Phillip Nielsen Acquitted of clenbuterol

[Cloxxki]

Clen seems to be quickly becoming the go-to dope. If things aren't turned around, it will be VERY hard to get banned for it, come a year or so.

 

[roundabout]

It's a great self-reinforcing loop where future acquittals use past ones and past acquittals are supported by future ones agreeing with them.

And it has to stop.

 

[lean mean &green]

Philip Nielsen was tested positive in a doping 25th April 2010 immediately after the eighth and last stage of the Vuelta Mexico. Both the A sample and B sample showed levels of clenbuterol and the concentration was 0.3 ng / ml. First 12th January 2011 the case was sent from the International Cycling Union (UCI) - via the Danish Cycling Union - for treatment in doping committee DIF (DIF). Then appealed doping committee proceedings for DIF's doping tribunal, as in Denmark shall decide all cases of violation of doping rules.

(snipped)

Doping Board says among other things in his order, which fell on 21 March 2011.

"The Board may first determine that there is a violation of UCI ADR Art. 21.1, since the mere presence of a prohibited substance in the rider's doping test is a violation of doping rules of strict liability rule. However after the Board's assessment is assumed that the presence of the prohibited substance must be attributed to ingestion of food at the official rider hotel. Board herewith emphasized that concentrations of clenbuterol in defendant's test was quite low, the Italian cyclist Alessandro Colo, who had lived and eaten in the same rider hotel equivalent and with roughly the same concentration was tested positive for clenbuterol at the same day as the respondent and that respondent neither before nor since has been tested positive, but rather were tested drug-May 8, 2010, approx. two weeks after the test in Mexico. Following the Board's assessment, the respondent with adequate strength, proof that he did not show fault or negligence. "

as much as some would like to make this case, it's facts, and it's ruling directly transferrable to a certain Spaniard - it's not.

1. if the above is accurate, we're talking about 300 pg/mL and the final day of an 8 day event. probably too high a concentration for transfusion not to mention it would be an odd time to transfuse. it's also still too little to be recent therapeutic use - i'd very roughly estimate at least a week would need to pass from the last use before seeing this concentration.

2. we also have a concurrent positive from someone who ate from the same food source which is no small matter when establishing a pattern.

3. it's already been stated but the use of clenbuterol in the Mexican beef industry is well documented and well understood.

lastly, we don't know of any other supporting evidence in this case. were there additional negative urine tests during this event or anywhere near the date of the AAF? additional tests of Colo around this time? was hair analysis performed on either of them? etc etc. even without those data points Nielsen's case for contamination is much stronger than some others i've seen.

 

[theswordsman]

All that's happening is that national federations realize that it is possible to test positive for tiny tiny amounts of this substance via food. They also acknowledge, thanks to the media exposure since the Contador case, that when they declare an athlete innocent, it's wrong to sanction them for a year.

No one is winning a race, or a stage, due to Clenbuterol. These athletes have such a small amount in their samples that most labs can't, and aren't asked to, detect it. The Cologne Lab recently found that 22 out of 28 German tourists who visited China tested positive for Clenbuterol in their study. Imagine if you took all the samples from Chinese athletes and had them tested at the Cologne lab.

This whole issue exists because a couple or few WADA scientists sat down with a list of doping products and decided to set a minimum lab standard for testing, but none for positives. And the archaic Strict Liability rule where athletes who are found innocent are punished for a year anyway.

It's a good thing that there's pressure for change. I believe that more after reading what some WADA scientists have to say.

Someone very wise said in the media months ago that there's going to be a "before Contador" and "after Contador" in these cases. It's not due to preferential treatment. It's because there's a Tour de France win on the line, and two years off an already great career, and he is willing to spend a ton of money on studies and reports and lawyers. It's a shame that someone earlier didn't have the resources to get things changed to a fair level. It's good that it's happening now. Fifty picograms of Clenbuterol doesn't win you the race to the stoplight.

 

[sniper]

as much as some would like to make this case, it's facts, and it's ruling directly transferrable to a certain Spaniard - it's not.

1. if the above is accurate, we're talking about 300 pg/mL and the final day of an 8 day event. probably too high a concentration for transfusion not to mention it would be an odd time to transfuse. it's also still too little to be recent therapeutic use - i'd very roughly estimate at least a week would need to pass from the last use before seeing this concentration.

2. we also have a concurrent positive from someone who ate from the same food source which is no small matter when establishing a pattern.

3. it's already been stated but the use of clenbuterol in the Mexican beef industry is well documented and well understood.

lastly, we don't know of any other supporting evidence in this case. were there additional negative urine tests during this event or anywhere near the date of the AAF? additional tests of Colo around this time? was hair analysis performed on either of them? etc etc. even without those data points Nielsen's case for contamination is much stronger than some others i've seen.

+1.
This case reminds me of Ovcharov's in as far as there is clear (though arguably no shot-gun) evidence of contamination.
It shows exactly what AC has not been able to provide: plausible indications of innocence.

 

[python]

i find it perplexing that no one, both on this forum and in the wider media, made an obvious connection...

this exoneration of a danish rider has everything to do with the strong support the head of danish anti-doping (Jens Evald) gave to rfec's rulling just days after it was made public.

he was the lonely voice in the otherwise very critical responses of the anti-doping officials. he now backed up his words with the action that goes diametrically opposite of wada's official position - no threshold for clen and no gifts wrt to strict liability.

let me note once again...the danish anti-doping is the 4 th national anti-doping body in a row (previously: german, spanish, dutch and now danish) that broke away from the officila wada party line on clenbuterol.

i find it very significant when wada's defacto national arms break away from the party line so fragrantly and publicly...

are we facing a big change on clen wada coding ? i would not be surprised if we do. don't think it will be conti's case though.

 

[sniper]

i find it perplexing that no one, both on this forum and in the wider media, made an obvious connection...

this exoneration of a danish rider has everything to do with the strong support the head of danish anti-doping (Jens Evald) gave to rfec's rulling just days after it was made public.

he was the lonely voice in the otherwise very critical responses of the anti-doping officials. he now backed up his words with the action that goes diametrically opposite of wada's official position - no threshold for clen and no gifts wrt to strict liability.

let me note once again...the danish anti-doping is the 4 th national anti-doping body in a row (previously: german, spanish, dutch and now danish) that broke away from the officila wada party line on clenbuterol.

i find it very significant when wada's defacto national arms break away from the party line so fragrantly and publicly...

are we facing a big change on clen wada coding ? i would not be surprised if we do. don't think it will be conti's case though.

good points. Indeed, you connected the right dots. This guy's appraisal of RFEC's verdict now makes more sense.

But AC remains a lone rider. The other three were all in Mexico or China and have other circumstantial evidence to present.

AC's case is still a joke, whereas the others seem to deserve the benefit of the doubt in absence of other evidence.

 

[indurain666]

AC's case is still a joke, whereas the others seem to deserve the benefit of the doubt in absence of other evidence.

LMAO could your opinion be a bit more biased against Alberto? Let it go dude!

 

[python]

good points. Indeed, you connected the right dots. This guy's appraisal of RFEC's verdict now makes more sense.

But AC remains a lone rider. The other three were all in Mexico or China and have other circumstantial evidence to present.

AC's case is still a joke, whereas the others seem to deserve the benefit of the doubt in absence of other evidence.

agreed about the mexican and the chinese connection. i made a strong point about this difference in the contador acquitted thread.

my point though was not that subtle - we are seeing a previously unheard of wada insider's rebellion. on clenbuterol specifically.

conti may be just an unwitting but lucky and undeserving beneficiary. his fan may care but i'm talking about the bigger picture - the current code that appears outdated to many wada insiders...and then we have the uci and the wada pending decision on the appeal. interesting, isn't it ?

nielsen and conti are connected regardless of their individual circumstances...


btw, does anyone have the full danish ruling on neilsen ?

 

[Merckx index]

as much as some would like to make this case, it's facts, and it's ruling directly transferrable to a certain Spaniard - it's not.

1. if the above is accurate, we're talking about 300 pg/mL and the final day of an 8 day event. probably too high a concentration for transfusion not to mention it would be an odd time to transfuse. it's also still too little to be recent therapeutic use - i'd very roughly estimate at least a week would need to pass from the last use before seeing this concentration.

2. we also have a concurrent positive from someone who ate from the same food source which is no small matter when establishing a pattern.

3. it's already been stated but the use of clenbuterol in the Mexican beef industry is well documented and well understood.

lastly, we don't know of any other supporting evidence in this case. were there additional negative urine tests during this event or anywhere near the date of the AAF? additional tests of Colo around this time? was hair analysis performed on either of them? etc etc. even without those data points Nielsen's case for contamination is much stronger than some others i've seen.

The urine level was about 6 times Bert showed. If this was from eating meat, the meat had to be fairly heavily contaminated. WADA’s estimate, as given in the RFEC report, was that Bert’s urine level corresponded to eating meat contaminated at a level of 3-110 times the Spanish detection standard, i.e., 300 ng – 11 ug/kg. So this urine level would correspond to 1.8 – 66 ug/kg. That’s if he ate the meat within 24 hours of being tested. If the period was longer, as it might well have been, the estimate would be even higher. The estimate would also be somewhat higher or lower depending on how much meat he ate, but there the factor would likely be no more than two, one way or the other.

According to one study I posted earlier that tested meat randomly bought in a Mexican town, the maximum level found was 6 ug/kg, and 90% was below 1.8 ug/kg. As rata de sentina notes , there are a few cases where mg/kg levels have been found in meat, but these are very rare, and usually result in food poisoning epidemics. So if this positive really came from eating meat, it was unusually contaminated meat. Then again, for all we know, several other riders might have eaten less contaminated meat, but not tested positive given whatever sensitivity was available.

I agree that transfusion is unlikely but not impossible. For transfused blood to result in urine levels this high, the rider would have had to take more than 100 ug CB daily for several days, and probably withdraw 500 ml. of blood. Definitely possible, but the probability is sufficiently low, IMO, that the meat contamination possibility becomes stronger. As LMG notes, the Mexican location and the fact that another rider also tested positive are supporting elements.

OTOH, I would not be so quick to rule out therapeutic use (based on published facts, which may not be the entire story). The rider could have started using CB prior to the race to lose weight. This urine level is quite consistent with that. It would make sense that if one wanted to lose weight, to use it mostly before the race rather than during. Also, the rider would figure it would clear before any post-race tests. However, if the race was a week, and he had stopped use of CB before the race began, then it should have probably cleared by the end of the race, so I do think CB would have had to be taken during part of the race week itself. This seems unlikely, though again not out of the question.

Someone very wise said in the media months ago that there's going to be a "before Contador" and "after Contador" in these cases.

I can definitely agree with that. And some of the more religious cycling fans might even refer to a new calender with dates in the form of BC. And some of the less religious may refer to later dates as AD (after doping).

 

[lean mean &green]

OTOH, I would not be so quick to rule out therapeutic use (based on published facts, which may not be the entire story). The rider could have started using CB prior to the race to lose weight. This urine level is quite consistent with that. It would make sense that if one wanted to lose weight, to use it mostly before the race rather than during. Also, the rider would figure it would clear before any post-race tests. However, if the race was a week, and he had stopped use of CB before the race began, then it should have probably cleared by the end of the race, so I do think CB would have had to be taken during part of the race week itself. This seems unlikely, though again not out of the question.

i have to confess, i may have rushed the explanation. my rationale was that he would have started an 8 stage event with a concentration that is at obvious performance enhancing levels. he certainly could have been willing to assume this risk but i would think he would just quit using clen so close to an event where he can expect to be tested. realistically tho, some of these guys do some idiotic things so who knows?

the most important difference for me is his geographic location but i agree that from what's been discussed of his case here, it is short of being air tight.

 

[D-Queued]

... the Mexican location and the fact that another rider also tested positive are supporting elements.

...

The beef angle is one thing. Another interesting element is the fact that Clenbuterol is almost certainly easy to come by during a Mexican excursion. That a teammate tested positive would also support a team program.

Dave.

 

[Merckx index]

The beef angle is one thing. Another interesting element is the fact that Clenbuterol is almost certainly easy to come by during a Mexican excursion. That a teammate tested positive would also support a team program.

Dave.

Excellent points. I have thought for a while that a teammate testing positive is not necessarily the automatic get-out-of-jail card it is being assumed to be. Particularly now that every rider knows the benenfit of having several riders on one team test positive for this substance, it might even encourage team-wide use, as a protection.

I've been wondering how many members of Neilsen's team ate that meat, and whether all of them were tested. Is it possible that while all or most of the team ate this meat, they just offered one other positive test, and he got off without further investigation? I hope they probed more deeply than this, but who knows? I also hope some pharmacokinetic evidence was offered, because while I think if therapeutic use of CB was terminated prior to the start of the race, a rider would not have urine levels this high after a week, I'm not certain of that. The investigators certainly should have established this to their satisfaction before letting the guy off. Maybe they had a negative test the day before, as with Bert, I don't know. But I doubt very much that they had such a test for both riders.

 

[Cimber]

Just for the record, that other rider wasnt a team mate but Coló who, iirc, was banned.

 

[GreasyMonkey]

agreed about the mexican and the chinese connection. i made a strong point about this difference in the contador acquitted thread.

my point though was not that subtle - we are seeing a previously unheard of wada insider's rebellion. on clenbuterol specifically.

<snip>

It seems co-incidental that following a month or so after WADA's request to the Chinese government for an investigation on the possible clen contamination in the food-chain (meat, in particular), the following scandal erupts in China, involving the biggest (& most-trusted) pork & smallgoods supplier. http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-03/17/content_12185413.htm

Also announced is a gov't "crackdown" on the use of clen in feed supplements. http://europe.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-03/22/content_12209162.htm

Agree that various national anti-doping agencies seem to be in open rebellion on the zero-level for clenbuterol.
Hopefully we see a more reasoned shift in the strict liability clauses for substances that are documented as being used/abused in the human food production.

 

[neineinei]

btw, does anyone have the full danish ruling on neilsen ?

can't find the whole ruling, only a press release quoting parts of the ruling:

http://www.dif.dk/da/NYHEDER/Arkiv pressemeddelelser/2011/3/20110322_dopingkendelse.aspx

 

[Per Bolvig Hansen]

Contador Case /Philip Nielsen Case

Now that Contador case is appealed, you must expect the same thing happens in the Danish case where Philip Nielsen this week was acquitted of Danish Sports Federations.
How can it be that Danish Sport Federations judge in this case when, as in Contador case and other cases is the National Cycling Federation who judges the first time? seems very strange.
This is a google translation

 

[Per Bolvig Hansen]

When is UCI and WADA appeal Phillip Nilsen case?

wondering when the UCI and WADA to appeal this case, now Case appealed and Colo soon having served his sentence.
Will the UCI and WADA really let the matter go without any punishment, it's really not true, this is not the same legal policy for all.
This is a google translation

 

[JA.Tri]

confused

Colo is banned for 1 year. Then Philip Nielsen acquitted, referring to the Colo case as evidence for acquittal.

The tribunal accepts that Colo positive is evidence directly supporting PN's contention. PN is found not negligent.

Therefore Tribunal implicitly finds Colo and Nielsen circumstances similar/identical?? Yet one is serving a year ban????

I feel for Colo. Surely there should be some way of addressing Colo's situation (without Colo appealing to CAS).

UCI/WADA etc really need to work out a better way...

Unless I am missing the point completely????

 

[Merckx index]

Colo is banned for 1 year. Then Philip Nielsen acquitted, referring to the Colo case as evidence for acquittal.

The tribunal accepts that Colo positive is evidence directly supporting PN's contention. PN is found not negligent.

Therefore Tribunal implicitly finds Colo and Nielsen circumstances similar/identical?? Yet one is serving a year ban????

I feel for Colo. Surely there should be some way of addressing Colo's situation (without Colo appealing to CAS).

UCI/WADA etc really need to work out a better way...

Unless I am missing the point completely????

If you're missing the point, so am I. As far as I can see, these two cases are identical. Colo is a precedent for Nielsen in the sense that CONI bought the contaminated meat story, making him eligible for a reduced suspension. If he really did eat contaminated meat--and I have my doubts, certainly he didn't prove it--then Nielsen might well have, too.

The difference is that Colo is being held at fault, though not significantly, while Nielsen is cleared completely. Why? Should Colo have known that meat in Mexico might be contaminated? If so, why shouldn't Nielsen? One could argue that when Colo's case came up, the idea of contaminated meat was still somewhat new, and the threshold rule was automatically applied, just as with Harding. Whereas by the time Nielsen's case was resolved, Colo, Ovtcharov, Bert, etc., had put CB contamination very much in everyone's mind, and it now became acceptable to consider it a totally no-fault situation.

But regardless of speculation, there sure seems to be an unfair treatment here. Bert's case and Ovtcharov's case have somewhat different circumstances, but as far as I know the evidence is basically the same for Colo and Nielsen. If the contaminated meat story is really accepted, there should not be a two year ban, I think we can all agree on that. But if a rider at that time could not have known about the possibility of contaminated meat, or could not have avoided eating it, then he shouldn't get any ban.

I think overall, this provides further evidence for GJ's view that the terrain is shifting. There is a transition period in which the judging bodies are trying to figure out what to do.

 

[python]

<snip>

Agree that various national anti-doping agencies seem to be in open rebellion on the zero-level for clenbuterol.

i think you the first poster who picked up on the point i was making over and over..but it did not start with contador. it started with ovcharov who was the first ever complete 100% clenbuterol exoneration. and who started 'the revolution' ? i also made that point many times - answer: wada's own insiders, german anti-doping scientists, who got fed up with the inconsistency of certain current wada codes and guidelines.

Hopefully we see a more reasoned shift in the strict liability clauses for substances that are documented as being used/abused in the human food production.

absolutely. but the mess that colo has to eat and nielsen benefited from is less due to clenbuterol-specific rules (that is, threshold/non-threshold standards) and more due to loose and controversial wada rules/allowances supplementing strict liability principle. contador's lawyers brilliantly exploited it, everyone else seems to follow.

 

[Per Bolvig Hansen]

Hello WADA something new about Philip Nielsen case ?

This case is becoming more and more mysterious, WADA has not yet responded or even appealed the acquittal of Danish Phillip Nielsen, I wonder what is going on?
This case is mysterious!
This is a google translation.

 

[Per Bolvig Hansen]

Neither the UCI or WADA appealed this case

Philip Nielsen run again races. Acquittal of the rider was not appealed by either the UCI or Wada, yes we do not think so it may be true.
He has now licensed over and just signed a contract with Christina Watches for whom Michael Rasmussen is the team captain.
This is a google translation.