WADA reconsidering Clenbuterol levels

[dbrower]

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

We don't know what has been briefed or is going to be argued in the de-novo CAS review. If there were a plasticiser test, it could be brought in, if the arbiters allowed it, and they are very flexible about what they will allow in.

-dB

 

[blutto]

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.

...Bugno?...

Cheers

blutto

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

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.

As a coach I have already advised a client to avoid eating beef while in Mexico, or to be very sure of its source. I only recently learned of the extent of CB usage in cattle there.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

...Bugno?...

Cheers

blutto

Nope - Bugno served a 3 month suspension.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

We don't know what has been briefed or is going to be argued in the de-novo CAS review. If there were a plasticiser test, it could be brought in, if the arbiters allowed it, and they are very flexible about what they will allow in.

-dB

Its irrelevant.
Even if 'they' bring in the plasticiser they would have to show a connection to the clenbuterol. Its all about the Clenbuterol.

 

[Publicus]

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.

We don't disagree on the strict legal issues being considered. I simply do not believe that a recommendation from WADA's lab directors to establish a threshold will have zero bearing on the case. It undoubtedly will and frankly already is--simply the fact that they are publicly considering it will have an impact (the magnitude has yet to be determined).

 

[Berzin]

Some of you cats are so hell-bent on having Contador banned for a five billionth percentage of a substance that could have come from anywhere that you're losing your minds.

Contador isn't going to get banned for this. Get over yourselves already.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

We don't disagree on the strict legal issues being considered. I simply do not believe that a recommendation from WADA's lab directors to establish a threshold will have zero bearing on the case. It undoubtedly will and frankly already is--simply the fact that they are publicly considering it will have an impact (the magnitude has yet to be determined).

All that shows is that there is a (yet to be determined) possibility of Clen contamination through the food chain - which was already Contadors defense.

He is the one that has to show he had 'no (significant) fault or negligence' - so it changes nothing for him.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Some of you cats are so hell-bent on having Contador banned for a five billionth percentage of a substance that could have come from anywhere that you're losing your minds.

Contador isn't going to get banned for this. Get over yourselves already.

Ya - thats "five billionth percentage of a substance" with zero threshold.

 

[Publicus]

All that shows is that there is a (yet to be determined) possibility of Clen contamination through the food chain - which was already Contadors defense.

He is the one that has to show he had 'no (significant) fault or negligence' - so it changes nothing for him.

For the record, he's already done that. UCI/WADA are appealing that decision.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

For the record, he's already done that. UCI/WADA are appealing that decision.

No he hadn't - but the nice people at RFEC didn't really care.
Thats why UCI and WADA appealed the decision.

 

[Publicus]

No he hadn't - but the nice people at RFEC didn't really care.
Thats why UCI and WADA appealed the decision.

Okay Good Doctor. I think I understand now. Thanks for explaining.

 

[dbrower]

Its irrelevant.
Even if 'they' bring in the plasticiser they would have to show a connection to the clenbuterol. Its all about the Clenbuterol.

I used to think that way too. In reality, it seems like it's more about the "comfortable satisfaction" of the arbiters with a conclusion that this doper is guilty. There was no shortage of mud slung in the Landis cases (both directions), some valid, some invalid, some relevant, some not. Landis managed to misplace a summary of blood parameters until late in the game, but USADA was not shy in bringing them up in closing arguments. The business of the alternate B-sample testing was not previously contemplated by anyone.

If there is any chance the plasticizer point can be raised to increase satisfaction that Contador is a dirty doper, even for the wrong charge, it will be done. Whether it convinces is a different question.

-dB

 

[rata de sentina]

No he hadn't - but the nice people at RFEC didn't really care.
Thats why UCI and WADA appealed the decision.

That's really your value judgement regarding RFEC. Their process could well have been credible but the perception of bias is often sufficient. UCI and WADA are appealing for a number of reasons one of which is to get the ruling of an independant panel on this issue. Also they need to both maintain the integrity of the process and be seen to do so. We know there is a spectrum of opinion in WADA on this subject so the decsion making is not quite as clear cut and simple as your implied "RFEC are biase and we completely disagree so appeal"

 

[TERMINATOR]

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/

This will have ZERO effect on Contador's case. The rule doesn't even exist and even if it did, it isn't retroactive.

Contador is getting 2 years. Please get a clue.

 

[TERMINATOR]

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.

You sound like you believe Boonen's excuse that he tested positive for cocaine on two separate occasions because he was "around" people who used it.

You people are out to lunch.

 

[TERMINATOR]

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.

Ovcharov's case wasn't appealed because of economic reasons - WADA has a limited budget and must pick its fights carefully. It had nothing to do with the fact that WADA thinks he was innocent and agreed with the federation's decision. WADA doesn't appeal the small fish (your use of the word "unprecedented" is simply wrong as WADA declines to appeal dozens of cases every year that they disagree with) or where the use of clenbuterol had negligible performance gain to a particular sport (table tennis in the case of ocharov) .

In cycling for the Tour de France, it's a different ballgame. Clenbuterol has significant performance enhancing effect that directly translates into large financial gains whereas in ping pong, clen has very little effect even if the guy took it intentionally (does a ping pong player really need to lose that extra pound before the big match?)

You people really don't have a clue on why WADA does and doesn't appeal certain cases, do you? But I love how you talk like WADA's actions confirm what is really your misapprehension.

Sometimes I feel like I'm herding sheep in here.

 

[TERMINATOR]

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.

There's so many things wrong with your post I don't know where to begin. Contador cannot "sue" WADA. It's never been done successfully in 11 years and the Swiss Supreme Court has dismissed every case to date.

Please pay attention.

If WADA changes the clen threshold later on, it means nothing. ZERO. It's irrelevant. Contador was required to follow the rules from 2010. Doesn't matter if they increased the speed limit after you got your speeding ticket.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

That's really your value judgement regarding RFEC. Their process could well have been credible but the perception of bias is often sufficient. UCI and WADA are appealing for a number of reasons one of which is to get the ruling of an independant panel on this issue. Also they need to both maintain the integrity of the process and be seen to do so. We know there is a spectrum of opinion in WADA on this subject so the decsion making is not quite as clear cut and simple as your implied "RFEC are biase and we completely disagree so appeal"

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.

 

[rata de sentina]

This will have ZERO effect on Contador's case. The rule doesn't even exist and even if it did, it isn't retroactive.

Contador is getting 2 years. Please get a clue.

Maybe you should read the relevant WADA code and get a clue of your own.

 

[TERMINATOR]

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.

What idiotic logic. According to you, finding only small traces of EPO is perfectly fine because that's not performance enhancing. Ever hear of something called micro-dosing?

Second, detected levels are irrelevant because the time that the test was taken would likely not be at the maximum concentration within the body. According to your simpleton logic, the level detected by a test is ALWAYS the maximum amount. It's just the opposite...small traces detected by a test should always be interpreted to mean that the actual concentration was likely far great at some earlier point.

C'mon - think before you post, people.

 

[Moose McKnuckles]

There's so many things wrong with your post I don't know where to begin. Contador cannot "sue" WADA. It's never been done successfully in 11 years and the Swiss Supreme Court has dismissed every case to date.

Please pay attention.

If WADA changes the clen threshold later on, it means nothing. ZERO. It's irrelevant. Contador was required to follow the rules from 2010. Doesn't matter if they increased the speed limit after you got your speeding ticket.

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.

 

[katkotom]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/van-houts-rejoins-multivan-merida-team

 

[rhubroma]

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.

Well if they do come up with a new rule before his hearing that establishes a threshold level, how can we expect CAS won't take that into consideration (even if not stating so) and acquit him?

Or perhaps there's something in the air that suggests to WADA that Contador will get off the hook anyway, so it's better to reassess and invent a new reasoning before the slap in the face and the embarrassment comes.

 

[inri2000]

Well if they do come up with a new rule before his hearing that establishes a threshold level, how can we expect CAS won't take that into consideration (even if not stating so) and acquit him?

Or perhaps there's something in the air that suggests to WADA that Contador will get off the hook anyway, so it's better to reassess and invent a new reasoning before the slap in the face and the embarrassment comes.

I seriously fear the reactions of some people here when Contador gets acquited as expected. It's just a sport guys, he didn't kill anyone so please don't get too emotionally invested.