-
The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Seems to be that bloody A-before-E thing which causes me to refer to the haematocrit test as the H-test. Try HemoxyCarrier. I should have checked for that before I posted having got the same suspicioulsy empty result from Google you did. Seems to be some Covid-related research for it (and, per another Tweet from Parisotto, other HBOCs).
asking intelligent questions, Parisotto with informative reply:
View: https://twitter.com/RobinParisotto1/status/1418141037961220097
View: https://twitter.com/RobinParisotto1/status/1418141037961220097
Last edited by a moderator:
I should have checked that too. It's an extracellular hemaglobin from a lugworm and it was characterised in 1997 so should be readily detectable if it's caught within the window Robin specified.
Taking that a step further, in a race this would mean that a rider could benefit from it on the first few climbs of the day, perform better at the end and be fairly confident it had cleared their system before they are tested.
Last edited:
An important point but again I would mention Pogačar's claim he was tested twice before the start of at least one stage. While we don't know what those tests were - ie was one not really a test at all and just the fingerprick Dried Blood Spot Tramadol test the UCI introduced two years ago - the ITA could cover this to some extent but they would really need to be information-led to do so (I would imagine that testing for HBOCs is not on the standard menu of tests - I really should look for the numbers in the most recent WADA Lab reports but I'm being lazy).
Of course, I'm talking more in generalities that specific accusations which I'm never a fan of. It's possible that in-competition tests include HBOC testing, as long as blood is drawn (I'm not sure if it always is or if urine only tests make up a number of those tests) but the PFCs are emulsion infusions that take quite a bit of time which makes me think they're not hugely common. This might mean they don't test much. It sounds like this particular product might be much quicker to administer, which could make it more likely to be used.
Ditto, and my referring to Pogačar is meant to be using him as an example that multiple pre-race tests are possible and not pointing the finger at him (although I do realise that by using him as an example that multiple pre-race tests are possible some will see me as pointing the finger).
WRT WADA figures for HBOC tests, I got over my laziness and dug the report out. In 2019 (the latest report available) 438 IC samples were tested for HBOCs worldwide along with another 1,616 OOC samples. (The Sydney and Warsaw labs did the lion's share of the testing, those two labs covering 95% of all HBOC tests). This is out of a total of 25,339 blood tests carried out (8%).
In 2018 a total of 182 IC samples were tested for HBOCs worldwide along with another 1,881 OOC samples, out of a total of 24,495 blood tests. (8%).
Going back to 2012 (before which WADA's reports get confusing), not a single AAF has been returned for HBOCs.
Specifically for road cycling I see that there were 5 IC tests and 9 OOC tests. So while it's detectable, it seems that they really don't look based on those numbers.
Wow, those are some pretty low testing numbers. I wonder how 2020 and 2021 will compare
Based on the distribution of tests, it looks like most labs can't do it. So unless capabilities are increased, I would say that they won't look much different. Those two labs are basically processing all of those kinds of samples for every sport, so I would think there wouldn't be much capacity for increased tests. The actually tested track athletes more, but I wonder if that's because the Track WC was in Poland and there was an important World Cup in Australia that year.
I read it, it's terrible. Most parts are basically a collection of crap clichés that you read here or on reddit or on twitter. Pogacar was faking on Ventoux, faking in the third week and you can tell that by looking at his face which isn't even tired. Compares this years ITT and Colombier to 1999 ITT and Sestriere because Armstrong and Pogacar were afterwards both ahead by over 5 minutes (conviniently ignoring that Zülle would've been just 1,5 minutes behind if not for that crash in stage 5).
Says that if he would be an athlete he would know exactly how to dope, yet when asked how the only thing he comes up .... is using synthetic haemoglobin, because it can't be detected.
Whoever was present at the interview clearly didn't have a clue about any specifics because parts of the interview don't even build a coherent argument or make sense just from a scientifical perspective, e.g. this:
Sie hatten vor Jahren Christopher Froome, der vier Mal die Tour gewann, dazu aufgerufen, dass er sich Tests unterzieht - und er ist dem nachgekommen.
Und herausgekommen ist, dass er keine außergewöhnlichen physischen Veranlagungen hat. Ab einem gewissen Punkt kann man Leistungen nicht mehr mit dem Genpool erklären, nicht mehr mit den Trainingsmethoden und auch nicht mehr mit dem Material. Es gibt Grenzen, die uns der menschliche Körper setzt, die niemand von uns selbst mit den besten Voraussetzungen überschreiten kann.
Wie kommen Sie zu Ihren Einschätzungen?
Ich habe einen Modellathleten definiert, der 70 Kilogramm wiegt, und rechne, wie viel Watt er treten müsste, um einen Anstieg in derselben Zeit hochzufahren wie andere Fahrer. Bis zu 410 Watt im Schnitt für diesen 70-Kilo-Modellathleten sehe ich als möglich an. Zwischen 411 und 429 Watt bezeichne ich als "suspekt", zwischen 430 und 449 als "wundersam". Und jeden Fahrer, der im Schnitt mehr als 450 Watt an einem Berg hinausschießt, befindet sich in der "Mutanten"-Kategorie.
Und herausgekommen ist, dass er keine außergewöhnlichen physischen Veranlagungen hat. Ab einem gewissen Punkt kann man Leistungen nicht mehr mit dem Genpool erklären, nicht mehr mit den Trainingsmethoden und auch nicht mehr mit dem Material. Es gibt Grenzen, die uns der menschliche Körper setzt, die niemand von uns selbst mit den besten Voraussetzungen überschreiten kann.
Wie kommen Sie zu Ihren Einschätzungen?
Ich habe einen Modellathleten definiert, der 70 Kilogramm wiegt, und rechne, wie viel Watt er treten müsste, um einen Anstieg in derselben Zeit hochzufahren wie andere Fahrer. Bis zu 410 Watt im Schnitt für diesen 70-Kilo-Modellathleten sehe ich als möglich an. Zwischen 411 und 429 Watt bezeichne ich als "suspekt", zwischen 430 und 449 als "wundersam". Und jeden Fahrer, der im Schnitt mehr als 450 Watt an einem Berg hinausschießt, befindet sich in der "Mutanten"-Kategorie.
That's just completely weird, these two paragraphes don't even build on each other or have a follow up. Throwing around random numbers , he doesn't even specify how long such ascent would be. It's like when you try to *** in an essay in school on a topic you hadn't studied so you just throw a lot of word around, hoping there's something quality in there.
At the end he says it's not about nations and then names Groupama FDJ as the most credible team ( UAE is last) and Gaudu as a good example for a clean rider with great physical values.
Overall hilarious that SZ doesn't even bother to do basic research on who they interview, I'm half willing to send them an e-mail about it (especially about the claim that synthetic haemoglobin is not detectable since he has deleted his tweet now) but on the other hand I'd feel like a boomer writing random angry mails so I'm probably not bothered.
The 2019 numbers for cycling seem low in comparison with previous years. 2018 was 81 tests in road (153 in all cycling disciplines, excluding para-cycling) and 2017 was 97 (220 total).
That has always bothered with him, no w/kg, just absolute numbers for a hypotetical 70kg heavy rider and never a single mention of the length of the effort (it's Vayer so I won't even mention things like altitude).
Many people can do legit estimations that come really close to the actual effort, but Vayer has never been one of them.
Many people can do legit estimations that come really close to the actual effort, but Vayer has never been one of them.
I think standardised weight is logical for comparing performances between different riders.
Phew, here I was thinking you're just an amateur expert on PEDs...now I find out that you're either a scientist or an MD (or both!). No wonder I have to read many of your posts twice to figure out what you're saying!
The remarkable thing is that Vayer knows plenty of people who know better but it requires effort that he no longer seems willing to make. As I have mentioned here before, I met him in person a couple of years ago and we spoke briefly but to me he did not seem any better informed than anyone here.
Not an MD, but I am a scientist.Phew, here I was thinking you're just an amateur expert on PEDs...now I find out that you're either a scientist or an MD (or both!). No wonder I have to read many of your posts twice to figure out what you're saying!
Vayer lost his spot in the pro peloton after 1998. his way of shouting, accusing, posting wild stuff, being outraged and so on is the only way to still be "into the game"
and his fans just wait for his rants.
AFAIK WADA ISTI doesn't permit blood to be withdrawn in the morning of a race anyway, only within the event period after the race, so until 11:59pm after the race finish. I think any morning anti-doping visit is for purely non-invasive anti-doping procedures. How useful a guaranteed window of around 12 hours is without having to provide a blood sample, who knows, but clearly a rider in yellow, although tested every day, isn't giving blood every day anyway, they couldn't possibly have blood withdrawn every 24 hours for up to 21 days if in yellow.
That window is just massive and is so open for abuse. Basically means that one of the stronger deterrents is the possibility of being caught in the future with a retroactive suspension/nullification of results.
Recent ITA retesting with improved WADA equipment and methods is how a large number of London 2012 athletes returned with ADRVs for Steroids by ITA. 10 years is a long time to see into the future if you are wanting to evade testing for something.
Indeed, but many people do not think more than one or two years ahead, never mind 10. The fact that in 2012 people were still using steroids says a lot about how people think.
A great number of those athletes were Russian, were they not? It doesn't make a difference in terms of the testing, just interesting in terms of state sponsored doping.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 29K
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 11K
-
Teams & Riders Alberto Contador Discussion Thread- Started by LaFlorecita
- Replies: 51K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Teams & Riders Everybody needs a little bit of Roglstomp in their lives- Started by johnymax
- Replies: 19K
-
Teams & Riders Chris Froome Discussion Thread.- Started by Miburo
- Replies: 21K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram