Contador positive for clenbuterol at TdF 2010 - banned

[andygates]

"Without knowing what the level [of clenbuterol] in his sample is, it's impossible to say," Catlin said. His laboratory works with supplement makers to detect drug contaminants, and Catlin said that clenbuterol is one of the more common contaminats found in supplements.

In 2008, Catlin's lab worked on the case of swimmer Jessica Hardy, who sat out of competition for two years after testing positive for clenbuterol, and found the drug in supplements that she was taking. Hardy used the information to sue the manufacturer.

It's not unheard-of.  

[andyoxon]

"The experts consulted so far have agreed also that this is a food contamination case, especially considering the number of tests passed by Alberto Contador during the Tour de France, making it possible to define precisely both the time the emergence of the substance as the tiny amount detected, ruling out any other source or intentionality."

As others have said, so what's all the fuss about.   But in any event, unfortunately, most of my interest in the TdF has ebbed away (except the alpine stages), because of the usual drugs issues.

[Access Legal Guy]

Not just Contador - Bad day altogether for the sport


   Vuelta a España runner-up Ezequiel Mosquera and team-mate reported as positive

[TimO]

I can't understand why the lab even gave out the result if was that low - to me that sounds well down in the noise level.

It's suggestive that there's no minimum value, below which the result is ignored, which is fairly fuckwitted, since pretty much every test will have some noise, so these incredibly small amounts detected could also just be some cockup on the part of the equipment or testers.

Everything I've read so far suggests that this is a food contamination case (or something similar), and that they know this, and are just following the letter the law.  Pretty damned stupid on the face of it, but I guess it avoids people accusing them of letting an athlete off.

I do wonder why it's taken so long for this to come out, but I guess it is possible that there are so many tests to be undertaken these days, that they end up with a huge backlog of tests to undertake, and it's actually taken them this long to get around to looking at these samples.  If that's the case then it could be months before we're sure that there are no more positive cases to come to light.

[David Martin]

I'm also interested in the odds of a false positive; at such low levels, is it not going to be down near the noise floor ?

Where's David Martin ? He knows this stuff.

Been out doing things.

Tested on a different machine they would have found nothing. Modern technology has pushed levels of detection down to the almost vanishingly small.  I am not familiar with drug dosages (being more of an analytical chemist in outlook rather than a physiologist) so cannot comment on the likely effect, but if you have a test that picks up a single dose two to three  orders of magnitude more sensitive than the minimum required for the test to be approved (and that would be well below the level of any kind of physiological enhancement), coupled with clean tests (performed one presumes in the same lab on the same machine) then the contaminated food argument is a reasonable suggestion.

What would aid verification is for a similarly fit athlete to consume known contaminated meat (well, meat which has been fed the drug in question) and see whether it gives detectable levels of the drug.

With the increase in sensitivity of testing, we will have to see the tests rewritten to prescribe minimum levels of compounds before a test can be considered de jure positive of doping.

[citoyen]

As others have said, so what's all the fuss about.

Indeed. I've already had a few snide comments from colleagues this morning - "Cyclist tests positive for drugs? What a surprise!" - and had to point out that there's less to the story than meets the eye. Unfortunately, most people don't look beyond the headline, and all the reaction has been to the headline, not the story.

I strongly suspect Contador is doped up to the eyeballs on something. Just not Clenbuterol.

d.

[David Martin]

The reports I've read said pico, not nano per ml.

We have to remember this limit is not like a drink-driving limit, it's the minimum level that the testing lab needs to be able to show it can do in order to be accredited. So this "limit" is probably already well below any performance-enhancing level.

I can't understand why the lab even gave out the result if was that low - to me that sounds well down in the noise level.

No, it would not be quantified if it was in the noise. Baselines are subtracted. It is just that the sensitivity has increased with respect to noise. What is needed is specific baseline limits, the test accreditation limit would be a good place to start but this needs to be adjusted to cope with microdosing.

I can see a huge lawsuit to a food/supplement provider looming if Contador does receive a ban.

(With reference to the Landis case, whilst he may have confessed to doping, the lab work was still shockingly poor. One presumes that most labs would have looked at the Landis docs and be making damned sure they wouldn't be embarassed the same way)

[andygates]

There's always the chance of doublestupid: homeopathic doping! 

[gene hunt]

Could be that he had more in his system and the masking agent failed.

Who knows.

[andygates]

Well, science knows. First, is there a masking agent?

(the common lists refer to steroid masking agents, which clen is not)

[Fab Foodie]

the Uci seem to be going through the motions ...

It's a shitty job but somebody's gotta do it. 

[David Martin]

Could be that he had more in his system and the masking agent failed.

Who knows.

No. The masking agent would obscure the level of the real drug by co-eluting an a GC. It cannot 'fail' as such by just giving a reduced reading for the banned substance.

We may be heading for an Alan Baxter scenario:

'Yes I took a  banned substance by mistake', loses the title but keeps his integrity.

After all, the source of the banned substance is irrelevant, it is whether he had it in his body,a nd atheletes are ultimately the one responsible for their bodies and what goes into them.

[Rhys W]

There's always the chance of doublestupid: homeopathic doping!  

  Yeah, but not homeopathic enough!

I'm reading reports now where "most experts agree" that it's a case of contaminated meat. So, where are the similar miniscule amounts found in his team mates? In the Tour, all the team riders would be eating more or less the same meals.

[Seineseeker]

Wierd story, as Charlotte says, who cares?

Contador most likely isn't clean, but this doesn't seem to prove it so why make it public and create such a fuss. In any case his season is over now, so you aren't even suspending him for any reason.

[JT]

There's always the chance of doublestupid: homeopathic doping!  

  Yeah, but not homeopathic enough!

I'm reading reports now where "most experts agree" that it's a case of contaminated meat. So, where are the similar miniscule amounts found in his team mates? In the Tour, all the team riders would be eating more or less the same meals.

Good point but some of the prima donnas star riders do get different levels of attention/treatment. At Team Sky the formula of energy drinks is even mixed to match the rider. Fat lot of good it did them mind.

[Access Legal Guy]

here is his response to that

Alberto Contador points finger at hotel meat for Clenbuterol positive | Latest News | Cycling Weekly

Excuse my ignorance - is this drug available via an inhaler at all? and if so, how long can it remain airborne if not fully inhaled?

[David Martin]

There are some thoughts that being a rest day it could be a blood transfusion from earlier in the season.

However, none of the other team members who ate that meal were tested that day so no data with which to work.

..d

[Rapples]

In my ignorance I would have asumed that as the most likely

His team mate Alexandre Vinokourov didn't eat the meat and was tested along with Contador the following day, while the rest of the riders that ate the meat weren't tested.

How very convenient

"I gave another sample one day after and they didn't find anything. It was a very, very small amount found in my urine and the next day it was gone. It was detected in the laboratory in Cologne, if it was sent to any other laboratory they wouldn't have found it as the amount is so small."

Is that because the samples went to a different lab?  Either way they clearly know what levels the labs can detect these drugs.

[vorsprung]

I for one welcome Andy Schleck as the new winner of the 2010 TdF

[Feline]

Somehow I don't think my daily clenbuterol dose this saturday is going to put me in the frontrunners in the Tasty Cheddar Audax  

[Cudzoziemiec]

Like others I'm surprised that, whether this is decided to be deliberate doping, contaminated meat or something else, it has taken over two months for them to release the results. When do the labs actually analyse the samples? The day they are taken, a couple of days later, just whenever they get around to it? Is there any sort of time limit, and if there isn't should there be? Do any of these potential doping agents degrade or alter over time?

[andygates]

Does it take longer to run this sensitive test than the quick-n-dirty one? 

Feline... you could always stack it, but your heart would probably explode.   

[Fab Foodie]

I for one welcome Andy Schleck as the new winner of the 2010 TdF

Good man!
Is this the wheel of Karma I hear spinning round?

[Feline]

Does it take longer to run this sensitive test than the quick-n-dirty one? 

Feline... you could always stack it, but your heart would probably explode.   

I'm sure any attempt by me to make FULL^TM use of my prescription meds would result in me doing a Tom Simpson during my ascent of the Gorge 

[Hot Flatus]

I'm was pondering this on the way home. It is very odd how some pretty high up riders have been busted recently for substances that don't give much benefit compared to the risk of detection.

I'm wondering whether there are some new techniques of doping, the details of which are yet unclear to the anti doping authorities. The fact that the amount was infinitesimal and yet the UCI have declared it, makes me wonder if it isn't some sort of warning shot, or whether they are doing it for reasons of total transparency to avoid accusations of cover up should a doping technique be detected in the near future.

I wonder this in the light of accusations by Landis about UCI cover ups