Contador Positive

[Freakie]

Catch 22, don't back date it and he keeps his titles and is banned from riding for 2 years or do back date it, strip him of his titles and only serves 5 months... stinks either way.

 

[Zumbido]

Catch 22, don't back date it and he keeps his titles and is banned from riding for 2 years or do back date it, strip him of his titles and only serves 5 months... stinks either way.

Agree totally with what you've said. The whole situation is an embarassment.

 

[IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN]

Catch 22, don't back date it and he keeps his titles and is banned from riding for 2 years or do back date it, strip him of his titles and only serves 5 months... stinks either way.

Don't back date it, everyone will know they're tainted anyway, and that way I don't have to look at that cheating pricks face for another few years.

One of the best bits of sporting news I've heard for a while.

 

[alfy!]

Wow, huge news.

 

[Stretford End]

I’m not too familiar with cycling and the whole drug side of it, but from what I’ve read on various cycling forums is, every rider is doping left right and centre and for that reason I find it hard to call Contador a cheat when supposedly everyone else is doing it.
Is the drug problem in cycling that bad?
How do they all get away with it?

 

[telsor]

Always happy when they catch a cheat, and even happier when it's a big fish. Doing that is the only way to clean up the sport.

Taking the titles is a good move, but they also need to fine them all the extra money they got during that time for being champions (prizemoney and endorsements). Either hold half their money in trust until the 7 year samples are cleared, or just give them a massive fine and don't let them compete again until they've paid it.

 

[Freakie]

I’m not too familiar with cycling and the whole drug side of it, but from what I’ve read on various cycling forums is, every rider is doping left right and centre and for that reason I find it hard to call Contador a cheat when supposedly everyone else is doing it.
Is the drug problem in cycling that bad?
How do they all get away with it?

They don't get away with it (well some may, Armstrong) but to be honest soccer and athletics have a much bigger drug problem than cycling, it's just swept under the carpet (especially in soccer).

Having been part of a controlled trial of EPO I can see why it tempts so many top cyclists, the shit is powerful and allows you to just go and go...

 

[Wallaby]

Hmmm - this is a real difficult one.

As I understand, Contador is claiming 'contaminated meat' as the source of the clenbuterol. Now, there is no doubt this is a valid excuse - the contaminated meat has been found - in the americas. In 2010 over 100 players at the U17 World Cup in mexico tested positive. So have several American sportspeople who have visited Mexico and central America. Any sporting event in Mexico now has huge issues with ensuring athletes don't get contaminated food.

However, there is no evidence of it in Europe, and no other Spanish-based sports-people have tested positive. So the finding is 'Probably, he took it, because the contamination excuse is unlikely'.

So they haven't found definite proof of him doping, and they are aware of a 'reasonable explanation'. But they have convicted him on probababilities.

It's only a sporting sanction, but I wouldn't want that level of proof accepted in a murder trial.

 

[Freakie]

Hmmm - this is a real difficult one.

As I understand, Contador is claiming 'contaminated meat' as the source of the clenbuterol. Now, there is no doubt this is a valid excuse - the contaminated meat has been found - in the americas. In 2010 over 100 players at the U17 World Cup in mexico tested positive. So have several American sportspeople who have visited Mexico and central America. Any sporting event in Mexico now has huge issues with ensuring athletes don't get contaminated food.

However, there is no evidence of it in Europe, and no other Spanish-based sports-people have tested positive. So the finding is 'Probably, he took it, because the contamination excuse is unlikely'.

So they haven't found definite proof of him doping, and they are aware of a 'reasonable explanation'. But they have convicted him on probababilities.

It's only a sporting sanction, but I wouldn't want that level of proof accepted in a murder trial.

So there is a val

They convicted him because he tested positive and he was unable to prove that his positive was due to accidental contimanation (which was a crock of shit story to start with as Clenbuterol hasn't been used in farming in Europe for 20+ years).

 

[Wallaby]

Oh, look, I agree that he almost certainly doped - there have been stories about Contador doping for years (remember he was excluded from the 2009 TDF).

I just reckon that if you were an athlete taking Clenbuterol, take a trip to Mexico - inbuilt excuse.

 

[Hornberger]

They don't get away with it (well some may, Armstrong) but to be honest soccer and athletics have a much bigger drug problem than cycling, it's just swept under the carpet (especially in soccer).

Do you have any evidence to support this?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

They don't get away with it (well some may, Armstrong) but to be honest soccer and athletics have a much bigger drug problem than cycling, it's just swept under the carpet (especially in soccer).

As I said in my long post Rowing has no real culture of widespread drug taking, unlike cycling, athletics, weightlifting, body building, wrestling, NFL, baseball, soccer, cross-country skiing, swimming etc.

Look at the list of doping cases on the wiki following page and you see that the other sports I mentioned haven't all swept it under the carpet the last 10 years. Athletes in these sports keeping getting caught time and time again and their sports have introduced longer bans. Weightlifting bans nations who have had a certain number of positive tests over a 3 year period from international competition. There are plenty of links to all types of doping lists in the following page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_sport

Have a look at women's world athletics records. Apart from the new events like pole vault, hammer, steeplechase and the Javelin event because they change the javelin every 8 years or so, 16 of the other 19 world records are before 1996 when you had the East Europeans doping, the Yanks and the rest of the west copying them to keep up and then the Chinese middle distance runners from 1993 to 1995.

Does athletics have a bigger problem than cycling? I don't think so, but it wouldn't be far behind. The demands of the peloton means you have to keep up, no ifs or buts. Long distance running in athletics doesn't have the same sort of field of equality. The big difference is death from drugs in the different sports.

Cycling had to do more than others because between 1987 and 1990 - eighteen professional cyclists died of EPO doping. In
1987 - 5 Dutch cyclists died
1988 - 1 Belgian + 2 Dutch dies
1989 - 5 more Dutch died
1990 - 2 Dutch + 3 Belgians died

These were very fit athletes at the peak of their physical fitness that just dropped dead.

But as you say, Euro soccer is the big one that has been light on convicting transgressors in Europe. NFL and Baseball have been forced to wake up because of public inquires and politicians getting involved. Soccer is where the big $$$ are in Euro sports, and because the big leagues aren't tied in with the Olympics and are separate to FIFA, in terms of day to day management, they have had a slack attitude.

Look at Operation Puerto guru Dr Eufemiano Fuentes and you will see soccer has plenty to reveal. He apparently was "indignant that only cyclists had been named and said he also worked with tennis and football players." Plus track athletes.... which Spanish tennis player dom.............?????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Puerto

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eufemiano_Fuentes

Fuentes continually denied having performed illegal operations and also said that he did not work exclusively with cyclists but had other athletes as clients such as footballers.[3] However in December 2010, he is quoted saying: "If I would talk, the Spanish football team would be stripped of the 2010 World Cup".[4]

On cyclingforums 4 years ago a poster reproduced in English, a Belgian cycling magazine article about Fuentes' career and when you join the dots you can see that if the authorities were serious they would have gone after him earlier. It also explains why the Spanish authorities shut down Operation Puerto because he seemed to be involved everywhere and it got political. It is a fascinating read and worth saving if you are interested in P.E.D's. It the first post of the thread.

cyclingforums.com Fuentes history

One more thing about Euro soccer, you have to look at which Doctors they employ. Like Fuentes you have to join the dots over their careers to find out which clubs are involved. If they spend $100+mil Euros on medical facilities and medical programs, you know they will be pushing the boundaries.

Having been part of a controlled trial of EPO I can see why it tempts so many top cyclists, the shit is powerful and allows you to just go and go...

Freakie where you part of the Dr Robin Parisotto AIS tests in 1998 and 1999 that lead to the ON and OFF model tests, with the ON model accepted for Sydney 2000 by the IOC but the other test not until 2004 by the UCI and then the IOC and other sports falling into line?

If not Parisotto which tests were you involved with? Can you tell us about your experiences? How long on the trial? How much did your performance improve by? How many more kms could you do before you were tired? Any side effects? etc

 

[Freakie]

As I said in my long post Rowing has no real culture of widespread drug taking, unlike cycling, athletics, weightlifting, body building, wrestling, NFL, baseball, soccer, cross-country skiing, swimming etc.

Look at the list of doping cases on the wiki following page and you see that the other sports I mentioned haven't all swept it under the carpet the last 10 years. Athletes in these sports keeping getting caught time and time again and their sports have introduced longer bans. Weightlifting bans nations who have had a certain number of positive tests over a 3 year period from international competition. There are plenty of links to all types of doping lists in the following page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_sport

Have a look at women's world athletics records. Apart from the new events like pole vault, hammer, steeplechase and the Javelin event because they change the javelin every 8 years or so, 16 of the other 19 world records are before 1996 when you had the East Europeans doping, the Yanks and the rest of the west copying them to keep up and then the Chinese middle distance runners from 1993 to 1995.

Does athletics have a bigger problem than cycling? I don't think so, but it wouldn't be far behind. The demands of the peloton means you have to keep up, no ifs or buts. Long distance running in athletics doesn't have the same sort of field of equality. The big difference is death from drugs in the different sports.

Cycling had to do more than others because between 1987 and 1990 - eighteen professional cyclists died of EPO doping. In
1987 - 5 Dutch cyclists died
1988 - 1 Belgian + 2 Dutch dies
1989 - 5 more Dutch died
1990 - 2 Dutch + 3 Belgians died

These were very fit athletes at the peak of their physical fitness that just dropped dead.

But as you say, Euro soccer is the big one that has been light on convicting transgressors in Europe. NFL and Baseball have been forced to wake up because of public inquires and politicians getting involved. Soccer is where the big $$$ are in Euro sports, and because the big leagues aren't tied in with the Olympics and are separate to FIFA, in terms of day to day management, they have had a slack attitude.

Look at Operation Puerto guru Dr Eufemiano Fuentes and you will see soccer has plenty to reveal. He apparently was "indignant that only cyclists had been named and said he also worked with tennis and football players." Plus track athletes.... which Spanish tennis player dom.............?????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Puerto

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eufemiano_Fuentes



On cyclingforums 4 years ago a poster reproduced in English, a Belgian cycling magazine article about Fuentes' career and when you join the dots you can see that if the authorities were serious they would have gone after him earlier. It also explains why the Spanish authorities shut down Operation Puerto because he seemed to be involved everywhere and it got political. It is a fascinating read and worth saving if you are interested in P.E.D's. It the first post of the thread.

cyclingforums.com Fuentes history

One more thing about Euro soccer, you have to look at which Doctors they employ. Like Fuentes you have to join the dots over their careers to find out which clubs are involved. If they spend $100+mil Euros on medical facilities and medical programs, you know they will be pushing the boundaries.



Freakie where you part of the Dr Robin Parisotto AIS tests in 1998 and 1999 that lead to the ON and OFF model tests, with the ON model accepted for Sydney 2000 by the IOC but the other test not until 2004 by the UCI and then the IOC and other sports falling into line?

If not Parisotto which tests were you involved with? Can you tell us about your experiences? How long on the trial? How much did your performance improve by? How many more kms could you do before you were tired? Any side effects? etc

Awesome post, saved me doing alot of leg work!

I was part of a test run by ERA at Monash Clayton at the end of 2009 studying the effects of Micro Dosing. We weren't allowed to up our training miles but I was pulling some long turns towing some very good VIS triathletes. I just went looking for my test results but couldn't find them, but from memory I improved 18% in my sustained peak power over an 8 week period (and this was off career best form having won Bronze at the age group tri world champs).

I've had 2 kids now and I am a looooooooooooooooong way from where I was

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Awesome post, saved me doing alot of leg work!

I was part of a test run by ERA at Monash Clayton at the end of 2009 studying the effects of Micro Dosing. We weren't allowed to up our training miles but I was pulling some long turns towing some very good VIS triathletes. I just went looking for my test results but couldn't find them, but from memory I improved 18% in my sustained peak power over an 8 week period (and this was off career best form having won Bronze at the age group tri world champs).

I've had 2 kids now and I am a looooooooooooooooong way from where I was

Thanks for the info Freakie. 18% is pretty impressive. You can see why elite athletes would be so tempted if they could get 3-5% advantage over their rivals. Given their base would be higher than yours I assume their net improvement would be smaller, but if they could get 18% then it would be very difficult to not try EPO if you reckon everyone else is on it.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

A few graphs from sportsscientists.com I found this site at the start of 2008. It was great during and post the Beijing Olympics for doping and non doping sports performance analysis.

This was a story they had in August 2009 on doping. I got into a discussion with the professor who contributed. Here are a couple of graphs about EPO and one about cycling. You can read the full article at

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/08/performance-analysis-weapon-against.html

Men's distance running

Next, look at the best time and average of the best 20 times for the men's 5,000m and 10,000m events:

I don't think I have to point out the striking change in performance, particularly in the 5,000m event, after the commercial introduction of EPO in about 1990. I'm particularly interested in how the average of the top 20 times each year changes, because the red line, which represents the best performance, and thus only one athlete, might be misleading. But the blue line, that average, very definitely heads downwards, after a period where it had begun to level off. For the top 20 athletes to all improve in a season is suggestive of a systemic change, possibly in training, possibly nutrition, possibly equipment (imagine what swimming's graphs will look like one day!), possibly increased exposure of athletes. Or, quite possibly, doping, and the co-incidental timing of EPO becoming commercially available and this drop-off is quite difficult to ignore.

NOT proof of doping, but a flag for intelligent testing

......

A limit to performance? Cycling may be an easier ask...

Therefore, this graph, or any other, does not constitute proof that athletes doped. What is does do is help us to understand performance better - is it possible that we can draw a dotted line on the graph to indicate where performance ends and doping MIGHT begin? Probably not (at least for now), but that is where this is headed. For cycling, I believe it is easier, and when you look at the climbing power outputs of Tour de France champions (shown again below), and then ask what the implications of riding at 6 W/kg are for the physiology, then I believe it is feasible to say that riding at a relative power output above about 6 W/kg for longer than 30 minutes raises doubts over physiological credibility (particularly when this is repeated day after day). This cycling case is intriguing, and warrants a post all of its own, which I will do when there is more time, perhaps after the IAAF World Champs.

The above graph came from an article at sportsscientists.com on 14 July 2009. For more indepth analysis behind the graph go to

Power output of Tour champions: What does it take to climb with the elite?

 

[ultimate hater]

A few graphs from sportsscientists.com I found this site at the start of 2008. It was great during and post the Beijing Olympics for doping and non doping sports performance analysis.

This was a story they had in August 2009 on doping. I got into a discussion with the professor who contributed. Here are a couple of graphs about EPO and one about cycling. You can read the full article at

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/08/performance-analysis-weapon-against.html



The above graph came from an article at sportsscientists.com on 14 July 2009. For more indepth analysis behind the graph go to

Power output of Tour champions: What does it take to climb with the elite?

I don't like these graphs where they try and single out things like the introduction of EPO etc.

For example, the blue line for the 10km average time looks like a steady decline to me, indicating a normal performance increase year upon year which is to be expected for a professional sport.

What these graphs don't show are the introduction of technology advancements in sports, for running there are better training methods, high altitude training, different running shoes, better diets etc etc and with cycling there is even a greater advancement in bicycle technologies, wheels/tyres/frames etc etc...

I mean, if you jump on a bike that was used in the 1998 tour and then jump on one now, you'll notice a massive difference just riding around the block, let alone on the alps...

I think it's quite cynical and narrow minded to put all improvements in sports performances down to the "commercial introduction of EPO"...

For example, I could put up a graph of recent swimming times and the improvements made a couple of years ago down to drugs when it was actually the introduction of those special suits which are now banned.

What I'm trying to say is, these graphs (and this guys site) don't show or care to also make note of when "high altitude training" became the norm for long distance runners, or when carbon frames/rims became the norm for bicycles etc..

I would be more inclined to believe these graphs if there was a huge drop in average times for a certain period and then it jumps back to "normal" averages, but they don't, times still stay low, I'd prefer to believe this is due to training/technologies/diets etc rather than the continued use of drugs (which is getting harder and harder to get away with these days).

 

[blackcat]

all on the gear, Evans included. U know Evans worked with Ferrari as well as Adlo eh? 'Spose he just bought the training plans and testing, like Frank Schleck with Fuentes. If you believe his explanation, tell me u believe in Frank Schlecks explanation

 

[imadodgyumpire]

So, having read the thread over, it's possible to take performance enhancing drugs, but not be cheating, right?

 

[Vader]

I was thinking about Contador's situation this morning, thinking that there had to be a better way of dealing with it. In his case the justice system moved so horribly slowly that he will actually only be out of action for about 7 months, albeit with all his victories in the previous 15 months anulled. I think he as gotten off very lightly, because he's only out of competition for the 7 month period (even if he did lose all the titles won during the previous 15 months).

I came up with a solution. I'd love to hear people's thoughts..

Once a positive is announced, the rider is given two options. He can keep riding while the justice system works it's way to a conclusion, or he can stop riding immediately. If the rider is found guilty, then he is given a 2-year ban from riding. If the rider is found not guilty, then they're free to continue (or return to) competition once again.

Now, if the guilty rider chose to stop riding immediately, then the 2-year ban is backdated to the original offence. If they chose to continue riding, then the ban starts on the date of the guilty finding, but all results achieved during the interval are wiped from the record.

Under the current system, Contador forfeited the 2010 Tour & 2011 Giro (plus a host of minor tours). He is eligible to compete again in the 2012 Vuelta. Under my proposed system, he would have forfeited both the Tour & Giro victories, but he would not be eligible to race again until early 2014.

As I see it, the only riders who would be disadvantaged under this system are those who test positive but manage to escape without sanction. How often does that occur?

 

[blackcat]

So, having read the thread over, it's possible to take performance enhancing drugs, but not be cheating, right?

well, the norms they have contrived in pro sport, and olympic level sport, say you are free to take stuff, just dont get popped and bring controversy to the brand and myth.

Effectively, dont get caught. And the gatekeepers, are also complicit. They have no incentive to catch an athlete of the stature of Thorpe or Evans.

 

[imadodgyumpire]

About time somebody answered my question, it was a serious question as well. You can have a "like".

 

[Freakie]

Bruyneel charged as well the plot thickens

 

[blackcat]

About time somebody answered my question, it was a serious question as well. You can have a "like".

its a nod and a wink thing tho'.

dont tell anyone.

I was at the anti-doping conference at Geelong Cycling World Champs in 2010. Infact, I was a gofer, and had to pick up Floyd in my car from Tulla. Also picked up Ashenden from Avalon. There were other serious academics giving lectures and submissions. It was not holding out a brickback and clubbing Armstrong et al. It was more an open exchange. The off-record stuff, enlightening.

Pro Sport, and Oly level sport, is what it is. It aint a fora to have pure ideals of fairplay and truth and some nebulous idea of apotheosis in track shoes or speedos. It if more the "dont ask how your sausage is made".

Contador and Armstrong play by the rules of professional and corporatised sport.

I feel sorry for a 16 year old femal like Bronte Campbell, a sprint swimmer from Brisbane, who is sent off to a doctor. I think the doctors who work with Stephan Widmar and Simon Kusac or whetever those cats names are, should be taken off the medical register.

If you are gonna intreoduce your kids to oly aspirations, know the truth. I feel sorry when the truth is exposed to young kids, with no defined worldview and maturity. They have no learning and knowledge to parse this cluster heck thru. There is no decision to be made, because they will be told this is how it is done. It is like being told how to kick a footy. If you see it like this, they cannot make a choice, there is no choice. Then when inducted, they will justify the legitimacy in a decades time. They have been captured, and then to deny oneself then, would take an extraordinary amount of courage, and maturity and knowledge.

I dont think doping is wrong. I think the introduction to it is, and it gets murky when minors are given the supervision by coaches and mentors. Its soooo unedifying.

But if there was a search function on the board (have to reverse back to google) then you can look at the crap I copped off partisans, when I posted on Dane Swan and Collingwood, and made it pretty clear, that they are no different from the rest, and the Richmond players too. And eh, if you already have a massive head to start with, your genetics, dont go and take growth hormone, cos it will make your head bigger. Its fine if you have a pinhead like Nick Reiwoldt, but eh, dont take it if you are his Richmond cousin with a massive noggin, cos you will grow a larger noggin and start looking like a bobble headed doll.

 

[blackcat]

I’m not too familiar with cycling and the whole drug side of it, but from what I’ve read on various cycling forums is, every rider is doping left right and centre and for that reason I find it hard to call Contador a cheat when supposedly everyone else is doing it.
Is the drug problem in cycling that bad?
How do they all get away with it?

easy, tests either dont work cos there are ways around it, or, they use stuff that does not show up on the mass spectrometor gas chromotagraphy assay. Or illegal methods, like transfusing your own blood. quite simple really.

Armstrong is right when he says he passed 500 tests. But the premise he is inferring is, they proved a negative. They cant prove the negative.

And also, there was a debious test in 2001 in Tour de Suisse, he may have paid that off.

And in 2000, he might have had 6 positives for EPO at the Tour filed away, and not pursued.

But the rest, yeah, home, and hosed.

Tho he did make a tester hold up, at his door, in southern france in 2009, when he said he had to check on credentials and was not willing to give a sample right then. He then went away, had a shower... back in half an hour. Can do stuff in that time, that 30 minutes, if indeed he was showering or not.

Also in Austin, in the offseason, Austin Texas, he managed to evade a tester who showed up at his property. That is where he lives.

Armstrong was like AGI, too big too fail, too many vested interests. And he cloaked himself in a cancer shield, and a charity organisation, which the Feds investigated, and was not really doing a cent for research, but a massive PR and Marketing boondoggle for the man and his brand.

I mean, if you jump on a bike that was used in the 1998 tour and then jump on one now, you'll notice a massive difference just riding around the block, let alone on the alps...

actually, this is fundamentally wrong. Most riders would prefer a custom made frame from 90's that suited their own technique.

Has definitely been advancements in timetrial technology tho.

the other improvements pale, they pale, pale in comparison to the advantages gained thru blood and oxygen vector advancements and advantages. When the difference between winning and losing in olympic levels, if often less than a tenth of one percent, and these doping techniqes, can add 10-25% in power improvements, you have no hope.

those power improvements dont axiomatically, change race finishes by that percentage, often riders will hide in the peloton, and even on the Queen stage still make it to the final hors category ascent with the leader, so it is only likely to be measured on the final 10 km of the ascent when the smack goes down on the attacks. So a clean athlete, can mitigate losses.

 

[blackcat]

folks dont forget that running is different to cycling, since running is bodyweight supported, and cycling not.

technique and your morphology, determines your potential. Even a runner like Mottram is banging up against disadvantage, trying to pull his 6'3" 70kg frame against africans who weight 48 and are 5'4"