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, Eshnar, Red Rick, Valv.Piti, Tonton, Pricey_sky, King Boonen

Re: Is Philippe Gilbert Doping?

19 Apr 2017 10:08

red_flanders wrote: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.


Ashenden's April 2012 nyvelocity.com interview along the same lines

http://nyvelocity.com/articles/interviews/behind-the-scenes-of-the-contador-cas-hearing-with-michael-ashenden/
Wiggo's Package
New Member
 
Posts: 12
Joined: 07 Mar 2017 14:27

19 Apr 2017 14:24

The passport itself only flags based on haemoglobin
concentration (HGB) and/or stimulation index OFF-score (OFFS).

However from my understanding, the values in the blood pass are
Code: Select all
HCT: Haematocrit
HGB: Haemoglobin
RBC: Red blood cell (erythrocyte) count
RET%: Reticulocytes percentage
RET#: Reticulocyte count
MCV: Mean corpuscular volume
MCH: Mean corpuscular haemoglobin
MCHC: Mean corpuscular haemoglobin concentration
RDW-SD: Red cell distribution width (standard deviation)
IRF: Immature reticulocyte fraction
OFFS: OFF-hr Score
ABPS: Abnormal Blood Profile Score (ABPS)

And though the ABP might not sound the analytical finding alarm, there is no reason why the experts can't have a look. And they can base their information on all of the above values. Lets say if something feels off with the profile(too perfect, almost aatf or whatever) they can look at the profile in depth and might find something that is acted upon(send to APB panel for review, order more testing or intelligence collected),

And for the Steroidprofile they collect
Code: Select all
• testosterone (T);
• epitestosterone (E);
• androsterone (A);
• etiocholanolone (Etio);
• 5α-androstane-3α,17β-diol (5αAdiol);
• 5β-androstane-3α,17β-diol (5βAdiol);
and the following ratios:
• testosterone to epitestosterone (T/E);
• androsterone to testosterone (A/T);
• androsterone to etiocholanolone (A/Etio);
• 5α-androstane-3α,17β-diol to 5β-androstane-3α,17β-diol (5αAdiol/5βAdiol);
and
• 5α-androstane-3α,17β-diol to epitestosterone (5αAdiol/E).

So things were a lot simpler in Tylers day. If someone came to me asking for a program I would gladly recommend Hamiltons program. I'm happy for all dopers being caught. ;)


@Meat Puppet
The trigger point was changed in version 4.0 from november 2013.
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).


Let's just say we disagree, and I have not seen anybody reluctant to catch cheats.(unless there is outright corruption and blackmail like in the IAF or RUSADA).
User avatar ToreBear
Member
 
Posts: 1,587
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 23:08
Location: Norway

Re:

19 Apr 2017 15:55

ToreBear wrote:The passport itself only flags based on haemoglobin
concentration (HGB) and/or stimulation index OFF-score (OFFS).

However from my understanding, the values in the blood pass are
Code: Select all
HCT: Haematocrit
HGB: Haemoglobin
RBC: Red blood cell (erythrocyte) count
RET%: Reticulocytes percentage
RET#: Reticulocyte count
MCV: Mean corpuscular volume
MCH: Mean corpuscular haemoglobin
MCHC: Mean corpuscular haemoglobin concentration
RDW-SD: Red cell distribution width (standard deviation)
IRF: Immature reticulocyte fraction
OFFS: OFF-hr Score
ABPS: Abnormal Blood Profile Score (ABPS)

And though the ABP might not sound the analytical finding alarm, there is no reason why the experts can't have a look. And they can base their information on all of the above values. Lets say if something feels off with the profile(too perfect, almost aatf or whatever) they can look at the profile in depth and might find something that is acted upon(send to APB panel for review, order more testing or intelligence collected),

And for the Steroidprofile they collect
Code: Select all
• testosterone (T);
• epitestosterone (E);
• androsterone (A);
• etiocholanolone (Etio);
• 5α-androstane-3α,17β-diol (5αAdiol);
• 5β-androstane-3α,17β-diol (5βAdiol);
and the following ratios:
• testosterone to epitestosterone (T/E);
• androsterone to testosterone (A/T);
• androsterone to etiocholanolone (A/Etio);
• 5α-androstane-3α,17β-diol to 5β-androstane-3α,17β-diol (5αAdiol/5βAdiol);
and
• 5α-androstane-3α,17β-diol to epitestosterone (5αAdiol/E).

So things were a lot simpler in Tylers day. If someone came to me asking for a program I would gladly recommend Hamiltons program. I'm happy for all dopers being caught. ;)


@Meat Puppet
The trigger point was changed in version 4.0 from november 2013.
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).


Let's just say we disagree, and I have not seen anybody reluctant to catch cheats.(unless there is outright corruption and blackmail like in the IAF or RUSADA).


I really am having a hard time believing you're serious, unless you're completely ignorant of the history of the UCI and various NADOs protecting riders. We know the UCI is corrupt and has protected at least Contador (attempted), Rasmussen and Armstrong.

https://www.outsideonline.com/1798996/report-outlines-profound-corruption-uci

We know the one-man TUE committee of Zorzoli has allowed completely illegal TUE's and was removed from his position by the UCI...eventually.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-suspends-zorzoli-from-anti-doping-work/

Your post in now way addresses what Hamilton said about glow times for micrododing EPO or evading testosterone tests. They clear in less than 12 hours. The biopassport can't flag what it can't detect. Not sure why that's confusing.

Here's a guy for the BBC who straight up doped with EPO, sent in his blood for testing and passed. With no effort.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-32983932

If I can find this stuff in 2 minutes, pretty sure a team with a host of doctors can come up with a plan to defeat these tests.

No one is arguing that the biopassport has had no effect. Of course it has. But the effect has not been to stop doping, it's been for riders to dope differently. This isn't a mystery.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,607
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

Re: Re:

19 Apr 2017 16:57

red_flanders wrote:
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.


My post is referring to how the BP treats sports differently in allowing for fluctuations in blood values - Many sports dont require athletes to train at altitude so will be treated differently - I am yet to be convinces the BP is foolproof.
yaco
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,529
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 17:57

19 Apr 2017 18:30

There should be absolutely no question at all that ABP is not foolproof.

The chances of getting caught are about the same as hitting a golf ball into the ocean and having it land in a whales blow hole. :lol:

Oops.
User avatar veganrob
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,222
Joined: 29 Aug 2010 23:15
Location: The D

Re: Re:

19 Apr 2017 18:35

yaco wrote:My post is referring to how the BP treats sports differently in allowing for fluctuations in blood values - Many sports dont require athletes to train at altitude so will be treated differently - I am yet to be convinces the BP is foolproof.


Can you link to what you're referring to? Do you have some kind of link to where the BP documentation outlines how it treats sports differently? I think we're talking past each other here.

I just don't get what altitude training has to do with it. Any athlete in any sport can train at altitude. As far as I know no sport requires athletes to train at altitude, that seems odd. Are parameters of what's allowed different in different sports? I would guess so as the BP is being implemented by different sporting bodies, but again would like some explanation of how altitude fits in.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,607
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

Re: Re:

19 Apr 2017 18:40

red_flanders wrote:
ToreBear wrote:The passport itself only flags based on haemoglobin
concentration (HGB) and/or stimulation index OFF-score (OFFS).

However from my understanding, the values in the blood pass are
Code: Select all
HCT: Haematocrit
HGB: Haemoglobin
RBC: Red blood cell (erythrocyte) count
RET%: Reticulocytes percentage
RET#: Reticulocyte count
MCV: Mean corpuscular volume
MCH: Mean corpuscular haemoglobin
MCHC: Mean corpuscular haemoglobin concentration
RDW-SD: Red cell distribution width (standard deviation)
IRF: Immature reticulocyte fraction
OFFS: OFF-hr Score
ABPS: Abnormal Blood Profile Score (ABPS)

And though the ABP might not sound the analytical finding alarm, there is no reason why the experts can't have a look. And they can base their information on all of the above values. Lets say if something feels off with the profile(too perfect, almost aatf or whatever) they can look at the profile in depth and might find something that is acted upon(send to APB panel for review, order more testing or intelligence collected),

And for the Steroidprofile they collect
Code: Select all
• testosterone (T);
• epitestosterone (E);
• androsterone (A);
• etiocholanolone (Etio);
• 5α-androstane-3α,17β-diol (5αAdiol);
• 5β-androstane-3α,17β-diol (5βAdiol);
and the following ratios:
• testosterone to epitestosterone (T/E);
• androsterone to testosterone (A/T);
• androsterone to etiocholanolone (A/Etio);
• 5α-androstane-3α,17β-diol to 5β-androstane-3α,17β-diol (5αAdiol/5βAdiol);
and
• 5α-androstane-3α,17β-diol to epitestosterone (5αAdiol/E).

So things were a lot simpler in Tylers day. If someone came to me asking for a program I would gladly recommend Hamiltons program. I'm happy for all dopers being caught. ;)


@Meat Puppet
The trigger point was changed in version 4.0 from november 2013.
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).


Let's just say we disagree, and I have not seen anybody reluctant to catch cheats.(unless there is outright corruption and blackmail like in the IAF or RUSADA).


I really am having a hard time believing you're serious, unless you're completely ignorant of the history of the UCI and various NADOs protecting riders. We know the UCI is corrupt and has protected at least Contador (attempted), Rasmussen and Armstrong.

https://www.outsideonline.com/1798996/report-outlines-profound-corruption-uci

We know the one-man TUE committee of Zorzoli has allowed completely illegal TUE's and was removed from his position by the UCI...eventually.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-suspends-zorzoli-from-anti-doping-work/

Your post in now way addresses what Hamilton said about glow times for micrododing EPO or evading testosterone tests. They clear in less than 12 hours. The biopassport can't flag what it can't detect. Not sure why that's confusing.

Here's a guy for the BBC who straight up doped with EPO, sent in his blood for testing and passed. With no effort.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-32983932

If I can find this stuff in 2 minutes, pretty sure a team with a host of doctors can come up with a plan to defeat these tests.

No one is arguing that the biopassport has had no effect. Of course it has. But the effect has not been to stop doping, it's been for riders to dope differently. This isn't a mystery.

Red it is rare but sometimes I totally agree with your post. Thanks for the info previously upthread.
User avatar Semper Fidelis
Veteran
 
Posts: 8,068
Joined: 07 Dec 2010 15:53
Location: New Orleans

20 Apr 2017 14:51

@red_flanders
Organizations having been corrupt does not mean they are still corrupt. When things like this happens, and is found out, one usually puts in systems to prevent such abuse. Same goes for Zorzoli.

Your post in now way addresses what Hamilton said about glow times for micrododing EPO or evading testosterone tests. They clear in less than 12 hours. The biopassport can't flag what it can't detect. Not sure why that's confusing


I believe that the sensitivity for the EPO test has increased, and that injecting 400-500 units every day is the same as constantly walking around glowing. Hamilton wrote about his experiences from his career. That was from 1995-2004 with stops at minor teams(I don't remember if he doped there too) in 2007 and 2008. The EPO test only came about around 2000.

As for testosterone, its about his personal experiences. Depending on the substance the glow times could have changed to weeks instead of hours in the last 15 years. And the passport now also has a steroid model.

Here's a guy for the BBC who straight up doped with EPO, sent in his blood for testing and passed. With no effort.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-32983932

If I can find this stuff in 2 minutes, pretty sure a team with a host of doctors can come up with a plan to defeat these tests.

No one is arguing that the biopassport has had no effect. Of course it has. But the effect has not been to stop doping, it's been for riders to dope differently. This isn't a mystery.


Mark Daly took samples once per week in 14 weeks(not very realistic IMHO). And correct he would not have been flagged by the passport software. However Lundby said
he could see "traces" of what I had done but "not of a sufficient magnitude to elicit an adverse analytical finding" in the passport.


Lundby seeing traces in my mind = an expert looking at the profile and possibly thinking something is off. So he would be safe as long as no human expert looks at the passport. The problem is they do look at passports without any AAFs alerting them to a profile.

And if someone think something is a bit strange they can order more targeted testing. And In Mark Dalys project he wasn't tested at all:
No, I was not subjected to targeted testing, but with drugs like EPO having such a short detection time the testers have to get pretty lucky to get a positive from a urine sample.


And he knows this how? This was not tested in the article. It's his assumption, and I think he is wrong, but he could be right. But its a chance to take, and if you are wrong, you are out for 4 years and branded a cheat.


If I can find this stuff in 2 minutes, pretty sure a team with a host of doctors can come up with a plan to defeat these tests.

No one is arguing that the biopassport has had no effect. Of course it has. But the effect has not been to stop doping, it's been for riders to dope differently. This isn't a mystery..


IMHO, this wouldn't have worked.

I Never said it stopped doping, I don't think anyone else has either. IIRC I said it reduced doping together with other anti doping methods. 90% to 2% IIRC.

That riders dope differently is a theory. It is not a fact. I have not heard or read about any new wonder method or drug that is undetectable. It's still the Tyler Hamilton method people talk about. I believe that is also the one that is most likely to have some performance enhancing effects without being caught. The problem is the window for avoiding detection has shrunk and keeps shrinking.

I'm still keeping my mind open for new drugs or methods. But the ones being talked about like GW something seem to end up with someone testing positive rather quickly.

It's not easy finding new undetectable wonderdrugs when the drug companies insert markers in them during development.
User avatar ToreBear
Member
 
Posts: 1,587
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 23:08
Location: Norway

Re:

20 Apr 2017 18:08

ToreBear wrote:@red_flanders
Organizations having been corrupt does not mean they are still corrupt. When things like this happens, and is found out, one usually puts in systems to prevent such abuse.

I believe that the sensitivity for the EPO test has increased, and that injecting 400-500 units every day is the same as constantly walking around glowing.


Depending on the substance the glow times could have changed to weeks instead of hours in the last 15 years.


IIRC I said it reduced doping together with other anti doping methods. 90% to 2% IIRC.


That riders dope differently is a theory. It is not a fact.


So much wishful thinking. I don't know where to begin. Organizations like the UCI usually reform themselves? Are you trolling? Regarding the window of detection... if it wasn't an issue for dopers before, why would it be now? Even if the window has reduced significantly (which you seem to have just made up) ... the way that you assume that it changed doping from being easy as pie to near impossible just doesn't make any rational sense to me. Are you familiar with what happens when an athlete misses a test?
spiritualride
Junior Member
 
Posts: 155
Joined: 06 Jul 2016 22:19

Re: Re:

20 Apr 2017 18:23

red_flanders wrote:
yaco wrote:My post is referring to how the BP treats sports differently in allowing for fluctuations in blood values - Many sports dont require athletes to train at altitude so will be treated differently - I am yet to be convinces the BP is foolproof.


Can you link to what you're referring to? Do you have some kind of link to where the BP documentation outlines how it treats sports differently? I think we're talking past each other here.

I just don't get what altitude training has to do with it. Any athlete in any sport can train at altitude. As far as I know no sport requires athletes to train at altitude, that seems odd. Are parameters of what's allowed different in different sports? I would guess so as the BP is being implemented by different sporting bodies, but again would like some explanation of how altitude fits in.


It is done by individual sports in conjunction with WADA - Test anyone who lives at altitude ( not an athlete ) to a person who lives in non- altitude and their blood values will differ - So then if an athlete spends significant periods training at altitude there will be changes in their blood value - It's not rocket science.
yaco
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,529
Joined: 20 Jun 2015 17:57

Re: Re:

20 Apr 2017 18:48

spiritualride wrote:
ToreBear wrote:@red_flanders
Organizations having been corrupt does not mean they are still corrupt. When things like this happens, and is found out, one usually puts in systems to prevent such abuse.

I believe that the sensitivity for the EPO test has increased, and that injecting 400-500 units every day is the same as constantly walking around glowing.


Depending on the substance the glow times could have changed to weeks instead of hours in the last 15 years.


IIRC I said it reduced doping together with other anti doping methods. 90% to 2% IIRC.


That riders dope differently is a theory. It is not a fact.


So much wishful thinking. I don't know where to begin. Organizations like the UCI usually reform themselves? Are you trolling? Regarding the window of detection... if it wasn't an issue for dopers before, why would it be now? Even if the window has reduced significantly (which you seem to have just made up) ... the way that you assume that it changed doping from being easy as pie to near impossible just doesn't make any rational sense to me. Are you familiar with what happens when an athlete misses a test?


The UCI is made up of it's member federations, who are made up of those federations members. If the members want change things will change given some time.
No. Are you trolling?
Window of detection: Research. Research tends to improve things, make them better, more eficient.
As for this making sense to you, I really can't help you with that. I'we explained as far as I can in my previous posts. You have to do the rest yourself.

Yes I'm familiar with what happens when an athlete misses a test.
User avatar ToreBear
Member
 
Posts: 1,587
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 23:08
Location: Norway

Re: Re:

20 Apr 2017 19:49

spiritualride wrote:
ToreBear wrote:@red_flanders
Organizations having been corrupt does not mean they are still corrupt. When things like this happens, and is found out, one usually puts in systems to prevent such abuse.

I believe that the sensitivity for the EPO test has increased, and that injecting 400-500 units every day is the same as constantly walking around glowing.


Depending on the substance the glow times could have changed to weeks instead of hours in the last 15 years.


IIRC I said it reduced doping together with other anti doping methods. 90% to 2% IIRC.


That riders dope differently is a theory. It is not a fact.


So much wishful thinking. I don't know where to begin. Organizations like the UCI usually reform themselves? Are you trolling? Regarding the window of detection... if it wasn't an issue for dopers before, why would it be now? Even if the window has reduced significantly (which you seem to have just made up) ... the way that you assume that it changed doping from being easy as pie to near impossible just doesn't make any rational sense to me. Are you familiar with what happens when an athlete misses a test?


Thank you. I didn't know how to respond.

One point not addressed is the claim that riders doping differently is a theory. No, I'm sorry there is direct testimony on this point and unless you have some evidence this isn't the case (and I'm sure you do not) you're way off-base here.

http://www.espn.com/olympics/cycling/news/story?id=5222488

Yet according to Landis, teams and riders with enough monetary resources and sophisticated medical advice knew how to circumvent the biological passport even before its official implementation in 2007.

Landis told ESPN.com last week that during the two or three years leading up to his 2006 Tour de France victory -- subsequently nullified after he tested positive for synthetic testosterone -- he and some of his fellow riders combined strategically timed transfusions and microdoses of EPO (erythropoietin, a red blood cell booster) in order to keep their blood values constant rather than spiking and dipping.


So we know that teams and doctors not only knew how to beat it, but knew how before it came out. They knew this because the doctors were informed on the implementation details...at the very least. To imagine that 5-10 years later they aren't able to beat the passport strains credulity. There is no evidence of which I'm aware or which you have presented which alters this equation. It did change the way riders doped and there has been no change in the passport such that these techniques are no longer effective. Even if there were new details on how the passport has been administered (and I assume there are as has been suggested above), one would have to show that teams, doctors and riders had not figured out a way to circumvent these new passport implementation details. History tells us this is a fantasy.
Last edited by red_flanders on 20 Apr 2017 19:58, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,607
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

Re: Re:

20 Apr 2017 19:54

ToreBear wrote:The UCI is made up of it's member federations, who are made up of those federations members. If the members want change things will change given some time.

Window of detection: Research. Research tends to improve things, make them better, more eficient.


You are taking assumptions and suppositions and constructing a theory of what's happening from them. These are theories with no evidence to back them up. It comes across as hoping these things are true. All evidence overwhelmingly suggests they are not.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,607
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

Re: Re:

21 Apr 2017 09:24

Are you familiar with what happens when an athlete misses a test?


As far as I'm aware, even if you miss three tests, you simply go to court, plead that you're forgetful and then you'll be allowed to do what you want.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/aug/02/lizzie-armistead-olympic-reprieve-questioned-fellow-athletes

And since this is a thread about whether Phillipe Gilbert is doping or not, I'll speculate that maybe pepper spray has some magical performance enhancing effects we haven't uncovered.
User avatar King Of Molehill
Junior Member
 
Posts: 109
Joined: 30 Jul 2009 20:18
Location: Scotland

21 Apr 2017 15:21

@Red_Flanders
Landis "direct testimony" talks about 2007. Even if we assume he was in the know in 2010, he would at best only have knowlege of the passport up to that point, and it has since changed as described previously.

So we know that teams and doctors not only knew how to beat it, but knew how before it came out. They knew this because the doctors were informed on the implementation details...at the very least. To imagine that 5-10 years later they aren't able to beat the passport strains credulity. There is no evidence of which I'm aware or which you have presented which alters this equation. It did change the way riders doped and there has been no change in the passport such that these techniques are no longer effective. Even if there were new details on how the passport has been administered (and I assume there are as has been suggested above), one would have to show that teams, doctors and riders had not figured out a way to circumvent these new passport implementation details. History tells us this is a fantasy.


If you believe things are the same despite me pointing out differences I can't help you.

And one can not prove a negative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_a_negative

You are taking assumptions and suppositions and constructing a theory of what's happening from them. These are theories with no evidence to back them up. It comes across as hoping these things are true. All evidence overwhelmingly suggests they are not.


I think I'we explained well enough in the previous posts. I'm using facts as linked previously. And I don't have time to prove to your satisfaction how every little thing works. Internalize the information I provide, or don't, that is up to you.
User avatar ToreBear
Member
 
Posts: 1,587
Joined: 08 Aug 2012 23:08
Location: Norway

Re:

21 Apr 2017 15:31

ToreBear wrote:@Red_Flanders
Landis "direct testimony" talks about 2007. Even if we assume he was in the know in 2010, he would at best only have knowlege of the passport up to that point, and it has since changed as described previously.

So we know that teams and doctors not only knew how to beat it, but knew how before it came out. They knew this because the doctors were informed on the implementation details...at the very least. To imagine that 5-10 years later they aren't able to beat the passport strains credulity. There is no evidence of which I'm aware or which you have presented which alters this equation. It did change the way riders doped and there has been no change in the passport such that these techniques are no longer effective. Even if there were new details on how the passport has been administered (and I assume there are as has been suggested above), one would have to show that teams, doctors and riders had not figured out a way to circumvent these new passport implementation details. History tells us this is a fantasy.


If you believe things are the same despite me pointing out differences I can't help you.

And one can not prove a negative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_a_negative

You are taking assumptions and suppositions and constructing a theory of what's happening from them. These are theories with no evidence to back them up. It comes across as hoping these things are true. All evidence overwhelmingly suggests they are not.


I think I'we explained well enough in the previous posts. I'm using facts as linked previously. And I don't have time to prove to your satisfaction how every little thing works. Internalize the information I provide, or don't, that is up to you.

If it's all cleaner now, why are speeds the fastest they have been on this side of the passport, this year?
Goodbye, Tommeke; thank you for all you have given us!
User avatar Netserk
Veteran
 
Posts: 18,576
Joined: 30 Apr 2011 13:10
Location: Denmark

Re:

21 Apr 2017 15:55

ToreBear wrote:@Red_Flanders
Landis "direct testimony" talks about 2007. Even if we assume he was in the know in 2010, he would at best only have knowlege of the passport up to that point, and it has since changed as described previously.


ToreBear wrote:If you believe things are the same despite me pointing out differences I can't help you.


I don't think you're reading what I wrote. I rather pointedly acknowledge that things have likely changed.

And as I said, it would strain credulity to imagine that doctors and teams aren't just as ahead of the game now as they were then. We know for a fact they knew how to beat it then. You're not explaining, in any way, how they would be at some disadvantage now.

Ask yourself, how did the doctors know the details of the passport BEFORE it came out? Dig around the internet on that for a bit. Then ask, what has changed since then? The answer is nothing. Nothing structural, team doctors still have access to the same information now as then, and have had a decade to refine technique and use other drugs.

The passport gives the appearance of stopping doping. It does not stop doping. It may have started with good intentions, there are certainly those with good intentions working on it. And they should continue, as it does put a lid on doping, which is a very good thing.

However, busting top riders from the top teams is against the financial interests of the UCI now as it was then. There is no change in the incentives, so to imagine there is change in behavior is amazing. As long as the body which promotes the sport, which realizes huge financial rewards for doing so, is in charge of policing the sport there will be no change.

Netserk wrote:If it's all cleaner now, why are speeds the fastest they have been on this side of the passport, this year?


Indeed.

Way back in the day, the first time all the same questions came up on internet forums, the answer tended to be "aerodynamics", "better roads", "better training", and "better nutrition".
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,607
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

21 Apr 2017 16:45

It seems like you're just wasting your time trying to have a discussion with Torebear tbh. I don't know if he's trolling or actually believes the hogwash he's spouting but either way it's a waste of time. He has apparently somehow convinced himself the sport is clean now despite the fact that we're still seeing alien performances on a regular basis. I'm sure the guys from the full blown EPO/blood doping era like Armstrong and Riis feel like dumb asses now that they realize they could have performed at the same level on water and bread.
frisenfruitig
Junior Member
 
Posts: 273
Joined: 28 Jul 2010 12:00
Location: Belgium

Re:

21 Apr 2017 18:20

ToreBear wrote:<snip>

So we know that teams and doctors not only knew how to beat it, but knew how before it came out. They knew this because the doctors were informed on the implementation details...at the very least. To imagine that 5-10 years later they aren't able to beat the passport strains credulity. There is no evidence of which I'm aware or which you have presented which alters this equation. It did change the way riders doped and there has been no change in the passport such that these techniques are no longer effective. Even if there were new details on how the passport has been administered (and I assume there are as has been suggested above), one would have to show that teams, doctors and riders had not figured out a way to circumvent these new passport implementation details. History tells us this is a fantasy.


<snip>

And one can not prove a negative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_a_negative



Hello ToreBear, I've been reading this with interest. I took the liberty of highlighting what I thought were the relevant bits in that Floyd Landis quote, not the small bit you highlighted previously to try and support your ''can't prove a negative'' argument. I don't mean that adversarialy by the way. The ''can't prove a negative'' argument isn't really applicable here IMO. Red's argument is borne out by the evidence. Pro cycling has been rife with doping and there's not much to suggest it's any ''cleaner'' now. Floyd Landis was making it very clear in the quote above that he agreed with this. In his words ''To imagine that 5-10 years later they aren't able to beat the passport strains credulity''.

In my opinion Red was correct when he/she said,

You are taking assumptions and suppositions and constructing a theory of what's happening from them. These are theories with no evidence to back them up. It comes across as hoping these things are true. All evidence overwhelmingly suggests they are not.
Dan2016
Member
 
Posts: 622
Joined: 21 Jul 2016 15:36

21 Apr 2017 19:44

Thanks, and obviously I'm not asking anyone to prove a negative. I'm asking someone to explain how changes to the passport, specifically, prevent the same doctors from circumventing the modified passport. We know they used to and we know they either got the info beforehand or had a direct hand in developing the passport.

So the specific question is, for any change in the passport, why is this change something which can't be circumvented?

The notion that "research tends to improve things" is so vague as to be irrelevant. There need to be specifics to make a reasonable argument. This is hardly an ask to prove a negative. It's an ask to speak from an informed point of view when making very specific claims.
User avatar red_flanders
Veteran
 
Posts: 5,607
Joined: 03 Apr 2009 06:45

PreviousNext

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: deValtos and 37 guests

Back to top