• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

astarloza-blames-positive-on-training-session

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Dr. Maserati

BANNED
Jun 19, 2009
13,250
1
0
Visit site
180mmCrank said:
+1 :)

There are some people on the forum who are qualified to have opinions that I find helpful in understanding the various debates around doping. I guess I pick and choose those that seem informed based on what they say, how they say it and what they disclose about who they are.

If you follow the forum for a while it's not that hard to pick out the wheat from the chaff. A bit like everyday life ;)

Well said- that is pretty much how it is and always will be.

We form opinions on the information presented and when I joined this forum I expected to have new information that would challenge my views.

It does not bother me who presents the information - what the person does, their experience or how many posts they have - I check the information they present. It is not difficult nowadays to do a quick check to find the truth form the spin.

As someone else pointed out on this forum: - while it is often said there are two sides to a story - there is only ever one truth.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
whining.jpg
 
BanProCycling said:
I have been asked to remove the Elapid quote from my signature.

Yes Elapid doesn't claim to be a hematologist, but he then goes on to speak with the certainty that he is, boasting about his science credentials. That's why I thought the quote should have been highlighted just in case others were confused.

Many people have a hardon for me as well. :cool:

Didn't stop you from putting it in your signature though.
Lies lies and more lies.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
Digger said:
Didn't stop you from putting it in your signature though.
Lies lies and more lies.

Wow. Now my interest is piqued! I have stated for the record that I am a surgical oncologist. As a surgical oncologist, I have a working understanding of basic blood work, just like any doctor, but also anemia and the effects of EPO because both are common in cancer patients.

I try to source all my information, preferably with published peer-reviewed papers (or at least links to their abstracts) rather than web pages. I also will present contradictory evidence if it exists, as I did earlier in this thread.

As 180mm Crank and Dr. Maserati have stated, this is an open forum where we discuss things and develop opinions. You don't have to agree with my opinions, but at the very least debate the topic and provide well-sourced counter-opinions. Cobber is not a doping expert but he has found a very informative piece of information and presented it to the rest of us. This gives me greater understanding of doping tests. Does Cobber have to be an expert in doping tests for BPC to believe this information? If not, then what makes the information I present or link to any less believable? Regardless, nothing BPC presents is believable because he is not an expert in anything and doesn't source any of his opinions. Lots of volume and no substance.

Picture1-1.png
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,086
1
0
Visit site
elapid said:
Wow. Now my interest is piqued! I have stated for the record that I am a surgical oncologist. As a surgical oncologist, I have a working understanding of basic blood work, just like any doctor, but also anemia and the effects of EPO because both are common in cancer patients.

I try to source all my information, preferably with published peer-reviewed papers (or at least links to their abstracts) rather than web pages. I also will present contradictory evidence if it exists, as I did earlier in this thread.

As 180mm Crank and Dr. Maserati have stated, this is an open forum where we discuss things and develop opinions. You don't have to agree with my opinions, but at the very least debate the topic and provide well-sourced counter-opinions. Cobber is not a doping expert but he has found a very informative piece of information and presented it to the rest of us. This gives me greater understanding of doping tests. Does Cobber have to be an expert in doping tests for BPC to believe this information? If not, then what makes the information I present or link to any less believable? Regardless, nothing BPC presents is believable because he is not an expert in anything and doesn't source any of his opinions. Lots of volume and no substance.

+1..... Just because someone doesn't work in the exact area of blood doping, doesn't mean that they cannot make informed opinions relevant to their area of expertise.

For the record, I am a microbiologist (PhD) and as such, have a very good knowledge of biochemistry. For my job, I routinely do procedures like the isoelectric focusing procedure I described above (for the EPO test). While I have never done an EPO test, if someone handed me a urine sample and asked me to concentrate the protein, perform isoelectric focusing and detect the EPO with an antibody I would know exactly how to do it. I must say, if nobody outside of an area of expertise was allowed to ask questions, a lot of the Nobel prizes in medicine and chemistry (and most certainly all other areas) would never have been won, we would probably have no antibiotics or many other types of drugs. Dismissing someones opinion because they don't work in that area is a cop out! Telling Elapid that he doesn't know anything about EPO because he isn't a hematologist is like telling BPC he doesn't know anything about cooking Big Macs because he works at the fry station! :D

(no offense intended to anyone that does work in the fast food industry)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cobber said:
+1..... Just because someone doesn't work in the exact area of blood doping, doesn't mean that they cannot make informed opinions relevant to their area of expertise.

For the record, I am a microbiologist (PhD) and as such, have a very good knowledge of biochemistry. For my job, I routinely do procedures like the isoelectric focusing procedure I described above (for the EPO test). While I have never done an EPO test, if someone handed me a urine sample and asked me to concentrate the protein, perform isoelectric focusing and detect the EPO with an antibody I would know exactly how to do it. I must say, if nobody outside of an area of expertise was allowed to ask questions, a lot of the Nobel prizes in medicine and chemistry (and most certainly all other areas) would never have been won, we would probably have no antibiotics or many other types of drugs. Dismissing someones opinion because they don't work in that area is a cop out! Telling Elapid that he doesn't know anything about EPO because he isn't a hematologist is like telling BPC he doesn't know anything about cooking Big Macs because he works at the fry station! :D

(no offense intended to anyone that does work in the fast food industry)

If someone handed me a urine sample and asked me to concentrate the protein, perform isoelectric focusing and detect the EPO with an antibody, I would hand the sample back to them and tell them to drink the pi$$ themselves just to see the look on their face...if I were still an active alcoholic, I would drink the pi$$, burp, and declare the party a success.

Seeing that I plan to attend Law School next year, I also might distract the person who handed me the sample, take a small sample, have it tested by Cobber, and then get a jump on offering my services to whichever side the test benefited.
 
Maybe it would be nice to keep this topic for Astarloza, somehow I believe there's enough place on this forum to talk about Lance.

Just for the record, Astarloza earlier confirmed he was using this tent but I guess only Spanish media picked that up. But he first wanted to wait for his B - sample which is logical.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Arnout said:
Maybe it would be nice to keep this topic for Astarloza, somehow I believe there's enough place on this forum to talk about Lance.

Just for the record, Astarloza earlier confirmed he was using this tent but I guess only Spanish media picked that up. But he first wanted to wait for his B - sample which is logical.

You think it is logical to suggest that using an altitude tent will produce a positive result for synthetic EPO in any instance? If I were going to say something that dumb, I would have been saying it from the outset in hopes that I would somehow Jedi mind trick everyone.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
elapid said:
Regardless, nothing BPC presents is believable because he is not an expert in anything and doesn't source any of his opinions. Lots of volume and no substance.
To be fair, he is an expert Troll who has spent years perfecting his craft.
 
Thoughtforfood said:
You think it is logical to suggest that using an altitude tent will produce a positive result for synthetic EPO in any instance? If I were going to say something that dumb, I would have been saying it from the outset in hopes that I would somehow Jedi mind trick everyone.

This is from the article that Elapid linked to back on page 1.

Blood indirect tests

In the past, several authors have tried to use different markers of accelerated erythropoiesis such as reticulocyte percentage, Hb, Hct, macrocytic hypochromatic erythrocytes, serum soluble transferrin receptor (sTfr) and others as a method of detecting rHuEPO abuse, The most widely accepted method, and the only one scientifically validated, is that of Australian researchers Parisotto et al. The test, introduced for the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney, is based on a statistical multiparametric analysis defined in two kinds of mathematical models, ON and OFF, reflecting respectively the accelerated erythropoiesis due to current use of rHuEPO or the decelerated erythropoiesis due to past use of rHuEPO stopped shortly beforehand. The first blood tests proposed in 2000 were recently greatly improved upon in a second generation". It the second generation tests, two ON and two OFF models were defined on combinations of the blood parameters Hb, serum EPO concentration, percent reticulocytes and sTfr. These second generation tests have an enhanced sensitivity to be able to detect the impact of rHuEPO some days after an injection with moderate to low doses of rHuEPO (ON model) and thereby to provide a strong indication for the performance of a urine rHuEPO detection analysis. They also have increased sensitivity permitting the detection of the impact or rHuEPO up to 3 weeks after the last injection (OFF model) such that athletes who recently ceased using rHuEPO can be recognised and referred for follow-up testing. The results of these tests are based on statistics. They give a probability of rHuEPO abuse, not direct evidence. There are factors, mostly the effect of altitude, which can influence the results. Caution should be exercised when interpreting blood results from athletes who have recently been exposed to either terrestrial or simulated altitude. Notwithstanding this, these indirect blood tests are a useful tool for identifying athletes who are currently injecting rHuEPO or those who have recently stopped doing so.

That suggests to me that they may at least have an argument. No?
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
3
0
Visit site
Hugh Januss said:
This is from the article that Elapid linked to back on page 1.



That suggests to me that they may at least have an argument. No?

Different EPO. Read 3rd paragraph of this link.

The 'sugary' parts of endogeneous (produced by the human body) and the exogeneous (genetically engineered and used as PED) EPO are different. Cobber's test can check for that.

Your article discusses endogeneous EPO. There is no way any kind of body response will lead to a production of freaking genetically engineered EPO. Astarloza went full ***.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
1
0
Visit site
Cobblestones said:
Different EPO. Read 3rd paragraph of this link.

The 'sugary' parts of endogeneous (produced by the human body) and the exogeneous (genetically engineered and used as PED) EPO are different. Cobber's test can check for that.

Your article discusses endogeneous EPO. There is no way any kind of body response will lead to a production of freaking genetically engineered EPO. Astarloza went full ***.

What should we expect, his Lawyer is an ex-pro. The more you ride, the dumber you get.
 
Cobblestones said:
Different EPO. Read 3rd paragraph of this link.

The 'sugary' parts of endogeneous (produced by the human body) and the exogeneous (genetically engineered and used as PED) EPO are different. Cobber's test can check for that.

Your article discusses endogeneous EPO. There is no way any kind of body response will lead to a production of freaking genetically engineered EPO. Astarloza went full ***.

No it is talking about rHuEPO, as far as I know that is the artificial kind, isn't it? I take that part of the article to say that the altitude tent use can affect the proteins in such a way that it appears to be a positive when it is not. I think that is what his used to be a racer now newbie lawyer is talking about. I'm not saying it will work for him but only that it might not be a full *** argument.
 
stephens said:
Yes. "R-HuEpo" is short for "recombinant human erythropoietin".

Ok then the important part of the article:
The results of these tests are based on statistics. They give a probability of rHuEPO abuse, not direct evidence. There are factors, mostly the effect of altitude, which can influence the results. Caution should be exercised when interpreting blood results from athletes who have recently been exposed to either terrestrial or simulated altitude.
So they at least have a leg to stand on.
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
3
0
Visit site
Hugh Januss said:
No it is talking about rHuEPO, as far as I know that is the artificial kind, isn't it? I take that part of the article to say that the altitude tent use can affect the proteins in such a way that it appears to be a positive when it is not. I think that is what his used to be a racer now newbie lawyer is talking about. I'm not saying it will work for him but only that it might not be a full *** argument.

One has to remember that the article is from a time when natural EPO and rHuEPO could not be distinguished. Altitude tents or whatever have an influence on blood cell production (doh!), but again, the human body is simply not able to suddenly produce genetically engineered EPO. For instance, it lacks the genetic information to do so.

If you read what is quoted closely, at no point does it say that altitude can influence rHuEPO levels.

What it says is that altitude could be responsible for changes in blood parameters which might otherwise falsely be attributed to rHuEPO abuse. The article is about measuring blood parameters, serum EPO levels etc. and from there (based on a statistical analysis) to conclude whether an athlete did abuse rHUEPO or not. It's basically obsolete now, because we can test for the presence of several types of EPO, among them rHuEPO, which is an entirely artificial product.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
well i for one think hes telling the truth.. i find it almost impossible to beleive a spaniard would dope, and even less likely that the spanish authorities would allow it to happen...

flying-pig.jpg
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,086
1
0
Visit site
Hugh,

I haven't had a chance to go back and look at the article, but I think it is describing a previous generation of the EPO test. The current test (that I posted about above) is not based on a statistical interpretation of blood values but rather a direct identification of exogenous EPO. Regardless, a statistical test, if good enough, is more than able to stand up in court.
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
3
0
Visit site
dimspace said:
well i for one think hes telling the truth.. i find it almost impossible to beleive a spaniard would dope, and even less likely that the spanish authorities would allow it to happen...

flying-pig.jpg

How does it fly? It's not taking PEDs is it? Say it ain't so.
 
Cobblestones said:
One has to remember that the article is from a time when natural EPO and rHuEPO could not be distinguished. Altitude tents or whatever have an influence on blood cell production (doh!), but again, the human body is simply not able to suddenly produce genetically engineered EPO. For instance, it lacks the genetic information to do so.

If you read what is quoted closely, at no point does it say that altitude can influence rHuEPO levels.

What it says is that altitude could be responsible for changes in blood parameters which might otherwise falsely be attributed to rHuEPO abuse. The article is about measuring blood parameters, serum EPO levels etc. and from there (based on a statistical analysis) to conclude whether an athlete did abuse rHUEPO or not. It's basically obsolete now, because we can test for the presence of several types of EPO, among them rHuEPO, which is an entirely artificial product.

Well either way, this same discussion will probably take place before CAS except the protagonists will be making a bunch of money to be there.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Hugh Januss said:
Ok then the important part of the article:

So they at least have a leg to stand on.

Hugh,
You questioned my post originally, and I have refrained from responding because it involves "science," and...well...I don't do "science." My understanding is that the test Cobber posted about is different, but when you posted your quote, I was not sure. It appears that is the case, but then again, its "science" so I will just back away slowly. See, I do "smart assed comments," not "science."
 
May 13, 2009
3,093
3
0
Visit site
Cobblestones said:
Your article discusses endogeneous EPO.

I should clarify this, because of my poor wording it came out much different than I intended.

rHuEPO is the genetically engineered stuff. I fully agree.

What I wanted to say here is that altitude tents would induce erythropoiesis through a normal body response, i.e. loosely speaking endogenous.