# READY?? Plasticisers in Contador’s urine found



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/plasticisers-in-contadors-urine-could-indicate-blood-transfusion

AC is so guilty its not even funny anymore. Tainted meat? My arse!

Just give him his 2yrs, strip is 2010 title and let him retire and go flip tortillas back in Spain. :thumbsup:


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Found the day before his positive test:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/plasticisers-in-contadors-urine-could-indicate-blood-transfusion



> Alberto Contador returned a positive test for the so-called “plasticisers” in his urine the day before his positive control for Clenbuterol, according to the New York Times. The newspaper also says that the results could indicate that he had had a blood transfusion, which is banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency.
> 
> The test looks for a chemical found in plastic IV bags. “A test performed on at least one of Contador’s urine samples from the Tour revealed levels of that chemical eight times higher than the minimum amount that signifies doping, according to a person with knowledge of the test results,” the New York Times said.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Coolhand said:


> Found the day before his positive test:
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/plasticisers-in-contadors-urine-could-indicate-blood-transfusion


Yep, AC is SCREWED!


----------



## jjjdc1 (Oct 3, 2006)

That going to be a tough one to explain away. It has been talked about the past few days but I guess this confirms the plastic in the blood speculation.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

jjjdc1 said:


> That going to be a tough one to explain away.


How about the simple explanation that the test is unreliable. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/sports/cycling/05cycling.html?ref=sports

Strange how no one quotes this part, "The test to detect plasticizers from IV bags has been around for more than a year in antidoping, but is not yet validated for use, so an athlete could easily question its validity in court."


----------



## MaddSkillz (Mar 13, 2007)

asgelle said:


> How about the simple explanation that the test is unreliable. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/sports/cycling/05cycling.html?ref=sports
> 
> Strange how no one quotes this part, "The test to detect plasticizers from IV bags has been around for more than a year in antidoping, but is not yet validated for use, so an athlete could easily question its validity in court."


Yeah, there's still a gray area there. They found 8 times higher than the amount of plasticizers that signifies doping. If the test was that unreliable they wouldn't use it. It just sounds to me that the test hasn't been added to the official line of tests as it's still a rather new test/method. It could mean that it is unreliable, but I doubt that.

He may get off due to technicality, but his image is cooked... And that's just as bad.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

MaddSkillz said:


> Yeah, there's still a gray area there. They found 8 times higher than the amount of plasticizers that signifies doping. If the test was that unreliable they wouldn't use it. It just sounds to me that the test hasn't been added to the official line of tests as it's still a rather new test/method. It could mean that it is unreliable, but I doubt that.
> 
> He may get off due to technicality, but his image is cooked... And that's just as bad.


so he came out with a non-cooked image from puerto?


----------



## MaddSkillz (Mar 13, 2007)

den bakker said:


> so he came out with a non-cooked image from puerto?


Not at all... But that incident didn't have the exposure that this one is getting so less people know about it. 

I'd even venture to guess that many cycling fans have no idea of the Conti connection to "Puerto."


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

MaddSkillz said:


> Not at all... But that incident didn't have the exposure that this one is getting so less people know about it.
> 
> I'd even venture to guess that many cycling fans have no idea of the Conti connection to "Puerto."


wow.....


----------



## MaddSkillz (Mar 13, 2007)

den bakker said:


> wow.....



I know, it's crazy!!!


----------



## mmoose (Apr 2, 2004)

Just giving more credence to the German reporter that asked the UCI about the failed test before it went public. I think they had the info (probably leak from the German lab) that clen and plasticizers were found. 

I don't like leaks. But when those in charge cover up, leaks are needed. This one looks like it was valid.

(Still think the UCI will let this slide somehow. And I'm still amazed at the terminology used "I haven't done anything wrong" is not "I didn't dope/transfuse" etc... "I haven't done anything wrong" = everyone dopes.)


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

Congrats to Andy for winning TdF.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

asgelle said:


> How about the simple explanation that the test is unreliable.


That's not a proper conclusion for that statement. Just because the test hasn't been validated doesn't mean it is unreliable. It simply means they are still determining IF it is reliable. So the best you could say is that it's reliability is undetermined at this point.


----------



## slimjw (Jul 30, 2008)

ghost6 said:


> Congrats to Andy for winning TdF.


Yeah, cuz Andy had to be clean to be able to bring the noise to a doped Bert on every climb.  

Their ride on the Tourmalet should be viewed for what it was; a breakaway duet between two dopers who were freshly gacked with fresh blood transfusions from the rest-day. Let's just be real...


----------



## MaddSkillz (Mar 13, 2007)

slimjw said:


> Yeah, cuz Andy had to be clean to be able to bring the noise to a doped Bert on every climb.
> 
> Their ride on the Tourmalet should be viewed for what it was; a breakaway duet between two dopers who were freshly gacked with fresh blood transfusions from the rest-day. Let's just be real...


I wish I could say your observation sucks... But I can't.


----------



## asv (Aug 13, 2010)

slimjw said:


> Their ride on the Tourmalet should be viewed for what it was; a breakaway duet between two dopers who were freshly gacked with fresh blood transfusions from the rest-day. Let's just be real...


Innocent until tested positive. Assuming Andy blood doped they would find plasticizers in his urine too. He won the stage so he had to of been tested that day on the Tourmalet.

I'm curious if they run the plastics test of every TDF sample or just riders they have heightened suspicions about. I've never heard about it till Contador.


----------



## old'n'slow (Sep 4, 2007)

Seems to me the easiest defense Contador could make would be to say - the tainted steak I ate must have been transported in this type of plastic bag...

Yep - he's screwed!


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

asv said:


> Innocent until tested positive. Assuming Andy blood doped they would find plasticizers in his urine too. He won the stage so he had to of been tested that day on the Tourmalet.
> 
> I'm curious if they run the plastics test of every TDF sample or just riders they have heightened suspicions about. I've never heard about it till Contador.


oh hai Andy !


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

asgelle said:


> How about the simple explanation that the test is unreliable. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/05/sports/cycling/05cycling.html?ref=sports
> 
> Strange how no one quotes this part, "The test to detect plasticizers from IV bags has been around for more than a year in antidoping, but is not yet validated for use, so an athlete could easily question its validity in court."


A test for the detection of plasticizers has been around for much longer than a year. But it has only been used in anti-doping for a year. True, it has yet to be validated by WADA. That certainly does not mean that the test is flawed, or unreliable.
He will hang for this, if it's true anyway.


----------



## MaddSkillz (Mar 13, 2007)

asv said:


> Innocent until tested positive. Assuming Andy blood doped they would find plasticizers in his urine too. He won the stage so he had to of been tested that day on the Tourmalet.
> 
> I'm curious if they run the plastics test of every TDF sample or just riders they have heightened suspicions about. I've never heard about it till Contador.


Because in the article it specifies that this testing is new and not yet "validated." And it was another lab that made the finding. Andy's samples may not even be at that lab. Not sure.


----------



## ghost6 (Sep 4, 2009)

slimjw said:


> Yeah, cuz Andy had to be clean to be able to bring the noise to a doped Bert on every climb.
> 
> Their ride on the Tourmalet should be viewed for what it was; a breakaway duet between two dopers who were freshly gacked with fresh blood transfusions from the rest-day. Let's just be real...


I haven't heard _anything_ about Andy doping. Have you? I'm pretty sure that Alberto is the one making doping headlines. Andy may have doped, but until we hear...Congrats to Andy for winning TdF.


----------



## slimjw (Jul 30, 2008)

ghost6 said:


> I haven't heard _anything_ about Andy doping. Have you? I'm pretty sure that Alberto is the one making doping headlines. Andy may have doped, but until we hear...Congrats to Andy for winning TdF.


Just sayin', man. Where there's smoke, there's a fire. Believe what you will...


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

i encourage everyone to read up at http://www.sportsscientists.com/

several interesting articles about limits of performance and doping. good stuff on specific climbs in the TdF as well as what it takes for someone to win. my conclusion with all of this is that break aways on the big TdF climbs show whos doping. any rider that can just pull away from the field is probably doped up - at least from pantani on up.


----------



## RagbraiNewB (May 21, 2008)

So the theory is that he had a transfusion (illegal) of his own blood, and that because he had been using clenbuterol (illegal) when his blood was originally drawn, it showed up in his test, but in small amounts because it was only in the transfusion bag he wasn't still taking it. 

If so, he's caught cheating twice, in fact.


----------



## rydbyk (Feb 17, 2010)

ghost6 said:


> Congrats to Andy for winning TdF.


I guess we should all ASSUME that he raced clean I love the Andy and Frank, but come on....

What is more challenging these days....the ability to dodge and pass tests or the tour itself?

+1 for Loudog above..bravo!


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

read this article.... it gives a clear insight on the case

http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderr...ador-case-means-hard-choices-for-anti-doping/


----------



## HeluvaSkier (Sep 11, 2007)

Anyone who hasn't seen this coming since Alberto out-TT'd Fabian in the 2009 Tour had to be living with their head under a rock.


----------



## biobanker (Jun 11, 2009)

^^No kidding. It takes more than talent to beat a guy with a motor hidden in his bike!


----------



## gonzaleziam (May 14, 2007)

HeluvaSkier said:


> Anyone who hasn't seen this coming since Alberto out-TT'd Fabian in the 2009 Tour had to be living with their head under a rock.



AMEN!!! That's exactly what I thought when he beat sparticus.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Apparently the TdF was the first use of the plasticizer test in cycling. I haven't seen anything about how many riders were subject to it. To get caught they would need to have been tested within a day or two of getting transfused. Around the last rest day would be the most likely time so the only ones at risk are likely those tested on the rest day. Schleck would, or at least should, have been at the top of the list along with AC.

His placing third at the Giro a couple years ago among a gaggle of dopers isn't exactly the portrait of a clean rider either.


----------



## Travis (Oct 14, 2005)

How long does it take to drip a bag of blood? I am just trying to picture how these guys can get away with blood doping in the frantic pace of tour logistics. Not questioning that it does happen but it must be quite a production to port blood, dispense it and hide the material.

fry AC, long live Andy!


----------



## BAi9302010 (Mar 7, 2002)

Travis said:


> How long does it take to drip a bag of blood? I am just trying to picture how these guys can get away with blood doping in the frantic pace of tour logistics. Not questioning that it does happen but it must be quite a production to port blood, dispense it and hide the material.
> 
> fry AC, long live Andy!


They drip the blood in their hotel rooms or on the teams buses en route to the hotel. Probably not more than an hour or so because they aren't transfusing very much blood.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

HeluvaSkier said:


> Anyone who hasn't seen this coming since Alberto out-TT'd Fabian in the 2009 Tour had to be living with their head under a rock.


Who says Fabian is not doping? THIS dominant in TT over everyone else?


----------



## HeluvaSkier (Sep 11, 2007)

DIRT BOY said:


> Who says Fabian is not doping? THIS dominant in TT over everyone else?


I didn't. However taking sheer size and strength into consideration on a mostly flat TT - it seems unlikely that a 136lb Contador is putting out more power than Fabian without being doped to the gills.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

HeluvaSkier said:


> I didn't. However taking sheer size and strength into consideration on a mostly flat TT - it seems unlikely that a 136lb Contador is putting out more power than Fabian without being doped to the gills.


c.f. Colby Pearce


----------



## ti-triodes (Aug 14, 2006)

Hey Alberto, you're supposed to take the plastic off the meat before you eat it!


----------



## Nick09 (Aug 1, 2009)

*What choice do they have?*

http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderr...ador-case-means-hard-choices-for-anti-doping/

"The UCI faces a no-win situation. If it is lenient toward Contador, it faces justifiable accusations of favoritism (not to mention a fat lawsuit from Li)."


Looks like they have no other than to dish out the same sentence...


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

Sounds me to like he has been caught red handed. You've got two positives, coming on consecutive days, and there is a very logical explanation for the consecutive positive tests which leads to the conclusion that he was blood doping.


----------



## covenant (May 21, 2002)

Salsa_Lover said:


> read this article.... it gives a clear insight on the case
> 
> http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2010/09/30/contador-case-means-hard-choices-for-anti-doping/


That article mentions nothing about Plasticisers. I guess written before it was widely known he tested positive for them.


----------



## Axe (Sep 21, 2004)

slimjw said:


> Their ride on the Tourmalet should be viewed for what it was; a breakaway duet between two dopers who were freshly gacked with fresh blood transfusions from the rest-day. Let's just be real...


Yep. The other doper was lucky enough to freeze cleaner blood. 

That is still an awesome achievement what these guys do. I do not care much for them making small tweaks to their biochemistry. Just can not be arsed to care - I do enjoy watching them compete. Of course, Contador is still a dick.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

HeluvaSkier said:


> I didn't. However taking sheer size and strength into consideration on a mostly flat TT - it seems unlikely that a 136lb Contador is putting out more power than Fabian without being doped to the gills.


Two comments:

1) 19 days of racing in a Grand Tour before the TT changes things quite a bit.

2) It's not just Fabian's TT'ing, look at how he powers away from the best classics guys like they are Cat 5's. Yet their is little or no questioning him.


----------



## HeluvaSkier (Sep 11, 2007)

Perico said:


> Two comments:
> 
> 1) 19 days of racing in a Grand Tour before the TT changes things quite a bit.
> 
> 2) It's not just Fabian's TT'ing, look at how he powers away from the best classics guys like they are Cat 5's. Yet their is little or no questioning him.


Well, this thread is about Contador... if you want to start a similar thread about how doped up Cancellara is, be my guest. I don't think any of them are clean - although some are more obvious about it than others. When a likely also doped Cancellara was beaten in 2009 by a now almost certainly doped Contador it should have raised a lot of eye brows. That's all I'm saying. 

It is too bad though, because Contador was probably on a path to be one of the greats of cycling. This is a definite setback for cycling (as undoubtedly a lot of sponsorships will be lost as a result of AC turning a positive), but hopefully it will serve as a wake-up call to the rest of the sport.


----------



## Richard_Rides (Jun 28, 2008)

HeluvaSkier said:


> but hopefully it will serve as a wake-up call to the rest of the sport.


These wake up calls have been coming for years, nobody seems to be waking up. Doping is here to stay.


----------



## dot (Mar 4, 2004)

DIRT BOY said:


> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/plasticisers-in-contadors-urine-could-indicate-blood-transfusion
> 
> AC is so guilty its not even funny anymore. Tainted meat? My arse!
> 
> Just give him his 2yrs, strip is 2010 title and let him retire and go flip tortillas back in Spain. :thumbsup:


Prolly the meat was cooked with some wrap. They said it was a bad hotel.


----------



## CHL (Jun 24, 2005)

Hi Guys:

Just a question on Clenbuterol. All the articles that I have read state that the chemical has a short life and decomposes very quickly. 

Assuming that Contador did blood dope. It would stand to reason that he would have extracted his own blood before the Tour. If he did take the drug at the time he extracted the blood from his body. Shouldn't the stuff have naturaly deteriorated after several weeks to the point where it no longer existed? 

I'm not advocating his guilt or innocence, just curious about some conclusions that have been drawn in the Media.

Thanks,
CHL


----------



## samh (May 5, 2004)

*plastic doping*



Coolhand said:


> Found the day before his positive test:
> 
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/plasticisers-in-contadors-urine-could-indicate-blood-transfusion


But wouldn't other blood dopers get caught for this too? Or using organic bags?


----------



## Axe (Sep 21, 2004)

CHL said:


> Assuming that Contador did blood dope. It would stand to reason that he would have extracted his own blood before the Tour. If he did take the drug at the time he extracted the blood from his body. Shouldn't the stuff have naturaly deteriorated after several weeks to the point where it no longer existed?


1. it is frozen
2. it is processed by your liver and kidneys - there are no liver or kidneys in a bag of frozen blood.


----------



## Gatorback (Jul 11, 2009)

CHL said:


> Hi Guys:
> 
> Just a question on Clenbuterol. All the articles that I have read state that the chemical has a short life and decomposes very quickly.
> 
> ...


The implication and logical explanation is that he and his people messed up and took the blood out for storage a little too early and before his blood was clean. There is some info on this in the other thread. Apparently the German lab which detected it has superior testing and whoever was helping Contador dope did not have as sophisticated equipment--so they though the blood was clean when it still had traces of clenbuterol in it.

I think the plasticers appear to be the more damaging evidence, especially when fit in with the whole story of the two consecutive positive tests.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

HeluvaSkier said:


> Well, this thread is about Contador... if you want to start a similar thread about how doped up Cancellara is, be my guest. I don't think any of them are clean - although some are more obvious about it than others. When a likely also doped Cancellara was beaten in 2009 by a now almost certainly doped Contador it should have raised a lot of eye brows. That's all I'm saying.
> 
> It is too bad though, because Contador was probably on a path to be one of the greats of cycling. This is a definite setback for cycling (as undoubtedly a lot of sponsorships will be lost as a result of AC turning a positive), but hopefully it will serve as a wake-up call to the rest of the sport.


In summary you are simply brushing off both of my comments.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

HeluvaSkier said:


> Anyone who hasn't seen this coming since Alberto out-TT'd Fabian in the 2009 Tour had to be living with their head under a rock.


I'm sure AC beating FC had nothing to do with all the days before in the mountains AND FC having more of a support role as the tour went on.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Perico said:


> 2) It's not just Fabian's TT'ing, look at how he powers away from the best classics guys like they are Cat 5's. Yet their is little or no questioning him.


which instance are you referring to?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Perhaps my background in the sciences is taking priority, which will make me seem like an AC fanboy. On a side note, anyone in the USA who doesn't hate AC is automatically a fanboy these days. 

Anyway, we now have the ability to detect plasticisers. Ok, but what exactly does this mean? I know what the public _wants_ it to mean, but can we prove or disprove it? I have no real opinion on AC at this point, but I think we're jumping the gun on this one. 

If AC blood doped, where is the spike in RBCs and hemoglobin? 

Again, from a position of neutrality, most of the facts presented are being presented in a similar fashion to tabloid journalism. If (just "if) AC is cleared, I hope he goes after some of the news organizations for slander. While the plasticisers would indicate possible/probable blood doping, he has already formally accused by some of the cycling news companies.


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

CHL said:


> Hi Guys:
> 
> Just a question on Clenbuterol. All the articles that I have read state that the chemical has a short life and decomposes very quickly.
> 
> ...


Clenbuterol in your blood does not break down on it's own. It is broken down by the liver. The liver is a huge enzyme factory that metabolizes many toxins in the blood, including alcohol. The half life of circulating Clenbuterol is about 36 hours. 

But stored blood is not circulating through the liver anymore so if they took off a unit of Alberto's blood in the preseason while he was using Clenbuterol the drug would stay present in that unit.

Months later the blood is dripped back into AC and the remaining drug in the bag is diluted by his full blood volume, plus the liver is able to start metabolizing the drug again.

A day later he races, gets tested and hence a tiny level of drug in his blood. And apparantly traces of the plastic blood bag in his urine, filtered by his kidneys.

[Thomas Dolby]SCIENCE!! [/Thomas Dolby]


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

spade2you said:


> If AC blood doped, where is the spike in RBCs and hemoglobin?


you have a link to the profiles over time?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

den bakker said:


> you have a link to the profiles over time?


No, but had he used packed red blood cells, it should show a spike in absolute RBCs, hemoglobin, and a few trace preservatives. 

I must admit that I don't know much about how the plasma expanders work in relation to increased athletic performance. I've learned the various hemodynamic reasoning, but not quite sure how it truly applies to perforamance enhancement on the scientific level.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

spade2you said:


> No, but had he used packed red blood cells, it should show a spike in absolute RBCs, hemoglobin, and a few trace preservatives.
> 
> I must admit that I don't know much about how the plasma expanders work in relation to increased athletic performance. I've learned the various hemodynamic reasoning, but not quite sure how it truly applies to perforamance enhancement on the scientific level.


so a scientific discussion sans data?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

den bakker said:


> so a scientific discussion sans data?


Yes, we have no data, another reason I don't have a strong opinion either way.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*guys like Fabian*



spade2you said:


> I'm sure AC beating FC had nothing to do with all the days before in the mountains AND FC having more of a support role as the tour went on.


spend hours out front while GC honches see about a kilometer or 2
Fabian does so much work in the first non televised 4-5 hrs of racing that he could just be knackered

I'm not saying either or neither doped. I'm just saying roulers are far more tired in a GT than honches. That TT had a climb too, FC crushed AC on that course everywhere but that climb


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

spade2you said:


> Yes, we have no data, another reason I don't have a strong opinion either way.


I see, keep up the blabbering then :thumbsup:


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

den bakker said:


> I see, keep up the blabbering then :thumbsup:


Ok, Contador is teh doper. Happy now?

I'm simply stating that there's an abnormal lack of facts (for us, anyway). We know that trace clenbuterol was present and a pasticising agent. My apologies for my analytical chem class, but I don't consider the plasticising agent a gold standard at this point. I'm not against new methods, but this one seemed to be a little prematurely used. I get that we're trying to catch dopers, but in the courts, a good lawyer should be able to get this thrown out as evidence due to the unknown reliability.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

spade2you said:


> Ok, Contador is teh doper. Happy now?
> 
> I'm simply stating that there's an abnormal lack of facts (for us, anyway). We know that trace clenbuterol was present and a pasticising agent. My apologies for my analytical chem class, but I don't consider the plasticising agent a gold standard at this point. I'm not against new methods, but this one seemed to be a little prematurely used. I get that we're trying to catch dopers, but in the courts, a good lawyer should be able to get this thrown out as evidence due to the unknown reliability.


stop guessing what my opinion is on Contador. You posted a point with no merit.


----------



## culdeus (May 5, 2005)

spade2you said:


> Ok, Contador is teh doper. Happy now?
> 
> I'm simply stating that there's an abnormal lack of facts (for us, anyway). We know that trace clenbuterol was present and a pasticising agent. My apologies for my analytical chem class, but I don't consider the plasticising agent a gold standard at this point. I'm not against new methods, but this one seemed to be a little prematurely used. I get that we're trying to catch dopers, but in the courts, a good lawyer should be able to get this thrown out as evidence due to the unknown reliability.



He's not going to jail. Just gonna spend 2 years on his couch.


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

A really interesting sidelight is that a certain Federal Grand Jury might be interested in using this new test for plasticisers to retest many of Armstrong's stored samples from the Postie days. All it takes is subpoena.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/m...could_be_subject_to_new_antidoping_test_.html

Is it me, or does it seem like the whole pro-sport is about to burnt to the ground?


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Perico said:


> Two comments:
> 
> 1) 19 days of racing in a Grand Tour before the TT changes things quite a bit.
> 
> 2) It's not just Fabian's TT'ing, look at how he powers away from the best classics guys like they are Cat 5's. *Yet their is little or no questioning him*.



Again your perception is wrong!

What do you call it when they accuse Cancellera of having a motor in his downtube?

You say little of no questioning?

They are saying his performance's are so ridiculous they require an outside source of assistance and in Cancellera's case, they didn't find a motor.


----------



## MaddSkillz (Mar 13, 2007)

Brad the Bold said:


> A really interesting sidelight is that a certain Federal Grand Jury might be interested in using this new test for plasticisers to retest many of Armstrong's stored samples from the Postie days. All it takes is subpoena.
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/m...could_be_subject_to_new_antidoping_test_.html
> 
> Is it me, or does it seem like the whole pro-sport is about to burnt to the ground?


Obviously you believe LA was ridin' dirty and I believe so as well.

Yeah, it does seem our sport is taking some nasty turns. I'm not sure what's going to come of it.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

MaddSkillz said:


> Obviously you believe LA was ridin' dirty and I believe so as well.
> 
> Yeah, it does seem our sport is taking some nasty turns. I'm not sure what's going to come of it.


The worst decision made in the history of cycling was to submit to WADA in order to remain in the Olympics. Verbruggen had to have known that cycling was neck deep when it came to doping.

Now it still may not have been a picnic because of the involvement of the police in various European countries but still the UCI could have maintained very lax testing and managed the problem (like NFL, MLB, etc. do).


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

den bakker- When you ask for instances of what I am saying you sound like you don't watch cycling at all.

blackjack- I seem to recall that we are talking about doping, not motors. I guess the "sticking to the topic being discussed" argument is only important to you when it benefits your argument. lol Keep digging that hole little guy.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Perico said:


> den bakker- When you ask for instances of what I am saying you sound like you don't watch cycling at all.


I am well aware of several possibilities you might refer to. 
I simply prefer to have a common basis for the discussion.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

den bakker said:


> I am well aware of several possibilities you might refer to.
> I simply prefer to have a common basis for the discussion.


 If you are aware of several possibilities then discuss them and I am sure a common basis for discussion will be easily obtained.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

*Missing the main point, Again!*



spade2you said:


> Perhaps my background in the sciences is taking priority, which will make me seem like an AC fanboy. On a side note, anyone in the USA who doesn't hate AC is automatically a fanboy these days.
> 
> Anyway, we now have the ability to detect plasticisers. Ok, but what exactly does this mean? I know what the public _wants_ it to mean, but can we prove or disprove it? I have no real opinion on AC at this point, but I think we're jumping the gun on this one. .


Nobody is jumping any gun. As of right now, Contador has tested positive for having a banned substance in his sample. Unless he can come up with convincing evidence that he injested something unintentionally, he's gone. *Even if he can come up with evidence of contamination, according to the rules as they stand now, the burden for what he injests is still on him and the sanction could very likely stand.*



spade2you said:


> If AC blood doped, where is the spike in RBCs and hemoglobin?


Have his blood values been made public? What are they? How would they be interpreted? They're largely irrelevant anyway, because both his A and B samples have Clenbuterol in them which by itself is enough to sanction him no matter what the origin of that banned substance.



spade2you said:


> Again, from a position of neutrality,.


What justifies your position of being neutral? No one is disputing that AC had Clenbuterol in his sample. The burden is clearly on AC to reverse the finding of guilt here. The best he can hope for is mitigation.




spade2you said:


> most of the facts presented are being presented in a similar fashion to tabloid journalism.,.


Please explain how that's a neutral statement? As of now, AC is guilty. The facts are clear. *Your hopeful interpretation of those facts is the only thing that's remotely subjective.*

Wasn't the tabloid journalism angle employed by another TdF champ who's now fighting for his career and reputation?




spade2you said:


> If (just "if) AC is cleared, I hope he goes after some of the news organizations for slander..


Man,you have some audacity. AC is not going to be "cleared." He is positve but he might, just might, escape sanctions due to mitigating circumstances. I haven't read all the news reports but I'm pretty sure those outlets would have just been reporting what experts believe the plasticiser tests indicate. The news media isn't drawing those conclusions on their own. 

Even Armstrong, as nuts as he is, didn't sue when he tested positive for corticoids in '99. You know why? Because he was positive and they cut him a break.

Also in the U.S. libel is very difficult to prove because the plaintiff must show that the defendent not only made the statements in question, the defendent had to know those statements are false. Absense of Malice.



spade2you said:


> While the plasticisers would indicate possible/probable blood doping, he has already formally accused by some of the cycling news companies.


What you're not getting is that the burden is now on AC. The plasticisers just put AC in a deeper hole and make it less likely that they'll believe his meat contamination scenario. The authorities don't need the plasitciser test, but now that they have it, it tends to undermine his excuse and make it look like bs.





spade2you said:


> Ok, Contador is teh doper. Happy now?
> 
> I'm simply stating that there's an abnormal lack of facts (for us, anyway). We know that trace clenbuterol was present and a pasticising agent. My apologies for my analytical chem class, but I don't consider the plasticising agent a gold standard at this point. I'm not against new methods, but this one seemed to be a little prematurely used. I get that we're trying to catch dopers, but in the courts, a good lawyer should be able to get this thrown out as evidence due to the unknown reliability.


First of all, as it stands, AC is guilty of having Clenbuterol in his system.

The plasticiser test is known to be reliable but hasn't yet been adopted as a conclusive indicator of doping, however, it's already undisputed that AC is postive for a banned substance.

What you're suggesting is akin to a convicted murderer claiming he didn't steal a candy bar on the way to the place he committed the murder.

Hey lawyer dude, I know I'm going to prison for life, but thanks for legally excluding that candy bar evidence. I was losing sleeep over that.:thumbsup:


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Perico said:


> If you are aware of several possibilities then discuss them and I am sure a common basis for discussion will be easily obtained.


thanks for wasting our time.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Perico said:


> den bakker- When you ask for instances of what I am saying you sound like you don't watch cycling at all.
> 
> blackjack- *I seem to recall that we are talking about doping, not motors. I guess the "sticking to the topic being discussed" argument is only important to you when it benefits your argument. lol Keep digging that hole little guy*.





Perico said:


> Two comments:
> 
> 1) 19 days of racing in a Grand Tour before the TT changes things quite a bit.
> 
> 2) It's not just Fabian's TT'ing, look at how he powers away from the best classics guys like they are Cat 5's. *Yet their is little or no questioning him*..





blackjack said:


> Again your perception is wrong!
> 
> What do you call it when they accuse Cancellera of having a motor in his downtube?
> 
> ...



*You said they are not questioning Cancellera. What the subject of any questioning in Professional cycling is, arethe performances.*

When one guy gets to the finish line much faster than the rest, *this is what falls under suspicion.*

What matters is that the performances are authentic and when they aren't authentic, people become suspicious and ask questions about how those performances came about.

Cancellera's performances were judged to be so suspect, he was accused of having a motor in his bike.

I'm sure he was tested for PED's but none were found which shouldn't be much of a surprise because even when drugs are used, they are only found 1% of the time according to Kohl.

I'll repeat so you get it.

*There is extraordinary questioning of Cancellera because his performances do not seem real.*

They are questioning whether he cheated or not.


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

MaddSkillz said:


> Obviously you believe LA was ridin' dirty and I believe so as well.
> 
> Yeah, it does seem our sport is taking some nasty turns. I'm not sure what's going to come of it.


As I've said in a recently locked thread. I suspect them *all*.

Cyclists have been doping like mad men since the late 1800's. Booze, coke, Strychnine, chloroform, amphetamines. Crazy stuff. Kill you if you get it wrong stuff.

The number of TDF champions in my lifetime that have not been caught or admited to doping seems to be getting smaller, not larger as more Tours are run!

That puts more suspicion, not less, on the scant still "clean" ones in my mind.

It might be that exposing Contador and Armstrong in the same year will shake the doping tradition to its core. But its also likely that things will stay the way it's been for 120 years.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

den bakker- I ask you to simply discuss the occasions you refer to and reassure you that we can find a common basis for discussion and you respond with that?!?!?! I guess my first instict was correct in that you had no intention of having a real discussion.

blackjack- Do you honestly think bold letters and big letters will make me forget that you are a hypocrite, demanding other stick to a specific part of the topic when it suits you and attacking others for asking you to do the same when it does not suit you? You make me laugh.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Perico said:


> den bakker- I ask you to simply discuss the occasions you refer to and reassure you that we can find a common basis for discussion and you respond with that?!?!?! I guess my first instict was correct in that you had no intention of having a real discussion.
> 
> blackjack- Do you honestly think bold letters and big letters will make me forget that you are a hypocrite, demanding other stick to a specific part of the topic when it suits you and attacking others for asking you to do the same when it does not suit you? You make me laugh.


I honestly have doubts that even the most fundemental logic will register.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

blackjack said:


> I honestly have doubts that even the most fundemental logic will register.


The pot just called the kettle black, jack.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Perico said:


> den bakker- I ask you to simply discuss the occasions you refer to and reassure you that we can find a common basis for discussion and you respond with that?!?!?! I guess my first instict was correct in that you had no intention of having a real discussion.
> 
> blackjack- Do you honestly think bold letters and big letters will make me forget that you are a hypocrite, demanding other stick to a specific part of the topic when it suits you and attacking others for asking you to do the same when it does not suit you? You make me laugh.



"Originally Posted by Perico
2) It's not just Fabian's TT'ing, look at how he powers away from the best classics guys like they are Cat 5's. Yet their is little or no questioning him." 


Now let's try again: which races are you specifically referring to here?


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

spade2you said:


> The pot just called the kettle black, jack.


Hmm, every post directed anywhere close to you has answered all your points even though they may be completely irrelevant.

You are the one who is *sure* of things that are actually proven to be wrong by other posters.

I don't know where such self confidence stems from and how it's maintained in the face of such an obvious instance of being proven incorrect.

Do you really believe that AC can really sue someone for libel for instance?

Please show me one place I was factually incorrect, or illogical.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Contador is toast. His defense is unraveling - Segura, the developer of the plasticizer test and head of Barcelona lab, has just spoken out against him - says test is 'unequivocal' indication of transfusion. The bigger point is that the sponsors are going to back away. Saxo Bank and Sungard will back out, Riis will sue Contador for not disclosing the positive, etc. It's going to get ugly...


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

stevesbike said:


> Contador is toast. His defense is unraveling - Segura, the developer of the plasticizer test and head of Barcelona lab, has just spoken out against him - says test is 'unequivocal' indication of transfusion. The bigger point is that the sponsors are going to back away. Saxo Bank and Sungard will back out, Riis will sue Contador for not disclosing the positive, etc. It's going to get ugly...


You're not worried about getting sued for libel apparently?

Maybe jumping the gun a bit?


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

den bakker said:


> "Originally Posted by Perico
> 2) It's not just Fabian's TT'ing, look at how he powers away from the best classics guys like they are Cat 5's. Yet their is little or no questioning him."
> 
> 
> Now let's try again: which races are you specifically referring to here?


I'll just repost this since it says all I need to say: I ask you to simply discuss the occasions you refer to and reassure you that we can find a common basis for discussion and you respond with that?!?!?! I guess my first instict was correct in that you had no intention of having a real discussion.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

blackjack said:


> I honestly have doubts that even the most fundemental logic will register.


100% correct...it will never register in your mind when it does not suit your agenda.

P.S.- Spell check is your friend...fundamental, not fundemental.:lol:


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Perico said:


> I'll just repost this since it says all I need to say: I ask you to simply discuss the occasions you refer to and reassure you that we can find a common basis for discussion and you respond with that?!?!?! I guess my first instict was correct in that you had no intention of having a real discussion.


nice try. 
thanks for wasting our time.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

blackjack said:


> You're not worried about getting sued for liable apparently?


Why should he be? There's no such thing as suing for liable.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

den bakker said:


> nice try.
> thanks for wasting our time.


Let me get this straight, I am wasting time because I am telling you to simply discuss the topic instead of dance around it waiting for somewhere to go on the attack?!?!?! That is the most asinine thing I have ever heard...but not unexpected from you based on your "discussion" tactics on this forum.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

wim said:


> Why should he be? There's no such thing as suing for liable.



Libel, thanks.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

stevesbike said:


> Segura, the developer of the plasticizer test and head of Barcelona lab, has just spoken out against him - says test is 'unequivocal' indication of transfusion.


And immediately begins to equivocate. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/seg...sticizer-levels-are-indicative-of-transfusion
"However, we should look at all the data and see if there are any sudden changes in the levels in the samples taken before and afterwards."

"Plastic bags have components that we call plasticizers, which retain the properties of red blood cells during storage. As these residues are also found in common items, the sample must demonstrate a very high level of detection and quantity in order to be considered positive." (Note: he doesn't say what constitutes "high")

"In legal terms, you may need more tests to support it, as often happens with such discoveries. But in technical terms, I can say now that it's a categorical method that is perfectly applicable." (Applicable? Is that the new standard now?)


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

the test doesn't have to be validated to be used against him - Howman (head of WADA) has already stated it's admissible in front of a tribunal. He was alluding to CAS, where this will end up.

There's no basis for libel re what I said....


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

*Calling a spade a spade*



spade2you said:


> Perhaps my background in the sciences is taking priority, which will make me seem like an AC fanboy. On a side note, anyone in the USA who doesn't hate AC is automatically a fanboy these days.
> 
> Anyway, we now have the ability to detect plasticisers. Ok, but what exactly does this mean? I know what the public _wants_ it to mean, *but can we prove or disprove it?* I have no real opinion on AC at this point, but I think we're jumping the gun on this one.
> 
> ...


You talk about proof a lot, but you don't seem to have any standard of proof with your allegations against LeMond. You have no real opinion on AC but you know that LeMond received a transfusion. Even after I told you he didn't receive a transfusion and this was verified by Ultimobici. You are also undecided about Armstrong, 





ultimobici said:


> Point 2 Page 121 The Incredible Comeback - "*He lost nearly 2 quarts of blood in the shooting, but the doctors decided not to give him transfusions because they were worried about the possibility of the AIDS virus in donated blood*."





spade2you said:


> I* have no doubt he was transfused for that*. It's not exactly blood doping when you're replacing a very low blood volume. However, it's far from the same as a healthy athlete getting an autologous transfusion after they've already replaced the RBCs





spade2you said:


> I have no doubt he took iron tablets, but it's extremely rare that people need an iron or b-12 injection. If an iron tablet isn't working, GIVE MORE. It's not that difficult.
> 
> Lemond's shooting was far enough away from his rides from the TdF that he would not have had residual anemia at the time for that. *Yes, he lost a lot of blood, but he received transfusions and his body would have been able to rebuild his RBCs well before he even began competition.* If he still had anemia while training and riding the TdF, he wouldn't have stood a chance finishing.


but you have no problem sliming LeMond



spade2you said:


> I'm neither defending Armstrong, but I'm not really attacking him. However, I* don't recall Lance taking vitamin shots........ I don't follow baseball that closely, but I seem to recall a lot of them getting vitamin shots. Fwahahahahahahahah*.


Other posters have noticed how you're not presenting facts.




den bakker said:


> so a scientific discussion sans data?





spade2you said:


> Yes, we have no data, another reason *I don't have a strong opinion either *way.


Except for your strong opinions about a guy who has no evidence against him.



den bakker said:


> I see, keep up the blabbering then :thumbsup:





spade2you said:


> Ok, Contador is teh doper. Happy now?
> 
> I'm simply stating that there's an *abnormal lack of facts* (for us, anyway). We know that trace clenbuterol was present and a pasticising agent. My apologies for my analytical chem class, but I don't consider the plasticising agent a gold standard at this point. I'm not against new methods, but this one seemed to be a little prematurely used. I get that we're trying to catch dopers, *but in the courts, a good lawyer should be able to get this thrown out as evidence due to the unknown reliability*.


If it could be shown that you know the principal's, a good lawyer could probably sue *you *for libeling LeMond. 

You're very anxious to see AC sue news organizations for slander, but you have no problem whatsoever personally libeling LeMond with no evidence at all.

Don't you think it's inconsistent/ironic that you have no problem making allegations against LeMond but that you give AC and LA the benefit of the doubt despite both of them having mountains of evidence against them as well as positive doping controls?


----------



## Salsa_Lover (Jul 6, 2008)

den bakker said:


> so a scientific discussion sans data?


remembers me some discussion about performance without data in other threads....


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Salsa_Lover said:


> remembers me some discussion about performance without data in other threads....


Start racing and I might tell ya and ONLY racers can tell other racers to HTFU. Rec riders can't. Sorry, try again.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

asgelle said:


> And immediately begins to equivocate. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/seg...sticizer-levels-are-indicative-of-transfusion
> "However, we should look at all the data and see if there are any sudden changes in the levels in the samples taken before and afterwards."
> 
> "Plastic bags have components that we call plasticizers, which retain the properties of red blood cells during storage. As these residues are also found in common items, the sample must demonstrate a very high level of detection and quantity in order to be considered positive." (Note: he doesn't say what constitutes "high")
> ...


L Equipe is reporting that his levels did indeed jump, with the largest being the evening prior to the rest day.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

stevesbike said:


> Contador is toast. His defense is unraveling - Segura, the developer of the plasticizer test and head of Barcelona lab, has just spoken out against him - says test is 'unequivocal' indication of transfusion. The bigger point is that the sponsors are going to back away. Saxo Bank and Sungard will back out, Riis will sue Contador for not disclosing the positive, etc. It's going to get ugly...



I agree, AC is toast! he should save face and blow the whistle! I would not doubt that Riis knew about this or conducted the doping. Hey, he was a doper himself.

I think AC should ask for a plea deal. Blow the roof of this thing.

The again, does the cycling community really care or is this whole anti-doping this a Dog and Pony Show?

Like others have said, doping in cycling goes back to the early 1900's and I am sure back to Roman and Greek times.

Athletes HAVE and always WILL find ways to enhance performance. Legal or not. PERIOD. MLB getting busted is proof. I said for years on local and national talk shows that Bonds was taking PEDs like crazy and I was laughed at, called a moron, etc. I gave scientific signs of PED use and was mocked.
I know I was right and the world is seeing this. Hell, I am not the only one, LOL. Others that know the signs see it.

Hell, the 40+ housewives around here dope. How many 45y r old women you know with 2-3 kids that have wash board abs (distended abdomens though) and carry that type of muscle and low BF around?

Again, AC is guilty. So is lance (hell, you don't think all those companies that helped with cancer, helped give him undetectable drugs) and I am sure Lemond did at some point as well.


----------



## tron (Jul 18, 2004)

The riders should just go old school and use glass bottles to store their blood.


----------



## palmerlaker (Sep 30, 2005)

As a recreational rider, I have a few questions about the plasticisers chemical from the IV bag.

Is it present in all types of IV bags(used for blood, saline or legal drugs) ?

Do the race teams have to report their use for legimate purposes like hydrating a rider after a race to the officials and document it.?

thanks..


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

tron said:


> The riders should just go old school and use glass bottles to store their blood.


Blood doping usually means spinning out the blood so only the red, oxygen carrying cells remain. They are very sensitive and glass can damage them in storage.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

palmerlaker said:


> As a recreational rider, I have a few questions about the plasticisers chemical from the IV bag.
> 
> Is it present in all types of IV bags(used for blood, saline or legal drugs) ?
> 
> ...


Yes. All transfusions, including saline, are illegal. A rider can take a drip but the team doctor would need to file a TUE with a very good reason for it.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Hmmm, a few more articles suggest the plasticiser test is pretty accurate, although I don't doubt the inventor would say it's perfect.  I look forward to some neutral 3rd parties to evaluate this study further. I'm far from against it, but it seemed that this new lab draw should be completely evaluated before brought into standard practice. If they've already done it and were keeping everything a secret, that would be brilliant.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Hmmm, a few more articles suggest the plasticiser test is pretty accurate, although I don't doubt the inventor would say it's perfect.  I look forward to some neutral 3rd parties to evaluate this study further. I'm far from against it, but it seemed that this new lab draw should be completely evaluated before brought into standard practice. If they've already done it and were keeping everything a secret, that would be brilliant.


So maybe Contador shouldn't take your advice and he should hold off on any libel actions?


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

it seems there's a lot of misunderstanding regarding the origins of the test. It is not a new test. It has been used for many years in relation to the food industry. The only new element is its application to sports doping and the development of confidence measures. These have been set very conservatively, so it's more likely to result in false negatives. As I mentioned before, this will end up at CAS where it will be admitted. Howman said so today...


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

blackjack said:


> So maybe Contador shouldn't take your advice and he should hold off on any libel actions?


To the ignore list you go. Although, I suspect you're already on most.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

spade2you said:


> To the ignore list you go. Although, I suspect you're already on most.


I am sure he will just send you more pm's trying to insult you. I am actually surprised I haven't received any from him.


----------

