Plasticizer test

[clashb02]

What level of plasticizers get into the blood from, say, a saline drip used for rehydration? Could it not be argued that plasticizers came from the packages of food or drink consumed? Those are just a couple of the arguments I can think might be used to challenge the plasticizers results. I know that they said it might just be supplemental to other tests, but this test seems fraught with potential legal challenges already. Not to mention, people will just use different blood storage methods, like glass containers, that may be less convenient but equally effective.

 

[Barrus]

Could it not be argued that plasticizers came from the packages of food or drink consumed?

No, in the case of such a test the levels that would indicate the use of an infusion would be far greater than any level that could be attained from packages. To paraphrase, the riders would need to eat all the packages of their food and drink in order to come close to the level that is indicative of a transfusion or some other infusion

What level of plasticizers get into the blood from, say, a saline drip used for rehydration?

Probably quite similar to a case of a blood transfusion, however any such instance is banned by anti-doping rules, so it does not matter what the origin is of the plasticizer, either a saline drip or a blood transfusion

 

[Ferminal]

Check out this thread, there are summaries of the key academic studies:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=11770

Even if you use IV saline (which is banned anyway) the spike would not be close to that of a blood transfusion.

In any case, it's unlikely the test will ever be used as an absolute positive, so we should think of it more like a passport value, rather than a test for a banned substance (EPO etc).

 

[Barrus]

Check out this thread, there are summaries of the key academic studies:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=11770

Even if you use IV saline (which is banned anyway) the spike would not be close to that of a blood transfusion.

In any case, it's unlikely the test will ever be used as an absolute positive, so we should think of it more like a passport value, rather than a test for a banned substance (EPO etc).

Yeah, I was searching for that thread, but could not find it

 

[Zweistein]

As much as I hate doping, there isn't enough to really get someone on plastic being in the blood. There isn't enough data on the general pop. to to know the source. Trying to stick someone on something like this doesn't help UCI or WADA or whoever it is. It would be like if a cop pulled you over for speeding but didn't have his radar gun on and then proceeded to try to write you for a speeding ticket based on the difference in temperature of your engine block to ambient air with oil level and coolant taken into account. Yeah, in lab you could develop some type of correlation but there are a lot of factors that could influence it outside of speeding.

 

[zigmeister]

As much as I hate doping, there isn't enough to really get someone on plastic being in the blood. There isn't enough data on the general pop. to to know the source. Trying to stick someone on something like this doesn't help UCI or WADA or whoever it is. It would be like if a cop pulled you over for speeding but didn't have his radar gun on and then proceeded to try to write you for a speeding ticket based on the difference in temperature of your engine block to ambient air with oil level and coolant taken into account. Yeah, in lab you could develop some type of correlation but there are a lot of factors that could influence it outside of speeding.

I agree with your one point regarding the data isn't enough. The company/researchers developing the test and doing the study later in the year still say it isn't 100% proof somebody did transfuse. It is just part of a bigger picture possibly to indicate as part of the fingerprint/profiling they are doing now to give indication somebody "might" be suspect of doing it.

As far as the police analogy, they can "pace" you without a radar/laser gun, or if it even "seems" like you are speeding without pacing, they can write a ticket.

Whether it holds up in a court of law is another issue, but it doesn't prohibit them from writing a ticket if they feel like it. Same thing for the UCI and the testing, if they think it is indicative and they have enough evidence, they can issue a notification of possible ban of doping. Then the rider has to fight it out through hearings and proceedings to deny it.

 

[brianf7]

What level of plasticizers get into the blood from, say, a saline drip used for rehydration? Could it not be argued that plasticizers came from the packages of food or drink consumed? Those are just a couple of the arguments I can think might be used to challenge the plasticizers results. I know that they said it might just be supplemental to other tests, but this test seems fraught with potential legal challenges already. Not to mention, people will just use different blood storage methods, like glass containers, that may be less convenient but equally effective.

Any plasticizers eaten would not pass cleavage in the stomach even if you eat the whole bag stomach digestive acids would eliminate it .

In order that plasticizers can be found in blood they need to be introvenous.

 

[Mambo95]

What level of plasticizers get into the blood from, say, a saline drip used for rehydration? Could it not be argued that plasticizers came from the packages of food or drink consumed? Those are just a couple of the arguments I can think might be used to challenge the plasticizers results. I know that they said it might just be supplemental to other tests, but this test seems fraught with potential legal challenges already. Not to mention, people will just use different blood storage methods, like glass containers, that may be less convenient but equally effective.

You may well be right. I imagine right now there are people who have working on this test for a couple of years who have just read your post. There is now panic as they're shouting "Hey, guys. There's this guy on the internet who says that there's plastic in other things, too. Why the hell didn't we think of that!"

 

[racer-x]

glass?

Not to be overly cynical here, but won't they just start using good old fashioned glass storage vessels? I'm sure it would be a small hassle, but certainly not more trouble than sneaking in a transfusion in the first place.

 

[danjo007]

but in alberto's case. the cow was on a drip cause it felt ill from all that clen it ate.... hence the plasticizer and clen.

 

[Merckx index]

As much as I hate doping, there isn't enough to really get someone on plastic being in the blood. There isn't enough data on the general pop. to to know the source. Trying to stick someone on something like this doesn't help UCI or WADA or whoever it is. It would be like if a cop pulled you over for speeding but didn't have his radar gun on and then proceeded to try to write you for a speeding ticket based on the difference in temperature of your engine block to ambient air with oil level and coolant taken into account. Yeah, in lab you could develop some type of correlation but there are a lot of factors that could influence it outside of speeding.

This simply isn't true. There is an enormous amount of data on the general population, I posted some links on these studies a long time ago. An individual who hasn't transfused generally has about 10% the levels or less of a transfuser, and the standard deviation is quite small. The main problem is that levels following transfusion vary enormously, and drop very quickly after forty-eight hours, so there would be a lot of false negatives.

Not to be overly cynical here, but won't they just start using good old fashioned glass storage vessels? I'm sure it would be a small hassle, but certainly not more trouble than sneaking in a transfusion in the first place.

Again, it's all been discussed before. There are in fact DEHP-free blood bags available.

 

[Special_oz_ed]

Check out Ferminal's link and Ferminal's post in that linked thread. It is the most sensible and balanced consideration I've read.

As for many others, they simply haven't a clue. First, DEHP is absolutely everywhere - has been for decades. Only recently has there been significant attempts to curb its usage in industry. Second, DEHP can make it into your system at reasonable concentrations via a variety of means. IV bags are just one (though, the higher the concentration of DEHP metabolites, the greater the suspicion that IV bags were used - but it's not anywhere near conclusive). Food, indoor air quality, even PVC breathing tubes that might be used to deliver oxygen or to test things like VO2 max levels can increase levels of DEHP in the body via lungs (do they use PVC breathing tubes for measuring VO2 max?). Third, I have a chemistry degree, so know a little about the widespread use of DEHP/plasticizers and the detection of them; but even then, I may be wrong, so I'm happy to be shown where I am wrong.

See pages 12 and following of http://sustainableproduction.org/downloads/DEHP Full Text.pdf (accessed April 21 2011) for more information about the relative rates of exposure to DEHP.

As for Merckx index's point about general population have 10% of levels of DEHP metabolites compared with transfused patients, there is some truth to that. However, it depends on the area the sample is taken from and it assumes that a one-off (non-IV) high-level exposure to DEHP is not possible. Some industrial areas and people in specific workplaces have much higher levels - comparable or higher to transfused patients - of DEHP metabolites in their blood.

 

[rata de sentina]

In order that plasticizers can be found in blood they need to be introvenous.

You are incorrect.

 

[rata de sentina]

This simply isn't true. There is an enormous amount of data on the general population, I posted some links on these studies a long time ago. An individual who hasn't transfused generally has about 10% the levels or less of a transfuser, and the standard deviation is quite small. The main problem is that levels following transfusion vary enormously, and drop very quickly after forty-eight hours, so there would be a lot of false negatives.

This simply isn't true. There is an enormous amount of data on the general population, I posted some links on these studies ages ago in response to one of your typically giant and long-winded posts based on limited data. An individual who hasn't transfused generally has about 10% the levels or less of a transfuser not exposed to other sources of DEHP. The main problem is that there are other sources of DEHP so there would be a possibility of false positives. Have fun with Medline, it's your friend.

 

[Digger]

but in alberto's case. the cow was on a drip cause it felt ill from all that clen it ate.... hence the plasticizer and clen.

Class.

It really was amazing bad luck!!!! I just have visions of the cow in the field hooked up to a drip telling all the other cows 'I feel like sh**'.

 

[python]

a tempest in a teapot again...

i recall several threads where this too-little-too-late test was absolutely killed.

not a shred of news other than another lab is wasting resources on this limited use (if not downright useless) test.

how many stupid riders will transfuse from a plasticizer bag after the clinic and the media shouted DON'T.

if they fail the test they deserved it.

then they can tell the clinic it was really wrapping paper
(looking for my 'oh boy' smilie)

 

[ergmonkey]

Maybe Riccardo Ricco is stupid enough to store his blood in glass.

Otherwise, no, they won't start using glass storage containers.

 

[Merckx index]

As for Merckx index's point about general population have 10% of levels of DEHP metabolites compared with transfused patients, there is some truth to that. However, it depends on the area the sample is taken from and it assumes that a one-off (non-IV) high-level exposure to DEHP is not possible. Some industrial areas and people in specific workplaces have much higher levels - comparable or higher to transfused patients - of DEHP metabolites in their blood.

Can you provide a source for this statement? The studies I have seen of individuals in work areas where DEHP exposure is unusually high do have higher levels than the population at large, but nowhere near as high as levels following transfusion. Maybe 20-30% higher, not ten times higher.

There is one study that I posted a while back which reported that individuals can have fluctuations in DEHP metabolite levels that go as high as typically seen after transfusion. But that was a small study, used a different protocol for testing urine,and to the best of my knowledge has not been replicated. It could certainly be important if a DEHP test is in the works, but I have not seen other labs refer to it.

 

[Zweistein]

This simply isn't true. There is an enormous amount of data on the general population, I posted some links on these studies a long time ago. An individual who hasn't transfused generally has about 10% the levels or less of a transfuser, and the standard deviation is quite small. The main problem is that levels following transfusion vary enormously, and drop very quickly after forty-eight hours, so there would be a lot of false negatives.



Again, it's all been discussed before. There are in fact DEHP-free blood bags available.

When you use words like generally and usually, you don't have clear cut guidelines as to what a positive is. Being 98% sure is not a 100% sure and you are playing with people's careers.

Furthermore, anytime spent on trying to develop a true plastics test will be a complete waste of time. There are close to an infinite number of things you can store blood in. Switching to a different material requires no great effort. Efforts towards a means of detecting an infusion (watching the blood parameters) would be infinitely superior to developing a silly test to detect if something was injected was stored in a certain container.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

That all depends on whether or not one expects to be able to use the test as a single test to prove a transfusion. And as has been said before, while it would probably work, it's not accurate enough for WADA or anyone else to adopt it.

It would be more practical, as has also been said before in this thread, and the other thread, to use such a test in conjunction with the bio-passport. If numerous samples came up "positive", it would likely point to obvious blood doping.

Having written that, the only way such a test is really going to work is if hundreds, if not thousands, of previous samples were tested retroactively for plasticizers. Hence, going back to the top winners of races in the last decade and testing them all to see who most probably doped via transfusion. Then again, it wasn't until a few years ago that IV drips were essentially banned, so that would have to be taken into consideration.

You start adding all this up, and realize that there's no budget for such a comprehensive re-test either, and that it's not going to happen.

Going forward, testing in the future, is also pretty much pointless for the reasons Python noted. It would take someone with the IQ of Ricco or Sinkewitz to not see the writing on the wall and end up positive anyway.

Having written all that, who knows. Testing improves all the time, I would hit the post button and a minute later some lab wizard may have some breakthrough test that is much more foolproof.

 

[Merckx index]

When you use words like generally and usually, you don't have clear cut guidelines as to what a positive is. Being 98% sure is not a 100% sure and you are playing with people's careers.

There is almost always (is that better than "generally"?) a trade-off between false positives and false negatives. So by adjusting the criterion for a positive appropriately, one can reduce false positives to a level consistent with what they are on other currently used tests, by allowing a certain degree of false negatives. This was my point when I said that the main problem was the variation of levels following transfusion. Except for that one small study I mentioned, all the data I've seen indicate that a criterion could be set that would adequately protect non-transfusing riders, and still catch some transfusers. You can observe the outliers, the one in a thousand non-transfusing individual in these studies, and even their levels do not approach the levels exhibited by many transfusers.

Furthermore, anytime spent on trying to develop a true plastics test will be a complete waste of time. There are close to an infinite number of things you can store blood in. Switching to a different material requires no great effort. Efforts towards a means of detecting an infusion (watching the blood parameters) would be infinitely superior to developing a silly test to detect if something was injected was stored in a certain container.

I agree completely, in fact if you check the earlier threads I was one of the first to point this out. I was only addressing the scientific basis for a DEHP test, not the likelihood that riders would continue to use blood bags that this test would be appropriate for. As many others have pointed out, the main value of this test at this point is probably retrospective, maybe including Bert's case, or LA, or other riders in the past.

 

[Mambo95]

a tempest in a teapot again...

i recall several threads where this too-little-too-late test was absolutely killed.

not a shred of news other than another lab is wasting resources on this limited use (if not downright useless) test.

how many stupid riders will transfuse from a plasticizer bag after the clinic and the media shouted DON'T.

if they fail the test they deserved it.

then they can tell the clinic it was really wrapping paper
(looking for my 'oh boy' smilie)

While all this may be true, it's better to have these tests operational than not. Testing is only partly about catching cheats. It's also about limiting what the cheats can confidently get away with. There will always be cheats, but one day there will come a time when cheats are cheating with little effect.

 

[Señor_Contador]

While all this may be true, it's better to have these tests operational than not. Testing is only partly about catching cheats. It's also about limiting what the cheats can confidently get away with. There will always be cheats, but one day there will come a time when cheats are cheating with little effect.

Ya think? As long as there're more money in winning-while-cheating than in testing the cheating mechanism will always be one step ahead. Testing is a reaction to an action. By default it will always be one step behind.

I don't understand, for the life of me, seeing what we've seen, hearing what we've heard, that there will be a zero-dopers Nirvana some time in the future.

 

[Mambo95]

Ya think? As long as there're more money in winning-while-cheating than in testing the cheating mechanism will always be one step ahead. Testing is a reaction to an action. By default it will always be one step behind.

I don't understand, for the life of me, seeing what we've seen, hearing what we've heard, that there will be a zero-dopers Nirvana some time in the future.

Yes, because ultimately there's a limit to what science can achieve. The idea that scientists will always be way ahead of the rest of the world is false. Frequently they shrug their shoulders and say 'this is the best we can do'.

 

[lean mean &green]

Ya think? As long as there're more money in winning-while-cheating than in testing the cheating mechanism will always be one step ahead. Testing is a reaction to an action. By default it will always be one step behind.

I don't understand, for the life of me, seeing what we've seen, hearing what we've heard, that there will be a zero-dopers Nirvana some time in the future.

haha, on a longer timeline there's much much more money to be made by advertisers, equipment manufacturers, leagues, and team owners by establishing the credibility of sporting results through effective anti-doping. the problem at present is that they're taking shortcuts and attempting to do it on the cheap because they know naive or overzealous fans are overwhelmed by the idea (sound familiar?) and accept it - for now.

we'll see real reform when consumers of sport decide it's more important to leave a sport better than the way you found it for future generations than it is to just cheer like a two year old for a personal favorite in search of a very temporary emotional escape.