RC, and others. That RFEC document can be translated into very decent English with google. Google "Google spanish translator" and go to a page that has a link to the translator. Sometimes it will only translate about half the doc, I don't know why, sometimes about 90%, but at least you can avoid the laborious piecemeal translation of all of it. If you don't get most of it translated on the first pass, start over and try it again.
LMG:
Before I respond to your points, a sort of correction. I said Bert could have withdrawn blood at any time, not just after the DL. This is true, but if he withdrew long before he re-transfused, he would have had to separate cells from plasma and stored them frozen (this may speak to your point that he did not use frozen cells). The question then is, did he keep that plasma--which would contain most of the CB if he had been using that substance--or did he throw it out and simply reconstitute with saline? I don’t know what is the usual practice here, but I’ve heard that at least some riders use saline, so in this case there would be very little CB left in the transfusion. Meaning it’s much more likely withdrawal had to occur in that June timeframe, when blood could have been stored refrigerated.
Indeed, some riders might even separate cells from plasma for short-term storage. If they have any awareness of the possibility of positive drug tests resulting from residues of the substances in plasma, you would think they would prefer this. During Floyd's case, some speculated he could have tested positive for T because of a transfusion, so this notion has been out there for a while. A do-it-yourselfer like Ricco might miss this news, but any rider working with some scientist or doctor should have been advised of this???
It will be interesting to see if, in further developments in this case, either side talks seriously about what riders do during transfusion. As I mentioned a long time ago, it would be highly ironic if Bert and all the other elite riders transfuse, and do so using separation and reconstitution with saline. This would be very strong evidence against CB contamination via transfusion, yet he would not be able to point this out, of course!
what i was really trying to get at is whether or not he passed any additional urine tests for clenbuterol anywhere between the dauphine and the TdF. that could essentially clear him of using a whole blood transfusion during the tour. the claims for having eliminated the possibility of transfusion seem to be pulled out of thin air. the timeline would be a week or two to use/benefit from clenbuterol and then approximately an additional week for the drug to clear his system before beginning the tour. he could probably lose a kilo or two in that time. the windows are relatively tight in my opinion but certainly possible without any testing during that time.
This was not mentioned specifically in the RFEC decision. I would think that if they have CB tests during this period, they would at least been alluded to, but we'll have to wait to see more information. If Bert was tested during this period, then the arguments will revolve around the maximum amount of CB that could have been in his blood and avoided detection. Very relevant here is not only the timing of the tests--e.g., how long a window of doping opportunity they might have allowed--but the sensitivity of the lab. Remember, the Cologne lab detects CB at much lower levels than most other labs. If Bert was tested during this period, but only at a sensitivity of 2 ng/ml. he could have gotten away with a much higher dose, again depending on timing. More on this below.
i actually agree with something else you said and have been hesitant to post it. by my rough calculations contador's urine concentration implies that he banked blood while using plenty of clenbuterol. in other words, he or his medical staff believed they could use clenbuterol with impunity because blood plasma concentrations of clenbuterol are very low, much lower than those you'll find in urine so a transfusion results in a very very small "dose". because of certain properties, it becomes quite clear why clenbuterol is the drug of choice when attempting to simultaneously lose weight and perform autologous transfusions.
Correct that blood concentrations are lower than urine. But that is because the kidneys filter it out from a lot of blood. I think there is a much simpler way of estimating how much CB would be detected from a transfusion. A typical transfusion is about 500 ml. or 10% of total blood volume--and it might be less, 5% of total volume. So if blood withdrawn during heavy CB use was transfused, one would expect CB concentrations in blood following transfusion to be 5-10% the level they were during the actual use of the drug.
The question then becomes, how does this ratio translate to urine tests for CB? Would the urine collected following transfusion likewise contain 5-10% as much CB as that before withdrawal of the blood? Not exactly, because when you take a drug like CB, it's absorbed into the bloodstream gradually, over a period of several hours; so the kidneys are filtering blood to which CB is constantly being added. Whereas when you transfuse CB-tainted blood, all the CB present goes into the total bloodstream, more or less instantly. Still, peak urine concentration should be closely related to peak blood concentration.
IOW, if Bert tested for 50 pg/ml following transfusion, a crude estimate is that he would have tested for 0.5-1.0 ng/ml if he had been tested at the time of withdrawal. This value would have to be corrected for the reason I just noted above. It would actually be higher. But based on actual pharmacokinetic data I have seen, I don't think too much higher. The experts on both sides of this case may be debating this, but I think one could argue that the actual value could be below the 2.0 ng./ml minimum. So depending on the lab, Bert could have passed a test while doping with CB, even though he failed a test when he had much less CB in his system.
I think there are just three ways Bert can get off:
1) prove he ate contaminated meat
2) prove all the alternatives to contaminated meat, esp. transfusion, are not possible
3) a combination of 1) and 2), i.e., demonstrate that contaminated meat is a strong possibility, and more likely than transfusion or other alternative.
1) seems to be out. He can't produce the meat he ate. Furthermore, all the evidence indicates that contaminated meat is extremely unlikely, which effectively rules out 3). (Unless, as I discussed earlier, he can prove that contaminated meat can pass inspection, i.e., that the detection standard is not low enough to prevent a doping level positive).
This leaves 2). How strong are the arguments against transfusion. As you note, this will depend on what tests during this period they actually have--along with assumptions about how riders prepare blood for transfusion.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram