Contador Suspended

niceonetom

NickDrake wrote: »

The meat is a LEGAL defence only.

You're going to have to made the mantal leap that YOU are not the person that must be convinced. You obviously are convinced and probably have been for a long time, jedge jury, etc. Fair enough - you won't find many here arguing that Berto is/was clean.

What we're discussing is the case against him, and that's an interesting thing to discuss. Stamping your feet and demanding we all deem him guilty and end the discussion at that is, well, not interesting.

Try some nuance, you might like it.

RobFowl

Jawgap wrote: »

Yes - in agriculture Clenbuterol is known as Angel Dust.

and

No - In narcotics Angel Dust refers to PCP which as RobFowl pointed out is an NMDA receptor antagonist.

It's the same name but means different things in different contexts.......

actually I wonder what happens is you give PCP to a cow.......

Didn't know that !

Suppose if you gave "street" angle dust to a cow you'd have a case of mad cow disease...

(I'll get my coat)

cormpat

Jawgap wrote: »

actually I wonder what happens is you give PCP to a cow.......

Not sure, but it would either be like a bovine version of "Dude, where's my car?" or "Requiem for a dream".

cormpat

el tonto wrote: »

Why do you think it is impossible? There are documented cases of meat being contaminated with clenbuterol.

I'm a bit sketchy on the details but I remember one of the De Boar brothers & Edgar Davids eating contaminated meat & getting a couple of months ban.

Lumen

mitresize5 wrote: »

The steroid Clenbuterol is used as a weight-loss drug which builds muscle while burning fat. It is commonly given to horses to treat breathing problems.

Ah right then, it reduces fat. I imagine this would therefore not be the first choice of medication for any animal you intend to eat (e.g. cow) as you want those to be nice and fatty.

I don't know much about the French and their horse eating. Presumably the chef on the day in question would know what sort of meat he was cooking?

superrdave

nandrolone i think, and he got four months. quite a few dutch footballers tested positive for it in a very short space of time.

anyway, contador needs to get some steak off a butcher and have it tested for this stuff. if he finds loads of it contaminated a minimal levels, then bob may well be his cross-dressing, testicle equipped auntie.

mookie2007

NickDrake wrote: »

Ah lads. COME ON. Ye are hardly believing the meat defence.

How gullible are ye? Ye are hilarious

Totally agree El tonto.

People are so gullible if they believe this drivel.

There is no defence hes a doper full stop. His team & pr gurus will have concocted this defence as a deflection from Contador & the doping allegations. The bugger should stand up be a man admit it and take the punishment instead of dragging the sport through the mud for years again

ednwireland

press conference

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/9047960.stm

Jawgap

NickDrake wrote: »

Ah lads. COME ON. Ye are hardly believing the meat defence.

How gullible are ye? Ye are hilarious

Is it possible he ate contaminated meat and produced a positive for Clenbuterol? Yes - there are plenty of cases of that happening and plenty of data to support the suggestion that there meat gets produced that is contaminated with clenbuterol.

Plus, the meat that gets detected is done so using a method with a limit of detection of 2 ug/g - Contantador's sample is 40,000 less than that. Even allowing for the kinetics of the substance in the typical adult body (more mass, more fat) I think he could conceivably eat meat at 100-1000 times less than the regulatory limit and produce a positive.

I think it would be interesting to test beef using the method they've used for his sample and see what results we get back - I assume the rate of non-compliance would be significantly above its current level of about 0.6%!!

Howver, is it probable that this is what happened, well.........who knows? That's up to the UCI to decide.

fishfoodie

el tonto wrote: »

Why do you think it is impossible? There are documented cases of meat being contaminated with clenbuterol.

The question is, is it possible for the level of drug to be present in his system given what he's telling us ?

He may have painted himself into a bit of a corner. He says its contaminated meat, so how much would there have to have been for him to test clean the day before, eat a steak, metabolise the contamination over a rest day, & then test for the level of clenbuterol that he did ?

If the steak would have to have been 50% clenbuterol, for the numbers to work, then I think we can say he's full of it !

tunney

Lumen wrote: »

Ah right then, it reduces fat. I imagine this would therefore not be the first choice of medication for any animal you intend to eat (e.g. cow) as you want those to be nice and fatty.

I don't know much about the French and their horse eating. Presumably the chef on the day in question would know what sort of meat he was cooking?

Eh no.

You eat the muscle not the fat.

Chips Lovell

fishfoodie wrote: »

The question is, is it possible for the level of drug to be present in his system given what he's telling us ?

He may have painted himself into a bit of a corner. He says its contaminated meat, so how much would there have to have been for him to test clean the day before, eat a steak, metabolise the contamination over a rest day, & then test for the level of clenbuterol that he did ?

If the steak would have to have been 50% clenbuterol, for the numbers to work, then I think we can say he's full of it !

I agree. These are questions that need to be asked. Until we know the answer though, it remains on the table as a defence.

Lumen

tunney wrote: »

Eh no.

You eat the muscle not the fat.

Muscle contains fat (marbling).

niceonetom

mookie2007 wrote: »

Totally agree El tonto.

People are so gullible if they believe this drivel.

There is no defence hes a doper full stop. His team & pr gurus will have concocted this defence as a deflection from Contador & the doping allegations. The bugger should stand up be a man admit it and take the punishment instead of dragging the sport through the mud for years again

Absolutely. Only idiots need the details of a situation to form an opinion. Everyone knows that great minds form their opinions instantly and without recourse to "evidence" or "facts". Pah! Would Iraq be the thriving democracy it is today if we'd resorted to thinking with our brains? NO! We thought with our GUT, just like god intended. I need, at most, a couple of bullet-points on any situation and BAM! opinion formed, set in stone, and ready to rock!

Never examine the case! Never question your initial prejudices! Never be swayed by "experts" with their "credentials" or "experience"! Your first knee jerk reaction is ALWAYS right! Go with it! The greater the resistance it provokes the more right it is. Woo!

Chips Lovell

Clenbuterol was a big issue in the Irish beef industry around 10 or 15 years ago. Lots of raids where it was seized.

niceonetom

tunney wrote: »

Eh no.

You eat the muscle not the fat.

Super-lean meat tastes of nothing.

Jawgap

At first sight the numbers work for me.....

What is he? about 60/65kg? 250g steak contaminated to a level less the than regulatory limit for clenbuterol should have no problem manifesting itself at the levels being reported.

I take it, it was a blood sample they tested

NickDrake

Jawgap wrote: »

Is it possible he ate contaminated meat and produced a positive for Clenbuterol? Yes - there are plenty of cases of that happening and plenty of data to support the suggestion that there meat gets produced that is contaminated with clenbuterol.

Plus, the meat that gets detected is done so using a method with a limit of detection of 2 ug/g - Contantador's sample is 40,000 less than that. Even allowing for the kinetics of the substance in the typical adult body (more mass, more fat) I think he could conceivably eat meat at 100-1000 times less than the regulatory limit and produce a positive.

I think it would be interesting to test beef using the method they've used for his sample and see what results we get back - I assume the rate of non-compliance would be significantly above its current level of about 0.6%!!

Howver, is it probable that this is what happened, well.........who knows? That's up to the UCI to decide.

Didn't come from a transfusion then? You are sure it came from meat?

Jawgap

Somebody grab a handful of his hair - that'll tell us

Chips Lovell

NickDrake wrote: »

Didn't come from a transfusion then? You are sure it came from meat?

I think what a lot of people are saying is that it may have been one or the other.

mgmt

Jawgap wrote: »

At first sight the numbers work for me.....

What is he? about 60/65kg? 250g steak contaminated to a level less the than regulatory limit for clenbuterol should have no problem manifesting itself at the levels being reported.

I take it, it was a blood sample they tested

no piss sample

Jawgap

NickDrake wrote: »

Didn't come from a transfusion then? You are sure it came from meat?

No - I'm just saying it's possible.

It's also possible that the blood was manky - that it ended up in him is something I believe - that it started off in meat is something I suspect - how it got from the latter to the former, I'll leave to others to speculate about.

DirkVoodoo

Is there any clinical trials showing clenbuterol as a fat burning drug? A quick search on pub med says that any studies carried out do not show a link, and the only places that say "studies show..." are the websites trying to sell it as a miracle fat burner.

Slightly OT.

fishfoodie

Jawgap wrote: »

At first sight the numbers work for me.....

What is he? about 60/65kg? 250g steak contaminated to a level less the than regulatory limit for clenbuterol should have no problem manifesting itself at the levels being reported.

I take it, it was a blood sample they tested

It's a well chosen defence so !

But if its that easy to get a positive, why aren't half the peloton testing positive, or is that yet to come ?

NickDrake

fishfoodie wrote: »

It's a well chosen defence so !

But if its that easy to get a positive, why aren't half the peloton testing positive, or is that yet to come ?

Exactly, it clearly came from a transfusion.

Chips Lovell

fishfoodie wrote: »

But if its that easy to get a positive, why aren't half the peloton testing positive, or is that yet to come ?

How prevalent is it in meat? How long have labs been testing to this sensitivity?

Jawgap

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Is there any clinical trials showing clenbuterol as a fat burning drug? A quick search on pub med says that any studies carried out do not show a link, and the only places that say "studies show..." are the websites trying to sell it as a miracle fat burner.

Slightly OT.

Can't access the article directly, but there's this (just did a quick search)

Food-Borne Clenbuterol May Have Potential for Cardiovascular Effects with Chronic Exposure (Commentary)

2001, Vol. 39, No. 4 , Pages 345-348 (doi:10.1081/CLT-100105153)
Thomas Y. K. Chan


Going to have lots of steak dinners from now n - especially Spanish and French beef!!

DirkVoodoo

Swimmer Jessica Hardy got only a one year ban for the "tainted source" defence:

At the 2008 U.S. Olympic Team Trials, Hardy qualified for the USA Olympic Team.[20][21][22] A few weeks later, on July 23, 2008, Hardy was notified that the second of her three tests from the Trials came back as positive for low levels of clenbuterol; this notification subsequently leaked to the media.[23] Her attorney confirmed on July 24, 2008 that Hardy's "A" and "B" samples from a test administered on July 4 were positive for clenbuterol, a banned stimulant.[24]
Hardy has claimed innocence and said she has never even heard of clenbuterol,[25] attributing her positive drug result to either a tainted nutritional supplement or sabotage. Media coverage of the issue noted that tainted supplements have played a part in some previous instances of bans. An example offered has been that of American swimmer Kicker Vencill, who won a lawsuit against a company that provided him with tainted supplements that resulted in a positive dope test and two-year ban from the sport.[26] Under both American and international regulations, a lack of knowledge of the source of the substance ingested is not considered to be a defence against a positive result.
On August 1, 2008, following Hardy's hearing before the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), USADA released a statement stating, "The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) announced today that U.S. swimmer, Jessica Hardy, of Long Beach, CA, tested positive for the prohibited substance clenbuterol at the U.S. Olympic Trials on July 4, 2008, and has agreed to withdraw from the 2008 United States Olympic Team in the best interests of the team."[24] On August 1, 2008, Hardy officially, and voluntarily, left the 2008 USA Olympic Team.[24] In May 2009, it was announced that Hardy would be banned from the sport for one year for the positive test.[27]
On May 21, 2010, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) agreed with the 2009 decision of the American Arbitration Association and dismissed the appeal by WADA (the World Anti-Doping Agency) to increase the suspension from one to two years. However, CAS did not entertain Hardy's request to have the International Olympic Committee join this arbitration nor her request to make a recommendation on her eligibility for the 2012 London Olympic games. This leaves Hardy's status for the London Olympics uncertain.[28]

TinyExplosions

NickDrake wrote: »

I cannot understand people trying to defend him here. What was it doing in his system??

Drug cheats are years ahead in cocktails etc and we don't know what they might be taking or putting back in.

The meat is a LEGAL defence only.

In what way was my maths question a defence of him? If anything it's more damning, as the level isn't as small as has been widely reported? you love an old knee jerker don't you Nick

mcgratheoin wrote: »

No correction necessary - the factor of difference is 40, not 400.

That's possibly the first time my maths skillz have paid off... WOO! I always get confused when it's such small numbers. Still though, someone should correct the press release

Columbia

For the first time I'm starting to feel really disillusioned with the sport. This "new" crop of riders was supposed to be clean; the new face of cycling.

If Roche or one of the Schlecks fail at any point, I could see that being it for me following the pro game, because practically every rider I've ever supported has turned out to be a cheat (Heras, Basso, Hamilton, Valverde, Di Luca, Dekker [who I actually got to train with once, when he was still an U23], Mayo, Vinokourov, and now maybe Contador).

Jawgap

el tonto wrote: »

How prevalent is it in meat? How long have labs been testing to this sensitivity?

I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago

Across the EU, the failure rate for beef is about 0.6%, but that's testing at a much higher threshold than Contador's result. If you lowered the testing threshold you'd probably get more positives in food, so there's probably a bit more of it knocking about that the official tests would suggest.

NickDrake

Columbia wrote: »

For the first time I'm starting to feel really disillusioned with the sport. This "new" crop of riders was supposed to be clean; the new face of cycling.

If Roche or one of the Schlecks fail at any point, I could see that being it for me following the pro game, because practically every rider I've ever supported has turned out to be a cheat (Heras, Basso, Hamilton, Valverde, Di Luca, Dekker [who I actually got to train with once, when he was still an U23], Mayo, Vinokourov, and now maybe Contador).

First time you have only strating to be disillusioned?? You must have had the blinkers on for years my friend.

TinyExplosions

So, at no point in the press conference did Contador say "I have never taken a banned substance", he didn't even say "I don't know how this happened", he's 100% certain, and convinced that it was a steak, and not a supplement or anything else... that's a very interesting use of deflection there.

Anyone else think he's trying to do a Lance -test positive, then get off on a technicality, before going on to win 7 tours?

Oldlegs

Jawgap wrote: »

Food-Borne Clenbuterol May Have Potential for Cardiovascular Effects with Chronic Exposure (Commentary)

2001, Vol. 39, No. 4 , Pages 345-348 (doi:10.1081/CLT-100105153)
Thomas Y. K. Chan

!

I can see the new marketing campaigns ...
"Eat yourself fitter, with a 20oz Sirloin"

But on a more serious note. If there really is a risk that of food-borne contamination surely one of the teams, or even the UCI would have undertaken a properly audited test sample of XX volunteers to either prove or disprove this line of defence.

Not sure if I am just cynical or whether it is because I have just finished reading "The death of Marco Pantani", which of course included references to the "Irish" TdF with some many team cars being stopped before they even got to start in Dublin.

fishfoodie

TinyExplosions wrote: »

So, at no point in the press conference did Contador say "I have never taken a banned substance", he didn't even say "I don't know how this happened", he's 100% certain, and convinced that it was a steak, and not a supplement or anything else... that's a very interesting use of deflection there.

Anyone else think he's trying to do a Lance -test positive, then get off on a technicality, before going on to win 7 tours?

Even if he only gets a 1 year ban; he'll probably (hopefully) end up toxic to team sponsors.

I think the biggest step towards cleaning up cycling now isn't the riders or the coaches, but getting rid of Pat McQuaid & the other dead wood in the UCI. They are obviously now part of the problem; not the solution !

mitresize5

right so ....

... Its a contaminant found in meat especially on the continent in one in ever ~ 200 steaks (using the .6% figure above)

.... The leader of a race which has a history of doping problems eats one of these steaks

... the day before the toughest climb on the race

... and coasts to the top of the climb the following day

How very misfortuante of him to have eaten that particular steak on that particular day.

It was in the bag folks


p.s. Must be very hard to stay that weight whilst eating all that steak

DirkVoodoo

mitresize5 wrote: »

right so ....

... Its a contaminant found in meat especially on the continent in one in ever ~ 200 steaks (using the .6% figure above)

.... The leader of a race which has a history of doping problems eats one of these steaks

... the day before the toughest climb on the race

... and coasts to the top of the climb the following day

How very misfortuante of him to have eaten that particular steak on that particular day.


p.s. Must be very hard to stay that weight whilst eating all that steak

Can we clear up the timeline here, I'm getting confused. The sample was taken on the rest day, right? So 24 hours later he is racing with a level in his system even less than the quantity detected and we are totally sure this would qualify as a significant performance boost? Is that right?

Oldlegs

mitresize5 wrote: »

p.s. Must be very hard to stay that weight whilst eating all that steak

I recall Nicolas Roche complaining about 3 weeks living on Pasta & Olive oil.

"Steak - The food of champions":D

NickDrake

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Can we clear up the timeline here, I'm getting confused. The sample was taken on the rest day, right? So 24 hours later he is racing with a level in his system even less than the quantity detected and we are totally sure this would qualify as a significant performance boost? Is that right?

No. We are saying it came from a blood transfusion. That's what people are saying

mitresize5

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Can we clear up the timeline here, I'm getting confused. The sample was taken on the rest day, right? So 24 hours later he is racing with a level in his system even less than the quantity detected and we are totally sure this would qualify as a significant performance boost? Is that right?

Sorry Dirk - I edited my post as you were posting to add that 'It was in the bag' i.e. The transfusion bag

DirkVoodoo

NickDrake wrote: »

No. We are saying it came from a blood transfusion. That's what people are saying

Ah, I see, 100% without a doubt? Not from any tainted source, because that sounds like too lame a defence even if it is quite probable?

By the way, I'm not defending him, I just find it incredible you can defy all reason and firstly accuse the man without proof back in the summer and now believe, without any more information except what we are given, that it is without a doubt from a transfusion.

It really boggles the mind. Of course, you will call it naivety on my part.

Jawgap

Oldlegs wrote: »

I can see the new marketing campaigns ...
"Eat yourself fitter, with a 20oz Sirloin"

But on a more serious note. If there really is a risk that of food-borne contamination surely one of the teams, or even the UCI would have undertaken a properly audited test sample of XX volunteers to either prove or disprove this line of defence.

Not sure if I am just cynical or whether it is because I have just finished reading "The death of Marco Pantani", which of course included references to the "Irish" TdF with some many team cars being stopped before they even got to start in Dublin.

Actually, liver would be a better bet - mmmmmmm, liver and onions with gravy and mash.......

Anyway, if the lab kept the method quiet the teams wouldn't have known about the reduced thresholds so wouldn't have known that the study you proposed was feasible.

I'd say as we speak steak samples from across Europe are being put through the machines that go ping to bolster Contador's defence - in fact I'd say significant efforts are being made to "beef" up his story........


.......I know, I'll get me coat.....

fishfoodie

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Can we clear up the timeline here, I'm getting confused. The sample was taken on the rest day, right? So 24 hours later he is racing with a level in his system even less than the quantity detected and we are totally sure this would qualify as a significant performance boost? Is that right?

I think the suggestion is that the contamination got there thru a blood transfusion on the rest day, which was taken earlier in year. This explains why it was such a tiny amount, which probably wouldn't be any performance boost. The performance boost comes from the new/extra blood which will help with fatigue for the next day !

TinyExplosions

Sometimes I feel I've got to
Run away I've got to
Get away
From the pain that you drive into the heart of me
The drugs you shared
Seems to get me nowhere
And I'll lose my tit(le)
For I toss and turn I can't sleep at night

(chorus)
Once I ran to you (I ran)
Now I'll run from you
This Clenbuterol you've given
I give you all a boy could give you
Take my tears and that's not nearly all
Oh...tainted meat
Tainted meat

Now I know I've got to
Run away I've got to
Get away
You don't really want IT any more from me
To make things right
You need someone to hold you tight
And you'LL think love is to pray
But I'm sorry I don't pray that way

(chorus...)

Don't touch me please
I cannot stand the way you tease
I love you though you hurt me so
Now I'm going to pack my things and go
Tainted meat, tainted meat(x2)
Touch me baby, tainted meat(x2)
Tainted meat(x3)

NickDrake

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Ah, I see, 100% without a doubt? Not from any tainted source, because that sounds like too lame a defence even if it is quite probable?

By the way, I'm not defending him, I just find it incredible you can defy all reason and firstly accuse the man without proof back in the summer and now believe, without any more information except what we are given, that it is without a doubt from a transfusion.

It really boggles the mind. Of course, you will call it naivety on my part.

We will continue to disagree so. Your naivety seems to go on and on, no matter what.

Without proof? Operation Pureto??

mitresize5

I'll going to defer to the American legal system as my final musing on this ...

If it were a civil proceeding he'd be found guilty as to be found guilty in a civil court the burden of proof is 'in all probability'

If it were a criminal proceeding he'd wiggle free as it would be hard to prove 'beyond all reasonable doubt'

TinyExplosions

NickDrake wrote: »

We will continue to disagree so. Your naivety seems to go on and on, no matter what.

Without proof? Operation Pureto??

And this is why it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you Nicky Boy -you just keep hammering away time after time with the same points "guilty" "Puerto" "I told you all", with no attempt to even entertain the possibility that you could be wrong.

There's been some great discussion on this thread, pulling in lots of sources that actually know something about the things mentioned here (we have doctors posting, people linking to actual studies showing the concentration of contaminants in fodd etc etc etc), which contributes to the thread and makes for interesting reading, only marred by your incessant yapping -really, you're like a little yappy type dog that's hungry for attention.

We all know your opinion on this matter, so please either contribute or keep quiet.

ps, he was cleared in the courts of Puerto, so guilty or not in your mind, in the eyes of the law (which hold a little more sway than your over-active imagination) he has done nothing wrong up until this point. Just cool your jets till he's banned, or not as the case may be

DirkVoodoo

NickDrake wrote: »

We will continue to disagree so. Your naivety seems to go on and on, no matter what.

Without proof? Operation Pureto??

So Contador cheated to keep his power down to a level that a (probably?) clean Schleck could manage and you would think a clean Contador could have marked him anyway?

Ok, so if he cheated it was taking a big risk for marginal gains, combating some fatigue and keeping Andy in his sights. How disappointing, I nearly yearn for the EPO infused superhumans who could race up mountains without gasping, at least those guys were "honest" about their cheating and made it a spectacle. Cheating for what looked like a very clean duel up the mountains is not what I was hoping for and makes me wonder why he bothered.

Silly boy Alberto.

I did get it right, it was the second rest day?

Jawgap

mitresize5 wrote: »

I'll going to defer to the American legal system as my final musing on this ...

If it were a civil proceeding he'd be found guilty as to be found guilty in a civil court the burden of proof is 'in all probability'

If it were a criminal proceeding he'd wiggle free as it would be hard to prove 'beyond all reasonable doubt'

......but the court that matters is the court of public opinion:)

What say you all?

For me - I'd go with the Scottish verdict of - not proven!

Diarmuid

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

By the way, I'm not defending him, I just find it incredible you can defy all reason and firstly accuse the man without proof back in the summer and now believe, without any more information except what we are given, that it is without a doubt from a transfusion.

Dirk you gotta factor in his "incredible" TdF TT performace in 2009 following a similar incredible TT performance in Paris-Nice and his links to Operation Puerto.

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if he was doping, but am surprised that he got caught.

Disgusted by Uncle Pat (UCI) trying to play down the significance in the press release