Alberto Contador Tests Positive at the Tour de France

1. Clenbuterol is a performance enhancer

2. It is possible to ingest it through food

3. It is theoretically possible that out of 250 riders only 1 ate contaminated food ... possible in theory

4. It could be just coincidental that July 21 was the day before the biggest stage of the race on the col du tourmalet.

Or Contador, threatened by Schleck needed a boost in the mountains to keep his lead. If so, and the top rider lacked confidence in his ability without enhancers, then it would seem that he had used before.

You be the judge.

godjthamydj wrote:

also, contador's name was linked to operation puerto in the past (major drug ring), so this confirms he is dirty and his denial citing food contamination is garbage

There's a lot of evidence that he's been doping for a long time, so I'm not terribly concerned that this is an innocent guy who ate some contaminated pork. But look for UCI to try to minimize the positive test and its implications and to prop up Contador's reputation and the legitimacy of his latest Tour victory. As far as I can tell, UCI has never cared much about whether its stars are dopers. It just doesn't want to be hurt by the bad publicity resulting from positive tests and disqualifications.

Contador has always come off like a villain even before Chaingate. Of course, he tried to undo his selfish image by not contesting Schleck at the top of the Tourmalet, but it was too late to really like him at that point. So good catch, testers.

Yeah, plenty of the others are probably doping as well, but Contador getting popped (especially if it sticks) is great news! It couldn't happen to a more deserving guy.

To draw a parallel to track, one need look no further than ramzi. Always came off prickish (to me, at least) and I couldn't be happier to see him get knocked down a peg or two.

Is he the only cheat? Absolutely not. Nice to see that they're not afriad of calling out riders anymore.

It would not surprise me in the least if Contador and all the other top riders were using a cocktail of banned drugs. However, at the risk of letting the facts getting in the way of a good story, it appears we are talking about minute quantities...

"The concentration found by the laboratory was estimated at 50 picograms which is 400 times less than what the anti-doping laboratories accredited by WADA must be able to detect."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/30/3025876.htm

So your saying it's a media beat up?

Coming or going wrote:

So your saying it's a media beat up?

No, I'm saying that along with everyone else who has posted in this thread, I'm not expert enough to know if 50 picograms is an amount that someone could inadvertently get from food contamination.

Or to put it another way, if this was an amount that could only come from deliberate doping, then why isn't there a more stringent testing requirement?

long sox wrote:

Or to put it another way, if this was an amount that could only come from deliberate doping, then why isn't there a more stringent testing requirement?

As far as I'm aware, no one has said that this was an amount that could only come from deliberate doping. I don't know whether it was from deliberate doping, although I'd bet that it was. Of course, none of that ordinarily matters to WADA, since doping violations are generally based on "strict liability" rather than improper intent.

Your earlier quotation (regarding the small amount of the drug) was, I believe, from ICU's statement on the matter. As I said earlier, I expect ICU to try to minimize the positive test and protect Contador's status as Tour champion. This may put ICU at odds with WADA, and perhaps even with the Tour organization itself.

Avocados Number wrote:

[quote]godjthamydj wrote:

. As far as I can tell, UCI has never cared much about whether its stars are dopers. It just doesn't want to be hurt by the bad publicity resulting from positive tests and disqualifications.

You do know that UCI has the most stringent testing protocal of any world sports body, don't you? Could you imagine IAAF cooperating with state police to raid the hotel rooms of top track stars? Could you imaging IAAF increasing its World Champs drug control budget, which now stands at roughly $200 per participating athlete, to the nearly $2000 that is spent per Tour de France athlete?

The Amgen Tour of California tested top finishers immediately after every stage, as well as random finishers. This is an event that is neither a classic nor a grand tour. I know this because it was my job to find and inform athletes that they had ten minutes to get to the testing trailors. Our manager also managed the testing at other US sporting events such as USATF championships and boxing events. I asked him if the drug testing protocal of a US track meet of similar scope to the Amgen, say the Payton Jordan, can match what you saw at Amgen. He smiled and said, "As far as I know, payton jordan has no after event testing."

nerp wrote:

To draw a parallel to track, one need look no further than ramzi. Always came off prickish (to me, at least) and I couldn't be happier to see him get knocked down a peg or two.

translation: He was a not a smiling white Amreican that I have been following since high school. Therefore, i always knew he was a cheat.

Aghast wrote:

Don't dismiss his explanation. He said he got clenbuterol from food contamination which is possible because pig farmers give clenbuterol to their animals to increase % lean muscle. The drug also has a very long half life so there have been cases of people getting clenbuterol contamination by eating pork.

Yeah, he caught if off a flying pig

A banned British hurdler claimed the same (after 1st saying it must have been in his supplements)

Clem is popular because it's not detectable in the system after 4 days.

There have been cases (but not in France) of people getting food poisoning through clem meat but you tend not to perform too well when you have food poisoning!

There are no proven cases of the contamination giving a positive result in a doping test

At the end of the day what are the chances that a cyclist or other athlete is doping. Minimun 1/10. What are the chances that an athlete gets food poisoning (in a country where this has never happened from Clem) happens to take a test then it happens to be still over the limit - after all its going to leave your body pretty quick if you are ill but the athlete then instantly recovers to perform well the next day 1/1000000

They are always innocent!

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Yeah, he caught if off a flying pig

A banned British hurdler claimed the same (after 1st saying it must have been in his supplements)

Clem is popular because it's not detectable in the system after 4 days.

But when you're leading the TDF, you know for a fact you're going to be tested every day.

Why would someone take that risk?

ukathleticscoach wrote:

There have been cases (but not in France) of people getting food poisoning through clem meat but you tend not to perform too well when you have food poisoning!

Actually, he did ok on the Tourmalet but terrible in the time trial. Terrible for him, that is. At the time, I figured he'd partied too much the night before and was racing a bit hung over. But mild food poisoning is also a good explanation.

Is pork from dubious sources really on the menu for top Tour riders?

His most credible line of defense would be: "Look, I spent $40,000 a year on the most sophisticated blood doping program, do you really think I would use a substance that's so easily detectable and offers so little benefit?"

Funny thing is, this is exactly the line of argument the "experts" seem to be following.

trollism wrote:

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Yeah, he caught if off a flying pig

A banned British hurdler claimed the same (after 1st saying it must have been in his supplements)

Clem is popular because it's not detectable in the system after 4 days.

But when you're leading the TDF, you know for a fact you're going to be tested every day.

Why would someone take that risk?

So you can lead the tour de france come the champs elysees.

Anybody think that maybe he got a transfussion and the bag of blood that had been taken out months earlier had traces of this stuff in there?

This guy does.

http://www.sport.es/default.asp?idpublicacio_PK=44&idioma=CAS&idtipusrecurs_PK=7&idnoticia_PK=727191

You'll need to run it through a translator if you don't speak Spanish.

unreasonable asshole wrote:

So you can lead the tour de france come the champs elysees.

Why take a tiny amount of Clenbuterol though. Hardly going to make a lot of difference.

The contaminated blood transfusion is a much better explanation to be fair.