Michael Rogers Positive for Clenbuterol

iainf72

whiteboytrash wrote:

He had some funny business going on with his hematocrit did he not?

It's high, but certified as naturally high.

rayjay

How do they certify a naturally high hematocrit level ?

You could have been doping since you started racing.

Didn't SD say the same thing about Ricco.

whiteboytrash

iainf72 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

He had some funny business going on with his hematocrit did he not?

It's high, but certified as naturally high.

That's good. Must have been clean at the 2004 Giro. Good.

Frigo was only carrying for Mum at Fasso

I jest but it just shows ZTP is just words.

And yes Cuengo and Ricco both had the same hall pass as Cioni.

iainf72

rayjay wrote:

How do they certify a naturally high hematocrit level ?

You could have been doping since you started racing.

Didn't SD say the same thing about Ricco.

You test it under controlled circumstances over a period of time. Fairly involved process.

Some people have naturally high level. In the Sports Gene (which I've recommended) there was a dude who's natural level of near 60%.

rick_chasey

Ricco had one didn't be??

TheBigBean

There was some discussion on Cioni here

viewtopic.php?f=40002&t=12949734&p=18648083&hilit=Cioni#p18648045

Although I think there were a number of arguments raging at the time.

No_Ta_Doctor

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ricco had one didn't be??

Ricco claimed he had naturally high hematocrit. I've never seen evidence that this was verified by the relevant authorities, as it was for Wegelius and Cioni, for example.

No_Ta_Doctor

whiteboytrash wrote:

That's good. Must have been clean at the 2004 Giro. Good.

Frigo was only carrying for Mum at Fasso

I jest but it just shows ZTP is just words.

And yes Cuengo and Ricco both had the same hall pass as Cioni.

You jest, but you're not funny.

Frigo is irrelevant, unless you can show me that the EPO his wife was carrying was intended for Cioni. Merely having a team-mate busted, in the mid 00s is the most tenuous link with doping possible. It's insidious and disingenuous to mention it in this context. Unfortunately we've come to regard this sort of smear tactic as par for the course in your posts.

The same goes for directly associating him with Ricco and Cunego. It's a tenuous connection designed make the shit stick.

Plenty on here have argued that Sky's zero tolerance policy is either too weak or too impractical or just strategically wrong (contrast with Garmin, for example). They've managed to do this without resorting to your nudge-nudge, wink-wink, throw enough mud and some of it will stick approach.

A load of tenuous connections, half a ton of sarcasm and a cynical knowing smiley make not for reasoned debate.

Yellow Peril

I think the Zero Tolerance Policy (for better or worse) holds.

Brailsford has looked Cioni in the eye as he signs on the dotted line and Cioni is ballsy enough to stare him back. Who knows DB may even have insisted on randomly testing him just to make sure the unusually high levels were in fact true. I've no doubt that if anything ever does come out of the woodwork that would stick then Brailsford will soon be releasing him to "spend more time with his family" or to "pursue other career options" of that there is no doubt.

dish_dash

iainf72 wrote:

rayjay wrote:

How do they certify a naturally high hematocrit level ?

You could have been doping since you started racing.

Didn't SD say the same thing about Ricco.

You test it under controlled circumstances over a period of time. Fairly involved process.

Some people have naturally high level. In the Sports Gene (which I've recommended) there was a dude who's natural level of near 60%.

Wegelius' book talks about this. Frequent testings over a period of time. Several times of day and at different body states (hydrated, dehydrated etc). Rayjay, I'd recommend the book if you haven't read it. Gives a great insight into the life of a pro...

rayjay

Sounds good, if I get some time I will check it out...cheers

From what you are saying testing seemed to be regular, sounds like a lot more regular than I thought but if you were doping and started early then that is the bar that is set , if you get me.

If your hematocrit level gets to high its quite dangerous makes the blood thicker etc.

dish_dash

Wegelius' testing was done during the time of the 50% cap. He had a naturally high hematocrit that meant he exceeded that. Got certified after extensive testing (for 52% I think).

Blood passport system is now different. Sets a benchmark and looks for large variations. A fairer system as keeps people near their 'natural' level, unless of course they started early and where very consistent. No testing system is perfect but the BP system seems to be picking up anomalies...

rayjay

That's the problem. We all know about the Bio, so a rider starting out can cheat quite easily.

It's a good idea but unless it's foolproof it has little value IMO.

Plus funding for testing is just not there, so the chances of catching someone early on are zero.

Take the Bio of Froome for instance, unless we knew his consistent values from an early age then it's really not relevant if he his doping. [just an example]

whiteboytrash

No tA Doctor wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ricco had one didn't be??

Ricco claimed he had naturally high hematocrit. I've never seen evidence that this was verified by the relevant authorities, as it was for Wegelius and Cioni, for example.

“I’m not angry. I’m just disappointed,” Ricco said of the reports following his victory on the ninth stage which took in two first category climbs.

“I know I have nothing to worry about. My blood values are high, but for me they are totally normal because I’ve had them since I was a child.

“The International Cycling Union (UCI) know that and I have a certificate from the UCI to prove that they are naturally high.”

http://www.bicycle.net/2008/riccardo-ri ... ani-doping

whiteboytrash

dish_dash wrote:

Wegelius' testing was done during the time of the 50% cap. He had a naturally high hematocrit that meant he exceeded that. Got certified after extensive testing (for 52% I think).

Blood passport system is now different. Sets a benchmark and looks for large variations. A fairer system as keeps people near their 'natural' level, unless of course they started early and where very consistent. No testing system is perfect but the BP system seems to be picking up anomalies...

Just one point of clarity. The BP is good at keeping an athlete at a "defined" level rather than "natural".

Also the 50% test was a health test not anti-doping like the BP. But yes it was the only thing at the time the UCI could do.

iainf72

rayjay wrote:

That's the problem. We all know about the Bio, so a rider starting out can cheat quite easily.

It's a good idea but unless it's foolproof it has little value IMO.

Plus funding for testing is just not there, so the chances of catching someone early on are zero.

Take the Bio of Froome for instance, unless we knew his consistent values from an early age then it's really not relevant if he his doping. [just an example]

It doesn't really work like that though. It's not about consistency, it's about "normal". So if you use rEPO, this will cause certain functions in your body to be suppressed, and this will show up in the markers. And there is a complicated statistical model around the whole thing.

Yes, you can fly under the radar a bit, but it's not easy.

rayjay

iainf72 wrote:

rayjay wrote:

That's the problem. We all know about the Bio, so a rider starting out can cheat quite easily.

It's a good idea but unless it's foolproof it has little value IMO.

Plus funding for testing is just not there, so the chances of catching someone early on are zero.

Take the Bio of Froome for instance, unless we knew his consistent values from an early age then it's really not relevant if he his doping. [just an example]

It doesn't really work like that though. It's not about consistency, it's about "normal". So if you use rEPO, this will cause certain functions in your body to be suppressed, and this will show up in the markers. And there is a complicated statistical model around the whole thing.

Yes, you can fly under the radar a bit, but it's not easy.

It may help a bit but it's not really going to be the definitive answer.

Riders do need to be tested so you have a base level to work from and their is no way to test everyone.

The most tested riders tend to be the best riders and you will be hard pushed to catch them and their first maker could well be a time when they are up to something naughty.

Its almost like another reason to dope. so you keep your Bio reading at the same level and those markers will not look so suspicious.

shinyhelmut

You might want to learn a bit more about how the passport works. I'd recommend the sportsscientists blog. It is not as simple as you seem to think it is.

iainf72

rayjay wrote:

The most tested riders tend to be the best riders and you will be hard pushed to catch them and their first maker could well be a time when they are up to something naughty.

Its almost like another reason to dope. so you keep your Bio reading at the same level and those markers will not look so suspicious.

You get that they don't look at the first one and use that as a base, right?

Your body responds to doping but mimicking things that would happen naturally. But this causes the things that happen naturally to shut down somewhat. So your reticulocyte count goes mad, and doesn't look right compared to the rest of your blood. Starting doping earlier isn't going to change the fact that someone looks like they've got robot blood and should be in a hospital.

This is why it's become difficult - You use blood transfusions because there is no drug, but hey, what does that do? Right, lots of mature cells, but not enough young cells. How can I fix that? I know, I'll take a small amount of EPO to stimulate growth.

This is why when you see passport data, there is a lot of additional stuff like what the race workload was, where they were etc etc.

rayjay

I understand what your saying. I'm not sure Pellizotti did

Say by micro dosing, your haematological module could show nothing that stands out as it's been roughly the same every test.

Same for steroid module, nothing looking suspicious.

I'm sure you could keep everything at a believable level.

salsiccia1

whiteboytrash

rayjay wrote:

I understand what your saying. I'm not sure Pellizotti did

Say by micro dosing, your haematological module could show nothing that stands out as it's been roughly the same every test.

Same for steroid module, nothing looking suspicious.

I'm sure you could keep everything at a believable level.

Not so much a "believable" level but at one which proceedings cannot be taken.

That bar is high. Look at Horner's profile. You can't say its doping as equally as you can't say it is. That's the perfect ground.

Not believable but not a doping infraction either.

Macaloon

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Captain Cook pic

Is that a man with robot blood, or a Little Englander?

rayjay

Exactly my point WBT .

nic_77

whiteboytrash wrote:

I'm no hematologist.

whiteboytrash wrote:

Look at Horner's profile. You can't say its doping as equally as you can't say it is.

Thoughts?

Yellow Peril

nic_77 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

I'm no hematologist.

whiteboytrash wrote:

Look at Horner's profile. You can't say its doping as equally as you can't say it is.

Thoughts?

WBT Is former President of the United States George W Bush and I claim my prize

mike6

Yellow Peril wrote:

nic_77 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

I'm no hematologist.

whiteboytrash wrote:

Look at Horner's profile. You can't say its doping as equally as you can't say it is.

Thoughts?

WBT Is former President of the United States George W Bush and I claim my prize

Wait, wait. Its a riddle, I know it is. I just cant work out the answer.

whiteboytrash

nic_77 wrote:

whiteboytrash wrote:

I'm no hematologist.

whiteboytrash wrote:

Look at Horner's profile. You can't say its doping as equally as you can't say it is.

Thoughts?

My point was well made. The UCI's own specialist even agreed.

Anti-doping expert Robin Parisotto has said that he has questions about the biological passport released last month by Vuelta a España winner Chris Horner, explaining that he believes that some of the values in the blood profile justify further scrutiny and testing.

“While it is not 100 percent clear that there is anything untoward happening, there’s certainly unusual patterns there,” Parisotto told VeloNation on Friday. “If this was something that came across my desk for evaluation [as part of cycling’s biological passport panel – ed], I would certainly be putting a question mark on it. I’d at least request that further samples to be taken, particularly just before and during competitions, in order to see if the pattern was a one-off or if it persists.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/15660 ... z2qJSdtVuB



Whilst we're at the quoting a quote game.

What ever happened to you refraining from posting? on any thread? :?

nic_77 wrote:
With that, for the good of the forum, I will refrain from any further engagement on any thread. Apologies to those who have been affronted by my input.

Thoughts?

salsiccia1

whiteboytrash wrote:

Thoughts?

I think this one's going to press on to a century

nic_77

Good point. I'll go back to correcting factual errors. I just wish there weren't so many.