Alberto Contador Tests Positive at the Tour de France

Contador is sounding like Landis, who me?

Take a billionth of a gram and chop it into 20 pieces. One of those pieces is what they found. An unrelated drug shows usage just from the amount of chopping the billionth into 10,000. Another only lets you halve the billionth for proof.

He came THIS close to getting it just right.

berol wrote:

Take a billionth of a gram and chop it into 20 pieces. One of those pieces is what they found. An unrelated drug shows usage just from the amount of chopping the billionth into 10,000. Another only lets you halve the billionth for proof.

When will you deniers/losers wake up? Whomever denies or doubts that any "super-elite" athlete is NOT using is living in a world of fantasy, and has never had a close relationship with a super-elite.

Every event has its "super-elite"--the people who can blow everybody else on the world stage away.

In the TdF this year it was Contador and Schleck, but especially Contador. He was toying with Schleck, and they only time Schleck finished near him was when Contador let him.

Schleck looked a cut above the other competitors, but not to the extent that Contador did, although Schleck had the added deficit of his brother and campadre's absence.

Contador was the one guy this year who, with absolutely no hesitation, I could say was doping.

CONTADOR = BOLT

In fact, Bolt is FAR WORSE THAN CONTADOR. There is no telling how Contador would have fared against any other historical greats, drugged or not. He may have gotten blown away by Indurain, Armstrong, Merckx, etc. in their prime.

Bolt, however, has BLOWN AWAY ALL HISTORIC GREATS IN THEIR PRIME, WHETHER DOPED OR NOT.

Too bad track doesn't have the same courage as cycling.

Sprint Geezer wrote:

When will you deniers/losers wake up? Whomever denies or doubts that any "super-elite" athlete is NOT using is living in a world of fantasy, and has never had a close relationship with a super-elite.

There is big difference between "having doubts" about this or that athlete's use of PEDs and requiring reasonable evidence of guilt before sanctioning an athlete. At every level there are athletes who are simply more talented so it is not an unreasonable supposition, even at the elite level, that a particular super-elite is a natural outlier among outliers, so we'll always have to give the athlete some benefit of the doubt until the testers can put together sufficient evidence to the contrary. If we automatically condemn the fastest solely for being the fastest, there is no reason to continue the sport.

uh, right.

Anyone who sets a world record is a doper. Got it.

Am I still a loser?

Why is it that everyone always questions why this or that substance showed up? People did the same thing with Landis. The testers have a hard enough time finding substances when everyone is trying very hard to cover them up and make their blood look 'normal'.All they need to do is find something off - that is it. Who cares how those who are supposed to cover up the drug messed up? That would even be a harder problem. They are looking for the presence of a substance that could be beneficial or something that would not 'normally' occur in blood/urine.Anyone doping has to have a cocktail of substances - those to help and those to mask. It would be impossible to determine how the doctors screwed up. In the end it doesn't matter. Bottom-line: he doped.

Querfeldein wrote:

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.

I'm with Sprint Geezer on this one.

whatever911 wrote:

Why is it that everyone always questions why this or that substance showed up?

If it is decided based on the available body of evidence that Contador intentionally, he'll probably be banned for two years at the peak of his career. Maybe it's just me, but if I were the guy passing out sanctions, I'd like to be reasonably confident someone's career wasn't ruined because they ate the wrong hot dog. The objective is to eliminate cheaters from the sport, not to maximize the body count.

The small doses are in line with what Landis said was the M.O. at the time, micro dosing.

Suprised he got caught. Not suprised he did it. Anyone that thought he was clean doesn't understand cycling. Don't go saying well done Andy. He is also dirty. It is part of the sport with Lance being the leader of it all.

'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?'

I don't know but he wouldn't be the 1st

He won't be stripped of his 2010 Tour victory. Not for this test anyway.

You take the risk because the doctors of the riders are about 5 years ahead of the tests and you're probably going to get away with it. With the money and doctors these guys have it's pretty easy to cheat and have about a 90% chance of never getting caught.

You've got to wonder where a guy like Contador would end up in the tour if he was 100% clean. Better yet, would he even be able to make it to the tour?

LI Runner wrote:

The small doses are in line with what Landis said was the M.O. at the time, micro dosing.

Micro-dosing clenbuterol?

Are you for real?

Tour de Farce...and to think I spent extra money on my July dish bill to watch this fake event. Cycling may be one sport I give up on caring about.

I think you should continue watching the Tour if you find it exciting. You just need to realize that almost all of them are cheating. If you can accept that, watch and enjoy!

I have no interest at all in cycling, but I’ll always watch the Tour.

Pure theatre, wonderful scenery, crazy spectators, and really breathtaking moments like a peloton catching an unlucky breakaway a few hundred meters before the finishing line - how on earth do they manage that?

Of course, the mountain stages are the days I really look forward to - and apart from the climbs, the incredible speed they reach going downhill - fearless.

Long before doping became such a controversial subject, I assumed they must all be on ‘something’ - I couldn’t see how they could turn in such performances day after day, especially after a mountain stage - rather like running a marathon day after day.

It never bothered me, I figured if they were all on it - the best riders would prevail anyway - and anyway, cycling wasn’t my sport, so why should I get upset about something I didn’t give a damn about.

I read in this particular case - "The concentration found by the laboratory was estimated at 50 picograms which is 400 times less than what the antidoping laboratories accredited by WADA (World Anti Doping Agency) must be able to detect," it said, adding that testing of a second "B" sample taken at the same time confirmed the result. There are a trillion picograms in a gram.

I wonder if such a sophisticated method was used, for instance, at the last World Athletic Championships - what would have been the result?

Incidentally, American swimmer Jessica Hardy tested positive for clenbuterol at the US trials in July 2008 and served a one-year suspension that ended last summer.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport later accepted her explanation that she had unknowingly taken it in a contaminated food supplement.

ukathleticscoach wrote:

'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?'

I don't know but he wouldn't be the 1st

If he cheated he would not be the first cause Landis was by admission now.

He could still be the 1st winner to have eaten meat and test positive for a banned substance, that also is banned for use in cows, horses, and livestock in the USA, Europe, Japan and Australia. So his "friend" brought him some meat. It would be interesting to see who the friend was and where the meat is supposedly from. I find it very telling that they have not even identified what kind of meat it was. Kinda like Landis saying he must have had something in the alcohol he drank, but the story was never clear whether Landis had beer, wine or other.

What kind of a steak was it?

And honestly, when you are about to race and know that steak stays inside you to digest awhile and you are racing uphill the next day, do you as a pro racer even eat steak before an uphill ride?? I kinda doubt it.