Contador tests positive for banned substance

[tangentgirl]

So, if you're one of the top contenders in the tdf, why don't you have your own chef and food supply?

[OakLeaf]

So, if you're one of the top contenders in the tdf, why don't you have your own chef and food supply?

I don't think even Michael Schumacher (in his day) or Valentino Rossi gets all their food from their own FARM....




Okay, now it's in my head and I can't get it out. "Ain't gonna work on Fahey's farm no more...."

[ny biker]

According to this, the WADA standard is 40 times greater than the level found in Contador's test. So it sounds it should be a non-issue.

http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/...ld-high_143893

[Cataboo]

I'm gonna paste in a article published in Nature in 2008 on how unscientific blood doping tests are:




Nature 454, 667 (7 August 2008) | doi:10.1038/454667a; Published online 6 August 2008

A level playing field?

Drug testing in sport aims to promote fair play, but the science behind the tests needs to be more open.

The opening ceremony of the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing has yet to take place, but already several athletes face charges of taking substances banned by the International Olympic Committee. These are just the latest in a long line of cases in which competitors have been accused of using performance-enhancing substances. Far from quelling such practices, the advent of drug testing in sport in the late 1960s stimulated an arms race between regulators and the cheats.

Today, some athletes and their coaches continue to risk their reputation, and sometimes the athletes' long-term health, for the chance to dope undetected. In the process, they push the human body to its limits and go beyond what is known about the drugs being taken. The latest drugs are designed with testing in mind, so that they either clear from the body quickly or do not produce the tell-tale metabolite spikes in blood and urine samples. As a result, the testing labs must also push to stay one step ahead of the cheats.

On page 692, biostatistician Donald Berry of the University of Texas in Houston outlines what he sees as problems with the way doping tests are conducted. He argues that anti-doping authorities have not adequately defined and publicized how they arrived at the criteria used to determine whether or not a test result is positive. The ability of an anti-doping test to detect a banned substance in an athlete is calibrated in part by testing a small number of volunteers taking the substance in question. But Berry says that individual labs need to verify these detection limits in larger groups that include known dopers and non-dopers under blinded conditions that mimic what happens during competition.

Drug testing should not be exempt from the scientific principles and standards that apply to other biomedical sciences.

Nature believes that accepting 'legal limits' of specific metabolites without such rigorous verification goes against the foundational standards of modern science, and results in an arbitrary test for which the rate of false positives and false negatives can never be known. By leaving these rates unknown, and by not publishing and opening to broader scientific scrutiny the methods by which testing labs engage in study, it is Nature's view that the anti-doping authorities have fostered a sporting culture of suspicion, secrecy and fear.

Detecting cheats is meant to promote fairness, but drug testing should not be exempt from the scientific principles and standards that apply to other biomedical sciences, such as disease diagnostics. The alternative could see the innocent


Article:

The science of doping

Donald A. Berry1

1. Donald A. Berry is head of the Division of Quantitative Sciences, chair of the Department of Biostatistics and Frank T. McGraw Memorial Chair of Cancer Research, MD Anderson Cancer Center, University of Texas, 1400 Pressler Street, Houston, Texas 77030-1402, USA.
Email: dberry@mdanderson.org


Recently, the international Court of Arbitration for Sport upheld doping charges against cyclist Floyd Landis, stripping him of his title as winner of the 2006 Tour de France and suspending him from competition for two years. The court agreed with the majority opinion of a divided three-member American Arbitration Association (AAA) panel and essentially placed a stamp of approval on a laboratory test indicating that Landis had taken synthetic testosterone. Although Landis asserts his innocence, his options for recourse have all but dried up.

Already, in the run-up to this year's Olympic Games, vast amounts of time, money and media coverage have been spent on sports doping. Several doping experts have contended that tests aren't sensitive enough and let dozens of cheaters slip through the cracks. And some athletes are facing sanctions. Upon testing positive for clenbuterol, US swimmer Jessica Hardy was held back from the Olympic team and faces a two-year ban from the sport. She is attesting her innocence. China has already banned several athletes, some of them for life, on doping charges. Indeed, many world-class athletes will find their life's accomplishments and ambitions, their integrity and their reputations hinging on urine or blood tests. But when an athlete tests positive, is he or she guilty of doping? Because of what I believe to be inherent flaws in the testing practices of doping laboratories, the answer, quite possibly, is no.

In my opinion, close scrutiny of quantitative evidence used in Landis's case show it to be non-informative. This says nothing about Landis's guilt or innocence. It rather reveals that the evidence and inferential procedures used to judge guilt in such cases don't address the question correctly. The situation in drug-testing labs worldwide must be remedied. Cheaters evade detection, innocents are falsely accused and sport is ultimately suffering.
Prosecutor's fallacy

One factor at play in many cases that involve statistical reasoning, is what's known as the prosecutor's fallacy1. At its simplest level, it concludes guilt on the basis of an observation that would be extremely rare if the person were innocent. Consider a blood test that perfectly matches a suspect to the perpetrator of a crime. Say, for example, the matching profile occurs in just 1 out of every 1,000 people. A naive prosecutor might try to convince a jury that the odds of guilt are 999:1, that is, the probability of guilt is 0.999. The correct way to determine odds comes from Bayes rule2, 3, 4 and is equal to 999 times P/(1-P) where P is the 'prior probability' of guilt. Prior probability can be difficult to assess, but could range from very small to very large based on corroborating evidence implicating the suspect. The prosecutor's claim that the odds are 999:1 implies a prior probability of guilt equal to 0.5 (in which case P and 1-P cancel). Such a high value of P is possible, but it would require substantial evidence. Suppose there is no evidence against the suspect other than the blood test: he was implicated only because he was from the city where the crime occurred. If the city's population is one million then P is 1/1,000,000 and the odds of his guilt are 1001:1 against, which corresponds to a probability of guilt of less than 0.001.

The prosecutor's fallacy is at play in doping cases. For example, Landis's positive test result seemed to be a rare event, but just how rare? In doping cases the odds are dictated by the relative likelihood of a positive test assuming the subject was doping ('sensitivity') against a positive result assuming no doping (which is one minus 'specificity'). Sensitivity and specificity are crucial measures that must be estimated with reasonable accuracy before any conclusion of doping can be made, in my opinion.

The studies necessary to obtain good estimates are not easy to do. They require known samples, both positive and negative for doping, tested by blinded technicians who use the same procedures under the same conditions present in actual sporting events. In my view, such studies have not been adequately done, leaving the criterion for calling a test positive unvalidated.
Laboratory practices

Urine samples from cyclists competing in the 2006 Tour de France were analysed at the French national anti-doping laboratory (LNDD) in Châtenay-Malabry. This is one of 34 laboratories accredited by the World Anti-Doping Agency to receive and analyse test samples from athletes. The LNDD flagged Landis's urine sample following race stage 17, which he won, because it showed a high ratio of testosterone to epitestosterone.

Based on the initial screening test, the LNDD conducted gas chromatography with mass spectrometry, and isotope ratio mass spectrometry on androgen metabolites in Landis's sample. Such laboratory tests involve a series of highly sophisticated processes that are used to identify the likelihood of abnormal levels of plant-based androgen metabolites (from dietary or pharmaceutical sources) in a urine sample. The goal is to differentiate from endogenous androgen metabolites normally found in urine.

Mass spectrometry requires careful sample handling, advanced technician training and precise instrument calibration. The process is unlikely to be error-free. Each of the various steps in handling, labelling and storing an athlete's sample represents opportunity for error.

In arbitration hearings, the AAA threw out the result of the LNDD's initial screening test because of improper procedures. In my opinion, this should have invalidated the more involved follow-up testing regardless of whether or not sensitivity and specificity had been determined. Nevertheless, the AAA ruled the spectrometry results sufficient to uphold charges of doping.

During arbitration and in response to appeals from Landis, the LNDD provided the results of its androgen metabolite tests for 139 'negative' cases, 27 'positive' cases, and Landis's stage 17 results (see Fig. 1). These data were given to me by a member of Landis's defence team. The criteria used to discriminate a positive from a negative result are set by the World Anti-Doping Agency and are applied to these results in Fig. 1b and d. But we have no way of knowing which cases are truly positive and which are negative. It is proper to establish threshold values such as these, but only to define a hypothesis; a positive test criterion requires further investigation on known samples.


Figure 1: Metabolite data.


Plots show the distribution of 167 samples of the metabolites etiocholanone and 5 beta-androstanediol (a, b), and androsterone and 5 alpha-androstanediol (c, d). Panels b and d show samples the French national anti-doping laboratory (LNDD) designate to be 'positive' (red crosses) or 'negative' (green dots); the values from Landis's second sample from stage 17 is shown as a blue dot. Axes display delta notation, expressing isotopic composition of a sample relative to a reference compound.

The method used to establish the criterion for discriminating one group from another has not been published, and tests have not been performed to establish sensitivity and specificity. Without further validation in independent experiments, testing is subject to extreme biases. The LNDD lab disagrees with my interpretation. But if conventional doping testing were to be submitted to a regulatory agency such as the US Food and Drug Administration5 to qualify as a diagnostic test for a disease, it would be rejected.

The problem with multiples

Landis seemed to have an unusual test result. Because he was among the leaders he provided 8 pairs of urine samples (of the total of approximately 126 sample-pairs in the 2006 Tour de France). So there were 8 opportunities for a true positive — and 8 opportunities for a false positive. If he never doped and assuming a specificity of 95%, the probability of all 8 samples being labelled 'negative' is the eighth power of 0.95, or 0.66. Therefore, Landis's false-positive rate for the race as a whole would be about 34%. Even a very high specificity of 99% would mean a false-positive rate of about 8%. The single-test specificity would have to be increased to much greater than 99% to have an acceptable false-positive rate. But we don't know the single-test specificity because the appropriate studies have not been performed or published.

More important than the number of samples from one individual is the total number of samples tested. With 126 samples, assuming 99% specificity, the false-positive rate is 72%. So, an apparently unusual test result may not be unusual at all when viewed from the perspective of multiple tests. This is well understood by statisticians, who routinely adjust for multiple testing. I believe that test results much more unusual than the 99th percentile among non-dopers should be required before they can be labelled 'positive'.

Other doping tests are subject to the same weak science as testosterone, including tests for naturally occurring substances, and some that claim to detect the presence of a foreign substance. Detecting a banned foreign substance in an athlete's blood or urine would seem to be clear evidence of guilt. But as with testing for synthetic testosterone, such tests may actually be measuring metabolites of the drug that are naturally occurring at variable levels.

Whether a substance can be measured directly or not, sports doping laboratories must prospectively define and publicize a standard testing procedure, including unambiguous criteria for concluding positivity, and they must validate that procedure in blinded experiments. Moreover, these experiments should address factors such as substance used (banned and not), dose of the substance, methods of delivery, timing of use relative to testing, and heterogeneity of metabolism among individuals.

To various degrees, these same deficiencies exist elsewhere — including in some forensic laboratories. All scientists share responsibility for this. We should get serious about interdisciplinary collaborations, and we should find out how other scientists approach similar problems. Meanwhile, we are duty-bound to tell other scientists when they are on the wrong path.

[ny biker]

More from velonews:

http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/...alberto_143958

This clarifies the part about the amount of clenbuterol in his urine being 40x less than the WADA minimum. Since it does not occur naturally in humans, any amount is considered a positive test result. The WADA standard refers to a lab's ability to detect the substance.

Anyway, as is also pointed out, this story will drag on for a while.

It's a shame that Fabian won a record-breaking fourth World Championship today and yet Contador's pee is getting all the attention.

[redrhodie]

From Velonews "In the past the drug was popular amongst athletes before testing was introduced. Djamolidin Abdoujaparov was banned for life after testing positive for the drug at the 1997 Tour de France. It is now easily detectable and tends to remain in the body for an extended period of time, making it a poor choice as far as performance enhancing drugs go."

So, if the team ate the supposedly tainted meat, and this drug stays in the body for a long time, shouldn't some of his teammates have tested positive for the same drug during the race? Were none of them tested for the rest of the race?

I read that such low levels as were found in Contador's blood could be because he doped with his own tainted blood. This makes as much sense (okay, more) as food contamination, but how do they prove either?

[Norse]

So, if the team ate the supposedly tainted meat, and this drug stays in the body for a long time, shouldn't some of his teammates have tested positive for the same drug during the race? Were none of them tested for the rest of the race?

I thought I read that Contador asked who else on the team was tested that day and the response was, only Vino, and Contador said something like "Great, he's the only one who didn't eat the meat."

[Possegal]

So, if the team ate the supposedly tainted meat, and this drug stays in the body for a long time, shouldn't some of his teammates have tested positive for the same drug during the race? Were none of them tested for the rest of the race?

Given how low (and extremely sub-therapeutic) the levels were, and that in 2 days it was gone from his system, any other team member would have had to have been tested within those couple of days and I too have read that only Vino was and he didn't eat with them.

I once had a HORRIBLE reaction to a glass of milk. It was in fact an allergic reaction to penicillin that had been given to cows and made it to the milk. Even more unusual in that milk you buy at the store isn't just from one cow, but from lots of cows. So for there to have been enough penicillin in there for me to react, was really a highly unlikely, yet real, occurrence. I'm just saying, stranger things have happened than contamination through food or supplements.

I'm not a fan of his, but I HATE the way this is playing out in the media. Let science play out, let the tests be done that are able to be done and let the experts discuss and debate. Case in point - the whole "plastic" thing. I don't believe that is something in the battery of things they test for and I read that the methodology for that hasn't been validated, yet the media is convicting him on that 'fact'. Also no talk about any of the markers their protocols do test for to show an autologous transfusion. Not that things are full-proof, not saying that. Just saying what is leaked to the public has a lot of missing pieces right now. Do they just have urine from him those days? More I don't know. (oh, lots more of course, goes without saying )

I'm certainly skeptical, but as a scientist, I'm also never going to judge my data, before there actually are data to judge. (well, except for the chimera thing, cause that was so laughable that my cycling + scientist friends and I still get a good chuckle out of it).