[Closed] So Alberto tested positive for clenbuterol bronchodilator drug and blames food?

I'm sure it's perfectly innocent.

He was sitting eating a nice chorizo salad when a waiter accidentally discharged an entire clenbuterol inhaler over his lunch. Unfortunately Contador (due to a congenital lack of taste buds) could not taste this in his food and decided to munch his way through his meal regardless. Viola - food contamination!

I mean who in there right mind would ever suspect Contador of cheating?

I trust him. He's not guilty till Landis says so!

the amount found is 400 times less than what labs are legally obliged to declare. so its a tiny amount. but the test was done on 21st July, in all his previous tests there were no traces of it, and it stays in the system for 24-36 hours, so that means he had an advantage (a tiny one) for the second tormalet stage.....

Well, I never...

Christ, any of these "professional" athletes not cheating!

[u][b]Sports[/b][/u]men they are not!

He was sitting eating a nice chorizo salad when a waiter accidentally discharged an entire clenbuterol inhaler over his lunch. Unfortunately Contador (due to a congenital lack of taste buds) could not taste this in his food and decided to munch his way through his meal regardless. Viola - food contamination!

I mean who in there right mind would ever suspect Contador of cheating?

Except it's also used illegally in cattle farming, contaminated food could be the cause.

The Ghost of Operación Puerto finally catching up with him?

Given the fact its such a tiny amount and if it is the Tourmalet stage he didn't exactly have any advantage over Shleck, unless proven otherwise I think it could be a genuine case of contamination of some kind. Would be a real shame if its not.

Tut Tut Tut Mr C.

Armstrong all the way.

Just a tiny amount eh?

His 'doctor' slightly got his timing wrong then?

All of them are at it to some degree

was it the inhaler canister he jammed in schlecks chainset?

Considering clenbuterol is so easy to detect, it would have been a indescribable error by any alleged doping team that may have been treating him.

ie, it would have been an amazing mistake, so unlikley that it probably isn't true. at least thats the 'excuses' i expect to read for the next year or two

uplink, cynical but I agree. They'll be bouncing vastly reduced dosages into the rider after checking individual metabolisms, rider weight and how fast it takes to flush out etc...

Always one step of the testers.

{Racist abuse deleted and user banned! - Mod}

Is this a drug that can help for a single day, ie provides a spike, or is it something that needs to be taken over a period of time to have any benefit?

Steve Austin, I'm thinking there could be some sort of masking substance which hasn't done its job properly?

and if it is the Tourmalet stage he didn't exactly have any advantage over Shleck

Miniscual yes. However why haven't other leading riders had such positive tests '400 times below the level normally tested'?

Miniscual yes. However why haven't other leading riders had such positive tests '400 times below the level normally tested'?

Not eaten contaminated food? Different drug lab? New testing protocol? Who knows? Maybe he is guilty, he obviously wouldn't be the first rider, but he always seems like a nice enough guy, so I'm waiting to see what the final result is.

Not defending the man or anything, but if the sample is (warning - meaningless science from the press)"400 times below the legal reportable limit" then surely the UCI can't do anything ??

And how did this get in the press anyway ? How about some comparisons for example test 50 people who live around his way and see what their level is ?

Before destroying a man's career based on bad science and bad journalism.

(again, not defending cheaters, just saying this is pish)

And liking how the NZ press refers to Cycling as "Other Sports" when what they really mean is "Those Weirdos Who Don't Play Rugby - What Are They ??"

[i]400 times below the legal reportable limit[/i]

that's why they have suspended him pending further investigations rather than banned him atm

hels.. R4 are reporting that it got into the press because Contador released a statement.

Ah - so he is going for Own Up before I Get Caught then ?

Maybe ban loddrik until he reassesses how to converse about 'Jonny foreigner'?

EDIT: seems I was beaten to it...

[i]400 times below the legal reportable limit[/i]

that's why they have suspended him pending further investigations rather than banned him atm

It's not the legal reportable limit, but rather the minimum level detectable for a lab to be UCI certified. I [i]think[/i] the limit is 0.

I'm starting to wonder whether its actually possible to either have a 'clean' sport or that riders are actually able to stay 'clean.

A recent equestrian story has brought this to light:

First story, Sep 09.

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/386/289651.html

Luckily this lady had access to the funds to fight her name, and has been shown to by innocent:

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/competitionnews/article.php?aid=302201

Turns out that the banned substance was actually in some totally legal horse feed/supplement - that had been contaminated at the (reputable) manufacture. It is very very common for horse to be supplied supllements, for a variety of reasons.

And animal feeds are very rigiously tested and controlled, in many cases to a greater level than food for human consumption - do YOU actually know what was in those cakes you ate yesterday?

do YOU actually know what was in those cakes you ate yesterday?

do YOU actually know what was in those cakes you ate yesterday?

Yes, I was facing a difficult off road mountain bike route so decided to eat specific items that were laced with performance enhancing products?

I'm starting to wonder whether its actually possible to either have a 'clean' sport or that riders are actually able to stay 'clean.

I think this is a pretty insightful comment. There will come a point where we can no longer define 'clean', or perhaps more accurately 'fair' in a way that everyone can agree with.

If you take the argument to the Nth degree, you start to find that you come back on yourself. The winner in a fair competition is the person who won based on merit and hardwork. However you could argue that the person born with 'better DNA' will have an 'unfair' advantage based on the fact that the advantage was inherited, not developed.

Yay! A banning!

Well, it was a pretty damned stupid statement

us specialized riders DONT cheat

Quite a coincidence that his food was contaminated with a drug that is widely used by athletes, particularly top level cyclists, and particularly cyclists wanting to lose weight and increase lean muscle mass. Like a hill climber for example.

It's a drug that is cycled as it becomes tolerated very quickly, so my money is on there having been residual traces left in his body after a pre-tour course. I think that would be more likely than a poor masking agent - there wouldn't be much need to mask a drug that has gone after 36hrs.

I suspect he took a calculated risk that he wouldn't get tested until after a stage win, but someone got their sums wrong.

cynic-al... I thought you meant that for Contador, and was about to point out he was only suspended... but then realised you meant loddrik up there..

:oD

It's a drug that is cycled as it becomes tolerated very quickly, so my money is on there having been [b]residual traces left in his body after a [u]pre-tour course[/u][/b]. I think that would be more likely than a poor masking agent - there wouldn't be much need to mask a [b]drug that has gone after 36hrs.[/b]

These two parts of your argument are contradictory, surely??

[i]It's a drug that is cycled as it becomes tolerated very quickly, so my money is on there having been residual traces left in his body after a pre-tour course.[/i]

So why did it not show up on any of the previous stage tests?

I've often wondered in professional sport how easy it would be to 'spike' someone with a banned substance and get them disqualified - not suggesting this is what happened in this case though.

so my money is on there having been residual traces left in his body after a pre-tour course. I think that would be more likely than a poor masking agent - there wouldn't be much need to mask a drug that has gone after 36hrs.

It is such a small trace it seems possible that it is contamination and I think it is unlikely he would cheat this badly or with such a low level amount. Given the nature and repoutation of the sport it is difficult to not suspect they all cheat hence many will think it was deliberate

So why did it not show up on any of the previous stage tests?

I'm not sure how the dates stack up - and I've not got time to trawl through the results etc - but it's not inconceivable that he cycled the drug when he knew he wouldn't be winning a stage for 36 hrs (I think I'm right in thinking stage winners are routinely tested).

He didn't win a single stage this year, even gifting the Tourmalet stage to Schleck - that could have been a strategy to avoid testing.

Just a thought, I'm no expert...

FFS even your own posts says it is gone after 36 hours so how the hell would it still be there from pre tour use and also not detected before?

Erm... Because he could have finished cycling the drug before there was any chance of a stage win and the resultant mandatory testing? 🙄

As I said, pure conjecture. I know no more about it than you.

[i]He didn't win a single stage this year, even gifting the Tourmalet stage to Schleck - that could have been a strategy to avoid testing.

Just a thought, I'm no expert... [/i]

Yellow Jersey is always tested regardless of where he finishes.
Usual protocol is Jersey Holders, first three and then 3 randoms.

as regards to testing.... he like all others are tested the day before the prologue and all top riders (and loads of others) are tested after each stage.
If he had got to that stage without a post stage test it would be unbeleivable!!

But yes, sadly, I feel some sort of cheating might be on the cards here...

Yellow Jersey is always tested regardless of where he finishes.
Usual protocol is Jersey Holders, first three and then 3 randoms.

Cheers Crazy-Legs. How does that fit in with his performance on the 2 days prior to his test?
Could he have stopped taking the drug before making a bid for the yellow jersey or would he already have been tested under that protocol prior to this?

Just a thought, I'm no expert...

From UCI

?Alberto Contador underwent sport drug testing during many days of the 2010 Tour de France, including July 19, 20, 21, and 22.
?No Clenbuterol was detected in any of the tests prior to July 21.
?An extremely low trace concentration of Clenbuterol was found in the urine sample taken on July 21; the concentration found in the urine sample taken on July 22 was even lower.
?The half-life of Clenbuterol is 25-39 hours.
?These facts show that Clenbuterol was ingested after the urine testing on July 20 in an amount that could have never enhanced his performance.
?There are numerous documented cases of humans ingesting Clenbuterol accidentally by eating meat from animals that have been fed the substance to stimulate growth.

EDIT: No dont change explain how the pre tour use caused the positive for the drug at levels 400 times lower than normal and on only one day despite previous testing? You could just admit you were wrong to suggest pre tour use and we can move on.

becky_kirk43 - Member

Given the fact its such a tiny amount

Oh that's fine then seeing as it was only a tiny bit......

Easily done too I'm sure - accidentally got some Stanazolol over my Crunchy Nut Cornflakes this morning, as you do.

I suppose they'll give the 2010 TDF win to Andy Schleck who'll become as feted for the win as that guy who came 2nd to Landis and then got awarded it later. Whatever his name was?

Oh, Oscar Peireiro (I had to look it up).