Contador positive

A spokesman for three-time Tour de France winner Alberto Contador says the
cyclist tested positive for a banned steroid during this year's race.

Contador's publicist released a statement Wednesday saying the substance,
identified as clenbuterol, was found in a test taken on July 21. Contador has
blamed food contamination as the only possible explanation for the positive
test.

Contador will hold a news conference on Thursday in Pinto, Spain.

The statement claimed Contador was first made aware of the result on Aug. 24.


Read it at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sport...our-de-france-
winner-tests-positive/article1733784/ or http://5z8.info/foreign-
brides_f5e2o_guns

On Sep 29, 7:16*pm, Jason Spaceman
wrote:
A spokesman for three-time Tour de France winner Alberto Contador says the
cyclist tested positive for a banned steroid during this year's race.

Contador's publicist released a statement Wednesday saying the substance,
identified as clenbuterol, was found in a test taken on July 21. Contador has
blamed food contamination as the only possible explanation for the positive
test.

Gee, we've never heard this before.

Brad Anders

On Sep 29, 7:16*pm, Jason Spaceman
wrote:

The statement claimed Contador was first made aware of the result on Aug. 24.

This is why pro cycling is finished as a sport. No result is ever
final. Look at Lance, he's probably going to lose TdF victories from a
decade ago. Landis stands on the victory podium, only to be stripped
of the title in the months to come. Now Contador, winner in July,
loser in August. Given this uncertainty, why would anyone invest any
kind of fan devotion to the sport? It's a joke.

Brad Anders

"Brad Anders" wrote in message
...
On Sep 29, 7:16 pm, Jason Spaceman
wrote:

The statement claimed Contador was first made aware of the result on Aug.
24.

:: This is why pro cycling is finished as a sport. No result is ever
:: final. Look at Lance, he's probably going to lose TdF victories from a
:: decade ago. Landis stands on the victory podium, only to be stripped
:: of the title in the months to come. Now Contador, winner in July,
:: loser in August. Given this uncertainty, why would anyone invest any
:: kind of fan devotion to the sport? It's a joke.




Dumbass -

You won't see that happen in the NFL.

The dumbasses in charge need to treat cycling for what it is: it's a game.
It'e entertainment. They're treating it like a crime scene.

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

On Sep 29, 8:35*pm, "Kurgan Gringioni"
wrote:
"Brad Anders" wrote in message

...
On Sep 29, 7:16 pm, Jason Spaceman
wrote:



The statement claimed Contador was first made aware of the result on Aug.
24.

:: This is why pro cycling is finished as a sport. No result is ever
:: final. Look at Lance, he's probably going to lose TdF victories from a
:: decade ago. Landis stands on the victory podium, only to be stripped
:: of the title in the months to come. Now Contador, winner in July,
:: loser in August. Given this uncertainty, why would anyone invest any
:: kind of fan devotion to the sport? It's a joke.

Dumbass -

You won't see that happen in the NFL.

The dumbasses in charge need to treat cycling for what it is: it's a game..
It'e entertainment. They're treating it like a crime scene.

thanks,

Kurgan. presented by Gringioni.

The dumbasses in charge at the UCI would love nothing better than to
make these doping affairs all go away. Unfortunately, they don't
control the various state actors who see a bunch of low-hanging fruit
and easy headlines. It's not as if cyclists were as important as
footballers, who have to consort with minor prostitutes to get into
trouble with the law.

"Brad Anders" wrote in message
...
On Sep 29, 7:16 pm, Jason Spaceman
wrote:

The statement claimed Contador was first made aware of the result on
Aug. 24.
=======
This is why pro cycling is finished as a sport. No result is ever
final. Look at Lance, he's probably going to lose TdF victories from a
decade ago. Landis stands on the victory podium, only to be stripped
of the title in the months to come. Now Contador, winner in July,
loser in August. Given this uncertainty, why would anyone invest any
kind of fan devotion to the sport? It's a joke.

Brad Anders
=======

No, it's (fan devotion to cycling) not a joke. The 'Tour isn't like
baseball, with well-defined statistics that people use to compare one
era to another. Few care about average speeds, or how long it took to
climb Ventoux one year vs another (except those focused entirely on
doping). There's no ERA equivalent, no passing completion percentage, no
goals blocked, no free throw percentages. Instead we enjoy the
spectacle, the strategy, the man-against-himself aspect that rarely
comes out in other sports. The 'Tour stands on its own, with or without
doping.

Would it be better if there were no doping controversies? Certainly. But
people are naive to believe it doesn't go on in other sports. My guess
is that other sports federations are well aware of what goes on behind
closed doors, and enjoy the fact that cycling gets all the attention.

Are "sports" finished, in general, due to doping? I doubt "sports" have
ever had a dope-free era, and despite scandals elsewhere, I don't see
their traditional fan base moving off to something else. And cycling in
particular? The only reason cycling has more vulnerabilitly to scandal
than some other sports is the degree to which it is dependent upon
sponsorship (100%). So to some extent, what goes on reflects upon the
people paying the bills. But even there, the scandals of cycling almost
serve as distractions to the scandals of the business world these days.

Now, what about that kid who grows up idolizing an athlete, shaping his
or her life to follow in their footsteps? Shattered dreams, how can you
put a price on shattered & crushed dreams???!!! Well yeah, there are so
many kids who dream of growing up to be professional cyclists aren't
there? You can try and make a possible exception for Lance, who has
cancer-stricken folk who look up to him, but even there I'm not so sure
they're unable to separate what Lance has done for cancer vs his efforts
as a cyclist.

"You would have to be an imbecile or a crook to imagine that a
professional cyclist who races for 235 days a year can hold the pace
without stimulants" Jaques Anquetil made that remark eons ago, and it
didn't erode cycling's popularity one bit. It's my opinion that the
relative ethics of cycling vs the world have narrowed significantly
since then. What is sad is that we play this game of pretending
otherwise, with cyclists obliged to deny, deny, deny instead of even
tacitly coming to terms with the reality of competitive sports.

I would much rather that cycling was clean, but I can settle for rules
that limit the extent of doping that can be gotten away with. I
recognize the absurdity of rationalizing doping as "legal" as long as
you don't go over the limit. It's not how I live my life, and it's not
how I want my kids to live theirs. But realistically, it's how the world
works.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

On Sep 29, 10:28*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:

I would much rather that cycling was clean, but I can settle for rules
that limit the extent of doping that can be gotten away with.

That's an interesting thought but does not find much support in
practicality or reality. If 10% is the limit, somebody is going to try
to get away with 15%, just to gain that little advantage. As
wonderful as clean bright lines seem, they don't exist. And using the
above generic example, envision the response to a positive test. "I
don't know how I could have tested 15%, the doctor tested me just this
morning at no more than 10%."

DR

"DirtRoadie" wrote in message
...
On Sep 29, 10:28 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:

I would much rather that cycling was clean, but I can settle for rules
that limit the extent of doping that can be gotten away with.
=======
That's an interesting thought but does not find much support in
practicality or reality. If 10% is the limit, somebody is going to try
to get away with 15%, just to gain that little advantage. As
wonderful as clean bright lines seem, they don't exist. And using the
above generic example, envision the response to a positive test. "I
don't know how I could have tested 15%, the doctor tested me just this
morning at no more than 10%."

DR
=======

The problem is that we don't live in a binary world. When a lab can test
down to the levels detected in Contador's sample, it could very well be
that random tests of non-athletes might turn up quite a few positives.
It may become necessary to draw lines that effectively allow some abuse
without creating many false positives.

It might be possible to create "fuzzy" models that use non-participants
as controls, but doing so would require an extraordinary amount of
effort for defense and prosecution of every single positive. There
really isn't enough time & money to go after everything that way.

The good news is that it's possible we're spending enough $$$ on testing
and forward-thinking on the anti-doping side that it will become
increasingly difficult to dope with confidence. At least not dope to the
degree that podium positions are rearranged anyway. Even a
well-organized doping environment cannot likely compete with the other
side when the other side (the anti-doping forces) can operate out in the
open and they (the dopers) cannot.

But what remains missing is forensic evidence of any sort. That would be
the area in which there would be zero tolerance. Where are the photos,
where are the bank deposits and withdrawals?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

On Sep 30, 5:45*am, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Sep 29, 10:28*pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
wrote:

I would much rather that cycling was clean, but I can settle for rules
that limit the extent of doping that can be gotten away with.

That's an interesting thought but does not *find much support in
practicality or reality. If 10% is the limit, somebody is going to try
to get away with 15%, *just to gain that little advantage. As
wonderful as clean bright lines seem, they don't exist. And using the
above generic example, envision the response to a positive test. "I
don't know how I could have tested 15%, the doctor tested me just this
morning at no more than 10%."

There's only one thing for it - mandatory death penalty for doping.
You know it makes sense.

UD

On 9/30/2010 6:08 AM, Uncle Dave wrote:
On Sep 30, 5:45 am, wrote:
On Sep 29, 10:28 pm, "Mike
wrote:

I would much rather that cycling was clean, but I can settle for rules
that limit the extent of doping that can be gotten away with.

That's an interesting thought but does not find much support in
practicality or reality. If 10% is the limit, somebody is going to try
to get away with 15%, just to gain that little advantage. As
wonderful as clean bright lines seem, they don't exist. And using the
above generic example, envision the response to a positive test. "I
don't know how I could have tested 15%, the doctor tested me just this
morning at no more than 10%."

There's only one thing for it - mandatory death penalty for doping.
You know it makes sense.

UD

Ban them for life on the first positive.