I believe these stats refer to testing of live cattle, not meat from slaughtered cattle. If the numbers in the last sentence refer to just Castilla y Leon, then they are definitely live cattle stats, not meat, and are not relevant to the probability of contaminated meat. OTOH, if they refer to all of Spain, they don’t support the 0.0065 % conclusion. IIRC, there are approximately 8 million cattle in Spain, so an average of less than one positive a year indicates that one in a million is more likely an overestimate, not an underestimate, of the probability.
But even if we do accept a probability of one in seventeen thousand, that is still in the range of effectively impossible. Where a number like that might come into play is if a large number of cyclists were tested using the sensitive equipment, and only Bert tested positive. Then you might be able to build a case. While the probability of a lone individual being positive is one in 17,000, the probability of one individual in a group testing positive—assuming each member of the group ate meat from a different source--could come into a more plausible range, if the group were large enough. Say, one in a thousand, or even one in several hundred. But I still don’t believe this number stacks up well against the transfusion scenario.
Again, if the samples are taken at random—and I think the burden of proof on Bert to show that they aren’t, IOW, that that governmental branch is acting incompetently—there is not that much volatility. We are talking of a standard error of roughly 5%, though any % of zero is still zero. Last year I furnished some calculations making various assumptions. With a sample of that size, the error simply is not large enough to change the general conclusion that the possibility of contaminated meat is extremely low.
I keep harping on political polls. In the U.S., look at the Obama vs. Romney numbers. They are based on a poll of just a few hundred voters, out of a population of I guess nearly two hundred million adults, spread across an enormous country that features huge variations in local culture and political leanings--but they don’t change that much over time. E.g., you don’t see 50-50 one week, and 75-25 the next week. And that’s despite the fact that there are many other factors definitely working to add volatility to the situation, that every day both men are doing things that will affect the opinion of voters. The numbers remain relatively stable over time because the sampling process does in fact have a relatively small error.
IMO, that’s Bert’s problem, not WADA’s. Most of the hard science speaks to low probability of contamination, rather than to the probability of transfusion. This is mostly because, as I said, transfusion is quite possible, how likely it is revolves around asking whether Bert would actually do it—IOW getting into his head, which is something WADA/UCI or CAS are not supposed to do. It's not their job to furnish an estimate of the probability that Bert would risk something like this. In fact, if you look at some of the things dopers do—Ricco’s botched transfusion; setting up a special alarm clock to wake up in the middle of the night when your EPO-raised HT is about to cause a heart attack; inserting a tube in the urinary tract in order to **** out someone else’s clean urine—it’s obviously very dangerous to assume any drug or procedure that will provide PE will not be seriously entertained by an athlete.
The main science relevant to this issue is based on the frequency of his tests at various times during the year, which could provide an estimate of how easily he could get away with the various steps, particularly taking fairly large doses of CB for at least several days, without getting caught. IMO, if he could show that he had a fairly narrow window at all times that would be a big help.
The problem here is that he has to take CB in large doses over an extended period of time. He would only have to take it 3-4 days to reach the levels in his urine assuming withdrawal/transfusion, but probably longer if it was going to help him lose weight. At least a week, maybe two weeks. Following that, the drug would be in his system at a level detectable even by the relatively insensitive equipment for probably at least a week. So he has to be test-free for probably at least 2-3 weeks, and—inevitably bringing in psychological factors—he has to be tested infrequently enough so that he would believe he could be test free for this period of time. For example, if he were tested randomly, on average, once every two weeks, he would be a fool to try this, even if, in principle, he might get away with it. I think this is one area where psychological factors are helpful and should be considered. Even if there is a long history of very foolish athletes.
How often was he tested in the offseason? I don’t know, but I think it’s very relevant to this question, and it seems to me this is the weakest link in the transfusion scenario, not any of the following steps.
Withdrawal of blood would trigger changes detectable in the passport, but these could be avoided if the withdrawal were immediately countered with transfusion of previously stored blood. Failing that, keeping the withdrawal small, and repeating it several times, would likely keep him under the radar.
Separation of cells and plasma is known to be used by riders who have the financial means to do this. As I discussed earlier, freeze-drying of plasma has a long history, going back to WW II, and would reduce storage/transportation problems, while avoiding (even assuming he didn’t realize this was a benefit) the exposure of the plasma to DEHP.
Transfusion of cells of course is known to be used by many riders. Passport abnormalities are avoided by using small amounts of EPO to counter the natural suppression of reticulocyte synthesis, and by infusing fluid to lower the HT. If one is going to transfuse fluid, might as well add the plasma salts to it, as they may have a small PE effect, and in any case will maintain these substances at their natural levels in the blood.
). 
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram