A familiar face is making news again, at least in the cycling press. And some of what he has to say ties into a current scandal involving the 2010 Tour de France winner, if only indirectly. But before we get to that, I’ve been thinking about something that might be more grist for the mill on the politics blog, but has a bit of application here, too.
My wife and I didn’t travel anywhere this Thanksgiving, so we haven’t been subjected to the latest “enhanced” security measures at our local airport (although, I’m not sure that Milwaukee’s airport has a full body scanner — yet). How our public officials respond to threats real or imagined gives me pause. On the one hand, I want to be certain that they are taking steps to prevent terrorism, hijacking and the like. But on the other hand, I wonder if the steps being taken really are helping.
Consider: We now have to remove our shoes when going through airport security, because someone tried to blow up a plane with a shoe bomb. We can’t carry liquids through security, meaning you’ll have to finish that cup of Starbucks before you go through the scanners and x-rays and the like. And now we may be subjected to a full-body scanner that would make Superman envious, along with the possibility of a rather intrusive pat down.
Yet all of the situations which caused the implementation of these measures occurred in other countries. Which makes me wonder whether the increased security measures were implemented to actually counter real threats or to create the appearance that our public officials are doing something, anything, to keep us “safe.” I’d like to believe it’s the former, but the cynic in me has this nagging feeling it’s more the latter.
In a similar vein, one could question whether anti-doping policies and testing are designed to keep competition fair, or merely to give the impression that sporting authorities are doing something to battle the problem of performance enhancing drugs.
Which brings me back to the person and scandal I was referring to at the start of this post. Floyd Landis appeared on French and German television today. Among his comments were some relating to the use of clenbuterol in cycling. Of course, clenbuterol is in the cycling news these days because of Alberto Contador’s positive test result from the 2010 Tour de France. Before we get to Landis’ comments, a little recap.
A couple of days after my last post, the World Anti-Doping Agency released a report of an investigation into the possibility that Contador did eat tainted meat. After what Team Contador points out was a cursory investigation, WADA concluded that contamination wasn’t the most likely source. According to a Cyclingnews.com account of WADA’s report:
WADA is also reported to have supplied a report from the European Union into the analysis of almost 300,000 meat samples that were tested during 2008. Only a single sample showed even the possibility of contamination with clenbuterol.
One out of three hundred thousand would be an extremely low percentage of contamination. Team Contador, responding the same day to a report of a UCI investigation (hat-tip to M, who provided the links), noted:
“Regarding the information on the controls in the European Union to animals intended for human consumption and especially beef, the report of the UCI is limited because it considers as good the final official information, according to which each member country must control only 0.4% of bovine animals slaughtered the previous year. According to the latest official report of the European Union for 2008, over a total of nearly 27 million cattle were slaughtered in the EU but only a total of 122,648 samples (0.48%) of which only 22,518 cases with searches for traces of beta agonists, including Clenbuterol.”
Now this is getting interesting. If Team Contador’s numbers are correct, then in 2008 18.36% of the samples taken from cattle slaughtered that year showed traces of the kind of drugs that include clenbuterol. (Note to any working journalists who might be laboring under the impression that clenbuterol is a steroid: [[Clenbuterol]] is not an anabolic steroid. Even a quick check of Wikipedia will tell you that it’s a beta agonist, as Contador’s team described it, above.)
Does that percentage ring a bell? Supposedly, about 18% of the beef in Mexico is contaminated with clenbuterol or related drugs. An Italian rider who tested positive at the 2009 Tour of Mexico tested positive and received a reduced, one-year sanction, based on the prevalence of contaminated meat south of the border. If the Spanish federation were to follow suit, Contador could expect a one year “vacation” from professional cycling.
Five days later, on the 22nd, a spokesman for a Spanish agricultural organization spoke in support of Contador’s contention that it was the beef. According another article on Cyclingnews.com (tip o’ the hat to Ted Guy for the link), Ramón Riestra told AS.com:
“I want to denounce that Spain imports Clebuterol-contaminated meat coming from South America and that Contador is only a scapegoat,” Riestra said.
“The European Union has signed an agreement with Mercosur, South America’s common market, to import 20 million tons of meat over three years for the 27 European countries. Spain, which is meat-deficient, receives a minumum of two million tons. And in South America, it is not prohibited to fatten cattle with Clenbuterol.”
So, perhaps Alberto wolfed down a bit of meat that had a whole heap of frequent flier miles. But seriously, that could account for Contador’s positive test result. The question is: could it rise to the level that an arbitration panel would accept? I’m not so sure.
And then there’s this. Apparently clenbuterol use isn’t terribly uncommon in the professional peloton. Floyd Landis appeared on the German TV network ARD’s Sportschau today, telling the network (one last hat tip, this time to Liggett Junkie for letting me know about Landis’ comments on ARD):
“I know that riders have taken Clenbuterol. I think that the risk of taking Clenbuterol is higher now than it was earlier, when there weren’t any training controls. Nevertheless, there is still the risk of being caught, even if it is rather small now, since the product has usually degraded when the control takes place.”
“You don’t know what risks people will take to win a race,” Landis said.
When there’s big money and big glory on the line, I’m willing to bet some folks are willing to take huge risks. This VeloNation.com article contains more information about Landis’ statements to both ARD and France’s Stade 2 today. Landis said:
“In the peloton, everyone knows that Pat McQuaid, Hein Verbruggen and other leaders of the UCI protected some riders and not others during the past 20 years. It was their way of manipulating and creating stars,” he claimed.
Which, of course, could explain why the UCI was reluctant to release any information about Contador’s test results in the months following the Tour’s conclusion. VeloNation’s Shane Stokes also reports that Landis is well aware that some will not believe his comments to the two European news organizations.
Landis knows that doubts will be cast on his claims by those who he has spoke against, but said that it doesn’t bother him. “You do not have to believe me,” he said. “I should not have lied the first time. I want cycling to improve. But it doesn’t matter to me if the world believes me or not.”
Plenty of people won’t believe Landis. And those he points fingers at will surely attack him. But, as they say in the financial services industry, past performance is no guarantee of future results.
I’ll start with the TSA.
TSA head, Pistole, has stated something to the effect that the new security measures are meant to stay ahead of potential perpetrators. Interesting comment as the new measures are a clear reaction to the Christmas underwear bomber, from almost a full year ago now.
I’m voting the motive is for the appearance of security. Following the current logic behind the X-ray scans and enhanced pat downs, there should also be a station for a proctologist and gynecologist. That may be in our future??? If so, some of us will need to prepare our children. This book is a start:
http://boingboing.net/2010/11/11/tsas-new-book-for-ki.html
I hope sanity prevails and some smart people come up with a procedure that does the job without invading the privacy of law abiding citizens and arguably trampling all over the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. Homeland Security and the TSA lack our customary checks and balances, and that’s a problem for those valuing civil liberty. (and this is coming from a long time registered Republican)
I personally object to being routinely irradiated in order to travel by commercial air. I may not even be eligible if I wanted to due to orthopedic implants? Though not a homophobe, I’m not comfortable with having strange man’s hands touch me pretty much wherever they want to. (But if it has to be done, I’d consider keeping a $5 bill in my pocket to tip him when he’s done. Alternately I could do a male version of “When Harry Met Sally” for grins and giggles) I would not at all mind dropping my trousers to visually show them I am without contraband, but understand others being uncomfortable with nudity. Still if it were an option, that would be the least objectionable to me.
Others have different attitudes. Hell, what is okay for me, is not okay with me for my wife and children.
I’ll leave my rant there for now.
Rant, I could be wrong, but I think you’re misreading what Contador’s team actually said. Here’s the quote again:
“According to the latest official report of the European Union for 2008, over a total of nearly 27 million cattle were slaughtered in the EU but only a total of 122,648 samples (0.48%) of which only 22,518 cases with searches for traces of beta agonists, including Clenbuterol.”
I read this to say that 27 million cattle were slaughtered, 122,648 samples were taken for testing, and of these samples only 22,518 samples were tested for beta agonists. I don’t read this quote to say that all 22,518 samples tested positive! Instead, I read this quote together with the WADA conclusions to say that only 1 of these 22,518 samples might have tested positive.
As for whether clenbuterol is a steroid … you’re right, but WADA lists clenbuterol as an anabolic agent in its list of prohibited substances. So you might say that clenbuterol is like an anabolic steroid, only without the steroid.
Larry,
You could well be right about that. It’s a bit fractured, the way the statement reads. Clear as mud, eh?
If only one of 22K tests came up positive, young Mr. Contador’s argument doesn’t hold up very well, does it? (Even with that ag organization’s backing.) Then too, Floyd suggests clenbuterol is fairly well known in the peloton. AC has a vacation ahead of him, methinks.
Rant, every signal I’m picking up from WADA is that this is a garden-variety doping case and that Contador should be sanctioned. No one else seems to want this result, but WADA has the ways and means to force this to the CAS if necessary, and I think that this is what they’ll do if Contador ends up with anything less than a year’s suspension and loss of his 2010 maillot jaune. The only question in my mind is whether one year’s suspension will be enough to satisfy WADA.
Contador’s best argument seems to be that he ate beef from South America, and deserves the same treatment that Alessandro Colo got from eating Mexican beef. That treatment, of course, was a one-year ban.
It’s insane to me that this is about to happen.
Yep, a bit fractured. (Perhaps purposefully so?) And clear as mud. The reader should not have to go through a forensic exercise to determine what can be said simply.
FWIW, I believe Larry is very close to the mark.
IMHO, it is most likely to play out as follows:
*RFEC eventually (reluctantly) imposes a one year sanction and hopes it will be acceptable to all involved parties.
*Of course, it’s acceptable to neither Contador or WADA. UCI doesn’t much care, one way or the other.
*Contador continues threats to quit the sport.
*WADA appeals to CAS.
*Result, 2 year minimum with loss of 2010 maillot jaune.
*If anyone cares at that point, it becomes a question as to whether Contador will make good on his threats to quit.
So AC is threatening to “quit” cycling if he get suspended and/or looses the MJ? Sounds a bit hollow to me: he could quit for the duration of whatever suspension he ends up with, and then decide to come back after all.
Yes, it has been reported AC has threatened to quit if he is sanctioned. This is in at least two (2) news cycles. Several cites available if you need them. You can also just check VeloNews, Cycling News and other bike related news outlets.
“Sounds a bit hollow to me: he could quit for the duration of whatever suspension he ends up with, and then decide to come back after all.”
I believe that’s called a Vino?
In all seriousness, there are implications related to being available in the testing pool.
Jeff,
Exactly right. If Contador formally retires from cycling, he will be out of the testing pool. And just like LA or Vino, he can come back later, if he wants (and I wouldn’t be surprised if he did). I think your assessment of how it will play out is pretty likely, for what it’s worth.
Larry,
On further reflection, I do think that Contador’s team was trying to make the point that clenbuterol is a fairly common contaminant. What I’d like to have is their actual statement, in Spanish, and a person who could give a less fractured translation. Still, whether it’s one out of 300K or one out of 22K tests, or whatever, I believe Contador’s goose is cooked. I just don’t see any real way out for him. Maybe the powers that be will try to let him off easy, but I fully expect WADA to push for a two-year sanction, even if the initial result is a shorter ban.
Even more than his ‘tainted meat’ defense, the constant whiny threats to quit reveal Contador to be the biggest TWIT in the peloton. Good god, what an ass!
Although, neck & neck in the ASS department (ahhhh, what a visual….! 😉 is FRAUD LANDIS. I do recognize that there is SO much going on behind the scenes in pro-sports that the average fan would be ‘shocked, SHOCKED I say’. And I have to admit that I want to KNOW why it took so freakin LONG for Contador’s postitive test to come to light. 10 WEEKS! However, wouldn’t you think the 2 BIGGEST cycling stage-race stars (Jan & Ivan) of the time would have been “protected” & not THROWN OUT of the 2006 Tour the day before the race began if the UCI really is in the ‘protection racket’? The irony is that by throwing them out of that Tour, it opened up the race for Landis. And the eventual destruction of his own career. I-RON-NEEE! I-RON-NEEEEEEEEE!
Anyway, about AC’s punishment – I still believe the Spanish federation will hand down the least amount of suspension they THINK they can get away with (3-6 months), but WADA & the UCI will appeal to CAS, so that ole Quitter Contador will be sitting on his ass OFF the bike for at least a year & a half.
And if Contador really is that stupid, that he willingly joins the 20% UNEMPLOYMENT ranks in Spain, then I guess Landis was right about ONE thing – the pro peloton apparently would lose an IQ test with a box of rocks. (Actually, in a 2006 interview, he just said something like the peloton was not a bastion of intelligence, the rest is, ahem, my elaboration. 🙂
OK, I see how “retiring” could play out for a sanctioned rider. But AC would have little reason to dope during any suspension, except perhaps towards to end in preparation to resume racing. But wouldn’t he have to go through a period of testing to be cleared prior to “unretiring”? So, other than perhaps avoiding some hassle of making himself available for testing (and how often would a suspended rider be tested anyway?) it seems to me that AC gains little by “quitting”.
IIRC, a retired rider wishing to return to competition needs to be officially reinstated in the testing pool 6 months prior to competition. I could be wrong. Whatever the correct time period is, I recall LA came up just a bit short when he un-retired and needed special dispensation to race the TdU in his first race back.
The advantage to retiring, when planning to eventually un-retire at the end of a sanction is to remove one’s self from the annoyance of being in the testing pool and the whims of WADA & their sub-groups. If one is determined, a doping program that builds strength …. and/or otherwise has benefits post un-retirement / and return to the testing pool, eliminates at least one regulatory variable. That might be seen as worthwhile to those determined to cheat? Or, an honest athlete might just want a break from an authoritarian regime? YMMV.
If Contador retires formally of cycling, and then want to come back he will have to serve his suspension first!
Retiring just extend informally the suspension.
Jean, you’re saying that if AC were to get banned and quits the sport; if/when he says he wants to return that he will STILL have to serve his allotted suspension? (ie: whatever time he is ‘quit’ doesn’t count towards his suspension)
Has this happened before? And when a rider is serving a suspension, is he still being tested? I can’t seem to recall.
The most similar situation I can think of would be Vino, who “retired” after being accused of blood doping and then “unretired” about the time the term of his official suspension expired. The time he was retired counted towards serving his suspension. He didn’t have to sit out any additional time as far as I know.
If I recall it correctly, Vino didn’t retire from the testing pool, I just made an annoucement..
Looks like I was wrong wrt needing to be reinstated to the OOC Testing Pool (6) months prior to returning to competition. This article indicates the correct number is (5) months:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/cycling/3097563/Lance-Armstrongs-Tour-Down-Under-return-thrown-into-doubt-Cycling.html
Vinokourov’s CAS award should shed some light on the subject of “Retirement”:
http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/4409/5048/0/Partial%20Award%201458%20internet.pdf
I have not read it in its entirety, but here is a start:
Section II, #15, sub #4, indicates there is a sliding scale system wrt time returning to the OOC Testing Pool. So, either 5 or 6 months could be correct, depending upon circumstances.
On December 1 @ 1:30pm, Jean C wrote:
“If Contador retires formally of cycling, and then want to come back he will have to serve his suspension first! Retiring just extend informally the suspension.”
Section III, #20 indicates Jean C may be correct regarding retirement time necessitating recalculation of suspension time. #20 cites Article 277 of UCI’s ADR, if anyone would like to venture to read it.
From what I’ve read in the CAS decision so far, the issues of Vino’s retirement appear less than clear, but I’m leaning toward Jean C being correct on this one.
It’s late. I’ll wade through more of the CAS decision tomorrow. Maybe Article 277 too?
Key dates for Vino:
Suspended by his team and formally ceased competition on 7/24/07.
Publicly declared retirement on 12/7/07.
Returned to OOC Testing Pool on 10/7/08.
Section IV, # 25 & 26:
25. It is both UCI ?s and Mr. Vinokourov`s common position that the period of ineligibility started on 24 July 2007.
26. Hence, in his statement of defence Mr. Vinokourov mainly challenges the extension of the sanction sought by UCI on the basis of Article 277 ADR. He submitted that (1) UCI is estopped from invoking an additional suspension pursuant to Article 277 ADR, (2) instead Article 325 of the new ADR in force as of 1st January 2009 should apply, (3) Mr. Vinokourov did not retire in the sense of the “retirement rule” and (4) an additional suspension would illicitly infringe Mr. Vinokourov ?s personality rights under Article 28 of the Swiss Civil Code.
Retirement, as it pertains to UCI:
http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getObject.asp?MenuId=MjI0NQ&ObjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=NDc3MDk&LangId=1
“84. A Rider who has given notice of retirement from cycling to the UCI and wants to return to competition at international level shall notify the UCI at least 6 (six) months in advance. The Rider shall be included in the Registered Testing Pool and may not resume competing at international level until after a period of four months for which he has provided whereabouts information and during which he has been available for unannounced Out-of-Competition Testing. For each Missed Test during the period that the Rider has to provide whereabouts information before resuming competition, this period will be extended with one month.
Notice of retirement is effective only when the Rider has returned his license to his National Federation for that purpose or as from the 1st of January of the year for which he has not applied for a new license. The Rider shall inform the UCI.”
“325. If a Rider subject to a period of Ineligibility retires from sport and later seeks reinstatement, the Rider shall not be eligible for reinstatement until he has notified the UCI and has been subject to Out-of-Competition Testing for a period of time equal to the longer of the period set forth in article 84 and the period of Ineligibility remaining as of the date the Rider had retired.
Notice of retirement is effective only when the Rider has returned his license to his National Federation for that purpose or as from the 1st of January of the year for which he has not applied for a new license. The Rider shall inform the UCI.
Comment: further conditions for reinstatement may be imposed by other regulations, such as article 12.1.034.”
Jeff’s comment: So far, I’m not seeing a rule that I understand which states retirement time cannot be concurrently counted as time serving out a suspension. What I do see is that a retired rider wishing to return to competition must be careful to be reinstated in the Testing Pool in a timely manner, so as to not delay his/her intended return to competition date.
Maybe Jean C will offer me a shortcut and provide a cite to the rule?
In the meantime, occasionally still researching….
Here’s Floyd’s interview with ARD, I think someone from Belgium was looking for it.
http://www.ardmediathek.de/ard/servlet/content/3517136?documentId=5911798
“325. If a Rider subject to a period of Ineligibility retires from sport and later seeks reinstatement, the Rider shall not be eligible for reinstatement until he has notified the UCI and has been subject to Out-of-Competition Testing for a period of time equal to the longer of the period set forth in article 84 and the period of Ineligibility remaining as of the date the Rider had retired.”
It seems to me this sort of implements what Jean C is saying, after a fashion. If I read this right, if a rider under suspension formally retires (returns his license or fail to apply for renewal) and then wants to return to competition, he has to be available for testing for the 5 months or the length of suspension remaining at this time of his retirement before he can actually resume racing.
So if, for the sake of argument, AC stopped racing in August of this year as result of the positive result, but didn’t return his license. The 5 months of 2010 would be good time. If he got a 1 year suspension, and failed to renew his license in January 2011, he’d have 7 months remaining on his ban, and would have to put himself into the testing pool for 7 months before he could resume racing. So while it may not be formally an extension of the suspension, it would amount to the same.
I think you are correct and Jean C is correct, as well. I frequently disagree with Jean C, however, I believe credit should be given where due. Chapeau Jean C!
(I was on mental overload and couldn’t wrap my head around the indirect language contained within the rule when I made the post.)
Question – does a team have to pay a rider who has been suspended (provisionally) for doping? Contador is complaining that Astana hasn’t paid him since September. What’s the UCI rule on this? If there is a rule that says the team has to keep paying these riders until their country’s cycling federation rules on his case & the team does not, can the UCI keep said team out of the Pro Tour (or whatever it’s called these days)? OR suspend the TEAM from ALL competition until the rider’s back pay is paid?
Of course, I don’t know why AC is surprised, Astana didn’t pay their riders for MONTHS last year (2009) & only the threat of being kept out of the Tour forced them to cough up. Did he honestly think they would pay HIM after he got popped for doping at the Tour AND had already announced he was leaving the the team? Seriously, does this guy still believe in Santa?
Plus, AC is complaining again that Astana hasn’t been “supportive” of him since his test came to light. Just a thought here – do you think this is Pistol Punk’s way of sending a threat to Astana? That if they don’t show some support (in the media & financially) soon, he may just confess & point to their complicity in the whole fiasco?
—————————————————————
2nd question – WHO are those “cyclists” nabbed in the French “doping ring”? Who are the other people? Are they French? For most of the past decade I’ve been hearing that the reason the French hadn’t done better in the Tour (& other races) is due to all those tough French anti-doping laws, e.g., all THEIR riders were clean while the rest of the peloton was doped to the gills. So, are these people just stupid, ballsy, cracked in the head to be doing this in France? Or is it a myth that France has all these tough anti-doping laws? I think if I was going to engage in such activity, I’d want my base of operations in Spain. The FARCE that was Operacion Puerto & an apparent whole-hearted belief in the tainted meat defense (well, except by the Spanish beef industry 😉 pretty much shows our NFL & MLB are tougher on doping than Spain…
(Exactly how many years did A-Rod confess to having doped when he was, what was it again, oh yeah, young & naive? And what was his punishment? Oh that’s right – NOTHING).
SMTML,
I suspect that whether Astana has to pay Contador’s salary since he was suspended would be spelled out in his contract. My hunch is that they don’t have to.
This one is fascinating!
Rudy Taelman, 49, Belgian amateur champion of his age category, has been handed a one-year ban for a positive doping control for which he had asked.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/belgian-amateur-champion-receives-one-year-ban
Maybe he’s at the end the under 50 age group, and figures to sit out a year and then come back when he’ll be the youngest guy in the next age group.
Contador decision expected soon?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/09/sports/cycling/09cycling.html?ref=global
“Ramos said Contador’s legal team was using several other doping cases to bolster Contador’s defense…. One of those cases involved the French tennis player Richard Gasquet, who successfully appealed a sanction for cocaine use after testing positive for it in 2009.”
“They are [also] pointing to the recent doping case of a German table tennis player ….In October, the German table tennis federation cleared Dimitrij Ovtcharov, an Olympic medalist in the sport, of any wrongdoing after he tested positive for clenbuterol. He argued that he had eaten tainted meat in China, a country with a much higher incidence of clenbuterol-contaminated meat than Spain, where clenbuterol contamination is rare. Scientists found 75 picograms per milliliter of the drug in Ovtcharov’s urine.”
******************
For all the criticism of Spain, the government have now enacted criminal anti-doping laws and are doing some enforcement. And for all this forum’s carping about “dubious” testing procedures, the powers that be are more and more using the criminal laws to attack doping. No need to argue technical procedural doping rules, just follow the dope and money as in those who received dope from Joe Papp, the recent French arrests of traffickers, pharmacists and amateur cyclists, Italy’s criminal investigations , and now the Spanish arrest of Dr. Fuentes of Operation Porto fame, (and of course the FDA’s persecution of Lance Armstrong).
“Operation Puerto doctor arrested in Operation Greyhound”
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/dr-fuentes-caught-up-in-another-spanish-doping-investigation
“Operation Greyhound gathers pace with blood bags reportedly found in Leon’s fridge”
“CONI requests ban for Bernucci’s family”
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/coni-requests-ban-for-bernuccis-family
urls deleted because of spam filter
I think that this is a good sign. The current WADA scheme of testing a select few athletes at any given point in time, and then coming down like a ton of bricks on the much fewer who actually are caught by such testing clearly isn’t working. The financial and logistical burdens of testing a large portion of athletes are such that this is not a realistic goal. For many athletes, a 2 year bans is effectively a permanent ban, so increasing penalties in hopes of increasing the deterrent effect is also ineffective, in my opinion. WADA, UCI, and other sports agencies have little if anything else left to enforce anti-doping rules.
Now I am not in favor of governments enacting laws that outlaw sports doping per se. That is, if some given substance is legal (either OTC or with a prescription) for the general public, but banned in sports; I don’t think there should be a law against using such a substance in sport. But when an illegal drug is used, or an otherwise legal drug used in an illegal manner (no prescription, obtained though illegal channels, etc.), existing laws should be enforced, whether or not the accused is a popular champion or a third rate also-ran. And all the suppliers, doctors who provide drugs, etc. should be targeted. Governments have considerable resources, both financial and in terms of powers that an organization like WADA doesn’t have. Subpoenas, search warrants, and other law enforcements tools can uncover things that WADA cannot. Such authority extends even if and when an athlete chooses to retire and turn in or fail to renew his license. And potential punishments include prison time and/or heavy fines.
Rant,
I was amused by the quote where Ramón Riestra said, “And in South America, it is not prohibited to fatten cattle with Clenbuterol”…. Great oxymoron Ramón.
Clenbuterol is an effective drug in a competition where lean muscle mass relative to fat determines the outcome. Competitors seeking advantage are willing to use it on their cattle, hogs, and sheep at the really prestigious stock shows when ego and money are on the line. It is interesting that Mr. Contador claims, in effect, to have fallen victim to an unscrupulous showman seeking a competitive advantage. It is too bad he didn’t get a steak from a simple farmer who would not do the extra work of dosing an illegal drug with such a short half life, because there are so many legal single dose time release subcutaneous androgenic ear implants available. It seems that Mr. Contador should have insisted on certified organic.
Farmer
M,
Thanks for the links. I gather that the latest from Pat McQuaid is that he doesn’t anticipate there will be a decision on the Contador case before the end of the year. Not that his word is golden or anything. But it wouldn’t surprise me if Contador’s case drags on a bit longer.
As for various legal authorities investigating doping cases, I don’t think that’s a bad idea (with the caveat that William makes — if something is legal for others, it shouldn’t be a crime when athletes use the same thing, and if the sports rules ban such uses, the athletes should be held accountable). There are plenty of illegal drugs or drugs illegally used in doping cases. Using the legal system to combat various aspects of the whole doping problem could well make a dent.
On a different note, you don’t seriously believe Lance Armstrong is being “persecuted”, do you? 🙂
William,
Good points. To your comment re: MikeG’s link (thanks for the link, Mike!), that must be it. He’s looking to take a year or two off. (Seriously: Masters doping? It boggles the mind.)
Farmer,
AC would certainly benefit from insisting on certified organic in the future, wouldn’t he? (Riestra’s assertion is a stitch. Gave me a good chuckle.)
AC should consult with FL to see if drinking too much while eating steaks increases the possibility of an AAF. I certainly understand why Spanish beef producers are claiming their beef is clenbuterol free. Random slaughter survey protocols suggest the obvious; farmers are not using an illegal drug that is more difficult to dose, particularly when the legal alternative, trenbolone acetate, is cheap and widely available in a better dosing vehicle.
Clenbuterol was used in the 1990’s by dishonest livestock exhibitors seeking that last tiny advantage over the competition. They believed exercise of their livestock on elevated treadmills to gain muscle and retain leanness had reached its limit. Clenbuterol is not being used today in food animals. However with human nature being human nature, whether standing in carbon road shoes or standing in manure, there is testing. I judge livestock quite a bit around the country and after each market animal competition, no matter how large or small, we stand around waiting to collect a urine sample. I imagine it is much easier when the winner wants to get on the team bus…
Clenbuterol is still often used in horses as a bronchodilator, so I suppose that I shouldn’t completely dismiss Contador’s theory that he ingested Clenbuterol eating meat… Some cheat might have slipped him some horse meat.
Farmer
I just came across this nugget of information over at The Science of Sport. I have not seen these numbers anywhere else, and as Ross suggests, it does raise some really interesting questions!
On this note, what is interesting is how few samples were sent to Cologne in the first place. Most of the Tour samples were sent to Lausanne, except 10 (out of 250). The Cologne lab is one of the only laboratories able to detect a number of substances at low levels, and so failing to use them when they had the option raises a few interesting questions. As it transpired, Contador’s samples were among the 10 analysed there – this is not surprising given that he’d have been tested as the race leader every day.
MikeG
Targeted targeting, or lab shopping?
I’d like to amend my last comment:
Targeted targeting, lab shopping, or a new twist on “results management”?
MikeG,
Very interesting article. Shows how few and ineffective the testing really is under the UCI. Given that, they should do much more targeted testing. Have to believe the French would have done better, although budget constraints might have hindered them also.
“It may therefore amaze you to learn that during the Tour, only 215 blood and 251 urine tests were performed (that’s total tests, not riders). Given that ± 200 riders race over 23 days (including rest days), many riders are not tested even once. Of the tests, only 70% look for EPO, and only 26 tests for homologous blood transfusions were done (all from page 51 of the report).”
“Perhaps the most telling paragraph in the entire document is this, from Page 20, which condemns the lack of stringency in analysis type, and calls out the UCI for failing to conduct testing which would significantly tighten the net on dope cheats”
…………………
“It is noted however that only 70% of the UCI’s analysis were for EPO, and it was outlined that the budget was the main constraint for not doing more EPO testing. Moreover, only a reasonably small number of blood samples were collected for analysis for CERA, HBOC or HBT and it is unknown to the IO Team how many (if any) blood passport samples were later analysed for any of these substances. ”
…………………
“There are also new substances and/or methods that can now be detected or suspected, yet the UCI only sent ten target test samples to the WADA-Accredited Laboratory of the German Sports University, Cologne, for additional analysis for new substances and/or methods. As a way of illustrating this, during the Tour it leaked in the media that the authorities of the country of one of the competing riders had just initiated an investigation against the rider to examine doping allegations. Information which appeared on the media linked the rider with the use of a new drug, which is prohibited in sport. The IO Team did not observe any attempt to target test this rider for the new prohibited substance.”
http://www.sportsscientists.com/search/label/Cycling
So we have the situation where we can’t test everyone, and we can’t test everyone we do test for every banned substance. This makes it very much a chance occurrence if some rider is caught. Apparently if AC’s sample had been tested in Lausanne he might be free and clear today.
I’ll ignore the philosophic question of the fairness of this. But I wonder if indeed there might be a better way of doing this. I’ll assume that the budgetary constraints are real and are not likely to change significantly.
Targeting comes to mind, but who gets targeted? The top riders? To a bit, this has been done, i.e. the TdF scheme of testing the stage winner and the top GC daily. It does tend to guarantee that if you dope and win, you stand a chance of getting caught; at least you won’t get off because they were testing domestiques coming in 30 minutes after you finished. But, whatever the extent of doping in the pro peleton, there are certainly riders who dope who do not finish first. It has even been suggested that LA (and perhaps others) employed a strategy of riding clean but having a strong supporting cast through chemistry. ANd what about those riders who are top 10 or 20 or whatever, but don’t come in first? We could target riders who do well, but not necessarily win. This will make for a much larger test pool, as well as introduce questions about how good do you have to be in order to be tested. Enlarging the potential test pool can run into the financial constraints mentioned above.
We could also go with allegations made by other riders as well as others connected with cycling (mechanics, masseurs, etc). Even if allegations are made in bad faith, if a rider is innocent, he should have little to worry about; and if a dirty rider is brought down after a bad faith allegation results in testing, well perhaps that is not a bad thing.
But the real problem still is the relatively small number of tests conducted. If 200+ riders are involved for 20+ days, this is a potential of 4000+ tests, if every rider were to be tested every day. The 400+ tests actually conducted is only about 10%, and is likely not very statistically reliable in either making any assumptions about the nature and extent of doping in the TdF or in ensuring a reasonable likelihood of catching dopers.
Is the financial situation such that the amount of testing currently being done is about the maximum that can be done? I don’t know. What would it take to design and implement a program such that there would be a good chance of catching dopers? My bet is it would be pretty expensive. Perhaps UCI/WADA are doing about the best they can do.
The Wall Street Journal has an interresting story about Armstrong and the shareholders of Tailwind : http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704457604576011490820993006.html
It’s said that 70% of Landis’ fund came from investors in Tailwind !
Reports claim Landis wore a wire during invetigations of Rock Racing:
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_sports/2010/12/19/2010-12-19_wired_landis_pedals_for_feds.html