• 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 9 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Barrus said:
Fuyu Li is still not officialy sanctioned.

Call it what you like but he has been suspended for nine months and he can't earn a living in his trade. He has been swept under the rug and conveniently forgotten by all until Pharmador tripped his positive. Even JB gave a sign of support for Conti, he didn't do that for Fuyu Li.
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
3
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.

Different kinetics. Basically, I see two interesting questions asked here:

1) Why refill the day before the rest day:

A: because it takes about 1 day for the body to adjust to the refill.

2) Why did the DEHP metabolites appear in the urine one day before the Clen metabolites did appear?

A: because of different kinetics. DEHP is 'processed' by the body in a matter of hours, Clen takes about 24-36 h. In fact, it will bind for a little while which causes somewhat of a delay before it is processed.

In fact, the exact pattern of when which test showed the precise values it did supports the theory that all of it came from one refill the day before the rest day IMHO.

And to Barrus in particular: the DEHP test results were not published by the UCI. They were leaked just like the Clen results. The lab wasn't unethical or sloppy or whatnot. You can say the person who leaked the stuff was unethical, but the lab likely sent all the results to the UCI in strict confidentiality. What happens when the lab results have left the lab cannot be blamed on the lab. I just wish unfounded accusations against these labs would stop.
 

Barrus

BANNED
Apr 28, 2010
3,480
0
0
Visit site
Cobblestones said:
Different kinetics. Basically, I see two interesting questions asked here:

1) Why refill the day before the rest day:

A: because it takes about 1 day for the body to adjust to the refill.

2) Why did the DEHP metabolites appear in the urine one day before the Clen metabolites did appear?

A: because of different kinetics. DEHP is 'processed' by the body in a matter of hours, Clen takes about 24-36 h. In fact, it will bind for a little while which causes somewhat of a delay before it is processed.

In fact, the exact pattern of when which test showed the precise values it did supports the theory that all of it came from one refill the day before the rest day IMHO.

And to Barrus in particular: the DEHP test results were not published by the UCI. They were leaked just like the Clen results. The lab wasn't unethical or sloppy or whatnot. You can say the person who leaked the stuff was unethical, but the lab likely sent all the results to the UCI in strict confidentiality. What happens when the lab results have left the lab cannot be blamed on the lab. I just wish unfounded accusations against these labs would stop.

Great to know the answers. But about the second question, I want to know one thing, does it differ whether the Clen is digested, due to for example contaminated meat, and injected due to contaminated blood. I ask this because the 24 - 36 hour thing is also what I read as being the time it takes for Clen to be processed from the moment that contaminated meat is consumed.

And to the latter, I still see that if the lab results were sent to the UCI, including the results for the DEHP test, an unsanctioned test, as far as we know, as a thing that should not have happened. But I can see where you are coming from, and perhaps my criteria are too strict, as I have explained earlier. I also don't think the lab itself was the leak. I did not really wish to accuse the lab, but perhaps I do not always weigh my words so carefully on here, as I already need to do that the entire day through;)
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
3
0
Visit site
Barrus said:
Great to know the answers. But about the second question, I want to know one thing, does it differ whether the Clen is digested, due to for example contaminated meat, and injected due to contaminated blood. I ask this because the 24 - 36 hour thing is also what I read as being the time it takes for Clen to be processed from the moment that contaminated meat is consumed.

And to the latter, I still see that if the lab results were sent to the UCI, including the results for the DEHP test, an unsanctioned test, as far as we know, as a thing that should not have happened. But I can see where you are coming from, and perhaps my criteria are too strict, as I have explained earlier. I also don't think the lab itself was the leak. I did not really wish to accuse the lab, but perhaps I do not always weigh my words so carefully on here, as I already need to do that the entire day through;)

The answer to the first question is 'bioavailability'. With IV, this is 100%. Ingested, it depends on absorption etc.

Anyway, I tried to look up the pharmacokinetics of clenbuterol, but the only journal articles I found so far which discuss this (in animals), are investigations with a multi-day (often 3-4 weeks) regime of clenbuterol intake. I haven't seen anything about a single (IV) intake. There might be a difference due to saturation which probably doesn't play a role here due to the low dose. Generally, any IV drug would first redistribute to different tissues/organs (alpha phase half life) then, when it is in equilibrium, the actual metabolism would kick in (beta phase half life). The alpha phase half life is, I think, in the order of several hours for clen. The metabolism rate would depend on clearance and blood flow which gives a typical half life of maybe 1.5 days. But remember that this is a very simple model for pharmacokinetics. There might be other effects than a simple redistribution as modeled by t1/2 alpha.

ETA: about the second question: have you considered that the UCI might request the results of all tests, including the one on phthalate metabolites?
 
Cobble, see this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4045696

Single dose and multi-dose in humans and other mammals.

Also, http://www.springerlink.com/content/dgyle827r90egu0r/

studies kinetics of DEHP, and indicates a much shorter half-life, even in the second phase. However, http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp9-c1-b.pdf

says that DEHP metabolism is slower when transfused than when taken orally. Overall, I think the evidence supports the conclusion that DEHP will appear in the urine sooner than CB.

Finally, I posted a link to a study in the Plasticizer thread, in which a control group of 2500 subjects was tested for MEHP (DEHP metabolite) levels. The 50th percentile was only 3-5 ng/ml., and even the 95th percentile was only 25-30 ng/ml. Study looked at different ages and ethnic groups. Not a single one of the 2500, as far as I can see, had a value close to that reported for Bert.
 
webvan said:
Theory is picking up speed http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5...ping-case-plasticizer-levels-cited-again.aspx

Last I read the Contador brothers said the pasticizer bust was only a rumour, what now?

They presumably have samples from AC (yes the same initials as in Puerto...) for at least two days, hopefully more before and after, so what are plasticizer levels in these samples?

While I think the transfusion theory should be taken very seriously, the VN article is a joke. There is nothing new. It just reports the NYT, which finally got around to reporting the German lab results, which have been floating around for almost a week. Because the NYT reported it, it suddenly becomes serious news, when in fact all indications are that the NYT reporter knows nothing more than all of us knew several days ago.

This is a classic example of a news story reported by another news medium as a news story.
 
Jun 16, 2009
60
0
0
Visit site
Question...

I didn't read every post in detail in this thread, so this may have been discussed already. To me there seems to be a significant hole in the clenbuterol theory. First, if he took it during the race, the levels should be much higher. Second, why would there be clenbuterol in blood pulled for auto-transfusion. You pull the blood while out of competition. The only reason to have clenbuterol on board is for a boost in competition. Lastly, aren't there indicies for reticulocyte damage that indicate autologous transfusion? Confused. :confused:

M
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
3
0
Visit site
Merckx index said:
Cobble, see this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4045696

Single dose and multi-dose in humans and other mammals.

Also, http://www.springerlink.com/content/dgyle827r90egu0r/

studies kinetics of DEHP, and indicates a much shorter half-life, even in the second phase. However, http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp9-c1-b.pdf

says that DEHP metabolism is slower when transfused than when taken orally. Overall, I think the evidence supports the conclusion that DEHP will appear in the urine sooner than CB.

Finally, I posted a link to a study in the Plasticizer thread, in which a control group of 2500 subjects was tested for MEHP (DEHP metabolite) levels. The 50th percentile was only 3-5 ng/ml., and even the 95th percentile was only 25-30 ng/ml. Study looked at different ages and ethnic groups. Not a single one of the 2500, as far as I can see, had a value close to that reported for Bert.

Ok, I looked at the stuff. The first one measures unmetabolized clen in the urine. It's relevant because it gives us an idea about kinetics, but it's not precisely the same as looking at the metabolites which depends on clearance and blood flow.

Both the first and second article have clen administered orally, so the early (slow) increase might be due to bioavailability which shouldn't be an issue for IV, not necessarily due to binding to some receptor (for instance). The second article talks about an absorption and distribution phase of 4-8 hours, which basically mixes bioavailability with t1/2 alpha if I understand it correctly.

Now, the doses which were investigated were rather large doses compared to what you'd get from a 1 pint refill bag. Maybe very small doses like that tend to bind for a while to some receptor before they get released. With larger doses such receptors might become saturated? It would be a way how to explain the delayed excretion of clen metabolites.
 
Apr 9, 2009
976
0
0
Visit site
eyemgh said:
I didn't read every post in detail in this thread, so this may have been discussed already. To me there seems to be a significant hole in the clenbuterol theory. First, if he took it during the race, the levels should be much higher. Second, why would there be clenbuterol in blood pulled for auto-transfusion. You pull the blood while out of competition. The only reason to have clenbuterol on board is for a boost in competition. Lastly, aren't there indicies for reticulocyte damage that indicate autologous transfusion? Confused. :confused:

M

On the last several points, clen has also been used for weight loss. Also, doping during training allows you to train/recover harder. Lastly, the biopassport was designed, in part, to detect autologous transfusions. There's no direct test for it. I've read that Contador's passport levels are "chaotic, but not not necessarily suspicious." Whatever that means.
 
Cobblestones said:
Ok, I looked at the stuff. The first one measures unmetabolized clen in the urine. It's relevant because it gives us an idea about kinetics, but it's not precisely the same as looking at the metabolites which depends on clearance and blood flow.

Both the first and second article have clen administered orally, so the early (slow) increase might be due to bioavailability which shouldn't be an issue for IV, not necessarily due to binding to some receptor (for instance). The second article talks about an absorption and distribution phase of 4-8 hours, which basically mixes bioavailability with t1/2 alpha if I understand it correctly.

Now, the doses which were investigated were rather large doses compared to what you'd get from a 1 pint refill bag. Maybe very small doses like that tend to bind for a while to some receptor before they get released. With larger doses such receptors might become saturated? It would be a way how to explain the delayed excretion of clen metabolites.

CB (clenbuterol) is what is measured in the test (isn't it??), so what I was concerned with is how quickly it gets into the urine. The fact that most of it is metabolized, and excreted as some other substance, isn't directly relevant to questions about when Bert tested positive for CB vs. when DEHP appeared in his urine.

When you refer to the "first and second article", I assume you are talking about DEHP, not CB, since my post only had one reference to a CB study. The other two were to DEHP studies.
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
3
0
Visit site
Merckx index said:
CB (clenbuterol) is what is measured in the test (isn't it??), so what I was concerned with is how quickly it gets into the urine. The fact that most of it is metabolized, and excreted as some other substance, isn't directly relevant to questions about when Bert tested positive for CB vs. when DEHP appeared in his urine.

When you refer to the "first and second article", I assume you are talking about DEHP, not CB, since my post only had one reference to a CB study. The other two were to DEHP studies.

Yes I talked about both the clen and phthalate stuff. The transfusion theory says that both chemicals entered the body via IV, while in the studies reported by the journal articles, the chemicals were administered orally.
 
Jul 28, 2009
898
0
0
Visit site
Merckx index said:
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.
Tut tut, that would be ANY controls in THAT particular study. To use the test to sanction anyone you would have to demonstrate that within reason the only possible source of this elevated level was transfusion. Thusfar it is not really clear that is the case at all from the population studies. BTW there are reviews which summarise the data from a bunch of large population studies on this. There much better at getting an overall picture rather than the US study you quote which seems to me to be at the bottom end of the reported levels.

Merckx index said:
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.
You know that we don't have anything solid to go on. We don't know what the 480 is actually for. Could be all DEHP metabolites combined. Could be the highest one, as far as I know it hasn't been specified. Personally, I would prefer to see something more solid otherwise all this speculating about levels, different metabolites, clearance rates is just wild flailing around in the dark.
 
rata de sentina said:
Tut tut, that would be ANY controls in THAT particular study. To use the test to sanction anyone you would have to demonstrate that within reason the only possible source of this elevated level was transfusion. Thusfar it is not really clear that is the case at all from the population studies. BTW there are reviews which summarise the data from a bunch of large population studies on this. There much better at getting an overall picture rather than the US study you quote which seems to me to be at the bottom end of the reported levels.

You know that we don't have anything solid to go on. We don't know what the 480 is actually for. Could be all DEHP metabolites combined. Could be the highest one, as far as I know it hasn't been specified. Personally, I would prefer to see something more solid otherwise all this speculating about levels, different metabolites, clearance rates is just wild flailing around in the dark.

I posted a link on the plasticizer thread. A study of 2500 subjects, none had levels of DEHP metabolites even close to what is reported for Bert. The median levels were 3-5 ng/ml, the highest in the adult group was about 40. All age groups were tested, ethnic groups, M/F, etc.

If you think the 480 ng/ml is a combined figure of several metabolites, you're the one flailing around (though even if it were, it would still be far above controls). Data are not reported like that. Yes, it is the highest one, and it is far higher than the controls. And it's not just that it's so high, but that it spikes, dropping dramatically the following day. While I agree with you that we need definite confirmation of these numbers--the accuracy of lab leaks can always be challenged--Dr. Segura, the lead author of the study showing that transfusion greatly increases the DEHP values, says the values reported by ARD definitely indicate transfusion:

http://www.as.com/ciclismo/articulo...io-transfusion/dasclm/20101006dasdaicic_1/Tes
 
couldn't remember which thread had the "meat" discussion but the duplicity is increasing:

if the "meat was awful in France" why didn't he bring more, perhaps enough for the two meals used as the excuse and the Tourmalet recovery meal?

perhaps more importantly, where is the receipt with the name and location of the source?

Oct 6th 2010

“Astana demanded from me a receipt for everything and I gave it to them. Now everyone in the world is looking for this receipt. The receipt exists and Astana has it, and it will reappear if they want it to.”


“There’s nothing to hide. It was just a string of bad coincidences,” Olalla continued. “It was my responsibility to cook the food and the hotel denied us use of the kitchen. At the same time, I talked with (Cerrón) and told him I needed a few things and if he could bring me some steaks from Spain because the meat in France was awful. This is what happened and it’s been a string of coincidences that have led to all this.”

http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/10/news/cook-confirms-contadors-rest-day-steaks-came-from-spain_145108

but, previously and translated from the spanish:

7/23/2010

"Yesterday went to market and bought Pau beef tenderloin, baked potatoes and pasta making, nearly 500 grams per person. Culminated in a salad: "It is the ideal meal to recover from the battle of the Tourmalet. Have been as new."

http://www.sport.es/default.asp?idpublicacio_PK=44&idioma=CAS&idtipusrecurs_PK=7&idnoticia_PK=722519

They forgot the rule... "Loose Lips, Sink Ships" Say Nothing.
 
Mar 10, 2009
53
0
0
Visit site
Contador's brother says:

Contador’s brother and agent Fran Contador has denied suggestions of doping “There is not even the remotest possibility of speaking of blood manipulation because Alberto has not done anything illegal, neither in the Tour or ever," he told Cadena Ser radio on Tuesday. "We have absolutely nothing to hide.”

Read more: http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5...d-US-Postal-doping-enquiry.aspx#ixzz11iuIO54p

Well if Contador has done just the same as he has done in the past Fran Contador clarifies the question - Contador doped this time as well.