Four more blood dopers at T-Mobile

dave_1

iainf72 wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

I don't like Slipstream much...that's my gig for 2008...

hehe. Dan has already warned me off that.

Bob must have been hearing what you said...perhaps they do look at forums sometimes..? But I reckon it is good news...ACE makes HGH a tricky one too, not just blood doping, so...it would have to be someone quite foolish to have a go at getting round WADA and ACE and randoms at races or when places, plus Bio passport...how much more can really be done? Police raids are still a poss I guess...but on the non police raids front, what more can poor old Bob do?

iainf72

It's definately a good move. For sure.

The only thing that concerns me about these kind of programs is that, according to some experts, they're not as effective as we might think they are.

http://www.thepulse2007.org/?p=74

LangerDan

iainf72 wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

I don't like Slipstream much...that's my gig for 2008...

hehe. Dan has already warned me off that.

You rang?

I'm probably reading too much into press releases from the agency for Cyling Ethics but in there appear to be some discrepancies in what exactly they say they are looking for:

Cyclingnews article
"ACE called its program "a comprehensive anti-doping programme that tests for three categories of abuse – blood doping, anabolic steroid use and hormone use, such as hGH [human growth hormone]."

ACE Press Release on Slipstream testing programme:
"Other professional cycling teams, like Team CSC and T-Mobile, have instituted rigorous
in-house testing programs, but Slipstream’s is different because it is independent of the
team and does not test for banned substances."

"ACE Pure Sport Program"
ACE testing includes longitudinal analysis of rider bio-markers and detection of prohibited substances as published by WADA.
“Prohibited Substance” shall mean any substance or method found on the most current version of the WADA list of prohibited
substances and methods, as updated from time to time by WADA. This includes:
- Blood cell testing for CBC and Recticulocyte cell count, Hb mass, Off score and other standard blood test parameters used in the sport;
- Blood serum testing for FSH, LH, and GH; and
- Urine testing of the Endogenous Anabolic Steroid Panel and Anabolic Banned Substances Panel


So are ACE testing for three banned categories, all WADA-listed categories or not testing for specific mateials at all?

There are also some inconsistencies on the proposed handling of the results of the testing programme, but I'll save that for another day.

alanmcn1

In house testing proceudres are just noise and smoke. I'm sorry, but how can you really expect teams to regulate their own test and catch cheats when most of them set up the cheating procedures????

Dr Evil Fuentes said it best himslef at a conference last week. If you really want to clena up cycling, then you need to have the law regulate testing procedures. Which would scare Mick Rogesr more? Take the high road catching him and saying come on Mick, leave it out, you might get us in trouble? Or the law catching Mick and saying your nicked for doping in sport sunshine?

drenkrom

A scientifically top-notch organization can still have crap writers.

Not many of us would have the qualifications to judge on the programs even with the full and complete info, let alone a few press releases. I'm about as qualified to comment on longitudinal haematological profile analysis as I am about competitive can-can dancing, so I'll refrain. I do think the adoption of this program over that of the Freiburg clinic to be a major improvement. Maybe we should keep the sharp edge of our criticism for teams that don't even pretend to do something about doping. I'm still waiting on Quickstep's program in response to Stinky's allegations. Up to now, that program seems to consist of Lefévère throwing a hissy fit topped off with a "you'll hear from my lawyers".

dave_1

That's interesting. I think when any one rider is way ahead of the rest, then it is time for all of us to be seriously doubtful of the rider as...nature isn't like that, nature fairly closely matches human genetics and so the margins for beating others is small, as set by nature, so when everyone has the same sports science, same tech, does the precise training...how come one rider wins TTs by near 2 minutes? That's what to look out for.

secretsqirrel

alanmcn1 wrote:

IDr Evil Fuentes said it best himslef at a conference last week. If you really want to clena up cycling, then you need to have the law regulate testing procedures. Which would scare Mick Rogesr more? Take the high road catching him and saying come on Mick, leave it out, you might get us in trouble? Or the law catching Mick and saying your nicked for doping in sport sunshine?

Isn't this where Kashechkin's crusade might lead us?

iainf72

SecretSqirrel wrote:

Isn't this where Kashehkin's crusade might lead us?

Not that his case is going to go anywhere but....

If it did go legal, I bet the conviction rate would drop right off because of technicality after technicality.

G man

I wouldn't listen to a word Dr Fuentes says. He's no right to call himself a doctor. Who is letting him give a conference anyway?The first rule of medicine is "do no harm" to your patients. Has he done any harm to any of his athletes? We may never know. Any "doctor" who gives drugs in unlicensed doses for unlicensed indications is abusing their position, (not to mention potentially breaking the law). The term "hormone rebalancing" is often bandied around. What good evidence exists that it works, without any long term side effects? And by evidence I mean proper huge cilnical trials. Are any of these hormones licensed by the FDA under the dosage "shed loads", for the indication "possibly getting up Mont Ventoux a bit quicker"? Dr Ferrari's attitude is laughable from a medical perspective. He is alleged to have the attitude that if a substance wasn't on the UCI banned list it's fair game. That's just madness. Even Phil Liggett in one of his columns tried to argue for cyclists to be allowed to take certain substances in a "controlled environment". Well Phil, what constitutes acceptable substances, and doses according to the medical literature? And what constitutes a controlled environment? He does not know what he's talking about and shouldn't be suggesting such nonsense.
Finally, an ethical question. If a so called doctor (not doctors in my eyes) illegally gives someone EPO and they die of a heart attack from a hypercoagulable state, would they be guilty of manslaughter? Maybe one of the so-called doctors who have injected athletes with EPO would like to give a conference addressing that issue. Rant over.
It's tiring posting on forums. Maybe I'll stick to riding my bike.
G man
A Bradley Wiggins fan

skavanagh.bikeradar

I think they'd argue that this is the very reason (potential unsafe, unqualified, dangerous administration of drugs) why they should be/are involved - protecting the cyclists health because left to their own devices they'd kill themselves through greed and ignorance. I'd like to point out that I agree with none of this.

It is a long argued standpoint in the peleton so it's no wonder Ligget has recycled it -he's been listening to it for 30 years.

iainf72

Ahhh, but if a peer reviewed medical study of professional cyclists said that for long term health 3 doses of EPO per year and a testosterone boost monthly should be enforced, would everyone be supportive?

I suspect the answer will be NO because "drugs are bad, mkay"

People don't really die from taking EPO anymore - The doses / effects are fairly well known and under a medically supervised programme the risks (in the short term) are low.

The dangerous area is experimental drugs / blood substitutes etc but those are really known unknowns (Cheers Donald)

DaveyL

So, was Lance on the unknown unknowns?

skavanagh.bikeradar

I don't think they'd recommend it is enforced, but I can imagine a hypothetical case being made to say 'micro-dosing' doesn't do anyone any harm if administered correctly by properly trained medical professionals. Doesn't make it right of course, mkay.

LangerDan

iainf72 wrote:

Ahhh, but if a peer reviewed medical study of professional cyclists said that for long term health 3 doses of EPO per year and a testosterone boost monthly should be enforced, would everyone be supportive?

I suspect the answer will be NO because "drugs are bad, mkay"

People don't really die from taking EPO anymore - The doses / effects are fairly well known and under a medically supervised programme the risks (in the short term) are low.

[\quote]

Not quite. Pharmaceuticals are developed to improve the health of sick people, rather than make well people even better. Therefore a product can be deemed acceptable even though there may be some significant side-effects and possibly an increased level of mortality that would be unacceptable in a healthy population. All testing and licensing is done against that background. For most PEDs, there is very little information on the short and long term effects of usage in a healthy population. While the short term effects of high Hct levels have been identified and can be managed better than before, the longer term effects are not as clear.

Just down the road from me is a 120 acre site which until earlier this year was being developed for Amgens new €1+ billion manufacturing facility for EPO as well as other biopharmaceuticals. The job has now been cancelled due to Amgen having taken a major financial dive. Much of this was as a result of a Danish study of cancer patients being treated with EPO who showed an increased tendency to develop neck and head cancer. Another factor was the FDA highlighting concerns about the over-prescribing of EPO in the US, resulting in a "black-box" warning on the packaging about ceasing use once the patients haemoglobin rose to around 10 , IIRC. Tooling around with EPO to improve aerobic performance involves Hgb levels of 17 and higher.
No manufacturer is going to spend the amounts of money necessary to provide sufficient data on the long-term effects of EPO in athletes.

iainf72

Interesting stuff. But we'll never get to those levels because athletes are going to move on quickly.

I noticed some medical companies are helping out the anti-doping doctors.

http://www.siab.ws/collaborators.htm

Biopure were the ones who made that stuff the Chicken was alledged to have used, no?

alanmcn1

I think my initial point was misinterpreted. I wasn't advocating Fuentes in any way shape or form, far from it. What I did agree with him on was that if you really want to cut out doping, it cannot be done effectively by allowing teams to do thier own in-house tetsing and policing. if you really want to deter riders from doping, than have it regulated and policed by law enforcement agencies. That is IMHO the only thing that will really stop the vast majority of riders taking the chance

drenkrom

The problem with going the way of the legal system is that the rules for conviction are that much higher. There is absolutely no way in hell Floyd Landis would have been found guilty in a court of law, for example. Besides, apart from a fool-up at customs, Festina-style, police action in cycling has always showed meager results. But if we're going to delve into that, we really should start another thread

DaveyL

Actually, if you listen to the interview with Dr Michael Ashenden on the Competitors Radio show, he claims that the level of proof required (in general) for a conviction is *higher* in a doping case than in a court of law.

Landis's testosterone/epitestosterone test would have been thrown out in a court of law, sure, as it was in the hearing, but the IRMS test for synthetic testosterone was nailed right down.

G man

Interesting information Langerdan. Thanks. Who knows what the effects of this lot would be in combination, over a long cycling career?
Anabolic steroids - associated with liver tumours
Growth hormone or it's modulator IGF 1 - associated with breast, colon and prostate cancer
recombinant EPO - associated with head and neck cancer.
The adverse effects of any of the above would probably be more pronounced in a doped athlete, than what is published in the medical literature becasue the doses used in athletes doping are far higher than those used for replacement therapy in patients. Also doping athletes may use EPO throughout a whole cycling career, rather than just for intermittent "boosts" in patients when their haemoglobin drops. What would the carconogenic effect be with anabolic steroids, growth hormone and EPO in combination?
If you allow replacement therapy in athletes or EPO boosting in a controlled environment, what doses are acceptable? Like I said before, these drugs have not been licensed for use by cyclists to cycle faster. The FDA have strict licensing procedures for a reason. Even with all the failsafes, drugs are still found to have side effects after being on the market and perceived safe for many years. Hormone treatments or EPO boosting in a "controlled evironmnent" is not the way to go IMO. Unknown long term health risks aside, it sends the message that these drugs are acceptable in moderation. Then the athletes would be more tempted to just have a little bit more of this, or a little bit more of that. If dose "x" is "safe" the athlete may think , what's the harm in having "x+1" ? Zero tolerance of doping is the only way forward.
G man
A Bradley Wiggins fan

dave_1

LangerDan wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

Ahhh, but if a peer reviewed medical study of professional cyclists said that for long term health 3 doses of EPO per year and a testosterone boost monthly should be enforced, would everyone be supportive?

I suspect the answer will be NO because "drugs are bad, mkay"

People don't really die from taking EPO anymore - The doses / effects are fairly well known and under a medically supervised programme the risks (in the short term) are low.

[\quote]

Not quite. Pharmaceuticals are developed to improve the health of sick people, rather than make well people even better. Therefore a product can be deemed acceptable even though there may be some significant side-effects and possibly an increased level of mortality that would be unacceptable in a healthy population. All testing and licensing is done against that background. For most PEDs, there is very little information on the short and long term effects of usage in a healthy population. While the short term effects of high Hct levels have been identified and can be managed better than before, the longer term effects are not as clear.

Just down the road from me is a 120 acre site which until earlier this year was being developed for Amgens new €1+ billion manufacturing facility for EPO as well as other biopharmaceuticals. The job has now been cancelled due to Amgen having taken a major financial dive. Much of this was as a result of a Danish study of cancer patients being treated with EPO who showed an increased tendency to develop neck and head cancer. Another factor was the FDA highlighting concerns about the over-prescribing of EPO in the US, resulting in a "black-box" warning on the packaging about ceasing use once the patients haemoglobin rose to around 10 , IIRC. Tooling around with EPO to improve aerobic performance involves Hgb levels of 17 and higher.
No manufacturer is going to spend the amounts of money necessary to provide sufficient data on the long-term effects of EPO in athletes.

Interesting Langerdan,
Even people in off racing phases like Basso will have to continue using substances to sustain the volumes of training needed to comeback at grand tour levels...in the region of 500-800 miles a week at the 24-26mph pace-not CTC pace at all...far faster than that pottering...which no human body can naturally sustain for very long blocks of months due to genetic limitations which we human all share..pro cyclists, e.g.the stomachs inability to absorb iron and vitamins as quickly as you run them down at these volumes of training. So, when a rider says they are retiring during a doping ban like Mancebo, Botero, Vino...target test them as it is probably an attempt to keep the heat of themself. I reject the idea that EPo is only for the races...its massively about the training blocks, the micro dosing during a grand tour is just puttting the finishing touches to your prep.

chriswatts83

Dave_1 wrote:

That's interesting. I think when any one rider is way ahead of the rest, then it is time for all of us to be seriously doubtful of the rider as...nature isn't like that, nature fairly closely matches human genetics and so the margins for beating others is small, as set by nature, so when everyone has the same sports science, same tech, does the precise training...how come one rider wins TTs by near 2 minutes? That's what to look out for.

It does happen in other sports though, what about Federer in tennis or Tiger Woods in golf? And I trust Cancellara and he takes the mick in TTs!

flattythehurdler

I trust cancellara as far as I'd throw Ullrich in the off season.

secretsqirrel

flattythehurdler wrote:

I trust cancellara as far as I'd throw Ullrich in the off season.

AAAAAAAAHHHHHHhhhhh!!!!!!!!

If we can't trust honourable CSC man Cancellara, then Damsgaard is a waste of time, Astana are the eternal damned, High Road but Low Morals, I'm trying to sound ironic but it sounds like the truth.

I forward a motion that all players should be re-instated on the grounds that all those who have tested positive are guilty, and all those who have tested negative are guilty and lucky. If everybody dopes then there can be no cheaters.

No disrespect to any clean riders but we really don't know who you are, as you have kept quiet all these years and have become part of the problem.

All in favour say Aye!

Sorry, bad day in to office, I lost faith in humanity are 9.30 this morning. And needed a rant

Noodley

SecretSqirrel wrote:

flattythehurdler wrote:

I trust cancellara as far as I'd throw Ullrich in the off season.

AAAAAAAAHHHHHHhhhhh!!!!!!!!

If we can't trust honourable CSC man Cancellara, then Damsgaard is a waste of time, Astana are the eternal damned, High Road but Low Morals, I'm trying to sound ironic but it sounds like the truth.

I forward a motion that all players should be re-instated on the grounds that all those who have tested positive are guilty, and all those who have tested negative are guilty and lucky. If everybody dopes then there can be no cheaters.

No disrespect to any clean riders but we really don't know who you are, as you have kept quiet all these years and have become part of the problem.

All in favour say Aye!

Sorry, bad day in to office, I lost faith in humanity are 9.30 this morning. And needed a rant

Fair point

flattythehurdler

I lost my faith a while back. My genuine concern is the margin of his victory in the prologue. Can he really be that much better (a huge percentage) than everyone else , including wiggins and millar, both world class, both probably clean, both targetting the stage specifically and both utterly annihalated? The problem now is that I am suspicious of any apparently superhuman victory, even if it was clean. I blame LA and the olympics.

dave_1

chriswatts83 wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

That's interesting. I think when any one rider is way ahead of the rest, then it is time for all of us to be seriously doubtful of the rider as...nature isn't like that, nature fairly closely matches human genetics and so the margins for beating others is small, as set by nature, so when everyone has the same sports science, same tech, does the precise training...how come one rider wins TTs by near 2 minutes? That's what to look out for.

It does happen in other sports though, what about Federer in tennis or Tiger Woods in golf? And I trust Cancellara and he takes the mick in TTs!

I don't accept big winning margins in a sport so dependent on cardiovascular power rather than technique/skill like golf. But in a cardiovascular effort like cycling, which tennis is still not anywhere near as a cardiovascular endurance type sport, nature doesn't allow massive winning margins and nor does sports science legit anyway- as everyone at the top knows more or less what it takes...so no, do not believe Landis type efforts or other massive victory margins as they are a red flag or should be

LangerDan

Dave_1 wrote:

chriswatts83 wrote:

Dave_1 wrote:

That's interesting. I think when any one rider is way ahead of the rest, then it is time for all of us to be seriously doubtful of the rider as...nature isn't like that, nature fairly closely matches human genetics and so the margins for beating others is small, as set by nature, so when everyone has the same sports science, same tech, does the precise training...how come one rider wins TTs by near 2 minutes? That's what to look out for.

It does happen in other sports though, what about Federer in tennis or Tiger Woods in golf? And I trust Cancellara and he takes the mick in TTs!

I don't accept big winning margins in a sport so dependent on cardiovascular power rather than technique/skill like golf. But in a cardiovascular effort like cycling, which tennis is still not anywhere near as a cardiovascular endurance type sport, nature doesn't allow massive winning margins and nor does sports science legit anyway- as everyone at the top knows more or less what it takes...so no, do not believe Landis type efforts or other massive victory margins as they are a red flag or should be

I'm not making any judgement as to Fabians "cleanliness" but do bear in mind that Cancellara's high-profile TT wins in the past year or so have come on courses with significant technical elements e.g. '06 (and to a lesser extent '07) Worlds, '07 TdF prologue. He is able to stay in control of his bike in the tuck position far further into trickier / faster sections long after other riders have sat up and are riding on the brakes. Whether this is due to skill, bravery or leaving his brain behind in unclear. His bulk doesn't hurt either as he doesn't seem to be bobbled around as much as daintier TT'ers like Dave Z.

I suspect that we won't see Fabian as dominant if he goes for the pursuit in Bejing due to the absence of cobbled bends.

secretsqirrel

flattythehurdler wrote:

I lost my faith a while back. My genuine concern is the margin of his victory in the prologue. Can he really be that much better (a huge percentage) than everyone else , including wiggins and millar, both world class, both probably clean, both targetting the stage specifically and both utterly annihalated? The problem now is that I am suspicious of any apparently superhuman victory, even if it was clean. I blame LA and the olympics.

Wiggins and Millar were talked up by the British press, big time, last July. We all had very high expectations. Cancellara won by 13 secs over his nearest rival Kloden, 23 secs over Wiggins, 33 secs over Millar. I don't find that particularly unreasonable given that he is a TT specialist, and a World champion.

DaveyL

Agree with LangerDan. Anyone who saw him scream through the complex of bends at the top of Constitution Hill would agree the guy's handling skills and feel for where the envelope is are outstanding.

flattythehurdler

I am happy to stand corrected, especially if langerdan thinks he was clean. What were the times though? 5 mins maybe? In that case it really is a big margin. Golf and tennis are completely different. I would love to be convinced he was clean (and I'm easily convinced if I want something). How about this, can we have advocates for his cleanliness, and devil's advocates?