Rob Hayles not allowed to ride at Track World Champs

DaveyL

http://www.riis-cycling.com/upload/MidYear.pdf

Lots of fluctuations here, for example. Nothing above 50, but some pretty close, and all you need is an individual rider with a natural Hct a point or two higher than some of the riders in CSC, and you have the potential to hit the limit. Still, that shouldn't stop anyone from posting a load of old toss on an internet forum.

colint

Apart from nobody being above 50 (and the majority nowhere near), your using Riis as evidence in anti-doping??? Now thats what I call old toss, thanks for the laughs

timoid.

Remind me what dope tests Pantini failed?

I know his hct was too high during the 99 Giro. But I'm unaware of any other failed tests.


This is a MASSIVE red flag and the onus is on Hayles to prove his innocence.

oldwelshman

Timoid. wrote:

Remind me what dope tests Pantini failed?

I know his hct was too high during the 99 Giro. But I'm unaware of any other failed tests.


This is a MASSIVE red flag and the onus is on Hayles to prove his innocence.

Wasnt he a coke head?

DaveyL

colint wrote:

Apart from nobody being above 50 (and the majority nowhere near), your using Riis as evidence in anti-doping??? Now thats what I call old toss, thanks for the laughs

Always a pleasure.

Putting aside for the moment your implication that Damsgaard's regime is a sham, I am in no way using it as evidence to say Hayles did not dope. I'm on the fence til more detailed tests are run - a position which seems eminently sensible to me.

In terms of that link, what I'm saying is, look at the wild fluctuations in hematocrit over the season, for a specific rider. Hayles has basically touched the red line, at 50.3%. If he was normally a point or two above some of those riders, i.e. his baseline was a little higher, he could conceivably touch the red line once or twice a season, as could many other riders. You are presuming this would be picked up every time it happened, but do you know how often he is tested in this way?

colint

I accept the point about higher starting level etc,and whilst I don't know how often he's tested in this way he's 35 and has been a member of the elite GB team for some time, so it must have been a test he's been through regularly. He's never recorded above 50 before, so why now ? Just one of those things ? I think thats unlikely to say the least.

He's got questions to answer, big ones.

let rob ride t-shirt anyone ?

cougie

Its a bit sad isnt it that after a fistful of medals (and its only day 2) - we arent celebrating those - mainly just talking about one dodgy reading.

A few years back all these medals would have been unthinkable - now are we just spoilt ?

Richrd2205

Hmmm

I'm getting a bit frustrated with this discussion....

I'm not a haematologist so have little idea about natural haemocrit levels. Can I ask where folk are getting their sources for the discussion above?

Hayles has basically touched the red line, at 50.3%

Apart from nobody being above 50 (and the majority nowhere near),

So which is it?

I posted a link about 4 pages back claiming that 40-54% was normal for men & asked for background. We're having a discussion without having even agreed the premise of the discussion, which is a bit silly. Can someone give a normal range (some evidence for this would be nice too), so we can have some real context to this. If the link I gave above is right, then how stupid is this whole thread?

Can we start with the facts & then build up from there, rather than looking at one fact & passing judgement on it based on our understanding (limited, absent or thorough) of the issue.

The whole doping issue is occluded enough by omerta & commercial pressures without us all putting a further fog there...

Kléber

Normal doesn't mean much. It's like asking what's a normal height for people. A normal height for a British male is anything from 5'0 to 6'6. You could argue it's normal to be anything from 4'6 to 7'0, since adult males naturally grow to reach these heights, without suffering from abnormal conditions. Etc etc. But the mean height in Britain for adult males is 5'9 and the haematocrit is 45%.

The question is one of change, why has the rider's haematocrit count changed? Has Hayles crossed the 50% threshold because, say, he's normally on 48% and was severely dehydrated on the day?

Richrd2205

TY, Kléber, for that...

I have no idea whether you're correct, but it sounds right....
(I'm 1m92, so waaay above average, but haven't got taller for quite some time now, so would prob pass tests on this score (I'm quite crap at most cycling disciplines, so prob wouldn't be tested much either :oops: ))

So I guess the jury's out until there's something more substantive & anything else is just p*ssing into the wind...

edited for grammar

don key

Richrd2205 wrote:

Hmmm

I'm getting a bit frustrated with this discussion....

I'm not a haematologist so have little idea about natural haemocrit levels. Can I ask where folk are getting their sources for the discussion above?

Hayles has basically touched the red line, at 50.3%

Apart from nobody being above 50 (and the majority nowhere near),

So which is it?

I posted a link about 4 pages back claiming that 40-54% was normal for men & asked for background. We're having a discussion without having even agreed the premise of the discussion, which is a bit silly. Can someone give a normal range (some evidence for this would be nice too), so we can have some real context to this. If the link I gave above is right, then how stupid is this whole thread?

Can we start with the facts & then build up from there, rather than looking at one fact & passing judgement on it based on our understanding (limited, absent or thorough) of the issue.

The whole doping issue is occluded enough by omerta & commercial pressures without us all putting a further fog there...

well lets see , the rabbits homeless.

G man

I'm sad to say a haematocrit of > 50% is suspicious in my eyes. We'll have to wait and see if any tests have been done for EPO or for blood doping. The problem with this test is determining where to have the normal cut off. If it is based on a range of other pro cyclists, there's no way of knowing how many have raised haematocrits from doping. I thought this test was introduced before there were any tests for EPO, but because of the inherent problems of banning someone based on normal ranges of someones "natural" blood, the UCI decided on a halfway house of a 2 week ban for the "athlete's safety". As there are now tests for synthetic EPO, does it have any value? With the biological passports, suspicions could be flagged up without a pointless 2 week ban. If their haematocrits are all publicised, they'll look like complete numpties if they turn up to race with a high haematocrit. A cut off of 50% means that riders will simply aim for 49.9% by whatever method they choose, especially as if they get it slightly wrong and go over 50%, they will only get a 2 week holiday.
Wiggins supporting Hayles is interesting. It means one of three possibilities:
1. He believes Hayles is clean and Hayles is clean
2. He believes Hayles is clean and Hayles has doped
3. He knows or suspects Hayles has doped, but is defending him.
Sorry for stating the obvious.

G man
A Bradley Wiggins fan

vermooten

oldwelshman wrote:

Lets be honest, this and the Olympics would be Rob;s last chance in championships so he would be pretty stupid to dope now and just before championships, we shall see soon.

You could have used a similar argument in support of Landis, Vino etc. Doesn't work. Much better to say let's wait and see what happens while the process is followed.

bigdawg

oldwelshman wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

Remind me what dope tests Pantini failed?

I know his hct was too high during the 99 Giro. But I'm unaware of any other failed tests.


This is a MASSIVE red flag and the onus is on Hayles to prove his innocence.

Wasnt he a coke head?

He was and never to my knowledge failed a drugs test... :?

Everyone should know the forum rules by now:

Anyone suspected or having possibly failed a drugs / blood test is automatically dirty lying cheating scum unless of course theyre british in which case :

- its a mistake
- its natural
- obviously wrong as hes a tip top bloke / friend that def wouldnt cheat

skavanagh.bikeradar

It doesn't matter to me what nationality he is it is an equal eyebrow raiser, the answer to the questions raised in this thread are what I'm interested in. One advantage of the biological passport (if the UCI are prepared to implement it without the help of WADA) is that over a long period of time you will get a true picture of what constitutes a riders natural level. Provided that the passport is implemented at a young enough age/at the right point in time to be reliable.

kieranb

look guys, 50% is not an absolute, a quick google throws up this link:

http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/jan102001/67.pdf

a paper examining Haematocrit levels in young men in China. look at the example for the Beijing area (altitude of 31.2m so not too high?)

reference range given as 44.2 +/- 7.3% so upper limit is 51.5%

and in the high mountains (e.g. Tibet) a upper limit of 63.6%

Kléber

Yes, people can have high counts, but if Hayles was Mr High Count, then he would have been flagged up many times as he's been a rider for a long time now and they have been testing haematocrit for over decade now. So the question is why did he score so high now? Dehydration, illness, altitude tent, testing error, blood doping: take your pick.

oldwelshman

Maybe he just came back from holiday in Tibet and was also dehydrated?

don key

bigdawg wrote:

oldwelshman wrote:

Timoid. wrote:

Remind me what dope tests Pantini failed?

I know his hct was too high during the 99 Giro. But I'm unaware of any other failed tests.


This is a MASSIVE red flag and the onus is on Hayles to prove his innocence.

Wasnt he a coke head?

He was and never to my knowledge failed a drugs test... :?

Everyone should know the forum rules by now:

Anyone suspected or having possibly failed a drugs / blood test is automatically dirty lying cheating scum unless of course theyre british in which case :

- its a mistake
- its natural
- obviously wrong as hes a tip top bloke / friend that def wouldnt cheat

There are ravishings/ravagings going on on other boards for anyone who might take the pessimistic lin with regard to Robs situation.

If this were the Italian team or the Kazahks, Spanish or many other teams the idea of having so many gold medals while one of your men is suspected/rested would never get much stretch, the conclusion that would jump to attention, although not necessarily the correct one would be blown far and wide on all the websites, news bulletins etc. etc.

The gold double standard , a new measuring device with no known scale but your always guarenteed a win unless of course?

Does anyone remember the all conquering Chinese womens swimming team of the late 90s early 00s?
They were so good that my father who doesnt know that sport exists was fond of telling me about there tai-chi winning ways, they were so dirty that they got banned en-masse.

iainf72

From todays Guardian

He is concerned that Hayles' test was an extreme example of a set of elevated haematocrit readings recently taken from other riders in the squad, which he thinks may be due to changes in blood values when they taper off from the highest point of their training in the days before the start of a competition.

A bit worrying - Haematrotic mysterously rising before a major competition? Dave, mate, these statements might go down well with the general public, but a lot of people are fans of pro cycling and have a pretty good idea what this kind of thing means.

skavanagh.bikeradar

Yikes! On two counts:

1. Iain is right, that sort of statement is worrying - if that was an Italian or Spaniard saying it...well....

2. Iain, what are you doing posting the contents of the Guardian of a website forum at that time of the day?!!!!

LangerDan

Assuming that the article is true, was anyone else surprised by Brailsfords description of his response to Hayles test? Its not an initial "No, than can't be right", more of an "Oh, bugger!". It seemed as if he (Brailsford) believed that there was a possibility.

Either Brailsford is extremely pragmatic and knows that for all the talk of monitoring etc. etc, no-one really knows what goes on with the riders OR he was expecting something.

DaveyL

iainf72 wrote:

From todays Guardian

He is concerned that Hayles' test was an extreme example of a set of elevated haematocrit readings recently taken from other riders in the squad, which he thinks may be due to changes in blood values when they taper off from the highest point of their training in the days before the start of a competition.

A bit worrying - Haematrotic mysterously rising before a major competition? Dave, mate, these statements might go down well with the general public, but a lot of people are fans of pro cycling and have a pretty good idea what this kind of thing means.

Like shares, the value of hematocrit can go up, as well as down... Is there anything "mysterious" to it? I read into that, that the athlete's intense training block causes hematocrit to drop, and it may well rebound when they taper and recover before an event. There must have been studies done on this - see again the Damsgaard document for how values fluctuate.

I think Brailsford is probably unaware that his every public utterance needs to be aimed at drug-cynical bike forum users primarily, and the general public next.... Maybe someone does need to have a word with him.

skavanagh.bikeradar

Very true. Good perspective Mr Man.

colint

The mysterious thing for me is that it's higher than ever before, taking into account his age, the timing etc, something ain't quite right. We wouldn't accept the defence of it's just one of those things from other countries, why should we lower our standards for our own riders ?

DaveyL

I'm all for the rules being applied equally and fairly. Show me an instance of a foreign rider being toasted on this forum after a two-week suspension for a 50.3% (or similar) hematocrit. There are far more people trotting out the old "double standards" chestnut than there are actually people employing double standards here. Let's not confuse that with a common-sense, let's-wait-and-see attitude.

Unless we know how often these tests have been done, and when they have been done in relation to training blocks and events, it's hard to judge how suspicious we should be of this result. He could have registered an even higher result (as could many other athletes) on a day when he wasn't tested.

colint

If he'd have registered a higher reading, do you not think that would have been put forward as mitigation ? Surely that would be common sense ?

If you don't think another rider would have had harsh treatment for a 50+ reading then you are simply deluding yourself.

DaveyL

He could have registered an even higher result (as could many other athletes) on a day when he wasn't tested. As could many other athletes. This is subtly alluding to the point that we maybe don't know enough about an individual's variations and their max and min hematocrits. Is the information available?

You can say "I think that..." and then write anything you like. Show me where a foreign rider has been pilloried on here for getting a two-week suspension. People here are savvy enough to know the difference between such a suspension and a fully-blown doping violation. I would also say that for a forum composed (mainly) of UK-based people, there is a decided lack of flag-waving in general on here. I'm sorry this doesn't fit with the argument you're trying to win.

LangerDan

DaveyL wrote:

You can say "I think that..." and then write anything you like. Show me where a foreign rider has been pilloried on here for getting a two-week suspension. People here are savvy enough to know the difference between such a suspension and a fully-blown doping violation. .

We've been quite happy to pillory an assortment of road riders here based not even on a two-week suspension but because their dogs names might match those found in the files of a Spanish doctor.

Or what about a certain American rider who is regularly lambasted here but has never failed a test, let alone got suspended for a fortnight.

colint

Do you seriously think in the current climate, an international rider wouldn't have a regular testing program, and history of their levels ? Seriously ? You think the riders just stroll up to competition without any out of competition testing ? All international riders will know their range, if Hayles had a track record of +50 results then it would have been brought to the authorities attention before this test (I would assume).

I'm not trying to "win an argument" although you bringing this up clearly states your prime motive here. I'm saying he's scored over 50, he has questions to answer, we've nothing in mitigation other than he's a nice guy. My other point was that Bradley has been the highest of the high and mighty when it comes to doping cases and I don't he'd have had the same attitude towards this case if it hadn't have been a team mate.