Olympians warned: DonÂ’t eat liver

[Cloxxki]

no. i interpreted you each and every time the way you positioned yourself - a closed-minded, intrenched advocate of only one possibility of clen in the urine - athletes cheating. all your arguments originated from this one single assumption w/o giving the slightest possibility to what i desperately tried to show - there is an objective possibility of real contamination in the EU counry that even the london game organizers accept.

so, it's you who have demonstrated a talent for stubborn misinterpreting of plain facts, blindness to reality and close-mindness.


whatever you meat also means that you completely ignored the real possibility i keep bringing up - falsely accusing those who simply ate a legally available and contaminated meat products and did not cheat. limitless increase in sensitivity is a double-edged sword. if you don't understand the simple fact, you're perhaps not worth further discussion.

the rest of your post is the evidence of the same fundamental flaw of an intrenched dogmatic unwilling to consider simple alternative facts in front of him.

and yes, whatever you wish for the sensitivity of tests, wada apparently is not with you. do yourself a favour and read wada technical documents. if you need the specific links (which i doubt as you mind is shut closed( i will oblige.

Man, what's up with you today? Hope it's nothing serious. I've not been addressed in this manner in the English language before as far as I memory serves me, and you're coming across just as prejudice regarding my assumptions as you are claiming me to be.
Guess what, I actually like you as a poster on the Clinic, and here you are acting like you're having a really rough day and looking for a fight or someone random to whack over the head with an antique walking stick. You're picking on words, it's just not gentlemenslike. Just sending you a bit of feedback on how you are coming across, as well as you did with me. I don't think it's your usual you, of I must have misplaced my pink sunglasses.

Here then:
I believe I addressed both intensional and unintensional use or at least left room for both. Both have been confirmed by relevant courts as possible ways to end up positive for clen, I'd be silly to deny.
Lower thresholds will both deter active and passive dopers. It's good.
No-tolerance policy, litterally and testing wise, also aids to deter athelete to take in clen (or similar substances used in the food industry), also both intensionally and accidentally.

I think London are doing a great thing, for themselves, for athletes, and the sake of sport as feel-good entertainment. With this timely warning, they are quite surely to reduce the number of clen positives, both from true innocent food contamination as well as from intensional use to advance the athlete's physique.
With most other PEDs, merely getting some high-profile positives would be enough to prevent people from testing positive. With clen though, the high number of cases where no penalty was upheld due to likely unintensional contanination (which again I do not exclude as an option), there's the risk of negative deterrance from both ways to ingest it.
"Why be careful about meat, if even (so and so) got off while his case looked kinda suspect and shaky? I'm not going to let fear influence my private life, I'll have a steak, some liver on the side, and sleep well knowing that I performing with a clean conscience. Such a freak incident is not going to happen to me anyway."
Or:
"Wow, even the top guns seem to be on clen lately, it's all over the sports papers. And thanks to the bioindustry, they're getting away with it. Ain't that swell. Now I'm up against an army of comptitors extra lean and mean through clen. If you can't beat them, you must join. If I am careful to not overdo it, I can certainly have both a very nice PE effect, and get away with it even when caugt. I'll just make a point of ordering steak everywhere I am in London, even if I don't care for it that much at all."

Pick a that.

London did not ask for the clen situation. They have to deal with it now that it's out there at the time they're hosting the Games. It's too late to take on the bio industry. Governments are supposed to be on it, and have clearly failed to prevent positives. It would be naive to think the problem will go away, or can even be combatted without changing the rule book, or re-establishing it. The meat in London is not going to be 100% clean. It just isn't. And there's a lot that could happen on the negative side in the 7 months left.
I had not heard of liver before, although it's quite an obvious concern. Perhaps someone tipped them as it becoming the next round of defence strategies. Without such re-affirmation of their stance on clenbuterol, not an unlikely situation to develop.
A bit like the asthma med TUE situation. All at once, "all" pro sportsmen were asthmatic well beyond mean occurance of asthma among humans or even athletes.

OK, I'll leave it at that for now.

 

[Cloxxki]

You mean "There will be no excuses for testing positive caused by consumption of supposedly contaminated meat, or even liver. Know what you eat, it's your responsibility to stay clean, not your diner's."

Will these be the veggiest games ever?

If I am here indicating that London are reminding athletes to take their responsibility rather than blaming their diner, what part of that is indicating that I am only open for intensional clen use?
Yes I wrote that as a response to condense or specify what I thought Python might be meaning, but it's actually the way I see it as well.

I am also joking that people will actually stay away from meat more than before on Olympics. Which would be a bit silly for someone already positive on clen, and knowing to be so. It's a shame to let a good meal pass if it not going to change the fac that you are in fact positive, and you'll be out the prime excuse to escape punishment.

It's sometimes better to ask if someone is of a certain position rather than to judge, and then attack. Conflict often starts with an assumption. Where it goes after the assumption is what makes the difference. The one assuming has all the options.

Peace.

 

[Merckx index]

A major reason why I never doubted Bert ate that steak (though I do doubt it was the source of his CB) is because if he wanted to fabricate an excuse, he would have been much better off saying he ate liver. As was discussed here before, liver can exhibit levels of CB roughly ten times that of skeletal muscle. As LMG notes, most cases of serious food poisoning from CB probably result from eating liver.

To cut to the chase in this debate, though, does anyone know how prevalent liver is in other meat products, especially a mongrel variety like sausage? Python's point seems predicated on that notion that it isn't enough for athletes to avoid eating identifiable liver. That other meat products that seem to be free of liver might not be. Are there any data on this?

I know very little about the meat industry in this regard, but it seems to me LMG is likely correct that sausage, e.g., would not contain enough liver to make a difference. Assuming liver is roughly ten times as contaminated as other meat, sausage would have to contain more than 10% liver in order for it to pose a threat significantly greater than other forms of meat from the legally-treated animal. Given that liver, I believe, is more expensive than other forms of meat (?), it seems to me that meat packers would not want to put a lot of it into sausage or similar products. But if someone here knows different, please correct me.

In any case, here's a rough rule of thumb to go on. As discussed here previously, Bert's level of 50 pg/ml suggest an original intake of roughly 500 ng of CB. That would correspond to 5 kg of meat at the legal standard, clearly a lot more than he would have eaten. If I understand Python's argument correctly, he is suggesting that a steer might be tested for muscle levels of CB but not liver levels. In this case, a legal limit of 100 ng/kg in muscle might correspond to 1000 ng, or 1 ug, of CB per kg of liver. So to take Bert's case, his level of CB would correspond roughly to 500 g of liver. That still seems excessive, particularly in that people are likely to eat less liver than steak. While he probably would get off on that basis (remember, his case hinges on comparing the likelihood of contamination vs. the likelihood of a particular transfusion scenario), one could still question how likely it was that even liver would have resulted in his level.

So while we can all agree that eating liver is likely to increase the chances of testing positive for CB, I don't think the odds are very high. AFAIK, no athlete has ever tested positive for CB at a level lower than Bert. . A lower, still detectable level--say 15-20 pg--might result from liver. If the London athletes are tested using the most sensitive technology, and they eat 100% liver, it is possible they could be positive. I doubt that any product that has some liver in it would result in a positive, though. While I agree with Python that this raises important questions about how far an athlete's responsibility goes, practically it seems to me if athletes simply avoid anything that is demonstrably 100% liver, they will be OK. And at the very least, they should have witnesses around whenever they eat meat of any kind, some of whom hopefully will also be tested.

 

[neineinei]

A major reason why I never doubted Bert ate that steak (though I do doubt it was the source of his CB) is because if he wanted to fabricate an excuse, he would have been much better off saying he ate liver. As was discussed here before, liver can exhibit levels of CB roughly ten times that of skeletal muscle. As LMG notes, most cases of serious food poisoning from CB probably result from eating liver.

To cut to the chase in this debate, though, does anyone know how prevalent liver is in other meat products, especially a mongrel variety like sausage? Python's point seems predicated on that notion that it isn't enough for athletes to avoid eating identifiable liver. That other meat products that seem to be free of liver might not be. Are there any data on this?

I know very little about the meat industry in this regard, but it seems to me LMG is likely correct that sausage, e.g., would not contain enough liver to make a difference. Assuming liver is roughly ten times as contaminated as other meat, sausage would have to contain more than 10% liver in order for it to pose a threat significantly greater than other forms of meat from the legally-treated animal. Given that liver, I believe, is more expensive than other forms of meat (?), it seems to me that meat packers would not want to put a lot of it into sausage or similar products. But if someone here knows different, please correct me.

In any case, here's a rough rule of thumb to go on. As discussed here previously, Bert's level of 50 pg/ml suggest an original intake of roughly 500 ng of CB. That would correspond to 5 kg of meat at the legal standard, clearly a lot more than he would have eaten. If I understand Python's argument correctly, he is suggesting that a steer might be tested for muscle levels of CB but not liver levels. In this case, a legal limit of 100 ng/kg in muscle might correspond to 1000 ng, or 1 ug, of CB per kg of liver. So to take Bert's case, his level of CB would correspond roughly to 500 g of liver. That still seems excessive, particularly in that people are likely to eat less liver than steak. While he probably would get off on that basis (remember, his case hinges on comparing the likelihood of contamination vs. the likelihood of a particular transfusion scenario), one could still question how likely it was that even liver would have resulted in his level.

So while we can all agree that eating liver is likely to increase the chances of testing positive for CB, I don't think the odds are very high. AFAIK, no athlete has ever tested positive for CB at a level lower than Bert. . A lower, still detectable level--say 15-20 pg--might result from liver. If the London athletes are tested using the most sensitive technology, and they eat 100% liver, it is possible they could be positive. I doubt that any product that has some liver in it would result in a positive, though. While I agree with Python that this raises important questions about how far an athlete's responsibility goes, practically it seems to me if athletes simply avoid anything that is demonstrably 100% liver, they will be OK. And at the very least, they should have witnesses around whenever they eat meat of any kind, some of whom hopefully will also be tested.

Liver is cheaper than other kinds of meat, with the exception is duck and goose liver (foie gras), but it also has a distinct texture, taste and color. It can't just be used as any other meat with no one noticing. There is however liver sausages and spreads and a wide variety of other dishes in various cuisines.

Pork liver is supposed to be used as an ingredient in some brands of Worcestershire sauce. Anyone being able to consume enough Worcestershire sauce to produce a clen postive drug test seems a bit far fetched though.

 

[python]

Liver is cheaper than other kinds of meat, with the exception is duck and goose liver (foie gras), but it also has a distinct texture, taste and color. It can't just be used as any other meat with no one noticing. There is however liver sausages and spreads and a wide variety of other dishes in various cuisines.

Pork liver is supposed to be used as an ingredient in some brands of Worcestershire sauce. Anyone being able to consume enough Worcestershire sauce to produce a clen postive drug test seems a bit far fetched though.

thanks for straitening out this part but i keep being amazed by what seems to me so very simple and basic - some individuals inability or unwillingness to look simultaneously at more than one point (i'm trying btw to just state my honest observation rather than single out anyone for criticism. ).


it was repeated endlessly and the 2 simple facts that need to be looked at simultaneously are:

(i) a meat product (liver, steak, sausage etc etc) does not have to be but CAN be contaminated by clen either legally (as london said for example) or illegally (as bert alleged). the amount could be exceedingly small, 'undetectable' to some, but at least some clen molecules could be there waiting to be discovered.

(ii) at least theoretically, those several ''undetectable' molecules become detectable as tests sensitivity approaches infinity.

putting the 1 and 1 together simply means that if i have a sensitive enough test i can find clen in most meat products (and consequently in bio-fluids of athletes) products that previously were 'clean' because they were tested by less sensitive tests.

the proportion of true liver or a contaminated meat in a given product become irrelevant because i am armed with a super-duper sensitive test that can detect a mere dozen of clen molecules.

is this really that complicated to imagine ?

the scientists in the cologne lab proved it, while others scientists in other labs missed it. we had countless examples of this yet people continue to somehow ignore it. mexican futbolists were the last big case. i rode dozens of posts trying to explain what happen there..all was ignored.

speaking of how sensitive the actual tests have become... again, i am amazed that merckx index who usually tries to take a scholarly approach and who spent a lot of time researching the case, could say,'...no athlete has ever tested positive for CB at a level lower than Bert'.

this is incorrect. multiple athletes tested lower than 50pg/ml including bert himself (as reported by de boer). here's just some examples...cyclist rudi van hauts -30 pg/ml, 4 german pongers: 2.5 pg / ml , 5 pg / ml, 7.1 pg / ml and 10 pg....

again and again, the point being it does no service to science to make an erroneous assumption and than proceed building layers upon layers of conclusions on the basis.

i don't mean to 'blast' anyone. i am only struggling to explain that clenbuterol adjudication and treatment cases are NOT black and white as some suppose. many parties, including wada, need to do better for the system to be fairer than it is today.

 

[BroDeal]

Don't worry. As long as you survive on fruit and vegetables that you grow yourself then you should be fine. Be sure to invest in a fruit dehydrator so you can carry your food with you. Farming your own produce may not leave much time for training, but that's the price that has to be paid to be safe from overly sensitive lab equipment and rules that do not account for contamination. It's a price well worth paying.

 

[Merckx index]

OK, Python, this is a good post of yours. Points taken. But:

the proportion of true liver or a contaminated meat in a given product become irrelevant because i am armed with a super-duper sensitive test that can detect a mere dozen of clen molecules.

The proportion of liver present is relevant regardless of the sensitivity of the test, because liver is not infinitely more contaminated than muscle. As I said, it is roughly ten times more contaminated (actually 5-10x are the figures I have seen). So, for example, if 90% of steak from an animal at the legal threshold were mixed with 10% liver, the result would be to approximately double, at most, the amount of CB per g of meat. Any proportion much lower than 10% is therefore unlikely to make the difference between a positive test and a negative test (given the standard error at these low levels), or the difference between a positive test resulting in a sanction and a positive test not sanctioned. If the proportion of liver is small, it just doesn’t change the overall amount of CB getting into the system that much. If you have your super-duper test that can detect a tiny amount of meat contaminated with a small amount of liver, that same test can also detect a barely larger amount of meat containing no liver.

So, yes, you are right that very low levels of CB are detectable, and in the future, eating legal meat,might result in a positive test. But the presence of liver is not the issue, it’s the sensitivity of the test, period. And this is only for the future. I stand by my conclusion that this is not the case yet, not for London.

this is incorrect. multiple athletes tested lower than 50pg/ml including bert himself (as reported by de boer). here's just some examples...cyclist rudi van hauts -30 pg/ml, 4 german pongers: 2.5 pg / ml , 5 pg / ml, 7.1 pg / ml and 10 pg....

OK, I missed van Hauts, and I’m glad to be informed about this—but he was cleared. In Bert’s case I was of course referring to the highest level he tested for, which is the level that his case is based on. Had he not tested at that level, but only the other levels reported on other days, he almost definitely would have gotten off, with very little argument from anyone. The pongers also got off.

So my point, which I should have been clearer about, is that no one has been sanctioned for a value less than 50 pg/ml, with a decision on Bert still pending. IOW, the current system, with all its flaws, has arguably not convicted anyone—except Colo and FuYu—for a level that could be reasonably explained by contamination. And in those cases, the miscarriage of justice, if it really was so, was not that a very low level was not treated as contamination, but that the source of the meat, which is still one of the best case-by-case factors to consider, was not taken into account. IOW, the problem with those riders was not that they got tripped up by a very sensitive test that could result in a positive from eating legal meat, but that they (allegedly) ate meat well above the legal standard. This is an issue that can only be resolved by considering the origin of the meat, not how sensitive the test is.

i don't mean to 'blast' anyone. i am only struggling to explain that clenbuterol adjudication and treatment cases are NOT black and white as some suppose. many parties, including wada, need to do better for the system to be fairer than it is today.

I agree very much with this, which is why I’m not in favor of a threshold, which I regard as a black-and-white approach to a complex issue.

 

[mercycle]

The obvious answer to all potential food issues is WADA. As soon as a person is recognized as a potential world class caliber athlete, WADA will supply all food, all supplements, all liquids, in season or out of season, for races, for training until the person retires or does not prove out. WADA doctors will determine the amounts of food needed, it will all come from farms and gardens approved by WADA so that the food supply can be taken out of the chain. Any person eating or drinking non-WADA supplied food or drink is automatically suspended since it will be obvious they desire to cheat. WADA doctors will be the only ones to come in contact with the person; heck Mom can't even make chicken soup when they have a cold.

I think this is a workable solution, do you?

 

[python]

the recently published ioc anti-doping rules for the london olympics contain a phrase 'testing any time..'.

if it means what the english language implies it supposed to mean, then it's a major departure from the normal testing routine which allows athletes to sleep undisturbed btwn 11pm and 6am.

happy new year, microdosing, see you in the 2016 olympics ?

 

[stainlessguy1]

Clen in the meat

All good points for all the posters .

I know the beef isnt all clean , and hasnt been for a while in many of the countries. Since alot of us athletes , ex athletes and civilians still eat a lot of meat it might be desirable to do a control test for Clen ( possible other things well ) .

It might do some good , to test regular labours , welders , steel fitters , miners , fire fighters and other hard working trades , as to a before and after test for clen . ( before and after consuming meat). Set the control to known perfect meat against enhanced meat . Note the elevated levels.

Do the same for athletes of endurance sports , cycling , rowing , marathon , weight lifters etc .
Again note the elevated levels from eating the meat , before and after eating enhanced meat .

Create a mean average of elevated levels , and use that as the normal allowable for ingested meats , at daily consumption for an athlete . We all love meat , for those of us that do and we usually dont want to go without it . It is injested constantly by the public and we all have to go to our jobs with those levels .
None of us are going to change the farming practices of the said countries we are having to compete in .
Any athlete that is way way above the mean levels is obviously enhancing even more clen then is allowed , and can still suffer the consequence .
The rest of the athletes are competing in the normal range as per food supply .

It is an interesting point on a different line , when a reactor spues radiation all over the place and the allowable levels of radioactive materials soon finds its way into the food chain, things like milk etc. do raise the alarm bells quickly. However, it doesnt take governments long to raise the safety ceiling of allowable radiation in food , water and the human body as the new safe standard .

Having said this , it might be a good idea to have food and agriculture inspectors present to check the incomming food at the villages as certified clean for the olympics , instead of the the onus being soley on the athletes .
The athletes can eat in the olympic village or grab their beef from the olympic villages to go . It might be an alternative this time around and can avoid lots of disappointment .
I think in the future , our allowable contamination in our bodies must be considered as normal in regards to the era we live in .

Happy New year everyone.
Hopefully you all have a quality roast beef dinner today and still go for that traditional new years day ride .