• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Ban on clenbuterol doping drug may be relaxed

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
131313 said:
<snip>This is not a defense of Contador, is a defense of simple logic.
indeed ! (x 10).

dirty works, you're a quality poster i respect but you have several things upside-down and i'm very surprised by the fact given the knowledge base you've demonstrated so far...:confused:

to begin with, it would perhaps make some sense for you to search one of the posts by the late theswordsman (rest in peace, brother). i'm stranded for time now, but i'm pretty sure he posted once a link (verified by my searches then) that unequivocally linked one american meat exporter (in 2010 !!!!!!!!!! mind you) to shipping hugely clen-contaminated meat to taiwan.

yes, an american grown clen-contaminated meat that was supposedly subject to your clean controls in the holy us of a.

secondly, stop kidding yourself about europe's clen controls supposedly guaranteeing clen-free meat.

it's a fallacy i have invested copious amounts of times to debunk on this very forum. all supported by hard facts and links.

clenbuterol in meat, milk and water is perfectly legal in europe....up to a specific limit called maximul residue level (MRL)

you miss this fact and you for ever remain ignorant.

so what we essentially have is that the cattle can be doped (to a limit of course), but the human athletes can't have any because of wada's idiotic political adherence to zero tolerance.

pls forgive me the irritated tone - because i posted these very facts a dozen of times already

too bad...
 
pyth-on said:
clenbuterol in meat, milk and water is perfectly legal in europe....up to a specific limit called maximul residue level (MRL)

you miss this fact and you for ever remain ignorant.

so what we essentially have is that the cattle can be doped (to a limit of course), but the human athletes can't have any because of wada's idiotic political adherence to zero tolerance.

pls forgive me the irritated tone - because i posted these very facts a dozen of times already - but the facts don't seem to enter certain entrenched or limited-function brains.

too bad...

Yes, if you absolutely pig out on meat that is at the absolute maximum allowable limit, and you are tested very soon after eating, you might have as much as 5-10 pg/ml in your urine. Which is very close to the limit of detection.

And of course, if you take a useful regimen of CB for weight loss, and are tested several days to a week after you stop taking it, you might exhibit the same very low level. The amount of CB detected proves nothing.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
another useless contribution of a local pseudo scientists said:
Yes, if you absolutely pig out on meat<snip>
in your infinite intrenched ignorance passed here as some kind of serious scientist you again deliberately ignore the fact that the infinite testing sensitivity of athletes (not limited by the reasonable threshold accounting for legal limits allowed in cattle) will always detect clen.


i'm not surprised because you already discredited yourself too many times by this kind of nonsense, besides your values for humans derived from vegetarian bovines are the height of pseudo-science.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
hrotha said:
It's funny that python has been deriding Merckx's posts for months, dismissing them as pseudo-science, but he never quite seems to say why he's wrong.
it's not funny, because you missed (or are deliberately blind or more likely incapable of entertaining).

i made the reasons very clear in the very post above yours.

just read if you have any reading skills.

since you are so involved i'll oblige your blindness or ignorance:

you again deliberately ignore the fact that the infinite testing sensitivity of athletes (not limited by the reasonable threshold accounting for legal limits allowed in cattle) will always detect clen.

....besides your values for humans derived from vegetarian bovines are the height of pseudo-science.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
i once already called (certain, but not all) hrotha's contributions as promoting ignorance...

given his last post and the context of my very specific response to a poster he was concerned with, i stand by my earlier assessment.

reading substance, in this case - why the threshold for clen may make sense - does not appear his strength if he's been invested.

again, too bad for a generally quality poster.
 
Mar 9, 2010
551
0
0
Visit site
Gingerale said:
Clearly I was expressing an opinion and I'm not a lawyer. But I don't see where Lance Armstrong is like a murderer nor is Contador like a rapist. the analogy is wrong. Lying is lying. and lying about EPO, blood doping, and peds -cheating in the sport and the way its set-up, someone is rewarded the most for being good at cheating and not getting caught. It's not the direct offense of taking a life or raping. but I do think Armstrong has had a negative influence and in an indirect way is accountable for damaging lives, and bullying. i wouldn't want to know him or be on a team with him. Tiger Woods used to be someone i admired. Lance is down there with him now.

Oh, please. I am aware that what i posted would NOT be a good defense of Contador. It's not pleasant to be skeptical. What I am saying is that I resent Lance and see him as a mainstay of doping culture in this generation and the model of clever, wealthy, con that didn't get caught. I stand by my feeling of hoping Contador is acquitted.

Ha! right. your reaction is rude and unreasonable with your suggestions about what i should do:D. and i see i shouldn't be responding to you. but whether you agree with what i wrote, that's entirely your business.

i've not posted in the clinic except on nadal and djokovic (i don't think.) i like tennis, but find their performances unbelievable. i don't propose to have solutions for doping in sports or world hunger for that matter. cycling at least is trying - but i would think stripping lance sends a bigger message than stripping a name of lesser consequence. the most level playing field possible in the sport would be a nice goal. as it is, the most clever con with the most resources for a cover-up protects his legacy. life will never be fair, but professional cycling could be more fair about who is punished.

i love cycling but think it's naive to think it's a clean sport, yet it's struggling to make progress and credit for that. Lance is likely the least clean and king offender in this generation. he's lying imo, and he has a huge amount of power and influence, thus more responsibility. well, i worked hard on that one post above. Berzin noticed, thank you, Berzin.:)

your first post was obviously drug induced but this one is over the top. you crack me up.:D
re the bolded: you obviously were not around for this generation because this statement is just ***. you are clearly high from sniffing the fumes off the freshly ridden saddles of the delusional, bullying posters on here that claim to be the ultimate arbiters of taste in the cycling world. i hate to be the bearer of bad news, but these guys seldom leave their moms' basements.
 
python said:
it's not funny, because you missed (or are deliberately blind or more likely incapable of entertaining).

i made the reasons very clear in the very post above yours.

just read if you have any reading skills.

since you are so involved i'll oblige your blindness or ignorance:
No, see, the thing is I did read that post but I don't think your reply did anything to address this, which in my view makes your whole point moot:
Yes, if you absolutely pig out on meat that is at the absolute maximum allowable limit, and you are tested very soon after eating, you might have as much as 5-10 pg/ml in your urine. Which is very close to the limit of detection.
But by now it's clear that, to you, "spreading ignorance" means "disagreeing with almighty python."
 
Jul 28, 2009
898
0
0
Visit site
Dr. Maserati said:
As I stated already, no it won't.
Contador is in violation of current rules not any new rules.

Contador still has to prove his case - so the only way the current WADA meetings may help Contador is the release of new information or statistics, but again he probably has much of that already.
The "rules" also allow sufficient discretion to accommodate ACs main defense if his team have sufficiently strong argument. In essence changing the "rules" and whatever arguments are used to support that change can be used by ACs representatives to argue his case.

So changing the rules will in effect assist AC even if he may not automatically get off as a consequence.
 
Jul 28, 2009
898
0
0
Visit site
hrotha said:
It's funny that python has been deriding Merckx's posts for months, dismissing them as pseudo-science, but he never quite seems to say why he's wrong.
Well I don't take the same dim view of Merckx as python and I certainly wouldn't suggest that he was pseudo-scientific. However, I do believe there is a tendency to selectively cite. Also in general there is a preference for referring to scientific evidence (ie a small number of studies) rather than a body of scientific evidence (many studies). In addition there is a definite prediliction for stating things in a categorical fashion, often without deductive reasoning provided, which is a bit if an anathema to a scientist e.g. Xng.ml of clenbuterol is only possible if you eat Y gazillion kg of beef etc. Anyone who deals with biology would know that funny stuff happens.
 
DirtyWorks said:
There's no valid discussion to be had about athlete's watching their own meat supplies in the EU, U.S. and Australia. Riders can have full confidence the meat sources are clen free in these locales.

So when I go to Arizona there is no chance that my carne asada, side order of chile rellenos, and tamarind soda does not use beef from across the border? Can you buy anything in the U.S. and bet your career that it was not produced outside of the states?

Mexico exported 59,026 tons of beef in the first seven months of this year. Boy howdy! That's a lot of fajitas.
 
pyth-on said:
in your infinite intrenched ignorance passed here as some kind of serious scientist you again deliberately ignore the fact that the infinite testing sensitivity of athletes (not limited by the reasonable threshold accounting for legal limits allowed in cattle) will always detect clen.


i'm not surprised because you already discredited yourself too many times by this kind of nonsense, besides your values for humans derived from vegetarian bovines are the height of pseudo-science.

Have you actually read Caso Contador? Are you aware that the WADA experts, the people you keep telling me whose opinions I should defer to, calculated as a maximum that Bert eating meat could have resulted in about 15 pg/ml? And a minimum of well below 1 pg/ml? So yeah, as I said, one could argue for a threshold of 10-20, but that will still let off some dopers.

The question is, how often do people actually test for detectable amounts of CB? We have to balance that against the certainty that establishing any threshold will let off some dopers. And the way to answer that, as i have suggested several times here, is with population studies, which you dismissed. Personally I would be happy to volunteer as a subject, though since I don't eat meat I would be of limited usefulness. But a large population could tell us a great deal about how much CB is really getting into humans from meat.

As for the bovine studies, as I said before twice, you haven't been paying attention. NO, repeat NO, pharmacokinetics are required to estimate a minimum amount that Bert took. He was tested four times in a period of five days. From those values, and making reasonable assumptions about his urine output, one can estimate how much CB he passed during that time: 100-150 ng. That estimate, which is definitely too low (HUMAN pharmacokinetic studies show that only 20% of ingested CB is passed in the first three days after a single dose) is ALONE more than he could have obtained eating steak that passed the maximum standard.

Yes, the limits of detection are constantly being lowered by technology, and at some point will bump up with increasing frequency with what is consumed through environmental contamination. As I have already pointed out, we are not there yet with water, and for the most part probably not with meat. Still, whether there should be a threshold is a fair question. We can have a reasonable scientific debate (as is occurring within WADA, where some, such as Ayotte, hold basically the same position I do), or we can resort to name-calling.

In the past, I have tried to turn the other cheek, I have tried to be nice, I have even tried to reach out to you behind the scenes. Nothing has worked. There's nothing wrong with having strongly-held opinions. There is something wrong with ridiculing other opinions that are fairly widely held, particularly when you provide no compelling evidence or logic for dismissing them.

I know you're a fairly bright guy with some inside knowledge that is valuable to this forum. I've certainly learned from you in the past. But you hurt yourself by taking the attitude that in certain areas you know more than anyone else, and anyone who doesn't agree with you is a pseudo-scientist or whatever. Everyone in this forum would profit if you would just chill it.

Well I don't take the same dim view of Merckx as python and I certainly wouldn't suggest that he was pseudo-scientific. However, I do believe there is a tendency to selectively cite. Also in general there is a preference for referring to scientific evidence (ie a small number of studies) rather than a body of scientific evidence (many studies). In addition there is a definite prediliction for stating things in a categorical fashion, often without deductive reasoning provided, which is a bit if an anathema to a scientist e.g. Xng.ml of clenbuterol is only possible if you eat Y gazillion kg of beef etc. Anyone who deals with biology would know that funny stuff happens.

We've been over this before. I've taken note of your point that there are a few studies that show mg quantities of CB in some meat samples. But these are quite rare, and generally result in food poisoning epidemics, and I think it's really hard to argue they're relevant to Bert's case. As far as that case in particular, see above. I repeat: no pharmacokinetics is required to make a minimum estimate. The only "funny stuff" that could possibly affect the conclusion is an extraordinarily small urine output. I add that this minimum estimate is below the minimum provided by WADA at RFEC. Their panel of experts apparently used a number of different models, and the lowest estimate they could come up with was greater than this one of mine--which is still too high to be accounted for by meat that passed the standard.
 
Jun 16, 2011
260
0
0
Visit site
spanky wanderlust said:
your first post was obviously drug induced but this one is over the top. you crack me up.:D
re the bolded: you obviously were not around for this generation because this statement is just ***. you are clearly high from sniffing the fumes off the freshly ridden saddles of the delusional, bullying posters on here that claim to be the ultimate arbiters of taste in the cycling world. i hate to be the bearer of bad news, but these guys seldom leave their moms' basements.

spanky wanderlust. i read your post and thought, "who?" after reading a sampling of your posts i see why you fail to make an impression. instead of attempting to be a clever, smart-a** to me, you could work on the smart part first, add a little writing skills and i'll go away in shame. :D until then.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
hrotha said:
No, see, the thing is I did read that post but I don't think your reply did anything to address this, which in my view makes your whole point moot:
big no. it was answered clearly in the very post you intentionally chose to ignore because it does not fit your cute pre-concieved notions. again, a repeat for your blindness

besides your values for humans derived from vegetarian bovines are the height of pseudo-science.
the local pseudo-scientist pulled those values for humans out of his behind. his frequently sited basis is studies of clen pharmacokinetics in bovines who dont even eat meat. that's called pseudo science.

But by now it's clear that, to you, "spreading ignorance" means "disagreeing with almighty python."
i'm more than happy when i read a reasonable rebuttal. you otoh prefer cute one liners in stead of reading.

local pseudoscientist said:
..taking the attitude that in certain areas you know more than anyone else
ironically, it's exactly your attitude you never hidden and stubbornly held.

you arrogantly categorically stated multiple times that unless cas agrees with you, there will be no acceptance by you whatever the basis for their decision. clearly you assume to know more than the panel of 3 intelligent independent persons who have unlimited access to scientific evidence you don't. so, please stop posturing and go back to your science fiction threads - THAT seems to me your calling.

otoh, i clearly distinguish what i know from what is hidden from me. i stated clearly what my opinion was/is, what my feelings are and why i will have the final cut on evidence only after reading cas's ruling.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
it's only funny because your multi-year attempts at clearing your texas bud and derail every thread into discussing your infatuation have been checked here and elsewhere, fraud.

there is no need to derail this thread as well.

as to calculating vam from recorded video, your ignorance should be referred to the appropriate thread where le breton and many others do a fine job that's apparently above your level of comprehension. i very rarely contribute there and CERTAINLY NEVER posted any calculation. so your baiting, as usual, is off the mark.

ps,
sorry, i haven't quoted you directly b/c many posters expressed a desire not to read your contributions since they put you on their ignore list.
 
python said:
big no. it was answered clearly in the very post you intentionally chose to ignore because it does not fit your cute pre-concieved notions. again, a repeat for your blindness

You're welcome to your opinion about a threshold, but as you well know, the issue is controversial. Not everyone at WADA believes there should be one, so it's ludicrous to refer to people who advocate no threshold as being pseudo-scientists. It's an issue over which we can have vigorous debate. It's not an issue that is so clearly decided that ad hominems are appropriate to anyone who doesn't accept your position.

the local pseudo-scientist pulled those values for humans out of his behind. his frequently sited basis is studies of clen pharmacokinetics in bovines who dont even eat meat. that's called pseudo science.

Did you even read my previous post? No pharmacokinetics involved, the calculations were made on the basis of data provided in Caso Contador.

You have latched onto one thing I said many months ago, and repeated it over and over, ignoring the fact that I have long since moved on. Not that I take back my conclusions based on bovine studies (and which agreed quite closely with those of WADA's scientists in the RFEC report); they just aren't needed.

ironically, it's exactly your attitude you never hidden and stubbornly held.

you arrogantly categorically stated multiple times that unless cas agrees with you, there will be no acceptance by you whatever the basis for their decision. clearly you assume to know more than the panel of 3 intelligent independent persons who have unlimited access to scientific evidence you don't. so, please stop posturing and go back to your science fiction threads - THAT seems to me your calling.

I have been pretty consistent in saying I will not agree with a decision to clear Bert IF it is made on the basis of information provided in the RFEC report. If something new emerges, I will certainly reconsider, but I'm not holding my breath. Following the RFEC decision, Bert's lawyers told the press why they believed he was cleared (link was posted by someone above), and they referred to nothing that was not in that report. But we will see.

And again, I note the irony. Did you accept the conclusions of the Vrijman report? Did you refer to people who had serious reservations about some of the conclusions CAS came to in the Landis case as pseudo-scientists?

otoh, i clearly distinguish what i know from what is hidden from me. i stated clearly what my opinion was/is, what my feelings are and why i will have the final cut on evidence only after reading cas's ruling.

And in the process, you also made it clear that anyone who doesn't follow your lead is a pseudo-scientist. I have no problem with your wanting to wait to hear what CAS says. You are the one who has a problem with someone who doesn't consider himself bound entirely by that.
 
May 18, 2009
3,757
0
0
Visit site
*** edited by mod ***

Back on topic, you wait and see what CAS says only because of your prejudice towards AC. If he wasn't your hero you would take a different stance since you have no character. If CAS rules in favor of AC it is called "legislating from the bench", which maybe you are not familiar with. The rule is, and Doc keeps pointing out, zero threshold. MI points out that both laws and studies done show a very small likelihood of contamination. CAS should rule he is guilty.

Funny thing is I agree that there should be a minimum threshold. Anytime somebody can ingest something off the market and test positive is BS IMO, regardless of the stats MI points out. Randomly testing cattle does not preclude possible use of clen. I also think AC will get off because I do believe CAS will rule contamination, spurned by WADA's newfound sensitivity to thresholds. The fix is in, further confirmed by all of the postponements.

*** edited by mod ***
 
Mar 9, 2010
551
0
0
Visit site
Gingerale said:
spanky wanderlust. i read your post and thought, "who?" after reading a sampling of your posts i see why you fail to make an impression. instead of attempting to be a clever, smart-a** to me, you could work on the smart part first, add a little writing skills and i'll go away in shame. :D until then.

whatever it takes to miss the point. it's ok. good for you that sycophants are highly rewarded here in the clinic.
 
Mar 9, 2010
551
0
0
Visit site
funny how if you don't happen to care for the rider in question, these doping issues are so black and white.

but if it's your favorite rider, magically, all sorts of shades of grey appear.
 
Jun 16, 2011
260
0
0
Visit site
spanky wanderlust said:
funny how if you don't happen to care for the rider in question, these doping issues are so black and white.

but if it's your favorite rider, magically, all sorts of shades of grey appear.

:confused: what? the rider in question. you mean contador? or...

i do like contador and he's probably one of my favorite riders.

it's likely i'd fail an entrance exam for a fan club because i am too skeptical. no one who knows me, i assure you, would call me black and white. i question everything at this point, in cycling. i don't think all dopers are equal by a long shot. think of the ways a blood/urine sample can be altered, all requiring money, a cover-up, perhaps paying off select people, also having the money to buy the right doctor.* supposedly lance never tested positive. in a perfect world a measurable test would be treated the same between all riders and one could count on the findings; black and white, case closed. but we are talking big bucks and big names. test results released to the media, having to do with LA, the ones we read about are not necessarily true. does that all sound *** to you and like i'm on drugs? i'm neither but maybe i should be on drugs? :eek:

about clen in the steak - still not sure i believe contador, though i want to. and i don't know enough to have an opinion on a clenbuterol ban being relaxed.
 
Mar 9, 2010
551
0
0
Visit site
Gingerale said:
:confused: what? the rider in question. you mean contador? or...

i do like contador and he's probably one of my favorite riders.

it's likely i'd fail an entrance exam for a fan club because i am too skeptical. no one who knows me, i assure you, would call me black and white. i question everything at this point, in cycling. i don't think all dopers are equal by a long shot. think of the ways a blood/urine sample can be altered, all requiring money, a cover-up, perhaps paying off select people, also having the money to buy the right doctor.* supposedly lance never tested positive. in a perfect world a measurable test would be treated the same between all riders and one could count on the findings; black and white, case closed. but we are talking big bucks and big names. test results released to the media, having to do with LA, the ones we read about are not necessarily true. does that all sound *** to you and like i'm on drugs? i'm neither but maybe i should be on drugs? :eek:

about clen in the steak - still not sure i believe contador, though i want to. and i don't know enough to have an opinion on a clenbuterol ban being relaxed.

nah. that one wasn't for you specifically. that is my general opinion of the clinic. which includes you, just not specifically.

btw, i should not have been mean to you. you did not deserve it. even though i hated your opinion, i had no place to say it was '***'. that was rude and i apologize. you seem like a nice person.
 
Jun 16, 2011
260
0
0
Visit site
spanky wanderlust said:
nah. that one wasn't for you specifically. that is my general opinion of the clinic. which includes you, just not specifically.

btw, i should not have been mean to you. you did not deserve it. even though i hated your opinion, i had no place to say it was '***'. that was rude and i apologize. you seem like a nice person.

thanks. no problem then. ;)
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,770
3
0
Visit site
Merckx index said:
There remains strong opposition by some in WADA to a threshold, and for good reason. There is NO level that would indicate with any certainty that the CB came from contaminated meat. The best way to judge, in the absence of actual meat samples, is where the meat was bought. Riders in Mexico, South America and China, have a reasonable chance of eating contaminated meat, and this should be taken into account in their cases (though it shouldn’t by itself get them off; the Mexican soccer players had levels high enough to make contaminated meat fairly unlikely). Riders in Europe really do not have a case on these grounds.

We still don’t know if WADA will bring up the plasticizer results in Bert’s case, but another paper was just published by the Spanish and German groups that published the original studies on DEHP in blood transfusions (abstract below). This latest study presumably would be used to validate DEHP levels as further evidence of transfusion, though the number of subjects, 25, is rather small, and the reported level of significance (< 0.05) not really great enough to rule out false positives. But I haven’t seen the full paper.

Arguably, studies like these are beside the point. There is no question that high levels of DEHP metabolites can result from transfusion of stored blood. The real question is whether such high levels can be found in individuals that did not transfuse. Studies of large numbers of subjects, in the thousands, suggest that a few outliers do exist, but they may have been exposed to DEHP through other environmental sources. If WADA is serious about using this test, they really need to get a fairly precise estimate of the false positive rate. OTOH, since it is not intended as a standalone test, but only supporting evidence of transfusion (and even that is not technically needed, since the burden of proof is supposed to be on the rider to show he didn't dope, not on WADA to show he did), even say 95% certainty that DEHP levels indicated transfusion would be very damning, when added to the evidence that CB-contaminated meat in Spain is so low.

Also note that this study found, as have others, that urine levels of DEHP metabolites dropped off quite rapidly--in this case, they said two days was the effective detection window. IOW, these levels spike following transfusion. Beyond the absolute levels allegedly found in Bert's urine, the report we have is of a spike disappearing within a day or two. If this analysis really is of Bert's samples, this spike would provide further evidence of transfusion, as opposed to background levels.

Transfusion. 2011 Sep 2. doi: 10.1111/j.1537-2995.2011.03331.x. [Epub ahead of print]

Plasticizers excreted in urine: indication of autologous blood transfusion in sports.

Monfort N, Ventura R, Platen P, Hinrichs T, Brixius K, Schänzer W, Thevis M, Geyer H, Segura J.
Source

From the Bioanalysis Research Group, IMIM Hospital del Mar Research Institute and the Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain; Department of Sports Medicine and Sports Nutrition, Ruhr University Bochum, Bochum, Germany; and the Institute of Cardiology and Sports Medicine and the Center for Preventive Doping Research, German Sport University, Cologne, Germany.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:
Misuse of autologous blood transfusions in sports remains undetectable. The metabolites of the plasticizer di-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP) were recently proposed as markers of blood transfusion, based on high urinary concentrations of these compounds observed in patients subjected to blood transfusion. This study evaluates DEHP metabolites in urine for detecting autologous blood transfusion.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS:
One blood bag was drawn from moderately trained subjects and the red blood cells (RBCs) were reinfused after different storage periods. Group 1 (12 subjects) was reinfused after 14 days, and Group 2 (13 subjects), after 28 days of storage. Urine samples were collected before and after reinfusion for determination of the concentrations of three DEHP metabolites, mono-(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, mono-(2-ethyl-5-hydroxyhexyl)phthalate, and mono-(2-ethyl-5-oxohexyl)phthalate.

RESULTS:
Concentrations of DEHP metabolites on the days before reinfusion were in agreement with those described after common environmental exposure. A few hours after the reinfusion a significant increase was observed for all metabolites in all volunteers. Concentrations 1 day later were still higher (p < 0.05) than before reinfusion. Variations in urine dilution supported normalization by specific gravity. Concentrations of DEHP metabolites tended to be higher after longer storage times of RBCs.

CONCLUSION:
Autologous transfusion with RBCs stored in plastic bags provokes an acute increase in the urinary concentrations of DEHP metabolites, allowing the detection of this doping malpractice. The window of detection is approximately 2 days. The method might be applied to urine samples submitted for antidoping testing.
Funny how folks want to call you out for being a pseudo scientist or practicing pseudo science when all you are trying to say in an opinion is that you would have to eat an *** load of clen meat and also the best likely scenario is that it would have come from RBCs stored in a plastic bag increasing the DEHP metabolites. All this distraction coming from a pseudo Grand Tour Power Placing Predictor Space Age Calculator from video tape (WTF). placing of a lud predictor wig research cent ....phd HTFU.