Was cas reasonable sidelining WADA chief witness ?

[python]

the simple answer is i don’t know. but before I give it a try and get slaughtered, i need to make a 4-headed disclaimer

(i) this analysis is NOT a double guessing of the final decision (many other things need be factored in, of which we have no clue)
(ii) it contains subjective assumptions limited to the public information from the AP-article only.
(iii) my assesment below is in no way a pretence to know if contador actually doped (even if he’s acquitted)
(iv) i leave the blood passport out of this analysis as we have never seen full data (though it’s likely to be a decisive element in the oveall decision) .

first off, dr mass is right - this was a legal decision. but mc moose is also right, to be admissible an expert witness’ theory has to be testable. here’s my test….let‘s quote the actors.

Wada - theory to test as per the article
The July 21 sample did contain a very low concentration of clenbuterol, but no plastic traces. Ashenden could have explained to the CAS that Contador might have had a blood transfusion on July 20 which was uncontaminated by clenbuterol but which perhaps was stored in a plastic pouch, followed the next day by an injection of blood plasma. Under this theory, the plasma could have been contaminated with clenbuterol, but may have been stored in a different sort of bag — a type that didn't shed telltale traces of DEHP, a plasticizer used in medical devices such as intravenous tubing and blood bags.


Contador’s lawyers - grounds as per the article
‘Lawyers for Contador, however, objected on procedural grounds to Ashenden testifying about that part of WADA's argument…argued that if he transfused, clenbuterol and plastic residues would have appeared together in his July 21 sample and because they didn't, the transfusion scenario was impossible


i have undelined the important elements to test. was the narrow and very specific wada transfusion scenario ‘impossible’ as bert‘s lawyers asserted ? or was it just unlikely on balance of probabilities compared to clen ingestion as they should have said ? in my assessment, as you will see, the wada theory was but one of several possible transfusion scenarios except it was the only one that would have produced a neat picture with the dehp positive on the 20th and clen positive on the 21st..

did wada present the evidence to back it up ?

one important thing needs to be made very clear upfront. even if ashended was not admitted to the floor, it’s almost certain that cas was well aware of his opinion (and his supportive data if any) as to wada theory. it normally follows from the pre-hearing written submittals and rebuttals. there was plenty of those.

how many transfusion techniques could be potentially employed by the cheaters ?

many, and they constantly evolve. for example, it appears landis used the ‘whole blood method’. the method has a utility but it would not fit the wada theory.

then, there is the 'fuentes method' - separating red blood cells from plasma and injecting them separately approximately every 30 days. this would fit except it’s not the best solution for contador given it's limitations.
(limitation i) bert's ability to afford a better method, (see below)
(limitation ii) a relatively outdated and crude method from before the biopass tool intro
(limitation iii) a logistics intensive, cumbersome and thus very risky procedure. that is, a cheat, using this method, needs to withdraw and re-inject every month if a unit of blood is passed along. or every 15 days if playing with ½ a unit (to stay below the biopass). true, the procedure is viable with proper care but it is too risky with all the traveling for a high visibility, frequently tested target like bert.
(limitation iv) then there’s a problem with the dehp-free transfusion bag story (explained below).

given bert’s solid means and racing schedule (6-7 months off season) , the most optimum transfusion method would be utilizing cryopreserved red blood cells. it allows long storage (for years). roughly, it would involve the following. withdraw several ½ units during off season, accumulate them, and re-inject as needed before/during the most important races. this way, there is reduced logistics and exposure associated with fuentes method whilst still affording biopass protection. there is one problem with this method - wada did not propose it.

moving along…above i noted a (limitation iv) in the ‘wada variant of fuentes method’ - a problem with the dehp-free transfusion bag supposedly used on 21 july.

it turns out, just as audran noted, and unlike ashenden asserts, the dehp-loaded bags are still widely used for storing and processing blood plasma.

given the current practice and some hard fda data i collected, it a real stretch to assert that the urine test on the 21 did not produce dehp because dehp-free bag was used.

i have to cut short now... will add more explanations and supporting data with references to the discussion of the thread later.

go ahead, shoot me

 

[Stingray34]

Far from shooting you down, that you still have the will to wade through this godless stink of a corruption of a sham without wanting to give up on the idea there's still good in the world and in the hearts of men who wear suits all day long, spouting off as they do about utter BS and all manner of shady double-speak is frankly astounding.

But I was never made of very stern stuff, either.

 

[python]

Far from shooting you down, that you still have the will to wade through this godless stink of a corruption of a sham without wanting to give up on the idea there's still good in the world and in the hearts of men who wear suits all day long, spouting off as they do about utter BS and all manner of shady double-speak is frankly astounding.

But I was never made of very stern stuff, either.

thanks for letting me live my appologies for making this too technical. there is simply no other way to test wada theory.

for those who want the very simplified version, it is that the lawyers for contador presented a compelling argument as to why ashendens theory was a stretch not withstanding a reality check

 

[Porphyry]

Thank you, python.

Looking forward to your future posts.

 

[Merckx index]

Timely analysis of this topic. I have to say, first, that the transfusion scenario has been regarded all along as the only alternative to contamination, and was stated as so in the RFEC decision. So I really don’t understand how Bert’s lawyers can claim that evidence for transfusion should not be allowed. If that were the case, why before RFEC did they go to the trouble of presenting a hematologist, who claimed that the available data did not support the transfusion scenario? IOW, they took it seriously enough at that time to present evidence against it.

Is their claim now that the need for separation of DEHP and CB rules out transfusion completely? But how can they be certain of this without allowing Ashenden to testify?

one important thing needs to be made very clear upfront. even if ashended was not admitted to the floor, it’s almost certain that cas was well aware of his opinion (and his supportive data if any) as to wada theory. it normally follows from the pre-hearing written submittals and rebuttals. there was plenty of those.

I think this is an important point. Sort of like a witness giving a crucial piece of testimony, then the judge directing the jury to ignore it. It’s out there, can’t pretend it doesn’t exist.

given bert’s solid means and racing schedule (6-7 months off season) , the most optimum transfusion method would be utilizing cryopreserved red blood cells. it allows long storage (for years). roughly, it would involve the following. withdraw several ½ units during off season, accumulate them, and re-inject as needed before/during the most important races. this way, there is reduced logistics and exposure associated with fuentes method whilst still affording biopass protection. there is one problem with this method - wada did not propose it.

I don’t understand this. WADA did propose freezing blood cells, didn’t they? They had to propose separation of cells from plasma, and that is the first step taken prior to freezing for long-term storage. What then did they propose? The Fuentes method? In fact, the best legal approach would be not to specify the method in this detail. For the purposes of WADA’s case, all they had to propose is a method involving separation of cells and plasma. Any method that does this can fit the scenario in which DEHP and CB appear in Bert on separate days (though, as you point out, there are other reasons for doubting the Fuentes method).

it turns out, just as audran noted, and unlike ashenden asserts, the dehp-loaded bags are still widely used for storing and processing blood plasma.

given the current practice and some hard fda data i collected, it a real stretch to assert that the urine test on the 21 did not produce dehp because dehp-free bag was used.

This may be the case if whole plasma is stored. But as I noted on this thread before, it is simpler to lyophilize (i.e., freeze-dry) plasma, resulting in a powder which is much easier both to store (it can be put into any kind of bag, bottle, or other container) and transport (takes up very little space). This would not involve a dehp-containing bag.

I don't know exactly what WADA has proposed. But I have seen no evidence or logic yet that rules out a plausible, known-to-be-used blood doping procedure that can account for the different appearance of DEHP and CB in Contador's system. To summarize, it involves three basic elements: 1) separation of cells and plasma; 2) storage of cells in a DEHP-containing bag; 3) freeze-drying the plasma and storing it in a container that needs not and would not have DEHP. This would most likely occur in the off-season, not only because, as you mention, this is more consistent with someone of Bert's means, but because the Fuentes method, involving short-term storage, would be less likely to use the freeze-dry method (and if someone had the means to use it, he would most likely also freeze the cells).

 

[Publicus]

@MI: I think they didn't present any argument around DHEP in the RFEC matter because it was not part of the dossier. WADA raised the issue for the first time at the CAS hearing.

 

[Cloxxki]

Indeed, why try and find a transfusion method to fit the results at hand? It's known that many varieties exist. Unless the defendant tells us how he did it, we are left guessing. All WADA knows is that transfusion is the way to get such test results.

Would freeze-dried plasma even absorb the plastisizers at the same rate as refrigerated whole blood?
And what are the chances for Bert to have switched to non-DEHP containers due to foreknowledge of tests being in development? UCI wasted some good time, so there is reason to presume Bert got the same deal as Armstrong, good lab info.

If would be unlikely of course (but unfortunately so) for the defence to claim the transfusion theory is bullocks as according to their info everyone back in 2010 still used the standard blood bags. That the test results for that reason could not have been caused by transfusion.

 

[Merckx index]

Would freeze-dried plasma even absorb the plastisizers at the same rate as refrigerated whole blood?

To be clear about this: DEHP in the plasma does not have to be an issue. In the first place, there is no need or reason to store a powder in a DEHP-containing bag. DEHP is used to soften the plastic, making it easier to manipulate a large, fluid-containing bag. But a freeze-dried powder takes up very little space—you could easily hold the amount involved in the palm of your hand—so a little glass bottle or a bag of any kind of plastic would be fine.

In the second place, even if a DEHP-containing bag were used, very little would contaminate the powder. DEHP at the levels reported for Bert are generally found only when liquids are stored or otherwise come into contact with plastics containing this substance, when they leach out. Very little leaches out when the plastic is in contact with a solid. We know this because DEHP-containing bags are commonly used to package certain kinds of food, and while there is concern over the health effects of this, numerous studies have shown that only very rarely do people who have not transfused exhibit such high levels of DEHP. If leaching into solid foods were in any way comparable to leaching into fluids, we should see large numbers of people with levels comparable to transfusion—indeed, studies would not be able to show any effect of transfusion above background.

Third, because the amount is so small, the amount of DEHP would be likewise reduced. For example, if you stored 5-10 ml. of blood in a DEHP-containing bag and then injected it, you would get some DEHP in your body, but nowhere near as much as if you stored and transfused 250-500 ml. This follows simply from the much larger surface area of the bag in the latter case. So even, e.g., if a freeze-drying process were botched a little, and some liquid remained in the plasma salts, the level of DEHP contamination would be much less than that from storage in a larger bag.

Finally, let me add that all WADA should have to do is prove that transfusion is quite plausible. It’s possible that a blood doper does not use the freeze-drying process, but stores the plasma without further processing. If the storage bag contains DEHP, then yes, one would expect a spike of this substance in the urine after transfusion. But the fact that this is possible does not invalidate the transfusion scenario. Of course WADA can’t prove directly that transfusion occurred. Nobody but Bert knows what happened. But it can show that it’s plausible, and IMO, much more likely than contamination.

Most critically, given that Bert did have high levels of DEHP, the far and away most likely explanation is transfusion. It’s very hard to explain those levels except by transfusion. That fact alone means that any plausible transfusion scenario has to be considered very seriously.

I think the shoe should be on the other foot here. Just as Bert has to explain how the CB got into his system, he should also have to explain how the DEHP got into his system. If it wasn’t through transfusion, how did it get there? I know it’s not a fully validated test, but this seems like a pertinent question to ask.

 

[scullster46]

To be clear about this: DEHP in the plasma does not have to be an issue. In the first place, there is no need or reason to store a powder in a DEHP-containing bag. DEHP is used to soften the plastic, making it easier to manipulate a large, fluid-containing bag. But a freeze-dried powder takes up very little space—you could easily hold the amount involved in the palm of your hand—so a little glass bottle or a bag of any kind of plastic would be fine.

In the second place, even if a DEHP-containing bag were used, very little would contaminate the powder. DEHP at the levels reported for Bert are generally found only when liquids are stored or otherwise come into contact with plastics containing this substance, when they leach out. Very little leaches out when the plastic is in contact with a solid. We know this because DEHP-containing bags are commonly used to package certain kinds of food, and while there is concern over the health effects of this, numerous studies have shown that only very rarely do people who have not transfused exhibit such high levels of DEHP. If leaching into solid foods were in any way comparable to leaching into fluids, we should see large numbers of people with levels comparable to transfusion—indeed, studies would not be able to show any effect of transfusion above background.

Third, because the amount is so small, the amount of DEHP would be likewise reduced. For example, if you stored 5-10 ml. of blood in a DEHP-containing bag and then injected it, you would get some DEHP in your body, but nowhere near as much as if you stored and transfused 250-500 ml. This follows simply from the much larger surface area of the bag in the latter case. So even, e.g., if a freeze-drying process were botched a little, and some liquid remained in the plasma salts, the level of DEHP contamination would be much less than that from storage in a larger bag.

Finally, let me add that all WADA should have to do is prove that transfusion is quite plausible. It’s possible that a blood doper does not use the freeze-drying process, but stores the plasma without further processing. If the storage bag contains DEHP, then yes, one would expect a spike of this substance in the urine after transfusion. But the fact that this is possible does not invalidate the transfusion scenario. Of course WADA can’t prove directly that transfusion occurred. Nobody but Bert knows what happened. But it can show that it’s plausible, and IMO, much more likely than contamination.

Most critically, given that Bert did have high levels of DEHP, the far and away most likely explanation is transfusion. It’s very hard to explain those levels except by transfusion. That fact alone means that any plausible transfusion scenario has to be considered very seriously.

I think the shoe should be on the other foot here. Just as Bert has to explain how the CB got into his system, he should also have to explain how the DEHP got into his system. If it wasn’t through transfusion, how did it get there? I know it’s not a fully validated test, but this seems like a pertinent question to ask.

That's the rub though, and is the reason that Ashenden was supposedly not allowed to testify. As long as the test is not fully validated, it cannot be used in a court of law, and since their chief witness's argument stemmed solely from the existence of the DEHP, they can't really present it.

 

[python]

........ As long as the test is not fully validated, it cannot be used in a court of law

i'm not sure this is a correct statement.

i recall reading an article (can't recall where) about hamilton's positive for homologous transfusion being caught by the not fully accredited test. during the appeal, cas did not deny that the test was not fully accredited but left it's validity unchallenged. each test is different. the dehp test even if fully validated would only be a general screening test that was never meant to stand on its own. iow, it would always need another more specific confirmation test. this was discussed and explained here 1000 times.

and since their chief witness's argument stemmed solely from the existence of the DEHP, they can't really present it.

i think you're close here to what i said above but for an incorrect reason -- the dehp test can't stand on it's own to provide a legally sufficient evidence of doping (like for ex a testosterone test). period. an additional (perhaps more psychological than substantive) problem was that wada itself (right before the hearing) undermined it's own legal position by announcing the discontinuance of funding for the dehp test.

plus, the multiple well known sources of dehp in every day life complicated the issue further and made the job of contador's lawyers so much easier.

i often wonder why it's so difficult to explain that any 2 insufficient measures (allegorically speaking) even if applied concurrently negate each other rather than add up.

in this case, we have one insufficient measure (the dehp test) failing to be confirmed (allegedly) by another insufficient measure (the blood passport)

i repeated this about 100 times but somehow failed to explain what seems to me an elementary logic.

 

[Merckx index]

i think you're close here to what i said above but for an incorrect reason -- the dehp test can't stand on it's own to provide a legally sufficient evidence of doping (like for ex a testosterone test). period. an additional (perhaps more psychological than substantive) problem was that wada itself (right before the hearing) undermined it's own legal position by announcing the discontinuance of funding for the dehp test.

plus, the multiple well known sources of dehp in every day life complicated the issue further and made the job of contador's lawyers so much easier.

Bert’s team can’t have it both ways. On the one hand, they want to argue that that the CB and DEHP discrepancy means there couldn’t have been transfusion. Setting aside the point that this is not true, for the reasons I gave, simply to make this argument is to take the DEHP test seriously. You can’t argue that it contradicts the CB result unless you assume that both tests have validity and should result in positives on the same day.

But OTOH, they want to argue that the DEHP test has no validity, that it hasn’t been proven to be a reliable indicator of transfusion, that there could be other sources of DEHP, that WADA has ditched it, etc, etc. If you take this argument seriously, then how can any DEHP result be inconsistent with the CB result? You can just say that the reason the DEHP and CB positives occurred on separate days is because the DEHP test is not reliable (e.g., maybe Bert got DEHP from some other source).

I personally take the DEHP result seriously, because the literature indicates to me it is highly unlikely to get Bert’s reported value except through transfusion (< 0.01). But just because I do take it seriously, I also hold WADA to the standard of having to provide a plausible reason why the CB and DEHP positives occurred on separate days (and I think they did). If, OTOH, I did not take the DEHP result seriously, if e.g. I believed that there could be other explanations for Bert’s positive, then I would not demand that WADA provide a scenario explaining how DEHP resulted through transfusion. It is this kind of logical consistency I find lacking in Bert’s team. I know this is what lawyers do, and are expected to do, but WADA should point this out.

IOW, as I suggested before, the DEHP result may actually hurt WADA’s case. They never really needed it, since the evidence for contamination is so minute. So if Bert’s lawyers say, the test is no good, WADA should say, OK, fine, then we don’t know need a second transfusion to explain the CB. We’ll just accept your argument that the DEHP test is meaningless.

i often wonder why it's so difficult to explain that any 2 insufficient measures (allegorically speaking) even if applied concurrently negate each other rather than add up.

in this case, we have one insufficient measure (the dehp test) failing to be confirmed (allegedly) by another insufficient measure (the blood passport)

i repeated this about 100 times but somehow failed to explain what seems to me an elementary logic.

I think we (some of us) get your point, Python. But beyond the inconsistent logic just noted, the burden of proof is supposed to be on Bert. Given the evidence against contamination, it is not a very strong argument to say, I couldn’t have transfused because there were no (passport) tests taken during that period that could have indicated transfusion. He can’t just say, you don’t have any evidence for transfusion; he has to say, we have some very strong evidence against it. But he doesn’t have this evidence.

Think of a murder suspect. Not only does he have a substantial amount of physical and other evidence against him—fingerprints at the scene, gun traced to him, knew the victim intimately, motive, opportunity--—but it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that there was no else who could have been at the scene at that time. The suspect’s main argument is that since there were no witnesses at the scene, no one can actually prove that he committed the murder. With all the evidence against him, and all the evidence that no one else could have committed the murder, that is an extremely weak argument. What he really needs is a witness who will testify he did not commit the murder.

Or here's a simpler and more relevant analogy. No one has been able to locate the meat Bert ate, so no one can prove that the meat was clean. That, to me, is about as an effective argument for Bert's innocence as the lack of passport data.

 

[python]

I don’t understand this. WADA did propose freezing blood cells, didn’t they?

refer to this post and the reference there why i believe wada is proposing a blood banking transfusion method.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=767725&postcount=904