Debunking the misinformation around Canelo’s clenbuterol positives!

[Enlightened-One]

This is a very interesting article that I hope will enlighten those that possess strong, though uneducated, opinions surrounding PED’s in general.

It also addresses the concerns of those that wrongly believe that “if Canelo was really clean, he would have provided a hair sample!”.

"Debunking the misinformation around Canelo’s clenbuterol positives"

The Hair Test

There has been a push in some quarters to use the “hair test” in order to convict or clear Canelo. To hear it told, this hair test is the answer to every question. In reality, hair testing for clenbuterol isn’t used for a reason; it’s incredibly unreliable.

The amount of clenbuterol that shows up in hair varies massively depending on factors like hair color. One study gave a group of people the same amount of clenbuterol. One participant, a 27-year-old female, showed 23 ng/g of clenbuterol in her hair afterwards. Another participant, also a 27-year-old female, showed 161 ng/g of clenbuterol in her hair. They both took the exact same amount, but one had seven times as much in her sample. The suggested reason for this discrepancy? The women had different hair color. This hair color discrepancy was supported by the other data in the study.

That might sound ridiculous, but other studies have found the same thing.

Another study, with more participants, found that even among subjects with similar hair color, the variation is still large. Despite every subject having hair listed as “brown” or “dark brown”, this study also found significant variation:

The lowest detected amount of clenbuterol in the first segment of hair was 0.43 pg/ng, the largest amount was 4.76 pg/ng. Both of these subjects had hair classed as “brown,” and both took the same amount of clenbuterol in the same way. That’s a difference of an entire order of magnitude. A similar issue was found in the second segments, which ranged from a detected amount of 0.00 pg/ng to 0.86 pg/ng.

Tests that have results varying by so much even under a controlled conditions are not reliable tests. The idea that they would somehow give us the information we need to determine if Canelo accidentally or deliberately ingested clenbuterol is ridiculous.

I strongly recommend that those self-proclaimed "experts" on PED’s and testing in general, who also regularly engage in lengthy heated debates about this subject matter, should click on the above hyperlink and read the article in its entirety, since it appears to debunk many other myths also.

Thoughts?

[KiwiRider]

Hair testing has its place for other things, let's not discount it altogether.
If the science isn't reliable in showing up particular substances, then it shouldn't be used for them. This is people's careers and reputations after all.
If only there was a reliable test for lying, then we could just ask them.

[Heretic]

It seems that hair tests do show up different amounts of clenbuterol for the same amounts of drug taken for different people.

It does not however show that someone has been taking clenbuterol if they did not take it. So any hair sample from Canelo from hair grown before "eating contaminated meat" should be clear of any clen if he did not take it before that. So the hair tests could be used to clear Canelos "good " name.

I don't still think that doing hair tests would be good way to clear this situation.

It is bit hard for me to imagine Canelo eating contaminated meat with all the experts he has around and with the general knowledge of the contaminated meat problem in Mexico.

All the other points in that article have been talked over many times before. Not really any new info there

[boxing_rocks]

Iain Kidd is a known Canelo's apologist, and his claims were disputed by specialists including Victor Conte.

[Exoddus]

Canelo just needs to stop sucking off wild pigs or suck off ones which aren't Mexican. That way it won't get into his system.

[Deleted_Scenes]

This is a very interesting article that I hope will enlighten those that possess strong, though uneducated, opinions surrounding PED’s in general.

It also addresses the concerns of those that wrongly believe that “if Canelo was really clean, he would have provided a hair sample!”.

"Debunking the misinformation around Canelo’s clenbuterol positives"

The Hair Test

There has been a push in some quarters to use the “hair test” in order to convict or clear Canelo. To hear it told, this hair test is the answer to every question. In reality, hair testing for clenbuterol isn’t used for a reason; it’s incredibly unreliable.

The amount of clenbuterol that shows up in hair varies massively depending on factors like hair color. One study gave a group of people the same amount of clenbuterol. One participant, a 27-year-old female, showed 23 ng/g of clenbuterol in her hair afterwards. Another participant, also a 27-year-old female, showed 161 ng/g of clenbuterol in her hair. They both took the exact same amount, but one had seven times as much in her sample. The suggested reason for this discrepancy? The women had different hair color. This hair color discrepancy was supported by the other data in the study.

That might sound ridiculous, but other studies have found the same thing.

Another study, with more participants, found that even among subjects with similar hair color, the variation is still large. Despite every subject having hair listed as “brown” or “dark brown”, this study also found significant variation:

The lowest detected amount of clenbuterol in the first segment of hair was 0.43 pg/ng, the largest amount was 4.76 pg/ng. Both of these subjects had hair classed as “brown,” and both took the same amount of clenbuterol in the same way. That’s a difference of an entire order of magnitude. A similar issue was found in the second segments, which ranged from a detected amount of 0.00 pg/ng to 0.86 pg/ng.

Tests that have results varying by so much even under a controlled conditions are not reliable tests. The idea that they would somehow give us the information we need to determine if Canelo accidentally or deliberately ingested clenbuterol is ridiculous.

I strongly recommend that those self-proclaimed "experts" on PED’s and testing in general, who also regularly engage in lengthy heated debates about this subject matter, should click on the above hyperlink and read the article in its entirety, since it appears to debunk many other myths also.

Thoughts?

Have you looked at the actual papers cited?

It's important to note, that the first paper has a sample size of just 9. From a scientific standpoint, that is total garbage, and already makes the study worth less than the paper it's written on.

They also make the admission in the technical brief "we developed a new method for preparation of the hair samples". That statement alone makes any findings totally irrelevant to anything which may take place in the PED testing world.

Are the findings due to the amount of clenbuterol absorbed by hair follicles?
Are they due to the efficacy of the testing method ('new' means untested, so how do we know it works)?
Are they simply due to the tiny sample size throwing up anomalous results?

Paper 1 tells us absolutely nothing. Scientifically speaking, it's worthless garbage.

The second paper is difficult to evaluate, as all but the abstract is locked behind a paywall.

Going by what we can see though, this 'larger study' still only has a sample size of 20. While slightly better than 9, this still isn't even close to high enough for the findings to indicate anything more than whether or not further research may be worthwhile. That's all.

We also don't know the preparation method. Again, if it differs to that used by PED testing labs, the data is worthless.

We also don't know anything about where the other 18 samples fall. All we have, is one low number, and one high number. Are either (or both) of those an anomaly? What is the margin for error of the data?

So, all we're given, is one total garbage paper, and one statistically insignificant paper (with limited information available to the layperson).

Ian Kidd using this for a story, I can understand. What I don't understand, is why anyone connected to USADA would use such poor science in making any kind of case. Unless, of course, they're trying to attract a few pesos their way...

None of this is meant to say that hair testing WOULD be effective - I'll leave the scientific community to prove/disprove that (many disagree with these two papers though). It simply means that this BLH article is bullshit.

[oogiebe]

I'm certainly no expert, so I will defer to this for now.

[Deleted_Scenes]

Hair testing has its place for other things, let's not discount it altogether.
If the science isn't reliable in showing up particular substances, then it shouldn't be used for them. This is people's careers and reputations after all.
If only there was a reliable test for lying, then we could just ask them.

It doesn't even matter, really. Clenbuterol is a zero threshold substance, and Nevada don't allow any defence based on inadvertent consumption of banned substances.

Under the rules, the boxer is responsible for what enters his/her body, and ANY amount found is unacceptable.

[Enlightened-One]

This is a very interesting article that I hope will enlighten those that possess strong, though uneducated, opinions surrounding PED’s in general.

It also addresses the concerns of those that wrongly believe that “if Canelo was really clean, he would have provided a hair sample!”.

"Debunking the misinformation around Canelo’s clenbuterol positives"

The Hair Test

There has been a push in some quarters to use the “hair test” in order to convict or clear Canelo. To hear it told, this hair test is the answer to every question. In reality, hair testing for clenbuterol isn’t used for a reason; it’s incredibly unreliable.

The amount of clenbuterol that shows up in hair varies massively depending on factors like hair color. One study gave a group of people the same amount of clenbuterol. One participant, a 27-year-old female, showed 23 ng/g of clenbuterol in her hair afterwards. Another participant, also a 27-year-old female, showed 161 ng/g of clenbuterol in her hair. They both took the exact same amount, but one had seven times as much in her sample. The suggested reason for this discrepancy? The women had different hair color. This hair color discrepancy was supported by the other data in the study.

That might sound ridiculous, but other studies have found the same thing.

Another study, with more participants, found that even among subjects with similar hair color, the variation is still large. Despite every subject having hair listed as “brown” or “dark brown”, this study also found significant variation:

The lowest detected amount of clenbuterol in the first segment of hair was 0.43 pg/ng, the largest amount was 4.76 pg/ng. Both of these subjects had hair classed as “brown,” and both took the same amount of clenbuterol in the same way. That’s a difference of an entire order of magnitude. A similar issue was found in the second segments, which ranged from a detected amount of 0.00 pg/ng to 0.86 pg/ng.

Tests that have results varying by so much even under a controlled conditions are not reliable tests. The idea that they would somehow give us the information we need to determine if Canelo accidentally or deliberately ingested clenbuterol is ridiculous.

I strongly recommend that those self-proclaimed "experts" on PED’s and testing in general, who also regularly engage in lengthy heated debates about this subject matter, should click on the above hyperlink and read the article in its entirety, since it appears to debunk many other myths also.

Thoughts?

Have you looked at the actual papers cited?

It's important to note, that the first paper has a sample size of just 9. From a scientific standpoint, that is total garbage, and already makes the study worth less than the paper it's written on.

They also make the admission in the technical brief "we developed a new method for preparation of the hair samples". That statement alone makes any findings totally irrelevant to anything which may take place in the PED testing world.

Are the findings due to the amount of clenbuterol absorbed by hair follicles?
Are they due to the efficacy of the testing method ('new' means untested, so how do we know it works)?
Are they simply due to the tiny sample size throwing up anomalous results?

Paper 1 tells us absolutely nothing. Scientifically speaking, it's worthless garbage.

The second paper is difficult to evaluate, as all but the abstract is locked behind a paywall.

Going by what we can see though, this 'larger study' still only has a sample size of 20. While slightly better than 9, this still isn't even close to high enough for the findings to indicate anything more than whether or not further research may be worthwhile. That's all.

We also don't know the preparation method. Again, if it differs to that used by PED testing labs, the data is worthless.

We also don't know anything about where the other 18 samples fall. All we have, is one low number, and one high number. Are either (or both) of those an anomaly? What is the margin for error of the data?

So, all we're given, is one total garbage paper, and one statistically insignificant paper (with limited information available to the layperson).

Ian Kidd using this for a story, I can understand. What I don't understand, is why anyone connected to USADA would use such poor science in making any kind of case. Unless, of course, they're trying to attract a few pesos their way...

None of this is meant to say that hair testing WOULD be effective - I'll leave the scientific community to prove/disprove that (many disagree with these two papers though). It simply means that this BLH article is bullshit.

The WADA code clearly states that hair samples cannot be used to counter adverse analytical findings.

And the reason for that is due hair testing resulting in unreliable test results.

It's your prerogative to ultimately believe whatever you want to, but all I can do is cite the research and quote the rules, which seems to undermine the value of hair testing.

[Deleted_Scenes]

This is a very interesting article that I hope will enlighten those that possess strong, though uneducated, opinions surrounding PED’s in general.

It also addresses the concerns of those that wrongly believe that “if Canelo was really clean, he would have provided a hair sample!”.

"Debunking the misinformation around Canelo’s clenbuterol positives"

The Hair Test

There has been a push in some quarters to use the “hair test” in order to convict or clear Canelo. To hear it told, this hair test is the answer to every question. In reality, hair testing for clenbuterol isn’t used for a reason; it’s incredibly unreliable.

The amount of clenbuterol that shows up in hair varies massively depending on factors like hair color. One study gave a group of people the same amount of clenbuterol. One participant, a 27-year-old female, showed 23 ng/g of clenbuterol in her hair afterwards. Another participant, also a 27-year-old female, showed 161 ng/g of clenbuterol in her hair. They both took the exact same amount, but one had seven times as much in her sample. The suggested reason for this discrepancy? The women had different hair color. This hair color discrepancy was supported by the other data in the study.

That might sound ridiculous, but other studies have found the same thing.

Another study, with more participants, found that even among subjects with similar hair color, the variation is still large. Despite every subject having hair listed as “brown” or “dark brown”, this study also found significant variation:

The lowest detected amount of clenbuterol in the first segment of hair was 0.43 pg/ng, the largest amount was 4.76 pg/ng. Both of these subjects had hair classed as “brown,” and both took the same amount of clenbuterol in the same way. That’s a difference of an entire order of magnitude. A similar issue was found in the second segments, which ranged from a detected amount of 0.00 pg/ng to 0.86 pg/ng.

Tests that have results varying by so much even under a controlled conditions are not reliable tests. The idea that they would somehow give us the information we need to determine if Canelo accidentally or deliberately ingested clenbuterol is ridiculous.

I strongly recommend that those self-proclaimed "experts" on PED’s and testing in general, who also regularly engage in lengthy heated debates about this subject matter, should click on the above hyperlink and read the article in its entirety, since it appears to debunk many other myths also.

Thoughts?

Have you looked at the actual papers cited?

It's important to note, that the first paper has a sample size of just 9. From a scientific standpoint, that is total garbage, and already makes the study worth less than the paper it's written on.

They also make the admission in the technical brief "we developed a new method for preparation of the hair samples". That statement alone makes any findings totally irrelevant to anything which may take place in the PED testing world.

Are the findings due to the amount of clenbuterol absorbed by hair follicles?
Are they due to the efficacy of the testing method ('new' means untested, so how do we know it works)?
Are they simply due to the tiny sample size throwing up anomalous results?

Paper 1 tells us absolutely nothing. Scientifically speaking, it's worthless garbage.

The second paper is difficult to evaluate, as all but the abstract is locked behind a paywall.

Going by what we can see though, this 'larger study' still only has a sample size of 20. While slightly better than 9, this still isn't even close to high enough for the findings to indicate anything more than whether or not further research may be worthwhile. That's all.

We also don't know the preparation method. Again, if it differs to that used by PED testing labs, the data is worthless.

We also don't know anything about where the other 18 samples fall. All we have, is one low number, and one high number. Are either (or both) of those an anomaly? What is the margin for error of the data?

So, all we're given, is one total garbage paper, and one statistically insignificant paper (with limited information available to the layperson).

Ian Kidd using this for a story, I can understand. What I don't understand, is why anyone connected to USADA would use such poor science in making any kind of case. Unless, of course, they're trying to attract a few pesos their way...

None of this is meant to say that hair testing WOULD be effective - I'll leave the scientific community to prove/disprove that (many disagree with these two papers though). It simply means that this BLH article is bullshit.

The WADA code clearly states that hair samples cannot be used to counter adverse analytical findings.

And the reason for that is due hair testing resulting in unreliable test results.

It's your prerogative to ultimately believe whatever you want to, but all I can do is cite the research and quote the rules, which seems to undermine the value of hair testing.

Yes, WADA code does state that. No argument from me.

All I'm saying is "not proven to be effective" is not the same as "proven not to be effective".

Scientifically, the two papers cited are worthless. If there are other, better, papers out there, I'll happily take a look at them.

I'm not arguing for the effectiveness of hair testing, or asking for it to be used - my view is a boxer should take responsibility for what enters his own body, and a fail is a fail.

If the entire Mexican youth soccer team could completely avoid getting clenbuterol in their systems, then I'm sure Mexico's highest paid athlete could do the same.

I'm arguing against using bad science to make a point. That's all. Seeing your other posts on here, that's something I'd expect you to agree with me on.

[Enlightened-One]

Have you looked at the actual papers cited?

It's important to note, that the first paper has a sample size of just 9. From a scientific standpoint, that is total garbage, and already makes the study worth less than the paper it's written on.

They also make the admission in the technical brief "we developed a new method for preparation of the hair samples". That statement alone makes any findings totally irrelevant to anything which may take place in the PED testing world.

Are the findings due to the amount of clenbuterol absorbed by hair follicles?
Are they due to the efficacy of the testing method ('new' means untested, so how do we know it works)?
Are they simply due to the tiny sample size throwing up anomalous results?

Paper 1 tells us absolutely nothing. Scientifically speaking, it's worthless garbage.

The second paper is difficult to evaluate, as all but the abstract is locked behind a paywall.

Going by what we can see though, this 'larger study' still only has a sample size of 20. While slightly better than 9, this still isn't even close to high enough for the findings to indicate anything more than whether or not further research may be worthwhile. That's all.

We also don't know the preparation method. Again, if it differs to that used by PED testing labs, the data is worthless.

We also don't know anything about where the other 18 samples fall. All we have, is one low number, and one high number. Are either (or both) of those an anomaly? What is the margin for error of the data?

So, all we're given, is one total garbage paper, and one statistically insignificant paper (with limited information available to the layperson).

Ian Kidd using this for a story, I can understand. What I don't understand, is why anyone connected to USADA would use such poor science in making any kind of case. Unless, of course, they're trying to attract a few pesos their way...

None of this is meant to say that hair testing WOULD be effective - I'll leave the scientific community to prove/disprove that (many disagree with these two papers though). It simply means that this BLH article is bullshit.

The WADA code clearly states that hair samples cannot be used to counter adverse analytical findings.

And the reason for that is due hair testing resulting in unreliable test results.

It's your prerogative to ultimately believe whatever you want to, but all I can do is cite the research and quote the rules, which seems to undermine the value of hair testing.

Yes, WADA code does state that. No argument from me.

All I'm saying is "not proven to be effective" is not the same as "proven not to be effective".

Scientifically, the two papers cited are worthless. If there are other, better, papers out there, I'll happily take a look at them.

I'm not arguing for the effectiveness of hair testing, or asking for it to be used - my view is a boxer should take responsibility for what enters his own body, and a fail is a fail.

If the entire Mexican youth soccer team could completely avoid getting clenbuterol in their systems, then I'm sure Mexico's highest paid athlete could do the same.

I'm arguing against using bad science to make a point. That's all. Seeing your other posts on here, that's something I'd expect you to agree with me on.

Out of interest, are you aware of any scientific research that you can quote, which you feel provides a compelling argument to support the notion that testing hair samples results in an accurate determination of guilt or innocence, in the context of those that have proven to have traces of clenbuterol in their urine samples?

I understand that you’re not necessarily supporting the testing of hair samples, but I’d like to know if any studies have provided an effective counter argument, to prove its effectiveness, because in my mind, if none exists then it should not even be considered or discussed.

[boxing_rocks]

[gilgamesh]

Well that settles it...who wouldn't believe Victor "Cheater Extraordinaire" Conte

[boxing_rocks]

Well that settles it...who wouldn't believe Victor "Cheater Extraordinaire" Conte

He may be a cheater, but he certainly knows the subject.

[Deleted_Scenes]

The WADA code clearly states that hair samples cannot be used to counter adverse analytical findings.

And the reason for that is due hair testing resulting in unreliable test results.

It's your prerogative to ultimately believe whatever you want to, but all I can do is cite the research and quote the rules, which seems to undermine the value of hair testing.

Yes, WADA code does state that. No argument from me.

All I'm saying is "not proven to be effective" is not the same as "proven not to be effective".

Scientifically, the two papers cited are worthless. If there are other, better, papers out there, I'll happily take a look at them.

I'm not arguing for the effectiveness of hair testing, or asking for it to be used - my view is a boxer should take responsibility for what enters his own body, and a fail is a fail.

If the entire Mexican youth soccer team could completely avoid getting clenbuterol in their systems, then I'm sure Mexico's highest paid athlete could do the same.

I'm arguing against using bad science to make a point. That's all. Seeing your other posts on here, that's something I'd expect you to agree with me on.

Out of interest, are you aware of any scientific research that you can quote, which you feel provides a compelling argument to support the notion that testing hair samples results in an accurate determination of guilt or innocence, in the context of those that have proven to have traces of clenbuterol in their urine samples?

I understand that you’re not necessarily supporting the testing of hair samples, but I’d like to know if any studies have provided an effective counter argument, to prove its effectiveness, because in my mind, if none exists then it should not even be considered or discussed.

As far as I'm aware, studies specific to clenbuterol testing in human hair are few and far between. There are existing papers on recent advancements in mass spectrometry, and the role that plays in hair testing in forensic toxicology, and I believe testing of equine hair has now been proven to be accurate in line with calculated expected results, but I personally haven't seen that translated to a high quality human clenbuterol study yet.

It's something that's in the 'promising, but not quite ready' box for me, which is why I'm so strongly against the article and papers cited above.

Over-publicising bad science now, potentially has the effect of damaging public perception of a technology which may be proven useful in the very near future. If everyone reads that BLH article at face value, and concludes that hair testing has been proven unreliable (which isn't technically true), then what happens later on, if a better paper does prove it reliable? It gets ignored as 'conflicting', and testing labs then get denied a useful technology.

Peddling bad science can be harmful, even in cases where it hasn't actually been proven incorrect.

[Enlightened-One]

Yes, WADA code does state that. No argument from me.

All I'm saying is "not proven to be effective" is not the same as "proven not to be effective".

Scientifically, the two papers cited are worthless. If there are other, better, papers out there, I'll happily take a look at them.

I'm not arguing for the effectiveness of hair testing, or asking for it to be used - my view is a boxer should take responsibility for what enters his own body, and a fail is a fail.

If the entire Mexican youth soccer team could completely avoid getting clenbuterol in their systems, then I'm sure Mexico's highest paid athlete could do the same.

I'm arguing against using bad science to make a point. That's all. Seeing your other posts on here, that's something I'd expect you to agree with me on.

Out of interest, are you aware of any scientific research that you can quote, which you feel provides a compelling argument to support the notion that testing hair samples results in an accurate determination of guilt or innocence, in the context of those that have proven to have traces of clenbuterol in their urine samples?

I understand that you’re not necessarily supporting the testing of hair samples, but I’d like to know if any studies have provided an effective counter argument, to prove its effectiveness, because in my mind, if none exists then it should not even be considered or discussed.

As far as I'm aware, studies specific to clenbuterol testing in human hair are few and far between. There are existing papers on recent advancements in mass spectrometry, and the role that plays in hair testing in forensic toxicology, and I believe testing of equine hair has now been proven to be accurate in line with calculated expected results, but I personally haven't seen that translated to a high quality human clenbuterol study yet.

It's something that's in the 'promising, but not quite ready' box for me, which is why I'm so strongly against the article and papers cited above.

Over-publicising bad science now, potentially has the effect of damaging public perception of a technology which may be proven useful in the very near future. If everyone reads that BLH article at face value, and concludes that hair testing has been proven unreliable (which isn't technically true), then what happens later on, if a better paper does prove it reliable? It gets ignored as 'conflicting', and testing labs then get denied a useful technology.

Peddling bad science can be harmful, even in cases where it hasn't actually been proven incorrect.

I guess the bottom line though is that hair samples cannot currently be used for PED testing, because there's no evidence that proves that it's fit for that purpose.

[tiny_acres]

Well that settles it...who wouldn't believe Victor "Cheater Extraordinaire" Conte

He may be a cheater, but he certainly knows the subject.

The king of peds. Conte is the master. I'm sure he could be an expert witness on this subject in any court in the land

[greg]

..no problem with his expert opinion on this subject as long as they keep him away from sportmen..

[tiny_acres]

..no problem with his expert opinion on this subject as long as they keep him away from sportmen..

Lol agree with that

[Deleted_Scenes]

Out of interest, are you aware of any scientific research that you can quote, which you feel provides a compelling argument to support the notion that testing hair samples results in an accurate determination of guilt or innocence, in the context of those that have proven to have traces of clenbuterol in their urine samples?

I understand that you’re not necessarily supporting the testing of hair samples, but I’d like to know if any studies have provided an effective counter argument, to prove its effectiveness, because in my mind, if none exists then it should not even be considered or discussed.

As far as I'm aware, studies specific to clenbuterol testing in human hair are few and far between. There are existing papers on recent advancements in mass spectrometry, and the role that plays in hair testing in forensic toxicology, and I believe testing of equine hair has now been proven to be accurate in line with calculated expected results, but I personally haven't seen that translated to a high quality human clenbuterol study yet.

It's something that's in the 'promising, but not quite ready' box for me, which is why I'm so strongly against the article and papers cited above.

Over-publicising bad science now, potentially has the effect of damaging public perception of a technology which may be proven useful in the very near future. If everyone reads that BLH article at face value, and concludes that hair testing has been proven unreliable (which isn't technically true), then what happens later on, if a better paper does prove it reliable? It gets ignored as 'conflicting', and testing labs then get denied a useful technology.

Peddling bad science can be harmful, even in cases where it hasn't actually been proven incorrect.

I guess the bottom line though is that hair samples cannot currently be used for PED testing, because there's no evidence that proves that it's fit for that purpose.

True (probably).

I would be interested to see what kind of variation you see with clenbuterol levels in blood and urine, across a range of subjects with an identical dosage given. Not to discredit those as testing methods, just as a baseline to compare to when discussing things such as hair testing - there is always some variation across any method, due to the complexity of the human body.

It's interesting that WADA are willing to accept anything below 1 ng/ml in urine as consistent with meat contamination, yet hardly any athletes using this as an excuse popped above a tenth of that.

Either there's excessive leeway, to account for unusually high levels of contamination in certain meat, or there's a high margin for error with urine testing too.

[Enlightened-One]

As far as I'm aware, studies specific to clenbuterol testing in human hair are few and far between. There are existing papers on recent advancements in mass spectrometry, and the role that plays in hair testing in forensic toxicology, and I believe testing of equine hair has now been proven to be accurate in line with calculated expected results, but I personally haven't seen that translated to a high quality human clenbuterol study yet.

It's something that's in the 'promising, but not quite ready' box for me, which is why I'm so strongly against the article and papers cited above.

Over-publicising bad science now, potentially has the effect of damaging public perception of a technology which may be proven useful in the very near future. If everyone reads that BLH article at face value, and concludes that hair testing has been proven unreliable (which isn't technically true), then what happens later on, if a better paper does prove it reliable? It gets ignored as 'conflicting', and testing labs then get denied a useful technology.

Peddling bad science can be harmful, even in cases where it hasn't actually been proven incorrect.

I guess the bottom line though is that hair samples cannot currently be used for PED testing, because there's no evidence that proves that it's fit for that purpose.

True (probably).

I would be interested to see what kind of variation you see with clenbuterol levels in blood and urine, across a range of subjects with an identical dosage given. Not to discredit those as testing methods, just as a baseline to compare to when discussing things such as hair testing - there is always some variation across any method, due to the complexity of the human body.

It's interesting that WADA are willing to accept anything below 1 ng/ml in urine as consistent with meat contamination, yet hardly any athletes using this as an excuse popped above a tenth of that.

Either there's excessive leeway, to account for unusually high levels of contamination in certain meat, or there's a high margin for error with urine testing too.

I'm not a scientist, so I am not going to pretend to be an expert in a subject matter that I'm not.

All I know is this... there is no doubt, no need to use the word "probably" in the context of the following claim, which is...

Hair samples cannot and should not be used to determine whether a fighter is using PED's or not.

This is something that is categorically impossible for anyone to refute, regardless of your thoughts about the studies that people are quoting.

For the record, the WADA code applies to multiple sports and no one should question their rules or tolerances without being medically qualified to do so.

[Deleted_Scenes]

I guess the bottom line though is that hair samples cannot currently be used for PED testing, because there's no evidence that proves that it's fit for that purpose.

True (probably).

I would be interested to see what kind of variation you see with clenbuterol levels in blood and urine, across a range of subjects with an identical dosage given. Not to discredit those as testing methods, just as a baseline to compare to when discussing things such as hair testing - there is always some variation across any method, due to the complexity of the human body.

It's interesting that WADA are willing to accept anything below 1 ng/ml in urine as consistent with meat contamination, yet hardly any athletes using this as an excuse popped above a tenth of that.

Either there's excessive leeway, to account for unusually high levels of contamination in certain meat, or there's a high margin for error with urine testing too.

I'm not a scientist, so I am not going to pretend to be an expert in a subject matter that I'm not.

All I know is this... there is no doubt, no need to use the word "probably" in the context of the following claim, which is...

Hair samples cannot and should not be used to determine whether a fighter is using PED's or not.

This is something that is categorically impossible for anyone to refute, regardless of your thoughts about the studies that people are quoting.

For the record, the WADA code applies to multiple sports and no one should question their rules or tolerances without being medically qualified to do so.

As you said, you're not a scientist. "Probably" simply relates to the fact that neither you, nor I, have knowledge of every study carried out on the subject. There may be evidence out there indicating it is effective. There may not.

WADA aren't the 'law', as far as the science is concerned, since they are the ones acting on available information, not conducting the studies themselves. Effectively, in this sense, they're a political body. The way they form their policies is essential no different to how a government may rule on issues such as GMO crops or medical research policy.

What is certain, is the technology is getting better (technology I have limited first hand experience of using, for different purposes) and the papers cited completely fail in proving hair sampling to be ineffective.

Certainly, for zero threshold substances where accidental ingestion is not permitted as a defence (which would include clenbuterol, under Nevada rules), there is a solid scientific argument that hair sampling SHOULD be used. For a simple positive/negative reading, hair testing is much cheaper than blood or urine, and can detect consumption of a banned substance over up to a 90 day window.

Again though, I haven't said hair sampling should ever have been used in Canelo's case. It doesn't matter. Under WADA rules, ANY clenbuterol constitutes an offence. Under Nevada rules, contamination is not an accepted defence. Canelo had no case either way.

[Impractical Poster]

E-O may have met his "irrefutable" match.

[boxing_rocks]

Nothing to debunk. Canelo is dirty. Anybody with eyes and common sense know that. He was allowed to juice between his camps and he is still allowed to do it now. Shame to NSAC and WBC to not mandate his testing during suspension.

[Enlightened-One]

True (probably).

I would be interested to see what kind of variation you see with clenbuterol levels in blood and urine, across a range of subjects with an identical dosage given. Not to discredit those as testing methods, just as a baseline to compare to when discussing things such as hair testing - there is always some variation across any method, due to the complexity of the human body.

It's interesting that WADA are willing to accept anything below 1 ng/ml in urine as consistent with meat contamination, yet hardly any athletes using this as an excuse popped above a tenth of that.

Either there's excessive leeway, to account for unusually high levels of contamination in certain meat, or there's a high margin for error with urine testing too.

I'm not a scientist, so I am not going to pretend to be an expert in a subject matter that I'm not.

All I know is this... there is no doubt, no need to use the word "probably" in the context of the following claim, which is...

Hair samples cannot and should not be used to determine whether a fighter is using PED's or not.

This is something that is categorically impossible for anyone to refute, regardless of your thoughts about the studies that people are quoting.

For the record, the WADA code applies to multiple sports and no one should question their rules or tolerances without being medically qualified to do so.

As you said, you're not a scientist. "Probably" simply relates to the fact that neither you, nor I, have knowledge of every study carried out on the subject. There may be evidence out there indicating it is effective. There may not.

WADA aren't the 'law', as far as the science is concerned, since they are the ones acting on available information, not conducting the studies themselves. Effectively, in this sense, they're a political body. The way they form their policies is essential no different to how a government may rule on issues such as GMO crops or medical research policy.

What is certain, is the technology is getting better (technology I have limited first hand experience of using, for different purposes) and the papers cited completely fail in proving hair sampling to be ineffective.

Certainly, for zero threshold substances where accidental ingestion is not permitted as a defence (which would include clenbuterol, under Nevada rules), there is a solid scientific argument that hair sampling SHOULD be used. For a simple positive/negative reading, hair testing is much cheaper than blood or urine, and can detect consumption of a banned substance over up to a 90 day window.

Again though, I haven't said hair sampling should ever have been used in Canelo's case. It doesn't matter. Under WADA rules, ANY clenbuterol constitutes an offence. Under Nevada rules, contamination is not an accepted defence. Canelo had no case either way.

It doesn't matter about our knowledge, since this isn't a debate about faith, religion or the unknowable.

There is no evidence to suggest that hair samples can be tested for proof of a fighter using PED's.

You can't refute this point and nor can you pretend otherwise.

Who knows what the future may hold, but for now, testing hair samples is meaningless and is not recognised by all major sporting bodies.

That's the bottom line.