Er, yes, probably.

But the issue is whether the assay was reliably detecting the substance.

You’d be amazed at how inaccurate assays are at low concentrations.

The Limit of Detection is the point at which you can’t detect. The LOQ is the point at which you can detect with an error margin of 100%.

The amount they found was way below what can normally be detected. So, it could be a groovy new super assay – or it could be nonsense that doesn’t exist.

It’s kind of like been done for drink driving becuase they’ve detected alcohol in your system at 1/100th of the legal limit.

No. There’s no limit, it’s just that to be acredited as a test lab they have a minimum level that they must be able to detect. The lab that tested AC’s sample could test lower than the required minimum and did so. There’s no argument that the detection was invalid or innacurate, even from AC’s team.

It’s more like being done for drink driving because they’ve detected a teeny tiny amount (well below the current limit) if they dropped the legal limit to zero.

It’s like being a footballer with a huge supercar and driving it at 150mph down the motorway and being caught. Then hiring a super lawer who proves that the police didn’t calibrate the speedo, the cars speedo wasn’t working correctly, and you were more than likely only doing 65mph anyway. And therefore you are not guilty.

The Spanish have all sorts of dodgy practices regarding beef.

The amount they found was way below what can normally be detected. So, it could be a groovy new super assay – or it could be nonsense that doesn’t exist.

The amount they found was way below the accreditation threshold. I find it highly unlikely that they would publish a result with such significant consequences, if they weren’t confident in it.

traildog – Member
It’s like being a footballer with a huge supercar and driving it at 150mph down the motorway and being caught. Then hiring a super lawer who proves that the police didn’t calibrate the speedo, the cars speedo wasn’t working correctly, and you were more than likely only doing 65mph anyway. And therefore you are not guilty.

Nope. It’s like driving at 71mph in a 70 and being caught by a camera that is accurate enough to tell that you were at 71mph while most others can only tell if you’re doing over 75mph and then claiming that you did it by mistake even if the rule is that even if you’re 1mph over, you’ll get done.

No one is arguing that the clenbuterol wasn’t there. The argument is about whether it being there means that he gets banned. The letter of the law seems to suggest there’s no consideration for how/why it’s there while the Spanish Federation seems to view the rules as allowing you to be let off if you can come up with a good excuse.

What are you going to do if Bertie’s actually cleared?

I’ll be having a nice Spanish steak to celebrate and asking Bertie for the lottery numbers.

My understanding of the situation is that you can be let off without sanction if you can provide definitive proof that ingestion was accidental. The Spanish federation appears to have interpreted “definitive proof” as “able to come up with a good story”.

The issue with the Contador case is that there are other cases of Clenbuterol positives that have not seen sanction from national bodies, and which have not been pursued further by WADA.

Far from supporting his case, the fact WADA haven’t pursued others but are pursuing him tells you all you need to know about how they view the strength of his case.

OK, so here are some questions I’d be asking if I were his lawyer:-

The amount detected was 400times lower than the required lowest detectable level. If most labs / assays can only detect a higher level how has this test been validated?

What is the half life of the substance? If it’s such a low urine/blood concentration than its likely to have been either a tiny amount he ingested (which would support contamination) or it’s been in his system for ages – at which point could another test have picked it up previously.

The problem is as assays get more accurate – the results become harder to interpret. For instance who would want to be fired from work if they did random drug testing and found cocaine in your system from a dollar bill you touched two weeks ago? This is pretty much his argument (not about cocaine mind….).

But, as I said, I’m jet lagged and it’s been a long time since I worked as a pharmacokineticist.

I reckon they’re waiting for the plasticiser test to be validated so they can shaft him good an proper 🙂

Clubber, you are right in the way you modified my analogy.

The plasticiser test is a major breakthough if it is validated.

The amount detected was 400times lower than the required lowest detectable level.

40 times lower. The original press release was wrong.

So, about Andy Schleck. Was it a mistake for him to say when interviewed: “It is not if we will win the tour, but how”?

I think the reason wada and the UCI are after contador is the plasticisers he tested positive for – not an accredited test but and official one – so while he can’t be sanctioned just for the plasticisers it is a part of the case.

I believe the sequence went like this

Contador uses clenbuterol in out of season training. waits until its undetectable, taps a pint or two of blood. transfuses this blood back in during the TDF for a boost, new more sensitive test finds the previously undetectable trace of clenbuterol.

So Contador was not using the clenbuterol during the tour but in training – he was however blood doping during the tour

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/plasticisers-in-contadors-urine-could-indicate-blood-transfusion

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/segura-says-contador-plasticizer-levels-are-indicative-of-transfusion

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5904/Blood-boosting-theory-gains-ground-in-Alberto-Contador-doping-case-plasticizer-levels-cited-again.aspx

he was however blood doping during the tour

Oh you’ve proven this beyond all reasonable doubt, have you?

Ok then.

CASE CLOSED!

Elf – read the links and read what I said

I believe

Thats why WADA and UCI are after him and why he is trying to avoid the court.