Rob Hayles not allowed to ride at Track World Champs

Bronzie

Just heard on 5Live sports bulletin that Rob Hayles and 1 other unamed athlete have been prevented from competing at Manchester following a blood test, presumably as their hematocrit is too high.

iainf72

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/Hay ... 00213.html

0.3% - Not enough saline?

andyp

Riding with Millar and Gaumont paid off then? :twisted:

timoid.

It will be interesting to see how the team officials react to this

iainf72

British Cycling defended Hayles, explaining that his test was just 0.3% over the 50% limit.

WTF?

Imagine if it read

Rabobank defended Rasmussen, explaining that his test was just 0.3% over the 50% limit.

andy_wrx

BBC got it too
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_s ... 315034.stm

dave_1

if the urine test comes back negative, then no case to answer? Also, other parameters which suggest no transfusion...will conclude the prob??

Kléber

Urine tests don't reveal blood doping and some forms of EPO abuse it seems.

Quite how you get a haematocrit above 50% when you live in Manchester, well either there's been a testing error or the rider in question has been enjoying lashings of hot sauce.

There were cautious allegations against him on here a while ago, I couldn't find the thread as he wasn't mentioned by name, just by inference, it went along the lines of something like an anonymous rider "Robbing others" and the same rider "hayles from Portsmouth", does anyone remember it?

Bronzie

BC have now issued a statement:
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/web/si ... s_exit.asp

ricadus

Well once you fail a test you're guilty til proven otrherwise... just have to wait see.

LangerDan

Interesting use of language from Brailsford: "We are totally supportive of the screening system.."

Note - not supportive of the athlete, supportive of the screening.

heavymental

Oh dear. Hope the story doesn't take over the coverage of the WCs on the beeb.

andyp

Heavymental wrote:

Oh dear. Hope the story doesn't take over the coverage of the WCs on the beeb.

Given their normal 'in depth' coverage of all things doping I'd imagine we're safe.

heavymental

LangerDan wrote:

Interesting use of language from Brailsford: "We are totally supportive of the screening system.."

Note - not supportive of the athlete, supportive of the screening.

Not quite the whole story....

The Beeb wrote:

Hayles is yet to comment on his suspension but Dave Brailsford, British Cycling performance director, told BBC Radio 5 Live: "I am sure there is an honest explanation.

"I am astonished and disappointed for Rob and frustrated for the team.

"But at the end of the day I think the truth will prevail as always. I welcome the screening system I think it is a great thing. I think we should be subject to it and I would like to see other nations subject to it."

"This is not the first time this has happened to several riders and you tend to find that there are subsequent tests that are then actually verified by the UCI . They have come back and said everything is fine.

"I have known Rob a long time and there has never been any doubt in my mind that he has been anything but a fantastic athlete for Britain. He does not take drugs."

andyp

Heavymental wrote:

LangerDan wrote:

Interesting use of language from Brailsford: "We are totally supportive of the screening system.."

Note - not supportive of the athlete, supportive of the screening.

Not quite the whole story....

I think LangerDan is quoting from the BC press release;

http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/web/si ... s_exit.asp

Personally I think he should be avoiding statements like those he's made to the Beeb until the reason for the failed test is known.

iainf72

That's all fine and well. But his HCT was just over the 50% before a major competition - What are the chances?

What does "verified by the UCI" mean? That there is nothing you could sanction on?

LangerDan

Heavymental wrote:

LangerDan wrote:

Interesting use of language from Brailsford: "We are totally supportive of the screening system.."

Note - not supportive of the athlete, supportive of the screening.

Not quite the whole story....

The Beeb wrote:

Hayles is yet to comment on his suspension but Dave Brailsford, British Cycling performance director, told BBC Radio 5 Live: "I am sure there is an honest explanation.

"I am astonished and disappointed for Rob and frustrated for the team.

"But at the end of the day I think the truth will prevail as always. I welcome the screening system I think it is a great thing. I think we should be subject to it and I would like to see other nations subject to it."

"This is not the first time this has happened to several riders and you tend to find that there are subsequent tests that are then actually verified by the UCI . They have come back and said everything is fine.

"I have known Rob a long time and there has never been any doubt in my mind that he has been anything but a fantastic athlete for Britain. He does not take drugs."

Thats not what BC have posted on their own website
http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/web/si ... s_exit.asp

redvee

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/26032008/ ... -test.html

heavymental

I wasn't criticising you Dan. Just pointing out that he has come out in support of the rider, albeit in another statement/interview.

Not much point speculating I suppose but judging by past cases he'll be in for a long fight to clear his name, assuming he will do so, won't he? Unless the testers announce pretty quickly that they fked up.

Whats he referring to when he says...

"This is not the first time this has happened to several riders and you tend to find that there are subsequent tests that are then actually verified by the UCI . They have come back and said everything is fine."

...?

andy_wrx

LangerDan wrote:

Interesting use of language from Brailsford: "We are totally supportive of the screening system.."

Note - not supportive of the athlete, supportive of the screening.

Well the other way to approach it would be to say that the screening system is rubbish, our athlete wouldn't dope, we don't accept the results, etc, etc.

No, they can't do that, they have to say they support the system and then wait for the further test results to see what's going on.

This is just the 'safety screening' isn't it, a quickish check of haematocrit using a centrifuge, together with a doctor giving a once-over with a stethoscope and blood-pressure, etc ?

Would there also, automatically, be blood and urine sent off to the lab for dope testing ?

heavymental

Surely a backup would be kept. They wouldn't take another sample as if the subject got wind of the impending test they could get to work thinning their blood down in the meantime?

vermooten

I feel sorry for Brailsford who seems to be a good bloke. Ah well, we've not had a cheating cyclist story for a while now. Surely Kash can't have been the most recent?

drenkrom

What are you going to find in the urine? Whether the high HCT was attained through homologous or autologous transfusions or through EPO, there will be nothing to find.

The rules are pretty simple: over 50% = 2 weeks suspension, whatever hyperbarric/genetic mutant excuse you can come up with. I don't believe the UCI rule states the sample goes to further testing. BC rules may differ.

Any attempt to overturn the decision would probably take as much, if not more, time than the suspension. And the "just 0.3% over" defense is ridiculous. 50% is already stratospherically high and is a fixed limit. The result that gets published is the actual result minus the maximal margin of error. It is the absolute smallest possible quantity that could be present when the test was run. If it was run properly.

vbc

What would happen to the rest of the team if ASO were running the event?

sing_for_absolution

Hmm, this will really tarnish British Cycling if this isn't simply an 'anomaly'.

Anyway, this is a UCI event, so the British team will be fine.

jimmythecuckoo

I never saw that coming. Couldn't be worse timing with the recent Halfords announcement.

Stupid question but just what are the chances of a natural 50% ?

dave_1

drenkrom wrote:

What are you going to find in the urine? Whether the high HCT was attained through homologous or autologous transfusions or through EPO, there will be nothing to find.

if the isforms (shape of electric charge in urine) are above 60% it's a red flag for synthetic EPO use-Ashenden explained in 2005 and over 80% isoforms I think is the threshold for a positive for synthetic EPO use as it's unheard of that a normal person has 80% isoforms. So, that I guess is the way...micro dosing might bring him under that radar though?

vermooten

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

Stupid question but just what are the chances of a natural 50% ?

From what little I know, I think there's less chance of that than that he's yet another arse who's helping to bring cycling to its knees. Who needs sponsors anyway?

ricadus

vermooten wrote:

jimmythecuckoo wrote:

Stupid question but just what are the chances of a natural 50% ?

From what little I know, I think there's less chance of that than that he's yet another arse who's helping to bring cycling to its knees. Who needs sponsors anyway?

What little I know, "normal" is more likely low 40%s, but then elite athletes aren't normal by definition.

cougie

A while back the comic measured some normal cyclists levels and i think one guy was close to the fifty percent - so it is possible - but he must have been tested before - what was he then ? Never heard of him being close before - i would like to see all the levels published and made available. Its a shock but unless the test is done wrongly and that must be unlikely - i fear the worst. His cheating pro colleagues have made most of us very cynical.

wasp707

Wiggins defended Hayles on the BBC saying that Hayles is one of the cleanest cyclists around. So, if Hayles is a cheat, what does that say about Wiggins, who is regarded as a clean rider?