The Bust
The 2010 winner of the Tour de France has tested positive for a banned substance. Doping authorities have revealed Alberto Contador tested positive for clenbuterol on July 21. Clenbuterol is a bronchodilator—a stimulant used to treat asthma.
The defense has already spun into high gear. Dr. Douwe de Boer, an “independent expert,” has concluded that the clenbuterol must have come from contaminated meat. The concentration level of clenbuterol found in Contador’s system was at trace levels, meaning there hadn’t been enough in his system to aid his performance the previous day. However, Contador was also tested the two days prior to the positive test, on July 19 and 20. Tests from those days show no trace of clenbuterol.
Permit me a moment of suspicion: Are we really meant to believe that clenbuterol routinely contaminates meat but of the thousands of test samples cyclists give each year only Alberto Contador consumed enough contaminated meat to result in a positive test—and it just happened to occur during the Tour de France?
Really?
Even though we’re just finding out about this in the last week of September, Contador has known of the finding since August 24 and WADA has known even longer. It’s fair to ask: Why did it take so long for the news to come out? It didn’t take this long with Landis.
We have several possibilities to consider:
1) Contador is innocent. He just got really unlucky and ate something (maybe meat) that was accidentally tainted.
2) Contador really did use clenbuterol. The lab employed by WADA did crappy work and didn’t find clenbuterol that was in his system on July 19 and 20.
3) Contador is being framed. Someone tried to sabotage Contador by spraying an asthma inhaler on his food.
Of these three options, the one that would surprise me the least is #2. Contador would hardly be the first cyclist to use asthma medication to dope. But while #2 would be the least surprising explanation, I cannot say that I think #1 or #3 are out of the realm of possibility.
I’d really like to know why it took so long for the news to come out. There’s more to this part of the story than meets the eye. Was there some sort of effort at a coverup that only proved untenable after several weeks’ consideration?
This is bad for cycling. No matter what the reason, this is precisely the attention cycling doesn’t need. And while I want the truth to come out, no explanation can remove the black eye this event will leave. The horse is out of the barn: another Tour de France champion is positive for dope. That story line will follow this year’s Tour de France for good.
This piece would seem to refute the idea that they have already detected plastics in blood samples:
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5862/Alberto-Contador-insists-hes-had-no-transfusions-offers-to-hand-over-past-samples-for-retesting.aspx?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+velonation_pro_cycling+%28Cycling+News+%26+Race+Results+|+VeloNation.com%29&utm_content=Twitter
I also think it’s encouraging that he’s opened all his samples to retesting. If LA had done that years ago, we’d have gotten some closure (maybe) on his saga.
The technique used to detect plasticizers in blood is certainly new, and Contador is the first rider we’ve heard of who tested positive for them. The question becomes how long they remain in the blood supply. If he received the alleged transfusion on the rest day, the day of his test, the previous samples wouldn’t show it. And if it lasts a short time, subsequent tests may not show it. It may be that his offer to retest old sample may just be a gambit based on the belief that they can’t come up with a second sample that would be positive.
Clenbuterol ceases to an issue with the positive result for the plasticizers. Transfusions are against the rules and any indication that a transfusion was performed is equal to a positive doping test. If subsequent testing reveals the presence of the plasticizers, he’s done, clenbuterol or no.
My impression is that Contador is claiming his blood values will be consistent with his passport values, and so he’s offering that as a defense against transfusion.
The real question, I think is, when do they have blood from? He got busted on a urine. If they have blood for the days in question, then it should be easy to see a variation from pre-rest day to post-rest day.
Quote that made my day:
“It’s a story that we’ve been expecting,” Offredo said to RMC.fr. “We’re not unduly surprised. A little [surprised] about the Clenbuterol because we’d really have expected something else. It’s like the tree that hides the forest.
“Right now, amongst the riders, I can tell you that we’re not that shocked.”
taken from: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/chavanel-says-contador-must-prove-his-innocence
I don’t think anyone has mentioned this — under the rules, most of Contador’s intent defenses would have the effect of shortening the ban to a year, not avoiding sanction altogether.
Plasticizers are contained in legal IV bags for vitamins or hydration or even water bottles which pros suck on all day, every day.
You would think though that by now Contador would have paid someone to track down the source of the meat. That should not be that difficult for someone with his resources. If a supplier was juicing his livestock illegally it likely will still be in the supply chain.
If someone other then the UCI was to go back over Contadors blood samples with a fine tooth comb they would likely turn up more.
@hank: the bottles don’t contain softening agents because they are usually made of PE and that doesn’t need any. But the specific one that is supposedly found in his samples in a softening agent for PVC which is used for blood bags because PVC’s transparency.
cthulhu: does that not still leave IV bags for intravenous fluids or intravenous nutrition post race? – which are legal as far as I know. Contador has a perfectly plausible story. Considering his position he might get off as Armstrong did for contamination from “chamois cream”. Although maybe the rules are stricter now. I think the rule now is even if it was unintentional contamination, tough, you are held responsible for what is in your body. If it looks unintentional you get 1 year instead of 2.
The doping is now so sophisticated that unless a rider screws up big time a real unequivocal – caught you dead to rights positive is rare. We are left with suspicious anomalies that can be explained away as not doping related.
If he is suspended that will really suck for Specialized and Riis. Specialized had a golden season totally eclipsing Trek in pro racing.
@hank: the wada prohibition list says that all intravenous infusions are forbidden.
http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Doping_Program/WADP-Prohibited-list/WADA_Prohibited_List_2010_EN.pdf
Section M2 point 2.
So even if it was not a blood transfusion is was the use of an prohibited method -> doping
Hank: Cthulhu raises just the point I was just going to make: IVs are not permitted for any reason. The plasticizer in question can only enter your body through an IV and all IVs are considered part and parcel of doping. To WADA, plasticizer equals doping.
A disqualification and suspension for Contador will really be a blow to the sport. Interestingly, Specialized will still retain the Tour winner, and while that’s great, no one wants to be sullied by a situation as this.
Sounds like there is a very good chance Contador is going down for this then. The UCI might have been willing to sweep this under the rug considering Contador’s position but with all the heat on the UCI now with the Armstrong investigation it would cause an uproar about favoritism and corruption.
I thought Bruyneel would eventually wind up taking down all his former stars including Contador once he got nailed but it looks like Alberto will be busted before Lance and JB.
I jdid some googling on DEHP and IV’s and found this:
PET bottles are used for water and soda and juice and pretty much every plastic beverage container. PET has been show to leach Bis(2-ehylhexyl)phthalate or DEHP.
HDPE and polypropeline water bottles are available that don’t leach DEHP but there are likely still plenty of PET bottles out there and pretty much all the water bottles in supermarkets evidently use PET. So it’s likely we all have some level of DEHP. If you are constantly drinking from plastic bottles then more so.
Second on the IV drip rules I see this on the WADA site: “2. Intravenous infusions are prohibited except for those legitimately received in the course of hospital admissions or clinical investigations.” But I have read about pros being rehydrated and receiving nutrition via IV after stages as a common permitted practice. Are you sure it’s not legal?
@hank
so far i know is DEHP not the classical agent for PET and so far i know usually not used, but surely traces can always be found thanks to production etc. But if that is true about the DEHP finding then according to the German news report the values are several hundred times above the threshold which i doubt can be achieve by drinking from PET bottles.
As far as the other question goes I don’t know since when that is a prohibited method but it can easily have been legal in 90s.
Wow, I am amazed sometimes at how quickly we can speak authoritatively about an analytical technique that I’m sure few had ever heard of outside of a very select community before L’Equipe reported on it, and then speak dismissively to those who might question its capabilities. This technique hasn’t been validated, and I am sure even fewer know what is the obstacle that is keeping it it from being validated. I mean does anyone know what the analytical technique is? Is it chromotography or what? Can we get an expert on this one?
good question sophrosune
it amazes me that they can track that, but hey, will see.
Let me try this on you: What if we say that the amount of Clenbuterol in Contador’s system was not sufficient to constitute performance enhancement during the Tour? What if we then say that, the possibility that the substance arrived in his system via a transfusion is only a possibility. None of the other tests made during his Tour performance turned up evidence of blood boosters or transfusions. So, even if, at some point, Contador used Clenbuterol, we can’t say when or how much, and so we haven’t properly caught him enhancing his performance. What if we said all that? What if we decided that we couldn’t prove something happened, and so forgot the whole thing and moved on?
I don’t want the winner of the Tour de France to be a doper, but I also don’t want to tear down the sport because something might possibly have happened either. I want there to be proof, not just probability.
That’s where I am right now, based on what I know, which is, admittedly, not very much.
Robot: Sounds reasonable and I think that is the finding the UCI would like to make but they are concerned about how it would look. After all they did not extend the same consideration to lesser riders like the Radio Shack Chinese pro.
I agree with Hank.
At the moment, the potential for the arbitrary application of the rules and preference to some athletes bothers me more than knowing if the doping violation really equates to enhanced performance. (Thinking Contrador vs Fuyu Li’s case, as well as the communication disclosure differences between Contrador vs Mosquera).
If the rules are never to be applied equally to the athlete, then professional cycling is really more about creating exciting athletic based fictional narratives for our entertainment than true fair play sport. There is a place for this in our society and one example is called WWE. But up to this point, the UCI has been telling me that pro cycling is about fair play sport.
@todd k, et. al. – With all due respect to Fuyu Li, just because the UCI screwed up the application of the rules last time, doesn’t mean they ought to continue to do it, just to stay consistent, does it?
I think it’s important to recognize that the rules and regulations have to stay a little bit fluid in order to maintain some common sense. Zero tolerance policies, in my experience, tend to be ineffective. The UCI needs to have the courage of their convictions, and the ability to use the rules to support those convictions.
Maybe.
@Robot As you may know, I have taken issue with some things Joe Lindsey has argued in the past over at the Boulder Report, but on this issue I think he is dead on and gives another angle to your line of thinking. I like how he ends his piece:
“The authority of anti-doping officials is built on prudence and discretion and a respect for the rights of the athletes. To borrow from the rule of law, it’s the idea that it’s better to let 10 guilty men go free than to see one innocent man wrongly imprisoned.
Strict liability flies directly in the face of that ideal. It’s time, if there ever was such, has passed. To do away with it means an end to clear, easy decisions. It means diving into the messy particulars of each case and trying to determine, in the real world, what happened. That won’t be easy. But if it was your career on the line, what would you want? Justice cannot be automated.”
This position of WADA of “if it’s in you, it’s your own damn fault.” Is just a cop out from dealing with the sometimes complicated and sticky issue of whether these athletes have these drugs in their system intentionally, or whether they could have possibly derived any benefit from them.
Justice cannot be automated. Damn right. And it’s time the system got fixed. If takes Contador to do it, fine. Better now than to let this continue on.
Robot : My point isn’t that they should keep erroneous rules on the books. My point is that they need to treat all athletes the same with respect to how they apply and enforce the rules. Procedurally with respect to Fuyu Li’s case this likely means two things:
Option 1:The UCI punishes Contrador to the same degree because all cyclists are equal under the rules and as the rules read when they freely participated in the game they broke the rules knowingly or not. If it is a bad rule, they should work with WADA to modify the rule as it will quickly become impossible to track variations between the two bodies if this becomes the new norm in the UCI. They can even seek to retroactively compensate each athlete after the rule change if they are that earnest to do so.
Option 2: The UCI gives Contrador a break and then apply that same leniency to Fuyu Li along with compensatory damages (given that he has already paid some price and we they would now in essence be saying that was a bad decision). They should still formally rewrite the rules and should do so with WADA.
I’m suspect that the UCI will do either. Their behavior is all over the board and it leaves me to suspect their motives at doing things for the right reasons. Even within hours the UCI broke protocol and confirmed disclosure that Mosquera violated an A sample without the B sample being tested. Contrador, we have since learned, was asked to be silent through that same period and the UCI chose not to disclose anything publically. At this point Mosquera’s case falls under an alleged violation without the B sample confirmation, yet the UCI not only confirmed that A sample violation, but a few days later McQuaid went one step further referenced Mosquera as part of his lambasting of the Spanish Goverenment. My take away from that: Contrador deserves benefit of doubt and time to consider a defense, Mosquera does not. But why?
I say they give Fuyu Li and Contador a break and give McQuaid a 2 year suspension.
Hello, my name is Thor. This past weekend our sport celebrated a grand event, a little something called the World Championship.
It was a riveting race – those pesky Italians were very strong and did their best to make us all hurt. Those crafty Belgians as well, they were all over the front of the race. Nay, making the race.
The outgoing World Champion, Cadel Evans, finished off a remarkable year as champion by further doing honor to his status as champion by racing aggresively. I thought for a long while in the last 2 laps that he just might manage to defend his title!
In the end,the race came back together with only 3km to spare after over 260. As luck would have it, I won the race.
Hi! My name is Thor! (waves frantically at the masses consumed by the dark side)
I think I might do a pretty good job at this just like Cadel. Why don’t you come over, jump on the train (like i will for Garmin-Cervelo) and enjoy the ride? I know I will. See in a couple of months in the cold and dark of the North.
Unless of course you continue to prefer to holiday in Spain. I hear it is supposed to be quite sunny, though it seems rather dark these days.
Don’t regular saline IV bags contain plasticizers?
From Wikipedia
“Some plasticizers evaporate and tend to concentrate in an enclosed space; the “new car smell” is caused mostly by plasticizers evaporating from the car interior.”
Plasticizers are everywhere.
I still think he added blood to his blood.