Lemond publishes anti-doping proposals

paulcuthbert

Just popped up on my Facebook news feed from Bike Pure...

Basically he advocates the recording of VO2 max+max power outputs along with Bio passport results for riders as benchmarks for performance, as well as handing over testing protocol from UCI to independent agencies, and multiple lab tests of urine/blood results.

http://bikepure.org/2010/07/lemond-publishes-anti-doping-proposals/

donrhummy

As i stated in a previous post, what does he say to the WADA proposal that would define Lemond's VO2Max as doping? Lemond said that his VO2Max as a pro was between 92-94. WADA's new proposal says all VO2Max's over 90 would be considered doping.


Lemond with his VO2Max: http://www.bikeraceinfo.com/oralhistory/lemond.html
WADA's proposal: http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/06/any-at ... er-90.html

paulcuthbert

I took it to mean they have a static level each, and if it strays from that then they will be scrutinised - much like the current bio passport...

TimB34

Details of LeMonds suggestions:
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/5050/ ... cling.aspx

1 to 4 are basically just "I don't trust the UCI"

5 is adding performance parameters to the Biological Passport - wouldn't this be open to the same kind of workaround that Frei was using - long-term microdosing doesn't show up because there are no performance/blood value spikes?

6 is what should happen already, if you can trust the UCI to be fair.

Monty Dog

The paradox is when you get athletes who have average results for a professional suddenly recording exceptional results - ultimately it can only be attributed to two things - changes to the athletes physiological make-up or doping and hence Lemond's argument. There's a certain group who think the former is possible, despite there being no scientific evidence of the fact. VO2 max in excess of 90 isn't unusual - some of the Norwegian XC skiers for example.
What is unacceptable is the UCI as the sport's governing body and administrator of drug testing. There's a conflict of interest that needs to be removed.

iainf72

I think we should add the Ashenden suggestion in of daily photographs of transfusion points on the body during a grand Tour.

The cost is tiny, and while it's slightly intrusive it's no more so than peeing in a cup or giving up some blood.

Kléber

You can also use carbon monoxide testing for total body haemoglobin, again another tool, not a big solution. The trouble is the costs slowly mount up. In a way you impose massive costs on the sport.

The trick then is to use intelligent testing, to target some riders and this is where LeMond's testing comes in useful.

I also fully agree that the governing body shouldn't be in charge of doping controls, the UCI exists to promote cycling and doping scandals harm the sport, therefore they have a vested interest in hushing over scandal. This applies elsewhere, there are examples of some people getting shunted into "early retirement" instead of being named as doping cheats, it's not particular to the UCI.

Spiny_Norman

Monty Dog wrote:

VO2 max in excess of 90 isn't unusual - some of the Norwegian XC skiers for example.

If you want to demonstrate that that level of VO2 max can be achieved without doping, you'd be better off finding another group of sportsmen to refer to, IMO.

donrhummy

iainf72 wrote:

I think we should add the Ashenden suggestion in of daily photographs of transfusion points on the body during a grand Tour.

The cost is tiny, and while it's slightly intrusive it's no more so than peeing in a cup or giving up some blood.

This doesn't do anything about testosterone patches, oral steroids, or oral EPO: http://techtransfer.universityofcalifor ... 19538.html

rick_chasey

donrhummy wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

I think we should add the Ashenden suggestion in of daily photographs of transfusion points on the body during a grand Tour.

The cost is tiny, and while it's slightly intrusive it's no more so than peeing in a cup or giving up some blood.

This doesn't do anything about testosterone patches, oral steroids, or oral EPO: http://techtransfer.universityofcalifor ... 19538.html

No, but it still helps.

You need a patchwork of tests, not one mega one.

iainf72

donrhummy wrote:

This doesn't do anything about testosterone patches, oral steroids, or oral EPO: http://techtransfer.universityofcalifor ... 19538.html

It's in additional to other testing.

donrhummy

iainf72 wrote:

donrhummy wrote:

This doesn't do anything about testosterone patches, oral steroids, or oral EPO: http://techtransfer.universityofcalifor ... 19538.html

It's in additional to other testing.

OK, I can see the benefit in that.

I'd also say that they should double the number of out-of-competition tests and triple the number of in-competition tests. (Would also help make the passport even more powerful)

Currently, each ProTour team only has to give $163,000 toward anti-doping. I would do two things: increase that amount, and increase the amount that race organizers have to give.

BTW, a Pro Continental team that's not a "wildcard" team has to give more per rider than a ProTour team. They have to give $10,000 per rider. While a ProTour team gives $163,000 for 25 or more riders, which works out to a max of $6,520 per rider.