Armstrong blood values at Tour
Comments
-
Having read the interview I'm a bit unclear - what exactly are this man's credentials? All I can see is that he's done a Ph.D thesis on the subject, which does not exactly make him an expert on the subject.
Does anyone have any info on the man? Has he got any real experience or expertise to bring to bear on this subject?0 -
He's done a PhD with Ashenden and Daamsgard. There won't be many experts in the field. As the interview shows, he is relatively guarded. It seems, as we discussed earlier on this thread, that there are things to discuss. Maybe it's impossible to get answers to these questions and so asking them out loud is bad form, but this story hasn't received a wide audience.0
-
Fckin' Quintana … that creep can roll, man.0
-
Low reticulocyte count: Both Mørkeberg and Belhage state that the normal level of new blood cells, or reticulocytes, is approximately one percent. Armstrong’s reticulocyte readings during the Tour ranged from 0.5 to 0.7, consistently lower than his average value seen earlier in the season.slojo wrote:Given that dehydration can skew these values quite significantly, is it really surprising that blood values taken in May are different from those taken in July?
Belhage says that while both hemoglobin and hematocrit can be modified by issues such as dehydration or diarrhoea, reticulocytes are not. “They are not affected by fluid changes,” he asserted.
Bo Belhage is a chief anaestesiologist at Bispebjerg Hospital and has written 53 publications; of these, 41 are peer-reviewed, two peer-reviewed in press (pending) and 10 book chapters. He is a Doctor of Medical Science, an Associated Research Professor, and was also involved in the running of the CSC and Astana anti-doping programmes. He has been involved in science for 21 years.johnfinch wrote:Having read the interview I'm a bit unclear - what exactly are this man's credentials? All I can see is that he's done a Ph.D thesis on the subject, which does not exactly make him an expert on the subject. Does anyone have any info on the man? Has he got any real experience or expertise to bring to bear on this subject?0 -
From that article it seems he is actually an anaesthesiologist... (As is Belhage). And you are quite right, you wouldn't expect an 'expert' (or indeed anyone who takes the trouble to read what lays beyond Armstrong's PR smokescreen) to come out with that old red herring about Armstrong being 'the world's most tested athlete'.deal wrote:...Damsgaard went on to repeat the oft-mentioned assertion that Armstrong "is one of the world's most tested athletes - if not the most tested athlete," having been tested more than 40 times this year out of competition.
i thought this guy was supposed to be a doping expert? :roll:0 -
I'd agree, the low reticulocyte count seems more dodgy than the haemoglobin levels.
Nevertheless, the above article quotes four haematologists. With three different interpretations.0 -
Not quite, Belhage and Damsgaard are both anesthesiologists, Mørkeberg in an anti-doping researcher specialising in blood doping and Hans Erik Heier is a haemotologist.slojo wrote:Nevertheless, the above article quotes four haematologists. With three different interpretations.
In reality Heier seems to have said nothing about the crucial issue of Armstrong's low reticulocyte count. Also, Damsgaard hasn't actually challenged the validity of the findings, instead saying that an 'expert panel ' should consider the issue, whilst also saying that Mørkeberg is a “very competent researcher”.0 -
Also from that article:BikingBernie wrote:Doubtless his protectors at the UCI are at this very moment putting together something in his defence, justifying why they will not be looking at this more closely...
“Lance Armstrong is part of our Biological Passport,” UCI spokesman Enrico Carpani said. “As for all profiles generated within this programme which are submitted on regular basis for reviewing to the independent experts, the UCI doesn't and won’t make any comment.”0 -
This was Damsgaard's reaction to the Rasmussen values:
"but Rasmus Damsgaard, a Danish expert on doping, analysed these [Rasmussen's] values and comes to another conclusion: according to him Rasmussen did have a blood transfusion during the Tour or followed an EPO cure just before the Tour. Damsgaard says the increase of 3.6% in his hematocrit value and 1,1 gram per deciliter for his hemoglobin value is 'suspect', 'physiologically impossible' and scientifically impossible to explain in another way than that Rasmussen used doping ... These values normally decrease during a big Tour (7 riders of the CSC Team - followed by Damsgaard - for example showed a decrease of 12 to 22 percent) and this was also the case for Rasmussen during the Tour in 2005 and 2006"
http://paris.thover.com/story.php?l=en&ID=70
So according to Damsgaard, in the case of Rasmussen, a rise in blood values over the course of a GT is "suspect", "physiologically impossible", and "scientifically impossible to explain in another way than...doping", yet in Lance's case, it's let's not jump to conclusions.
Makes you wonder what exactly it was that Saxo and Astana were paying him for.0 -
TML wrote:So according to Damsgaard, in the case of Rasmussen, a rise in blood values over the course of a GT is "suspect", "physiologically impossible", and "scientifically impossible to explain in another way than...doping", yet in Lance's case, it's let's not jump to conclusions.
Makes you wonder what exactly it was that Saxo and Astana were paying him for.
Some of us have never wondered. No imagination, I guess.
"Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.0 -
It was largely rhetorical 8)Blazing Saddles wrote:TML wrote:Some of us have never wondered. No imagination, I guess.0 -
johnfinch wrote:Having read the interview I'm a bit unclear - what exactly are this man's credentials? All I can see is that he's done a Ph.D thesis on the subject, which does not exactly make him an expert on the subject.
Does anyone have any info on the man? Has he got any real experience or expertise to bring to bear on this subject?
This made me laugh out loud. Poor bugger gives up probably 4-5 years of his life to writing 100,000 words in incredible detail on a very narrow subject (probably at significant personal expense), pushing the boundaries of human knowledge, supervised by some of the best known in the field... only for some bloke on the internet to wonder what his credentials are, and surmise that a PhD on the subject 'doesn't make you an expert'.
Priceless....
You may deduce from this I have a PhD 8)___________________
Strava is not Zen.0 -
johnfinch wrote:You may deduce from this I have a PhD
Yeah well mine's massive too0 -
calvjones wrote:
This made me laugh out loud. Poor bugger gives up probably 4-5 years of his life to writing 100,000 words in incredible detail on a very narrow subject (probably at significant personal expense), pushing the boundaries of human knowledge, supervised by some of the best known in the field... only for some bloke on the internet to wonder what his credentials are, and surmise that a PhD on the subject 'doesn't make you an expert'.
Priceless....
You may deduce from this I have a PhD 8)
Sure. But he says it doesn't fit what is expected over a three week Tour. Well I'd like to know how much experience does he have of looking at known clean riders' values over a TdF. Are there enough of them, from a large enough variation of types of rider to account for most race circumstances. He seems to be working to an idealised expected model, rather than taking in to account variations on the circumstances of the tests were taken. A lot of academia works on models rather real life experience.
I'm thinking here more of his comments on Wiggins rather than Armstrong. He says on Wiggins that there's insufficent data (true) and that he hasn't looked at the figures. But yet he says that the graph doesn't look right (i.e like his idealised model), thus condemning Wiggins. This seems rather too rash for a serious scientist.
As I understand, natural blood cell production works as a control system, so fluccuations should be expected (if you tested every day) rather than a linear (or even smooth curve) decline.
This leads me to believe that he is more interested in making a name for himself, rather than finding the truth.
I'm not defending Armstrong - to a layman like me his results look suspect. But I'm not sure I can take this Danish guy seriously.
(Damsgaard, I think, called him "a very competent researcher" which seemed like damning with faint praise to me).Twitter: @RichN950 -
and the way to recognise a known clean rider is...?RichN95 wrote:Well I'd like to know how much experience does he have of looking at known clean riders' values over a TdF0 -
bompington wrote:
and the way to recognise a known clean rider is...?RichN95 wrote:Well I'd like to know how much experience does he have of looking at known clean riders' values over a TdF
Exactly. This my point (hence known in italics). He may have stats for clean amateurs over a five day race, but how reliable is the Pro data.Twitter: @RichN950 -
OK, it's been a long week, I'm off to bed & hopefully I'll be sharper tomorrow.0
-
Why would he have to have personal experience of looking at rider’s data, and why would that data have to include a control group of 'known' clean riders?RichN95 wrote:he says it doesn't fit what is expected over a three week Tour. Well I'd like to know how much experience does he have of looking at known clean riders' values over a TdF.
For one, there seems to be plenty of general data around regarding what happens to a rider’s parameters in a three week Tour. For example, Damsgaard's data quoted earlier. The way blood parameters vary in the normal population is also very well documented. Given these two sets of data I don’t see why there is a need to have a secondary 'control' group of 'known' clean riders, unless there is scientifically plausible reason to believe that riding a Tour causes the body's haematological physiology to function in a 'non-normal' way.
Your criticisms, if they were valid, would equally apply to Damsgaard's comments about Rasmussen’s hematocrit and hemoglobin values being 'suspect', 'physiologically impossible' and scientifically impossible to explain in another way than Rasmussen doped. They would also completely undermine the whole concept of the 'blood passport' scheme, as I am sure the UCI do not have the 'clean Tour rider vs. doped Tour rider' data that you seem to think is necessary.
Either you are right and data from a separate control group of ‘known’ clean Tour riders is necessary in order to allow any meaningful evaluation of blood parameters to be made or, as those experts who argue in favour of such a scheme clearly believe, it isn’t, and my bets are that they are the ones who are right!0 -
Whatever he was paid, I bet he came a lot cheaper than the UCI who, in 2005, benefited from a 'donation' from Armstrong reported to be half a million Dollars. (And no one seems to know what happened to that money, with Sylvia Schenk who used to be on the UCI committee saying it was "not clear what it was used for. It seemed to be a secret").TML wrote:So according to Damsgaard, in the case of Rasmussen, a rise in blood values over the course of a GT is "suspect", "physiologically impossible", and "scientifically impossible to explain in another way than...doping", yet in Lance's case, it's let's not jump to conclusions.
Makes you wonder what exactly it was that Saxo and Astana were paying him for.
Of course this money was in no way a 'payment' for the the UCI accepting a pre-dated TUE from him when he tested popsitive for corticoids, nor for the UCI comissioning that notorious 'hatchet job' on the LNDD after his Epo positives from the 1999 Tour came to light. 0 -
calvjones wrote:
This made me laugh out loud. Poor bugger gives up probably 4-5 years of his life to writing 100,000 words in incredible detail on a very narrow subject (probably at significant personal expense), pushing the boundaries of human knowledge, supervised by some of the best known in the field... only for some bloke on the internet to wonder what his credentials are, and surmise that a PhD on the subject 'doesn't make you an expert'.
Priceless....
You may deduce from this I have a PhD 8)
I've got a great respect for education, and anyone who takes it up to that level - I wish that I had the time and money to get myself a PhD as well, but never mind I'll just stick with my BSc....
All I meant was does he have any actual experience of working in anti-doping? If I ever got myself a PhD, I wouldn't consider myself an expert until I'd had a few years of experience working in the field.0 -
Seriously, stop on the expert and phd bashing...
If you've done a PhD then you are an expert in your particular niche of your field that is fact. Whether his PhD is actually applicable (just because he claims it is doesn't necessarily mean it) is a much more interesting question.
As for the fact of needing a second control group (clean riders) I think in this case it is probably a fairly sensible idea. Just about any top level ultra-endurance event is filled with freaks. You need a decent sample of these freaks in order to test the hypothetical methods.0 -
The methods are hypothetical? Don't you mean 'to test the hypothesis'?ride_whenever wrote:Just about any top level ultra-endurance event is filled with freaks. You need a decent sample of these freaks in order to test the hypothetical methods.
So, without a 'known drug-free Tour rider' control group, is the whole biological passport idea meaningless?0 -
sorry no, i meant models not methods, my brain is frazzled.
I'm not overly familiar with the intricacies of how the bio-passport works, and I also don't think it actually is possible to catch all the cheats. We are effectively dealing with a bunch of data outliers, whose bodies don't necessarily behave how we expect them to. Comparing them to one another is meaningless because you can't tell when they're just exceptional and when they're artificially boosted.
The only way to catch all the cheats would be in vivo testing or keeping all the riders under constant supervision.
If a rider really wanted to prove he was clean then I'd suggest a webcam and just living in front of it.0 -
But the passport scheme compares data for the same rider over an extended period, effectively creating a comparative baseline for each individual which is 'calibrated' for their own particular physiology. This is exactly what Mørkeberg has done with Armstrong's Tour and pre-Tour values.ride_whenever wrote:We are effectively dealing with a bunch of data outliers, whose bodies don't necessarily behave how we expect them to. Comparing them to one another is meaningless because you can't tell when they're just exceptional and when they're artificially boosted.0 -
but then all you have is a series of datapoints for one rider right...
now how do you know if they've got unusual physiology or they're doping to maintain a level. All you might notice is the onset of doping. What you can't know is where the line goes. You know what their blood should look like in comparison to last year or the off season.
Sorry, I;m not hugely clued up on the doping processes etc. I'm more interested in the scientific method that's is being applied.0 -
But a single riders physiological response to exercise would be consistently the same - obviously taking into account a training response - unless you are trying to say that a rider's biological system can change within a period 3 months? - which is what the results appear to indicate. Perhaps you are taking Hamilton's chimera hypothesis a little bit too seriously? As to the 'freak of nature' - priceless! And the tactic for attacking the credibility of the scientists - of course it worked for Landis too...Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..0
-
well yes, but a change of response doesn't mean drugs... it could easily mean the removal of drugs!
Why are you being so aggressive? I'm not debating anything regarding specific acts, I frankly couldn't give a damn about who's doped, but the scientific method needed in this is very interesting to me. You clearly want a clean sport, and that's admirable. But being overly aggressive towards discussion isn't really productive.
As for a riders response changing rapidly, I would suggest that it is highly suspicious almost certainly indicative of doping, however. Can that be be considered enough to end someones career? If it did turn out to be, then you would see riders consistently doping throughout the year. At which point you need to look at the too perfect data points... now that would make things very interesting.
I was not using a freak to attack the credibility of scientists, merely indicating that these people are exceptional and so any attempt to compare one to another is not at all rational. If the scientists don't like the data, and suggest something off the back of it, however i would always advocate more data, for a more accurate result.0 -
ride_whenever wrote:Seriously, stop on the expert and phd bashing...
If you've done a PhD then you are an expert in your particular niche of your field that is fact. Whether his PhD is actually applicable (just because he claims it is doesn't necessarily mean it) is a much more interesting question.
Why do you think that I'm bashing either? I'm not. I just think that education is a (very good) foundation to built upon, rather than the finished house. I don't know much about anti-doping, but from people who have become doctors in other fields, I know that they learnt a hell of a lot when they started working in the field for which they qualified.0 -
He's only just submitted his thesis, so he doesn't have a PhD yet.
And when he was offering up his opinion on Rasmussen in 2007, he was a first year grad student.
The lad's certainly got some minerals, if nothing else.Le Blaireau (1)0 -
johnfinch wrote:Why do you think that I'm bashing either? I'm not. I just think that education is a (very good) foundation to built upon, rather than the finished house. I don't know much about anti-doping, but from people who have become doctors in other fields, I know that they learnt a hell of a lot when they started working in the field for which they qualified.
Depends a lot on the area, but equally you should be an expert in your area by the time you finish your PhD. I'm currently a research PhD with an industrial sponsor, I spend time working closely with my sponsor but I don't learn much that is actually relevant to the science I'm interested in. I learn about industrial stuff, i get access to cool machines to play with, but in terms of science I learn very little.
I agree, I have no idea on whether anti-doping works this way, or not.0
