardo Osorio was 200 picograms.

"Of all the players in group A (Exhibit A), 9 of them were detected clenbuterol in biological samples (5 with adverse analytical finding and 4 negative presence of the offending substance)," describes the document with the results.

Decio de Maria, Secretary General of the Femexfut, and Jiri Dvorak, chief medical officer of FIFA, said Friday that it was important to reveal the rest of those involved in the doping prevented the participation of Guillermo Ochoa, Francisco Javier Rodriguez, Christian Bermudez, Edgar Duenas and Antonio Naelson 'Sinha' in the Gold Cup, they said their levels of clenbuterol could not be considered positive in a doping control."

That's the same kind of yak that the UCI attempted to do when it was finally Contador had a AAF.

30.09.2010

The UCI confirmed today that Spanish rider Alberto Contador returned an adverse analytical finding for clenbuterol following the analysis of urine sample taken during an in competition test on 21st July 2010 on the second rest day of the Tour de France.

This result was reported by the WADA accredited laboratory in Cologne to UCI and WADA simultaneously.

The concentration found by the laboratory was estimated at 50 picograms (or 0,000 000 000 05 grams per ml).

In view of this very small concentration and in consultation with WADA, the UCI immediately had the proper results management proceedings conducted including the analysis of B sample that confirmed the first result. The rider, who had already put an end to his cycling season before the result was known, was nevertheless formally and provisionally suspended as is prescribed by the World Anti-Doping Code.

This case required further scientific investigation before any conclusion could be drawn.

The UCI continues working with the scientific support of WADA to analyse all the elements that are relevant to the case. This further investigation may take some more time.

In order to protect the integrity of the proceedings and in accordance with the World Anti-Doping Code, the UCI will refrain from making any further comments until the management of this adverse analytical finding has been completed.

UCI Press Services

In short - there is no threshold for Clenbuterol in an athletes system.