BMC Soigneur caught with 195 does of EPO

[Lanark]

It's quite common for cyclists to take painkillers before a time-trial.

 

[greatking88]

It's quite common for cyclists to take painkillers before a time-trial.

Oh right, didnt know that to be honest. Still think its quite strange that doctors are advising pain killers.

 

[sniper]

Oh here we go.... put on your tin foil hat folks, after 12yrs of research and development and millions of dollars spent on the bio passport, the scientists just publish false data because Damiano M doesn't like the sound of it. It's a grand scientific conspiracy (like global warming) to thwart the public into believing that something is being done to fight doping in sports.

Now you are showing your true colours. In the face of peer-reviewed published evidence you just simply deny its authenticity in order to satisfy your own conclusion. You have basically just stated that Olaf Schumacher is a fraud who publishes false data in the scientific literature. You've got no idea who Olaf Schumacher is do you? You've got no idea of the consequences of publishing false data in a peer-reviewed journal. This is a highly serious charge you've made and you just hit a very slippery slope without a leg to stand on. For starters, Olaf Schumacher is not the UCI. He is an MD and university professor who happens to sit on a UCI medical advisory board. Maybe you don't understand the difference between a board or advisory committee and an organisation itself?

You have no idea about the history of the development of the bio-passport and the battles that the researchers involved have waged not only with the UCI, but the IOC and IAAF to get it to where it is now. You have no idea that even though a very small minority of these scientists may sit on a UCI scientific advisory committee that they continually must fight with the UCI, IOC, and IAAF proper hierarchy and their teams of lawyers to get these tests sanctioned. You've got no idea that the bio passport is much bigger than cycling alone but is being adopted by numerous other international sporting organisations (FINA is recent example), so to publish false data would have serious consequences that reach far beyond pro cycling.

You are basically rubbishing 10-12yrs of work of dozens upon dozens of independent researchers from all over the world with this statement. Highly respected and well known scientists whom have dedicated either part or all of their careers to the fight against doping. Many of them have nothing to do with the UCI, so what about them, are they all under the magical power of the UCI big brother? I know a number of these scientists personally and I will defend their integrity against a baseless attack as you have made. And what about the subjects in these studies over the years? You are saying that all the subjects in those studies did it for nothing. Myself and many people I know had needles stuck in our arms and butts every 2 days for 6 wks on 2 separate occasions to advance this cause (hence the bee in my bonnet about this). The breach of ethics you are implying here is mind boggling.

There is a massive difference between Pat McQuaid making a broad statement to the media and an eminent scientist (whom for 99% of his time is a university professor and researcher and 1% of the time is a member for the UCI medical advisory board), publishing the culmination of 12yrs of hard work and millions of dollars spent on the development of a specific blood analysis method in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. You are the one who really needs to get a clue here.


For like the 10th time, the performance comparison was a minor point compared with the science. You are really trying very very hard to focus on this as if it was the major piece of the puzzle in my reasoning. Get over it, you are wrong. Move on.

TWO (no, not one, but TWO) authors of that peer-reviewed article are on UCI's payroll. So I'm in the dark as to why you call them independent researchers. It's like writing a review of your own book.
After what's been going on in cycling, it's no more than common sense to question the validity of those data.

Unfortunately, lots of stuff has happened in cycling that at first was downplayed as "conspiracy theory", and then later most of the time turned out to have really happened. So it's about being critical of what you see, rather than consuming everything you get served on your plate.

And since when does peer-reviewing keep the public from being defrauded?
How many counterexamples from the pharmaceutical industry do you need?

Go into linguistics or whatever soft-science branche if you want to be sure that money doesn't interfere in coloring the results.

 

[Krebs cycle]

TWO (no, not one, but TWO) authors of that peer-reviewed article are on UCI's payroll. So I'm in the dark as to why you call them independent researchers. It's like writing a review of your own book.
After what's been going on in cycling, it's no more than common sense to question the validity of those data.

Unfortunately, lots of stuff has happened in cycling that at first was downplayed as "conspiracy theory", and then later most of the time turned out to have really happened. So it's about being critical of what you see, rather than consuming everything you get served on your plate.

And since when does peer-reviewing keep the public from being defrauded?
How many counterexamples from the pharmaceutical industry do you need?

Go into linguistics or whatever soft-science branche if you want to be sure that money doesn't interfere in coloring the results.

Dear me, you guys just won't quit will you. Why are you so fixated on believing that the bio passport method could not possibly be leading to a reduced incidence of abnormal blood profiles? Finally, after all these years of blood doping in cycling there is some light at the end of the tunnel and all you can say is, "nah its bs, those guys are paid off by the UCI to publish false data".

You must really hate the idea of fairness in sport.

 

[Willy_Voet]

And since when does peer-reviewing keep the public from being defrauded?
How many counterexamples from the pharmaceutical industry do you need?

Some spinach and turkey had salmonella in them last month. Better stop eating them.

Tomatoes and cucumbers in Europe had some other crazy bug on them...don't eat veggies.

Given the vast number of papers submitted to journals, scientists do a pretty good job at peer review.

The pharmaceutical industry (while admittedly slimy) has an incredibly rigorous process to go through. You are probably safer taking a drug than eating food.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

I think some of the clinicians are reading too much into what the biopass is supposed to do.

It's raison d'etre isn't to eliminate doping, it is a tool used to track rider profiles in the vein of reducing doping and to provide a tool to that end.

Cycling was just getting out of the EPO period, and some sort of tool was required to be able to legitimately track (over the course of a season) riders' profiles in the hope that those values being documented would limit the use of EPO and EPO-type drugs (and transfusions) within the peloton.

I've even argued that it could, inadvertantly, lead to more micro-dosing due to the need of a rider to keep his profile rather static (or at least within reason).

Does the biopass work? It works beautifully for what it was set up to do.

Will it eliminate doping? Of course not. But it's a step in the right direction, and should at least remove most of the biggest genius performances.

Here's the big caveat: The UCI runs the program.

I may have just gutted my own argument....

 

[Cycle Chic]

The UCI should have a FIFA like enquiry - phone hacking put to good use.

 

[lean mean &green]

Now you are showing your true colours. In the face of peer-reviewed published evidence you just simply deny its authenticity in order to satisfy your own conclusion. You have basically just stated that Olaf Schumacher is a fraud who publishes false data in the scientific literature. You've got no idea who Olaf Schumacher is do you? You've got no idea of the consequences of publishing false data in a peer-reviewed journal. This is a highly serious charge you've made and you just hit a very slippery slope without a leg to stand on. For starters, Olaf Schumacher is not the UCI. He is an MD and university professor who happens to sit on a UCI medical advisory board. Maybe you don't understand the difference between a board or advisory committee and an organisation itself?

haha, while i understand DM's paranoia it's misplaced. olaf schumacher is a VERY unlikely shill.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

The UCI should have a FIFA like enquiry - phone hacking put to good use.

Not if we ever wanted to find anything out it shouldn't. FIFA and the UCI are cut from the same corrupt cloth.

 

[Cycle Chic]

thats what I meant - out the UCI as FIFA have been. Both corrupt - some phone hacking would be a good idea.

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

OK. I understand.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

I think some of the clinicians are reading too much into what the biopass is supposed to do.

It's raison d'etre isn't to eliminate doping, it is a tool used to track rider profiles in the vein of reducing doping and to provide a tool to that end.

Cycling was just getting out of the EPO period, and some sort of tool was required to be able to legitimately track (over the course of a season) riders' profiles in the hope that those values being documented would limit the use of EPO and EPO-type drugs (and transfusions) within the peloton.

I've even argued that it could, inadvertantly, lead to more micro-dosing due to the need of a rider to keep his profile rather static (or at least within reason).

Does the biopass work? It works beautifully for what it was set up to do.

Will it eliminate doping? Of course not. But it's a step in the right direction, and should at least remove most of the biggest genius performances.

Here's the big caveat: The UCI runs the program.

I may have just gutted my own argument....

Yes & no.

It was initially stated by the UCI that it would be a stand alone test and that there may be parameters that a rider would get a suspension (like the old 50% test) should one stray outside these parameters.

But you're right that its problem is that it is run by the UCI and it is now nothing more than a 'doping test run by committee'.

We have had no sanctions at all this year - indeed none for over a year and still no word on what happened to the (at least) 2 riders who the medical committee suggested should be forwarded for sanction.

Does it minimize doping? Perhaps.
Does it treat everyone the same? No.

It is a good tool in the wrong hands.

 

[Damiano Machiavelli]

Dear me, you guys just won't quit will you. Why are you so fixated on believing that the bio passport method could not possibly be leading to a reduced incidence of abnormal blood profiles? Finally, after all these years of blood doping in cycling there is some light at the end of the tunnel and all you can say is, "nah its bs, those guys are paid off by the UCI to publish false data".

You must really hate the idea of fairness in sport.

Armstrong shill: Why do you hate excellence.
Krebs shill: Why do you hate the idea of fairness in sport.

I really like how you like to create strawmen and then express outrage about the very thing that you just pulled from your nether regions. Neither I nor sniper ever mentioned guys being paid off to publish false data. That is your creation completely. That is you making sh!t up because you want to divert attention away from your ridiculous buttressing of your theory by comparing the performance of Evans and other riders who are cherry picked to create the conclusions that you want. Sorry, but I do not see that comparing anyone's performance with that of an injured and tired Contador means anything.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Armstrong shill: Why do you hate excellence.
Krebs shill: Why do you hate the idea of fairness in sport.

I really like how you like to create strawmen and then express outrage about the very thing that you just pulled from your nether regions. Neither I nor sniper ever mentioned guys being paid off to publish false data. That is your creation completely. That is you making sh!t up because you want to divert attention away from your ridiculous buttressing of your theory by comparing the performance of Evans and other riders who are cherry picked to create the conclusions that you want. Sorry, but I do not see that comparing anyone's performance with that of an injured and tired Contador means anything.

Well, not really - Sniper did say "TWO (no, not one, but TWO) authors of that peer-reviewed article are on UCI's payroll."

By all means have a debate about the Passport but rather than argue over things that you apparently didn't say, why not present your argument.

I am trying to follow both sides of this debate so I appreciate those posts on the issue.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Check out Merckx Index's latest post in the Bio Passport thread.

VERY interesting...

 

[sniper]

Questions on doping

It seems almost indecent to harp on about doping after such an enthralling race, but that's precisely why it's so important. Many speculated that the closeness of the race, the style of the racing, and even the performance of Voeckler, provide evidence that the sport is cleaner, but if we were to rely too heavily on those kinds of assumptions then we'd really be in trouble.

This is why it was so disappointing that Cadel Evans, in his winner's press conference, declined to answer a question about doping. He was asked whether his success could be interpreted as a sign that the sport was cleaner. "I don't think I'm in the best position to comment on that, sorry," he replied.

I was surprised and disappointed that this intelligent man couldn't offer something more coherent on this most important of subjects, and said so on Twitter - and promptly received a lot of criticism. I wasn't implying anything about Evans. It wasn't about Evans at all. The fact is this: the Tour has been brought to its knees by doping scandals, and to restore public trust it needs a winner that people believe in.

Any discussion over whether this might have been one of the 'greatest' Tours de France becomes utterly meaningless if it turns out that the winner has doped: that is why it is so important for the winner to make a clear statement.

Sadly, we are at the stage where the winner of the Tour carries that responsibility. It is the price the sport pays for its history, and for the fact that, of the last seven winners, dating back sixteen years, one has admitted to doping, one has tested positive, one has a doping case pending, two have either been, or still are, implicated in doping investigations, and one has died of acute cocaine poisoning.

In which context, would it not be a bit weird if the winner of the race wasn't asked about drugs?

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,16299_7064376,00.html

 

[goggalor]

Fairly uninteresting article by Richard Moore. Evans was basically asked, again, if his win was a win for clean cycling. He said he was not in a position to comment on that, which is fair enough, and about what he said after the worlds as well. When a follow-up question from a French journalists expressed the same concern as the Sky Sports article, he said all he can do is be a good example.

But no, he is not publicly outspoken about doping. Not that it matters, there are plenty of dopers who preach anti-dopage.

 

[sniper]

Fairly uninteresting article by Richard Moore. Evans was basically asked, again, if his win was a win for clean cycling. He said he was not in a position to comment on that, which is fair enough, and about what he said after the worlds as well. When a follow-up question from a French journalists expressed the same concern as the Sky Sports article, he said all he can do is be a good example.

But no, he is not publicly outspoken about doping. Not that it matters, there are plenty of dopers who preach anti-dopage.

perhaps one interesting bit about the article is that it shows that it's not only the german media expecting a more pronounced anti-doping statement from Cadel (if he were really clean, that is).

 

[auscyclefan94]

Fairly uninteresting article by Richard Moore. Evans was basically asked, again, if his win was a win for clean cycling. He said he was not in a position to comment on that, which is fair enough, and about what he said after the worlds as well. When a follow-up question from a French journalists expressed the same concern as the Sky Sports article, he said all he can do is be a good example.

But no, he is not publicly outspoken about doping. Not that it matters, there are plenty of dopers who preach anti-dopage.

Not surprising that such an article would come from moore. He and Freibe have always hated Evans. Did they ever come to consider that Armstrong was openly against drugs?

He has said things about drugs opnely in the past but imo it doesn't mean much. the answers he gave to the questions after the tdf presser were completely fine. He never declined to answer and what can you really expect him to say to such a question?

Speaking out against how you dislike PED's is totally over rated. What do words really mean?

 

[lanternrouge]

Not surprising that such an article would come from moore. He and Freibe have always hated Evans. Did they ever come to consider that Armstrong was openly against drugs?

He has said things about drugs opnely in the past but imo it doesn't mean much. the answers he gave to the questions after the tdf presser were completely fine. He never declined to answer and what can you really expect him to say to such a question?

Speaking out against how you dislike PED's is totally over rated. What do words really mean?

As it means so little then Cadel could certainly afford to say something then? Instead of saying sweet FA which is what he did.