Log in:  

Register

Is Philippe Gilbert Doping?

The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Moderators: Irondan, peloton, Eshnar, Red Rick, King Boonen, Tonton, Pricey_sky

Re: Is Philippe Gilbert Doping?

17 Apr 2017 21:21

climb4fun wrote:Re: torebear

Dude! Puhleeese!? Why aren't more "old guys" kickin' it. My guess is Valverde, GVA and Gilbert are doing something we've never heard of. Also, the biological passport is like a lock on your door, makes the honest, stay honest.

Why are you on this forum? Morbid curiosity or masochism?


Cause I'm interested in doping and antidoping. In the beginning it was to learn. Nowadays it's less learning, but sometimes some interesting nuggets show up.
User avatar ToreBear
Member
 
Posts: 1,545
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 23:08
Location: Norway

Re: Is Philippe Gilbert Doping?

17 Apr 2017 21:28

red_flanders wrote:
ToreBear wrote:
red_flanders wrote:
ToreBear wrote:It means that winning before was a good indicator of doping. Now it's a bad indicator. Some in the clinic seem to still think it's a good indicator. It hasn't been a good indicator since the 2000-2005 period.


Winning a bad indicator of doping. That's very good stuff, kudos for imagination and daring to go the opposite direction from all logic and experience .

Eager to hear the rationalization for this one. Might not make the all-time list––I mean it's no Vandenbroucke's dog or Rumsas' mother, but outstanding stuff all the same.


Who was the last doper that won something of any significance?


I'll just assume you're pulling our collective leg at this point.


It was a serious question.
User avatar ToreBear
Member
 
Posts: 1,545
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 23:08
Location: Norway

Re: Is Philippe Gilbert Doping?

17 Apr 2017 23:26

ToreBear wrote:It was a serious question.

Then the answer is "On Sunday".
User avatar Saint Unix
Member
 
Posts: 522
Joined: 14 Feb 2014 11:00
Location: Norway

18 Apr 2017 07:59

Hypothesis:
the fact that Gilbert wins BIG then drops out of the next race
is a sign that those who control cycling are have a group of favoured riders
who are free to dope/motor but only to win their allotted races.

This makes cycling more attractive to the causal punter
- since races can be "manipulated" to guarantee:
1) entertaining finishes &
2) reliable stars - with higher degree of recognition
- making it simpler to sell as an online betting sport.

it leaves me (a non-punter) with a undertone of being manipulated.
User avatar TourOfSardinia
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,099
Joined: 16 Feb 2010 14:25
Location: Sardinia

Re: Re:

18 Apr 2017 08:32

ToreBear wrote:
meat puppet wrote:Torebear: based on what?

Please quote a source that states that the BP parameters have been substantially altered since the study. My understanding is they have not been at least wrt blood parameters. But maybe i have missed something.


I'm not sure I get what your thinking about in regards to parameters. The bio passport is evolving continuously. More modules are added and the knowlegebase of the system has grown. Additionally more and more athletes have been subject to this for most of their career. The blood history is much longer.

Mind you my original contention was not that the Biopassport itself was the only reason doping is harder. There are also extensions of the glowtimes for substances with the urine tests. Wada cooperates with big pharma to insert markers of some kind in new drugs under development. Also AD efforts are better at timing their out of competition tests.


My point was that the conclusions of the Ashenden study about the room that athletes have to blood dope and microdose EPO are still quite valid unless the passport's blood components have been altered since the study. I don't think they have been but if they have, I am very interested to learn how.

It is true that more athletes are part of the BP and many athletes have been part of it for 6-7 more years from the study. This is to be welcomed. A steroid module has been added to the bio passport, yes, but that does not substantially diminish the room to blood dope.

However, the point of the study was to show that the passport in its current setup does not trigger suspicion even in the case of substantial blood manipulation in the order of increasing HBmass by ca. 10%. This "room to play" applies to the new athletes who have entered the BP pool as well as to those athletes who now have a longer history in the pool.

Longer history might help catch abnormal fluctuations, of course. But their abnormality is decided by the current setup of the BP blood passport. And its sensitivity to fluctuations induced by doping is what the study tested. Unless the setup is altered, there is a considerable room to dope without triggering suspicion. How many BP cases leading to bans have there been?

Finally, microdose EPO glowtime is not long, perhaps even shorter than the no testing window during nights. So one has to mess it up if a direct pop for pissing hot occurs.

As for your arguments about better governance, coordination and enactment of antidoping in general I remain agnostic but sceptical. What might indicate things having evolved in this direction? In my understanding it is a stretch to argue for improvement since the publication of the Ashenden study.
User avatar meat puppet
Member
 
Posts: 1,722
Joined: 29 May 2011 06:57

Re:

18 Apr 2017 10:37

TourOfSardinia wrote:Hypothesis:
the fact that Gilbert wins BIG then drops out of the next race
is a sign that those who control cycling are have a group of favoured riders
who are free to dope/motor but only to win their allotted races.

This makes cycling more attractive to the causal punter
- since races can be "manipulated" to guarantee:
1) entertaining finishes &
2) reliable stars - with higher degree of recognition
- making it simpler to sell as an online betting sport.

it leaves me (a non-punter) with a undertone of being manipulated.


Quick, someone get Dan Brown in. This guy is onto something.
User avatar the pope
Junior Member
 
Posts: 61
Joined: 12 Apr 2009 09:56

Re: Is Philippe Gilbert Doping?

18 Apr 2017 11:03

Saint Unix wrote:
ToreBear wrote:It was a serious question.

Then the answer is "On Sunday".


Monday (Scarponi).

We don't even have to infer that one.
User avatar The Hegelian
Member
 
Posts: 442
Joined: 06 Jul 2014 09:18

Re: Is Philippe Gilbert Doping?

18 Apr 2017 13:03

The Hegelian wrote:
Saint Unix wrote:
ToreBear wrote:It was a serious question.

Then the answer is "On Sunday".


Monday (Scarponi).

We don't even have to infer that one.

Depends on the definition of "any significance".
User avatar Saint Unix
Member
 
Posts: 522
Joined: 14 Feb 2014 11:00
Location: Norway

18 Apr 2017 13:45

...quite amazing to see the same old arguments made, refuted, and yet coming up again.

assuming that evolving/improving anti doping somehow is catching up with also evolving/getting more sophisticated doping is either naive or stupid. i really can't be bothered to tell which is which.

as always, there are 2 big groups of dopers - those that can pay for a sophisticated program and the various degrees of amateurism, mainly, but not only, sustained by the internal 'word of mouth' or googling.

there are always several docs out there - like the infamous ferrari - who will know the glow times for the undetectable dozes, b/c they stay abreast with ms-gc sensitivity improvements. the same docs will work out how much and how often their client will need to micro doze to beat ANY bio passport. and this is NOT even talking about the 'grey areas' - or legal doping - via manipulations of the murky world of tue's. those of us following the xc ski threads might be well informed of how sundby did it etc etc.

it is a proven fact - the sophisticated doping has always been ahead. the relatively low frequency of testing is also a problem. recall, armstrong was sure that he will NEVER be caught. he even invited a personal tester (don catlin) to flaunt the idea in everyone's face...and we know he was right had it not been for one very persistent police investigator...

this is not to say that doping is risk-free or that from time to time a big fish did not gets busted. but where a well financed, professional effort is applied, the dope police is behind.

and they know it.
DJPbaltimore:'John Kerry is an honorable person and would not call out the Russians if there was not evidence', 'the 2 of you are russia stooges'
in foreign policy there are no eternal friendships or eternal enemies, only eternal interests
User avatar python
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,299
Joined: 25 Sep 2009 01:01

Re: Re:

18 Apr 2017 15:19

meat puppet wrote:
ToreBear wrote:
meat puppet wrote:Torebear: based on what?

Please quote a source that states that the BP parameters have been substantially altered since the study. My understanding is they have not been at least wrt blood parameters. But maybe i have missed something.


I'm not sure I get what your thinking about in regards to parameters. The bio passport is evolving continuously. More modules are added and the knowlegebase of the system has grown. Additionally more and more athletes have been subject to this for most of their career. The blood history is much longer.

Mind you my original contention was not that the Biopassport itself was the only reason doping is harder. There are also extensions of the glowtimes for substances with the urine tests. Wada cooperates with big pharma to insert markers of some kind in new drugs under development. Also AD efforts are better at timing their out of competition tests.


My point was that the conclusions of the Ashenden study about the room that athletes have to blood dope and microdose EPO are still quite valid unless the passport's blood components have been altered since the study. I don't think they have been but if they have, I am very interested to learn how.

It is true that more athletes are part of the BP and many athletes have been part of it for 6-7 more years from the study. This is to be welcomed. A steroid module has been added to the bio passport, yes, but that does not substantially diminish the room to blood dope.

However, the point of the study was to show that the passport in its current setup does not trigger suspicion even in the case of substantial blood manipulation in the order of increasing HBmass by ca. 10%. This "room to play" applies to the new athletes who have entered the BP pool as well as to those athletes who now have a longer history in the pool.

Longer history might help catch abnormal fluctuations, of course. But their abnormality is decided by the current setup of the BP blood passport. And its sensitivity to fluctuations induced by doping is what the study tested. Unless the setup is altered, there is a considerable room to dope without triggering suspicion. How many BP cases leading to bans have there been?

Finally, microdose EPO glowtime is not long, perhaps even shorter than the no testing window during nights. So one has to mess it up if a direct pop for pissing hot occurs.

As for your arguments about better governance, coordination and enactment of antidoping in general I remain agnostic but sceptical. What might indicate things having evolved in this direction? In my understanding it is a stretch to argue for improvement since the publication of the Ashenden study.


I'm no expert on this stuff and I don't want to be, and I have to admit this is the first time i'we read the hole study. :o

In the study Ashenden uses the Athlete biological passport operating guidelines from 2009.

I went to Wadas guidelines page:
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/athlete-biological-passport/athlete-biological-passport-abp-operating-guidelines

They don't have the ones from 2009. But they have the ones from 2.1 2010 to 6.0 in 2017.
The earliest one, version 2.1 from 2010 contains this selection on page 29/31:
Typically, a profile will be flagged by the Adaptive Model for a review by a
panel of three experts if the profile deviates from the norm by 99.9%,
however, an individual Anti-Doping Organization may choose to use a lower
probability score, which will cause more profiles to be reviewed by their
Expert Panel.

Revisions from 2014 and 2017:
rev 5.0 oct 2014
page 50/63
A specificity of 99% is used to identify both haematological and steroidal ATPFs that
warrant further investigation and/or results management.

rev 6.0 jan 2017
page 50/65
A specificity of 99% is used to identify both haematological and steroidal
ATPFs.

From Ashendens study
A blood value from
one subject exceeded the 99.9% threshold (OFF-hr score)
at baseline prior to receiving rhEPO. Throughout the
remainder of the study no individual values were flagged as
abnormal by the ABP software. Two other subjects had
sequences of blood profiles that approached but did not
exceed the 99.9% percentile (99.88% for [Hb] and 99.87%
for OFF-hr score).

So you already have 2-3 flags of the 9-10 in Ashendens 2011 study who would get flagged under the 2014 and 2017 revisions now.

Lets say there were 10 that finished the study and 3 flags, thats 30% caught for doping using this recipe for manipulation.

I should have read this paper before since it seems well done, it even lists its limitations:
One limitation of the present study was the absence of
urinalyses to assess the presence of rhEPO in urine samples
.

In summary, we would speculate that the likely sensitivity
of urinalyses to detect our protocol of once weekly injections
of 1,500–6,000 IU per week, assuming samples were
collected 2 days post-injection, would probably range
between 0 and 25%
(i.e., a continuum correlated with the
dosage used).

Another limitation of the current protocol was the
absence of a washout period. Extending the protocol by a
further 3–4 weeks was deemed to place an unwarranted
burden on participants, and primacy was instead given to
extending the treatment phase for as long as possible. This
trade-off almost certainly diminished the sensitivity of the
ABP component monitoring OFF-hr score, since it has
been well-documented that a nadir in OFF-hr score is
reached 10–14 days after rhEPO injections cease (Gore
et al. 2003).

We assume this signature would have held also
in our subjects, whose OFF-hr scores would have increased
markedly and most likely been flagged by the software as
being abnormal during the weeks after injections ceased.


Similarly, we speculate that the sequence analysis used by
the ABP software, which explicitly evaluates variations in
the data, would have yielded greater sensitivity if washout
data had been included as these data would have varied
substantially from both baseline and treatment phases.


Finally, an inevitable limitation when structured laboratory
studies seek to mimic how athletes dope ‘in the field’
is the inability to faithfully replicate that setting. For
example, our protocol incorporated regular twice weekly
injections over a three month period. It could be disputed
whether an athlete would adhere to that regimen, and less
consistent dosing could result in larger fluctuations in
blood variables.


One implication of this study is that careful attention
should be paid to when and how unannounced urine controls
are collected from high risk groups.
Given that at least
one microdosing strategy can be utilised without being
flagged by the ABP software, conventional urinalyses will
remain a crucial and perhaps the only avenue open to
authorities to remedy microdosing.
However, this observation
should only temper, not redact, implementation of
the Athlete Biological Passport: sport federations or
national anti-doping agencies without a coherent blood
testing strategy may well house a population of athletes
whose blood values resemble cycling and cross-country
skiing circa 1997 (i.e., unsophisticated doping regimens
with commensurately extreme blood values). In that environment
we speculate the ABP software would wield an
unprecedented deterrent/detection effect (at least until the
athletes revised their doping strategies).

The passport’s utility as an intelligence-gathering tool
should not be understated. Perhaps additional biomarkers,
with increased sensitivity but reduced specificity, might be
introduced to magnify the passport’s utility as a targeting
strategy (low specificity in this setting is immaterial when
the data are used only for intelligence gathering).

From the conclusions:
Our findings demonstrate that it is possible to inject
rhEPO without triggering Passport thresholds.
On one
hand, this underlines the need to retain existing analytical
procedures (‘direct detection’) in support of the Athlete
Blood Passport, and on the other hand, emphasises the need
for recruitment of novel strategies to hopefully close current
loopholes.

It's possible to avoid flagging, but it definitely does not look easy to do, and you still run the risk of an inopportune urine test ruining all this expensive and time consuming work.

As for Epo glowtime:
We are mindful that the IEF
sensitivity depends on factors including the dosage used
2312 Eur J Appl Physiol (2011) 111:2307–2314
123
and the interval between injection and sample collection.
However, some insight can be gleaned from a previous
publication where a cohort of eight healthy subjects were
given subcutaneous injections of 5,000 IU (Lundby et al.
2008), which elicited an overall increase in haemoglobin
mass of 92 g (compared to our increase of 113 g). All urine
samples collected 2 days post-injection were positive when
injections were given every second day, whilst one quarter
of samples collected during the maintenance phase (i.e.,
one injection per week) were declared positive (it is noteworthy
that a second laboratory analysing duplicate samples
yielded no positive results during either phase). An
imperfect bookend for Lundby’s study may be the research
reported previously where an (undisclosed) microdose of
rhEPO was not detectable via IEF analyses 12–18 h postinjection
(Ashenden et al. 2006), however, it is noteworthy
that study utilised ‘first generation’ positivity criteria,
which have since been modified to yield better sensitivity

There is no clear answer. I think Tyler Hamiltons book talked about being a 6-8 hour glowtime, or maybe it was 18-24 hours or something. Anyway it's not easy to design a dopingprogram that is good enough that you can feel safe from being caught.

As for improvements since 2011, this should be an example of some of the improvement. But it's hard to measure improvement overall. One way might be to view the evolution of anti doping budgets. Or the amount of testing. Or the type of testing.

Ps. As for how many cases have only used the passport, I don't know, but assume very few. I would think the AD units will find it easier to use targeted testing as a result of the BP findings to get a positive sample rather than to rely on the drawn out process to get a passport only conviction.
User avatar ToreBear
Member
 
Posts: 1,545
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 23:08
Location: Norway

Re:

18 Apr 2017 15:29

TourOfSardinia wrote:Hypothesis:
the fact that Gilbert wins BIG then drops out of the next race
is a sign that those who control cycling are have a group of favoured riders
who are free to dope/motor but only to win their allotted races.

This makes cycling more attractive to the causal punter
- since races can be "manipulated" to guarantee:
1) entertaining finishes &
2) reliable stars - with higher degree of recognition
- making it simpler to sell as an online betting sport.

it leaves me (a non-punter) with a undertone of being manipulated.
The problem is, it's the UCI you suggest are doing this. The UCI. They can't even organise a party in a brewery. Yet they're pulling off this massive conspiracy with manufactured stars?
User avatar fmk_RoI
Member
 
Posts: 1,458
Joined: 16 Sep 2010 07:31

18 Apr 2017 15:29

For what it's worth: Gilbert was peeing blood at the doping controll after winning Amstel Gold Race (according to the AGR director, in Dutch): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlxWepzh8U
Kimura
Newly Registered Member
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 18 Apr 2017 14:56

Re: Re:

18 Apr 2017 16:27

meat puppet wrote:
ToreBear wrote:
meat puppet wrote:Torebear: based on what?

Please quote a source that states that the BP parameters have been substantially altered since the study. My understanding is they have not been at least wrt blood parameters. But maybe i have missed something.


I'm not sure I get what your thinking about in regards to parameters. The bio passport is evolving continuously. More modules are added and the knowlegebase of the system has grown. Additionally more and more athletes have been subject to this for most of their career. The blood history is much longer.

Mind you my original contention was not that the Biopassport itself was the only reason doping is harder. There are also extensions of the glowtimes for substances with the urine tests. Wada cooperates with big pharma to insert markers of some kind in new drugs under development. Also AD efforts are better at timing their out of competition tests.


My point was that the conclusions of the Ashenden study about the room that athletes have to blood dope and microdose EPO are still quite valid unless the passport's blood components have been altered since the study. I don't think they have been but if they have, I am very interested to learn how.

It is true that more athletes are part of the BP and many athletes have been part of it for 6-7 more years from the study. This is to be welcomed. A steroid module has been added to the bio passport, yes, but that does not substantially diminish the room to blood dope.

However, the point of the study was to show that the passport in its current setup does not trigger suspicion even in the case of substantial blood manipulation in the order of increasing HBmass by ca. 10%. This "room to play" applies to the new athletes who have entered the BP pool as well as to those athletes who now have a longer history in the pool.

Longer history might help catch abnormal fluctuations, of course. But their abnormality is decided by the current setup of the BP blood passport. And its sensitivity to fluctuations induced by doping is what the study tested. Unless the setup is altered, there is a considerable room to dope without triggering suspicion. How many BP cases leading to bans have there been?

Finally, microdose EPO glowtime is not long, perhaps even shorter than the no testing window during nights. So one has to mess it up if a direct pop for pissing hot occurs.

As for your arguments about better governance, coordination and enactment of antidoping in general I remain agnostic but sceptical. What might indicate things having evolved in this direction? In my understanding it is a stretch to argue for improvement since the publication of the Ashenden study.


My understanding is cyclists have a greater range of allowable fluctuations because of the time they spend at altitude - So cyclists can't be compared to many sports.
yaco
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,188
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 17:57

Re:

18 Apr 2017 16:30

Kimura wrote:For what it's worth: Gilbert was peeing blood at the doping controll after winning Amstel Gold Race (according to the AGR director, in Dutch): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlxWepzh8U


Reported that tests after the race stated Gilbert had a torn kidney - This causes blood in pee.
yaco
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,188
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 17:57

Re: Re:

18 Apr 2017 16:56

[/quote]

Reported that tests after the race stated Gilbert had a torn kidney - This causes blood in pee.[/quote]

That's the official statement from the team...
Kimura
Newly Registered Member
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 18 Apr 2017 14:56

Re: Re:

18 Apr 2017 17:04

yaco wrote:
meat puppet wrote:
ToreBear wrote:
meat puppet wrote:Torebear: based on what?

Please quote a source that states that the BP parameters have been substantially altered since the study. My understanding is they have not been at least wrt blood parameters. But maybe i have missed something.


I'm not sure I get what your thinking about in regards to parameters. The bio passport is evolving continuously. More modules are added and the knowlegebase of the system has grown. Additionally more and more athletes have been subject to this for most of their career. The blood history is much longer.

Mind you my original contention was not that the Biopassport itself was the only reason doping is harder. There are also extensions of the glowtimes for substances with the urine tests. Wada cooperates with big pharma to insert markers of some kind in new drugs under development. Also AD efforts are better at timing their out of competition tests.


My point was that the conclusions of the Ashenden study about the room that athletes have to blood dope and microdose EPO are still quite valid unless the passport's blood components have been altered since the study. I don't think they have been but if they have, I am very interested to learn how.

It is true that more athletes are part of the BP and many athletes have been part of it for 6-7 more years from the study. This is to be welcomed. A steroid module has been added to the bio passport, yes, but that does not substantially diminish the room to blood dope.

However, the point of the study was to show that the passport in its current setup does not trigger suspicion even in the case of substantial blood manipulation in the order of increasing HBmass by ca. 10%. This "room to play" applies to the new athletes who have entered the BP pool as well as to those athletes who now have a longer history in the pool.

Longer history might help catch abnormal fluctuations, of course. But their abnormality is decided by the current setup of the BP blood passport. And its sensitivity to fluctuations induced by doping is what the study tested. Unless the setup is altered, there is a considerable room to dope without triggering suspicion. How many BP cases leading to bans have there been?

Finally, microdose EPO glowtime is not long, perhaps even shorter than the no testing window during nights. So one has to mess it up if a direct pop for pissing hot occurs.

As for your arguments about better governance, coordination and enactment of antidoping in general I remain agnostic but sceptical. What might indicate things having evolved in this direction? In my understanding it is a stretch to argue for improvement since the publication of the Ashenden study.


My understanding is cyclists have a greater range of allowable fluctuations because of the time they spend at altitude - So cyclists can't be compared to many sports.


My understanding is that it is not a requirement for cyclists to spend time at altitude. I do not know that they do it more than other endurance athletes, and that altitude training has never been given (to my knowledge) as the explanation for the particular range of allowable fluctuations.

It is definitely my understanding that athletes have used altitude training and altitude tents as covers for blood manipulations and as exceptions for their fluctuating readings.

I'm sure cyclists train at altitude for good reason. I'm sure some of them also do it as cover for doping. I'm also pretty sure training at altitude isn't some secret only some teams have, and when a team uses it to explain incredible (literally) transformations I assume them to be lying.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,498
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

Re: Is Philippe Gilbert Doping?

18 Apr 2017 17:23

I guess there are folks who aren't aware of this info, so posting it here. Obviously much more out there, but this is a good, succinct summary covering the main points.

Not clear what people think has changed since Hamilton wrote his book in 2012–I am not aware of any substantial adjustment to the testing windows or the passport that would affect these techniques.

https://thinksteroids.com/articles/tyler-hamiltons-guide-anabolic-steroids-epo-cycling/

How to Use EPO in Cycling Without Getting Caught?

Evading detection in the urinary EPO test is relatively easy. It requires a procedure known as microdosing. Rather than inject EPO subcutaneously every 3-4 days, athletes inject smaller amounts of EPO intravenously every night.

[Hamilton]“Instead of injecting 2,000 units of Edgar [EPO] every third or fourth night, we injected 400 or 500 units every night. Glowtime minimized; problem solved. We called it microdosing.”

How to Use Anabolic Steroids in Cycling Without Getting Caught?

If microdosing worked for EPO, why not use it for anabolic steroids too?

[Hamilton]“Around 2001 we got away from the red eggs [Andriol gelcaps containing orally-active testosterone undecanoate] and started using testosterone patches, which were more convenient. They were like big Band-Aids with a clear gel in the center; you could leave one on for a couple of hours, get a boost of testosterone, and by morning be clean as a newborn baby.”

Hamilton provides a few more interesting tips on how to thwart WADA drug testers in the book. He doesn’t go really explain how to circumvent the the “biological passport” system other than to suggest cyclists are using smaller blood bags during transfusion. I guess this can be called a sort of “micro-infusion”.

But cyclists know that the biological passport has not eliminated doping. Doping simply requires a little more effort. The goal is to maintain a physiological range of reticulocytes between 0.5% and 1.5%. Blood doping can be masked by micro-dosing with EPO after blood infusions to keep the reticulocyte percentage in range.

Keep the above in mind when you hear people celebrate the so-called new generation of clean riders. Just like the introduction of EPO didn’t mark the beginning of doping in cycling, neither does the introduction of the biological passport mark the end of EPO. Doping was rampant before EPO (with amphetamines and steroids). The nature of doping just changed with EPO. Similarly, doping has simply been transformed as a result of new testing.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,498
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

19 Apr 2017 01:02

The dopers have always been a couple years ahead of the testers. Always wil be. The tests will occasionally catch someone, but usually it will be because of carelessness or plain stupidity .
User avatar veganrob
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,185
Joined: 29 Aug 2010 23:15
Location: The D

Re: Re:

19 Apr 2017 07:18

ToreBear wrote:Snipped for brevity


Good post, thanks. I agree that the study is well done. And I am not an expert in these matters either, just an interested layperson.

I did not know that the probability requirement of flagging an abnormality had changed from 99,99% to 99%. Within the experimental design of the study, I think would assuming a 30% caught/flag rate is pushing it, but 20% would appear quite reasonable. One subject had an abnormal off-score before the rhEPO treatment began and these things happen. I'd prefer the trigger point being lower still so as to be a guideline for aggressive targeted testing, despite the potential for some collateral damage in the form of more flags. From memory this was Ashenden's criticism early on as well, though he put it more eloquently to be sure.

However, I don't think that this conclusion of a 20%-30% catch rate can be applied into the real world as such. I don't mean to claim that you suggested so, but I want to emphasise this nonetheless. Such an argument simply assumes that athletes behave as though the 99,99% trigger probability is in place in a world where the trigger rate is 99%. This would be comparing apples to oranges, surely there are no "pre 2014 athletes" in the "post 2014 world". Ie, of course the athletes will adjust and act accordingly.

Nonetheless, I will concede this is a potential improvement - that is, making it a bit more risky to pursue high yields - assuming the governance of the sport and AD actually works. This is a big assumption, though.

As for maneuvering within the confines of the passport, the authors point out, "three parameters can be adjusted with regard to how rhEPO treatment is administered—the route (intravenous or subcutaneous), the frequency of injections and the dosage used." In the study a particular combination was used: intravenous, twice a week, incrementally rising dosage.

When I used the phrase room for play in the previous posts, I meant it as a shorthand for manipulating these parameters. In practice, the trade off seems to be between a regimen of high frequency low dose (where glowtime is primary the limiting factor) and a relatively high dosage lower frequency (where blood value fluctuations are the main limiting factor).

In the study, there were four steps in ramping up the dosage. In absolute terms the steps consisted of 750IU, 1500IU, 2250IU and 3000IU, respectively, injected intravenously twice a week.

As ToreBear's citation made clear, the study states that mimicking "doping in the field" as a possible limitation. This point is made in the sense that athletes might not be able to reproduce a careful dosage regimen in the field, which is a genuine possibility. But I think this point cuts two ways. In other words, in the field regimens may well be more conservative than the one utilised in the study, but still yield benefits. In comparison to what Hamilton has described the elected dosage regimen is not necessarily very conservative.

Per Hamilton's testimony in the book and the link posted by Red Flanders, for instance, a lower dosage per injection plus a higher frequency regimen can be used instead of the one that was utilised in the study. In the link posted by Red Flanders, he indicates that a 400-500IU injected every night was closer to the actual practice. The difference in dosage and frequency is quite large. Now, 400IU four times a week would be close to the least aggressive step in the study with a 1600IU load per week; 500IU seven times a week would amount only to a bit more than half the IUs of the most aggressive step totalling at 3500IU per week.

Mind also that Hamilton described practices from the pre-passport era, which means that the athletes were careful even before the passport. This at least raises the question about the contemporary evasive measures in the altered environment. On the other hand, if we assume that improved testing has increased glowtimes, there is bound to be a limit to trading dosage for frequency too. But is it twice a week a ceiling? I would tend to doubt this.

In the end the take home message is this: given the lower trigger point post 2014 (99,99% vs 99%), athletes can be assumed to adjust and switch to a combination of the 3 parameters that is a bit more conservative than the one used in the study. Perhaps it yields a boost in the range of 5% +/-2 or so, depending on the individual. This dirty-rough-and-ready figure is but an illustration on my part. If it anywhere near the mark, the boost is still substantial. For some it can be higher.

Moreover, as Yaco (perhaps unwittingly?) pointed out, simply going to train at altitude will change the dynamics, ie. make the blood profile more messy. While the physiological benefits of altitude training are there, one could also argue that there is a bonus, which is tricking the passport and/or getting a free hallpass ("I was at altitude"). In this case, a higher dosage less frequently might be the technique of choice, as at least some of the resulting blood abnormalities can be explained away by altitude, and the lower frequency minimises glowtime.

So, in summary, I think that the dopers are, and are bound to be, ahead of the AD both in the technical sense (beating the passport & tests) and political-institutional sense (administrators appear reluctant to actually catch cheats).
User avatar meat puppet
Member
 
Posts: 1,722
Joined: 29 May 2011 06:57

Re: Re:

19 Apr 2017 07:45

Kimura wrote:That's the official statement from the team...


What are you suggesting with those three points? That it wasn't because of his kidney?
Volderke
Member
 
Posts: 309
Joined: 29 Mar 2012 11:26

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests

Back to top