astarloza-blames-positive-on-training-session

[Rupert]

Any expert opinions as to this excuse? Sounds shaky, but a couple of folks out there are more knowledgeable, I think. Elapid? Escarabajo? Scinece of Sport guys?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/astarloza-blames-positive-on-training-session-horrillo-back-on-bike

 

[Cobber]

Any expert opinions as to this excuse? Sounds shaky, but a couple of folks out there are more knowledgeable, I think. Elapid? Escarabajo? Scinece of Sport guys?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/astarloza-blames-positive-on-training-session-horrillo-back-on-bike

He tested positive for EPO, and the test differentiates between endogenous EPO and exogenous (ie. doping) EPO. Unless, somehow, training in an oxygen tent changes the way oligosaccharides are added to the EPO protein so that it looks like EPO produced in a fermenter, he has no hope of this defense working.

 

[Race Radio]

The only good thing about this is that the Americans (Floyd, Tyler, Lance) no longer have the monopoly on *** excuses.

A tent will have no effect on you testing positive for EPO

 

[Cobber]

The only good thing about this is that the Americans (Floyd, Tyler, Lance) no longer have the monopoly on *** excuses.

A tent will have no effect on you testing positive for EPO

Ha ha ha... I agree, I think this excuse will work out as well as it did for Floyd and Tyler! Maybe Astorloza should buy some lottery tickets in the hope that he can make a significant donation to the UCI to "help fight doping". He might have more luck with that approach!

 

[Jonathan]

The only good thing about this is that the Americans (Floyd, Tyler, Lance) no longer have the monopoly on *** excuses.

A tent will have no effect on you testing positive for EPO

To be fair, there never was such a monoploy. My favorite is still from (Belgian) Mario de Clercq: "I'm writing a novel and keep empty packages of drugs for background documentation."

 

[Anonymous]

You gotta give it up for his ding-dong lawyer though. I know if I was painted in to a corner I never would have come out with the "I was on a trainer in a Hypoxic tent" excuse.

I can just see Pat McQuaid calling the science staff at the UCI asking, "could this happen"?

 

[logical cranium]

I will wade in here before RHitalians litters this thred with baseless propaganda. I have seen and studied these tents.

My subjects in secret NYC lab use tents. I put some at top of the tall bildings and others in the basement. For tall building ones, I ventilate tent with borbon mist and inject subjects with cowblood. Is cowplood on banned list?

Anyway, EPO level goes up and VAM increases 25% after studying DVR of test. basement results suck. asstarlosas lawyer has a case.

 

[elapid]

My initial reaction to this defense was that Astrolaza had gone full genius (and you should never go full genius ). But then I searched Pubmed and found the following:

1. Mackenzie RW, Watt PW, Maxwell NS. Acute normobaric hypoxia stimulates erythropoietin release. High Alt Med Biol 9(1):28-37, 2008.
Trained athletes had a significant increase in EPO after a single hypoxic episode (3100m) compared to athletes at normal oxygen levels.

2. Wilber RL, Stray-Gundersen J, Levine BD. Effect of hypoxic "dose" on physiological responses and sea-level performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 39(9):1590-9, 2007.
This is a review, but the authors state "The essence of LH+TL (live high-train low) is that it allows athletes to "live high" for the purpose of facilitating altitude acclimatization, as manifest by a profound and sustained increase in endogenous erythropoietin (EPO) ..."

But I also think Cobber is correct. Altitude training, whether at altitude or using a hyperbaric tent, will increase endogenous (or naturally produced) EPO. But the EPO tests test for exogenous (or artificial) EPO and can differentiate this from endogenous EPO. I am not sure, but it makes sense.

This is an interesting article: http://www.coachr.org/methods_to_increase_the_delivery_of_oxygen.htm. The author states "Caution should be exercised when interpreting blood results from athletes who have recently been exposed to either terrestrial or simulated altitude."

So I don't know. Maybe he is smart and hasn't gone full genius after all!

 

[Cerberus]

Well I don't have an expert opinion, but I do have a more down to Earth one. If I tested positive for an illegal blood booster it might take me a month to cook up a lame excuse, but it wouldn't take me a month to remember that just 2 minutes before the test had employed a legal blood booster.

 

[riobonito92]

If a tester showed up and you had literally just got out of a tent, wouldn't you show it to them - "Look, here's my tent so expect my EPO levels to be elevated"?

 

[Cobber]

I figured it might be beneficial for me to do a little reading and post a summary of how the EPO test works.

Key points"
1. EPO is a glycoprotein - that is a protein with attached sugars (oligosaccharides)
2. Different oligosaccharides have different charges. Some will be more acidic (negatively charged) while others will be more basic (positively charged).
3. The combination of oligosaccharides attached to the EPO protein will affect the entire charge of the protein. Endogenous EPO is fairly neutral in charge. Exogenous EPO, which is synthesized in cell culture, has different oligosaccharides attached than the endogenous EPO, and tends to be basic (rhEPO) or acidic (Aranesp).
4. Proteins can be separated on the basis of charge by a technique called isoelectric focusing, and this is the basis of the EPO test.

Below is a picture of a hypothetical EPO test. As you can see, it doesn't matter about the absolute levels of EPO in the urine sample, the charge will still be different if there is synthetic EPO in the sample and thus easily detectable.

(taken from Delanghe et al. 2008. Am J Hematol. 83:237-241)

 

[elapid]

I figured it might be beneficial for me to do a little reading and post a summary of how the EPO test works.

Key points"
1. EPO is a glycoprotein - that is a protein with attached sugars (oligosaccharides)
2. Different oligosaccharides have different charges. Some will be more acidic (negatively charged) while others will be more basic (positively charged).
3. The combination of oligosaccharides attached to the EPO protein will affect the entire charge of the protein. Endogenous EPO is fairly neutral in charge. Exogenous EPO, which is synthesized in cell culture, has different oligosaccharides attached than the endogenous EPO, and tends to be basic (rhEPO) or acidic (Aranesp).
4. Proteins can be separated on the basis of charge by a technique called isoelectric focusing, and this is the basis of the EPO test.

Below is a picture of a hypothetical EPO test. As you can see, it doesn't matter about the absolute levels of EPO in the urine sample, the charge will still be different if there is synthetic EPO in the sample and thus easily detectable.

(taken from Delanghe et al. 2008. Am J Hematol. 83:237-241)

Excellent information. This is why I enjoy these forums - education and learning more about cycling and doping and doping tests. No inane unsubstantiated misinformation from trolls, no illiterate scientists and doctors. Thanks Cobber.

 

[beroepsrenner]

Most cyclists when imediately confronted with a positive test result are not going to admit guilt. They will clutch at any half baked excuse they can muster in order to save face.

 

[Anonymous]

I figured it might be beneficial for me to do a little reading and post a summary of how the EPO test works.

Key points"
1. EPO is a glycoprotein - that is a protein with attached sugars (oligosaccharides)
2. Different oligosaccharides have different charges. Some will be more acidic (negatively charged) while others will be more basic (positively charged).
3. The combination of oligosaccharides attached to the EPO protein will affect the entire charge of the protein. Endogenous EPO is fairly neutral in charge. Exogenous EPO, which is synthesized in cell culture, has different oligosaccharides attached than the endogenous EPO, and tends to be basic (rhEPO) or acidic (Aranesp).
4. Proteins can be separated on the basis of charge by a technique called isoelectric focusing, and this is the basis of the EPO test.

Below is a picture of a hypothetical EPO test. As you can see, it doesn't matter about the absolute levels of EPO in the urine sample, the charge will still be different if there is synthetic EPO in the sample and thus easily detectable.

(taken from Delanghe et al. 2008. Am J Hematol. 83:237-241)

Thank you for posting. I agree with elapid, this forum has some fantastic information even if I only understand about half of it. That however is really clear and understandable. I am guessing fanboy nation will avoid this topic in light of Ashenden's confirmation that there was Exogenous EPO in Armstrong's urine from the 1999 samples.

 

[Digger]

There is a lot of information in this forum, but a lot of it is contradictory or is heavily spun, as Elapid is famous for doing. As you know, I don't believe in this notion that people can be experts from reading up on something on internet forums. In fact usually most of the misinformation and false certainty comes from people that have done that - a little bit of knowledge is more dangerous and spreads like wildfire. So whilst its interesting to read what people interpreting information, their info must always be taken with a large pinch of salt.

And how do you discredit Michael Ashenden?

 

[Digger]

Why would I want to do that?

http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

 

[Digger]

That doesn't answer my question.

That's right, don't read it, you won't fins something you don't want to see.

 

[180mmCrank]

There is a lot of information in this forum, but a lot of it is contradictory or is heavily spun, as Elapid is famous for doing. As you know, I don't believe in this notion that people can be experts from reading up on something on internet forums. In fact usually most of the misinformation and false certainty comes from people that have done that - a little bit of knowledge is more dangerous and spreads like wildfire. So whilst its interesting to read what people interpreting information, their info must always be taken with a large pinch of salt.

BPC you raise a good point - not all information or opinion is equal. But the big difference is not wether it is on the internet or not.

It is more about if it has been subject to appropriate peer review or at least robust editorial review.

The traditonal methods of subjecting your opinion to peer review involve publishing in appropriate journals or presenting at conferences. However it is becoming clear that the World is moving on and I believe we will see more peer review in online communities (or variations there of) - it already happens this way in software development.

 

[180mmCrank]

Thanks for that. That's a very good point. But at the same time I think we have to be wary of online groups of people who have agendas and are seeing the science in terms of that agenda. They very quickly get into a group-think mentality where subjective areas are just assumed as fact.

You mean like people having a chat infront of the telly (TV) or down the pub (bar) with their mates. Sharing opinions and making sense of things putting the World to rights etc

...because this is an open discussion forum and that's kind of what it's for.

It's not about finding a cure for World Poverty or Cancer - or oops maybe...

 

[Anonymous]

Its funny, Lance fanboys always want to parse out each event as singular in nature, never daring to address the totality of evidence. It is as if they read a propaganda manual at some point and know that attacking the character of a group of similarly minded people on only a small slice of evidence combined with as much obfuscation as possible is effective. Some of us know enough about propaganda to know just how much bullsh!t they are throwing. Dang.

I want to see the information that Lance was dehydrated. Anyone got any evidence that he was stupid enough to not drink water again?

 

[Anonymous]

You mean like people having a chat infront of the telly (TV) or down the pub (bar) with their mates. Sharing opinions and making sense of things putting the World to rights etc

...because this is an open discussion forum and that's kind of what it's for.

It's not about finding a cure for World Poverty or Cancer - or oops maybe...

Cancer lover!...

 

[Anonymous]

It is also telling that these same fanboys lauded Armstrong for being smart enough to be in the split caused by Columbia, but insist he is dumb enough to not drink on rest days. It boggles the mind just how stupid the assertion actually is when combined with the rhetoric about The Uniballer's supposed superiority in every area of preparation. Dang.

 

[180mmCrank]

NEWS FLASH... (Source: Fat Bloke down the pub)

Just announced it was actually Astarloza's twin who was in the Oxygen tent and he'd drunk a jug of Jack Daniels the night before and has just found out that his homeopathic body rub has nandrolone additive and he has found a study that if you stay up late at night and watch TV it raises your haematocrit and the orange kit he wears is radioactive and he was abducted by aliens and his dog bit him...and if I think of any other lame excuses I reserve the right to use them on appeal.

Oh and all scientists are corrupt and incompetent and out to get me because they don't like orange or Spanish people.

Enough said but doesn’t mean we won’t hear more drivel!

 

[Dr. Maserati]

There is a lot of information in this forum, but a lot of it is contradictory or is heavily spun...

I have also got to ask at this point - why have you such a hardon for one of the posters here? The one in your signature!
He never made a claim to be what you say - and the quote you use in your signature is something they said - so what is your point?
They have gone on the record and stated their occupation and have never claimed to be an expert on blood, but obviously have a greater understanding of it then you.

You are entitled to your opinions - but I find it strange you make the highlighted comment above and then you have in your signature a piece about dehydration - by someone with no qualification who is comparing Rasmussen's profile to 'normal' peoples, completely missing Damsgaards point.

 

[180mmCrank]

I have also got to ask at this point - why have you such a hardon for one of the posters here? The one in your signature!
He never made a claim to be what you say - and the quote you use in your signature is something they said - so what is your point?
They have gone on the record and stated their occupation and have never claimed to be an expert on blood, but obviously have a greater understanding of it then you.

You are entitled to your opinions - but I find it strange you make the highlighted comment above and then you have in your signature a piece about dehydration - by someone with no qualification who is comparing Rasmussen's profile to 'normal' peoples, completely missing Damsgaards point.

+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