Steakgate latest: Contador positive for Clenbuterol in four different tests

[flicker]

that steak was the nastiest Trojan Horse Albertos ever going to see! I feel sorry for him. Does he have any new youtube stuff up yet?

 

[flicker]

Look, it's all very simple. The beef he ate was wrapped in cling film, which is where the plasticizers came from.

Yes, some of you might argue that the test is specific to the plastic used in blood bags but this was special 'spanish cling film' to complement the 'special spanish beef'. And yes some might say that the levels were too high to have been from special 'spanish cling film' but that's what makes it so special you see. It was probably like double wrapped and stuff to keep in the special freshness.

Honestly, there really is no need to over complicate all of this.

Do not tease about the cling film, president ford ate the corn husk off a tamale.

 

[BroDeal]

Astana is a business. The business is bicycle racing. All Astana's meals are tax deductible expenses and as such have to be documented. All receipts have to be kept. Accountants have to add up all the expenses and make sure the cooks, managers and cyclists aren't ripping off the Kazahk benefactors etc. No-one is going to fund a cycle team to the tune of $20+million/year and not expect full documentation of expenses.

Trek would.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Trek would.

BroDeal just smacked that one out of the park.

 

[forty four]

did some posts on here get deleted what gives?

 

[forty four]

why did my posts get deleted and others not i used no name calling etc...?

 

[scribe]

did some posts on here get deleted what gives?

Usually. It's best to keep looking ahead and not behind you.

 

[usedtobefast]

Do not tease about the cling film, president ford ate the corn husk off a tamale.

yum and it was chewy too...

 

[Paco_P]

If I am correct in those cases the amount of clen in the body was many times higher than in the case of Contador.

If I am correct, in those cases, the victims ate LIVER, not tenderloin. "Intoxication occurred in association with the ingestion of veal liver, irrespective of the way in which the liver had been cooked."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1382130/

 

[Barrus]

If I am correct, in those cases, the victims ate LIVER, not tenderloin. "Intoxication occurred in association with the ingestion of veal liver, irrespective of the way in which the liver had been cooked."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1382130/

I do believe that is correct and would also be one of the reasons for the higher amount of Clen

 

[Squares]

Look, it's all very simple. The beef he ate was wrapped in cling film, which is where the plasticizers came from.

Yes, some of you might argue that the test is specific to the plastic used in blood bags but this was special 'spanish cling film' to complement the 'special spanish beef'. And yes some might say that the levels were too high to have been from special 'spanish cling film' but that's what makes it so special you see. It was probably like double wrapped and stuff to keep in the special freshness.

Honestly, there really is no need to over complicate all of this.

The plasticizers showed up the day before the clen. Did he eat the plastic wrap the night before?

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

The plasticizers showed up the day before the clen. Did he eat the plastic wrap the night before?

No, he ate McDonald's the night before, which explains the high levels of plasticiser.

 

[kurtinsc]

even calling this a positive test is just foolish. the fact that there IS an EU limit to clen in meat and the low levels in his pee and more than enough to cast doubt on the positive.

He DOESN'T DISPUTE THE POSITIVE TEST.

There is no doubt. The rider agrees it was positive. Everyone agrees. There was a positive test.

Contador is simply stating it didnt' result from doping, but rather contaminated meat.


That's fine. It may even be true. But it doesn't matter, because once you accept that excuse, then "accidentally" doping becomes okay. All manner of excuses for positives will be made, and Contador getting off will be justification.

"Well yeah, I tested positive for elephant steroids... but someone injected me in my sleep. You let Contador off because he ate contaminated meat, you have to let me off too."

All of this doesn't matter. All that matters is that he tested positive and is not disputing the test at all. He HAS to be punished, or else the entire testing program is invalidated and EVERYONE will have an excuse for their test... and get off because of the precedent.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

That's fine. It may even be true. But it doesn't matter, because once you accept that excuse, then "accidentally" doping becomes okay. All manner of excuses for positives will be made, and Contador getting off will be justification.

"Well yeah, I tested positive for elephant steroids... but someone injected me in my sleep. You let Contador off because he ate contaminated meat, you have to let me off too."

All of this doesn't matter. All that matters is that he tested positive and is not disputing the test at all. He HAS to be punished, or else the entire testing program is invalidated and EVERYONE will have an excuse for their test... and get off because of the precedent.

I don't think these reductio ad absurdum arguments are very useful here. Food contamination is an infinitely more plausible argument and equating it with ridiculous excuses does not advance the argument in any way.

I do think that the burden lies with Contador to bolster his defense with facts. He's been rather short on that so far.

 

[nicholaaaas]

He DOESN'T DISPUTE THE POSITIVE TEST.

There is no doubt. The rider agrees it was positive. Everyone agrees. There was a positive test.

Contador is simply stating it didnt' result from doping, but rather contaminated meat.


That's fine. It may even be true. But it doesn't matter, because once you accept that excuse, then "accidentally" doping becomes okay. All manner of excuses for positives will be made, and Contador getting off will be justification.

"Well yeah, I tested positive for elephant steroids... but someone injected me in my sleep. You let Contador off because he ate contaminated meat, you have to let me off too."

All of this doesn't matter. All that matters is that he tested positive and is not disputing the test at all. He HAS to be punished, or else the entire testing program is invalidated and EVERYONE will have an excuse for their test... and get off because of the precedent.

Not at all... testing "postive" that is a result of a contaminated food chain is nowhere near the same as testing positive for epo.

I don't think these reductio ad absurdum arguments are very useful here. Food contamination is an infinitely more plausible argument and equating it with ridiculous excuses does not advance the argument in any way.

I do think that the burden lies with Contador to bolster his defense with facts. He's been rather short on that so far.

how many cows in the region have to show higher then normal clen values? one? 10% 25% 50% all of them? even if all the cows showed higher values and a receipt for beef; it still wouldn't be enough for people here

 

[SpeedWay]

I found it interesting that that sort of thing goes on at the Four-H level. Cheating is universal.

That's one small step for mankind, one giant leap for Hugh Janus. Bravo!!

 

[Anonymous]

maybe someone has already said this but....

They might as well say Frankenandy has the receipt, or that Piti's dog ate the reciept. No receipt proves the PED in question got into AC's body from a steak he ate.

 

[bastigon]

To me it is just to unbelievable.

Hard to believe: He ate meat from spain.
Harder to believe: Someone drove it to france.
Hard to believe: The meat was contaminated with clenbuterol.
Harder to believe: The contamination was so severe that it showed up in a doping test.
Unbelieve: Someone used this as an excuse for failed doping test.

And where is the study that shows this is even possible. Can you get clenbuterol by not eating gut food?

 

[kurtinsc]

I don't think these reductio ad absurdum arguments are very useful here. Food contamination is an infinitely more plausible argument and equating it with ridiculous excuses does not advance the argument in any way.

I do think that the burden lies with Contador to bolster his defense with facts. He's been rather short on that so far.

Actually, I think they are not just usefull but necessary.

You simply can't dismiss a positive test for something like this. We're talking about an excuse that is impossible to prove. Nothing he can provide can prove that he ate meat that was contaminated. The meat is gone. We can't show it was contaminated. We can't even prove he ate it. It's simply not possible to prove that was the definitive source of the positive test... the best that can be proven is that it's a POSSIBLE source.

Be honest... if that's the level that the UCI is going to accept to get out of a positive test... then wouldn't absurd arguments meat that criteria? Sure, I can't prove that I ate contaminated meat... but you can't prove that I didn't.

Similarly, I can't prove that a stranger slipped me steroid cream instead of my normal lotion. But you can't prove that I didn't. Maybe my EPO test came from a contaminated B12 shot? Or maybe the needle for the tatoo I got was contaminated with a masking agent?

All of these are possible. Stupid? Perhaps, but still feasible. The problem is that any explanation Contador has simply isnt capable of proving anything more then a POTENTIAL alternative cause of the positive test... and absurd explanations carry the same level of proof... simply a potential (though silly) alternative.



The facts in this really seem to end up being very simple. He tested positive. He agrees that the test was positive. He can't prove he tested positive by accident, all he can do is provide a possible way he might have tested positive by accident.

Based on that... he's got to be suspended. His excuse is no better then someone saying that someone might have snuck into their room and drugged them. It's got exactly the same amount of evidence for the theory.

 

[Squares]

even calling this a positive test is just foolish. the fact that there IS an EU limit to clen in meat and the low levels in his pee and more than enough to cast doubt on the positive.

The new way to dope has just been approved. Inject your meat with clenbuterol, steroids, and amphetamines. Make sure you only eat a part of it and archive the rest for later testing.

Then, when you test positive, all you have to do is produce a receipt and a piece of contaminated meat and you are off scot free, even though you were doped to the gills.

 

[kurtinsc]

Not at all... testing "postive" that is a result of a contaminated food chain is nowhere near the same as testing positive for epo.



how many cows in the region have to show higher then normal clen values? one? 10% 25% 50% all of them? even if all the cows showed higher values and a receipt for beef; it still wouldn't be enough for people here

Again... it's not proof, it's theory.

The only fact in relation to Contador's test is that he did test positive.

He can't PROVE he tested positive through food... he can only try to cast doubt that the positive was due to doping. He can't prove he ate the meat. he can't prove the meat was contaminated. All he's doing is creating a possible alternative.

That's not enough to overturn a positive drug test. Otherwise every stupid story a cyclist has told for a reason for a failed test would have to be equally accepted. It doesn't matter how silly the theory put forth is... as long as it's possible.

 

[HoustonHammer]

He DOESN'T DISPUTE THE POSITIVE TEST.

There is no doubt. The rider agrees it was positive. Everyone agrees. There was a positive test.

Contador is simply stating it didnt' result from doping, but rather contaminated meat.


That's fine. It may even be true. But it doesn't matter, because once you accept that excuse, then "accidentally" doping becomes okay. All manner of excuses for positives will be made, and Contador getting off will be justification.

"Well yeah, I tested positive for elephant steroids... but someone injected me in my sleep. You let Contador off because he ate contaminated meat, you have to let me off too."

All of this doesn't matter. All that matters is that he tested positive and is not disputing the test at all. He HAS to be punished, or else the entire testing program is invalidated and EVERYONE will have an excuse for their test... and get off because of the precedent.

Lots of people probably will agree with your opinion, but that's not how the anti-doping code is written. The codes says that if you give a sample containing a prohibited substance, you have engaged in doping. There's no wiggle room for intent; it's a strict liability standard. BUT, the code also says that in the next phase, which is determining your penalty, if you can prove that the doping was unintentional, your punishment can be reduced or even waived.

For probably the exact reasons you express, the bar for proving the absence of intent is very high. I'm VERY skeptical about AC's story and I hope it's all very carefully scrutinized (esp. looking at the plasticizers) by the UCI/WADA or whoever, but I don't think anybody should want the guy punished if it really was an accident.

 

[hektoren]

Couldn't help it!

 

[nicholaaaas]

Again... it's not proof, it's theory.

The only fact in relation to Contador's test is that he did test positive.

He can't PROVE he tested positive through food... he can only try to cast doubt that the positive was due to doping. He can't prove he ate the meat. he can't prove the meat was contaminated. All he's doing is creating a possible alternative.

That's not enough to overturn a positive drug test. Otherwise every stupid story a cyclist has told for a reason for a failed test would have to be equally accepted. It doesn't matter how silly the theory put forth is... as long as it's possible.

to a flawed test. once again there IS an allowable amount of clen in meat. if the test itself is flawed how can you punish him? i'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt. i dont think it's up to him to prove anything. i think it's up to the labs and the wada to prove that contamination can't result in false positives. maybe their testing methods need another round of peer review

 

[ChrisE]

Lots of people probably will agree with your opinion, but that's not how the anti-doping code is written. The codes says that if you give a sample containing a prohibited substance, you have engaged in doping. There's no wiggle room for intent; it's a strict liability standard. BUT, the code also says that in the next phase, which is determining your penalty, if you can prove that the doping was unintentional, your punishment can be reduced or even waived.

For probably the exact reasons you express, the bar for proving the absence of intent is very high. I'm VERY skeptical about AC's story and I hope it's all very carefully scrutinized (esp. looking at the plasticizers) by the UCI/WADA or whoever, but I don't think anybody should want the guy punished if it really was an accident.

His point is how do you prove the bolded? Having a receipt from a shop in Spain means nothing. Somebody coming up with some tainted meat from that same shop, 3 months after the fact, means nothing. The only way IMO would be for him to have a sample of the exact meat he ate, with proof, and have it tested positive for clen. That is not gonna happen, so he's got to be suspended.

A better way would be to have thresholds for suspension, instead of absolutes based upon the smallest of amounts. And, different testing abilities of each lab. It is ridiculous he gets suspended, but the rider who was tested in another lab with as much or more clen in their system doesn't.

Anyway, this whole thing doesn't pass the smell test. As some have said, it makes zero sense that he would load up on steak at that time, brought from Spain from an associate. To many random things going on here.

Finally, we should congratulate CN on it's hard hitting stenograph.., errrr, journalism on this subject. We have learned AC's brother says he is innocent (totally irrelevant story), the chef says he has the receipt in one story, then the next says he gave it to Astana. No questioning why the change of story. Astana hasn't been asked for comment, which would seem to be the logical thing to do prior to publishing the story from the chef.

I look forward to the late breaking stories from other AC family members and ex unrepentent dopers like the Chicken. I wonder what they will say?