• 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!

Contador Blood Doped

Page 7 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
this could be interesting to those analyzing timing of the blood transfusion vs.
clenbuterol concentration in urine.

we know clen's half-life is in the range of ....24-39 hours

this study
http://www.springerlink.com/content/dgyle827r90egu0r/
puts dehp metabolites half-life much shorter but the complete excreting takes much longer.

it generally supports the telle commentator's point...i think
 
Jun 16, 2010
182
0
0
Visit site
Jun 21, 2010
308
0
0
Visit site
hektoren said:
Unjust? To whom?
You?
Luckily you're about as far away from the decision-making process in WADA/UCI as Sarah Palin is from having a say in US foreign policy. The consequences of both would be equally disastrous.

Nice to be taken off topic and slimed by partisan US politics simultaneously. Better be getting ready for 1-2 years of peloton without Contador. That plastics residue fail (8x normal levels) the day before the clen A and B sample fails adds context to the mosaic of scientific fact surrounding this case. Perhaps the Spanish steak was wrapped in a peculiar form of Saran-Warp.
 
ricara said:
Excellent article. Contador had 8x the amount of plasticizer considered a positive for a (not yet sanctioned) test.

There were excellent new comments from Bernard Kohl, who is in the country for an anti-doping conference. Well worth the read. Thanks for the link! :)

I notice that the plasticizer theory has been brought up a lot lately. Are saline drips illegal these days?
 
Jun 18, 2009
2,079
2
0
Visit site
Maxiton said:
As a matter of fact, they are.

Actually, IVs drips are completely banned except in an emergency.

If the blood plasticizer test is solid, we finally have a bust for an autologous transfusion which is what many/most of the posters here speculated. No one would be so stupid to use clen during the race.

I hope they were testing all samples for this plasticizer too.
 
Jul 23, 2009
2,891
1
0
Visit site
ricara said:
Excellent article. Contador had 8x the amount of plasticizer considered a positive for a (not yet sanctioned) test.

There were excellent new comments from Bernard Kohl, who is in the country for an anti-doping conference. Well worth the read. Thanks for the link! :)

His comments certainly support the "you have to dope to win" theory. Almost scary. Poor Bertie, ate some bad beef and swallowed his plastic water bottle. What a bad night.
“I was tested 200 times during my career, and 100 times I had drugs in my body,” he said. “I was caught, but 99 other times, I wasn’t. Riders think they can get away with doping because most of the time they do. Even if there is a new test for blood doping, I’m not even sure it will scare riders into stopping. The problem is just that bad.”
 

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
0
0
Visit site
Cobblestones said:
I don't get why this is unethical research. Look at Ingsve's article. They used 127 samples from athletes (cyclists, swimmers, soccer players). They are all anonymous because under normal circumstances (no AAF) the labs never know the names of the athletes. So we have a journal article which says that the test was performed at least 127 times prior to the Contador sample. In 4 of those 127 instances, the levels were elevated. So, when you ask all your questions ... well, there is an answer. The test has been run plenty of times, results are available (anonymous), the results are well documented, and there's even four 'outliers' as they're called in the article. How more 'out there' can it be?

As far as the plasticizer test, how the testing works (AFAIR) is that each sample is ran through all tests at once. It's pretty automatized. Don't imagine a chemist doing one test at a time, by hand. It kind of looks more like this. It's computerized and in the end, you'll get a record (which you can print out) with all the results of all the tests. That's likely the one which was passed on (and got leaked). I just don't get why you think the lab is acting unethically.

The test result for a research test, which is not sanctioned by anti-doping committees, should never be included with the general test results. Perhaps unethical is not the correct word, clumsy is perhaps a better word (or perhaps I have to strict a measure for protection of test subjects of research, which might well be, because what I've learned about research methodology is quite strict, as not providing the right safeguards might lead to people their deaths)


But still, how many labs do this test? Is it only the Stuttgart lab, if so how many samples were send there? If not how many labs do it, how many samples do they get? All these things ensure that we do not know if anyone their tests have had the same outcome. ALso if others were tested likewise, their test results are not made public in any manner, no sanction will be made against them, which in my mind is a real moral qualm I would have with a sanction of Contador based on this.
 
May 14, 2010
5,303
4
0
Visit site
Maxiton said:
As a matter of fact, they are.

richwagmn said:
Actually, IVs drips are completely banned except in an emergency.

Wait. Isn't that what I said?

If the blood plasticizer test is solid, we finally have a bust for an autologous transfusion which is what many/most of the posters here speculated. No one would be so stupid to use clen during the race.

I hope they were testing all samples for this plasticizer too.

I wonder how the test will work with Mylar bags? You could consider this a stock tip.
 
Jul 7, 2009
484
0
0
Visit site
Barrus said:
This is from the NOS, a Dutch news network, who used images and information gained through the ARD. The ARD said that they got it from a reliable source, possibly the lab. Certainty is obviously not available

However one of the main problems I have with all this, is Contador the only person upon who this test was performed on. IF this is the case, I find it despicable, as this clearly is an organized attempt at targeting Contador, if it is not the case, I still find it despicable that Contador is the only one brought into the public and probably the only person who'll need to pay for it.
(I am of the opinion that most, if not all of the riders in the top 20 will have had transfusions)
And before anyone attacks me on this, I do believe that doping tests should be effective, however they need to be carried out consistently. You cannot single out a particular rider and perform a test that is not performed on other riders, it does not matter who the rider is


I also have a problem with whether this test will hold up in the sporting proceedings, if it won't be sufficient for sanction, this has completely destroyed Contador and will for the rest of his career be the most well-known fact about him.


Also completely off-topic, does anyone know if Martin started writing again, god knows how long he has been working on this book

He had the yellow jersey. Je was the leader of the race. Of course he's their target. That's how testing works in every sport.

If you believe that Contador is doping, why do you have such a problem with him being labeled and remembered as a doper? Of course everyone that dopes should be thrown out, but getting only one more doper out of the peleton is a good thing. Especially if it's the UCI and McQuaid's posterboy.
 
Mar 19, 2009
832
0
0
Visit site
I kind of doubt the platicizer test will have any impact if this goes to an arbitration hearing. The same type of thing happened with Petacchi's case when he tested positive for Albuterol. The lab did a little used, unvalidated follow-up test which showed the Albuterol in Petacchi's sample couldn't have come from an inhaler. That meant Petacchi must have taken the drug orally or intravenously, both of which are unequivocally banned methods. But because the test wasn't validated it wasn't considered by the arbitrator(s). Petacchi still got a suspension but the unvalidated test didn't matter.
 
May 20, 2010
718
1
0
Visit site
plasticisers

These compounds are present in blood bags. I believe these same compounds would be present in all IV bags.

Therefore another possible explanation is: saline IV for dehydration recovery...:)

Edit:
Sorry repeating Nick777

I now note that all IVs are banned except for medical emergency
 
Aug 9, 2010
448
0
0
Visit site
Wergeland said:
He had the yellow jersey. Je was the leader of the race. Of course he's their target. That's how testing works in every sport.

If you believe that Contador is doping, why do you have such a problem with him being labeled and remembered as a doper? Of course everyone that dopes should be thrown out, but getting only one more doper out of the peleton is a good thing. Especially if it's the UCI and McQuaid's posterboy.
I think Barrus' problem wasn't with Contador being busted, it was with Contdador being the only person who this test seems to have been used on. Surely you don't think that the yellow jersey is the only person who such a potentially valuable test should be performed on?

Has anyone else been caught for plasticizers?
 
I think Barrus' problem wasn't with Contador being busted, it was with Contdador being the only person who this test seems to have been used on.

Let's remind ourselves that Contador tested positive for Clenbuterol first. Since the quantities of the banned substance were minute, the (one of the many) official stance(s) was to use science to get a better understanding of how the Clenbuterol got into his system. That opened the possibility to use the plasticizer test, possibly amongst others.

As has been said many times here, you can't get caught using a non-validated test. And plasticizers are not on the list of banned substances either.

Nonetheless am I looking forward to the next explanation Contador will bring to the table. I like the plastic meat wrapper theory, but I think he can do better :)
 
Aug 9, 2010
448
0
0
Visit site
bommels said:
Let's remind ourselves that Contador tested positive for Clenbuterol first. Since the quantities of the banned substance were minute, the (one of the many) official stance(s) was to use science to get a better understanding of how the Clenbuterol got into his system. That opened the possibility to use the plasticizer test, possibly amongst others.

As has been said many times here, you can't get caught using a non-validated test. And plasticizers are not on the list of banned substances either.

Nonetheless am I looking forward to the next explanation Contador will bring to the table. I like the plastic meat wrapper theory, but I think he can do better :)
Fair point, although if the plasticizer test is ratified, I wonder if it will be used more as a standalone test?

Incidentally - NYT is reporting that the 'failed' plasticizer test was on a different day to the clenbuterol test.
 
Jul 27, 2009
749
0
0
Visit site
I don't have the time to wade through 17 pages at the moment but was wondering if this rumuor about the plasticizers was just from one test? Or was it over the several days the clen was in his system. If so did the levels stay the same or decrease day by day?

On those same days what were the levels in the other six plus riders tested?

I don't want to be the naysayer but gee this plasticizer theory looks a little speculative to me considering these guys have a water bottle attached to their lips nearly 24/7. I would like to see the research.
 
Chuffy said:
I think Barrus' problem wasn't with Contador being busted, it was with Contdador being the only person who this test seems to have been used on. Surely you don't think that the yellow jersey is the only person who such a potentially valuable test should be performed on?

Has anyone else been caught for plasticizers?

This was one of my first thoughts. Surely at least Andy would have tested positive for this as well (seeing as he was in yellow).

Also, can AC go down for this? They'd have to link it to a sudden change in his values wouldn't they?

Really ****ing me off that he's gonna go down and Schleck etc. are gonna be still there. I don't know why because I don't even like him more than anyone else.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,455
5
0
Visit site
luckyboy said:
This was one of my first thoughts. Surely at least Andy would have tested positive for this as well (seeing as he was in yellow).

Also, can AC go down for this? They'd have to link it to a sudden change in his values wouldn't they?

Really ****ing me off that he's gonna go down and Schleck etc. are gonna be still there. I don't know why because I don't even like him more than anyone else.

Take Contador out and what do you get? Domination by Schleck
Take Schleck out and what do you get? Domination by Contador.

Take them both out and what do you get? 2006.

I think that's why.
 
luckyboy said:
This was one of my first thoughts. Surely at least Andy would have tested positive for this as well (seeing as he was in yellow).

Also, can AC go down for this? They'd have to link it to a sudden change in his values wouldn't they?

Really ****ing me off that he's gonna go down and Schleck etc. are gonna be still there. I don't know why because I don't even like him more than anyone else.
That's how it works. It's how it's always worked. Luck is important, and just because not all criminals aren't caught that doesn't mean we should feel bad for the ones who are. Same with doping.

The idea is that this test is new and not yet approved. It can't be used against Contador, legally, but it sure as hell rings many alarm bells, especially when coupled with the whole clenbuterol story. Schleck was most likely tested for it, and he probably yielded results similar to Contador's, but it'll be just like with Armstrong's 1999 samples.
 
Jul 28, 2009
898
0
0
Visit site
DEHP/plasticizers

First of all we have no real evidence on this, no hard data. What has Seppelt got, no one knows. The figures bandied about, what are they? All metabolites? One metabolite? Which one? Of course UCI are keeping this under wraps because it is full of holes. Maybe the plasticizer story is a little like the initial use of blood values: grounds for suspicion but not conclusive. This is experimental, there is plenty of data in the literature on this and it doesn't necessarily support the use of this method. There is selective citing going on here as longdituidinal studies have shown large variations in metabolite values and high values in individuals not receiving IV medication. This will be a huge issue for application. It's too uncertain which is why it was probably leaked by someone not familiar with the science. Pretty unethical. There are many other potential sources of exposure to DEHP which are far more credible than the defence about clenbuterol.

Clenbuterol

To me this just seems like analytical technology leaping ahead of enforcement. Who knows what these trivial amounts really mean. They could legitimately be from environmental exposure of some kind. I would have thought AC would have been on a more sophisticated program.
 

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
0
0
Visit site
bommels said:
Let's remind ourselves that Contador tested positive for Clenbuterol first. Since the quantities of the banned substance were minute, the (one of the many) official stance(s) was to use science to get a better understanding of how the Clenbuterol got into his system. That opened the possibility to use the plasticizer test, possibly amongst others.

As has been said many times here, you can't get caught using a non-validated test. And plasticizers are not on the list of banned substances either.

Nonetheless am I looking forward to the next explanation Contador will bring to the table. I like the plastic meat wrapper theory, but I think he can do better :)

Really where have you heard that this test was done, only after the Clen bust. I have read, nor heard anything of the sort.