• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Steakgate latest: Contador positive for Clenbuterol in four different tests

Page 20 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Apr 28, 2010
3,498
0
0
Jamsque said:
Assuming the increase in Clen levels in the last test isn't just an accuracy error, to me it seems to point further towards blood transfusions. We've been hearing a lot lately from Landis, Kohl and others about what doping techniques modern riders are using, and smaller doses are the fashion of the day. In Tours gone by, riders would re-inject a whole litre of blood on a rest day. Now, riders space that litre out over a week or more to keep their blood passport in order. I can easily imagine Contador re-injecting 300 or 400 ml of stored blood on the rest day, and then topping up with another 200 or 300 before the final ITT of the race.

Obviously this is speculation.
Does anyone know what level of Clen should have been in the stored blood if this is the case. Any approximation would be appreciated. I myself am really bad with numbers and do not know that much about it, so any information on this aspect would be greatly appreciated
 
Sep 25, 2009
6,983
0
0
^@hrotha
this is not how marca described it.

on page 36 they say that based on the conclusions/observation of at least 5 experts (names below), there were no significant changes in bilogical passport.

Por medio de los informes de distintos especialistas, como el catedratico Julio Cortijo Gimeno los profesores de Boer y Banfi y los doctores Tomas martin Jimenez y Antonio Gutierez, ente otros, Contador, intenta demostra que su pasaporte biologico no mustra alteraciones significativas esos dias

no significant changes of course don't equal 'there was no transfusion' but in legal sense under the 'preponderance of evidence criteria' it may comes close because it essentially means probability of 51% vs 49% is enough. cas will be the ultimate judge.
 
Nov 17, 2009
2,370
0
0
I still keep coming back to one thing...

is it against the rules to have the levels of this particular substance found in your system? Is there a special rule that says "if you took this accidentally, you are not to be punished"?


Does it really matter how it got into his system? He tested positive, didn't have a TUE (or find a way to get a backdated one)... so he has to pay the penalty stated by the rule.

The whole idea of excusing "accidental positives" is not really a great thing in my opinion.
 
python said:
^@hrotha
this is not how marca described it.

on page 36 they say that based on the conclusions/observation of at least 5 experts (names below), there were no significant changes in bilogical passport.

Por medio de los informes de distintos especialistas, como el catedratico Julio Cortijo Gimeno los profesores de Boer y Banfi y los doctores Tomas martin Jimenez y Antonio Gutierez, ente otros, Contador, intenta demostra que su pasaporte biologico no mustra alteraciones significativas esos dias

no significant changes of course don't equal 'there was no transfusion' but in legal sense under the 'preponderance of evidence criteria' it may comes close because it essentially means probability of 51% vs 49% is enough. cas will be the ultimate judge.
That's quite different from ruling out the transfusion theory if you ask me.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
theswordsman said:
It wasn't years later, it was while he was still being questioned, in that same ten or fifteen minute testimony. Everyone who has since stated, or led people to believe, that Contador walked away from that room refusing to give DNA was dead effing wrong. So was anyone who used it to declare him dirty in a forum court.
It led me to believe that AC refused cuz he thought, hmm.. that aint good.. and then changed his mind quickly, cuz refusing looks even worse.
 
Oct 16, 2010
13,578
1
0
roundabout said:
Am i dead effing wrong in thinking that regardless of what Contador might have said to the judge that he actually wasn't asked to give a DNA sample.
+1
exactly. They never took that dna sample.
Why not? Only AC's bankaccount knows.
 
Jul 16, 2010
370
1
0
happychappy said:
So he had blood drawn earlier when he was using Clen, shouldn't they test the blood to make sure they aren't going to get a positive? Sounds a bit amateurish.
I suppose that's why some get caught and others don't.
It's also why some almost die, RE: Ricco.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,045
0
0
A comment by micomico over on DPF. I'm not weighing in on its merit, just sharing it as it raises some interesting questions for debate:

From a spanish newspaper, La Vanguardia:

There were four positive readings, but so close together days-wise they were looked at as if one possible infraction.

The reading from July 21 to the 25th, per day, in picograms/milliliter were 50, 16, 7, and 17.

It turns out that the 50 picog. reading, which many decried as infintesimal in amount and picked up only by the latest lab advances in Cologne, is three times the amount the EU labs used as threshold in monitoring clen levels in cattle in Europe in 2008. Some may remember that head of the Canadian lab saying that other athletes had been been caught and admitted to doping with clen for smaller amounts.

In 2008, the European union performed a study with a sample size of 286,748 and found only one case of clen contamination - in Italy. The threshold level in this study was 3 times lower than AC's 50 picograms.

The butcher shop that AC attributed as contaminated had their beef subsequently investigated and it was found that the meat came from Spanish origins (AC or his handlers at one point publicly wondered what country it may have really come from), and that the provider of the meat, who was subsequently tested and found clean, had never had any record of clen issues.

The claim that ACs readings were so low that threshold levels for clen should be considered, at least in this case, doesn't go easily up the steep mountain of evidence pointing otherwise; he was above three-year old EU threshold technology levels 3 out of 4 days, 3x higher in the first reading, a rest day, which is dammingly circumstantial.

His foreign meat argument is out; and the supplier he named was tested.

He needs to prove the source of the contamination, but he claims that he swallowed his proof; at this point it sounds like a variation of the old schoolboy excuse "My dog ate my homework".
http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/index.php?showtopic=9457
 
I just learnt the news and have a couple questions:
-who's behind those new positives: UCI? WADA? the lab in Cologne? shouldn't have them been in the original report? if so- why they just come out?
-If the dates are correct- it does not make sense to "micro"-blood doped during those days & not being red flagged by the controls.

at this point I foresee two years no matter what- and BTW AC should think really hard on his appeal to CAS, since the entire case is getting worse as time goes by & is better off to swallow his pride and get the year they're imposing to him until they change their mind...
 
Mar 11, 2009
5,826
0
0
the Science of Sport blog did a nice piece comparing Contador's case to that of two Rugby players who successfully defended themselves against doping charges by proving that positive tests were the result of contaminated supplements: http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/02/two-doping-cases-exonerated-vs-punished.html

At one point it states that Clenbuterol contamination in food usually results in massive doses and very unpleasant poisoning for the person who eats it, not tiny trace amounts, and that an (unnamed) Canadian expert determined that Contador's levels were not consistent with food contamination.
 
It turns out that the 50 picog. reading, which many decried as infintesimal in amount and picked up only by the latest lab advances in Cologne, is three times the amount the EU labs used as threshold in monitoring clen levels in cattle in Europe in 2008.
This is the most important bit if you ask me.
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,354
0
0
MacRoadie said:
It turns out that the 50 picog. reading, which many decried as infintesimal in amount and picked up only by the latest lab advances in Cologne, is three times the amount the EU labs used as threshold in monitoring clen levels in cattle in Europe in 2008
No, it's not! The amount of clen in the meat needs to be about 3 times above the EU threshold to produce a 50 pg/ml reading for the consumer. This is apples to oranges.

Jamsque said:
At one point it states that Clenbuterol contamination in food usually results in massive doses and very unpleasant poisoning for the person who eats it, not tiny trace amounts, and that an (unnamed) Canadian expert determined that Contador's levels were not consistent with food contamination.
That's pretty stupid since food contamination won't be noticed unless the amount ingested is large enough to result in side-effects. They can't possibly claim that you can ingest massive doses from eating meat but not miniscule?
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,354
0
0
hrotha said:
This is the most important bit if you ask me.
It had already been shown that meat with below EU threshold levels of clen would need to be consumed in kg's to cause an athlete to test positive.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,045
0
0
Tyler'sTwin said:
No, it's not! The amount of clen in the meat needs to be about 3 times above the EU threshold to produce a 50 pg/ml reading for the consumer. This is apples to oranges.
I think what he is saying is that when the EU did their study in 2008, they set a threshold for contamination at something in the neighborhood of 15 pg/ml - a level that must have been well within their testing ability AT THAT TIME. (2008)

Contador's argument that the 50 pg/ml number is "infintesimal" and only detectable by the latest lab advances would seem to be a bit of a stretch if in 2008 researchers were using thesholds one-third that number in their study.

The comment is about the detectability of 50 pg/ml, not how high the contamination in the meat has to be to result in a 50 pg/ml reading in the consumer.
 
May 3, 2010
538
0
0
kurtinsc said:
I still keep coming back to one thing...

is it against the rules to have the levels of this particular substance found in your system? Is there a special rule that says "if you took this accidentally, you are not to be punished"?


Does it really matter how it got into his system? He tested positive, didn't have a TUE (or find a way to get a backdated one)... so he has to pay the penalty stated by the rule.

The whole idea of excusing "accidental positives" is not really a great thing in my opinion.
Rules, who cares about the stinking rules! :rolleyes:
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,354
0
0
MacRoadie said:
I think what he is saying is that when the EU did their study in 2008, they set a threshold for contamination at something in the neighborhood of 15 pg/ml - a level that must have been well within their testing ability AT THAT TIME. (2008)

Contador's argument that the 50 pg/ml number is "infintesimal" and only detectable by the latest lab advances would seem to be a bit of a stretch if in 2008 researchers were using thesholds one-third that number in their study.

The comment is about the detectability of 50 pg/ml, not how high the contamination in the meat has to be to result in a 50 pg/ml reading in the consumer.
You don't get it. 50 pg/g (obviously not ml) in a steak will of course not produce a 50 pg/ml concentration in a human eating that meat, but way less. The tests on meat aren't as sensitive and nor do they have to be.

I'm not sure what the threshold was, but far above 50 pg/g anyway.
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,354
0
0
roundabout said:
you must surely mean above
No, I must surely mean below. If the concentration of clen in the meat is below the EU threshold, you have to consume several kg's to ingest enough clen for a 50 pg/ml reading.
 
Aug 3, 2009
3,045
0
0
Tyler'sTwin said:
You don't get it. 50 pg/g (obviously not ml) in a steak will of course not produce a 50 pg/ml concentration in a human eating that meat, but way less. The tests on meat aren't as sensitive and nor do they have to be.

I'm not sure what the threshold was, but far above 50 pg/g anyway.
Apparently you don't get it either, but I'll try again.

No one is saying anything about how much was in the steak (or whatever he claims to have eaten) versus what concentration was found in him. Logic would dictate that the concentration in the food would be higher then the amount detected in the consumer.

The point made was that Contador stated that the 50 pg/ml is so low that it couldn't even have been detected but for the super-duper new fangled high tech testing equipment at Cologne.

The 2008 study is ONLY mentioned insofar as it refutes the claim that quantities below 50 pg/ml could not be detected because they were setting thresholds far below that number and were obviously able to detect them.
 
May 12, 2010
1,728
0
0
MacRoadie said:
Apparently you don't get it either, but I'll try again.

No one is saying anything about how much was in the steak (or whatever he claims to have eaten) versus what concentration was found in him. Logic would dictate that the concentration in the food would be higher then the amount detected in the consumer.

The point made was that Contador stated that the 50 pg/ml is so low that it couldn't even have been detected but for the super-duper new fangled high tech testing equipment at Cologne.

The 2008 study is ONLY mentioned insofar as it refutes the claim that quantities below 50 pg/ml could not be detected because they were setting thresholds far below that number and were obviously able to detect them.
50 pg/ml is incredibly low, only a few labs can detect such a low amount.

I believe clenbuterol levels in meat is actually measured in the meat after the animal has been butchered, they're not researching cow urine. So it's useless to speak about 50 picogram per milliliter, when meat obviously isn't measured in milliliters. Besides, detecting clenbuterol in meat probably uses a completely different method, it's useless to compare it to the amounts that can be detected in human urine.
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,354
0
0
MacRoadie said:
Apparently you don't get it either, but I'll try again.

No one is saying anything about how much was in the steak (or whatever he claims to have eaten) versus what concentration was found in him. Logic would dictate that the concentration in the food would be higher then the amount detected in the consumer.
Which is exactly why it's stupid to conclude that 50 pg/ml is anything but miniscule based on the ability to detect much higher concentrations in meat.

The point made was that Contador stated that the 50 pg/ml is so low that it couldn't even have been detected but for the super-duper new fangled high tech testing equipment at Cologne.
Which is true... (well, there might be a few other labs capable of detecting such tiny concentrations.)

The 2008 study is ONLY mentioned insofar as it refutes the claim that quantities below 50 pg/ml could not be detected because they were setting thresholds far below that number and were obviously able to detect them.
No, it doesn't at all, precisely because the concentration in meat required to produce a 50 pg/ml reading in a person consuming that meat is far higher than 50 pg/g. They did not detect quantities below 50 pg/g, nor anywhere near that concentration.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS