Well, it's still plausible that there was plasticizer in that sketchy meat...
Undoubtedly, he just didn't bother to remove the plastic wrap from his clenbuterol-laced filet mignon before he stuck it in the microwave. I'll bet he's not going to make that mis-steak again!
Avocados Number wrote:
Undoubtedly, he just didn't bother to remove the plastic wrap from his clenbuterol-laced filet mignon before he stuck it in the microwave. I'll bet he's not going to make that mis-steak again!
Nail, coffin.
This lasting finding fits perfectly with the previously asserted theory that the Clenbuterol came from a transfusion of blood Contador had stored while in training (and dosing on Clen).
I'm not convinced that blood doping is the same as taking PEDs. Why is it not allowed?
But does this all mean Schleck is CLEAN? The win could default all the way down to Lance!
Blood doping achieves nearly the same result as taking EPO, it's just quicker, but less efficient. In addition, blood transfusions are not minor procedures, and carry some risk due to infection, over-packing (causing sludge, clotting, death), or mishandling of stored blood. That's why it's not allowed.
If these riders could go to prison for their actions, do you think the sport would be cleaned up? I think so. Why isn't prison an option?
Yeah... prison for blood transfusions and a little clem in the system. He should definitely serve hard time for that.
Altitude training should be banned because that gives the same result as transfusions and EPO...
Altitude training is not illegal. If, in the future, it becomes illegal, then hyperbaric chamber/altitude trainers should be punished.
Wow, the big question in my mind now is can they use this test to go back and test frozen saved samples from years past? Can you imagine how many people would go down!
WOMBAT wrote:
Wow, the big question in my mind now is can they use this test to go back and test frozen saved samples from years past? Can you imagine how many people would go down!
That's how Lance's '99 sample was busted. In '05 or '06 it was tested. The problem is that the sample was 'anonymous' as were all the samples taken in '99. Supposedly someone knew the 6-digit number of Lance's sample but I don't think it was ever proven to be his due to no record keeping as to who's number was who.
Alan
Wait? The steak was in the blood transfusion? ;)
oh there was VERY meticulous record keeping alan, just that all they had left was the B sample, thus no way to test a B sample twice, as the A was already tested back when the race occurred. totally cut and dried though, he was close to or way over 80 isoforms in all of his samples. basically over 30-40% is doping, but at the time, they used the 80%rule just to basically cover three standard deviations. just too bad lance won't come down like contador. oh well.
science of sport had some interesting comments on Contador's 2009 climb - implied a vo2 max of 99.5. In the end, SoS says there are too many variables to make any conclusions, but certainly many people were convinced that that climb proved he was a doper.
And he apparently was and is.
Runningart2004 wrote:
That's how Lance's '99 sample was busted. In '05 or '06 it was tested. The problem is that the sample was 'anonymous' as were all the samples taken in '99. Supposedly someone knew the 6-digit number of Lance's sample but I don't think it was ever proven to be his due to no record keeping as to who's number was who.
Alan
I think it was '04. I found that whole story fascinating, and damning.
There was no doubt about the identity of Lance's numbered samples -- the UCI knows and confirmed it, when they sent Lance's 1999 doping control forms, with Lance's permission, to the French newspaper L'Equipe, for a story. (Perhaps L'Equipe was not 100% forthcoming about the nature of the story).
And it was not just 1 sample on 1 day -- it was 6 samples on 6 days that tested positive, and other samples which showed obvious signs of synthetic EPO, but were below the selected threshold.
The problem was that the testing in question was not for doping control purposes, but part of research for validating new EPO tests. Neither the french labs, nor UCI, wanted any doping control sanctions to occur. The french lab worked with anonymous numbered samples, so the risk of maliciously tampering the results is unlikely. (For other reasons, the risk of inadvertant tampering is also small.) Normally, after a certain period, the labs are required to destroy the samples. They are allowed to keep it for research purposes, provided the results are always anonymous. WADA, Dick Pound, and L'Equipe, however, felt like something should be done about Lance.
As such, the UCI hired an "independent" lawyer to investigate the issue, and he found there were a few technicalities that prevented sanctioning:
- Some doubt was cast on the integrity of the samples, as some paperwork documenting sample handling did not exist.
- Part of the research injected other samples with EPO. The same doubt was expanded to say that no papers existed that said the 1999 samples weren't also tainted.
- I think the samples in question were already B samples. Sanctioning requires that a positive be confirmed by a second positive on a B sample. This was not possible.
- Contamination of samples can make real EPO look like synthetic EPO. Not enough paper to say this wasn't the case.
- The testing conducted wasn't yet approved. They also used an unapproved accelerated process.
- There was some doubt about how EPO survives 5 years of freezing.
Maybe my recollection is not 100% accurate, and there may be a few other points, but nevertheless, the point is that for sanctioning purposes, if Lance was ever disciplined, there are enough reasons why it would be easily overturned on appeals. The UCI got what it wanted, a whole lot of reasons from their independent lawyer why non-action is appropriate.
However, once you know the samples belonging to one rider, and overlay them with the TDF racing schedule, the french lab was able to reconstruct a logical EPO program profile over the whole 3 week TDF period.
I always gave Lance the benefit of the doubt, but for me, there is no longer any doubt.
Yes indeedy, the science of sport conclusion is
inconclusive, which doesn't surprise me. Remeber the silly thread about Zarsenay Tadesse's supposed economy?
Yes that's as clear as mud. To catch a high profile cyclist who is/was 'advised' by Michele Ferrari is/was nigh impossible. Isn't that we he was paid for?
This VO2max of 99.5 didn't come from Science of Sport, but from a French report by Antoine Vayer, with some assumptions and manipulations.(They did an update here: http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-de-france-2009-contador-vo2max.html)Science of Sport came up with a lot of reasons to doubt the numbers, the least of which is accurately getting the distance and height of the climb right.Doping was one possible factor, but they also gave a lot of other confounding factors.They concluded that with a slight tailwind, the calculations could drop to a VO2max of 89, or 87 (still high numbers).In some articles this year, they compared the slower climbing times of this year, to 10 years ago, as an indication that the TDF was cleaner this year.
agip wrote:
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/07/tour-2009-contador-climb.htmlscience of sport had some interesting comments on Contador's 2009 climb - implied a vo2 max of 99.5. In the end, SoS says there are too many variables to make any conclusions, but certainly many people were convinced that that climb proved he was a doper.
And he apparently was and is.