As fas as I know, the plasticizers thing was just a rumour started by a magazine.TempeteOntheRoad said:Can someone update me on why are we no longer hearing about the plastic markers in Contaddor's blood samples?
Is it a contributing factor?
has been ruled out as "normal" (man, in what world are we?)
Was it forgotten altogether?
That's my understanding as well. I wonder if the presence of the plasticizers caused those investigating to look more critically at the tainted meat claims etc...In other words, while he can't be banned for plasticizers did their presence make a ban for Clen more likely?TeamSkyFans said:I think the plasticiser is genuine.
The problem is the test isnt approved yet.
cant enforce something for which their is no approved test,
Having some or any level of plasticizer in the body is not a brach of the rules so why is a test for it going to assist with proving any doping offence especially retrospective ones (other than in the clinic). The mountains are full of goats that chew on plastic bottles and bagsCobblestones said:I think it's real, not just a rumor. Point is, to have plasticizer in your blood isn't forbidden.
Now we all think that the plasticizer came from a 'refill'. Problem is, apparently, in the legal world, it's not sufficient evidence for blood doping (hence it is not part of any legal proceedings and we don't hear about it any more).
I think that is the gist of Bert's position that the one year sanction is aMerckx index said:Howman is on the record as saying the DEHP results can be used. If Bert indeed gets one year, and WADA challenges the decision, I assume that will be part of their case for a longer suspension. But they might very well decide that one year is good enough in this case and let sleeping dogs lie.
The plasticizers are irrelevant. That's not even a sanctioned test yet.warmfuzzies said:Agree 1-year suspension is the first (and lowest) bid in several rounds of negotiating. But with plasticizers in his blood, UCI/WADA will push for a 2-year clen-poz suspension with pre-agreed acceptance from Contador in exchange for letting the platisizers slide. Aggressive sanctioning would push for 4-years; 2 for the clen, 2 for the plasticizers. 2-years and no further fuss sounds like fair market value.
Imagine that they test all their stored samples for plasticizers and find that 90% of riders fail the test. That surely must mean that the test is flawed .la.margna said:test all samples waiting somewhere in a WADA or UCI freezer from any winners over the last couple of years for plasticizers and you can REWRITE THE ENTIRE CYCLING AND SPORTS HISTORY AND WINNER LISTS...
a major desaster, don't think the will go for it...
It's my understanding, limited as that may be, that the plasticizers present directly from a blood transfusion are both much more highly concentrated in the blood and a somewhat unique chemical makeup. Or, at least, that is how I understood the original claims.alpine_chav said:The problem with the plasticizers in the blood is that we all have them because of the amount of plastic used in everyday products such as bottles, packaging etc. Not only do they have to show that the plasticizers are in the bloodstream but then they also have to prove the origin of said plasticizers which is currently near on impossible. Regardless of the test results it is unlikely that the evidence will stand up in a court of law.
I think the point is that as far as we know right now transfusion is the only identified source of extreme levels of plasticizers. Yes, we all have a certain background level of plasticizers but that level is fairly even among everyone and a positive test would not only look for presence of plasticizers but abnormal amounts of it.alpine_chav said:The problem with the plasticizers in the blood is that we all have them because of the amount of plastic used in everyday products such as bottles, packaging etc. Not only do they have to show that the plasticizers are in the bloodstream but then they also have to prove the origin of said plasticizers which is currently near on impossible. Regardless of the test results it is unlikely that the evidence will stand up in a court of law.
but it would be if it were lance..........no?Moose McKnuckles said:The plasticizers are irrelevant. That's not even a sanctioned test yet.
Well, there is more than one type of phthalate so what they are interested in are the metaboliets from the specific phthalates used in blood bags. Eventhough there may be phthalates in a lot of containers etc you can very often exclude any source with the wrong type of phthalate. That leaves only other sources of the same phthalate and that makes it much more likely that abnormal amounts does indeed come from blood bags.alpine_chav said:Truth about the concentration level of plasticizers in the blood but as far as unique chemical makeup I'm not sure... the plasticizer is a metabolite produced by the body naturally.
Regardless of concentration levels they would still have to prove the source of the plasticizers. Turns out Alberto likes melted plastic on his steak