Clenbuterol

[Geoff]

Ban on clenbuterol doping drug may be relaxed:

The World Anti-Doping Agency (Wada) will discuss controversial changes to drug rules at a meeting this weekend.

In Switzerland, Wada officials will consider relaxing the absolute ban on the drug clenbuterol, used illegally by athletes to build muscle.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14952870

[LiamRiley]

This is possibly a good move. As long as the lower threshold is set at a reasonable level then this can only help dismiss poor excuses (where the amount is far beyond that of a slab of affected beef).
What ever people think about Contador, we all know that picagrams of a substance aren't going to get you to the finish any faster than others.

[fangio]

Just as we all know that if you take Clenbuterol, and use blood doping (eg takign out your own blood then putin git back in later) after testing the blood to the minimum limit the WADA labs use, it is possible that you will be caught out if it still contains a lower level of the drug than you tested for, and the lab was ablet ot test for lower concentratation than the minimum for this entirely man made substance that is in no way produced by your body, and has to have been put into it.

The clenbuterol from beef excusee is really very thin, and the laws do not say " if you can come up with an excuse we cannot check and which has a tiny probability of being correct we will let you off" it says you have to show where the drug got into your system. It comes down to whether you believe that the beef from Spain was contaminated (unlike every peice of spanish beef tested since the clenbuterol ban came into place in the EU) or that maybe it was deliberately injested by Contador, and showed up because his own medical team tested only to the minimum standards required of WADA labs, forgetting that this is a no threshold drug.

[Dutch]

Very well said, Fangio.

In such cases I always imagine what I would do if I really were innocent. If I knew I hadn't taken any Clen and my genuine theory was that the beef had come from tainted stock, then I would of course make every effort possible to trace back through the place of purchase all the way to the farm that supplied them. What possible reason could anyone have for stating that the beef came from tainted stock yet failing to provide any further credible details? Not even identifying the place where it was bought.

Not AC's least plausible protestation, almost incredibly. He was also once given the chance to have a bag of his suspected blood-for-doping DNA tested - thereby unequivocally proving his innocence in that case where the general feeling of the sport's community was (at least!) 90% against him. He actually made a joke of the idea that he should have it tested! So his choice was between:
a) Have it tested
i.e. If innocent, completely cleared; if guilty, completely condemned
b) Don't have it tested
i.e. retain the 90+% cycling world opinion of being a blood doper. Very bad choice if innocent, slightly (not removing last vestiges of doubt) good choice if guilty.

[TheRealSub10]

Just for clarification the issue with Clenbuterol poisoning from Beef is NOT a poor excuse. UKA released a medical warning to athletes/coaches going to the World Student Games about the risk of Clenbuterol poisoning and a resulting positive drugs test if they eat contaminated meat while there after several reports of incidents in China, Brazil and another country i forget.

http://www.szcpost.com/2010/09/13-suspe ... nzhen.html

Of course it opens the doorway for people to dope but some people are probably failing tests because of it.

[Dutch]

TRS10, it depends what you mean by "NOT a poor excuse". In Contador's case it was not a poor excuse, it was an absolutely dreadful one.

In claiming that a failure was due to contaminated beef from a particular outlet yet not following up by establishing the provenance of the beef - and the chain to the point of sale - looks worse than if he had made no claim at all in mitigation. Or to put it another way, a transparent claim "to plausibly weaken the case" without any attempts to get to the true facts of that self-same claim loses the benefit of any doubt: it becomes completely cynical rather than simply stupid.

Is there any evidence that "some people are probably failing tests because of it"? To date I've only seen claims from people who have failed and some anecdotal allusions. The balance seems very strongly in favour of all sporting Clen failures being due to doping.

[fangio]

There have been Clenbuterol failures in other sports probably due to beef. however those countries are ones in which clenbuterol is cleared for use on cattle, which is entirely not the case with Contador, who claimed his friend bought it in Spain for him. That's Spain with zero failures when beef has been testedd in the country since the EU wide ban on clenbuterol in cattle.

So in Contador's circumstances it is a poor excuse. Don't forget he firslty blamed his supplements, but when they were found to be ok he switched the blame to tbe beef. He has absolutely no idea at all as to whether the beef contained Clenbuterol whatsoever, that makes it a poor excuse.

[d pickup]

IAAF newsletter 126 doping offences, p.3-4

A big list this time.

see
www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/06/26/45/62645_PDF_English.pdf

[LiamRiley]

Lots of young 'uns there. Nothing high profile we didn't know about: Bezabeh got two years for rule violations (seems he was the only little fish who got stuck in that big net). Bans of racewalker Erik Tysse and Puerto Rican Racheal Marchand have gone through after appeal.


Other names of note include Darya Pizhankova (Ukranian who won 100m silver at this year's Euro U23s). The 2010 world junior medalist over 5000m Aziz Lahbabi was banned for 6 months, as was his Elite Sports stablemate Fouad El Kaam. Another little thing of interest - Nuno Da Costa of Portugal looks to be the only athlete struck off for the 2011 IAAF World Cross Country Championships

[imsouthy]

Doping is the biggest problem of our society today. It is not swallowing the present but also the future. it not only effects the victim but also his family members. One of my friends was victim of this and his and his family's life became hell.

[TheRealSub10]

TRS10, it depends what you mean by "NOT a poor excuse". In Contador's case it was not a poor excuse, it was an absolutely dreadful one.

Just for clarification I'm not defending Contador specifically, rather i am pointing out that only that not everyone that fails for Clen is a professional cheat

[Geoff]

'Cow cocaine' warning has bearing on Alberto Contador court case

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/20 ... court-case

"[We] have received compelling evidence … that indicates a serious health problem in Mexico with regards to meat contaminated with clenbuterol," it said in a statement. "Wada's message to athletes travelling to Mexico remains the same and that is to exercise extreme caution with regard to what they eat and where they eat.

"If possible, they should eat in cafeterias designated as safe by event organisers and also try to eat in large numbers. The state government in Guadalajara has taken steps to ensure the meat available to athletes at the Pan American Games will not be contaminated."

The warning came as Wada also confirmed it had withdrawn an appeal to CAS over a decision by the Mexico football federation not to punish five players who tested positive for the drug during the summer's Concacaf Gold Cup in the US.

..............Given these warnings and given Wada's acceptance of the defence made by the five Mexican footballers, it is hard to see how it can possibly win its case against Contador, which will come before CAS in November.

The Spanish rider tested positive for the banned steroid during the 2010 Tour de France but was then cleared by the Spanish cycling federation – a ruling now being appeal by Wada. The hearing was due to take place in the summer but was postponed, allowing the Spaniard to compete in this year's Tour in which he finished fifth.

[fangio]

Except of course that Contador said that the Beef was purchased in Spain, where there is a ban on selling meat with clenbuterol in it, hence no Mexican beef sold and no failures when any meat in Spain has been tested since the EU ban came into force. Spain is not Mexico Contador's excuse is baloney and trying to equate Mexico, where clenbuterol in cattle is not banned with Spain where it is is ridiculous. It's like trying to say that someone should get away with possession of a firearm in the UK because it is legal to carry one in Iraq.

[benn]

100+ positives in one tournament Moral is go vegie whilst in Mexico

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... z1b6q4SsrG

http://www.tropigol.com/2011/10/17/most ... ated-meat/

[readtherules]

Except of course that Contador said that the Beef was purchased in Spain, where there is a ban on selling meat with clenbuterol in it, hence no Mexican beef sold and no failures when any meat in Spain has been tested since the EU ban came into force. Spain is not Mexico Contador's excuse is baloney and trying to equate Mexico, where clenbuterol in cattle is not banned with Spain where it is is ridiculous. It's like trying to say that someone should get away with possession of a firearm in the UK because it is legal to carry one in Iraq.

Whilst clen is banned in Europe it does not mean it is not used.
If you follow your logic ,as steroids are banned in sport no one can be done for such as they are banned.
Why is there a multi pound control group investigating steroid /clen use in Europe if there is not a problem.
Yet again I point you to the Vet Residues Comm in UK.But again your mind is too closed.

[BigGut]

Whilst clen is banned in Europe it does not mean it is not used.
If you follow your logic ,as steroids are banned in sport no one can be done for such as they are banned.
Why is there a multi pound control group investigating steroid /clen use in Europe if there is not a problem.
Yet again I point you to the Vet Residues Comm in UK.But again your mind is too closed.

You re at it again. Why can't you actually stick to facts rather than pointlessly misdirecting people. YES there is a Vetinary Residues Committee. NO this does not mean that Clenbuterol is used in British LIvestock. The 2010 annual report of the VRC did not find a single case of Clenbuterol in their 34,997 samples that they took. Not one single case. The single case of an illegal substance was a trout found to have Leucomalachite in it, which is a dye which if consumed over long period sof time may damage human health. No other illegal substances were found at all.

Can you please show us all where the VRC has said that they found evidence of Clenbuterol in meat in the UK or Europe? Just pointing to the existance of testing bodies is not proof of there being a problem.

[readtherules]

Big gut.

Yet again you miss the main point of my post.And that they check for Clen means that just cos it is banned does not mean illegal use has to be monitored as a real risk.Remember I was countering Fangio who said that as it is banned it cant exist.
Stay out of it;let fangio respond.

[readtherules]

http://www.mendeley.com/research/evalua ... d-samples/

[fangio]

Are you an idiot or are you deliberately makig up things I have not said? Furhtermore if you don't want others to comment then communicate with me by PM, if you put commentso nt he forum anyone is free to comment.

No one has said that Clenbuterol cannot have been in the meat, you'd have to be a moron to say it is not possible. My point was that in Spain there has not been a case of clenbuterol being present in any meat tested. This contrasts markedly with Mexico weher it is prevelant.

I understand your need to misrepresent people's views rather than debate honestly, but clearly I am saying that there has not been a case of clenbuterol in the meat in Spain (where Contador says it was from) since the EU wide ban came into force. That remains true and remains a very good reason why accepting the completely ridiculous "it must haev been the meat, no I can't show that the meat contianed it, nor where it came from, or point to any actual evidecne whatsoever that it was in teh emat, but I shoudl be let off anyway" excuse. As many have said, if you accept untestable excuses then you are not following the rules as laid out by WADA, which do not allow for mitigation on unsbstantiated excuse.

If you ban somehting you woudl be stupid to think you don't need to enforce it. If that were the case then we woudl nto need police and courts, as everyone woudl just do what they are told. However that does nto mean you can just make up some bull excuse and pretend that it means you should be let off. If that were teh case there woudl be no point in testing for anything, becasue peopel can make up whatever untestable and (as in this case) extremely unlikley (really, one peice of meat eaten during the TDF by one cyclist flown out by a mate the day before a test contained the clen when it was from a country with no clen failures since it was banned, seriously that's your standard of evidence for him to be let off?) hypothesis and get off.

You really do not want to ban anyone if that is the case, you really hate sport that much that you want anyoen to be able to cheat and get away with it.

[readtherules]

fangio.

You said as it is banned it could not exist.Thats what you said.And you ,yet again,accuse other posters are being an idiot.
Is this allowed ?

[fangio]

Where on earth did I say that, where? I have not said that.

Please show me where or, since I have not said that, stop lying about what I have said?

I actually gave a choice, either you are an idiot becuase you have been unable to read what I actually wrote or you are makign things up deliberately, they seem perfectly obvious choices for the situation of you posting up something I simply have not said. I have not called you an idiot.

If you are sayig there is no difffence between "no failures when meat has been tested" and the made up quote of "it can't exist" I leave it to others to decide which is the case.

[readtherules]

How do the supporters of WADA deal with the Mexican clen problem and WADa and USOC saying take caution.
Blows a hole in the concept of strict liability if you cant eat normal foods.
what else exists out there without the athlete having any control or knowledge of.
Will the organisors of the London olympic village be able to give a pledge that there will be no food contamination.After all the athlete has to accept responsibility for what he eats thus asking for a legal binding statement from the organisors only seems a reasionable thing to do.

[Geoff]

Clenbuterol positives due to meat contamination gives fresh hope to Callum Priestley and Alberto Contador

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/others ... tador.html

Note that the lawyer acting for Contador is the same layer Callum Priestly had. There are lots of examples of farmers illegally feeding their animals in all countries of the world so I would say the Mexican experience will sow seeds of doubt on a number of convictions and we may possibly see a few overturned or others not charged.

[readtherules]

Makes the WADA rules look stupid in that how can the athlete be responsible for his food meeting WADA rules when there is such widespread contamination.
Will strict liability finish and be replaced with individual case management as FIFA have negotiated.

[Geoff]

I wasn't aware FIFA had negotiated individual case management but I can't see how WADA will change their stance on strict liability. Without delving into the myriad of WADA rules I believe there is currently scope to offer a defence so obviously if a 100 odd athletes test positive for the same substance it is deemed exceptional and mitigating. Hence WADA will not bring charges.

Individual cases are far more circumspect and any defence must rely on unequivocal evidence which more often than not is very difficult to obtain. I assume the recent WADA deliberations on setting a low threshold were started to see if this could overcome problems of isolated contamination of meat.

Strict liability will not change but I suspect clenbuterol contamination will lead to some changes in how certain cases are conducted.

We do seem to have batches of offending substances from time to time. Nandralone, methylxanthine and now clenbuterol have all led to waves of positive tests and can, in the main, be traced back to contaminated products.

[readtherules]

How can you apply strict liability when the athlete is going about his normal reasonable behavior.
Note the Clen was football /Mexico.Would other sports have gathered the evidence and would WADA have taken the same stance?
What if Priestly had had tainted food in South Africa ?

[fangio]

The alternative to strict liability is no liability, i.e. scrap testing. If Preistly did, despite the massive odds against ti given the testing programme etc for cattle in SA, eat tainted meat, and he cannot prove it he is unlucky. Unfortunatley there are no tests which show whether someone took the clen deliberately as part of doping or accidentally in their normal diet, and therefore the only way to ban the cheats is to ban anyone caught who cannot identify (and I mean identify not specualte wildly) the source. It seems clear that if so many players in a tournament held in a country with lax food chain rules fail then there is something wrong with the food chain, but one person caught when the natives who presumably eat the local beef more often are not failing tests is a long way from a that. Preistly may be guilty or may be the innocent victim of an event with a tiny probability, and laws which had to be designed with the fact that cheats will lie and say they don't know how the substance got into their system in mind.

[readtherules]

Fangio

What percentage of false convictions would you accept ?

[BigGut]

RTR,

Are you saying that anybody who screams contaminated meat should just be let off?

[fangio]

RTR

Ridiculous question we have no way of determinign whether they are "false" (and I use the inverted comma's because they are not flase under strict liability) or not. I will accpet none at all, the day you can find a system which is capable fo distinguishing between an honest athlete and a cheat who is lying and kick out the cheats. Until that time I will accept that it is strict liability.