I responded to Scott’s question about plasticizer testing on another thread, but will do it again here. I believe there are no plans to develop the test, because DEHP-free blood bags are available, and now that the secret is out, riders will use them. There are also questions about false positives, though they seem to be pretty infrequent.
A test of one of LA’s stored samples, though, could be done, if he has any. Python, I think, might know if there are any stored samples from the years beyond 1999. The main problem is that DEHP levels fall rapidly back to baseline, within about forty-eight hours. So you would need a urine sample within that time frame. A pre-Tour transfusion, for example, almost certainly would not be caught. The best chance would be if LA transfused on a TDF rest day (just as many of us think Contador did), and then won the following stage, and/or was in yellow. Someone interested and with some spare time might go back and check how many times LA was in this window during his Tour reign, or I might get around to it. Then we could zero in on the samples—if there are any remaining—that would be mostly likely to test positive. If, as strip(title)-tease RR has hinted, there was a positive in 04 or 05, maybe it was for DEHP?
Tests for autologous blood doping, based on changes in older cells or in other markers, are under way, but there is none that has been accepted yet. Not sure what JV was referring to, but it might just be the same thing Ferrari told LA, that if you elevate levels of your natural EPO, it will make it more difficult to test positive for synthetic. Maybe someone can ask JV if he meant something else.
A key question I’d like to see answered, but probably won’t be (completely), is how much of an advantage LA had over others in the peloton due to a better doping program. Tyler’s remarks on 60m implied that everyone was doing basically the same thing, but it seems that in his book he suggests LA did have at least a subtle advantage. In her
brief review of his book, Bonnie Ford says:
But this raises another question for me. The stories coming out now suggest he had protection at multiple levels: 1) teammates acting as sentries to warn if testers showed up. 2) testers allowing him time after they showed up; 3) officials calling off a raid; and 4) a positive covered up. If he could be sure of having protection at higher levels—having raids called off or getting positives dismissed—he wouldn’t have to worry about testers showing up, or for that matter taking care to dope in a way that would not test positive. So why all the care at the lower levels? Could he not be certain of getting help from UCI (Tyler's telling of the TdS positive, as it has been reported, suggests LA was initially worried that he had tested positive)? Did UCI tell him they would bail out his a— once in a while, but that they couldn’t do it very often?
Was it just typical LA attention to detail, building multiple barriers to testing positive, so if one failed another would work?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram