Piti bites again

Pokerface

RichN95 wrote:

So if he never doped, but was only planning to, how did the EPO get in his blood?

(I'm pretty sure you don't inject it into the blood bag after extraction and leave it to mature like some sort of Vampire's Homebrew)

Before this debate goes any further - can we get a 100% clarification that the EPO had to be introduced to the blood while still in the body!?

(I assumed that the EPO could be added after. Sort of like supercharging the blood. I would have thought that if he took an EPO injection, then extracted the blood that the EPO would become too 'watered down' to be of any use when the blood was re-transfused into his body).

Kléber

How could you open up the blood pouch and add the precise quantity of EPO? Besides, EPO when injected by a patient, is not administered into the blood stream but into tissue.

Occam's Razor: "the simplest solution is usually the correct one" = Pro cyclist in Spain uses EPO.

RichN95.

Pokerface wrote:

Before this debate goes any further - can we get a 100% clarification that the EPO had to be introduced to the blood while still in the body!?

(I assumed that the EPO could be added after. Sort of like supercharging the blood. I would have thought that if he took an EPO injection, then extracted the blood that the EPO would become too 'watered down' to be of any use when the blood was re-transfused into his body).

I'm 99% sure that it has to be injected into the body for it to work. It's a synthetic version of naturally occuring EPO, which is a hormone which regulates the production of red blood cells. A blood bag has no way of producing red blood cells, which is done in bone marrow, so if injected directly into the bag it will do nothing whilst in the bag.

Pokerface

Kléber wrote:

How could you open up the blood pouch and add the precise quantity of EPO? Besides, EPO when injected by a patient, is not administered into the blood stream but into tissue.

You seem to know a lot about injecting EPO. 8)


That's what I wanted to know. As I'm not familiar with how it works - just wanted to make sure it couldn't be added afterwards. Many things CAN be added to blood in the bag, as it were.

SpaceJunk

frenchfighter wrote:

Do I think he doped pre puerto? NO. Why, well quite simply because he never got caught doping and his performance then was inferior to the last four years. I would use this basic logic for pretty much all riders - who am I to cast aspersions and suspiscions based on what? some media release and opinions of people.

Do I think he was going to dope? YES. Why, well basing this solely on the fact that apparently plasma belonging to Valverde has epo in it, and that Basso admitted it and Valverde was involved at the same time with the same Dr. I see no other reason to have epo in your blood, although if there was an explanation, I wouldn't have a problem accepting it.

Do I think he doped post puerto? NO. Why, as reasoned in a previous post.

A question for you - do you think he doped to win post puerto? If so, what is your reasoning?

Hi FF, thanks for finally getting back to me.

I don't give a damn if he has doped post Puerto or not. I believe, as nearly everyone else does, that he doped before hand. And by your admission, he at least intended to dope.

Therefore the guy deserves to be banned (which you acknowledge).

So I don't give a FF (and I don't mean French Fighter either when I say FF) what he has done since. He has continually lie to the cycling world, to authorities.

I do not admire what he is doing on the bike now, regardless if he is doing it clean or not.

I will be happy once he has served his ban, and then I'll recognise him in the peloton.

The fact that he has continued to win means nothing to me. If he had owned up, spent his 18-24 months on the sidelines, then that would be a different story.

Just look at how many people he has robbed of victory during the time he should've been banned. How much money he has made.

If you think that what he has done is okay, well more power to you. Most people who can look at the issue logically will say otherwise.

greasedscotsman

Am I missing something here. Stupid question, but does re-infused blood not give a performance advantage, even if it does not have any EPO? So if the blood in the clinic in Madrid is DNA matched to Valverde, it's intent to dope, so he should serve a 2 year ban.

Pokerface

greasedscotsman wrote:

Am I missing something here. Stupid question, but does re-infused blood not give a performance advantage, even if it does not have any EPO? So if the blood in the clinic in Madrid is DNA matched to Valverde, it's intent to dope, so he should serve a 2 year ban.

If it was his blood and there was no EPO in it, it would be easy to say it was just there for analysis, etc.


I suspect it is the presence of EPO in it which is the crux of the matter.

RichN95.

greasedscotsman wrote:

Am I missing something here. Stupid question, but does re-infused blood not give a performance advantage, even if it does not have any EPO? So if the blood in the clinic in Madrid is DNA matched to Valverde, it's intent to dope, so he should serve a 2 year ban.

EPO-free blood will still give an advantage, but that wasn't the point I was originally making. The presence of EPO in the blood proves that he had doped and wasn't just intending too. Two year ban either way, so it's not that relevant beyond debating FF's contentions.

DaveyL

greasedscotsman wrote:

Am I missing something here. Stupid question, but does re-infused blood not give a performance advantage, even if it does not have any EPO? So if the blood in the clinic in Madrid is DNA matched to Valverde, it's intent to dope, so he should serve a 2 year ban.

Yes. the epo is a side-show. Basically shooting a few rounds into the corpse after you've cut its head off.

Kléber

Pokerface wrote:

You seem to know a lot about injecting EPO.

You can't be a true cycling fan without a knowledge of haemotology and the endocrine system. Sadly iIt's as important as knowing the gradient of the Lautaret or the intricacies of wattages.

Plus I worked for a biotech start up before, we were looking at ways to store blood. Most blood supplies go bad quickly, some chemicals can make the blood bank last longer. We were trying to extend the "best before date" if you like, something very valuable to health services and others around the world. I was doing the business side, the numbers here but ended up learning about the stuff.

frenchfighter

DG, I don't know - why does anyone dope? Maybe he wasn't happy with current results, maybe he thought it would be a quicker way to the top, maybe he knew too many people beating him were on some sort of juice and so to beat them he would need to dope too, maybe he wanted to see the effects first-hand.

Quick question - there were a ton of riders involved in Puerto. How many of them have had blood matched to them?

disgruntledgoat

frenchfighter wrote:

DG, I don't know - why does anyone dope? Maybe he wasn't happy with current results, maybe he thought it would be a quicker way to the top, maybe he knew too many people beating him were on some sort of juice and so to beat them he would need to dope too, maybe he wanted to see the effects first-hand.

Quick question - there were a ton of riders involved in Puerto. How many of them have had blood matched to them?

Not sure... Ullrich? They finally got Basso to cop for it when he refused to give a sample for a year or more...

Wiki only lists Ullrich as a DNA match in its list of suspensions, but doesn't give details of all.

cal_stewart

I want to try EPO a see how good it is.

sherer

frenchfighter wrote:

DG, I don't know - why does anyone dope? Maybe he wasn't happy with current results, maybe he thought it would be a quicker way to the top, maybe he knew too many people beating him were on some sort of juice and so to beat them he would need to dope too, maybe he wanted to see the effects first-hand.

Quick question - there were a ton of riders involved in Puerto. How many of them have had blood matched to them?

this is the thing with Puerto it was never looked into properly. When the story broke we were told how this went into all sports including football and players for Real and Barca. As such the lawyers came in and it never really got investigated.

A lot of riders were linked to it but not that many bans.

andyp

All the details on the cyclists named and banned are available on Wikipedia;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operaci%C3 ... e#Cyclists

It's interesting to note that the only riders so far convicted of doping offences are non-Spanish.

Valverde's protestations of a conspiracy are all the more galling when it's obvious that he's been protected, along with many other Spanish riders, by the authorities, both sporting and legal, in Spain.

Pokerface

So Frenchfighter - given that the only way EPO could have gotten into the blood that was in the bag with Valverde's name on it - and was DNA matched to him - do you now agree that he was doping at the time?

sherer

andyp wrote:

All the details on the cyclists named and banned are available on Wikipedia;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operaci%C3 ... e#Cyclists

It's interesting to note that the only riders so far convicted of doping offences are non-Spanish.

Valverde's protestations of a conspiracy are all the more galling when it's obvious that he's been protected, along with many other Spanish riders, by the authorities, both sporting and legal, in Spain.

according to that article there are 34 people named , all cyclists, out of 200 people.

Out of those 34 there has only really been Basso and Scaarponi banned with Valverde getting a ban in Italy only. A few other riders were dropped from teams but then isn't that what Rock Racing was created for

blazing_saddles

frenchfighter wrote:

Quick question - there were a ton of riders involved in Puerto. How many of them have had blood matched to them?

Only a few, all of whom have gone through suspension...............bar one.

ratsbeyfus

SpaceJunk wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

Do I think he doped pre puerto? NO. Why, well quite simply because he never got caught doping and his performance then was inferior to the last four years. I would use this basic logic for pretty much all riders - who am I to cast aspersions and suspiscions based on what? some media release and opinions of people.

Do I think he was going to dope? YES. Why, well basing this solely on the fact that apparently plasma belonging to Valverde has epo in it, and that Basso admitted it and Valverde was involved at the same time with the same Dr. I see no other reason to have epo in your blood, although if there was an explanation, I wouldn't have a problem accepting it.

Do I think he doped post puerto? NO. Why, as reasoned in a previous post.

A question for you - do you think he doped to win post puerto? If so, what is your reasoning?

Hi FF, thanks for finally getting back to me.

I don't give a damn if he has doped post Puerto or not. I believe, as nearly everyone else does, that he doped before hand. And by your admission, he at least intended to dope.

Therefore the guy deserves to be banned (which you acknowledge).

So I don't give a FF (and I don't mean French Fighter either when I say FF) what he has done since. He has continually lie to the cycling world, to authorities.

I do not admire what he is doing on the bike now, regardless if he is doing it clean or not.

I will be happy once he has served his ban, and then I'll recognise him in the peloton.

The fact that he has continued to win means nothing to me. If he had owned up, spent his 18-24 months on the sidelines, then that would be a different story.

Just look at how many people he has robbed of victory during the time he should've been banned. How much money he has made.

If you think that what he has done is okay, well more power to you. Most people who can look at the issue logically will say otherwise.

+1 - Well said.

ms_tree

dougzz wrote:

Ms Tree wrote:

It also amazes me that people on here gripe and moan and slag off certain riders - and them pick them for their PTP. Bit two-faced IMHO.

Not really. PTP is about who you think will win, not who you'd like to win. Quite different things.

No I don't agree. I want who I like to win, but I would prefer to pick someone who hasn't got a dodgy record.

ms_tree

Pokerface wrote:

Ms Tree wrote:

It also amazes me that people on here gripe and moan and slag off certain riders - and them pick them for their PTP. Bit two-faced IMHO.

Well - I may not like Chelsea or Man U - but I'm always going to bet them to win games.

Not two-faced at all. PTP isn't a popularity contest.

Isn'st it? My opinon still stands.

ms_tree

dougzz wrote:

Ms Tree wrote:

It also amazes me that people on here gripe and moan and slag off certain riders - and them pick them for their PTP. Bit two-faced IMHO.

Not really. PTP is about who you think will win, not who you'd like to win. Quite different things.

Not to me it isn't. Otherwise it's a bit like tactical voting.

ms_tree

greasedscotsman wrote:

Am I missing something here. Stupid question, but does re-infused blood not give a performance advantage.

Yes, I thought that too, taking it out and putting it back gives the edge.
In the 70s (I think) there was this guy won lots of 10.000 mts Finnish I think his name was Lassie Virren. David Coleman said that he used to take his blood out and put it back. I thought that was strange then but now of course realise why! It wasn't illegal then obviously.

ratsbeyfus

IMO PTP is a bit like Fantasy Football - urm, but without the Football ( :oops: ) ... I'm a Spurs supporter, but I soon realised that if I wanted to get the most points in Fantasy Football picking loads of Spurs players wasn't going to get me as many points as picking a mix of players from other teams. Even the Arse have got some decent players!

In my ideal world Wiggins would win every stage of the Giro - but in the PTP picking him for to win every giro stage would be a waste of time. There are plenty of threads for expressing who you want to win a race - PTP isn't it. I'm not a fan of Valverde at all, but I chose him for my PTP overall winner in his last race and he got me a shed load of points. Cheers Valverde you d@ped up cheating dog-owning ba$tard!

Anyway... what was this thread about again..?

ratsbeyfus

Ms Tree wrote:

greasedscotsman wrote:

Am I missing something here. Stupid question, but does re-infused blood not give a performance advantage.

Yes, I thought that too, taking it out and putting it back gives the edge.
In the 70s (I think) there was this guy won lots of 10.000 mts Finnish I think his name was Lassie Virren. David Coleman said that he used to take his blood out and put it back. I thought that was strange then but now of course realise why! It wasn't illegal then obviously.

As I understand it autologous blood transfusions (where you reinject your own stored red blood cells to increase your hematocrit) is one of the hardest doping methods to detect - if Tyler Hamilton had stuck to this type of transfusion he'd probably still be racing today.

Pokerface

Ms Tree wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

Ms Tree wrote:

It also amazes me that people on here gripe and moan and slag off certain riders - and them pick them for their PTP. Bit two-faced IMHO.

Well - I may not like Chelsea or Man U - but I'm always going to bet them to win games.

Not two-faced at all. PTP isn't a popularity contest.

Isn'st it? My opinon still stands.

That explains why you're in 71st place. :roll:

No - it is NOT a popularity contest. It's a crystal-ball contest trying to predict winners. Maybe you should re-read the rules before making picks?

DaveyL

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Ms Tree wrote:

greasedscotsman wrote:

Am I missing something here. Stupid question, but does re-infused blood not give a performance advantage.

Yes, I thought that too, taking it out and putting it back gives the edge.
In the 70s (I think) there was this guy won lots of 10.000 mts Finnish I think his name was Lassie Virren. David Coleman said that he used to take his blood out and put it back. I thought that was strange then but now of course realise why! It wasn't illegal then obviously.

As I understand it autologous blood transfusions (where you reinject your own stored red blood cells to increase your hematocrit) is one of the hardest doping methods to detect - if Tyler Hamilton had stuck to this type of transfusion he'd probably still be racing today.

It is hard to detect, but theoretically it is possible and several groups are working on it. When they finally spring it on an unsuspecting peloton it ought to snare a few big fish. There's a recent interview with San Diego Tribune doping expert Mark Ziegler on Competitor Radio and he makes these points.

He also points out that although the autologous transfusion (your own blood) is hard to detect it is practically difficult as the blood needs to be stored properly and imported to the athlete when required. A homologous transfusion (blood from another human) is practically easier - you could just withdraw it on the spot from the manager/soigneur etc. Obviously it is much riskier in terms of getting caught and is *extremely* dangerous in terms of the athlete's health.

dougzz

Pokerface wrote:

Ms Tree wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

Ms Tree wrote:

It also amazes me that people on here gripe and moan and slag off certain riders - and them pick them for their PTP. Bit two-faced IMHO.

Well - I may not like Chelsea or Man U - but I'm always going to bet them to win games.

Not two-faced at all. PTP isn't a popularity contest.

Isn'st it? My opinon still stands.

That explains why you're in 71st place. :roll:

No - it is NOT a popularity contest. It's a crystal-ball contest trying to predict winners. Maybe you should re-read the rules before making picks?

I'm trying to pick winners not favs and I'm still 76th

greasedscotsman

Pokerface wrote:

greasedscotsman wrote:

Am I missing something here. Stupid question, but does re-infused blood not give a performance advantage, even if it does not have any EPO? So if the blood in the clinic in Madrid is DNA matched to Valverde, it's intent to dope, so he should serve a 2 year ban.

If it was his blood and there was no EPO in it, it would be easy to say it was just there for analysis, etc.


I suspect it is the presence of EPO in it which is the crux of the matter.

Are you sure that's right? Looks like there wasn't any EPO in Basso's blood.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php ... /may07news

But please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to argue a case for either of them, seems to me they both cheated as should have been suspended. As I understood it all the Puerto riders were caught out becuase there was good evidence of blood doping, in the form of bags of blood, centrifuges, etc, not specifically because there was EPO in any of the bags.

ms_tree

Pokerface wrote:

Ms Tree wrote:

Pokerface wrote:

Ms Tree wrote:

It also amazes me that people on here gripe and moan and slag off certain riders - and them pick them for their PTP. Bit two-faced IMHO.

Well - I may not like Chelsea or Man U - but I'm always going to bet them to win games.

Not two-faced at all. PTP isn't a popularity contest.

Isn'st it? My opinon still stands.

That explains why you're in 71st place. :roll:

No - it is NOT a popularity contest. It's a crystal-ball contest trying to predict winners. Maybe you should re-read the rules before making picks?

Blimey you're serious aren't you? I may be 71st but at least I know I'm clean! !!! Anyway PTP isn't exactly serious is it, otherwise we would win prizes, and not just prizes but money. (IMHO obviously).