# Appeal against Krueziger dropped by UCI and WADA



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

I'm glad they are dropping it. Without definite proof they should not be banning, IMHO. Scientist who sit on the committees to review BP cannot know reasoning behind every fluctuation in the values.

UCI and WADA drop CAS appeal in Kreuziger case - VeloNews.com

One week before CAS hearing, Roman Kreuziger is a man at a crossroads - VeloNews.com



> Biological passport data taken from early April through late May 2012 — the period that Kreuziger prepared for, and competed in, the Giro d’Italia — shows a concurrent drop in hemoglobin and reticulocytes, followed by a spike in hemoglobin concurrent with a rise, and then dramatic drop, in reticulocytes.
> 
> During the final 10 days of the 2012 Giro d’Italia, Kreuziger’s hematocrit rose from 43.2 to 48.1, finishing higher than his pre-Giro value of 45.1 — an anomaly, as most athletes see a decrease of hematocrit/hemoglobin “after physical effort of sufficient duration and intensity due to plasma volume expansion,” as the UCI attests; i.e., during the final 10 days of a grand tour.
> 
> ...





> In October 2013, Kreuziger provided the UCI with two exculpatory medical opinions he had requested, but in May 2014 the governing body informed him that it did not accept his explanation for the passport abnormalities. He followed up with a third opinion arguing that the fluctuations in his profile could not be attributed solely to doping methods and that the conclusions of CAFD’s Experts Panel “had limited scientific supporting evidence.”


Lucky for Krueziger that he had the money to fight, but not all pros would.


----------



## MMsRepBike (Apr 1, 2014)

They basically just received new and confidential information that's causing them to now drop the appeals.

Seems sketchy but whatever.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

MMsRepBike said:


> They basically just received new and confidential information that's causing them to now drop the appeals.
> 
> Seems sketchy but whatever.


I'm thinking they finally realized their panel is not as smart as they thought they were. Wonder if they hired a scientist that backed up Kreuziger's medical team????


----------



## MMsRepBike (Apr 1, 2014)

Well he has a thyroid condition that makes him an outlier. His blood is special/different because of the medication he takes and how physical exertion affects his condition and therefore blood values. 

If he was normal, this would be a clear cut case of cheating, but he's not. I guess they determined that the wonky cheater values were due to his meds and not some other kind of meds.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Ferrari must be happy to see one of his customers escape a sanction......for now


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Ferrari must be happy to see one of his customers escape a sanction......for now


If UCI and WADA can't prove it, they shouldn't be sanctioning.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

love4himies said:


> Without definite proof they should not be banning, IMHO.


A sanction based on a biological passport violation is never definitive proof. It's "we have a standard model for how this works, and your parameters violated the standard model."


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> If UCI and WADA can't prove it, they shouldn't be sanctioning.


Krueziger admitted he worked with Ferrari, do you think he was paying him all that money for interval workouts? 

As Richard Virenque said



> “teaming up with Ferrari was like putting a saucepan up your backside: it was immediately obvious what you were doing.”


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

deviousalex said:


> A sanction based on a biological passport violation is never definitive proof. It's "we have a standard model for how this works, and your parameters violated the standard model."


I understand that, but that model can't take into consideration every human's biology and how it reacts to meds. No two humans are the same and it's very unfair for somebody to have to give up their career because they don't fit into the "norm".


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> I understand that, but that model can't take into consideration every human's biology and how it reacts to meds. No two humans are the same and it's very unfair for somebody to have to give up their career because they don't fit into the "norm".


If a rider works with Ferrari he open for a sanction. Thems the rules. 

RK is a doper. He got lucky and got off on a technicality. Happens all the time. Don't expect everyone to share your glee with a doper gaming the system


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Krueziger admitted he worked with Ferrari, do you think he was paying him all that money for interval workouts?
> 
> As Richard Virenque said


What's that got to do with proof? If I met with some bank robbers, does that make me a bank robber? Should I go to jail because a bank was robbed and I had met with them years ago? Maybe I did rob the bank, but maybe I didn't, but I should go to jail for that as it doesn't prove one damn thing.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> If a rider works with Ferrari he open for a sanction. Thems the rules.
> 
> RK is a doper. He got lucky and got off on a technicality. Happens all the time. Don't expect everyone to share your glee with a doper gaming the system


You should have passed your proof onto the UCI so they would win their case. 


My glee is that _*NOBODY SHOULD BE PUNISHED WITHOUT PROOF*_ Not on rumour, not on speculation, but proof. AND I believe it's better to let somebody off who may be guilty when you don't have proof, than to punish an innocent person.


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

love4himies said:


> What's that got to do with proof?


Ferrari has a lifetime ban by USADA. Working with him is a violation of the rules. Kreuziger admitted to working with him and hence broke the rules.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

deviousalex said:


> Ferrari has a lifetime ban by USADA. Working with him is a violation of the rules. Kreuziger admitted to working with him and hence broke the rules.


But wasn't that when Ferrari was only banned with working with Italian athletes?


----------



## deviousalex (Aug 18, 2010)

love4himies said:


> But wasn't that when Ferrari was only banned with working with Italian athletes?


I guess that's where it gets a bit hairy. According to this he was not allowed to "work with athletes in Italy."

Must Read: Kreuziger admits working with Ferrari - VeloNews.com


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> But wasn't that when Ferrari was only banned with working with Italian athletes?


Yeah, yeah, we get it. You like loopholes that let off dopers. Don't expect everyone to share your glee


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

1) Start with "thems the rules" 
2) Get caught out and shown to be wrong about the letter of the law
3) Attack person who asked about the letter of the law



Doctor Falsetti said:


> If a rider works with Ferrari he open for a sanction. Thems the rules.





Doctor Falsetti said:


> Yeah, yeah, we get it. You like loopholes that let off dopers.


LOL


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> 1) Start with "thems the rules"
> 2) Get caught out and shown to be wrong about the letter of the law
> 3) Attack person who asked about the letter of the law
> 
> ...


We get it, reading ain't your thing. LOL

RK is the king of the loophole. Some people cheer that, most don't. Nothing wrong with pointing this out. 

Didn't LOL go the way of "Cool Story Bro"?


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> We get it, reading ain't your thing. LOL
> 
> RK is the king of the loophole. Some people cheer that, most don't. Nothing wrong with pointing this out.
> 
> Didn't LOL go the way of "Cool Story Bro"?


So when it suits you, _thems the rules_. But when _thems aint the rules_, you complain about loopholes. 

All right.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Local Hero said:


> So when it suits you, _thems the rules_. But when _thems aint the rules_, you complain about loopholes.
> 
> All right.


As usual, trying to make this personal. LOL 

Go ahead, celebrate the doper getting off. Whatever floats your boat, just don't expect everyone to want to join your party.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

So tell us what those "loopholes" are since you once again were a fly on the wall when the UCI and WADA were discussing dropping the appeal? The "loophole" that medicine has explained the anomalies in his BP? 

And please don't bring Ferrari into this, Kreuziger admitted to seeing him back in 2007 when he was 20, this has nothing to do with his biological passport issue.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

deviousalex said:


> I guess that's where it gets a bit hairy. According to this he was not allowed to "work with athletes in Italy."
> 
> Must Read: Kreuziger admits working with Ferrari - VeloNews.com


I see, I thought it was _Italian_ athletes. Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> So tell us what those "loopholes" are since you once again were a fly on the wall when the UCI and WADA were discussing dropping the appeal? The "loophole" that medicine has explained the anomalies in his BP?
> 
> And please don't bring Ferrari into this, Kreuziger admitted to seeing him back in 2007 when he was 20, this has nothing to do with his biological passport issue.


You are welcome to pretend that Kreuziger using Ferrari has nothing to do with if he is a doper or not but most of us realize that using Ferrari is a very good sign that Kreuziger is a doper. 

The reason Kreuziger did not get banned for using Ferrari was due to a loophole. CONI (The Italian Fed) had mistakenly left Ferrari's name off the banned list. Pozzato, Visconti and Scarponi escaped on the same loophole. 

What does Ferrari have to do with the BioPassport case? Kreuziger did not stop working with Ferrari in 2007, that is a lie. La Gazetta showed He continued to work with him for years after that, including the 2011 season. The 2011 season is when he had the crazy blood values that triggered the biopassport case

Loopholes. RK loves them.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> You are welcome to pretend that Kreuziger using Ferrari has nothing to do with if he is a doper or not but most of us realize that using Ferrari is a very good sign that Kreuziger is a doper.
> 
> The reason Kreuziger did not get banned for using Ferrari was due to a loophole. CONI (The Italian Fed) had mistakenly left Ferrari's name off the banned list. Pozzato, Visconti and Scarponi escaped on the same loophole.
> 
> ...


Proof? Because Gazetta says he continued to work with Ferrari makes it fact? I'm old enough to know that not all that is published in newspapers is indeed fact. Because of incompetence of CONI it's a "loophole"? Not that the riders had reason to believe that it was legit to work with Ferrari? Next....

If there was proof (not suspicion that could be explained away) of doping, the UCI and WADA would not have dropped their appeal as they know they would have won their case. 

So now I'm asking again, where is your proof of doping? Or even what is the "loophole" you are speaking of? That doctors are backing up Kreuziger? That if there's a scientific explanation for abnormalities then it's a "loophole"? 

Geesh, you must have really been reeling over Impey and his explanation for his positive test.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

love4himies said:


> Proof? Because Gazetta says he continued to work with Ferrari makes it fact? I'm old enough to know that not all that is published in newspapers is indeed fact. Because of incompetence of CONI it's a "loophole"? Not that the riders had reason to believe that it was legit to work with Ferrari? Next....
> 
> If there was proof (not suspicion that could be explained away) of doping, the UCI and WADA would not have dropped their appeal as they know they would have won their case.
> 
> ...


Honestly, what is the scientific explanation for a 4 point rise in hematocrit in the last week of a grand tour? What's the scientific explanation for the drop in reticulocyte production? 

You're asking for proof of the contrary, but there IS evidence of manipulation there, and thyroid meds doesn't explain it.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

robdamanii said:


> Honestly, what is the scientific explanation for a 4 point rise in hematocrit in the last week of a grand tour? What's the scientific explanation for the drop in reticulocyte production?
> 
> You're asking for proof of the contrary, but there IS evidence of manipulation there, and thyroid meds doesn't explain it.


However, he has doctors that are stating otherwise. Just like Impey had a pharmacist that testified that he had filled a prescription for probenecid just prior to putting together Daryl's order for blank capsules and there was transfer of it to the capsules because he didn't wash his hands. Yes, there was proof from a positive test, but there was an explanation for it. 

Yes, there is an indication of of manipulation in Kreuziger's BP, but there is expert testimony that explains it. If the UCI can't dispute that testimony with evidence, then the system is working the way it should. Guilty only where there is no reasonable doubt. 

I think everybody on this forum would like to be treated the same way in life should they be accused of something .


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> Proof? Because Gazetta says he continued to work with Ferrari makes it fact? I'm old enough to know that not all that is published in newspapers is indeed fact. Because of incompetence of CONI it's a "loophole"? Not that the riders had reason to believe that it was legit to work with Ferrari? Next....
> 
> If there was proof (not suspicion that could be explained away) of doping, the UCI and WADA would not have dropped their appeal as they know they would have won their case.
> 
> ...


Impey is FOS. Did not believe him either. It is not just La Gazzetta that is saying RK worked with Ferrari in 2011, the Padova police report says it. That is their source

Do you really think RK worked with Ferrari for 5 years and he just got interval workouts? Really?

RK is a doper who dodged a bullet.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Impey is FOS. Did not believe him either. It is not just La Gazzetta that is saying RK worked with Ferrari in 2011, the Padova police report says it. That is their source
> 
> Do you really think RK worked with Ferrari for 5 years and he just got interval workouts? Really?
> 
> RK is a doper who dodged a bullet.


Personally, I don't believe Impey, but he did have the pharmacist testify and there were records that were submitted if I remember correctly. But what I believe, what is true and what can be proven are 3 different things. 

1. I don't think we know everything and therefore we need to listen to expert testimony that can't be otherwise disputed.
2. We can't know all the facts unless we're are a fly on the wall everywhere and we're privy to everything that is related.

I have no idea if RK is a doper or not, but I'm glad that if WADA couldn't prove their case they let him go. That's the way the system should work. If there is proof of him working with Ferrari after his lifetime ban, then the UCI needs to act on that, but that doesn't have anything to do with his BP.


----------



## TerminatorX91 (Mar 27, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> We get it, reading ain't your thing. LOL
> 
> RK is the king of the loophole. *Some people cheer that, most don't. Nothing wrong with pointing this out.*
> 
> Didn't LOL go the way of "Cool Story Bro"?


What a crock. Nobody is cheering.


----------



## TerminatorX91 (Mar 27, 2011)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> *We get it, reading ain't your thing. LOL*
> 
> RK is the king of the loophole. Some people cheer that, most don't. Nothing wrong with pointing this out.
> 
> Didn't LOL go the way of "Cool Story Bro"?





Doctor Falsetti said:


> *As usual, trying to make this personal. LOL*
> 
> Go ahead, celebrate the doper getting off. Whatever floats your boat, just don't expect everyone to want to join your party.


We get it, indeed. LOL


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

LOL, same crap different day.

I don't think RK is innocent. The fact that he got off the hook does not help promote a good image.


----------



## TerminatorX91 (Mar 27, 2011)

spade2you said:


> LOL, same crap different day.
> 
> I don't think RK is innocent. The fact that he got off the hook does not help promote a good image.


What good image? 

If we had to bet, we would guess that RK isn't innocent. That's no basis for UCI and WADA to continue a case they can't prove.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> I have no idea if RK is a doper or not


Why do you think he worked with Ferrari?


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

TerminatorX91 said:


> What good image?


Fair enough.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Why do you think he worked with Ferrari?


I don't *know*, I wasn't a fly on the wall when they met. But chances are based on Ferrari's history with cyclists, there could have been doping consultations going on, but I wouldn't want anybody to be sanctioned on that belief. 

I'm not cheering that RK got off, I'm cheering that when _*reasonable*_ doubt is presented WADA and the UCI back off. That is fair and brings credibility to the system.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> chances are based on Ferrari's history with cyclists, there could have been doping consultations going on, but I wouldn't want anybody to be sanctioned on that belief.


WADA disagrees. Ferrari is banned for life. Anyone who works with him can be sanctioned


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> WADA disagrees. Ferrari is banned for life. Anyone who works with him can be sanctioned


WADA disagrees that sanctions should happen on belief and not proof?


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

love4himies said:


> You should have passed your proof onto the UCI so they would win their case.
> 
> 
> My glee is that _*NOBODY SHOULD BE PUNISHED WITHOUT PROOF*_ Not on rumour, not on speculation, but proof. AND I believe it's better to let somebody off who may be guilty when you don't have proof, than to punish an innocent person.


Absolutely. Sucks, yeah, but it's the only way to be. I know this sounds Polyanna, but I really think you are a doper if you have been caught and penalized. There can't be other standards even if we have strong suspicions otherwise... Admission or proof of guilt. That's it. This isn't a witch hunt and shouldn't be conducted as one. And I'm fully aware that this lets dopers off, the problem is that there really isn't another option? If you are guilty by evidence or admission you are a doper, if not, you are not... Even if it's wrong.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

PBL450 said:


> Absolutely. Sucks, yeah, but it's the only way to be. I know this sounds Polyanna, but I really think you are a doper if you have been caught and penalized. There can't be other standards even if we have strong suspicions otherwise... Admission or proof of guilt. That's it. This isn't a witch hunt and shouldn't be conducted as one. And I'm fully aware that this lets dopers off, the problem is that there really isn't another option? If you are guilty by evidence or admission you are a doper, if not, you are not... Even if it's wrong.


What is proof of doping?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

love4himies said:


> Personally, I don't believe Impey, but he did have the pharmacist testify and there were records that were submitted if I remember correctly. But what I believe, what is true and what can be proven are 3 different things.
> 
> 1. I don't think we know everything and therefore we need to listen to *expert testimony that can't be otherwise disputed.*
> 2. We can't know all the facts unless we're are a fly on the wall everywhere and we're privy to everything that is related.
> ...


You have experts on both sides saying two completely different things, disputing what the other says.

It's no different than any other case of any kind. Anyone can find an "expert" to back up their opinion.

What's the most logical conclusion for his abnormal values? There's your answer...


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

den bakker said:


> What is proof of doping?


Proof is a near impossible standard. Outside of logic/mathematics, there is always doubt. 

What people should be talking about is evidence. A preponderance of evidence, more likely than not, is a good standard to use.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

This is not a murder trial. The standard of proof is not "beyond a reasonable doubt." 

Some people are so eager to believe that a video of their boy hooked up to a blood bag would not convince them.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Fireform said:


> Some people are so eager to believe that a video of their boy hooked up to a blood bag would not convince them.


But, but that video could have been altered by space aliens !


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Local Hero said:


> Proof is a near impossible standard. Outside of logic/mathematics, there is always doubt.
> 
> What people should be talking about is evidence. A preponderance of evidence, more likely than not, is a good standard to use.


I agree. If WADA and UCI are objective and look at all the evidence that is put before them and rule based upon that then the system is working. It is too bad that some professional cyclists don't have the means to get the best defense. In RK's case something was put before them to drop the case. I wonder if we will ever know for sure.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> But, but that video could have been altered by space aliens !


Could have been, but there are expert witnesses that can study that video and determine whether it's been doctored :wink5: 

Wouldn't it be a sad day in your world if you were a pro cyclist and somebody framed you and nobody wanted to listen to your side or your defense.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

robdamanii said:


> You have experts on both sides saying two completely different things, disputing what the other says.
> 
> It's no different than any other case of any kind. Anyone can find an "expert" to back up their opinion.
> 
> What's the most logical conclusion for his abnormal values? There's your answer...


True enough. The panel, in this case, seems to have weighed the evidence against him and had some doubt whether is values were due to doping.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

Fireform said:


> This is not a murder trial. The standard of proof is not "beyond a reasonable doubt."


funny enough, the second sentence is almost identical in the doping rules. but ain't no one got time to read that.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

love4himies said:


> Could have been, but there are expert witnesses that can study that video and determine whether it's been doctored :wink5:
> 
> Wouldn't it be a sad day in your world if you were a pro cyclist and somebody framed you and nobody wanted to listen to your side or your defense.


Few are sad when one of Ferrari's long time customers gets tossed out of the sport for a few years


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Few are sad when one of Ferrari's long time customers gets tossed out of the sport for a few years


What does this post have to do with my comment? No mention of Ferrari.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

love4himies said:


> What does this post have to do with my comment? No mention of Ferrari.


RK has significant Passport anomolies including a physiologically suspect rise in hematocrit during the final week of a grand tour and suppression of reticulocyte production all indicative of blood manipulation. 
He also has a history of working with Ferrari, one of the most notorious doping docs in the history of the sport and a guy banned from working with ANY cyclist.

It's circumstantial evidence that's stacked against RK.


Let me just ask you honestly (don't answer if you don't want to)....do YOU think RK is dirty?


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

robdamanii said:


> RK has significant Passport anomolies including a physiologically suspect rise in hematocrit during the final week of a grand tour and suppression of reticulocyte production all indicative of blood manipulation.
> He also has a history of working with Ferrari, one of the most notorious doping docs in the history of the sport and a guy banned from working with ANY cyclist.
> 
> It's circumstantial evidence that's stacked against RK.
> ...


But I was talking about a "sad day in his world if he was framed and nobody would listen to him". It was to make the point that riders should be able to have a defense and that a fair committee would listen to the defense with an open mind and consider all evidence/facts that are presented. A rumour doesn't make it fact, so if Dr. F. been accused of doping based on rumour, he would want a fair committee. 

As for RK doping, I don't know so I really have no opinion. I don't have a background in physiology to know whether his defense regarding his thyroid meds affecting his BP is reasonable or not, that's what expert witnesses are for. However, I don't believe the BP can take into consideration EVERY difference in a human's body especially if somebody has a health issue the may affect their blood chemistry. I believe it does a good job at looking at the average person (if you can consider an elite athlete "average", lol). The only evidence I've read of RK working with Dr. Ferrari was back when he first turned pro in 2006-07 (and wasn't there some controversy regarding the reporting by the authorities that he was banned from working with athletes in Italy and that's why he wasn't sanctioned back then??). While Dr. Ferrari has a reputation of providing doping advice to athletes, I believe he is extremely knowledgeable in athletic physiology so he may also be providing other advice and testing. I don't automatically assume that if you've met with him, you are doping, I would need other physical evidence such as a positive test to back it up.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

You're assuming that nobody has seen and evaluated all the facts? On what basis would you make such a statement? Do you really think that the officials at WADA and UCI are as uninformed as you are?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

love4himies said:


> But I was talking about a "sad day in his world if he was framed and nobody would listen to him". It was to make the point that riders should be able to have a defense and that a fair committee would listen to the defense with an open mind and consider all evidence/facts that are presented. A rumour doesn't make it fact, so if Dr. F. been accused of doping based on rumour, he would want a fair committee.
> 
> As for RK doping, I don't know so I really have no opinion. I don't have a background in physiology to know whether his defense regarding his thyroid meds affecting his BP is reasonable or not, that's what expert witnesses are for. However, I don't believe the BP can take into consideration EVERY difference in a human's body especially if somebody has a health issue the may affect their blood chemistry. I believe it does a good job at looking at the average person (if you can consider an elite athlete "average", lol). The only evidence I've read of RK working with Dr. Ferrari was back when he first turned pro in 2006-07 (and wasn't there some controversy regarding the reporting by the authorities that he was banned from working with athletes in Italy and that's why he wasn't sanctioned back then??). While Dr. Ferrari has a reputation of providing doping advice to athletes, I believe he is extremely knowledgeable in athletic physiology so he may also be providing other advice and testing. I don't automatically assume that if you've met with him, you are doping, I would need other physical evidence such as a positive test to back it up.


Who would "try to frame" RK for doping? And how would they do that to his BLOOD profile short of sticking him with needles.

And if you believe that people who visit Ferrari are looking for ex phys advice, you're really out on the fringe of cycling's reality. And saying "need...positive test to back it up" sounds a lot like what a certain banned American reiterated a bunch of times.

Look, I understand your lack of physiology understanding and naivety of how cycling's doping scheme works. That's all well and good. But saying you're "glad" that the case against him was dropped is really head-scratching. Would it not be better than let them fight it out in court and let RK prove his innocence? Because right now, something smells rotten in Denmark...

I still suspect that those anomolies happened during the Astana days, and since Astana is on "probation" any positive finding against RK would trigger a resurgence of the license investigation. And we can't have that right before le Tour, can we?


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

robdamanii said:


> Who would "try to frame" RK for doping? And how would they do that to his BLOOD profile short of sticking him with needles.
> 
> And if you believe that people who visit Ferrari are looking for ex phys advice, you're really out on the fringe of cycling's reality. And saying "need...positive test to back it up" sounds a lot like what a certain banned American reiterated a bunch of times.
> 
> ...


I didn't say frame RK, I was talking about Dr. Falsetti in a hypothetical situation of him being framed that he would like to have a fair committee to assess facts on whether he should be sanctioned rather than based on rumour. This is in response to his p

I'm not naive about Dr. Ferrari, I just don't like to assume. Guilt by association is not enough IMHO to sanction and ruin somebody's life. RK was young when he met with Ferrari and may not have known the consequences of his actions (or maybe he did know exactly what he was doing and wanted to go on a doping plan, who knows???). 

I am glad the* system worked*. That there was an explanation provided for the anomalies that the UCI/WADA could not refute and they, in all fairness, dropped their case. I think I can safely say we would all like to be treated in the same way. The BP is a _tool to indicate doping_ unlike a doping positive. Dr. Falsetti, nor you, nor anybody else on this forum knows whether RK doped or not, only assume.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

love4himies said:


> I didn't say frame RK, I was talking about Dr. Falsetti in a hypothetical situation of him being framed that he would like to have a fair committee to assess facts on whether he should be sanctioned rather than based on rumour. This is in response to his p
> 
> I'm not naive about Dr. Ferrari, I just don't like to assume. Guilt by association is not enough IMHO to sanction and ruin somebody's life. RK was young when he met with Ferrari and may not have known the consequences of his actions (or maybe he did know exactly what he was doing and wanted to go on a doping plan, who knows???).
> 
> I am glad the* system worked*. That there was an explanation provided for the anomalies that the UCI/WADA could not refute and they, in all fairness, dropped their case. I think I can safely say we would all like to be treated in the same way. The BP is a _tool to indicate doping_ unlike a doping positive. Dr. Falsetti, nor you, nor anybody else on this forum knows whether RK doped or not, only assume.


I'm sorry, but you are naive about Ferrari. Nobody ever went to him for anything but doping and doping-supported training regimens. He is banned from the sport for good reason, and the sooner his pupils are rooted out the better.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

love4himies said:


> I didn't say frame RK, I was talking about Dr. Falsetti in a hypothetical situation of him being framed that he would like to have a fair committee to assess facts on whether he should be sanctioned rather than based on rumour. This is in response to his p
> 
> I'm not naive about Dr. Ferrari, I just don't like to assume. * Guilt by association is not enough IMHO to sanction and ruin somebody's life.* RK was young when he met with Ferrari and may not have known the consequences of his actions (or maybe he did know exactly what he was doing and wanted to go on a doping plan, who knows???).
> 
> I am glad the* system worked*. That there was an explanation provided for the anomalies that the UCI/WADA could not refute and they, in all fairness, dropped their case. I think I can safely say we would all like to be treated in the same way. The BP is a _tool to indicate doping_ unlike a doping positive. Dr. Falsetti, nor you, nor anybody else on this forum knows whether RK doped or not, only assume.


According to UCI/CONI/WADA it is enough if you're a UCI licensed professional cyclist. IOW: Don't f**k around with the dope doctor, because they know why you're talking to him.

And the system _didn't_ work. If the system worked it would have gone to CAS and been argued there where each side can present their arguments. If the system worked, the anomoly would have been found, there would have been a sanction imposed by an international tribunal (not a national federation) and it never would have hit this point. The ONLY reason that it came to this point is Tinkov has a LOT of money to throw at it (I highly doubt RK was paying for his attorneys himself on his salary, but I don't know his salary.) 

And here's a bit of trivia for you to think about: Hypothyroidism doesn't have the effect of raising hematocrit over the course of a stage race where plasma expansion takes place. Nor does it result in crashed reticulocytes during the same. Hypothyroidsm (the most typical thyroid disorder especially with an endurance athlete) generally involves anemia. If he's controlled by meds, he should be stable. Basic human physiology says there's few explanations for what was found in his BP other than a bag of blood or some other oxygen vector doping.

The passport has been proven to be an effective inidcator of doping in the past (see: Pellizotti) so the UCI's handling of this case raises alarm bells for some of us.

In any case, I'm more than 90% sure that RK is dirty. I don't need to see the explanation of it; where there's smoke, there's flame, and physiologically his explanation doesn't add up.

And FYI: You ARE naive about Ferrari.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

robdamanii said:


> According to UCI/CONI/WADA it is enough if you're a UCI licensed professional cyclist.
> 
> IOW: Don't f**k around with the dope doctor, because they know why you're talking to him.
> 
> And FYI: You ARE naive about Ferrari.


1. I know it is enough to ban, but that it is not enough to say with 100% accuracy that somebody doped. RK provided enough credible evidence that he didn't dope,or there was enough doubt, that the UCI/WADA dropped their appeal. IMHO had there not been, the UCI/WADA would have won, and RK would have been banned. And I think it would have taken some pretty plausible evidence for them to back down. This has put their BP credibility into question, so I don't think that decision came by lightly. 

2. Here is another way it could have happened: He was 20, he was young and enthusiastic and wanted to know who the best doctors were to help him get stronger. The person who he is talking to misinterprets RK as talking about doping. He is told the best doctor to see was Dr. Ferrari. RK visits Dr. Ferrari and Dr. Ferrari does some testing. RK doesn't bring up doping so Ferrari doesn't suggest it. The only people who *know* what corresponded between them is RK and Dr. Ferrari. All *we* can do is presume they spoke of doping. Or it could have happened as people assume: RK to another rider: I want to get on the program, who should I see? 

3. I'm not naive about Dr. Ferrari, I'm not arrogant enough to come to conclusions that I have not been privy to vital information. In this case, Dr. Ferrari's medical notes or a fly on the wall when they were meeting. No matter how flat a pancake is, it always has two sides. AND I believe in innocent until proven guilty. I'm the type that would fight for accused rights to ensure the police have done their jobs without negligence and/or corruption. I would like to think that I treat people the same way I would like to be treated. 

I've been accused of a crime that I didn't commit and had to deal with police to clear myself. The accuser swore up and down that it was me (and I had in my position the same model/colour of bike that was stolen), thank goodness I had some credible proof that I wasn't there and didn't do it. If somebody didn't have all the facts of my defense and only listened to the accuser, they too would think I was guilty as hell. Maybe that's why I don't presume guilt.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

love4himies said:


> 1. I know it is enough to ban, but that it is not enough to say with 100% accuracy that somebody doped. RK provided enough credible evidence that he didn't dope,or there was enough doubt, that the UCI/WADA dropped their appeal. IMHO had there not been, the UCI/WADA would have won, and RK would have been banned. And I think it would have taken some pretty plausible evidence for them to back down. This has put their BP credibility into question, so I don't think that decision came by lightly.
> 
> 2. Here is another way it could have happened: He was 20, he was young and enthusiastic and wanted to know who the best doctors were to help him get stronger. The person who he is talking to misinterprets RK as talking about doping. He is told the best doctor to see was Dr. Ferrari. RK visits Dr. Ferrari and Dr. Ferrari does some testing. RK doesn't bring up doping so Ferrari doesn't suggest it. The only people who *know* what corresponded between them is RK and Dr. Ferrari. All *we* can do is presume they spoke of doping. Or it could have happened as people assume: RK to another rider: I want to get on the program, who should I see?
> 
> ...


The doctor was synonym with EPO since the mid 90s. any cyclist knew what he was doing. You don't go to him for legit training programs only any more than you go hells angels for cooking recipes only.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

robdamanii said:


> According to UCI/CONI/WADA it is enough if you're a UCI licensed professional cyclist. IOW: Don't f**k around with the dope doctor, because they know why you're talking to him.
> 
> And the system _didn't_ work. If the system worked it would have gone to CAS and been argued there where each side can present their arguments. If the system worked, the anomoly would have been found, there would have been a sanction imposed by an international tribunal (not a national federation) and it never would have hit this point. *The ONLY reason that it came to this point is Tinkov has a LOT of money to throw at it* (I highly doubt RK was paying for his attorneys himself on his salary, but I don't know his salary.)
> 
> ...


Wow, that was quite the edit.

Then UCI/WADA should have continued their appeal. Is what you are saying is that UCI is still corrupt under Cookson (see the line that I highlighted that I'm basing my question on)? I just can't see them dropping their appeal if they could defend their stance.

I'm always interested in learning, if you have a link that shows what extreme physical activity can do to the bloodwork of somebody who is taking L-Thyroxine I would love to read it.

I assume you know the story of Barry Marshall and the difficulty he had on proving H Pylori bacteria caused stomach ulcers in the '80s because mainstream thinking was that ulcers were caused by stress? Bet there were doctors that insisted, even after he proved the cause of ulcers, that it was caused from stress. Those are the doctors that are closed minded and are so very arrogant as to believe they know everything. I don't believe scientists today know everything that can cause anomalies in the BP. There will always be new discoveries . 

Anywho, I wonder if RK is going to post the results from the Mayo Clinic on his website. I am very curious to know how they justified the anomalies to his meds.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

love4himies said:


> Wow, that was quite the edit.
> 
> Then UCI/WADA should have continued their appeal. Is what you are saying is that UCI is still corrupt under Cookson (see the line that I highlighted that I'm basing my question on)? I just can't see them dropping their appeal if they could defend their stance.
> 
> ...


Was I insinuating that the UCI is still corrupt? Partly yes. I'm partly insinuating that Tinkov probably paid a lot for lawyers to keep one of Contador's lieutenants in play for his double bid. 

As for some information on the science:

Here's some info on Hypo/Hyper thyroid and RBC production. 

Effect of Thyroid Dysfunctions on Blood Cell Count and Red Blood Cell Indice

Some info on hemodynamics during long term exercise: 
http://asheducationbook.hematologylibrary.org/content/2013/1/627.full



> Detailed reports from the Spanish doping investigation, nicknamed “Operacion Puerto” revealed the systematic use of autologous blood transfusions by several athletes.17 Hundreds of frozen blood units from professional athletes, along with calendars with reinfusion dates, were discovered by police. Blood was typically withdrawn 4 to 5 weeks before important competitions using conventional refrigerated storage procedures and preservative solutions, and then reinfused a few days before either one-day competitions or during multiday competitions into the donor's circulation. *During multiday competitions, blood transfusions were used to stabilize hemoglobin levels, which tend to decrease during repeated periods of exhausting exercise due to plasma volume expansion.*18,19





> The challenges of blood manipulation have led to the development of the Athletes Biological Passport (ABP).30 The ABP is an indirect detection method relying on longitudinal monitoring of certain blood parameters on the individual level. The Hb and the %ret are the two most important parameters in the ABP. The main aim for blood manipulators today is to achieve a supraphysiological hemoglobin mass while maintaining Hb values and %ret at relatively stable levels. Because the Hb is dependent on plasma volume and because considerable fluctuations in plasma volume occur over time, the ABP allows for some degree of variation in the Hb. Significant fluctuations in erythropoiesis-sensitive parameters mandate a more thorough investigation of the blood profile by an expert panel. The overall aim for cheating athletes is to navigate within the lower and upper limits of their “passport.” Since 2009, it has been possible to sanction athletes for 2 years based on abnormal blood profiles alone. The ABP is also used for targeted collection of urine samples for the direct detection of rHuEPO.





> During strenuous multiday competitions, a normal physiological response is plasma volume expansion, resulting in a decrease in Hb of ∼ 15%.8,18 An athlete with a normal Hb of 14.5 g/dL ends up with an Hb of 12.3 g/dL at the end of a Grand Tour. *Nevertheless, the transfusion of one bag of blood increases the Hb by ∼ 0.8 g/dL.12 With 3 transfusions during a Grand Tour, a cyclist would experience relatively stable Hb throughout the race.*


He would have to have taken a hell of a lot of Thyroxine to boost hematocrit 4 points (not sure what his hemoglobin measure was at the time) and it would certainly be outside his TUE dosage.

Changes in blood values in elite cyclist. - Abstract - Europe PubMed Central



> In 2006, a couple of professional cycling teams initiated their own testing programs. The objective of this study is to describe fluctuations in commonly measured blood parameters among top-level riders. From December 12th 2006 to November 30th 2007, a total of 374 blood samples and 287 urine samples were obtained from 28 elite, male cyclists. Blood was analyzed for hematocrit (Hct), hemoglobin concentration ([Hb]) and % reticulocytes. Seventy-six percent of all samples were collected out-of-competition (OOC). From December 2006 to September 2007, the average Hct and [Hb] decreased by 4.3 percent point and 1.3 g/dL, respectively. After the end of the competitive season, the values increased back to baseline levels. During the Tour de France, the [Hb] decreased by 11.5 %, with individual decreases ranging from 7.0 to 20.6 %. Hct and [Hb] values were lower in-competition (40.9 % and 14.1 g/dL) compared to OOC (43.2 % and 15.0 g/dL) and pre-competition (43.5 % and 14.9 g/dL). Our results suggest that when interpreting blood sample results in an anti-doping context, the sample timing (OOC, pre- or in-competition) and time of year should be kept in mind.


The biopassport is perfectly acceptable as a tool to ban someone for doping. As mentioned: this is not a murder trial where "beyond a shadow of a doubt" exists. This is a national federation who makes the call on one of THEIR OWN athletes (unless it's appealed to CAS.)

More than anything, your insistance that RK is innocent annoys me when you admittedly know nothing about oxygen vector doping and blood value dynamics. 

You're starting to sound like the Lance folk who go "but, he never tested positive!" Get real. This excuse is as stupid as Tiernan Locke's "I drank too much last night" defense.

RK should be taking a 2 year vacation right now, instead, he'll be starting the Tour. That's disappointing to say the least, especially after watching the Astana antics at the Giro.


----------



## Fireform (Dec 15, 2005)

love4himies said:


> 2. Here is another way it could have happened: He was 20, he was young and enthusiastic and wanted to know who the best doctors were to help him get stronger. The person who he is talking to misinterprets RK as talking about doping. He is told the best doctor to see was Dr. Ferrari. RK visits Dr. Ferrari and Dr. Ferrari does some testing. RK doesn't bring up doping so Ferrari doesn't suggest it. The only people who *know* what corresponded between them is RK and Dr. Ferrari. All *we* can do is presume they spoke of doping. Or it could have happened as people assume: RK to another rider: I want to get on the program, who should I see?


Well. Dr. Falsetti has nothing on you in the fly-on-the-wall department.

I hope you will read Robdaman's excellent post and associated links. They are illuminating.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

robdamanii said:


> RK should be taking a 2 year vacation right now, instead, he'll be starting the Tour. That's disappointing to say the least, especially after watching the Astana antics at the Giro.


This was a good part of what I was trying to say... Using a valid standard of "proof" and after applying a credible process, an athlete is either guilty or not guilty. It must end there. Otherwise the sport itself is beyond salvage. If no team, if no individual rider, can have a stand out, awesome, transformative and thrilling experience without the automatic assumption of playing dirty then the entire sport is dead. Permanently. Astana can't have a great Giro. Contador cant have a legendary Mortirolo. Guilty is banned, not-guilty is clean. Everything else is the demise of racing bicycles. And perhaps speed skating and running and rowing and weight lifting and football and baseball and trap shooting.

There are cats and mice... If the mouse is alive it's a mouse. End of debate. If the mouse is cat food? End of debate. There aren't other possibilities are there?


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

PBL450 said:


> This was a good part of what I was trying to say... Using a valid standard of "proof" and after applying a credible process, an athlete is either guilty or not guilty. It must end there. Otherwise the sport itself is beyond salvage. If no team, if no individual rider, can have a stand out, awesome, transformative and thrilling experience without the automatic assumption of playing dirty then the entire sport is dead. Permanently. Astana can't have a great Giro. Contador cant have a legendary Mortirolo. Guilty is banned, not-guilty is clean. Everything else is the demise of racing bicycles. And perhaps speed skating and running and rowing and weight lifting and football and baseball and trap shooting.
> 
> There are cats and mice... If the mouse is alive it's a mouse. End of debate. If the mouse is cat food? End of debate. There aren't other possibilities are there?


We never hit the point where he was determined "guilty or not" because his evidence (supposedly, I've not seen where his evidence was the cause of the case being dropped) was never heard nor seen. So what are we, the consuming public and fans to believe?

We've been burned many a time before. When I see a team with 5 guys left and everyone else is down to the team leaders or the best climbers, I'm suspicious that they're on SUCH a different level than everyone else.

The secret pro article from Cyclingtips touched on this. It's interesting...


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

robdamanii said:


> We never hit the point where he was determined "guilty or not" because his evidence (supposedly, I've not seen where his evidence was the cause of the case being dropped) was never heard nor seen. So what are we, the consuming public and fans to believe?
> 
> We've been burned many a time before. When I see a team with 5 guys left and everyone else is down to the team leaders or the best climbers, I'm suspicious that they're on SUCH a different level than everyone else.
> 
> The secret pro article from Cyclingtips touched on this. It's interesting...


Oh, I get it and I agree on so many levels... But the sport can't be a real sport unless it polices itself or has some policing vehicle. In the case of RK the "case was dropped" is the end. It has to be or the sport is doomed. I understand that it's a thin line in cycling (all sports) as to what is a great performance and what is a triumph of science over other's science... Reasonable standard of proof and a credible process. That's the end all. Anything else and its professional wrestling.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

PBL450 said:


> Oh, I get it and I agree on so many levels... But the sport can't be a real sport unless it polices itself or has some policing vehicle. In the case of RK the "case was dropped" is the end. It has to be or the sport is doomed. I understand that it's a thin line in cycling (all sports) as to what is a great performance and what is a triumph of science over other's science... Reasonable standard of proof and a credible process. That's the end all. Anything else and its professional wrestling.


I don't in theory disagree. But policing itself hasn't worked in the past, nor does it seem to be working now. After all, Aru is suing Henderson for saying he should "come back clean" Who better to know that than fellow riders? 

Omerta is alive and well. And that sucks.


----------



## PBL450 (Apr 12, 2014)

robdamanii said:


> I don't in theory disagree. But policing itself hasn't worked in the past, nor does it seem to be working now. After all, Aru is suing Henderson for saying he should "come back clean" Who better to know that than fellow riders?
> 
> Omerta is alive and well. And that sucks.


Yeah, I get it... But it isn't working and the result is cycling isn't a sport... Clean is clean and dirty is dirty. Caught? Credible process and reasonable definition of proof? Sanction or no? Better doper? Does that matter? No. If it is a sport at all, and your point, indirectly, is that is in NOT (because it can't be fairly adjudicated) is fair. It is either professional wrestling or not.


----------



## den bakker (Nov 13, 2004)

PBL450 said:


> I understand that it's a thin line in cycling (all sports) as to what is a great performance and what is a triumph of science over other's science...


that was not what Kreuziger was flagged on at all.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

robdamanii said:


> Was I insinuating that the UCI is still corrupt? Partly yes. I'm partly insinuating that Tinkov probably paid a lot for lawyers to keep one of Contador's lieutenants in play for his double bid.
> 
> As for some information on the science:
> 
> ...


Thank you for going through the trouble posting these. I will read through then later today.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

robdamanii said:


> The biopassport is perfectly acceptable as a tool to ban someone for doping. As mentioned: this is not a murder trial where "beyond a shadow of a doubt" exists. This is a national federation who makes the call on one of THEIR OWN athletes (unless it's appealed to CAS.)
> 
> *More than anything, your insistance that RK is innocent* annoys me when you admittedly know nothing about oxygen vector doping and blood value dynamics.
> 
> You're starting to sound like the Lance folk who go "but, he never tested positive!" Get real. This excuse is as stupid as Tiernan Locke's "I drank too much last night" defense.


I never, not once, ever state that he was innocent. Just that I was glad in the absence of a positive doping result (well, even that does not mean a ban, look at Impey), that when credible evidence is presented to explain the BP anomalies that the UCI/WADA did not continue and ban the rider. Just because it is a perfectly acceptable tool, doesn't mean it's 100% accurate. And I think I stated "reasonable doubt", not "beyond a shadow of a doubt", because then the BP would be useless. "Reasonable" meaning in the committee's mind the evidence presented can explain the anomalies. 

I assume that you feel that the UCI may be still corrupt is because you don't feel there is ANY credible explanation so the only explanation is bribery or high cost of continuing the fight???? The problem with the UCI not announcing why they are dropping the appeal is that people will speculate, probably not what they need right now.

And, yes, I would argue the same for Lance or any other rider. He is entitled to the same processes as all other riders get, no matter how much of an a$$hole he is.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

love4himies said:


> I never, not once, ever state that he was innocent. Just that I was glad in the absence of a positive doping result (well, even that does not mean a ban, look at Impey), that when credible evidence is presented to explain the BP anomalies that the UCI/WADA did not continue and ban the rider. Just because it is a perfectly acceptable tool, doesn't mean it's 100% accurate. And I think I stated "reasonable doubt", not "beyond a shadow of a doubt", because then the BP would be useless. "Reasonable" meaning in the committee's mind the evidence presented can explain the anomalies.
> 
> I assume that you feel that the UCI may be still corrupt is because you don't feel there is ANY credible explanation so the only explanation is bribery or high cost of continuing the fight???? The problem with the UCI not announcing why they are dropping the appeal is that people will speculate, probably not what they need right now.
> 
> And, yes, I would argue the same for Lance or any other rider. He is entitled to the same processes as all other riders get, no matter how much of an a$$hole he is.


No, I'm assuming the UCI must be corrupt because I have enough years of physiology, biology and biochemistry in my CV to understand that those anomolies are NOT something that's randomly occurring.

If there was a reasonable doubt, then why not come out and state what it is, rather than just dropping it like it's hot.


----------



## BelgianHammer (Apr 10, 2012)

love4himies,

I see you're still here, battling it out against the haughty, taughty "_I am superior to you_" forces of the online posting universe.

Keep up the fight, my good lady  as the presumption by some of total knowledge & competency of anything in this world knows no boundaries and/or bottom. :thumbsup:


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

robdamanii said:


> No, I'm assuming the UCI must be corrupt because I have enough years of physiology, biology and biochemistry in my CV to understand that those anomolies are NOT something that's randomly occurring.
> 
> If there was a reasonable doubt, then why not come out and state what it is, rather than just dropping it like it's hot.


I agree that they should come out and state their reasoning for transparency.


----------



## love4himies (Jun 12, 2012)

BelgianHammer said:


> love4himies,
> 
> I see you're still here, battling it out against the haughty, taughty "_I am superior to you_" forces of the online posting universe.
> 
> Keep up the fight, my good lady  as the presumption by some of total knowledge & competency of anything in this world knows no boundaries and/or bottom. :thumbsup:


Thank you, BelgianHammer. Oh, and if you are in Belgium, can you have one of those mighty fine brews for me after your next ride? One of the things I miss about living in Europe is their wonderful beer (and food).


----------



## BelgianHammer (Apr 10, 2012)

I will definitely comply with your wish, my Queen!


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

BelgianHammer said:


> love4himies,
> 
> I see you're still here, battling it out against the haughty, taughty "_I am superior to you_" forces of the online posting universe.
> 
> Keep up the fight, my good lady  as the presumption by some of total knowledge & competency of anything in this world knows no boundaries and/or bottom. :thumbsup:


It's not total knowledge. It's common sense and Occam's Razor: "The principle states that among competing hypotheses that predict equally well, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected."

Big gain in hematocrit 3rd week of a grand tour? Contrary to basic physiology and plasma expansion? Yup, can't be the doping, must be the thyroid meds.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> Big gain in hematocrit 3rd week of a grand tour? Contrary to basic physiology and plasma expansion? Yup, can't be the doping, must be the thyroid meds.


Add to this he was working with the sports most notorious doping doctor and riding on it's dirtiest team and it becomes even more obvious that RK got lucky


----------

