Professional Cycling For the Fans - crybaby...

http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/10/news/alberto-contador-says-he-may-quit-cycling-if-banned-for-doping_144526

i think there is a chance that it may have been a case of accidental ingestion..however, i am not buying the tainted steak story..

i guess he's taking his ball and heading home?

Just shows you what his character really is.

Just shows you what his character really is.

Yours too

Yours too

what does this mean?...cause he said someone is quitting if they are accused of something, and this shows his character..

i would like the UCI to make it mandatory that all samples be heldfor a period of 10-15 years for retesting.......

I hope alberto means what he says.

that being said....if the riders are able to pass these tests and a majority of the elite riders are doing it, get off the backs of these guys until the UCI can level the field. Cycling is a great sport but if doping is that much of a benefit than find a consistant way to keep this from happening. I don't think the UCI is doing everything they can to stop this from happening. If you allow the employee to be tardy dont blame the employee for being late. If you allow it to persist and don't take meaningful measures to correct the situation don't blame the employee....blame yourself...

Drug Doping

Those that benefit
Newspapers and Media
Teams that win with doped riders
The riders (if they don't get caught)
The Events that host the top riders

Those that are hurt
Riders who are caught
International cycling credability
The majority of riders out there that either are clean or would choose to be clean if they felt the field was clean

To me it is clear that those that benefit from this should not be the ones making the rules. If the credability is to be earned back they need to take measures to test samples in the future to discourage use, make individual teams responisble for monitoring their own riders between races with their own testing, and to look into Vo2 max indexing. If a rider is caught doping the rider and team are punished with extreme punishment.

otherwise, let em dope the the WWE.....wait, the WWe tests their athletes as well.....lol

I don't necessarily think he's being a crybaby- I think what he's saying is that he did not cheat, and that if he is found guilty, then the testing programs are so corrup that a clean racer cannot get a fair shake in the world of cycling.
If what he is saying is true, then it speaks a great deal to his character in that he would rather quit racing and give up all of his potential future winnings in order to boycott a corrupt system. That would actually be pretty honorable.

PLEASE NOTE- i personally think they all blood dope, dope, cheat, swindle, etc.- except for Thor Hushovd- who is riding possessed by Thor and Odin Himself!

Yours too

Agreed

I think what he's saying is that he did not cheat, and that if he is found guilty, then the testing programs are so corrup that a clean racer cannot get a fair shake in the world of cycling.
Regardless of his meaning or intentions, somehow the rule makers need to get a handle on what constitutes doping which actually benefits performance. The amount that showed up in AC's test is so miniscule that it's difficult to believe that anyone would even want to deliberately take that dosage.

Re they all do/did it, sometimes I thing that the existence of doping makes it difficult for folks to accept that elite athletes simply perform on a much higher level than do the rest of us.

Fog- It's interesting to me that because you don't agree with my opinion of professional bike racers that you have to deride me as unable to accept that there are better atheletes than me. I'm a fat guy who rides a bike and who happens to have an opinion. Is Tiger Woods a better golfer than me? yup. Can Lance Armstrong ride a bike better than me? yup. Did Tiger Woods have Lasik surgery that made his depth perception greater than humanly perfect? yup. Is that cheating? Did Lance Armstrong cheat? you decide.
But in your decision making, don't make the people you disagree with to be lesser than you. This thread is about a guy's character- belittling others you don't agree with speaks to yours.

Did Contador cheat? we'll find out. I really hope he didn't, but after more and more people get caught cheating in a sport i love, I can't help but feel a little disillusioned when i watch them race.

That, and the fact that Michael Rasmussen looked like a terminal AIDS patient at the height of his career disillusions the sh*t out of me.

is it difficult for you, as a folk, to accept that?

Oddly enough, Contador's claims about being treated unfairly and threatening to quit permanently sound an awful lot like Vino's "threats" after he got busted. It must be in the Astana team's media handbook. ;)

Hahaha, this quote from cyclingnews is ****ing hilarious: :lol:


Contador also claimed that there have been moments in the past weeks when he has been tempted to leave cycling, especially in the immediate aftermath of being informed of his positive test. “I said to myself: I’m quitting it all,” he said. “I saw children around my house on their bikes imitating me, and I felt like telling them ‘Let it go, don’t try and be a champion and do it correctly. This world is unjust.’”

I don't necessarily think he's being a crybaby- I think what he's saying is that he did not cheat, and that if he is found guilty, then the testing programs are so corrup that a clean racer cannot get a fair shake in the world of cycling.
If what he is saying is true, then it speaks a great deal to his character in that he would rather quit racing and give up all of his potential future winnings in order to boycott a corrupt system. That would actually be pretty honorable.I agree.

I don't necessarily think he's being a crybaby- I think what he's saying is that he did not cheat, and that if he is found guilty, then the testing programs are so corrup that a clean racer cannot get a fair shake in the world of cycling.
If what he is saying is true, then it speaks a great deal to his character in that he would rather quit racing and give up all of his potential future winnings in order to boycott a corrupt system. That would actually be pretty honorable.

PLEASE NOTE- i personally think they all blood dope, dope, cheat, swindle, etc.- except for Thor Hushovd- who is riding possessed by Thor and Odin Himself!

Then he should have said that. Apparently he said something else that wasn't nearly so honorable.

Then he should have said that. Apparently he said something else that wasn't nearly so honorable.

Here are his quotes from the velonews link above:

“If this is not resolved favorably and in a just fashion, then I would have to reconsider or not I would ever come back to the bike,” Contador said on La Noria. “I am very optimistic and I think things will be resolved favorably.”

“If they want to analyze every sample that I gave during the Tour in as many labs as they want or if they prefer, they can freeze them and test them again in three or five years with whatever future methods of testing they might have,” Contador said. “They can do what they want. I have nothing to hide.”

I don't see anything dishonorable here.

Here are his quotes from the velonews link above:

“If this is not resolved favorably and in a just fashion, then I would have to reconsider or not I would ever come back to the bike,” Contador said on La Noria. “I am very optimistic and I think things will be resolved favorably.”

“If they want to analyze every sample that I gave during the Tour in as many labs as they want or if they prefer, they can freeze them and test them again in three or five years with whatever future methods of testing they might have,” Contador said. “They can do what they want. I have nothing to hide.”

I don't see anything dishonorable here.

It sounds a lot like, if you don't find me innocent then I am taking my fame and leaving you. You will be left without a great champion if you suspend me for doping. I don't care that I have violated the rules for whatever reason and the rules don't care about reason, but you suspend me and I am never returning to this sport.

It sounds a lot like, if you don't find me innocent then I am taking my fame and leaving you. You will be left without a great champion if you suspend me for doping. I don't care that I have violated the rules for whatever reason and the rules don't care about reason, but you suspend me and I am never returning to this sport.

That's what I got out of it too.

Then he should have said that. Apparently he said something else that wasn't nearly so honorable.
Yeah, he should have crafted a quote that would have satisfied and silenced the cynical internet critics.

Of course, if he says he'll quit, he's a "crybaby who's just taking his ball". However, if he says he'll stay, he's "shameless doper whose mere presence in the pro-peloton besmirches cycling." But, the internet is rife with "honorable" people craving the moment they can say something--anything--negative about people whose lives are actually worthy of mass interest.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't

It sounds a lot like, if you don't find me innocent then I am taking my fame and leaving you. You will be left without a great champion if you suspend me for doping. I don't care that I have violated the rules for whatever reason and the rules don't care about reason, but you suspend me and I am never returning to this sport.
If he's guilty, then yes, I can see that. But, if he's innocent, then I can see him feeling that the system isn't fair enough to continue a professional career under the current 'unfair' rules.

I'm not saying he's innocent or guilty, I'm just saying that there isn't necessarily anything dishonorable that he said, at least IMO.

Damned if you do, damned if you don'tThe UCI or whoever metes out the bans has the same conundrum. If they buy his excuse and want to give him a break, then they will be accused of all kinds of things, but if they ban someone for a technicality, then they have demonstrated that their own system doesn't work. The only way their ban will have any real legitimacy is if they can demonstrate that Contador really was cheating, and that might be hard to do without any additional evidence, testimony, etc.

He had Clen in his body, that alone is cheating. I don't even give a **** how it got there and whether or not it was effective.

He had Clen in his body, that alone is cheating. I don't even give a **** how it got there and whether or not it was effective.


Forget the reasoning behind the rules, and be a slave to one that wasn't completely thought through before it was adopted. :thumb:

Forget the reasoning behind the rules, and be a slave to one that wasn't completely thought through before it was adopted. :thumb:

If indeed he wasn't cheating, then the UCI and WADA should take this opportunity to establish some minimum level for those chemicals/drugs that can be ingested via background noise.

My reasoning for that opinion is, that I don't expect top athletes like Contador to ever get caught on anything but minimal doses, technicalities or gigantic ****-ups. So minimal dose is good enough for me. As is circumstancial evidence, which the whole blood passport thing is based on. Al Capone was only convicted of tax evasion or something also, that's the same principle.

Besides, I don't buy his ridiculous tainted beef story for a second. I mean, come on... That's all the best he could come up with after a month of preparation?

Fog- It's interesting to me that because you don't agree with my opinion of professional bike racers that you have to deride me as unable to accept that there are better atheletes than me. My meaning was not clear. I was thinking about how cycling differs from other sports. If we take up a team sport such as football, it's immediately clear that some people are better than others. With cycling, it's possible to just get on a bike and ride it. No need to ride with others, so no being constantly reminded that others are much better at it than we are.

FWIW I agree with a previous poster re the need for developing testing protocols which identify at which level a drug actually does result in a performance enhancement.

Yeah, he should have crafted a quote that would have satisfied and silenced the cynical internet critics.


And it should have been crafted in perfect (American) English so that the cynical American internet critics wouldn't have to either (1) read a translation or (2) bother to learn a second language.:p

Here's my reasoning.

If a substance's concentration when conferring a benefit is known, and the rate of deterioration is known, it should be possible to define a threshold for receiving punishment for finding it in a sample. This especially should be the case when the substance has been known to be found as "background" from environmental contamination. Contador's explanation shouldn't even factor into the consideration.


My reasoning for that opinion is, that I don't expect top athletes like Contador to ever get caught on anything but minimal doses, technicalities or gigantic ****-ups. So minimal dose is good enough for me. As is circumstancial evidence, which the whole blood passport thing is based on. Al Capone was only convicted of tax evasion or something also, that's the same principle.

Besides, I don't buy his ridiculous tainted beef story for a second. I mean, come on... That's all the best he could come up with after a month of preparation?

Here's my reasoning.

If a substance's concentration when conferring a benefit is known, and the rate of deterioration is known, it should be possible to define a threshold for receiving punishment for finding it in a sample. This especially should be the case when the substance has been known to be found as "background" from environmental contamination. Contador's explanation shouldn't even factor into the consideration.

I agree to a point. There is the possibility that micro doses over an extended period of time will have a benefit, even if that micro dose without others doesn't confer a benefit. Lots of studies need to be done to determine this.

Regardless of his meaning or intentions, somehow the rule makers need to get a handle on what constitutes doping which actually benefits performance. The amount that showed up in AC's test is so miniscule that it's difficult to believe that anyone would even want to deliberately take that dosage.

Re they all do/did it, sometimes I thing that the existence of doping makes it difficult for folks to accept that elite athletes simply perform on a much higher level than do the rest of us.

Pro athlete's don't take drugs to beat schlubs like you and me. They do it to beat each other. That's an entirely different kettle of fish.

I don't think AC took that tiny dosage of Clen. Like you said, it wouldn't make sense. What I do believe is that he blood doped and that his blood when he banked it had a miniscule amount of Clen in it. During the off season, you can do things like steroids, especially ones that don't stay long in your system. During the Tour, you do a little blood doping and some EPO micro-dosing to keep your Ret level up. The Clen positive is actually just a by-product of the much more powerful (during a grand tour) blood doping.

As I've heard it explained, with the biological passport in place, blood doping would be pretty obvious, as cell ratios and hematocrit levels would show up. It would be especially risky for the race leader to attempt this, since he knows he's going to get tested daily.

If a substance's concentration when conferring a benefit is known, and the rate of deterioration is known, it should be possible to define a threshold for receiving punishment for finding it in a sample.
But if minute amount is detected, it would indicate that the rider used the substance before the race - shouldn't it be penalized?

I'd be curious to know if clenbuterol can really be considered a "bona fide contaminant" in real world - if it would be found if a representative sample of population was tested. Because somehow I think that the simpler answer to the question how did it find its way to AC's body is: because he put it there on purpose.

Others may know more though

But if minute amount is detected, it would indicate that the rider used the substance before the race - shouldn't it be penalized?

I'd be curious to know if clenbuterol can really be considered a "bona fide contaminant" in real world - if it would be found if a representative sample of population was tested. Because somehow I think that the simpler answer to the question how did it find its way to AC's body is: because he put it there on purpose.

Others may know more though

Even if he did, if the amount was so small it wouldn't confer any advantage to him - why would we care?

Even if he did, if the amount was so small it wouldn't confer any advantage to him - why would we care?

Now that depends on how it got into his/her system and why. If it's background "noise", that's one thing. If it was ingested with the intent to dope, that's another.

Even if he did, if the amount was so small it wouldn't confer any advantage to him - why would we care?

That's like saying attempted murder shouldn't be punished. "Hey, he missed his shot, so no harm done, eh?"

If an athlete takes an illegal drug even in homeopathic doses it's still illegal. And if he does that who knows what else he's taking?...

Even if he did, if the amount was so small it wouldn't confer any advantage to him - why would we care?

Hypothetically speaking (or is it hypodermically?), what if the trace elements were there as a result of receiving a blood transfusion from a time when he was doping, and most but not all of the banned substance had broken down between the time the blood was withdrawn and transfused again?

That's like saying attempted murder shouldn't be punished. "Hey, he missed his shot, so no harm done, eh?"
That doesn't work. If someone willing takes a minuscule dose of something illegal that they know cannot give them a performance advantage, then even though they have broken the rules, it can't be argued that they had the intent to get an advantage. The murderer, in your example, "took the full dose" but missed the target - he had the intent.


If an athlete takes an illegal drug even in homeopathic doses it's still illegal. And if he does that who knows what else he's taking?...Yes, it's still illegal, which is why many people are suggesting that there should be minimum levels necessary.

That doesn't work. If someone willing takes a minuscule dose of something illegal that they know cannot give them a performance advantage, then even though they have broken the rules, it can't be argued that they had the intent to get an advantage. The murderer, in your example, "took the full dose" but missed the target - he had the intent.
Yes, it's still illegal, which is why many people are suggesting that there should be minimum levels necessary.


You're missing the point. The Clen was just an accident. I firmly believe he didn't take Clen during the Tour. That would be an absurd thing to do in any quantity. He did that in the off season prior to banking the blood. When he stuck the blood back in his body, the Clen showed up as a complete accident.

The deal with the passport is that you have to constantly be doping. That's where some of the micro-dosing comes in. It works through your body in a few hours. You take it right after your last test. You know that in 24 hours you'll be good. In 6 hours, you might be screwed, but they aren't going to test you in 6 hours, so it's a moot point. Love him or hate him, Floyd has been pretty open about this part. It shows how they can make their passport readings so remarkably consistent. The passport reader might see this as 'no doping', but it would look the same as 'consistent doping'.

Here's my reasoning.

If a substance's concentration when conferring a benefit is known, and the rate of deterioration is known, it should be possible to define a threshold for receiving punishment for finding it in a sample.

Benefit/concentration is simply not known. Maybe in some no longer circulated East German journals of physiology. Could be a goldmine in dusty old libraries...

I was thinking the same thing, that if he is innocent and would retire because the rules were unjust to him, I can respect that move.

But with the new reports of plasicizers (sp) in his blood - all I'm thinking is that I hate when drivel comes out of the mouths of cheaters. The lying and manipulating of the public is worse than the actual cheating, in my opinion.

Even if he did, if the amount was so small it wouldn't confer any advantage to him - why would we care?
So you're saying riders should only be tested during the race. Why would it be unimportant what they do when training?

Benefit/concentration is simply not known. Maybe in some no longer circulated East German journals of physiology. Could be a goldmine in dusty old libraries...

Actually for this drug (clenbuterol) it is known. At least for the steroid effect. It requires a level in the body two orders of magnitude higher than was found to have a performance enhancing effect. As a masking agent I don't know. The best theory is the blood bag or an accidental ingestion.

I should be noted that DEHP is in a lot of different plastic products. But the testers believe that they can detect foul play by the level that is in the body. This is probably bull****, because if the test was that good they would have likely busted a whole lot more riders for blood doping based on this test.

The UCI and WADA have taken their time because the science does not completely add up. They are faced with sanctioning someone based on at least 50% speculation. This is why the experts are divided. This would probably open them up to a serious lawsuit in the future. If it can be proved in another court of law that the sanction was based on 50% speculation then a rich athlete could sue them and show actual malice to defame them. The amount of damages could hurt the UCI pretty bad. I'm not saying that Contador did or did not dope. Only that the science is not strongly supporting the hypothesis. If we can sanction riders with only 50% assurance that we are right in doping then this will only give bike racers more incentive to dope to beat an unjust system. Unjust both in terms of culture and penalty for wrong doing.

However, the fact that plasticizers were found the day before the clenbuterol positive and not along with the clen positive probably means that something is wrong with the testing protocol. How could the body show elevated levels of DEHP eight times the minimum necessary to indicate possible doping one day and not the next. The body cannot get rid of this stuff like that. It's an unnatural substance the body cannot break down normally.

So you're saying riders should only be tested during the race. Why would it be unimportant what they do when training?

Not sure what you're basing that leap to a conclusion on. Out of competition testing exists for a valid reason. My argument is that, as we learn more about what confers an advantage, and at what levels it does, and what might plausibly, or even implausibly be introduced by environmental contamination, the criteria for sanction need to re-evaluated, and possibly adjusted. I'm all for catching dopers, but I'm also dead-set against applying rules that provide no recourse for events that could be beyond the reasonable control of the riders.

Not sure what you're basing that leap to a conclusion on.AC could have gotten clenbuterol with blood transfusion. If that's the case, we don't know how much of the drug he had taken or how long before extracting blood.

Actually for this drug (clenbuterol) it is known. At least for the steroid effect. It requires a level in the body two orders of magnitude higher than was found to have a performance enhancing effect. As a masking agent I don't know. The best theory is the blood bag or an accidental ingestion.

I should be noted that DEHP is in a lot of different plastic products. But the testers believe that they can detect foul play by the level that is in the body. This is probably bull****, because if the test was that good they would have likely busted a whole lot more riders for blood doping based on this test.

The UCI and WADA have taken their time because the science does not completely add up. They are faced with sanctioning someone based on at least 50% speculation. This is why the experts are divided. This would probably open them up to a serious lawsuit in the future. If it can be proved in another court of law that the sanction was based on 50% speculation then a rich athlete could sue them and show actual malice to defame them. The amount of damages could hurt the UCI pretty bad. I'm not saying that Contador did or did not dope. Only that the science is not strongly supporting the hypothesis. If we can sanction riders with only 50% assurance that we are right in doping then this will only give bike racers more incentive to dope to beat an unjust system. Unjust both in terms of culture and penalty for wrong doing.

However, the fact that plasticizers were found the day before the clenbuterol positive and not along with the clen positive probably means that something is wrong with the testing protocol. How could the body show elevated levels of DEHP eight times the minimum necessary to indicate possible doping one day and not the next. The body cannot get rid of this stuff like that. It's an unnatural substance the body cannot break down normally.

My the rules of the UCI, he is guilty no matter the cause. The rules for Clenbuterol is 0 is allowed and you are responsible to know everything that enters your body. He has no legal recourse on that. It is pretty cut and dry. Is it fair, is another question but that is the rule I don't see European courts getting involved in this. I am sure if he is suspended he will go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, to get it overturned but no matter what it is a technical violation of the rule.

My the rules of the UCI, he is guilty no matter the cause. The rules for Clenbuterol is 0 is allowed and you are responsible to know everything that enters your body. He has no legal recourse on that. It is pretty cut and dry. Is it fair, is another question but that is the rule I don't see European courts getting involved in this. I am sure if he is suspended he will go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, to get it overturned but no matter what it is a technical violation of the rule.

It may be cut and dry but it is highly unethical because as they are able to measure smaller and smaller amounts of things they will find traces of what ever they are looking for everywhere. There is no place that the pollution of the world is untouched. Therefore they must have a minimum level of every drug to prevent false positives. This is going to be a problem in the future and the UCI and WADA must develop a moral code in this regard.

It may be cut and dry but it is highly unethical because as they are able to measure smaller and smaller amounts of things they will find traces of what ever they are looking for everywhere. There is no place that the pollution of the world is untouched. Therefore they must have a minimum level of every drug to prevent false positives. This is going to be a problem in the future and the UCI and WADA must develop a moral code in this regard.

You make good points, but I wouldn't call the current zero tollerance for clenbuterol "unethical". Perhaps the rule is outdated due to the ability of labs to find these tiny trace amounts at levels far below what was normal when the rule went into place. On the other hand the rule set a minimum detection level for a lab to be certified; it does not say a lab can't report findings better than that minimum.

My feeling is that Contador will be sanctioned. What he is fighting for is to keep the TdF victory and get a minimal suspension that hopefully ends before July 2011.