Philippe Gilbert

No_Ta_Doctor

TheYorkshireMan wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but I had thought that the whole thing about microdosing Epo was to manipulate reticulocyte levels, so preventing their production from stopping in response to blood doping?

The passport looks at both high and low levels of reticulocytes. After blood withdrawal ret production increases to compensate, after reinfusion it drops. EPO microdosing will only hide the latter, not the former.

No doubt there are ways around the passport, but as the article points out, if the returns for doping are diminishing and the costs and risks are increasing then surely that's a good thing?

The article also cross references to some power output calculations, which corroborate that there is some effect from the passport.

TheYorkshireMan

No tA Doctor wrote:

The passport looks at both high and low levels of reticulocytes. After blood withdrawal ret production increases to compensate, after reinfusion it drops. EPO microdosing will only hide the latter, not the former .

I am not saying that the passport is a complete waste of time, but couldn't the increase you mention be overcome by simply drawing small quantities of blood at a time, so there is only a small response to this. Hope that makes sense!

RichN95.

TheYorkshireMan wrote:

I am not saying that the passport is a complete waste of time, but couldn't the increase you mention be overcome by simply drawing small quantities of blood at a time, so there is only a small response to this. Hope that makes sense!

But then do such methods actually make any real difference to performance? Enough to make all the negative aspects worthwhile?

Does microdosing even work properly? I mean, if I microdose wine at a rate of a glass a day, I'm not going to be drunk at the end of the week (I'll just be occasionally marginally, but inpreceptively less sober), but I will be reasonably drunk if I have a whole bottle at once.

TheYorkshireMan

RichN95 wrote:

TheYorkshireMan wrote:

I am not saying that the passport is a complete waste of time, but couldn't the increase you mention be overcome by simply drawing small quantities of blood at a time, so there is only a small response to this. Hope that makes sense!

But then do such methods actually make any real difference to performance? Enough to make all the negative aspects worthwhile?

Does microdosing even work properly? I mean, if I microdose wine at a rate of a glass a day, I'm not going to be drunk at the end of the week (I'll just be occasionally marginally, but inpreceptively less sober), but I will be reasonably drunk if I have a whole bottle at once.

But why would microdosing only give a marginal gain? Surely the aim to to take smaller but frequently repeated doses, lowering the chance of testing positive and flattening out variations in the various blood parameters whilst still, over time, getting, or maintaining, a significant boost in the number of red blood cells.

How about the benefit of microtransfusions when in a stage race, when the number of red blood cells can be expected to fall over the course of the race?

Perhaps the only people who really know how effective microdosing is are the riders who are doing it!

No_Ta_Doctor

Given the srories of riders powering through stages when only given a saline injection I don't reckon they know all that much, a lot of it may be in the mind.

And while you're right that microdosing is used to flatten the values to something less suspicious it's worth remembering that a rider's passport is calibrated on his blood history - so to thoroughly avoid suspicion he'd need to be microdosing both on and off season and from the point of his first test. Not impossible, but fairly impractical and expensive.

Again, it's worth just comparing the introduction of various tests and controls like the blood passport with data on power output over the years.

I don't think anyone is 100% certain, but the evidence certainly suggests that some sort of cap has been placed on the effectiveness of blood doping.

ms_tree

TheYorkshireMan wrote:

Ms Tree wrote:

That was 6 years ago. A lot's changed in that time, not least the passport. Anyone who thinks he's dirty needs their head read, frankly.

Given your obvious insider knowledge, just how much slower is the racing nowadays, especially when the hammer goes down, what with the passport having eliminated doping and all? From what I have read the passport system is hardly foolproof, and riders are already wise as to how they can combine blood doping with the micro-dosing of EPO to beat the system.

Anyhow, I never said Gilbert was doping, only that if he was this would be ironic given what had been written about him in the past. That said, given the recent history of the sport I wouldn't bet a tenner on any given rider been 100% clean.

Me? Inside knowledge? Where ever did you get that idea? IMHO there are probably 3 riders you could bet your tenner on are clean and that's Gilbert, Evans and Pinotti.

andyrr

Gilbert interview on the Canyon website :
Interesting take on his future possible direction :


Canyon: At 29 years of age, some observers wonder if Phil Gilbert isn’t on the same path as your fellow Belgian great Eddy Merckx, headed towards becoming a Grand Tour rider.
Philippe Gilbert: Sure why not? I have the time to work towards that in the future. I want to continue to win the classic races but then look towards becoming a Grand Tour rider.

rick_chasey

andyrr wrote:

Gilbert interview on the Canyon website :
Interesting take on his future possible direction :


Canyon: At 29 years of age, some observers wonder if Phil Gilbert isn’t on the same path as your fellow Belgian great Eddy Merckx, headed towards becoming a Grand Tour rider.
Philippe Gilbert: Sure why not? I have the time to work towards that in the future. I want to continue to win the classic races but then look towards becoming a Grand Tour rider.

Marc Sergeant was quick to nip that in the bud not long after he said that.

BikingBernie

I see that one of the Omega Pharma-Lotto's entourage has just been busted for taking delivery of doping products. Good timing seeing that the Tour is about to start.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vanseve ... g-products

jswba

Ah, the first doping story for the Tour. Means that le Grand Depart is nearly upon us.

kfinlay

jswba wrote:

Ah, the first doping story for the Tour. Means that le Grand Depart is nearly upon us.

with the biggie due tomorrow?

Doobz

Not sure about the new Gilbert look...

http://yfrog.com/z/h0hfmktj

cal_stewart

looks like hp from scooter

Doobz

Cal_Stewart wrote:

looks like hp from scooter

rick_chasey

Is that eye-liner?!

iainf72

Rick Chasey wrote:

Is that eye-liner?!

Don't be daft, eye liner is for girls.

It's guy liner.

Can I have your metrosexual club membership card back next time I see you. And get that Raphael man bag on eBay too

jerry3571

I think for the blood doping passport (January) a lot of riders get themselves in to good shape for the Tests so when their levels are tested later in the year then the difference is not so great; when I mean "get in to shape" I mean taking all the drugs they can get their hands on.

I do dispair at people saying top riders being clean. To be honest I have asthma and my Inhalers work really so I can breathe really well. Cyclists take their drugs because it makes them go fast and low and behold the riders who get caught for doping are usually the fastest riders. DRUGS WORK!!

I think Gilbert seemed to be cleaner on the FDJ Team when he used to blow at 10-20kms before the end of a big race but at Omega/ Lotto he now beats 7 bales out of everyone. Sean Kelly used to say it was Gilbert's age which was holding him back but at Omega he has suddenly grown up and come of age. Amazing what testosterone can do for a young man's development!

-Jerry

RichN95.

jerry3571 wrote:

I think for the blood doping passport (January) a lot of riders get themselves in to good shape for the Tests so when their levels are tested later in the year then the difference is not so great; when I mean "get in to shape" I mean taking all the drugs they can get their hands on.

I do dispair at people saying top riders being clean. To be honest I have asthma and my Inhalers work really so I can breathe really well. Cyclists take their drugs because it makes them go fast and low and behold the riders who get caught for doping are usually the fastest riders. DRUGS WORK!!

I think Gilbert seemed to be cleaner on the FDJ Team when he used to blow at 10-20kms before the end of a big race but at Omega/ Lotto he now beats 7 bales out of everyone. Sean Kelly used to say it was Gilbert's age which was holding him back but at Omega he has suddenly grown up and come of age. Amazing what testosterone can do for a young man's development!

-Jerry

The only bit of that I agree with is that inhalers help asthma. Although I'm also willing to concede that your name might actually be Jerry.

No_Ta_Doctor

RichN95 wrote:

jerry3571 wrote:

I think for the blood doping passport (January) a lot of riders get themselves in to good shape for the Tests so when their levels are tested later in the year then the difference is not so great; when I mean "get in to shape" I mean taking all the drugs they can get their hands on.

I do dispair at people saying top riders being clean. To be honest I have asthma and my Inhalers work really so I can breathe really well. Cyclists take their drugs because it makes them go fast and low and behold the riders who get caught for doping are usually the fastest riders. DRUGS WORK!!

I think Gilbert seemed to be cleaner on the FDJ Team when he used to blow at 10-20kms before the end of a big race but at Omega/ Lotto he now beats 7 bales out of everyone. Sean Kelly used to say it was Gilbert's age which was holding him back but at Omega he has suddenly grown up and come of age. Amazing what testosterone can do for a young man's development!

-Jerry

The only bit of that I agree with is that inhalers help asthma. Although I'm also willing to concede that your name might actually be Jerry.

+1

jerry3571

Does microdosing even work properly? I mean, if I microdose wine at a rate of a glass a day, I'm not going to be drunk at the end of the week (I'll just be occasionally marginally, but inpreceptively less sober), but I will be reasonably drunk if I have a whole bottle at once.

...and that is one of the most dumbest analagies I have heard in a long time.

Why the hell would anyone take doping products; because it's fun!!??

If you've spent 2 weeks at altitude riding a bike up and down a Mountain like I have then you know that altering your body's Chemistry and Biology have a significant effect on how much power output you can produce. Try talking to an Olympic coach about it.
You'll be telling me that elephants fly because they got big ears in a minute. Keep it real mate; drugs work otherwise they would take them. (Unbeleiveable!)

-Jerry
(my REAL name isn't Jerry; numpty)

RichN95.

jerry3571 wrote:

Does microdosing even work properly? I mean, if I microdose wine at a rate of a glass a day, I'm not going to be drunk at the end of the week (I'll just be occasionally marginally, but inpreceptively less sober), but I will be reasonably drunk if I have a whole bottle at once.

...and that is one of the most dumbest analagies I have heard in a long time.

Why the hell would anyone take doping products; because it's fun!!??

If you've spent 2 weeks at altitude riding a bike up and down a Mountain like I have then you know that altering your body's Chemistry and Biology have a significant effect on how much power output you can produce. Try talking to an Olympic coach about it.
You'll be telling me that elephants fly because they got big ears in a minute. Keep it real mate; drugs work otherwise they would take them. (Unbeleiveable!)

-Jerry
(my REAL name isn't Jerry; numpty)

First why would they take it? Because they think it works and a man in a white coat (who is making a tidy sum) tells them it does. That doesn't mean it actually does make any difference. (Consider the placebo effect and the Milgram experiment)

Explain homeopathic medicine. That's a hundred million (maybe billion) pound industry, despite the fact that it has been comprehensively debunked by science. People also spend lots of money on astrology, faith healing and all sorts of nonsense that does not work. Why? Because they believe it works. Humans crave comfort and reassurance, sportsmen more than most.

Now, I'm not going to deny that taking a large dose of EPO or a full pint of blood will help performance, because it does. But it will also get a one way ticket to the courts.
Microdosing, to stay within 'natural' parameters, is a little different. The body produces EPO and it produces it according to need. When a large amount of EPO is injected (or blood transfused) the body produces far less EPO. Similarly, if a small amount is injected, it will also effect the amount of natural EPO produced.

With that in mind, it is possible that the small amounts of EPO injected merely does the job that the body would have done anyway. The actual effects haven't been studied, maybe it works, maybe it doesn't but there are two certain effects: 1. The habitual doper gets his psychological crutch and 2. The doctor gets paid many thousand euros.

Riding up and down hills may make you fit, but it won't make you smart.

BikingBernie

RichN95 wrote:

First why would they take it? Because they think it works and a man in a white coat (who is making a tidy sum) tells them it does. That doesn't mean it actually does make any difference. (Consider the placebo effect and the Milgram experiment)

Why is Milgram relevant here?

RichN95 wrote:

Explain homeopathic medicine.

Easy. It doesn't work.

RichN95 wrote:

Now, I'm not going to deny that taking a large dose of EPO or a full pint of blood will help performance, because it does. But it will also get a one way ticket to the courts.

If you are caught. If you are not one of the UCI's protected riders etc..

RichN95 wrote:

Microdosing, to stay within 'natural' parameters, is a little different. The body produces EPO and it produces it according to need. When a large amount of EPO is injected (or blood transfused) the body produces far less EPO. Similarly, if a small amount is injected, it will also effect the amount of natural EPO produced. With that in mind, it is possible that the small amounts of EPO injected merely does the job that the body would have done anyway. .

You clearly don't understand why microdosing is used, or its effects. Two simple illustrations. Firstly, 'natural parameters' vary a lot. One rider may have a 'natural' haemocrit level of 40%, another 50%. Autologous blood doping using smaller transfusions than were previoulsy the norm can be used to close that gap. At the same time the rider will microdose with Epo not so much to boost the haemocrit level, but to keep the reticulocyte count up, so masking the use of blood doping.

Secondly, in a stage race a rider's haemocrit level will fall significantly. Blood doping or microdosing with Epo can counter this and so give a rider a big advantage in the latter stages of the race.

Despite what the UCI claims, most of the 'winning' performances one sees in the big Tours are still fueled by Epo and blood doping.

P.s. I see that a soigner who has worked a lot with Cadel Evans and BMC has just been charged after he was caught with 195 doses of Epo back in 2009...

TommyEss

BikingBernie wrote:

Despite what the UCI claims, most of the 'winning' performances one sees in the big Tours are still fueled by Epo and blood doping.

That's quite a strong statement - anything tangible on which it's based or is it just your opinion?

rick_chasey

iainf72 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Is that eye-liner?!

Don't be daft, eye liner is for girls.

It's guy liner.

Can I have your metrosexual club membership card back next time I see you. And get that Raphael man bag on eBay too

Hah. Pwnage.

I use my man bag every day now....

jerry3571

Jan Ullrich was said to have paid almost £40, 000 a year for his doping products and add that to "maybe" his Team needed doping products plus multiply that by multiple Teams and you are talking Millions of pounds a year for Doping Products. There are teams of Scientists, Doctors and Experts who are developing these products which try to get around the systems in place (maybe India, china dn other tricky places to keep a check on). It's all big bucks.

Micro dosing works because it works; Teams and Riders do not spend Millions of Pounds on products which may or may not work. Testing of products is essential in keeping riders ahead of the game and Team Doctors are on the Pay Roll to try to ensure that riders don't kill themselves, as we had in the 90's.
The main reason for the massive push to reduce doping in cycling by the authorities was because a lot of Cyclists died through EPO and blood transfusions and this was bringing in some serious attention from Police and Governments. You can't go on having cyclists being killed in this way without the Law coming in to play in a big way. Cycling had to get it's house in to order.

-Jerry

rick_chasey

But seriously, why is there doping chat on the GIlbert thread?

I know it's the Tour so some of it is obligatory, but really?

BikingBernie

TommyEss wrote:

BikingBernie wrote:

Despite what the UCI claims, most of the 'winning' performances one sees in the big Tours are still fueled by Epo and blood doping.

That's quite a strong statement - anything tangible on which it's based or is it just your opinion?

Here are just two stories from the last couple of days which indicate the UCI's claim that cycling is '98% clean' is nonsense.

Vansevenant alleged to have imported doping products

Vansevenant, 39, is due to escort VIP guests of the Omega Pharma-Lotto team at the Tour de France, which begins next week.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/vanseve ... g-products

Former BMC soigneur implicated in drug bust

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/former- ... -drug-bust

BikingBernie

Rick Chasey wrote:

But seriously, why is there doping chat on the GIlbert thread?

I know it's the Tour so some of it is obligatory, but really?

For one, see the first story above.

RichN95.

BikingBernie wrote:

Why is Milgram relevant here?

It shows that people tend to trust whatever experts tell them. So if a doctor says 'take this it will make you faster', riders will just take it without questioning whether it's actually working. For example, someone involved in Puerto said that they just gave Mancebo placebos (as his HCT was 49% naturally). They charged him thousands for this.

BikingBernie wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Explain homeopathic medicine.

Easy. It doesn't work.

Exactly. So why do so many people use it? It was a counter arguement to the nonesense of 'if it didn't work they wouldn't take it'

BikingBernie wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Now, I'm not going to deny that taking a large dose of EPO or a full pint of blood will help performance, because it does. But it will also get a one way ticket to the courts.

If you are caught. If you are not one of the UCI's protected riders etc..

A conspiracy theory that I don't subscribe to.

BikingBernie wrote:

You clearly don't understand why microdosing is used, or its effects. Two simple illustrations. Firstly, 'natural parameters' vary a lot. One rider may have a 'natural' haemocrit level of 40%, another 50%. Autologous blood doping using smaller transfusions than were previoulsy the norm can be used to close that gap. At the same time the rider will microdose with Epo not so much to boost the haemocrit level, but to keep the reticulocyte count up, so masking the use of blood doping.

Secondly, in a stage race a rider's haemocrit level will fall significantly. Blood doping or microdosing with Epo can counter this and so give a rider a big advantage in the latter stages of the race.

The methods they can use and what they can get away with are a lot different than they used to be, but nobody questions whether the newer, scaled down efforts are effective. I'm not saying they aren't, but they certainly aren't as effective as they used to be (otherwise they would have used methods in the first place). It's possible that they don't give any meaningful benefit. But doping doctors will still sell them regardless, as long as there's riders with money willing to believe. Drugs don't always work and cheats don't necessarily proper

rick_chasey

BikingBernie wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

But seriously, why is there doping chat on the GIlbert thread?

I know it's the Tour so some of it is obligatory, but really?

For one, see the first story above.

That's a tenuous link at best.


We've got a guy who's retired getting some juice, and a guy from another team. Nothing close to Gilbert.

I know you get a hard on for nothing other than a good juiced up story, but you're making a lot up on your own from little.

Out of interest, do you ever post about actual racing? Or is it only what pumps through people's veins that gets you going?