WADA reconsidering Clenbuterol levels

[Granville57]

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

Perhaps for winning too much.
Bang bang!

Caffeine and ephedrine were taken off the list because the performance enhancing effects were not deemed to be enough to continue the ban.

I found it hard to believe that ephedrine was taking off the list. When I checked the WADA site, I couldn't find it specifically mentioned one way or the other.

But I found this on the UCI site:
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getObject.asp?MenuId=MjI0NQ&ObjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=MzQxNzI&LangId=1

The World Anti-Doping Code
THE 2011 PROHIBITED LIST
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD

S6. STIMULANTS
All stimulants (including both optical isomers where relevant) are prohibited, except imidazole derivatives for topical use and those stimulants included in the 2011 Monitoring Program*.
Stimulants include:
<snip>
b: Specified Stimulants (examples):
Adrenaline**; cathine***; ephedrine****; <snip>pseudoephedrine*****; ...and other substances with a similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s).

Note: The asterisks above are part of the original document and not the result of CN forum filters.

Can anyone elaborate more on this?

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

I found it hard to believe that ephedrine was taking off the list. When I checked the WADA site, I couldn't find it specifically mentioned one way or the other.

I accepted that ephedrine had been taken off the list as Dr. Maserati said it was and assumed that it must have been taken off the list for the same reason that caffeine was. You know what they say about assumptions.

 

[D-Queued]

...

I found it hard to believe that ephedrine was taking off the list. When I checked the WADA site, I couldn't find it specifically mentioned one way or the other.

But I found this on the UCI site:
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getObject.asp?MenuId=MjI0NQ&ObjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=MzQxNzI&LangId=1

...

Can anyone elaborate more on this?

Yes.

Ephedrine now has a limit/threshold.

Dave.

 

[python]

we already know that opinions like terminator's are not to be taken seriously.

he discredited himself too many times. first by pretending to be a wada insider he was posting here (the evidence is still there) that wada is definately appealing the ovcharov's case. now, that wada explicitly said they wont, he somehow knows wada is out of money, that's why. . misinterpreting the word 'unprecedented', is just one more indication. 'unprecedented', clueless, means it was the first clen complete acquittal.

 

[inri2000]

Yes, RFEC "process could well have been credible" if they didn't make public that they were thinking about going for a 1 year but after Contador and others thought that a little unfair they decided he would be acquitted.

You are mistaken, the 1 year "ruling" that was leaked by the press was in actuallity a proposal from the prosecution. Please get your facts straight, even when they don't suit your obvious agenda.

 

[ChrisE]

You are mistaken, the 1 year "ruling" that was leaked by the press was in actuallity a proposal from the prosecution. Please get your facts straight, even when they don't suit your obvious agenda.

WTH are you talking about "leaked by the press"? It was leaked to the press. I wonder by who?

Who is the "prosecution"?

 

[ChrisE]

Whether it can be done successfully is to be debated, but Contador can certainly sue.

You can keep believing it means nothing if WADA changes the threshold, but it's actually quite significant. It would be an acknowledgement that the previous standard of zero was overly stringent and did not acknowledge the possibility of food contamination and the difficulty of placing the burden of proof on the accused.

The speeding ticket analogy is inaccurate. Just because an analogy sounds good doesn't mean it has any relevance to this issue. WADA would be effectively saying that Contador's results are within the margin of error and the previous standard was wrong.

I know some of you want to crucify the guy, but get a little perspective here. If he's a doper, he should serve his ban. But don't just ban the guy for a test result based on a threshold that will be changed because the previous one was just based on laziness.

Totally agree. I always thought WADA would win the appeal for the reasons doc and terminator are touting but I think the gig is up. Like I said upthread these entities don't operate in a vacuum. Something is up.

 

[inri2000]

WTH are you talking about "leaked by the press"? It was leaked to the press. I wonder by who?

Who is the "prosecution"?

Your first point is pedantic, secondly in any legal case or hearing, there is a prosecution, a defense, and a ruling party.

 

[TERMINATOR]

Whether it can be done successfully is to be debated, but Contador can certainly sue.

What kind of smart-*** rebuttal is that? You clearly meant he could file a lawsuit that has a great chance of prevailing. MEMO to you: Not a single athlete has successfully sued WADA since its inception in 2000. What does that FACT tell you?

So you might want to stop with you nonsense. So no, Contador can't sue WADA. And if he does, it will be thrown out, just like Hondo's suit, Kashechkin's lawsuit, Valverde's stupid lawsuit, etc..

You're just as dumb as the cyclists who sue because you guys apparently don't know that suing WADA is nothing more than an attorney's scam just to collect another $300,000 in legal fees from their unwitting client.

Anybody who sues WADA is buying ocean-front property in Kansas.

 

[TERMINATOR]

we already know that opinions like terminator's are not to be taken seriously.

he discredited himself too many times. first by pretending to be a wada insider he was posting here (the evidence is still there) that wada is definately appealing the ovcharov's case. now, that wada explicitly said they wont, he somehow knows wada is out of money, that's why. . misinterpreting the word 'unprecedented', is just one more indication. 'unprecedented', clueless, means it was the first clen complete acquittal.

I never said WADA was out of money, you poser. I said WADA doesn't sue in every case it disagrees with. It generally only files appeals when the stakes are high. Otherwise they'd be filing dozens of appeals every month and they'd be unable to devote the necessary time and money to fight the real cases (i.e. Contador, Landis, Hamilton, etc) that involve serious money and are high profile (i.e. Tour de France win).

When Contador is suspended for 2 years by CAS, then we'll see who the pretender is.

 

[python]

yuo were harking the same karp too many times, pretender.

 

[TERMINATOR]

we already know that opinions like terminator's are not to be taken seriously.

he discredited himself too many times. first by pretending to be a wada insider he was posting here (the evidence is still there) that wada is definately appealing the ovcharov's case. now, that wada explicitly said they wont, he somehow knows wada is out of money, that's why. . misinterpreting the word 'unprecedented', is just one more indication. 'unprecedented', clueless, means it was the first clen complete acquittal.

WADA never appealed the ping pong case. They filed a notice to appeal which is not the same thing in order to preserve their right to appeal, which is standard practice. The case was never decided by CAS.

WADA probably dropped the case because they wanted to devote their resources, time, and effort, into the Contador case. And the facts of Ovtcharov’s case were different than Contador's, so they put their money with the stronger case. it's simple legal triaging of resources. WADA will get more bang for the buck with an appeal against Contador than some silly ping pong player who won $3,000 or whatever the heck it is they win.

What exactly are you accusing me of?

 

[ChrisE]

Your first point is pedantic, secondly in any legal case or hearing, there is a prosecution, a defense, and a ruling party.

The 1 year got floated by somebody and was the initial ban by RFEC until an AC appeal. The RFEC was to determine the punishment for AC, but AC provided "evidence" in his appeal after their initial ruling to where they declined to punish him. WADA/UCI appealed to CAS to enforce the 2 year ban. So if they were the "prosecution" then what is up with your claim they wanted the 1 year?

Seriously, I am unclear about the protocol when national orgs are presented with a case for punishment. I don't recall reading about UCI or WADA arguing a case in person in front of RFEC....

 

[theswordsman]

You are mistaken, the 1 year "ruling" that was leaked by the press was in actuallity a proposal from the prosecution. Please get your facts straight, even when they don't suit your obvious agenda.

Absolutely. Only Contador and people he told were to know the proposal, with ten days to respond. Thanks to the type of leak that people seem to love, he was actually notified by a journalist at training camp before the RFEC could even get to him. The committee always said that he was innocent, and the one year was what they've read is done under Strict Liability - innocent people get banned a year because WADA is all-powerful. Contador's legal team pointed out that in the 600 pages of documents were a couple of articles that allowed for no punishment to the innocent. It had nothing to do with what politicians said.

Five picograms of clenbuterol isn't performance enhancing, and never was doping. But there's so much negative sentiment against pro cycling as a sport, and against Spanish &successful) athletes, that it's been allowed to continue. I was so excited when the story of the Mexican soccer players came out, because the world cares about soccer, and I haven't seen one article from WADA, or other players or team managers, throwing these guys under the bus.

You've got five guys from different clubs, including one that just flew in the day of the meal, and all five tested positive at once, in a test made by the Federation. I'm not posting dozens of links here, but on my twitter account I've linked to stories that are coming out from professors and Presidents of Livestock organizations. One visited seven slaughterhouses, and 74% of the meat had clenbuterol. Another said that half of the meat consumed in his whole state contains Clenbuterol.

China has a similar problem, and those two countries together have 21% of the world population. That's not taking into account South America or Vietnam or other places where the substance is widely used. To refuse to have a minimum threshold for the substance was hubris. And I doubt that any of you would care to live in a situation where you get half punishment for innocence.

The Mexicans are being totally transparent about the whole process. Two players had their B tests opened Tuesday, two more will happen today, and one Thursday. The authorities flew them to Los Angeles Friday so there could be additional tests, and those came back negative. The B Sample results will come out between next Wednesday and Friday. Various organizations were already communicating and coordinating last week so this whole thing can be wrapped up this week. The five players have Jean-Louis Dupont, one of Contador's lawyers, and the guy who brought free agency to soccer via a CAS ruling. WADA isn't messing around with these people, because they won't stand for nonsense. The Disciplinary Committee is already writing the defense in case WADA insists to FIFA that there's punishment. The only thing I haven't seen yet is the amounts, but the word picograms appeared once.

If WADA lets the soccer players go, they have no leg to stand on with Contador. It was their delay issuing the positive that kept Contador from gathering the same type of evidence the High Performance Center is. If they try to take those five guys to CAS at the same time they've publicly admitted they might change the rule, they deserve the s___ storm that will rain down on their heads.

If WADA does make the proposal, and it won't be voted on until September, it's an excellent reason to postpone the CAS hearing. For WADA to argue that a guy should lose two years of his career, millions ofEuros, and at least two grand tour victories, for something they (long overdue) don't consider a violation, has to fail.

Ideally, the soccer situation is settled before the Tour as planned. WADA decides at their meeting next week that clenbuterol contamination is a widespread problem, and as more labs get more precise at testing, they'll have positives popping up everywhere. To go on with the Contador appeal after letting other guys go, and recognizing that a threshold should exist, would just be vindictive. Let them and the UCI both drop the appeal before July 2, and some of us can enjoy the Tour, and people who still think Contador shouldn't race can have their motives questioned. Peace out.

 

[ChrisE]

I like this terminator guy lol, even though I am skeptical AC will lose on appeal with this new turn as opposed to terminator's argument.

Keep up the good work! Your posts are hillarious. I especially like the way you jam with the final insult in your last sentence.

 

[python]

there is nothing to accuse you other than being wrong every time you show up with black and white opinions that you know something because you an insider.

there is plenty of evidence. you chided people in several posts that ovcharov case is definitely appealed by wada, you went into long tutorials why, when the events proved you wrong, you sing different karp. so was with your other, karp like you were clueless that athletes pay for their b-sample test, yet you accused people of your own ignorance. i can recalll other cases too, like ignorance of blood doping techniques, yet, yelling at posters for lack of own knowledge.

discredited pretender, term

 

[hrotha]

Five picograms of clenbuterol isn't performance enhancing, and never was doping.

How many times are you going to repeat this nonsense in every thread just to then ignore the rebuttals and say it again?

 

[ultimobici]

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.

Not really.

It's like a guy getting stopped for speeding on the motorway, getting banned & then the appeals process dragging on for 10 months. Meanwhile the speed limit on motorways nationally is raised to a level that would not have triggered a ban. At the time of the offence he was breaking the law. Full stop.

 

[rata de sentina]

Not really.

It's like a guy getting stopped for speeding on the motorway, getting banned & then the appeals process dragging on for 10 months. Meanwhile the speed limit on motorways nationally is raised to a level that would not have triggered a ban. At the time of the offence he was breaking the law. Full stop.

Err no it's not like that at all. The analogy is so on the nose people are overcome by fumes just reading it. It's convenient (they always are) but not relevant. It's dead in the water, leaking like a sieve, holed below the water line, listing 45 degrees to port. I think I've made my point.

Maybe not...BTW the AC situation is nothing like that at all, in no way shape of form does it bear resemblance to your scenario. Wrong in so many ways that listing them is pointless not withstanding that it's been raised before and was sunk with all hands then too.

 

[Aguirre]

anyone believes Contador getting a ban, losing 2 Tdf (probably) and a Giro and then WADA changes the clen thresolds???????

those are great news for Contador.

I'm vey happy to hear this sorry haters

 

[ultimobici]

Err no it's not like that at all. The analogy is so on the nose people are overcome by fumes just reading it. It's convenient (they always are) but not relevant. It's dead in the water, leaking like a sieve, holed below the water line, listing 45 degrees to port. I think I've made my point.

Maybe not...BTW the AC situation is nothing like that at all, in no way shape of form does it bear resemblance to your scenario. Wrong in so many ways that listing them is pointless not withstanding that it's been raised before and was sunk with all hands then too.

WOW!

It is exactly like that.

In the UK the law on speeding is that if you are 30mph over the limit you are automatically banned for a year.

So if you are clocked at 101mph on the motorway you're banned. However there has been talk of the speed limit being raised to 80. So then the 101mph guy would not be liable for an automatic ban.

If he was caught on 21 July 2010 and the process was appealed so it dragged on until the law was reconsidered it doesn't change the fact that at the time of the original offence he was +30mph over. As such he is still in line to get the mandatory ban. Get it?

As far as Contador's situation is concerned, I think that it is going to be very difficult to have a satisfactory outcome whichever way it goes due to the catalogue of ridiculous hold-ups we've seen along the way. McQuaid's attempt to "make it go away", RCEF's heel-dragging & the Spanish PM's "intervention/interference".

 

[Cimber]

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.

Nevertheless it will be in the back of the judge's mind that this change might due. And if u add that Contador is the biggest name in cycling and that they would have to strip him of 1 giro and possible 2 tour titles if found guilty this very much smells of an aquitance imho. In any case this news does boost Contador's case, even if just on a psychological level.

 

[Paco_P]

WOW!

It is exactly like that.

In the UK the law on speeding is that if you are 30mph over the limit you are automatically banned for a year.

So if you are clocked at 101mph on the motorway you're banned. However there has been talk of the speed limit being raised to 80. So then the 101mph guy would not be liable for an automatic ban.

If he was caught on 21 July 2010 and the process was appealed so it dragged on until the law was reconsidered it doesn't change the fact that at the time of the original offence he was +30mph over. As such he is still in line to get the mandatory ban. Get it?

As far as Contador's situation is concerned, I think that it is going to be very difficult to have a satisfactory outcome whichever way it goes due to the catalogue of ridiculous hold-ups we've seen along the way. McQuaid's attempt to "make it go away", RCEF's heel-dragging & the Spanish PM's "intervention/interference".

A few points:

1. WADA is not the English government.
2. If I get pulled over in England doing 250kmh, I get my license revoked. If (**** censored by court order ****) gets pulled over in England doing 250kmh, he signs an autograph. The situation with Contador is more like the situation with (**** censored by court order ****).
3. No sporting authority would change the rules so that 100 picos of X is not considered a violation, and then two months later apply the old rules to suspend an athlete for 50 picos of X. Nor would it make sense for them to do so.
4. Allowing Contador to participate in the tour is a strong signal that he will not be banned.

 

[gillan1969]

point taken about WADA not being english but.....

Cala Homes (large developer) have recentley lost a Court of Appeal judgement on Government Guidance which at some pojnt in the future will be legislation. The Courts ruled it could be a material consideation in any planning decisions. Obviously the weight it should be afforded will increase the closer it gets to being extant legislation.

WADA may take this approach and attach some weight to the probable future direction of their policy towards Clen

and hence...on balance... bertie gets off

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

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/

The article I read talked about context not amount (although setting a threshold was mentioned), which I took to be about dealing with athletes from states where there are issues with clen being used in meat production.

As far as I can tell, any such rules wouldn't come into effect until 2013.

Needless to say dertie's fanboys will no doubt be spinning as hard as the Hamilton and Landis fanboys were before their appeals.