I'm not much for keeping up with professional road cycling, but I've been watching the Alberto Contador investigation with some interest. He was basically the odds-on favorite to win the TdF, and it played out pretty much like everyone thought it would (although I don't think anyone was expecting Lance Armstrong to suck quite as much as he did.)
Throughout this year's Tour de France, people were mumbling about the possibility that Armstrong had doped in previous races, thanks mostly to Floyd Landis's allegations in the press (and his monumentally huge bowl of sour grapes.) It's probably not much of a stretch to assume that potential dopers decided not to inject specifically because they were under the microscope due to the Landis/Armstrong press. I would imagine that sort of press coverage was a pretty good deterrent.
And then we find out about a week or so ago that Contador actually may have doped. His sample from July 21st came back positive for Clenbuterol, although it was supposedly something like 400 times under the detectable limit (which begs the question "then how was it detected at all?"). Contador has said that he believes it was somehow acquired from the beef he'd eaten the night before. But Bicycling Magazine brought up a really good point: Contador himself also stated that he broke from his usual rest day diet AND the beef was "outside" food, meaning that it wasn't procured by anyone professionally associated with the Tour. So why, then, would he just "happen" to not only break from his usual rest-day diet, but also consume outside food? That seems pretty convenient, and suspicious, given the positive Clenbuterol results.
I have to admit that initially I though Contador's explanation that his food was somehow tainted actually seemed almost reasonable to me: it's not entirely unheard of, and because the levels were so astronomically low that they technically shouldn't have even registered on the urinalysis that day. But now that I've read the facts on the highly unusual "coincidence" regarding his rest day meal, I'm starting to change my mind.
What's more, we can now add on to all of this the announcement that another one of his samples had detectable levels of plasticizers in it. Actually, two separate and independent tests verified plasticizers, which shouldn't be in blood. In fact, about the only way you'll find plasticizers in blood is if it's been stored in a blood bag before being transfused into a person. Contador's people are swearing up and down that they never gave him a transfusion, so it's highly likely he was self-administering blood transfusions on his own (or his trainers are pathological liars. Either one is very possible.)
Throughout this year's Tour de France, people were mumbling about the possibility that Armstrong had doped in previous races, thanks mostly to Floyd Landis's allegations in the press (and his monumentally huge bowl of sour grapes.) It's probably not much of a stretch to assume that potential dopers decided not to inject specifically because they were under the microscope due to the Landis/Armstrong press. I would imagine that sort of press coverage was a pretty good deterrent.
And then we find out about a week or so ago that Contador actually may have doped. His sample from July 21st came back positive for Clenbuterol, although it was supposedly something like 400 times under the detectable limit (which begs the question "then how was it detected at all?"). Contador has said that he believes it was somehow acquired from the beef he'd eaten the night before. But Bicycling Magazine brought up a really good point: Contador himself also stated that he broke from his usual rest day diet AND the beef was "outside" food, meaning that it wasn't procured by anyone professionally associated with the Tour. So why, then, would he just "happen" to not only break from his usual rest-day diet, but also consume outside food? That seems pretty convenient, and suspicious, given the positive Clenbuterol results.
I have to admit that initially I though Contador's explanation that his food was somehow tainted actually seemed almost reasonable to me: it's not entirely unheard of, and because the levels were so astronomically low that they technically shouldn't have even registered on the urinalysis that day. But now that I've read the facts on the highly unusual "coincidence" regarding his rest day meal, I'm starting to change my mind.
What's more, we can now add on to all of this the announcement that another one of his samples had detectable levels of plasticizers in it. Actually, two separate and independent tests verified plasticizers, which shouldn't be in blood. In fact, about the only way you'll find plasticizers in blood is if it's been stored in a blood bag before being transfused into a person. Contador's people are swearing up and down that they never gave him a transfusion, so it's highly likely he was self-administering blood transfusions on his own (or his trainers are pathological liars. Either one is very possible.)
More and more, I'm doubting that Contador didn't dope during the TdF (or at least made a half-assed attempt at it.) While I'm not a fan of Contador (I think he's a self-centered, arrogant dick), I'm curious to see how deep this rabbit hole goes. He may very well lose his Tour title, get banned from pro cycling and may not be the European TdF savior everyone thought he was. Here's a link to an AP article regarding the positive plasticizer results and the ramifications that go along with it: Contador Samples Show Plastic Residue .
No comments:
Post a Comment