# Contador's clenbuterol case underway: predictions?



## 55x11

this is how we will entertain ourselves in off-season.
Any predictions?
Cyclingnews' Complete Coverage Of Alberto Contador's Clenbuterol Case | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## mjdwyer23

Not guilty due to some technicality, he'll race next year.


----------



## robdamanii

Guilty.


----------



## MikeBiker

This has drug on so long that I had forgotten about it. Maybe Contrador can plea bargain himself off by giving up Lance.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

I see no way he escapes a sanction.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

Two years.


----------



## pianopiano

I'll say two years as well.


----------



## Wookiebiker

Innocent...The UCI has proven they can be bought...


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Wookiebiker said:


> Innocent...The UCI has proven they can be bought...


The UCI has little to do with it. CAS is independent and WADA declined to file a joint appeal with the UCI. The main case is being brought by WADA


----------



## Wookiebiker

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The UCI has little to do with it. CAS is independent and WADA declined to file a joint appeal with the UCI. The main case is being brought by WADA


Regardless...I just don't see him being found guilty, just a gut feeling though...so who knows. I think a lot of it has to do with the long delay in getting it to review/trial. Either they were trying to build an "Iron Clad" case, or they were trying to find any way possible to avoid an innocent verdict.

They are already talking about changing the rules for the amount of Clen in the body to be detected for a positive result...that alone tells me they are looking for a way out.


----------



## robdamanii

Wookiebiker said:


> Regardless...I just don't see him being found guilty, just a gut feeling though...so who knows. I think a lot of it has to do with the long delay in getting it to review/trial. Either they were trying to build an "Iron Clad" case, or they were trying to find any way possible to avoid an innocent verdict.
> 
> They are already talking about changing the rules for the amount of Clen in the body to be detected for a positive result...that alone tells me they are looking for a way out.


The committee elected not to change the concentrations this year.


----------



## jorgy

I think he'll get off. Which I think will be a shame.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Wookiebiker said:


> Regardless...I just don't see him being found guilty, just a gut feeling though...so who knows. I think a lot of it has to do with the long delay in getting it to review/trial. Either they were trying to build an "Iron Clad" case, or they were trying to find any way possible to avoid an innocent verdict.
> 
> They are already talking about changing the rules for the amount of Clen in the body to be detected for a positive result...that alone tells me they are looking for a way out.


The majority of the delay was due to a couple of factors

The UCI and WADA could not agree on the strategy for a joint case so they filed separate appeals at the last date possible. 

The majority of the delay is because Contador did a "Data Dump" Basically flooded the case with additional, and apparently non- important, information in his defense filing with CAS 

WADA has never indicated they would establish a Clen Threshold. One Guy, who runs the UKAD lab in England said it and the media assumed that he was speaking for all of WADA. He was not. WADA made it clear there would be no threshold introduced


----------



## Local Hero

I have no idea why Contador would even bother with clenbuteral. It is not that effective. For weight loss, waste prevention, etc, there are better drugs. 

And..._It is unthinkable that the no. 1 cyclist in the world, subject to potential testing EVERY DAY of the year, from 6 in the morning until 11 at night, would consciously take clenbuterol, a substance that can be easily traced for days after consumption. _


----------



## den bakker

Local Hero said:


> And..._It is unthinkable that the no. 1 cyclist in the world, subject to potential testing EVERY DAY of the year, from 6 in the morning until 11 at night _


out of competition is in a one hour window every day specified by the athlete in advance. It probably has to be between 6am-11pm...
as for knowing it could be detected: one year earlier no lab would have detected it, this year he was unlucky the sample went to one that could.


----------



## Dwayne Barry

Local Hero said:


> I have no idea why Contador would even bother with clenbuteral. It is not that effective. For weight loss, waste prevention, etc, there are better drugs.


Because these guys aren't perusing the peer-reviewed literature to see what works, they take whatever their "doctor" tell them to take because their experience has been that when they've listened to him they ride well and don't show up positive in the doping tests.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Local Hero said:


> I have no idea why Contador would even bother with clenbuteral. It is not that effective. For weight loss, waste prevention, etc, there are better drugs.
> 
> And..._It is unthinkable that the no. 1 cyclist in the world, subject to potential testing EVERY DAY of the year, from 6 in the morning until 11 at night, would consciously take clenbuterol, a substance that can be easily traced for days after consumption. _


Clen is a very common drug. It allows you to lose weight and maintain power. 

Last year there was a story in the Belgium magazine Humo that quote in detail a Astana insider. He detailed Contador's doping schedule and it is exactly the details WADA is uing in their appeal

Astana insider claims that Contador underwent a transfusion prior to the Tour de France


----------



## Local Hero

Contamination from past doping, found because of a blood transfusion makes more sense. 

And regarding T3 - I've seen more than one picture of Contador when his eyes looked bugged out.


----------



## Ventruck

Local Hero said:


> And..._It is unthinkable that the no. 1 cyclist in the world, subject to potential testing EVERY DAY of the year, from 6 in the morning until 11 at night, would consciously take clenbuterol, a substance that can be easily traced for days after consumption. _


Maybe I'm being naive, but this is what I'm thinking.

But of course, it is possible he's been doing this on the regular for so long, that it wasn't a decision in the moment as opposed to just calling it a "part of the job" that he always thought he'd get away with. 

Yet there's the 2011 Giro. You'd think with him being a bigger center of focus/scrutiny, he surely played that clean. Technically it's fair game he loses that title as he was racing on could/should have been suspension, but that was arguably the hardest of Giro's as of late. What a shame to lose that. Then the 2011 Tour: I'd think that Saxo bus was on lock down, yet look how he performed - even with injury. It's not entirely rational thinking, but if he rode those clean, I just don't see why he'd ever need clen.


----------



## biobanker

No one governing this case has had a spine yet. 

Why would that change now?

I say the dope show continues. If it does, at least it will pretty clear that they, the bodies governing cycling that is, are okay with it.

The kids just getting into the sport are the ones to feel the most sad for.


----------



## Chris-X

*Great post!*



biobanker said:


> No one governing this case has had a spine yet.
> 
> Why would that change now?
> 
> I say the dope show continues. If it does, at least it will pretty clear that they, the bodies governing cycling that is, are okay with it.
> 
> The kids just getting into the sport are the ones to feel the most sad for.


Contador skates. As soon as the authorities started considering the "steak" defense and Contadoper started the delaying tactics, which weren't rebuked immediately, I thought he'd get off. I hope I'm wrong.

I loved his bs when he threatened to retire. 

A good response would have been that 'you don't need to retire,' you are getting a 2-year ban. You're not as special as you think you are.'


----------



## rayej68

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Clen is a very common drug. It allows you to lose weight and maintain power.


Clenbuterol and T3 are very common in bodybuilding (different fourm), but the general consensus around body builders is that clenbuterol hurts cardiovascular performance. Does anyone here know of people who have tried it for cycling and not just cutting weight while on other steroids? 

Anyway I think AC will get off. I the evidence I've read about just isn't cutting it.


----------



## Chris-X

rayej68 said:


> Clenbuterol and T3 are very common in bodybuilding (different fourm), but the general consensus around body builders is that clenbuterol hurts cardiovascular performance. Does anyone here know of people who have tried it for cycling and not just cutting weight while on other steroids?
> 
> *Anyway I think AC will get off. I the evidence I've read about just isn't cutting it. *


The evidence is there. He tested positive. Slam dunk.

I think he'll get off too but wrongfully so.


----------



## froze

I predict he could be found guilty or innocent!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

rayej68 said:


> Clenbuterol and T3 are very common in bodybuilding (different fourm), but the general consensus around body builders is that clenbuterol hurts cardiovascular performance. Does anyone here know of people who have tried it for cycling and not just cutting weight while on other steroids?
> 
> Anyway I think AC will get off. I the evidence I've read about just isn't cutting it.


I have a friend who tried it....it kept him up for 3 days. He got it from Contador's "Coach" Pepe Marti (No Joke)


----------



## Chris-X

*Is Frankie still hatin?*



rayej68 said:


> Clenbuterol and T3 are very common in bodybuilding (different fourm), but the general consensus around body builders is that clenbuterol hurts cardiovascular performance. Does anyone here know of people who have tried it for cycling and not just cutting weight while on other steroids?
> 
> Anyway I think AC will get off. I the evidence I've read about just isn't cutting it.


Andreu on the evidence. What do you disagree with here?

Frankie Andreu's Opinion on Alberto Contador's Doping Case | Bicycling Magazine


----------



## rayej68

Chris-X said:


> Andreu on the evidence. What do you disagree with here?
> 
> Frankie Andreu's Opinion on Alberto Contador's Doping Case | Bicycling Magazine


Maybe I mispoke or didn't explain my position fully:

I don't doubt the testing results, but those haven't been enough to close the case for over a year. The case that's being held now rests in the theory that he doped with trace amounts of clenbuterol in his blood. It's this story, along with ACs tainted beef defense that doesn't have hard evidence to go along with it. 

If the clenbuterol amount alone was enough this thing would have been cut and dry like Andreu said. I have not seen enough evidence to believe either side of the case. 

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

rayej68 said:


> Maybe I mispoke or didn't explain my position fully:
> 
> I don't doubt the testing results, but those haven't been enough to close the case for over a year. The case that's being held now rests in the theory that he doped with trace amounts of clenbuterol in his blood. It's this story, along with ACs tainted beef defense that doesn't have hard evidence to go along with it.
> 
> If the clenbuterol amount alone was enough this thing would have been cut and dry like Andreu said. I have not seen enough evidence to believe either side of the case.
> 
> Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk


No, it is enough to close the case. The issue is not if Contador tested positive, he did. The appeal is because the REFC did not follow the rules and chose to let him off.

The delays are because of UCI incompetence and Contador's attempt to flood the court with garbage, they have nothing to do with his innocence


----------



## bnoojin

give him the boot. another black eye for pro cycling, not so much for the positive, but for the way it was "handled". Screw you McQuaid.


----------



## DMFT

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I have a friend who tried it....it kept him up for 3 days. He got it from Contador's "Coach" Pepe Marti (No Joke)


Sounds like he forgot the all important Ketotifen part of the concoction.........

- Nowhere in my readings have I seen the sleeplessness rivaling the use of Methamphetamines as you have described here though.

And yes, Contador is guilty and should be banned but will likely walk somehow.


----------



## ZoSoSwiM

The ruling should be simple... He tested positive so he's guilty. However because nothing in the legal system is every black and white he'll get off with a fine of some sort. Too much bad press has come from this already. Finish it off and be done with it.


----------



## orange_julius

ZoSoSwiM said:


> The ruling should be simple... He tested positive so he's guilty. However because nothing in the legal system is every black and white he'll get off with a fine of some sort. Too much bad press has come from this already. Finish it off and be done with it.


If everything were done by one entity, perhaps so, but as of today national feds have too much at stake. So it's not surprising that they protect their own riders. 

Plus, Contador helpfully suggested he would like to compete in the Olympics ITT event. 
Contador Serious About Bid For Time Trial Gold In London After Tour | Cyclingnews.com
Perhaps this statement is simply to rally support from the Spanish fed.


----------



## 55x11

orange_julius said:


> If everything were done by one entity, perhaps so, but as of today national feds have too much at stake. So it's not surprising that they protect their own riders.
> 
> Plus, Contador helpfully suggested he would like to compete in the Olympics ITT event.
> Contador Serious About Bid For Time Trial Gold In London After Tour | Cyclingnews.com
> Perhaps this statement is simply to rally support from the Spanish fed.


I liked the Frankie Andreu's take on this:
Frankie Andreu's Opinion on Alberto Contador's Doping Case | Bicycling Magazine


----------



## rydbyk

Both A and B samples were positive.

He must be punished.

Young riders will take more risks if they see that a positive test carries no penalty here. 

As Frankie said, a lot of riders are "scared" right now. That is a good thing for the sport.


----------



## rubbersoul

Poor Bjarne Riis


----------



## worst_shot_ever

I think a guilty/suspension finding is the right and proper outcome. I think he was "tainted" by residual levels of the drug in his autologous transfusion, not beef. And if we are making predictions, I tend to think he will be suspended and his title(s) stripped. (I suppose I still have faith in WADA and CAS, though not much in the UCI and none in the country specific bodies.) But who knows.


----------



## roubaix_sj

i think he'll walk just like any high profiled star bike racer. Once you spend the $$$ to surround yourself with the best lawyers, you will walk. It may take a little longer because that is what the top notch lawyers do, drag out the litigation, but in the end, you walk. Contador, Lance, nothing will happen as they are smart, and spend the money.


----------



## worst_shot_ever

My prediction: one-year ban and loss of TDF 2010 title! Very pleased with this, just say it's so:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ot...d-drug-clenbuterol.html#.TvG_wgyLkvV.facebook


----------



## robdamanii

worst_shot_ever said:


> My prediction: one-year ban and loss of TDF 2010 title! Very pleased with this, just say it's so:
> 
> Alberto Contador to lose Tour de France title and face one-year ban after positive test for banned drug clenbuterol - Telegraph


I keep seeing that, but I think it's a year old. It refers to RFEC sanctioning him, which they did, and then reversed their decision.


----------



## worst_shot_ever

Ah crap. It was tweeted around to me this morning and I just assumed it was accurately represented. Back to the waiting game.


----------



## robdamanii

worst_shot_ever said:


> Ah crap. It was tweeted around to me this morning and I just assumed it was accurately represented. Back to the waiting game.


I did a double take too.

Cyclingnews has a bit this morning saying that the verdict is being written now and expected between Jan 15th and 20th.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

The case *against *Contador is taking some major hits

Yesterday El Mundo claimed that there would be a delay as CAS wants to make sure any decision can hold up to appeal

Possible delay in Contador ruling

Today WADA legal complain of bias and conflict of interest by some of the CAS judges....which appears to be setting the groundwork for appeal

AP: Protest mars Contador doping case


----------



## peter.hardie

Doctor Falsetti said:


> The case *against *Contador is taking some major hits
> 
> Yesterday El Mundo claimed that there would be a delay as CAS wants to make sure any decision can hold up to appeal
> 
> Possible delay in Contador ruling
> 
> Today WADA legal complain of bias and conflict of interest by some of the CAS judges....which appears to be setting the groundwork for appeal
> 
> AP: Protest mars Contador doping case


Yep, if the article on the WADA protest is accurate, it looks like Conti's off the hook.


----------



## pianopiano

It (disgustingly) appears as though the whole Contador verdict has been 'pre-arranged'. Seems like the lesson here is that it pays to have friends in high places. I guess that we'll soon find out.


----------



## cycocross

"*if*" "*they*" were to "*do*" anything "*they*" would have "*done*" "*it*" last year.


----------



## froze

I think he should be let go of all charges, for gods sake's everyone else dopes on the pro circuit.


----------



## LostViking

Not Guilty.

Despite Becca's attempt to pre-empt the Courts.

Ironic it should come from Becca (re. those accusations of judge tampering), who has himself been linked to numerous scandels in Luxembourg.
But one could understand why he would want to pressure the CAS to rule his way, as he and his team stand to benefit directly from a guilty verdict.


----------



## Rokh On

Just a guess on my part but if he goes to Argentina then I'm guessing it's over. Maybe they announce the 7 months back in 2010 satisfies punitive penalties. Just a guess.


----------



## rydbyk

Haven't you all seen the movie called "Face Off" with Nicolas Cage?

Contador IS McQauid.


----------



## RRRoubaix

rydbyk said:


> Haven't you all seen the movie called "Face Off" with Nicolas Cage?
> 
> Contador IS McQauid.


Ah, finally- something that makes sense!
Heh, thanks for the laugh, rydbyk.

Such a pathetic situation. Sigh...


----------



## atpjunkie

if I was a lower level pro cyclist serving / have served a suspension I'd be preparing a massive lawsuit


----------



## thechriswebb

atpjunkie said:


> if I was a lower level pro cyclist serving / have served a suspension I'd be preparing a massive lawsuit


Tom Zirbel.


----------



## Ventruck

Surprise! Got pushed back again to Feb 6.

I don't get it, are they just letting him build his post-allegation race "resume" for almost a year to make a point that he's able to ride clean, and presumably therefore remark that he didn't deliberately take the clenbuterol?


----------



## spade2you

Ventruck said:


> Surprise! Got pushed back again to Feb 6.
> 
> I don't get it, are they just letting him build his post-allegation race "resume" for almost a year to make a point that he's able to ride clean, and presumably therefore remark that he didn't deliberately take the clenbuterol?


Nor a surprise. :idea:


----------



## Fredrico

*Sounds good to me.*



Ventruck said:


> Surprise! Got pushed back again to Feb 6.
> 
> I don't get it, are they just letting him build his post-allegation race "resume" for almost a year to make a point that he's able to ride clean, and presumably therefore remark that he didn't deliberately take the clenbuterol?


I feel sorry for the guy, in limbo for two of his best years in the sport, on very small amounts of a common drug used to bulk up cows, trace amounts Contador could have very well ingested in beef steaks during two rest days in the TDF.

Proof of intentional doping is largely innuendo. His increased performance could have just as well been from the regeneration of two days rest. The judges in appeal court wisely refused to hear testimony from the Australian with hearsay evidence attacking Contador's character, that he was a doper, therefore prejudicing the judges' decision.

They can't prove INTENTIONAL doping beyond a reasonable doubt. Let him get on with his life..


----------



## Nice&slow

A rule is a rule. How can you call yourself a Professional Cyclist?

My predictions is that his lawyers will
Drag this as far as they can.


----------



## Rokh On

His lawyers dragging this out???


----------



## Fredrico

*Yeah.*



Rokh On said:


> His lawyers dragging this out???


Contador was judged not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They let him off. He sure isn't appealing. :biggrin5:


----------



## Rokh On

Agreed Fredrico.

If I had a dollar for every "rules are the rules" that was posted on various sites. The "rules" seem to be missing from many of the story lines or are buried in threads running 2 yrs now. 

What are the rules? Are they cut and dry? Zero Tolerance? Why are levels used for testing? It should be cut and dry. If it's zero tolerance then why would the UCI even issue a statement regarding the level being 50 picograms per ml, and that it was 400x below the minimum standards of detection required by WADA. I think this statement came under scruntiny and was later changed to 40x. 

What about the non professional cyclist or casual sports enthusiast reading various media outlets running the story? Where can they read factual information, not posts laced with personal opinion and emotion? Do they have to go to the WADA site and download the 1.2mb 2009 anti doping code just to find out the rules? 

Let's be honest, in the court of public opinion Contader will be viewed guilty by many even if he is proven innocent. I will admit that his previous history probably has affected him in a negative way.


----------



## robdamanii

Rokh On said:


> Agreed Fredrico.
> 
> If I had a dollar for every "rules are the rules" that was posted on various sites. The "rules" seem to be missing from many of the story lines or are buried in threads running 2 yrs now.
> 
> What are the rules? Are they cut and dry? Zero Tolerance? Why are levels used for testing? It should be cut and dry. If it's zero tolerance then why would the UCI even issue a statement regarding the level being 50 picograms per ml, and that it was 400x below the minimum standards of detection required by WADA. I think this statement came under scruntiny and was later changed to 40x.
> 
> What about the non professional cyclist or casual sports enthusiast reading various media outlets running the story? Where can they read factual information, not posts laced with personal opinion and emotion? Do they have to go to the WADA site and download the 1.2mb 2009 anti doping code just to find out the rules?
> 
> Let's be honest, in the court of public opinion Contader will be viewed guilty by many even if he is proven innocent. I will admit that his previous history probably has affected him in a negative way.


It was 400x lower than the minimum required detection capability of WADA accredited labs. If they can test more sensitively, that's not an issue.

Clen is (at least I think it still is) a zero threshold drug: any amount of it found constitutes a positive finding.

Contador will get off because the UCI and WADA have been dragging their feet in certifying the plasticizer test. If it had become certified, even after the fact, it would be prudent to discuss that part of the equation.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Fredrico said:


> Contador was judged not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They let him off. He sure isn't appealing. :biggrin5:


Not exactly. The majority of the delay was due to Contador's lawyers flooding the court with documents, this added months. 

really the most obvious explanation is a transfusion.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

robdamanii said:


> It was 400x lower than the minimum required detection capability of WADA accredited labs. If they can test more sensitively, that's not an issue.
> 
> Clen is (at least I think it still is) a zero threshold drug: any amount of it found constitutes a positive finding.
> 
> Contador will get off because the UCI and WADA have been dragging their feet in certifying the plasticizer test. If it had become certified, even after the fact, it would be prudent to discuss that part of the equation.


WADA and the UCI did not drag their feet on the plasticizer test, they dropped it completely. It would have been hard to challenge in courts and they have since found better tests that should be approved next year.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Rokh On said:


> Agreed Fredrico.
> 
> If I had a dollar for every "rules are the rules" that was posted on various sites. The "rules" seem to be missing from many of the story lines or are buried in threads running 2 yrs now.
> 
> What are the rules? Are they cut and dry? Zero Tolerance? Why are levels used for testing? It should be cut and dry. If it's zero tolerance then why would the UCI even issue a statement regarding the level being 50 picograms per ml, and that it was 400x below the minimum standards of detection required by WADA. I think this statement came under scruntiny and was later changed to 40x.
> 
> What about the non professional cyclist or casual sports enthusiast reading various media outlets running the story? Where can they read factual information, not posts laced with personal opinion and emotion? Do they have to go to the WADA site and download the 1.2mb 2009 anti doping code just to find out the rules?
> 
> Let's be honest, in the court of public opinion Contader will be viewed guilty by many even if he is proven innocent. I will admit that his previous history probably has affected him in a negative way.


The rules are clear, a 2 year ban unless the rider can prove contamination. The RFEC ignored this which is why WADA appealed.

Minimum levels of detection for certification have nothing to do with sanctions. It does not matter if it is 40 or 400 he should have a 2 year vacation.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

The most obvious explanation is a transfusion. 

Astana insider claims that Contador underwent a transfusion prior to the Tour de France

It is too bad the Humo story is not available on line. The detail of his doping program is impressive. Considering Contador works with* Pepi Marti, Landis drug dealer* and one of Brunyeel's favorite couriers, it should be no surprise he is doper










Pepi is the guy in jeans

Of course his schedule was in Fuentes files, and his phone number in his wallet


----------



## Fredrico

*Very interesting, in a macabre way.*



Doctor Falsetti said:


> The most obvious explanation is a transfusion.
> 
> Astana insider claims that Contador underwent a transfusion prior to the Tour de France
> 
> It is too bad the Humo story is not available on line. The detail of his doping program is impressive. Considering Contador works with* Pepi Marti, Landis drug dealer* and one of Brunyeel's favorite couriers, it should be no surprise he is doper
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pepi is the guy in jeans
> 
> Of course his schedule was in Fuentes files, and his phone number in his wallet


First, I see little benefit in a miniscule dose of a drug that probably has little effect on performance the likes of testosterone or EPO. Therefore, why pursue Contador relentlessly for two years to prove guilt, appealing an official decision already made? I think it's over the top, unreasonable, and vindictive. Small men want to take down a celebrity, destroy his reputation on miniscule evidence of drug taking and a blood transfusion, neither of which are really that big a deal. Blood boosting used to be perfectly legal up until the '90s, as I understand. Eddy B wrote approvingly of the practice. Alexi Grewal probably won the '84 Olympics road race on a blood transfusion. Nobody noticed. Lance used to live in a high altitude tent for days to get his red cell blood count up. Why isn't that illegal? Why are these parsimonious little men still going after Lance, years after his last Tour victory?

I'm saddened by the vulturous outcry of public media accusing athletes of doping by innuendo, murky plots, evil doctors. I just want to watch the riders outride each other in battles of attrition. I don't want to know what they "were on." It ruins the fun. 99% of the relationships riders have with doctors are legitimate. It's part of the sport. Why cast suspicion on it?

Pass the popcorn please!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Fredrico said:


> First, I see little benefit in a miniscule dose of a drug that probably has little effect on performance the likes of testosterone or EPO. Therefore, why pursue Contador relentlessly for two years to prove guilt, appealing an official decision already made? I think it's over the top, unreasonable, and vindictive. Small men want to take down a celebrity, destroy his reputation on miniscule evidence of drug taking and a blood transfusion, neither of which are really that big a deal. Blood boosting used to be perfectly legal up until the '90s, as I understand. Eddy B wrote approvingly of the practice. Alexi Grewal probably won the '84 Olympics road race on a blood transfusion. Nobody noticed. Lance used to live in a high altitude tent for days to get his red cell blood count up. Why isn't that illegal? Why are these parsimonious little men still going after Lance, years after his last Tour victory?
> 
> I'm saddened by the vulturous outcry of public media accusing athletes of doping by innuendo, murky plots, evil doctors. I just want to watch the riders outride each other in battles of attrition. I don't want to know what they "were on." It ruins the fun. 99% of the relationships riders have with doctors are legitimate. It's part of the sport. Why cast suspicion on it?
> 
> Pass the popcorn please!


There so many incorrect assumptions in your post I do not know where to start

The amount of Clen was small because it came from a transfusion of blood taken in the period between the DL and the TdF. The Humo story goes into detail why Clen was used and how it transferred in the transfusion. It was clear to even the casual observer that AC was not on form at the DL and was carrying 1-2 extra Kilos. Clen is a perfect complement if a rider was looking to drop weight but maintain output. Marti had given it to other riders in the past. 

Should WADA not "Pursue Contador relentlessly"? It is their job to sanction dopers. Just because AC is rich, can drag out the process and make WADA's job difficult should WADA ignore him?

Do you really think a Transfusion is "Not a big deal"? Really? It does not matter that transfusions were not banned 30 years ago. It is clear they are a big deal. They have nothing in common with a altitude tent......can a tent raise your Hct 10 points in the 3rd week of a GT? Of course not. 

We get it, you think doping doctors are part of the sport and we should just ignore the riders who cheat. Good thing most do not agree with you. There are plenty of teams and riders who do not working with needles, blood bags, and questionable doctors. Ferrari will be spending many years in prison. Marti was let go by Saxo. Fuentes, and his team, are facing 2 years in prison. 

Do you think those that enforce all rules are "Parsimonious" or just the people that enforce the rules on dopers who ride fast? Do all dope dealers get a pass from prosecution or just the dealers who sell to athletes?


----------



## Chris-X

Fredrico said:


> First, I see little benefit in a miniscule dose of a drug that probably has little effect on performance the likes of testosterone or EPO. Therefore, why pursue Contador relentlessly for two years to prove guilt, appealing an official decision already made? I think it's over the top, unreasonable, and vindictive. Small men want to take down a celebrity, destroy his reputation on miniscule evidence of drug taking and a blood transfusion, neither of which are really that big a deal. Blood boosting used to be perfectly legal up until the '90s, as I understand. Eddy B wrote approvingly of the practice. Alexi Grewal probably won the '84 Olympics road race on a blood transfusion. Nobody noticed. Lance used to live in a high altitude tent for days to get his red cell blood count up. Why isn't that illegal? Why are these parsimonious little men still going after Lance, years after his last Tour victory?
> 
> I'm saddened by the vulturous outcry of public media accusing athletes of doping by innuendo, murky plots, evil doctors. I just want to watch the riders outride each other in battles of attrition. I don't want to know what they "were on." * It ruins the fun. 99% of the relationships riders have with doctors are legitimate. * It's part of the sport. Why cast suspicion on it?
> 
> Pass the popcorn please!


There is absolutely zero reason for "relationships" doctors have with riders. The race doctors and the family GP's in their hometowns are the only doctors needed in legitimate sport.

edit

I'm sorry, and each team doctor...


----------



## Fredrico

*Expanding on this topic,*



Doctor Falsetti said:


> There so many incorrect assumptions in your post I do not know where to start
> 
> The amount of Clen was small because it came from a transfusion of blood taken in the period between the DL and the TdF. The Humo story goes into detail why Clen was used and how it transferred in the transfusion. It was clear to even the casual observer that AC was not on form at the DL and was carrying 1-2 extra Kilos. Clen is a perfect complement if a rider was looking to drop weight but maintain output. Marti had given it to other riders in the past.
> 
> Should WADA not "Pursue Contador relentlessly"? It is their job to sanction dopers. Just because AC is rich, can drag out the process and make WADA's job difficult should WADA ignore him?
> 
> Do you really think a Transfusion is "Not a big deal"? Really? It does not matter that transfusions were not banned 30 years ago. It is clear they are a big deal. They have nothing in common with a altitude tent......can a tent raise your Hct 10 points in the 3rd week of a GT? Of course not.
> 
> We get it, you think doping doctors are part of the sport and we should just ignore the riders who cheat. Good thing most do not agree with you. There are plenty of teams and riders who do not working with needles, blood bags, and questionable doctors. Ferrari will be spending many years in prison. Marti was let go by Saxo. Fuentes, and his team, are facing 2 years in prison.
> 
> Do you think those that enforce all rules are "Parsimonious" or just the people that enforce the rules on dopers who ride fast? Do all dope dealers get a pass from prosecution or just the dealers who sell to athletes?


My question is, after laying out the case, was that small amount of clen affecting Contador's performance at the time it was discovered? Or is this discovery simply a reason to cast Contador under suspicion of habitual drug use? If it substantially helped his performance, go get him. But if it was a component of his body regenerating during two days of rest, let him go, because the rest and recuperation would enhance subsequent performance as well, if not better! :biggrin5: It's always worked for me!

So lets talk about drugs in general. Good you brought it up posing the question, "Do all dope dealers get a pass...?"

Smoking cigarettes (which I gave up for health reasons) and cannabis (which I would still smoke if it were legally available), I sympathize with people who dope, for one reason or another. I don't find it the grievous violation of honor and good character that so many people do. I have a hard time relating to their outrage, and eagerness to prosecute and punish drug offenders. Taking a drug to enhance performance or recover more quickly in an athletic event, or for pleasure, or for combating sickness or disease, is all the same to me.

I see only a small difference between a doctor who prescribes powerful drugs to lower cholesterol, blood pressure, or pain, and thereby create dependencies, from a doctor who prescribes a blood transfusion when a racer is not recovering well on a long tour. I think doctors don't see any difference, either. Ferrari has even said so. That's why they keep administering drugs to pro cyclists. Drugs are a means of effective medical treatment, together with nutrition, sleep, and training advice. They view themselves as simply doing their job.

In the US, we round up drug dealers and throw them in jail, while the elephant in the closet is painkillers, a huge market eagerly sustained by the drug companies. If they can keep millions addicted to their products, what's the problem with pot dealers, supplying a relatively harmless drug that isn't addictive? I've tried pot, crack, LSD, mushrooms, and shake my head in disbelief at why the laws are so draconian outlawing these drugs. That's what I bring to this discussion.

Ok, exact a penalty on athletes who "cheat" with drugs. Why not just, "Hey, now we're going to test you every day for the next three months and your team is going to pay for it!" Or kick the rider out of the race, and test him before the next race, randomly. If his drug use is "habitual," then ban him for the season. Instead of raking him over the coals in the tabloids for a year, wagging fingers. If its ok for grossly overweight older people who have terrible diets, to live on powerful drugs, why is it surprising that elite athletes competing at the highest level, would seek out the same to fine tune their performance and overcome injuries?

What about erectile dysfunction? How can you not call ED drugs "pleasure drugs?" "Can't get it up? Here, have this blue pill! :biggrin5: You'll have the time of your life! Oh, be careful, though. If erection lasts more than 4 hours :biggrin5:, see your doctor!" Sure. I'd say a little training and exercise would do the same thing, with a hit of crack or a joint before getting down to business! But oh, no! That'll get you fired from your job, tried in court, and sent to jail! :frown2:

I give doctors a hard time when they prescribe a drug for me. I worry about side effects, long term debilitation, addictions, that so many of these powerful, perfectly legal drugs induce. Anecdotal evidence I've found is that most of the drugs old people live on are very expensive, and totally unnecessary. They die anyway.

I just can't appreciate the extreme moral divide in our pill happy culture when some athlete is caught using them. . I find it extremely hypocritical the same society that forbids recreational drugs can allow drug companies to advertise drugs that enhance sexual performance on the evening news. And throw people in jail for smoking pot, while marketing powerful and highly addictive pain killers that are ruining the lives of hundreds of thousands.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Fredrico said:


> My question is, after laying out the case, was that small amount of clen affecting Contador's performance at the time it was discovered? Or is this discovery simply a reason to cast Contador under suspicion of habitual drug use? If it substantially helped his performance, go get him. But if it was a component of his body regenerating during two days of rest, let him go, because the rest and recuperation would enhance subsequent performance as well, if not better! :biggrin5: It's always worked for me!
> 
> So lets talk about drugs in general. Good you brought it up posing the question, "Do all dope dealers get a pass...?"
> 
> Smoking cigarettes (which I gave up for health reasons) and cannabis (which I would still smoke if it were legally available), I sympathize with people who dope, for one reason or another. I don't find it the grievous violation of honor and good character that so many people do. I have a hard time relating to their outrage, and eagerness to prosecute and punish drug offenders. Taking a drug to enhance performance or recover more quickly in an athletic event, or for pleasure, or for combating sickness or disease, is all the same to me.
> 
> I see only a small difference between a doctor who prescribes powerful drugs to lower cholesterol, blood pressure, or pain, and thereby create dependencies, from a doctor who prescribes a blood transfusion when a racer is not recovering well on a long tour. I think doctors don't see any difference, either. Ferrari has even said so. That's why they keep administering drugs to pro cyclists. Drugs are a means of effective medical treatment, together with nutrition, sleep, and training advice. They view themselves as simply doing their job.
> 
> In the US, we round up drug dealers and throw them in jail, while the elephant in the closet is painkillers, a huge market eagerly sustained by the drug companies. If they can keep millions addicted to their products, what's the problem with pot dealers, supplying a relatively harmless drug that isn't addictive? I've tried pot, crack, LSD, mushrooms, and shake my head in disbelief at why the laws are so draconian outlawing these drugs. That's what I bring to this discussion.
> 
> Ok, exact a penalty on athletes who "cheat" with drugs. Why not just, "Hey, now we're going to test you every day for the next three months and your team is going to pay for it!" Or kick the rider out of the race, and test him before the next race, randomly. If his drug use is "habitual," then ban him for the season. Instead of raking him over the coals in the tabloids for a year, wagging fingers. If its ok for grossly overweight older people who have terrible diets, to live on powerful drugs, why is it surprising that elite athletes competing at the highest level, would seek out the same to fine tune their performance and overcome injuries?
> 
> What about erectile dysfunction? How can you not call ED drugs "pleasure drugs?" "Can't get it up? Here, have this blue pill! :biggrin5: You'll have the time of your life! Oh, be careful, though. If erection lasts more than 4 hours :biggrin5:, see your doctor!" Sure. I'd say a little training and exercise would do the same thing, with a hit of crack or a joint before getting down to business! But oh, no! That'll get you fired from your job, tried in court, and sent to jail! :frown2:
> 
> I give doctors a hard time when they prescribe a drug for me. I worry about side effects, long term debilitation, addictions, that so many of these powerful, perfectly legal drugs induce. Anecdotal evidence I've found is that most of the drugs old people live on are very expensive, and totally unnecessary. They die anyway.
> 
> I just can't appreciate the extreme moral divide in our pill happy culture when some athlete is caught using them. . I find it extremely hypocritical the same society that forbids recreational drugs can allow drug companies to advertise drugs that enhance sexual performance on the evening news. And throw people in jail for smoking pot, while marketing powerful and highly addictive pain killers that are ruining the lives of hundreds of thousands.


Hard to understand much of your post but

Yes, the Clen helped him lose weight and not lose power. It is effective and illegal

Doctors do see a huge difference. Ferrari may think it is OK but most clearly understand it is not. Ask Prentice Steffen, team Doctor for Garmin what his thoughts are on this subject and you will get an earfull about how missguided you are.

You can ignore that many of the 1984 athletes who took transfusions got sick, or Jesus Manzano looked like this after a bad transfusion










Or that Pantani's body stopped producing EPO and Testoterone naturally. EPO is hardly safe
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/health/policy/25drug.html?_r=2

You are welcome to pretend that the systematic doping of an athlete is the same as someone smoking a joint, but we all know this is not the case....just ask Greg Strock

Strock Speaks


----------



## Fredrico

*Yes there is.*



Chris-X said:


> There is absolutely zero reason for "relationships" doctors have with riders. The race doctors and the family GP's in their hometowns are the only doctors needed in legitimate sport.
> 
> edit
> 
> I'm sorry, and each team doctor...


Team doctors: their purpose is to monitor the health of their riders and administer medical attention when they perceive it's needed. Racing a top level multi-day tour does horrible things to the human body. Survival becomes all the more dependent on competent medical attention. Team members therefore have very close relationships with their doctors. It can make all the difference between finishing and dropping out. (even if illegal drugs are taken out of the equation. :biggrin5

Then there are the health and nutrition gurus, like Dr. Ferrari, who advise from the sidelines. If you want to get rid of them, you might as well get rid of coaches, too!


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Fredrico said:


> Team doctors: their purpose is to monitor the health of their riders and administer medical attention when they perceive it's needed. Racing a top level multi-day tour does horrible things to the human body. Survival becomes all the more dependent on competent medical attention. Team members therefore have very close relationships with their doctors. It can make all the difference between finishing and dropping out. (even if illegal drugs are taken out of the equation. :biggrin5
> 
> Then there are the health and nutrition gurus, like Dr. Ferrari, who advise from the sidelines. If you want to get rid of them, you might as well get rid of coaches, too!


Ferrari is a Hematologist, not a "Health and Nutrition guru". He will spend much of the rest of his life in prison. 

You think that to solution to a rider getting tired is to take a shot to artificially enhance his performance and possibly shorten his life. Luckily there are an increasing number of doctors in the sport who strongly disagree with you.


----------



## den bakker

Fredrico said:


> Then there are the health and nutrition gurus, like Dr. Ferrari, who advise from the sidelines. If you want to get rid of them, you might as well get rid of coaches, too!


because suggesting a 5 hour endurance ride and injecting a person with EPO etc is basically the same thing 
Are you sure you stopped smoking weed?


----------



## Fredrico

*Please forgive my naivete.*



Doctor Falsetti said:


> Hard to understand much of your post but
> 
> Yes, the Clen helped him lose weight and not lose power. It is effective and illegal (_Yes, we know that_!)
> 
> Doctors do see a huge difference. Ferrari may think it is OK but most clearly understand it is not. Ask Prentice Steffen, team Doctor for Garmin what his thoughts are on this subject and you will get an earfull about how missguided you are.(_You would have been better off saying, "How much you don't understand."_)
> 
> You can ignore that many of the 1984 athletes who took transfusions got sick, or Jesus Manzano looked like this after a bad transfusion. (_Why would I want to ignore this? In fact, I now remember that it happened and caused considerable controversy._)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or that Pantani's body stopped producing EPO and Testoterone naturally. EPO is hardly safe
> https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/25/health/policy/25drug.html?_r=2(_ Did I say EPO was safe?_)
> 
> You are welcome to pretend that the systematic doping of an athlete is the same as someone smoking a joint, but we all know this is not the case....just ask Greg Strock (_I'm not pretending doping is as harmless as smoking a joint, only that what drives doping is similar. Getting high, enhancing performance._)
> 
> Strock Speaks


I just read the Velo News interview with Strock. That's really evil, injecting drugs into an athlete, refusing to tell him what they are or letting him in on the purpose, then ending up inducing long term immunodeficiency, leading to serious virus infection. And too, the deaths from EPO, sickness from blood transfusions, long term physical destruction from testosterone. Remember Sue Novara-Reber? You don't really have to convince me of the moral as well as physical horrors of doping. You're the expert. I'm the lay person curious to know more.

That's why I'm playing devil's advocate. And you're coming back with insightful and detailed information explaining the problem from a medical standpoint, which the cycling press has largely ignored. I take it you're a doctor?

So you believe the miniscule amount of clen in Contador's blood caused him to lose weight without giving up strength? Or was the clen in his blood doing its work for days before it was detected in trace amounts? Do you think the drug is worth taking a chance of getting busted, as an alternative to racing a week to lose weight and recovering with two day's rest?

Drugs and guns. Two of my favorite subjects. :biggrin5:


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Fredrico said:


> So you believe the miniscule amount of clen in Contador's blood caused him to lose weight without giving up strength? Or was the clen in his blood doing its work for days before it was detected in trace amounts? Do you think the drug is worth taking a chance of getting busted, as an alternative to racing a week to lose weight and recovering with two day's rest?
> :


I believe he took the Clen in the time between the DL and the TdF. He also took out some blood at this time to spin out and infuse on the 3nd rest day. The Clen did not entirely clear his system and some made it into his bag of blood.....appearing later after he transfused on the 2nd rest day.

It is standard procedure, in line what riders have done for a decade. It is a far more believable then it coming from beef.


----------



## asgelle

Fredrico said:


> So you believe the miniscule amount of clen in Contador's blood caused him to lose weight without giving up strength?


GIve it up already. WADA code does not require proof of benefit for a violation. In fact, there are substances on the banned list that are known to have no performance benefit because they are masking agents or produce metabolites equivalent to performance enhancing drugs. If you want to argue what the rules should be, fine; but in the context of existing rules, introducing the benefit argument is a pure red herring.


----------



## spade2you

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I believe he took the Clen in the time between the DL and the TdF. He also took out some blood at this time to spin out and infuse on the 3nd rest day. The Clen did not entirely clear his system and some made it into his bag of blood.....appearing later after he transfused on the 2nd rest day.
> 
> It is standard procedure, in line what riders have done for a decade. It is a far more believable then it coming from beef.


Other than plasticizers, which aren't proven and there are multitudes of lab equipment/materials that could easily be contaminated with plasticizers from sterile solutions, what evidence was there that he transfused? There has been no mention of an increase in hemoglobin or hematocrit, which a transfusion would easily show.


----------



## Chris-X

*He's guilty*



asgelle said:


> GIve it up already. WADA code does not require proof of benefit for a violation. In fact, there are substances on the banned list that are known to have no performance benefit because they are masking agents or produce metabolites equivalent to performance enhancing drugs. If you want to argue what the rules should be, fine; but in the context of existing rules, introducing the benefit argument is a pure red herring.


but then where would the fun be in arguing the tons of hypotheticals?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

spade2you said:


> Other than plasticizers, which aren't proven and there are multitudes of lab equipment/materials that could easily be contaminated with plasticizers from sterile solutions, what evidence was there that he transfused? There has been no mention of an increase in hemoglobin or hematocrit, which a transfusion would easily show.


Yes, his blood values shows evidence of both the extraction and infusion of blood. It is my understanding that Asheden was allowed to discuss this at CAS but was barred only from discussing the plasticizer tests. 

Taken on their own the plasticizers test are not enough for a sanction but the do provide additional information that adds to the explanation.


----------



## Rokh On

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Minimum levels of detection for certification have nothing to do with sanctions. It does not matter if it is 40 or 400 he should have a 2 year vacation.


Then why would the UCI even issue a statement regarding levels? If it is zero tolerance why even open the door to possible criticism? Why issue any statement? Why not let the WADA do all the talking? Is it possible they were concerned that the tainted meat claim may have some validity?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Rokh On said:


> Then why would the UCI even issue a statement regarding levels? If it is zero tolerance why even open the door to possible criticism? Why issue any statement? Why not let the WADA do all the talking? Is it possible they were concerned that the tainted meat claim may have some validity?


because the UCI is stupid. 

The UCI was forced to rush out a press release because their cover up attempt was exposed. I would not read much into their weak mathematical capabilities.


----------



## froze

Doctor Falsetti said:


> because the UCI is stupid.
> 
> The UCI was forced to rush out a press release because their cover up attempt was exposed. I would not read much into their weak mathematical capabilities.


 Not only weak mathematical capabilities but seriously outdated; witness their antiquated rule for a bike not weighing less then 14.999 pounds when today's technology could easily make a safe bike at 13 pounds, so why not change the rules to 13.999? Because their stupid.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Given my recent record of inaccuracy I will go out on a limb and say Contador gets off on Monday


----------



## a_avery007

go out on a limb, your are serious??

too funny you are mate!


----------



## spade2you

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yes, his blood values shows evidence of both the extraction and infusion of blood. It is my understanding that Asheden was allowed to discuss this at CAS but was barred only from discussing the plasticizer tests.
> 
> Taken on their own the plasticizers test are not enough for a sanction but the do provide additional information that adds to the explanation.


If they _had_ this evidence, it would have been well ahead of clenbuterol and plasticizers, as it would have been a done deal without them.


----------



## Fredrico

*Again,*



Doctor Falsetti said:


> I believe he took the Clen in the time between the DL and the TdF. He also took out some blood at this time to spin out and infuse on the 3nd rest day. The Clen did not entirely clear his system and some made it into his bag of blood.....appearing later after he transfused on the 2nd rest day.
> 
> It is standard procedure, in line what riders have done for a decade. It is a far more believable then it coming from beef.


Brilliant, Mr.Holmes! :biggrin5:

If Contador took the clen between races to lose weight in preparation for the TDF, and his blood was contaminated with only trace amounts, then one could conclude he hadn't taken it any time after he gave his blood. If he had used the drug to lose weight far enough before the TDF so the drug would clear his system, then he entered the race "clean," only blowing it by taking the contaminated blood booster. There is some confusion, however, if Contador entered the TDF overweght. 

"Spinning out" is separating the red blood cells from the plasma, is that right?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

spade2you said:


> If they _had_ this evidence, it would have been well ahead of clenbuterol and plasticizers, as it would have been a done deal without them.


Then do have evidence of fluctuation, it has been well reported, just not enough to survive a biopassport case against a well funded guy like Contador. The Humo piece talks in detail of how he used micro doing and plasma to hid the spikes.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

Fredrico said:


> Brilliant, Mr.Holmes! :biggrin5:
> 
> If Contador took the clen between races to lose weight in preparation for the TDF, and his blood was contaminated with only trace amounts, then one could conclude he hadn't taken it any time after he gave his blood. If he had used the drug to lose weight far enough before the TDF so the drug would clear his system, then he entered the race "clean," only blowing it by taking the contaminated blood booster. There is some confusion, however, if Contador entered the TDF overweght.
> 
> "Spinning out" is separating the red blood cells from the plasma, is that right?


Yes, spinning out is separating the cells

To be fair, it is not my theory. If comes from a person who worked at Astana and talked to Humo. It was also what WADA presented as supporting evidence at the CAS hearing. 

Monday should be interesting. We should know the Contador decision when we wake up


----------



## spade2you

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Then do have evidence of fluctuation, it has been well reported, just not enough to survive a biopassport case against a well funded guy like Contador. The Humo piece talks in detail of how he used micro doing and plasma to hid the spikes.


Hydrational changes can cause fluctuation. Where's the beef?


----------



## 55x11

CAS verdict will be announced on Monday. For people who follow doping cases, this is like Superbowl!!! Will be historic no matter which way it goes!


----------



## yurl

55x11 said:


> CAS verdict will be announced on Monday.


My money is on another delay announcement


----------



## Doctor Falsetti

One point that I seldom see mentioned is what the WADA code says about reduction in penalty due to inadvertent ingestion. 

Contador claims it comes from meat, even though he cannot produce it and there is no evidence of widespread Clen use in Spain. If CAS does believe his story then the most likely outcome would be a 1 year sanction, which is what the WADA code calls for in the event of unintentional ingestion. 

Of course recent positives in Mexico and China have been dismissed completely because of widespread use of Clen in the food supply.


----------



## spade2you

yurl said:


> My money is on another delay announcement


On the off chance they don't delay you'd probably have 1:100 betting odds.


----------



## Rokh On

Doctor Falsetti said:


> If CAS does believe his story then the most likely outcome would be a 1 year sanction


Is this Deja Vu? So we return to what the RFEC wanted to do just about this time last year?


----------



## ZoSoSwiM

No more guessing... He's toast.

CAS Sanction Contador With Two Year Ban In Clenbuterol Case | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## robdamanii

He should have stuck with RFEC's 1 year ban. He would have been ahead of the game.


----------



## yurl

spade2you said:


> On the off chance they don't delay you'd probably have 1:100 betting odds.


doh! I've gone and jinxed it


----------



## biobanker

Fredrico said:


> Brilliant, Mr.Holmes! :biggrin5:
> 
> If Contador took the clen between races to lose weight in preparation for the TDF, and his blood was contaminated with only trace amounts, then one could conclude he hadn't taken it any time after he gave his blood. If he had used the drug to lose weight far enough before the TDF so the drug would clear his system, then he entered the race "clean," only blowing it by taking the contaminated blood booster. There is some confusion, however, if Contador entered the TDF overweght.
> 
> "Spinning out" is separating the red blood cells from the plasma, is that right?


It's banned. It doesnt matter if he proceeds directly to the transfusion station after standing on the podium at the TdF and then takes 6-months off of racing.

They're NEVER allowed to take it. By your logic anything that clears before you race is fair game.


----------



## spade2you

yurl said:


> doh! I've gone and jinxed it


This is why I'm not a betting man.


----------



## Fredrico

*Dopers: 1, Anti-dopers: 1*



ZoSoSwiM said:


> No more guessing... He's toast.
> 
> CAS Sanction Contador With Two Year Ban In Clenbuterol Case | Cyclingnews.com


Armstrong gets off (for now.:shocked. After years of hot pursuit by Inspector Javert or what's his name.

Big deal with Contador. His two year ban will end in August!  He'll be able to race the Vuelta! And good for Andy Schleck. He's the winner of the TDF! :biggrin5: And Scarponi, too! For those guys I guess it's like winning the lottery! :thumbsup:


----------

