Contador Suspended!

cormpat

Just heard the girl on the RTE Sport News say Contador has been suspended for a year!

Here's a link;

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE70P2FL20110126

morana

Glad to see it and about time too!

robs1

ye its on sky sports news as well.i dont get it should it not be a two year ban or more

CheGuedara

A few months ago he threatened to leave competitive cycling if handed a ban - Self inflicted lifetime ban FTW!!

RobFowl

cormpat wrote: »

Just heard the girl on the RTE Sport News say Contador has been suspended for a year!

Here's a link;

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE70P2FL20110126

Old news :rolleyes:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=70272507&postcount=23

ednwireland

about time, how about an independant investigation into why it took six months now :rolleyes:

JacksonHeightsOwn

is the one year ban from today on, or from the date he failed the test? therefore making him eligible to ride the Vuelta?

ridiculous ban imo, he should have gotten at least 2 years, he's the biggest name in cycling, an example needed to be made of him, instead, he nearly gets rewarded for his offence, shocking stuff yet again

RobFowl

chrisbonnie wrote: »

is the one year ban from today on, or from the date he failed the test? therefore making him eligible to ride the Vuelta?

ridiculous ban imo, he should have gotten at least 2 years, he's the biggest name in cycling, an example needed to be made of him, instead, he nearly gets rewarded for his offence, shocking stuff yet again

It backdated to the date he withdrew himself from competition so 31 August I believe. He'll lose the tour but will hold onto this 2nd on a stage and 2 days in yellow which he got before he failed the test.

He got off lightly but UCI/WADA can and probably will appeal to the CAS to get the ban increased.

finbarrk

Hard luck on him for eating a steak.

RobFowl

finbarrk wrote: »

Hard luck on him for eating a steak.

A "special steak" that someone drove 500kms over the mountains from Spain

templer27

I bet he appeals and is able to ride in the TdF.If he is only banned for a year he is getting of lightly,does any one think it was an honest mistake.The level of the drug was extremely small.He might have grounds for a immediate return to competition.Looking at all the evidence if really could happen,its happened to other athletes already.

Chips Lovell

The UCI may well appeal the severity of the ban too, in order to get it up to two years.

Beasty

templer27 wrote: »

I bet he appeals and is able to ride in the TdF.If he is only banned for a year he is getting of lightly,does any one think it was an honest mistake.The level of the drug was extremely small.He might have grounds for a immediate return to competition.Looking at all the evidence if really could happen,its happened to other athletes already.

It makes absolutely no sense for him to appeal, bearing in mind the Court of Arbitration for Sport are extremely unlikely to take as lenient a view as the Spanish Federation.

Of course, if the UCI or WADA decide to appeal, it could well make sense for him then to counter-appeal, if only to try to limit the potential further damage

victorcarrera

More here from the Telegraph

irishpeloton

RobFowl wrote: »

It backdated to the date he withdrew himself from competition so 31 August I believe.

My understanding is that the ban will be backdated to the date that Contador was informed of the positive test, which is August 24th, which would make him ineligible to ride this year's Vuelta which starts on August 20th.

Of course, this is all moot until all the appeals have been processed, which will take months.

Phil2me

Conflicting Stories about this ban & how come it takes so long and so many different bodies are involved.

http://www.rte.ie/sport/cycling/2011/0127/contador.html

Captain Havoc

Did anyone hear Kimmage on about this earlier? I only caught the end and he said good riddance and it would be nice if someone like Nicolas Roche wrote a two page spread in the Irish Indo stating the same. Paul Kimmage will also be on Setanta tomorrow evening.

Monty Burnz

Captain Havoc wrote: »

Did anyone hear Kimmage on about this earlier? I only caught the end and he said good riddance and it would be nice if someone like Nicolas Roche wrote a two page spread in the Irish Indo stating the same. Paul Kimmage will also be on Setanta tomorrow evening.

Without wanting to libel anyone, how can you compete at the top of pro cycling without doping? It's like Lance Armstrong wanting us to believe that he is such a cycling god that he could win 6 or 7 tours against a field full of dopers, but he was clean.

Captain Havoc

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Without wanting to libel anyone, how can you compete at the top of pro cycling without doping? It's like Lance Armstrong wanting us to believe that he is such a cycling god that he could win 6 or 7 tours against a field full of dopers, but he was clean.

You love cancer

ColSheehan

Captain Havoc wrote: »

Did anyone hear Kimmage on about this earlier? I only caught the end and he said good riddance and it would be nice if someone like Nicolas Roche wrote a two page spread in the Irish Indo stating the same. Paul Kimmage will also be on Setanta tomorrow evening.

I think I found the interview with Paul about Contador and Schleck, here it is -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiwfV9i-yco

templer27

Beasty wrote: »

It makes absolutely no sense for him to appeal, bearing in mind the Court of Arbitration for Sport are extremely unlikely to take as lenient a view as the Spanish Federation.

Of course, if the UCI or WADA decide to appeal, it could well make sense for him then to counter-appeal, if only to try to limit the potential further damage

You were wrong Beasty,

horizon26

Contador will go to the court of arbitration for sport.His case is much stronger than you guys might think.Chelsea went to the CAS over Gael Kakuta,Lens said Chelsea induced the player to break his contract.FIFA banned Chelsea from signing players for two transfer windows.FIFA has much more power in football than the UCI have in cycling.

Everyone thought Chelsea were guilty,everyone pundits managers from every team and especially the English press proberly Kimmage as well.Yet Chelsea were cleared and allowed to sign players.

Lumen

horizon26 wrote: »

Contador will go to the court of arbitration for sport. His case is much stronger than you guys might think.

In what way is it stronger?

monkeyslayer

Paul Kimmage features on italk sport tonight, 10pm on Setanta ireland

horizon26

Lumen wrote: »

In what way is it stronger?

He has never failed a test,only tiny amount of clenbuterol was detected.Don Catlin thinks his explanation is plausible.Only 50 picograms per millilitre was found in his system.40 times below minimum standard of detection required by WADA.

You would have to take 180 times amount detected to gain any benefit in performance.Lots of so called experts say clenbuterol has little benefit to a cyclist,well at the amount that was in Contador's system anyway.Seems like Contador has a strong case,I know he is guilty and responsible for everything that goes into his body.However he has never failed a drug test and his good name must count for something.

Quigs Snr

If Don Caitlin says that... well then he is part of the problem. He is like a lawyer trying to get a client off that he knows is guilty on a technicality.

It also lends credence to some of the suggestions made about him in the recent SI article. Just another one of the good ol' boys.

Russman

Surely once the drug is detected, its detected ? I think the argument of the amount of drug found doesn't really stand up, its like saying some doping is ok but not too much IMO.

If the case goes to CAS is it true that they can bring in the plasticizer thing and aren't limited to the clenbuterol issue ? Thought I read that somewhere.....

Captain Havoc

monkeyslayer wrote: »

Paul Kimmage features on italk sport tonight, 10pm on Setanta ireland

Thanks for the reminder, I probably would have remembered at the end of the interview.

TheBlaaMan

Captain Havoc wrote: »

Thanks for the reminder, I probably would have remembered at the end of the interview.

Hmm.....15 minutes in and he's already had a pop at everyone, Kelly, Roche senior, Roche junior, and Lancey of course. He laments the sense of 'omerta' that riders observe to protect the guilty.

He's certainly not out to make friends!

That said, I dont find myself disagreeing with him.....:(

RobFowl

horizon26 wrote: »

He has never failed a test,only tiny amount of clenbuterol was detected.

Any clenuterol detected is an anti-doping infraction so no mater how much was detected it was and is a failed (both A and B samples) test.

All the arguments about how it got there are purely attempts to demonstrate mitigating circumstances and as a result get a reduced sanction.

spokeydokey

RobFowl wrote: »

Any clenuterol detected is an anti-doping infraction so no mater how much was detected it was and is a failed (both A and B samples) test.

All the arguments about how it got there are purely attempts to demonstrate mitigating circumstances and as a result get a reduced sanction.

Thanks for nipping that one in the bud!

NickDrake

Some scumbag for appealing it. Take you ban you cheater!

TheBlaaMan

I see WikiPedia ain't hanging around....

Schleck regarded as 2010 winner.

Contador noted as the winner in 2007 and 2009 only

Chips Lovell

Xavier Tondo is thinking of becoming a vegetarian.

RobFowl

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/7355/Contador-positive-for-Clenbuterol-in-four-different-tests.aspx

Previously reported as positive on two days, the Spanish media has reported that Alberto Contador’s samples showed traces of Clenbuterol on four different occasions, spread over five days.

According to both La Vanguardia and Marca, he was negative for the substance in tests on July 5,12, 19 and 20. However on Wednesday July 21, the second rest day of the Tour, his samples showed the presence of Clenbuterol at 50 picograms per millilitre. This dropped to16 picograms the following day, decreased further to 7 picograms/ml two days later (July 24) and then increased again to 17 picograms/ml on July 25th.

:eek:

fat bloke

RobFowl wrote: »

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/7355/Contador-positive-for-Clenbuterol-in-four-different-tests.aspx

Previously reported as positive on two days, the Spanish media has reported that Alberto Contador’s samples showed traces of Clenbuterol on four different occasions, spread over five days.

According to both La Vanguardia and Marca, he was negative for the substance in tests on July 5,12, 19 and 20. However on Wednesday July 21, the second rest day of the Tour, his samples showed the presence of Clenbuterol at 50 picograms per millilitre. This dropped to16 picograms the following day, decreased further to 7 picograms/ml two days later (July 24) and then increased again to 17 picograms/ml on July 25th.

:eek:

Ah... it is worth bearing in mind the absolute numbers we're talking about here.

(Note I do think he's guilty, I think they're all on the gear tbh)

But the statistical spread of results that you're going to get on separate analyses of blood samples in the picogram range is going to be significant.

Measure the same sample 20 times, you're not going to get the result of 17 pg every single time. In fact I'd be surprised if you got the same result twice at all. -How small is a gram of sugar? Probably a 5th of a teaspoon. 1000 times smaller than that is a milligram, 1000 times smaller again is a micro gram, 1000 times smaller again is a nanogram, and a picogram is 1000 times smaller again!!! It's infinitesimally small. . It's too easy for a lay person to say Oho! look at the pattern, he's obviously been serially injecting himself with Clenbuterol, in between mouthfuls of char-grilled rib-eye

Chips Lovell

I don't think anyone thinks he was serially injecting with Clenbuterol during the Tour. If he is guilty of doping, the most likely explanation is a blood bag that had traces of Clenbuterol in it.

Lumen

Wikipedia-based doping analysis....

Clenbuterol is usually used in dosages anywhere from 20-60 micrograms a day when prescribed.

So lets take 30 micrograms ingested, and assume 100% bioavailability.

Human body contains 5 litres of blood. Doping transfusion might be 0.5L, which would contain 3 micrograms of clenbuterol .

So you'd end up post-transfusion, after your blood volume had settled back to 5L, with 600,000 picograms of clenbuterol per litre of blood, which is 12,000 times the concentration he was caught with.

Half life of clenbuterol is about 37.5 hours.

So I make that about 21 days (three weeks) between when he took the clen and when he drew the blood.

And when I ask Google how long it takes for Clenbuterol to clear the system, it says...three weeks.

So he probably thought he was clean.

leftism

Lumen wrote: »

Wikipedia-based doping analysis....

Clenbuterol is usually used in dosages anywhere from 20-60 micrograms a day when prescribed.

So lets take 30 micrograms ingested, and assume 100% bioavailability.

Human body contains 5 litres of blood. Doping transfusion might be 0.5L, which would contain 3 micrograms of clenbuterol .

So you'd end up post-transfusion, after your blood volume had settled back to 5L, with 600,000 picograms of clenbuterol per litre of blood, which is 12,000 times the concentration he was caught with.

Half life of clenbuterol is about 37.5 hours.

So I make that about 21 days (three weeks) between when he took the clen and when he drew the blood.

And when I ask Google how long it takes for Clenbuterol to clear the system, it says...three weeks.

So he probably thought he was clean.

BOOM!

My boy Lumen's got MAD internet phorensic skills!

niceonetom

Impressive stuff Lumen.

What is nagging away at me in all this, and it doesn't seem to be something the cycling media have zoned in on, is that the clenbuterol thing is just evidence that the blood value monitoring is not working.

Apparently we're very good at detecting stuff that has no reason to be there, even if it's only present in fantastically tiny amounts, but we're still not able to detect with certainty changes in levels of stuff that has to be there (i.e. blood values like cell age) that would indicate re-injection. If in the spring Contador had waited another day or two for the Clen to clear his system we'd never have known about the alleged transfusion... or, topically, if Ricco's fridge had been a bit colder and he hadn't poisoned his kidneys... and that just begs so many questions. We're all bombarded by the message that cycling has changed hugely since the bad old days of rampant and farcical EPO use. I'm beginning to think nothing has changed - that the 'progress' has been an illusion, a creation of a complicit or acquiescent press and a truly rotten governing body.

Am I right in saying that blood doping is quite possible without any drug use whatsoever? Simply take out what you need in the off season and put back what you can get away with on the rest days? Obviously there's the technical difficulty of making sure that offsets etc. don't arouse suspicion, but the doctors seem to be achieving this.

How far away are we from having a reliable test to detect re-injection that doesn't rely on probabilistic tracking of various blood values over time? Is such a thing even possible in principle?

dermur

How come the plasticizers aren't getting a mention - I thought they were only found in blood bags? Is that not more damning than the clenbuterol?

niceonetom

AFAIK the plasticizer test had yet to be ratified when Cotador was caught so it wouldn't have stood up in court. Secondly, Clenbuterol is a strict-liability offence - if it's there, you're guilty, end of story, so there was no real need to use the plasticizer evidence to secure a ban.

I hope it does become a reliable test in the future though and that the doctors can't sidestep it too easily by using, say, mayonnaise jars.

Chips Lovell

Cue the invention of a condiments blood test.

"A test after the second rest day in the Tour de France revealed that his Dijon mustard levels rocketed to 800 picograms".

Lumen

niceonetom wrote: »

How far away are we from having a reliable test to detect re-injection that doesn't rely on probabilistic tracking of various blood values over time? Is such a thing even possible in principle?

Easy peasy*. A DNA-modifying payload is delivered using a virus by a WADA technician on a regular basis through the year. This watermarks the blood cells with a datestamp.

When blood is taken during the Tour, they look for the watermarks. If they don't find the right ones, that's a paddlin'.

* Warning: may contain science fiction.

niceonetom

As I was writing my previous post something like that occurred to me. Not "DNA-modifying payload is delivered using a virus by a WADA technician", whatever that is, but a simple inert chemical for which the clearance rate is known could be injected and fluctuations from this steady decline would be evidence of autologous blood doping. Given that things can be detectable all the way down to the picogram range, if a chemical with the sufficiently long half-life was used riders might only have to inoculated yearly at most.

I don't think there's any need to engineer viruses, but if you must.

It's slightly science-fictiony, but probably medically unethical and would be open to challenge by human rights a-holes.

Chips Lovell

Now that we're speculating. I wonder is there any scope for dialysis machines to be used to remove doping byproducts?

mo_bhicycle

el tonto wrote: »

I wonder is there any scope for dialysis machines to be used to remove doping byproducts?

Ricco is one step ahead of the rest.
Screw up your kidneys so that you can get on dialysis and then dope undetected

TheBlaaMan

That didn't take too much

Contador ban to be overturned?

What odds on an absolution from his own federation??


Coming next week.........WADA's appeal.

ednwireland

TheBlaaMan wrote: »

That didn't take too much

Contador ban to be overturned?

What odds on an absolution from his own federation??


Coming next week.........WADA's appeal.

its the ban that never stops giving

Spanish adjudicators were convinced by Contador’s tainted meat defence

According to Spanish newspaper El Periódico, the Spanish cycling federation’s competitions committee that recently recommended a one-year ban on Alberto Contador after his positive test for clenbuterol is considering overturning the decision due to legal considerations.

The paper has reported that some members of the committee were convinced by the arguments made by Contador’s legal team that the three-time Tour de France winner had ingested clenbuterol by eating tainted meat. The committee's final decision was due February 9, but has not yet been officially announced.

The paper adds that the Spanish federation has said in its judgment on the case that Contador’s positive test was caused by “extenuating circumstances” and not by “negligence nor responsibility”, which has provided the Spaniard with the opportunity to launch a legal challenge against his ban

Hail 2 Da Thief

Tour de France winner Contador almost certainly cleared of Clenbuterol doping charges by national federation RFEC

RobFowl

Hail 2 Da Thief wrote: »

Tour de France winner Contador almost certainly cleared of Clenbuterol doping charges by national federation RFEC