WADA reconsidering Clenbuterol levels

[Moose McKnuckles]

Apparently, WADA will meet next week to discuss fixing a level for clenbuterol over which excuses are invalid.

I would assume that this will have significant implications for Alberto's case and may clear him before the Tour.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20110614/cyc-wada-clenbuterol/

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

Apparently, WADA will meet next week to discuss fixing a level for clenbuterol over which excuses are invalid.

I would assume that this will have significant implications for Alberto's case and may clear him before the Tour.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20110614/cyc-wada-clenbuterol/

WADA should have done this a long time ago. There has to be a limit on something that an athlete can ingest from regular food in various parts of the world. Who wants to get banned for two years for eating a burrito from the wrong taco stand?

 

[hrotha]

Any level they choose would be completely arbitrary. There's actually been cases of normal people with clen poisoning, for which you need a lot more clen than the amounts that have been found in any athlete's samples. If they do this, it'll be all for show and they might as well remove clenbuterol from the banned substances list.

 

[python]

the way the text reads, it looks like a meeting between the technical people, not the policy makers, from the various wada labs. there is a well known divergence of opinions there.

the surge and of sudden acquittals by the several national feds and the 1st unprecedented wada refusal to appeal to cas ovcharov's clen case, make for the news i predicted many months ago.

howman is on record that wada will not consider any changes to clenbuterol regulations before the cas ruling on contador.

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

howman is on record that wada will not consider any changes to clenbuterol regulations before the cas ruling on contador.

I do not understand the reasoning there. What happens if Contador is banned, the rules are changed so that Contador's positive would not be a positive, and Contador sues in Swiss court? Contador's lawyers could use WADA's own people to explain why Contador's test results should not be used for sanctioning.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I do not understand the reasoning there. What happens if Contador is banned, the rules are changed so that Contador's positive would not be a positive, and Contador sues in Swiss court? Contador's lawyers could use WADA's own people to explain why Contador's test results should not be used for sanctioning.

Contador appeal is being held on the current rules.
Unless they include retro justification (highly unlikely) then any new rule has no bearing on AC.

As Python has pointed out this is only a preliminary meeting to discuss the issue - which has a lot of different opinions.
But even if a value was agreed any new rule would not come in to force until the WADA code is updated.

 

[VeloGirl]

Yahoo Sports has the article as well...

"“That could be one of their recommendations,” Rabin said. “You may say there is a value above which we know it’s doping. There may be a value under which we would say you need further investigation, so it could be classified as an atypical finding. Or it could be classified as a typical finding which means it’s a result that deserves further consideration in a certain context, including previous results from the athlete or future results from the athlete.”"

Also of interest:
"Rabin noted that there are 120 different types of EPO now, compared to just a handful a decade ago."

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

Contador appeal is being held on the current rules.
Unless they include retro justification (highly unlikely) then any new rule has no bearing on AC.

As Python has pointed out this is only a preliminary meeting to discuss the issue - which has a lot of different opinions.
But even if a value was agreed any new rule would not come in to force until the WADA code is updated.

As I understand it Contador can still sue in Swiss court. WADA's own lab people could be forced to explain why the "no limit policy" should not be used to sanction people.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

As I understand it Contador can still sue in Swiss court. WADA's own lab people could be forced to explain why the "no limit policy" should not be used to sanction people.

Sue for what?
Firstly - you are talking about a new rule that does not exist.

Even if it was agreed and came in to force today it has no bearing on AC. There is a current rule in place - that is the rule he was heard on, and now appealed on.

 

[Lanark]

Wouldn't there be some time limit on how long you can appeal a CAS decision in a Swiss court? I doubt there will be any WADA-rule change before that.

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

Sue for what?
Firstly - you are talking about a new rule that does not exist.

Even if it was agreed and came in to force today it has no bearing on AC. There is a current rule in place - that is the rule he was heard on, and now appealed on.

As I understand it if an athlete loses his CAS appeal then he has recourse in Swiss courts. I cannot think of anyone who has tried it, but who has been in a position to say that his livelihood was taken away for trace amounts of a drug that WADA's own lab people now say is too low to use for sanctioning purposes? This is hypothetical, but why should WADA wait for such a thing to happen? If there needs to be a limit then there needs to be a limit. WADA should impose one as immediately as possible instead of waiting for Contador's legal team to damage WADA's credibility.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

As I understand it if an athlete loses his CAS appeal then he has recourse in Swiss courts. I cannot think of anyone who has tried it, but who has been in a position to say that his livelihood was taken away for trace amounts of a drug that WADA's own lab people now say is too low to use for sanctioning purposes? This is hypothetical, but why should WADA wait for such a thing to happen? If there needs to be a limit then there needs to be a limit. WADA should impose one as immediately as possible instead of waiting for Contador's legal team to damage WADA's credibility.

Yes an athlete can appeal to the Swiss Courts.

But again you are on about a hypothetical on a new rule that does not exist and unless it is put in place to be applied retroactively (highly unlikely).

Caffeine has been on and off the banned list - as has (IIRC) ephedrine, no-one who was caught managed to have their conviction overturned.

WADA cannot implement any decision immediately - they have a process in place of how they consider substances and it must be voted in 2/3 by the WADA foundation members before they can change the Code.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

Contador appeal is being held on the current rules.
Unless they include retro justification (highly unlikely) then any new rule has no bearing on AC.

That's just plain silly. You can't ban a guy, then a month later change the rules so he wouldn't have been banned under the new rules.

All this suggests to me that Contador isn't going to be banned, at least not for clenbuterol. His levels were low and WADA would likely set any boundary ABOVE that level. If he's banned and the rules are changed, he will sue and justifiably so.

There is no way they can adjust the threshold above Contador's level and ban him at the same time. That would be an absolute travesty.

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

Caffeine has been on and off the banned list - as has (IIRC) ephedrine, no-one who was caught managed to have their conviction overturned.

Caffeine and ephedrine were taken off the list because the performance enhancing effects were not deemed to be enough to continue the ban. That is different from a minimum limit being imposed because athletes through no fault of their own have tested positive from contamination of food. In fact caffeine had a minimum limit that was high enough to allow people to consume everyday products that contain caffeine.

 

[sniper]

That's just plain silly. You can't ban a guy, then a month later change the rules so he wouldn't have been banned under the new rules.

All this suggests to me that Contador isn't going to be banned, at least not for clenbuterol. His levels were low and WADA would likely set any boundary ABOVE that level. If he's banned and the rules are changed, he will sue and justifiably so.

There is no way they can adjust the threshold above Contador's level and ban him at the same time. That would be an absolute travesty.

What if they impose threshholds with geographic correlates?

e.g. if the meat came from location/region X, then impose threshhold X'
if the meat came from Y, threshhold Y'.

Hypothetically: if the meat came from Spain: no threshhold.

 

[hfer07]

“That could be one of their recommendations,” Rabin said. “You may say there is a value above which we know it’s doping. There may be a value under which we would say you need further investigation, so it could be classified as an atypical finding. Or it could be classified as a typical finding which means it’s a result that deserves further consideration in a certain context, including previous results from the athlete or future results from the athlete.”"

the main principle here is at which level/amount of the substance it becomes performance enhancing-the rest is irrelevant- that's why the current threshold must be revised.

Also of interest:
"Rabin noted that there are 120 different types of EPO now, compared to just a handful a decade ago."

..and hopefully WADA and all the antidoping agencies & labs have in place tests to detect them all, right?

 

[hrotha]

the main principle here is at which level/amount of the substance it becomes performance enhancing-the rest is irrelevant- that's why the current threshold must be revised.

We're talking about a substance that's quickly eliminated by the organism. That approach wouldn't work.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That's just plain silly. You can't ban a guy, then a month later change the rules so he wouldn't have been banned under the new rules.

All this suggests to me that Contador isn't going to be banned, at least not for clenbuterol. His levels were low and WADA would likely set any boundary ABOVE that level. If he's banned and the rules are changed, he will sue and justifiably so.

There is no way they can adjust the threshold above Contador's level and ban him at the same time. That would be an absolute travesty.

Sorry Moose - but thats silly.
I have already explained ther is NO decsion due on Clenbuterol any time soon.
The nerds have called a meeting to discuss it - even if they can come up with an agreement then it has to go to WADA to be voted on.

Contador appeal is being heard on the rules that applied when he went positive (the same rules as now).
No court or CAS can possibly apply rules that may or may not come about.

 

[python]

Wouldn't there be some time limit on how long you can appeal a CAS decision in a Swiss court?

i'm sure there is but it matters little in this particular case.

the swiss supreme court, historically and by it's own charter, will NOT automatically review all cas appeals. they simply reject the majority of cas appeals.

the swiss supreme court typically will deal ONLY with those cases that are considered by them (interpreted very broadly) in the realm of human/employee rights as understood by the swiss law.

I doubt there will be any WADA-rule change before that.

you are absolutely correct.

we only need to review the way wada does its business, as dr m has repeatedly pointed out.

wada is the world-wide body with 100+ members. it's slow and inefficient by definition... they look at the feedback from all 35 wada labs first (many of which are 100+ fold different in terms of being able to detect clen)

as i pointed out before, there is no one uniform opinion there... ayotte of canada is the principal opponent of introducing the threshold (and so, i'm told, are the french and the belgian scientists..and several others).

otoh, big influential wigs like catlin, wilhelm schänzer, saugy etc are very vocal for a change.

 

[ManInFull]

That's just plain silly. You can't ban a guy, then a month later change the rules so he wouldn't have been banned under the new rules.

All this suggests to me that Contador isn't going to be banned, at least not for clenbuterol. His levels were low and WADA would likely set any boundary ABOVE that level. If he's banned and the rules are changed, he will sue and justifiably so.

There is no way they can adjust the threshold above Contador's level and ban him at the same time. That would be an absolute travesty.

He is going to get banned for something. Bet on it.

 

[Publicus]

Sue for what?
Firstly - you are talking about a new rule that does not exist.

Even if it was agreed and came in to force today it has no bearing on AC. There is a current rule in place - that is the rule he was heard on, and now appealed on.

While I think you are, strictly legally speaking, if the lab directors were to recommend that a threshold be established then I think it would have bearing on the case. Think of it like the rumored plasticizer test/result. If WADA can introduce that as circumstantial evidence, why wouldn't AC's legal team be allowed to bring in one or more of the lab directors to testify as to their recommendation? I presume CAS sits in both law and equity, and I would say the equitable result would be to consider that information, without appropriate weight, when considering the matter. If CAS does not sit in equity, then it would fall to WADA to do the right thing in that instance and pull their appeal unless they have iron clad evidence to establish that the clen was introduced through illegal methods (i.e., blood transfusion, etc.).

My $0.01 opinion.

 

[ozerulz]

>>He is going to get banned for something. Bet on it.<<

Nope. TPTB are desperate to try and get to a point where they can present a clean sport to the public. why I don't know but obviously they are. This little tidbit about clenbuterol means he's off scott free. tisk tisk albie. don't do it again.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

While I think you are, strictly legally speaking, if the lab directors were to recommend that a threshold be established then I think it would have bearing on the case. Think of it like the rumored plasticizer test/result. If WADA can introduce that as circumstantial evidence, why wouldn't AC's legal team be allowed to bring in one or more of the lab directors to testify as to their recommendation? I presume CAS sits in both law and equity, and I would say the equitable result would be to consider that information, without appropriate weight, when considering the matter. If CAS does not sit in equity, then it would fall to WADA to do the right thing in that instance and pull their appeal unless they have iron clad evidence to establish that the clen was introduced through illegal methods (i.e., blood transfusion, etc.).

My $0.01 opinion.

I do think of it "like the rumored plasticizer test/result" - in that it is completely irrelevant to the Contador case.

Contador was caught for Clen - there is no threshold for that when he was caught. They are the agreed rules that he signed up to and was sanctioned for. The only thing up for debate with AC & CAS is can he show there was 'no fault or negligence' in his actions.

 

[ChrisE]

You guys think that CAS is in some bubble with no contact with anybody? I don't think it is random that putting a threshold is being discussed. I smell something, and it's not my upper lip.

 

[Merckx index]

If they do decide to institute such a rule (and as Python notes, there is substantial opposition to it within WADA; it will only result from a lot of heated debate), it will probably be a level higher than Bert’s, based on the fact that several athletes with higher levels have had their contaminated meat stories accepted. But remember it is proposed only as a level above which no such excuses would be accepted. The converse, that any concentration below that level would be considered not doping, is apparently not on the table here. Which IMO is a good idea, because it recognizes the obvious fact that any concentration, no matter how low, could in principle result from doping.

In this case, it wouldn't necessarily help Bert that much. In fact, all it would do, really, is justify his having any case at all. It would imply that he wasn't automatically suspended, without any recourse to the particular facts of his situation. But that is already where he stands, anyway. He isn't disputing that he tested positive, so he would have no basis at all for his case if there weren't already a de facto level of CB which could be considered resulting from contamination.

The more important question as I see it is whether this kind of level could be fair, or whether it could wrongly convict a rider. As someone noted here, it's possible to register very high levels of CB from eating contaminated meat, much higher than Bert's. But this is extremely rare, even in countries where there is no meat inspection. A study I discussed on an earlier thread, in which meat bought on the street in Mexico was tested, found that about 85% of the samples had CB at levels above the EU standard (0.1 ug/kg). OTOH, most of the samples, about 90%, had less than 2 ug CB/kg.This is 20x the EU standard, but one would probably have to eat at least 200 g, almost half a pound, to get Bert’s level.

The highest level detected in this study was 6 ug/kg. If you ate a large helping of this meat, say, 300 g, you would ingest nearly 2 ug of CB, and your peak urine level would probably be on the order of 200 - 500 pg/ml. So a limit set around there would very unlikely be exceeded by someone through eating contaminated meat.

In food poisoning epidemics, much higher levels have been recorded, as much as 1-1.5 mg/kg. But these incidents are fairly rare. As discussed previously, there are limits to how much CB you can give cattle without killing them (and probably limits to the effectiveness of the drug, also), and even ranchers that push these limits can let much of the CB clear before slaughter, without losing the benefits of the drug.

I do think, though, that any approach to CB should take into account whether the country that is the claimed source of the meat has inspections or not. And if not, WADA maybe will start advising athletes not to eat meat in these countries.