• 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 8 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Mar 11, 2009
5,841
3
0
Visit site
Anyone who thinks Contador is being specially targeted by this plasticiser test is crazy, stupid or both. They are trailing this test right now, I guarantee you they ran it on every single sample they had. They probably found several other riders with plasticiser in their blood, but the test isn't WADA-approved yet so they haven't said anything. The only reason the results of Contador's plasticiser tests leaked out were because he was caught for the Clen, so reporters were digging.

The labs are always ahead of the WADA list for testing. Lab directors very rarely give interview, but when they do and are asked about what they think the state of the peloton is they almost always say 'we know that there are a lot of dopers but the things we are catching them for are not banned yet'.
 
It is said the the plasticisers found, "could" be indicative of blood transfusions or blood doping. I am correct in my understanding that this is not certain? If this indeed not certain wouldn't it be more correct to either not mention blood doping as possible cause at all or mention some or all other explanations that "could" explain the presence of the plasticisers in his urine or blood samples (if there such explantions possible). Right now by ginving only one possible reason, the reader is invroted to jump to conclusions.

Regards
GJ
 
GJB123 said:
It is said the the plasticisers found, "could" be indicative of blood transfusions or blood doping. I am correct in my understanding that this is not certain? If this indeed not certain wouldn't it be more correct to either not mention blood doping as possible cause at all or mention some or all other explanations that "could" explain the presence of the plasticisers in his urine or blood samples (if there such explantions possible). Right now by ginving only one possible reason, the reader is invroted to jump to conclusions.

Regards
GJ
It's journalist talk. "Could" means "I'm 99% sure of this, but just in case, don't sue me".
 
Oct 16, 2009
3,864
0
0
Visit site
When you look at Contador/Schleck's wattages that Cozy Beehive calculated for the Tourmalet (http://cozybeehive.blogspot.com/2010/07/tour-de-france-stage-17-col-du.html), it definitely makes sense that Contador (and Schleck) refueled before that stage. 6.0 W/kg on the last mountain stage of the Tour doesn't exactly scream, "Clean!", does it? Of coure, at the time people were calling it the cleanest and slowest Tour in years, but I never really bought into that. Sure, they weren't going Pantani-fast, but if "cleaner" means "only blood doping a little bit", then it doesn't really mean anything.
 
Unless there is a marker placed in the Transfusion Bag material, and that practice is mandatory globally, it will be impossible to prove anything based on plastic compounds being found in blood/urine samples.

I work with packaging materials; the DEHP compound will leach off of any PVC material if the PVC bonds are broken. PVC is used very frequently in food applications, either with the container or the label or both. Gels, and bars are probably wrapped with PVC material as it metalizes well for light blocking functions, and is a good barrier for outside contamination. If you ingest a piece of the wrapper when rushing to eat a bar or gel, DEHP may show up in your urine. (Not being a chemist I don't know how the material will break down in the digestive system.) There are too many variables to not find a defense for the DEHP presence as plastic materials are everywhere in our lives, including PVC.

My two cents.
 
Barrus said:
Really where have you heard that this test was done, only after the Clen bust. I have read, nor heard anything of the sort.

ARD and now the NYT has reported that he failed the plasiticiser test first, the day before the failed clen test. To the poster you commented on, this test does not need to be validated to use in conjunction with other information, it only needs to be validated to use as a stand alone. I call this strike two.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/sports/cycling/05cycling.html?_r=2&src=me
 

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
0
0
Visit site
US Patent Exploding Cyclist said:
Unless there is a marker placed in the Transfusion Bag material, and that practice is mandatory globally, it will be impossible to prove anything based on plastic compounds being found in blood/urine samples.

I work with packaging materials; the DEHP compound will leach off of any PVC material if the PVC bonds are broken. PVC is used very frequently in food applications, either with the container or the label or both. Gels, and bars are probably wrapped with PVC material as it metalizes well for light blocking functions, and is a good barrier for outside contamination. If you ingest a piece of the wrapper when rushing to eat a bar or gel, DEHP may show up in your urine. (Not being a chemist I don't know how the material will break down in the digestive system.) There are too many variables to not find a defense for the DEHP presence as plastic materials are everywhere in our lives, including PVC.

My two cents.
This would not explain the sudden rise and drop in DEHP markers.

But I have one question, just a general one, not directed to you, but just because I am a bit confused, in the case of consumption of Clen the positive would not show until the next day. However when put directly into the blood stream, would the positive for Clen need not to be on the same day as the increase in plasticizers? As these two "positives" were a day after each other.
 
JRTinMA said:
ARD and now the NYT has reported that he failed the plasiticiser test first, the day before the failed clen test. To the poster you commented on, this test does not need to be validated to use in conjunction with other information, it only needs to be validated to use as a stand alone. I call this strike two.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/sports/cycling/05cycling.html?_r=2&src=me

Unfortunately, we know that the UCI's cash cows get at least six or seven (depending on who's telling the story) strikes before they're in any danger. Most likely more.

I'm looking forward to more digging from the press.
 
Tyler'sTwin said:
... That's roughly 5 times more than the highest value recorded in any member of the control group and even higher than the highest value in any "hospitalized patient exposed to different medical treatments involving plastic materials (catheters, infusion sets, tubes, parenteral nutrition, etc.)". It's also more than twice as high as the average in patients receiving transfusions.

But doesn't this actually then indicate that Conti DEHP was due to something else than a transfusion? As the above seems to indicate that his levels would have been way less elevated if he had simply transfused?

El Pistolero said:
...
Take Schleck out and what do you get? Domination by Contador.
...

Ehrm... Or "Leave Schleck in and you still have domination by Conti"

Barrus said:
... But I have one question, just a general one, not directed to you, but just because I am a bit confused, in the case of consumption of Clen the positive would not show until the next day. However when put directly into the blood stream, would the positive for Clen need not to be on the same day as the increase in plasticizers? As these two "positives" were a day after each other.

I'm not sure I'm following you, but is your question: "If contador DOPED with Clen, wouldn't appear earlier as it was going directly to the blood?". Interesting...
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
JRTinMA said:
ARD and now the NYT has reported that he failed the plasiticiser test first, the day before the failed clen test. To the poster you commented on, this test does not need to be validated to use in conjunction with other information, it only needs to be validated to use as a stand alone. I call this strike two.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/sports/cycling/05cycling.html?_r=2&src=me
was there anything in the nyt article that was NOT in the earlier europen reports ? looks the same to me...how could you call it a strike 2 if the conclusions are based on the same old info ?
 
python said:
was there anything in the nyt article that was NOT in the earlier europen reports ? looks the same to me...how could you call it a strike 2 if the conclusions are based on the same old info ?

The data is from ARD and while not specifically stated I assume NYT received there information from ARD. As far as the 2 strike reference, my mistake since its a very american game and there may not be a need for a third strike as the plasticiser test can be used as evidence against the lil' doper.

In summary:

Strike 1 = Clen +
Strike 2 = Plasticiser 8 times normal.
Strike 3 = ?

I may call strike three the incessant need to keep talking like a guilty doper. The innocent shut up and wait.
 

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
0
0
Visit site
JPM London said:
I'm not sure I'm following you, but is your question: "If contador DOPED with Clen, wouldn't appear earlier as it was going directly to the blood?". Interesting...
If the Clen came from a contaminated blood bag, would the Clen and the plasticizer not show up in one and the same sample, instead of showing up on two different days.

Because I know if Clen is consumed it does not show up until the next day, but I don't know if this is the case when it is put directly into the blood stream
 
Barrus said:
If the Clen came from a contaminated blood bag, would the Clen and the plasticizer not show up in one and the same sample, instead of showing up on two different days.

Because I know if Clen is consumed it does not show up until the next day, but I don't know if this is the case when it is put directly into the blood stream

Ah, I get you now. Well, the Clen was found in the urine, right? So it would still have to go from the blood to the urine I guess. Interesting theory, but I don't think it holds water...
 
Jul 3, 2010
82
0
0
Visit site
Barrus said:
If the Clen came from a contaminated blood bag, would the Clen and the plasticizer not show up in one and the same sample, instead of showing up on two different days.

Because I know if Clen is consumed it does not show up until the next day, but I don't know if this is the case when it is put directly into the blood stream

multiple smaller bags that are easier to conceal?
 

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
0
0
Visit site
JPM London said:
Ah, I get you now. Well, the Clen was found in the urine, right? So it would still have to go from the blood to the urine I guess. Interesting theory, but I don't think it holds water...

But the DEHP was also found in the urine, as the DEHP test is based on urine samples.

I'm not saying that it is one way or the other, but I really wonder if the two really are connected, and the main question I have with that is this question. Especially as he only appeared to have been refilling on the 20th.

Another question I have, what is the benefit of refilling the day before the rest day, over refilling on the rest day itself? One would presume that there would be a lot more time and opportunity on the rest day, yet Contador choose to do it the day before the rest day.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
JRTinMA said:
The data is from ARD and while not specifically stated I assume NYT received there information from ARD. As far as the 2 strike reference, my mistake since its a very american game and there may not be a need for a third strike as the plasticiser test can be used as evidence against the lil' doper.

In summary:

Strike 1 = Clen +
Strike 2 = Plasticiser 8 times normal.
Strike 3 = ?

I may call strike three the incessant need to keep talking like a guilty doper. The innocent shut up and wait.
but that's where the weakness of your strike theory is.

Strike 1= measured steak or clen doping ?
Strike 2= unvalidated method used to discern if strike 1 ever occurred.

if it was that simple, why would wada and the uci sit on it for 2 months ?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Barrus said:
But the DEHP was also found in the urine, as the DEHP test is based on urine samples.

I'm not saying that it is one way or the other, but I really wonder if the two really are connected, and the main question I have with that is this question. Especially as he only appeared to have been refilling on the 20th.

Another question I have, what is the benefit of refilling the day before the rest day, over refilling on the rest day itself? One would presume that there would be a lot more time and opportunity on the rest day, yet Contador choose to do it the day before the rest day.

I think the plasticizer test being negative for clen actually points towards the clen genuinly coming from meat etc and not from a transfusion/doping.
 

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
0
0
Visit site
TeamSkyFans said:
I think the plasticizer test being negative for clen actually points towards the clen genuinly coming from meat etc and not from a transfusion/doping.

That was exactly the reason why I asked my question. ;)
 
python said:
but that's where the weakness of your strike theory is.

Strike 1= measured steak or clen doping ?
Strike 2= unvalidated method used to discern if strike 1 ever occurred.

if it was that simple, why would wada and the uci sit on it for 2 months ?

I know that the UCI tried to cover up the positive. Where is your evidence to implicate WADA? Are you saying they appeared to acquiesce so they covered it up or do you have hard facts or links?

He was positive for the plasticiser first as I read the stories, Im not exactly sure what that means but I know it contradicts your defense on strike 2. My theory may be weak but its not as weak as your defense in terms of the rules on doping. No hard facts need to be presented, he can be suspended on the appearance of doping. This is only an issue because Pharmador is a favorite of the UCI, Fuyu Li never had a chance and he was guilty of less.
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
Visit site
JRTinMA said:
I know that the UCI tried to cover up the positive. Where is your evidence to implicate WADA? Are you saying they appeared to acquiesce so they covered it up or do you have hard facts or links?

He was positive for the plasticiser first as I read the stories, Im not exactly sure what that means but I know it contradicts your defense on strike 2. My theory may be weak but its not as weak as your defense in terms of the rules on doping. No hard facts need to be presented, he can be suspended on the appearance of doping. This is only an issue because Pharmador is a favorite of the UCI, Fuyu Li never had a chance and he was guilty of less.
you got it all upsidedown.

wada and the uci sitting on itfor 2 month = working together on uncovering a problem for a long time. if i implicated wada, i meant it helping the uci.

regardless of when he tested for a plasticizer, it can not be used for sanctioning -- read the articles again - by an unvalidated test.

therefore, it can only be used as a rough yardstick to discern if clen got into the system via a food contamination or blood doping.

Again, it's not that simple if wada and the uci can't settle it for months.
 
Some of these questions have been addressed here before. A link was provided to a scientist who said that CB is cleared more slowly from the circulation than DEHP, which might explain why the DEHP test showed elevated values a day before CB showed up. Let me add that most CB is bound to proteins in the circulation, which might also *** (relative to DEHP) its clearance, though that is speculation on my part.

The essential point is that it can't be assumed that two different substances will be cleared at the same rate. Remember that even AC's highest CB value was not much above detectability. He might have had some CB in his urine on 7/20, but below detectable levels.

Those who keep asking about plasticizer presence in water bottles, food wrappings, and other substances a non-transfuser would encounter need to look at the published study linked previously. It's only one study, but shows very clearly that a majority of transfusers have metabolite levels in urine that are far above what ANY controls have.

The 480 ng/ml value reported for the DEHP test is well within the range of what was reported for transfusers in a published study. The internet video in which this value is shown in a graph also shows another value at about 200 ng/ml, which I assume is a second DEHP metabolite (I don't understand the language spoken, so I can't follow what they say in the video). This again is consistent with the published study. The only thing a little surprising to me about these data is that on the following day (7/21), both values fall to control levels or so, 25-50 ng/ml. In the published study, the metabolite values were still somewhat elevated after 48 hours. But the spike is certainly suggestive.
 

mastersracer

BANNED
Jun 8, 2010
1,298
0
0
Visit site
there's allegations that Contador was being scrutinized for suspicious biopassport values. The plasticizer test will be another piece of evidence against Contador. This will end up before CAS - Howman sounds like he is already preparing for this with his mention that the plasticizer test can be used before a tribunal.
 
python said:
you got it all upsidedown.

wada and the uci sitting on itfor 2 month = working together on uncovering a problem for a long time. if i implicated wada, i meant it helping the uci.

regardless of when he tested for a plasticizer, it can not be used for sanctioning -- read the articles again - by an unvalidated test.

therefore, it can only be used as a rough yardstick to discern if clen got into the system via a food contamination or blood doping.

Again, it's not that simple if wada and the uci can't settle it for months.

You call it a rough yardstick, WADA lab chief says it can be used to build a case even if its not an approved method, I don't think that is a rough yardstick but time will tell. I'm curious, are you a Conti fan or just sifting through the facts. For the record, I don't care if you are, whenever I see fanboy tossed out in this forum in regards to anybody I see a limp **** forum troll with no game so I'm not trying to paint you with that dumb moniker, just curious.