# tour retesting...



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

there's a story on msnbc that more tour samples are going to be retested as there's suspicion of more CERA positives. Results could come out right around world championships. Nice flair for the timing...

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/26755354/


----------



## MG537 (Jul 25, 2006)

stevesbike said:


> there's a story on msnbc that more tour samples are going to be retested as there's suspicion of more CERA positives. Results could come out right around world championships. Nice flair for the timing...
> 
> http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/26755354/


While it's a good thing that more get caught, the problem is that CERA is just one of many 3rd generation variations of EPO. There's been talk, in this forum and in the media of several other flavors from China that cost very little to acquire over the internet, and that no test exists for them. 

My concern is that we've gone from the DOPING years of the 90's and early 00's to DOPING-lite.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

I wonder how many pros are pissing their pants over this news. Think Sastre is sleeping well?


----------



## jupiterrn (Sep 22, 2006)

iliveonnitro said:


> I wonder how many pros are pissing their pants over this news. Think Sastre is sleeping well?


Hopefully, just the ones that doped. I just hope those tests are accurate.


----------



## ewitz (Sep 11, 2002)

That's what happens when you run races outside the confines of the UCI.

Retesting of negative a samples should not be allowed.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

ewitz said:


> That's what happens when you run races outside the confines of the UCI.
> 
> Retesting of negative a samples should not be allowed.


As long as both the A and B samples are securely and properly maintained, and chain of custody can be established (although that doesn't seem too important to the CAS these days), I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be able to retest the samples.


----------



## iliveonnitro (Feb 19, 2006)

mohair_chair said:


> As long as both the A and B samples are securely and properly maintained, and chain of custody can be established (although that doesn't seem too important to the CAS these days), I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be able to retest the samples.


Because the LNDD lab is pretty questionable in itself.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

iliveonnitro said:


> Because the LNDD lab is pretty questionable in itself.


True, but now I wonder if they are actually going to retest the samples, which would mean rerunning the same tests, or if they are going to run NEW tests on the samples. Rerunning the same tests on samples that came up negative once, and now come up positive would only show how unreliable the test or the execution of the test is. That's interesting for research purposes, but I can't imagine they would ever try to use results like that, because they've built in reasonable doubt. In fact, I doubt they would ever publish those results. What I can see them doing is running newly developed, <u>different</u> tests on the samples, which isn't a retest at all. It's a continuation of the testing process. And I have no problem with that, as long as both the A and B samples have been securely maintained.


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> True, but now I wonder if they are actually going to retest the samples, which would mean rerunning the same tests, or if they are going to run NEW tests on the samples. Rerunning the same tests on samples that came up negative once, and now come up positive would only show how unreliable the test or the execution of the test is. That's interesting for research purposes, but I can't imagine they would ever try to use results like that, because they've built in reasonable doubt. In fact, I doubt they would ever publish those results. What I can see them doing is running newly developed, <u>different</u> tests on the samples, which isn't a retest at all. It's a continuation of the testing process. And I have no problem with that, as long as both the A and B samples have been securely maintained.


"...as long as both the A and B samples have been securely maintained." If such a WADA protocol exists, it is very recent.

Unfortunately, the whole drug testing program is one big reseach project run by lawyers.

TF


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> True, but now I wonder if they are actually going to retest the samples, which would mean rerunning the same tests, or if they are going to run NEW tests on the samples.


Seeing as the suspicious but not positive tests were urine, and the "retesting" is on blood samples, it doesn't sound like they're repeating the same tests on the same samples but doing new tests (as far as I'm aware the only CERA test we've heard of is a urine test). Presumably that blood, or at least some of it, may have been tested for other substances than CERA?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

If what I have heard about this is true, it is about to get much. much, worse.

I fell sick.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

bigpinkt said:


> If what I have heard about this is true, it is about to get much. much, worse.
> 
> I fell sick.


Sounds like somebody unexpected, VDV? Millar? Entire Gramin squad? Columbia?


----------



## chase196126 (Jan 4, 2008)

Here is a link that was posted over on Weight Weenies:

http://209.85.171.104/translate_c?h...994%7D&usg=ALkJrhgMFBdZQ-dnVL97inzO49fDzkN7yA

I dont know anything about the validity, i'm just posting to share the info around.


----------



## RSPDiver (Jun 3, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> Sounds like somebody unexpected, VDV? Millar? Entire Gramin squad? Columbia?


Or general, wide-spread positives, perhaps? Weren't there a dozen or so pre-race suspicions that only yielded a couple of eventual (urine?) positives? I'd hate to see a massive shakeup of the results from multiple stages and maybe the overall from this year. Sure won't help sponsor money and the near term commercial future of the sport if so.


----------



## Bry03cobra (Oct 31, 2006)

WOW five riders from CSC. Two from Gerschlager, Two from Columbia......time to speculate boys!!!!!!

Evans may get his TDF title after all.


----------



## RSPDiver (Jun 3, 2006)

Bry03cobra said:


> WOW five riders from CSC. Two from Gerschlager, Two from Columbia......time to speculate boys!!!!!!
> 
> Evans may get his TDF title after all.


As much as I would hate if it's true, I'm thinking Cancellara will be on the list. And that sucks. Weird that he pulled out of Worlds...


----------



## Henry Porter (Jul 25, 2006)

Ug, here we go again.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

Bry03cobra said:


> WOW five riders from CSC. Two from Gerschlager, Two from Columbia......time to speculate boys!!!!!!
> 
> Evans may get his TDF title after all.


Even if none of the CSC guys end up positive, how come their blood values are odd enough to raise suspicions yet Damsgaard's program isn't identifying them and stopping them from riding (although I seem to remember suspicions about Cancellera already last year)?

Kohl and Schumacher obviously raised above normal suspicions for Gerolsteiner.

How ironic if Hincapie gets busted considering he must be on Flintstone vitamins compared to the gear he must have been on at Postal/Discovery.


----------



## Susan Walker (Mar 21, 2008)

Dwayne Barry said:


> how come their blood values are odd enough to raise suspicions yet Damsgaard's program isn't identifying them


He is paid by the team.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Dwayne Barry said:


> Even if none of the CSC guys end up positive, how come their blood values are odd enough to raise suspicions yet Damsgaard's program isn't identifying them and stopping them from riding (although I seem to remember suspicions about Cancellera already last year)?


What blood results? I thought this was based on the urine samples taken during the Tour. Since as far as I know, the results of these urine tests have never been made public, I can easily believe what was suspicious was only the riders' performances and there was nothing remarkable in the urine results; especially since there are no standards to define "suspicious."


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

asgelle said:


> What blood results? I thought this was based on the urine samples taken during the Tour. Since as far as I know, the results of these urine tests have never been made public, I can easily believe what was suspicious was only the riders' performances and there was nothing remarkable in the urine results; especially since there are no standards to define "suspicious."


They have retested with a recently developed, more sensitive, blood test for CERA.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

bigpinkt said:


> They have retested with a recently developed, more sensitive, blood test for CERA.


Yes, but the suspicion Dwayne referred to was based on results of a urine test. Therefore, the results can not be compared to the internal CSC blood testing data.


----------



## Doctor Who (Feb 22, 2005)

Funny how the drama of drug cheats and drug investigations in cycling is sometimes more interesting and engaging than the races themselves.


----------



## MarkS (Feb 3, 2004)

Doctor Who said:


> Funny how the drama of drug cheats and drug investigations in cycling is sometimes more interesting and engaging than the races themselves.


Funny that you should say that. I know a judge who has no interest sports. She used to make snide comments about only idiots read the sports pages in the newspapers, etc. Then, a few years ago, she told me that she had started reading the sports pages every day -- that is when she realized that sports figures also were subjects of great crime stories. She still does not care to know anything about how athletes are doing on the playing field, but if there is a crime scandal involving sports, she knows all about it. I expect that the next time I see her, she will be as well informed about the latest doping charges in cycling as those of us who lurk and post here are.


----------



## OctaBech (Aug 12, 2008)

Susan Walker said:


> He is paid by the team.


I got nothing against questioning Damsgaard's program, but please do not make up lies as they hurt the sport just as much.

Damsgaard is not receiving money from the teams and all the test are performed by WADA accredited labs which send the results to UCI before Damsgaard receive them.

It's not like the health program(not a certified anti doping program to my knowledge) used by Garmin and Columbia which is profit driven and the Sports Director receive the results before UCI.


----------



## Dwayne Barry (Feb 16, 2003)

asgelle said:


> Yes, but the suspicion Dwayne referred to was based on results of a urine test. Therefore, the results can not be compared to the internal CSC blood testing data.


True, but if it turns out they were doping with CERA it calls into question the validity of the whole notion of a "biopassport" whether run by a team or UCI. It either means it can still be beat or more cynically, Damsgaard's program isn't what it appears to be.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Dwayne Barry said:


> True, but if it turns out they were doping with CERA it calls into question the validity of the whole notion of a "biopassport" whether run by a team or UCI. It either means it can still be beat or more cynically, Damsgaard's program isn't what it appears to be.


Or it raises questions about the validity of the CERA test itself if these targeted runs show presence of the compound when the biological parameters showed any effect.


----------



## Susan Walker (Mar 21, 2008)

OctaBech said:


> I got nothing against questioning Damsgaard's program, but please do not make up lies as they hurt the sport just as much.


Are you saying team CSC did not hire Damsgaard? It certainly was reported that way and why else would he do any testing on anyone if it is outside the realm of UCI/WADA/ADD? Research perhaps but then only he has the results prior to (anonymised) publication in a journal.


----------



## OctaBech (Aug 12, 2008)

Dwayne Barry said:


> True, but if it turns out they were doping with CERA it calls into question the validity of the whole notion of a "biopassport" whether run by a team or UCI. It either means it can still be beat or more cynically, Damsgaard's program isn't what it appears to be.


It should also be a rather big blow to the big name UCI critics(who Damsgaard is among), because they've been pushing the Biologic passport as part of thesport's salvation for quite some time now.

That's actually how Riis meet Damsgaard through Danish TV(I'm a Danish CSC fan), where Riis in the end live challenged Damsgaard to see if he with his(Verner Franke and so on) system could do it better than UCI.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

The tests that the LNND are going to do is a newer and more sensitive test than what they had in July. At least that's what Velonews is reporting. The article also states that the original CERA tests weren't done @ LNND at all, but at a different lab. My guess, and hope, is that Schumi goes down. I would be surprised if it's Cancellara. If he was on a program he would have won those ITT's. The only explaination is that FC was clean, and MS was not. Kohl also raised more than a few eyebrows. I would be surprised if it was Sastre. Schleck maybe? Voight, never.


----------



## tron (Jul 18, 2004)

Cancellera might not have won the time trials but he was driving the peleton up some climbs.
Schlecks' recent room search and the discovery of his payment is might be linked to these recent tests.


----------



## OctaBech (Aug 12, 2008)

Susan Walker said:


> Are you saying team CSC did not hire Damsgaard? It certainly was reported that way and why else would he do any testing on anyone if it is outside the realm of UCI/WADA/ADD? Research perhaps but then only he has the results prior to (anonymised) publication in a journal.


He wasn't hired, he was challenged and he gets his pay from Bispebjerg Hospital where he works for WADA as FIS'(Fédération Internationale de Ski) anti doping expert while also developing new tests.

Damsgaard is along with Werner Franke one of WADA and UCI's biggest critics, accusing them of sitting on obviously positive samples but being too afraid of bringing the riders to court because the criteria for positive test are too rigid(a blood sample can show clear signs of doping but without the name of the medicament it can't be taken to court).
Another problem he has had with UCI is that they did not do enough test(especially out of competition) and that they didn't put the test in context(biological passport) but only looked at min and max values(the passport shown if a rider regenerate blood to fast through the use of doping).
Damsgaard has even attacked UCI for their use of crit test, pointing out that FIS already back in 2001 dropped the test because the were ineffective and nothing but a smokescreen.

His work with Team CSC Saxo Bank is of an idealogical nature, implementing the system he along with other critics have been screaming for.


----------



## OctaBech (Aug 12, 2008)

tron said:


> Cancellera might not have won the time trials but he was driving the peleton up some climbs.
> Schlecks' recent room search and the discovery of his payment is might be linked to these recent tests.


But Schumacher was is many breakaways only being caught on the last mountain. Has was even in a breakway on the stage before the last iTT(which was very fast if I'm not mistaken) where Fabian on the other hand fell behind the peloton to save energy for the next day.

I'm not saying Schumi was doped but he had more energy and better legs than Fabian.

NB. This does not mean that Fabian was clean.


----------



## dagger (Jul 22, 2004)

Yep....This new and "clean" generation of cyclists are probably using the new generation doping methods. I say bring back the old guard.

I am thinking the two CSC were the Schleck brothers. Remember their father's car was the one pulled over for no obvious reason.
Oh...and probably Schumacher too. Bettini is going to have a good laugh if Schumi was involved after he got cut out by QS


----------



## Dan Gerous (Mar 28, 2005)

So the CSC anti-doping thing might just be for marketing purpose, the CSC Tour squad is now in boiling water according to this report stating that Sastre, Frank Schleck, Fabian and Stuey are all CERA doping suspects targeted by the retests of Tour samples... That wouldn't be good if it proves true.


----------



## OctaBech (Aug 12, 2008)

Dan Gerous said:


> So the CSC anti-doping thing might just be for marketing purpose, the CSC Tour squad is now in boiling water according to this report stating that Sastre, Frank Schleck, Fabian and Stuey are all CERA doping suspects targeted by the retests of Tour samples... That wouldn't be good if it proves true.


Luckily I know Danish and that's just a re-report of the original article.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

OctaBech said:


> It should also be a rather big blow to the big name UCI critics(who Damsgaard is among), because they've been pushing the Biologic passport as part of thesport's salvation for quite some time now.
> 
> .


The passport is dead, or at best on life support


----------



## OctaBech (Aug 12, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> The passport is dead, or at best on life support


Care to elaborate or were you just joking?


----------



## bigmig19 (Jun 27, 2008)

This should be in Pro Cycling forum. I only found it here by accident. Regarding FC, so all dopers win TT's? If you dont win the TT you are clean? You have to admit, nobody is more superhuman on the bike than FC, how does that make him "less" suspicious. I love the guy, but geez the guy bridges gaps solo like he's motorized. Wouldnt he be first on your list even if you like him? Its a good thing they kept astana out...I want to puke all over Pudhomme.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

Well, I didn't mean that by him losing he was for sure clean. What I meant was, Schumi must have been on a VERY good program to beat him. Twice. And not barely beat him either. That would be exactly like Bettini or Cunego or TinTin beating him. 
This is a guy who has shown absolutely zero talent in ITT's in the past and he comes out and beats the two time world champ (and future Oly Gold), not once but twice.
What would the pundits have said if Bettini came out and stomped both the ITT's? It is very suspicious. So one of two things are going on. Schumi is on a program and Fabian is not. Or they are both on a program but Schumi's is that much better. I think it is the former. Fabians performance was on par with past efforts, Schumi's certainly was not.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

mtbbmet said:


> So one of two things are going on....


I can think of a lot more than two. Just as an example, there's the third case that neither is currently doping. If in the past top placings were taken by doped riders but now everyone is clean, then a rider who did not dope in the past could suddenly appear much stronger while others move backwards as a result of not doping.

If you don't have direct evidence and want to make a circumstantial case, your logic will have to be a lot stronger than this.


----------



## OctaBech (Aug 12, 2008)

bigmig19 said:


> This should be in Pro Cycling forum. I only found it here by accident. Regarding FC, so all dopers win TT's? If you dont win the TT you are clean? You have to admit, nobody is more superhuman on the bike than FC, how does that make him "less" suspicious. I love the guy, but geez the guy bridges gaps solo like he's motorized. Wouldnt he be first on your list even if you like him? Its a good thing they kept astana out...I want to puke all over Pudhomme.


That depends on how the rider achieve the results.

Talking about Fabian, as a fan I believe you know he is among the very best there has existed when it comes to balance on a bike, a skill which can't be perfected or enhanced through the use of doping.

Fabian has strong legs, is good at keeping a high steady pace and is good at accelerating but he's not even close to the acceleration or top speed of a sprinter.
Where Fabian really takes time on the competition is in the way he takes corners, the guy is just perfect in this regard.

Good examples of this we can find in the TdF 2007 prologue where Fabian was able to take the corners faster than the motorbikes which used their brakes too much.
Another example is also from the 2007 where he beat the sprinters by having a higher pace out of the corners before the finish line than the sprinters who had to accelerate from a much lower pace(they still almost caught up to him).
But the best example must be from this year's Olympic iTT, Fabian was slower than the others on the ascent but gained enough time on the descent to win.
This can't have been due to doping because they all used the same gearing and as we all know on a descent there comes a time where the peddling speed no longer makes a difference when one is out of higher gears(Levi and Larsson had tried to get higher gear setups but couldn't in time for the games and instead had to use the same as Fabian), instead Fabian gained the time on taking the corners like a race driver which is also how he managed to get bronze in the road race.
If Fabian had been the fastest on the ascent then it would have been easier to suspekt him for doping.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

Uhh, how bout the two doping positives that Schumi has turned in the past. Does that add to the circustantial case?


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

OctaBech said:


> Care to elaborate or were you just joking?


No joke. The UCI is suing WADA becuase the UCI did not like the truth being told. WADA said they would not support the Passport if they were going to get sued. That is why you have heard little about it since that BS announcement 6 months ago


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

mtbbmet said:


> Uhh, how bout the two doping positives that Schumi has turned in the past. Does that add to the circustantial case?


It may bolster the case for one of your two hypotheses, but it does nothing to eliminate all the others. You wrote there were only two possibilities, the existence of a third disproves this absolutely.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

First of all, I never said that there were ONLY two possibilities.
My point was that your third posibility cannot exist as Schumi has been shown to be doping in the past. Twice.
"If in the past top placings were taken by doped riders but now everyone is clean, then a rider who did not dope in the past could suddenly appear much stronger while others move backwards as a result of not doping."

So you see, as Schumi has been nicked twice, plus the one time he had "very unusual" blood parameters caused by "diareah", this could not be the case. If anything it shows that Fabian was doped then and clean now, but Schumi is still on the program.

And lets not forget the 3 plus minutes that Schumi lost to Fabian at the Olympics three weeks later. I guess once Ricco got busted he got a little wiser. Trust me, they will catch that guy.


----------



## Old_school_nik (May 21, 2002)

*Yup - 2006 TDF all over agian*

Danish news via Belgian news via Google translator... I guess that makes this 3rd hand - but yes, Sastre and others on CSC:
http://translate.google.com/transla...-touren_98701.aspx&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=da&tl=en

And yes, I hope they nail that Schumacker like others have said this guys just shows up and slays the worlds best ITT like its nothing - I don't know a fellow racer in NYC who does't think this guy is juicing.. Not sure why it bugs me about him vs other dopers... Is there such a thing as doping with some class? [kidding!! Before you flame me out of here!!]


----------



## OctaBech (Aug 12, 2008)

bigpinkt said:


> No joke. The UCI is suing WADA becuase the UCI did not like the truth being told. WADA said they would not support the Passport if they were going to get sued. That is why you have heard little about it since that BS announcement 6 months ago


Ouch that sounds ugly. It would seem that I need to read up on this development.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

The UCI is not suing WADA, they are suing Dick Pound. But WADA said if you are going to sue Pound, then we are not contributing to the Biopassport. Neither is the ASO.
Either way, the passport is a joke and it is dead in the water.


----------



## OctaBech (Aug 12, 2008)

mtbbmet said:


> The UCI is not suing WADA, they are suing Dick Pound. But WADA said if you are going to sue Pound, then we are not contributing to the Biopassport. Neither is the ASO.
> Either way, the passport is a joke and it is dead in the water.


Perhaps the UCI execution but not the principles behind it.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

Fair enough. But I don't think the blame lies soley on the UCI. WADA and ASO have ashare in that.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

mtbbmet said:


> The UCI is not suing WADA, they are suing Dick Pound. But WADA said if you are going to sue Pound, then we are not contributing to the Biopassport. Neither is the ASO.
> Either way, the passport is a joke and it is dead in the water.


Because they are suing Pound for his, correct, statements made as head of WADA then WADA is picking up the legal fees and running the defense.....it is UCI lawyers against WADA lawyers. The reason why the ASO is not contributing is that during the UCI/AOS pissing match earlier this year the UCI said they would not give the ASO any of the Passport info prior to the Tour. Nice. The UCI says they have 24 suspect riders but will not tell the ASO who they are. Once again the UCI has the best interests of the sport in mind.

In the end it will come to nothing. So far Pound is proving to be 100% correct about the problems with doping in cycling and the UCI is proving to be 100% wrong (as usual)


----------



## TurboTurtle (Feb 4, 2004)

OctaBech said:


> He wasn't hired, he was challenged and he gets his pay from Bispebjerg Hospital where he works for WADA as FIS'(Fédération Internationale de Ski) anti doping expert while also developing new tests.
> 
> Damsgaard is along with Werner Franke one of WADA and UCI's biggest critics, accusing them of sitting on obviously positive samples but being too afraid of bringing the riders to court because the criteria for positive test are too rigid(a blood sample can show clear signs of doping but without the name of the medicament it can't be taken to court).
> Another problem he has had with UCI is that they did not do enough test(especially out of competition) and that they didn't put the test in context(biological passport) but only looked at min and max values(the passport shown if a rider regenerate blood to fast through the use of doping).
> ...


Who pays for all the extra tests done for the CSC program? - TF


----------



## BAi9302010 (Mar 7, 2002)

mtbbmet said:


> Well, I didn't mean that by him losing he was for sure clean. What I meant was, Schumi must have been on a VERY good program to beat him. Twice. And not barely beat him either. That would be exactly like Bettini or Cunego or TinTin beating him.
> This is a guy who has shown absolutely zero talent in ITT's in the past and he comes out and beats the two time world champ (and future Oly Gold), not once but twice.
> What would the pundits have said if Bettini came out and stomped both the ITT's? It is very suspicious. So one of two things are going on. Schumi is on a program and Fabian is not. Or they are both on a program but Schumi's is that much better. I think it is the former. Fabians performance was on par with past efforts, Schumi's certainly was not.


Actually Schumacher is a very good time trialist and has won several prologues and tt's in smaller stage races in the past, but obviously most of his training revolves around winning races that finish with power climbs (e.g. Bettini, Cunego, DiLuca, Rebellin, Valverde,etc.). What does draw suspicion is that he has never been better than a top 5/10 finisher in the longer tt's in Grand Tours, World's, etc. where the best of the best arrive on top form....then suddenly he shows up at the Tour and wins two of the most competitive time trials of the year. You could argue that some of the guys who might have done better were aiming for the Olympics but it still looks a little fishy.

In a previous thread I used Serhiy Honchar as an example. The guy was always a very good time trialist and won the 2000 World's tt against a drained field and a couple of Giro tt's and then in 2006, at the age of 36, he shows up at the Tour and dominates both time trials, only to be fired by his team shortly thereafter for abnormal results in a blood test.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

The biopassport program only works if the drugs involved are detectable. If you have a drug that isn't detectable it is very easy to maintain stable parameters. It's only if you have to cycle up and down to avoid detection (or post transfusion, etc) that you get things that are out of whack. I've been on EPO for a decade and made no particular effort to control things as well as a pro doper would and in that time have only had 1 reading on a complete CBC outside the normal range, and most of the time I look less like a doper than several of the guys in that CSC data that was published.

I wish they had put names to the readings in that graph because it would be very interesting to compare my suspicions against who gets nailed.

I would like to see blood tests for who has the most iron floating around in their blood. Doesn't do any good to take EPO without slamming a lot of iron into your system and since there are no performance benefits to supernormal iron levels other than in conjunction with EPO or its cousins it would be an easy way to come up with suspects. In fact because of the significant health risks from too much iron they could just suspend people for high levels like they do for HCT.


----------



## OctaBech (Aug 12, 2008)

It would seem that many have not bothered to read what the Biological Passport is about.  

Just because the the type of EPO can't be determined the effect surly can or else there would be no reason to use it.

For a fire to burn it need oxygen and the same goes for muscles which is why it's called burning energy, the more oxygen the better it burn(NB: Too much or too little oxygen can cill the fire). EPO is used to create red blood cells which carry oxygen to the muscles, the more red blood cells the more oxygen can be transported at once.

Now Terzo Rene said he wasn't caught by the CBC(Complete Blood Count) tests which is due to him not having more red blood cells than the limit set by the UCI.
But he forgets that the Biological Passport isn't individual tests but a compilation of tests taken over a season and also compared to previous seasons.

The reason why this is important is because when a rider participate in a tough race he lose red blood cells. To be able to compete in the next race the rider needs to regenerate the loss and that's where EPO comes into the picture helping the rider to regenerate much faster without ever crossing the max level of red blood cells set by the UCI.
This is also one of the reasons why UCI critics call for more out of competition tests.

What the Biological Passport does is to look at how fast the red blood cells are generated, if it's too fast then the rider is using EPO.
Without the ability to regenerated red blood cells faster and a limit on the amount of red blood cells EPO's main advantage is taken away giving riders who do not use EPO a chance to win too.

About Terzo Rene's iron comment, the Hb(hemoglobin) level is part of the test and shown in the graphs. For those who do not know, Hb uses iron to bind oxygen in the red blood cells.

I hope my post also made it easier to understand why new riders put on the Biological pass port won't be caught straight away as it takes time to build a profile, and why it pays for a rider to only focus on one race like Armstrong did with the TdF(having more red blood cells).


----------



## Sherpa23 (Nov 5, 2001)

OctaBech said:


> It would seem that many have not bothered to read what the Biological Passport is about.
> 
> Just because the the type of EPO can't be determined the effect surly can or else there would be no reason to use it.
> 
> ...



Doesn't it also check to see if the red blood cell generation is too slow, i.e. in the case of an autologous blood infusion would produce a lower reticulocyte count?


----------



## bigmig19 (Jun 27, 2008)

Octabech; I find most people here dont like science. You are making too much sense. BTW, This sounds like a HUGE story, why can't I find it on Velonews? Wouldnt this be front page stuff? I mean if it was just Stewie and Sastre it would be the biggest doping story ever, no?


----------



## gray8110 (Dec 11, 2001)

bigmig19 said:


> BTW, This sounds like a HUGE story, why can't I find it on Velonews?


Most of the cycling press is holding off on this because it's all speculation, anonymous sources etc. Cyclingnews touched on the rampant rumors in yesterday's update indicating that they were aware of it, but pointed out that based on the testing timeframe, nothing could have been determined yet.

VeloNews et al would stand to lose a lot of their credibility if they reported on this and it turns out to be wrong. I'm sure they've got guys out there digging for verification.


----------



## OctaBech (Aug 12, 2008)

Sherpa23 said:


> Doesn't it also check to see if the red blood cell generation is too slow, i.e. in the case of an autologous blood infusion would produce a lower reticulocyte count?


Indeed it does 



bigmig19 said:


> Octabech; I find most people here dont like science. You are making too much sense. BTW, This sounds like a HUGE story, why can't I find it on Velonews? Wouldnt this be front page stuff? I mean if it was just Stewie and Sastre it would be the biggest doping story ever, no?


Thanks  Though I must admit most of my knowledge is due to the fans at the official CSC - Saxo Bank's forum are tracing down everything about the program.



gray8110 said:


> Most of the cycling press is holding off on this because it's all speculation, anonymous sources etc. Cyclingnews touched on the rampant rumors in yesterday's update indicating that they were aware of it, but pointed out that based on the testing timeframe, nothing could have been determined yet.
> 
> VeloNews et al would stand to lose a lot of their credibility if they reported on this and it turns out to be wrong. I'm sure they've got guys out there digging for verification.


Yes, it's a good thing that most off the press show professionalism and await the actual results.


----------



## parker3375 (May 6, 2008)

I have a great new outlook on the sport of professional cyclist. Here is how I see it now, they all dope...I love the sport but its just disgusting. And with this view I can watch it and enjoy it again knowing that its like a soap opera, because at any point one of the favorites could be escorted out of the race by police. Its kind of exciting again. And I have a new penalty for all the dopers that get caught. They must inform authorities of who their doctor is so that they can be arrested and not allowed to ruin any other riders reputations. Then the rider is sent to a real doctor that knows how to do it and not get caught. I'm really rambing right now but damn, this stuff hurts as a fan. Schleck and Saste? Really? Damn


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

Yes, but the rub is that they <i>dont all </i> dope. And it sucks for the ones who don't and who are having their careers robbed by those who do. 

It's a fact that some national federations -- notably France -- have put in place much more stringent anti-doping regimens than others that far pre-date the UCIs bio passport programme. It has been materially harder for those riders to dope than for others because the chances of getting caught were much, much higher. I'm not saying those riders would not dope in the absence of their national controls -- in all likelyhood, most of them would -- but simply that they faced a much greater deterrent and so most do not.

So what is the lesson to be learned from this? 

Is the FFC wrong to penalise its licensed riders by applying a draconian anti-doping testing policy? (The juniors I have coached more or less believe this -- many just want the FFC to "allow" them to be "competitive" for international races).

Or all the other federations (cough.... Spain....cough) wrong in "allowing" their riders to dope by not putting in place and enforcing state-of-art dope testing?

Or is the UCI wrong for not requiring the former -- and no, the bio-passport only goes part of the way and does not meet the same standard as the FFC controls.

Or are the non-doping riders wrong. They should jump on the wagon and get on the "programme" and set aside concerns about what is right (as well as concerns about their health). After all it' all about winning at any means (just ask R. Virenque about that!). If the FFC is keeping them back, they should just move out of the country and sign up to race for a federation more "flexible" than the FFC. This, btw, is why you saw Jalabert racing for a Spanish team under successive Spanish and Swiss licenses!

I know what kind of world I want to live in and obviously, from my posts here, believe that the lax national federations in cahoots with the UCI and the doped riders are dead wrong. I do not wish to live in a world where those types of values hold sway. I feel sorry for the people who feel otherwise.

So I do not believe they "all" dope, just that the dopers are cheating their fellow riders and the fans and for this, deserve our contempt - not our understanding.


----------



## OctaBech (Aug 12, 2008)

philippec said:


> It's a fact that some national federations -- notably France -- have put in place much more stringent anti-doping regimens than others that far pre-date the UCIs bio passport programme.





philippec said:


> Or is the UCI wrong for not requiring the former -- and no, the bio-passport only goes part of the way and does not meet the same standard as the FFC controls.


Please do elaborate on which aspects the unfinished Biological Passport is inferior FFC's program in fight against EPO and blood transfusions(I think it might cover T/E ratio too).  

To my knowledge the biggest problem with UCI's current system is that they sit on a ton of positive tests but can't bring the riders to court, because it's not possible to fully identify the names of the drugs used and they've been burnt in court too many times.
The Biological Passport is designed so UCI can put the riders on health suspension till the values return to normal avoiding the court hazel.

BTW, I thought the French teams and riders were very visible in this year's TdF.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

http://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme/breves2008/20081006_181532_schumacher-aussi-positif_Dev.html

Shumi and Piepoli. No surprise.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

For those keeping score at home, please update your scorecards with the following changes:

New Stage 4 winner: Kim Kirchen
New Stage 6 winner: Alejandro Valverde
New Stage 9 winner: Vladimir Efimkin
New Stage 10 winner: Juan Jose Cobo
New Stage 20 winner: Fabian Cancellara


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

asgelle said:


> I can think of a lot more than two. Just as an example, there's the third case that neither is currently doping. If in the past top placings were taken by doped riders but now everyone is clean, then a rider who did not dope in the past could suddenly appear much stronger while others move backwards as a result of not doping.
> 
> If you don't have direct evidence and want to make a circumstantial case, your logic will have to be a lot stronger than this.


I think I have direct evidence now.

Feel free to appologize at any time now. Kay?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

mtbbmet said:


> Feel free to appologize at any time now. Kay?


Why? The flaws in your logic are just as glaring as ever. The fact that different information came up that leads to the same conclusion (by you) does nothing to correct the errors in your original reasoning.


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

I hate to say "I told you so", but I told you so.
Actually, I love to say I told you so.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

mohair_chair said:


> For those keeping score at home, please update your scorecards with the following changes:
> 
> New Stage 4 winner: Kim Kirchen
> New Stage 6 winner: Alejandro Valverde
> ...


Yeah, forget the A sample results, the confirming B sample results, the National ADA hearing, and a possible CAS appeal. It appears in L'Equipe so the case is closed.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

mtbbmet said:


> I hate to say "I told you so", but I told you so.
> Actually, I love to say I told you so.


Told me what? That there really are only the two possibilities you mentioned? Nothing here changes your mistake in that. I get the feeling you don't understand what I wrote at all.


----------



## bigpinkt (Jul 20, 2006)

asgelle said:


> Yeah, forget the A sample results, the confirming B sample results, the National ADA hearing, and a possible CAS appeal. It appears in L'Equipe so the case is closed.


It aint' over until Shumi is able to come up with a completely believable story about drinking Jack Daniels with a vanishing twin. 

This can easily be explained as a french conspiracy by the corrupt lab, but in this case the conspiracy also includes the Lausanne Lab as well. It is obvious that this cross border conspiracy was enable by Nazi Frogmen.

www,ibeliveshumi.org


----------



## mtbbmet (Apr 2, 2005)

Hey Assgel,
Speaking of not understanding, perhaps you should go back and re-read what I originally wrote. 
Here I'll help you.
"My guess, and hope, is that Schumi goes down."
followed by
"Well, I didn't mean that by him (Cancellara) losing he was for sure clean. What I meant was, Schumi must have been on a VERY good program to beat him. Twice. And not barely beat him either."
And
"So one of two things are going on. Schumi is on a program and Fabian is not. Or they are both on a program but Schumi's is that much better."
And
"I never said that there were ONLY two possibilities.
My point was that your third posibility cannot exist as Schumi has been shown to be doping in the past. Twice."

You got that Assgel?
There can be a million possiblities, but there are only two likely ones. There are 200 guys who start the tour, any one of them a possibility to win the GC, but it's really only down to 10 likely guys who will win.

And I did tell you so.


----------



## tron (Jul 18, 2004)

mohair_chair said:


> For those keeping score at home, please update your scorecards with the following changes:
> 
> New Stage 4 winner: Kim Kirchen
> New Stage 6 winner: Alejandro Valverde
> ...


Further changes to come. It is probable that Cobo and Cancellera are going to be named. If Cobo goes then I think F. Schleck came in next. But, who knows what happens with that.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

asgelle said:


> Yeah, forget the A sample results, the confirming B sample results, the National ADA hearing, and a possible CAS appeal. It appears in L'Equipe so the case is closed.


Stages 6 and stage 9 were won by Ricco, who confessed and is currently serving his suspension. The others? Yes, we'll have to wait, but I wouldn't hold my breath. LNDD was not involved.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

LNDD was involved...along with Lausanne


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

bigpinkt said:


> This can easily be explained as a french conspiracy by the corrupt lab, but in this case the conspiracy also includes the Lausanne Lab as well.


duh... They speak French in Lausanne, ergo, conspiracy.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

mtbbmet said:


> Hey Assgel,
> Speaking of not understanding, perhaps you should go back and re-read what I originally wrote.
> Here I'll help you.
> "So one of two things are going on.


In normal English usage, "one of two things" is synonomous with "one of only two things"; since if the item were one of a number greater than two, e.g., four, it would not be one of two but rather e.g., one of four. Proper style would then say to remove the superfluous word "only." So while you now admit, there could be as many as a million possibilities, and you were only considering the likely ones; that is not what you originally posted. I will allow that it might not be you logic that was muddled, but your writing.


----------



## mohair_chair (Oct 3, 2002)

philippec said:


> duh... They speak French in Lausanne, ergo, conspiracy.


But they speak it very slowly.


----------



## philippec (Jun 16, 2002)

lol, true dat!


----------

