Ca$hnelo is Clean. BOSS.

[BattlingNelson]

For eating his mom's delicious tacos! You can't hold that against him.

If those tacos had clenbuterol in them, then of course I can hold it against him. It’s the athletes responsibility what’s in his body. That’s not even debatable.

[BattlingNelson]

Nevada rushed to suspend him BEFORE the hair test results even came back. Canelo was not taking PEDs he ate contaminated meat all the evidence points to that conclusion.

It doesn’t matter if he got clenbuterol in his system via tacos or the****utic use. It’s a banned substance and there is only one person who is responsible and that’s Canelo.

Show me a Conte tweet where he says the test results are inconsistent with the****utic use please. Then we would be on to something.

[Citizen Koba]

And I think every single scientist worth their salt would agree that a sample 3 weeks out of date is beyond worthless.

I'm not following. Any residue in the hair should in theory remain unaffected after collection - although this is one other area which would probably require clarification for the specific drug. Normally there's quite strict protocol over the storage of samples (urine and bloods I've dealt with and I'd assume it's the same for hair) to ensure any evidence in the sample is unaffected or at least changes only within known parameters.

There is some information on hair length in the presentation discussed (slide 4) which raises a query about whether Canelos sample could have grown out in the time period (apx 50 days) between his estimated ingestion of Clen. and the sample being taken - although it's unclear whether this diagram is relavent to humans or to horses (per the following slide). I think there's other information which suggests that the 50 day window is adequate though - although it might just be from a singular case study.

[Citizen Koba]

stop sitting on the fence and answer the question again based on the data what is more likely? Because we don't know and probably will never 100% know and by the way that is true for all drug testing and variations it's never 100%. But what is more likely? Because not a single shred of evidence says he took PEDs. again urine levels extremely low consistent to what they classify as meat contamination for athletes that live or come in contact with meat in contaminated countries (which Mexico is). Hair test that show no traces of the substance which is exactly why they are proposing to using hair tests because of the high accuracy of distinguishing between PED use and acceptable low levels from meat contamination. The combination of the 2 tests and the levels/results make it far more likely that it was always meat contamination and not PED use. Why is that so hard for you to admit?

I'm not a expert but I lean on what the experts say and Victor Conte is a expert and he cited a WADA report with a conclusion proposing the use hair samples in low urinary cases which is what Canelo's case was.

WADA REPORT CONCLUSION: Clenbuterol testing in HAIR samples. "Hair Testing potentially suitable to confirm Clenbuterol Doping at low urinary concentrations!"@edgraney Hair samples should be used as an adjunctive test to urine for clenbuterol https://t.co/LgrqB0VINt

— Victor Conte (@VictorConte) April 28, 2018

CANELO: Hair & Urine testing 4 clenbuterol provide different types of info. Urine is recent two weeks exposure. Hair can be from a month up to six months or longer back. If you are trying to determine "intent to cheat" or abuse then hair is a better sample than urine.@edgraney https://t.co/pp5W5EFE0p

— Victor Conte (@VictorConte) April 28, 2018

OK. Based on the data I can't give any reasonable answer. Your question would require me to know the reliability of hair testing for Clenbuterol is this precise instance when the research to give that answer has not yet been done. I don't know the answer, neither does Conte, for all his gushing enthusiasm and neither does Detlef Thieme.

The urine data is consistent both with meat contamination within a few days and the****utic use ceasing perhaps a week or slightly more prior to testing, so that tells us nothing, despite the spin put on it.

The hair testing according to WADA is not a reliable way of differentiating between the****utic use and contamination at this time and the 'evidence' provided by Conte does not demonstrate that it is - I can go through it slide by slide with you if you like - but I assure you it says nothing to give weight to the reliability of this particular test, whether that information exists elsewhere or not.

So. It comes down to whether I take Conte's word for it. I don't. He didn't do the test and isn't a expert on hair testing unlike the author of the presentation you provide, who is far, far more cautious in his findings and recommendations.

I ain't got any reason or desire to find Canelo 'guilty' of PED abuse, but the evidence simply ain't there to find him innocent either, unless you want to wilfully ignore any facts that contradict your point of view.

[stealthradon]

I'm not following. Any residue in the hair should in theory remain unaffected after collection - although this is one other area which would probably require clarification for the specific drug. Normally there's quite strict protocol over the storage of samples (urine and bloods I've dealt with and I'd assume it's the same for hair) to ensure any evidence in the sample is unaffected or at least changes only within known parameters.

There is some information on hair length in the presentation discussed (slide 4) which raises a query about whether Canelos sample could have grown out in the time period (apx 50 days) between his estimated ingestion of Clen. and the sample being taken - although it's unclear whether this diagram is relavent to humans or to horses (per the following slide). I think there's other information which suggests that the 50 day window is adequate though - although it might just be from a singular case study.

If the hair is not affected by any outside influence that contaminate the test, I would agree. But as Canelo was 3 weeks, without supervision, outside contamination after the initial point, cannot be ruled out

[Citizen Koba]

If the hair is not affected by any outside influence that contaminate the test, I would agree. But as Canelo was 3 weeks, without supervision, outside contamination after the initial point, cannot be ruled out

Welll.. yes. If we were to assume that Canelo had been wilfully cheating then there are probably a number of measures he could have taken to reduce his chances of a positive hair test, but this doesn't actually constitute any evidence of guilt. As I keep trying to get through to Dunny here, we simply don't have enough information to make a reliable - or even probable - judgement.

[baya]

Of course he is. These Puerto Rican scumbags are still salty that the real Taino King gave that maricon Cotto an ass whooping he’ll never forget.


Phuck ‘em. War Taino God Canelo

still going in!

[bigdunny1]

OK. Based on the data I can't give any reasonable answer. Your question would require me to know the reliability of hair testing for Clenbuterol is this precise instance when the research to give that answer has not yet been done. I don't know the answer, neither does Conte, for all his gushing enthusiasm and neither does Detlef Thieme.

The urine data is consistent both with meat contamination within a few days and the****utic use ceasing perhaps a week or slightly more prior to testing, so that tells us nothing, despite the spin put on it.

The hair testing according to WADA is not a reliable way of differentiating between the****utic use and contamination at this time and the 'evidence' provided by Conte does not demonstrate that it is - I can go through it slide by slide with you if you like - but I assure you it says nothing to give weight to the reliability of this test, whether that information exists elsewhere or not.

So. It comes down to whether I take Conte's word for it. I don't. He didn't do the test and isn't a expert on hair testing unlike the author of the presentation you provide, who is far, far more cautious in his findings and recommendations.

I ain't got any reason or desire to find Canelo 'guilty' of PED abuse, but the evidence simply ain't there to find him innocent either, unless you want to wilfully ignore any facts that contradict your point of view.

Why do you keep ducking my question. I DIDN'T ask you which was 100% certain. I simply asked based on what the experts have said the data that has come out which is MORE likely. We know you are not an expert but you have an opinion and if you are unbiased it's a simple question to answer. So I'll ask a 3rd time and please stop dancing and answer. Which is the more likely scenario that he ate meat or was taking PEDs?

So you accept urine as a test that can distinguish between PED use and Meat even though WADA flat out states it doesn't but refuse to acknowledge that hair is a better test to distinguish between PED use and Meat even though a WADA report conclusion proposes that and expert Victor Conte flat out states it be so? SMH

CANELO: Hair & Urine testing 4 clenbuterol provide different types of info. Urine is recent two weeks exposure. Hair can be from a month up to six months or longer back. If you are trying to determine "intent to cheat" or abuse then hair is a better sample than urine.@edgraney https://t.co/pp5W5EFE0p

— Victor Conte (@VictorConte) April 28, 2018

[Citizen Koba]

Why do you keep ducking my question. I DIDN'T ask you which was 100% certain. I simply asked based on what the experts have said the data that has come out which is MORE likely. We know you are not an expert but you have an opinion and if you are unbiased it's a simple question to answer. So I'll ask a 3rd time and please stop dancing and answer. Which is the more likely scenario that he ate meat or was taking PEDs?

So you accept urine as a test that can distinguish between PED use and Meat even though WADA flat out states it doesn't but refuse to acknowledge that hair is a better test to distinguish between PED use and Meat even though a WADA report conclusion proposes that and expert Victor Conte flat out states it be so? SMH

CANELO: Hair & Urine testing 4 clenbuterol provide different types of info. Urine is recent two weeks exposure. Hair can be from a month up to six months or longer back. If you are trying to determine "intent to cheat" or abuse then hair is a better sample than urine.@edgraney https://t.co/pp5W5EFE0p

— Victor Conte (@VictorConte) April 28, 2018

I'm not sure what you think is wrong with my answer... based on the available evidence any answer is effectively a guess. Are you asking me to guess?

And no, I specify that the urine tests taken cannot differentiate between meat contamination and PED use, maybe you misunderstood what I wrote.

Further I also specify that nothing in the available evidence tells me that hair follicle testing can give a reliable answer in this case. If you disagree please feel free to point me to the information or research - either in the presentation the Conte supplies or elsewhere - that you've uncovered which tells us how exactly how long Clenbuterol would be detectable in a particular hair type based on the concentrations found in Canelo's urine or on how hair growth or other factors could impact on the results.

You can't because such research is incomplete and can at the best only be extrapolated from data on other drugs. What Detlef Thieme and WADA are saying is that hair testing has the potential to provide better differentiation than urine testing, but at the moment insufficient research has been done to be able to give reliable results. I ain't sure what's so hard to understand about that.

I get the impression that somehow you think I'm accusing Canelo of PED abuse. I ain't. Do you understand what I am saying?

[satiev1]

Canelo is clean after months of cycling the drug off. Derp. That means he never ever took the drugs months back and tested positive.