• 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!

Contador and Spanish cycling

Page 26 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jan 10, 2012
451
0
0
Visit site
airstream said:
I don't quite get one elementary thing. Do probes show main blood values or not? Lance laid out his blood values after the 2009 Tour being absolutely confident in his impunity. Armstrong's hc went up by 2-3 points straight before Mont Ventoux. Obvious blood doping. Why can't uci implement such an easier procedure to catch dopers? Or??? Then they should have kicked half peloton away from the race? :confused:

It's mainly a matter of mathematics, Bayesian statistics (and probabilities) to be exact. Key point (from a legal point of view) is the 'acceptable' probability of a false-positive.

The passport works with all kinds of parameters (Ht, Hb, retics, etc.) and calculations. Main goal is to find constellations that are not normal. One very important one is the OFF-hr score, a ratio of hemoglobin to reticulocytes (the calculation is Hb in g/l - 60 (square root of the reticulocyte percentage)) through which you could identify both the withdrawal and re-infusion of blood (or RBC).

≥ 116,7: 1/100 false positive
≥ 125,6: 1/1000 ""
≥ 133,2: 1/10000 ""

A limit of 99.9 percent, which is 1:1000 false positive, is considered to be legally acceptable. Some 'private passports' (Mapei Center, Damsgaard, Garmin), however, work with tighter limits.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
airstream said:
I don't quite get one elementary thing. Do probes show main blood values or not? Lance laid out his blood values after the 2009 Tour being absolutely confident in his impunity. Armstrong's hc went up by 2-3 points straight before Mont Ventoux. Obvious blood doping. Why can't uci implement such an easier procedure to catch dopers? Or??? Then they should have kicked half peloton away from the race? :confused:

There's a formula! IF you're within 3 STDEVs of your average Hgb, then any jumps like that are attributed to:

lab error
handling errors
natural variations

just ask JV about Ryder's blood values for an example...
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
dearwiggo.blogspot.com.au
Nilsson said:
It's mainly a matter of mathematics, Bayesian statistics (and probabilities) to be exact. Key point (from a legal point of view) is the 'acceptable' probability of a false-positive.

The passport works with all kinds of parameters (Ht, Hb, retics, etc.) and calculations. Main goal is to find constellations that are not normal. One very important one is the OFF-hr score, a ratio of hemoglobin to reticulocytes (the calculation is Hb in g/l - 60 (square root of the reticulocyte percentage)) through which you could identify both the withdrawal and re-infusion of blood (or RBC).

≥ 116,7: 1/100 false positive
≥ 125,6: 1/1000 ""
≥ 133,2: 1/10000 ""

A limit of 99.9 percent, which is 1:1000 false positive, is considered to be legally acceptable. Some 'private passports' (Mapei Center, Damsgaard, Garmin), however, work with tighter limits.

I did a table of OFF-hr scores earlier - and concluded rightly or wrongly that it was useless as a means of detecting doping of any sort.

Eg:
1. jam a bunch of EPO in there, boosting retics, and your off-hr score goes down.
- retic production is delayed
2. grab a blood transfusion, boosting your Hgb, and your off-hr score goes down.
- retic reduction is delayed

Do both, and OFF-hr score not only goes down by even more, but your natural reduction in retics due to the transfusion is mitigated.

Here's the graph.

offscoregrid.png


You have to be jamming up against the obvious doping limits of 17g/dL Hgb (~51% Hct) and 0.2% retics (blood transfusion) that ping you without any formulae before OFF-hr score gets a look in.

You seem knowledgable, and I have had a few people crack the sads at me for this graph - JV and Krebs Cycle for starters, usually accompanied with "thanks for proving my point" or "ur ignorant".

I am very curious how the OFF-hr score is important, as you claim.

As an example: you could have 18g/dL Hgb, dliuted with saline to drop your Hct below 50%, and pump in X amount of EPO to boost your retics to 1.9% and your OFF-hr score is now a very safe and respectable 97.

If you have used EPO for most of your professional career and have a good handle on your body's response to EPO use, I am guessing getting the dosage right would be doable.
 
Oct 30, 2012
428
0
0
Visit site
Dazed and Confused said:
This is about as bad as having Bugno representing today's clean riders.

Lopez Cerron's election? I know, it's crazy isn't it? A parallel world these people live in, utterly oblivious it seems. Talk about the need for cultural change... if Greg gets in he'll sure have his work cut out with these dudes.
 
Nilsson said:
Apart from the fact that it is close to impossible. I suppose you are aware of the implications of the pharmacokinetics involved and the contents of WADA-theory? Firstly, the plasma (because it's a plasma transfusion that, in that scenario, should have triggered the clen positive) couldn't have come from Contador himself. The amounts you have to take are way to high for an athlete, if not toxic (especially for a small guy like Contador), and combined with length of treatment he would have been a certain positive for over a month. It's therefore that the idea of a malicious or stupid plasma donor was brought assumed by WADA, to make the theory stick.

This is not quite true. Too many people swallowed the propaganda of Bert’s team. One can estimate a maximum dose of 200-500 ng of CB (via transfusion) to account for the test results. If this were present in a typical transfusion, it would indicate a blood concentration of roughly 0.05 = 0.1 ng/ml. This corresponds to a single oral dose of roughly 100 micrograms, well within normally tolerated amounts, or a daily regimen of somewhat lower doses. Urine values for this dose would peak at 1-2 ng/ml, at or below the sensitivity and minimum standard for many labs. Bert was tested on average of less than once per month during the critical period. So it would have been possible, even likely, for him to beat a test. The big question is whether he would take that risk, not knowing in advance when he would be tested. That is where the problem with this scenario occurs, and was why WADA produced the anonymous donor scenario, a mistake IMO.

Secondly, withdrawing blood after dauphiné doesn't really favor separation of RBC and plasma (which is the theory in this case, and necessary to explain the separated findings of and clenbuterol, for example) but does favor whole blood transfusion - which is more convenient in cycling, like the use of saline instead of plasma.

True, though apparently riders often separate cells and plasma even for short term storage. However, WADA was committed to a scenario involving a much earlier withdrawal, not in June.

Thirdly, the 1 pg/ml clen (blood sample) finding in the morning doesn't correspond with the 50 pg/ml urine finding later that day, and doesn't favor intravenous administration as the most likely cause of the clenbuterol positive. An eventual plasma transfusion, in this theory, would take place before the blood test (to manipulate - lower - Ht and Hb) and if it was the cause of the clenbuterol, you'd expect the finding to be much and much higher.

There isn’t any inconsistency in these numbers. At one time I thought there was, but I later acknowledged an error. The urine values are typically much higher than the blood values, partly because drug is concentrated in the urine, and in large part because most of the source of the drug in urine is not the blood but in fat tissues. IOW, the amount of drug in blood is only the tip of the iceberg . The 1 pg/ml value probably favors oral administration, but it does not by itself make a compelling case (as I originally thought.)

In conclusion, while I still favor contaminated supplement (that could have passed all clean standards), the transfusion theory is quite possible. Particularly when you add the DEHP positive, which has virtually no other explanation.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
GJB123 said:
Thanks Nilsson and MI for pointing out that the Humo-story was by no means a per definition correct as sniper claimed. :D;)

I grant you that.
But there was no reason to dismiss it either, as many a poster did back then. Once you let the math-dogs out, you loose sight of what is right there in front of you.

I'm still LMAO. Aldirto thinking he was protected. What a cold shower he got.
 
Oct 21, 2012
340
0
0
Visit site
meat puppet said:
Enough with the nit picking already! Listen to unca Oleg! Sounds like it's gonna be a menage a trois made in heaven between him, Bjarne and Bert.

Excellent analysis of Rabo's exit too.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tinkov-claims-cyclings-doping-problems-are-exaggerated

wow :eek:- just the sort of views needed to turn cycling around- He really seems to appreciate the wind of change blowing through cycling and demanded for by cycling fans:rolleyes:
+1 on excellent analysis of Rabo's exit too.
 
cineteq said:
These guys keep re-iterating what they really think of doping: "cycling's doping problems are exaggerated". This mentality is not going away any time soon.

Exaggerated ....relative to other pro sports. That is what he really says. I didn't think folks would take issue with THAT. :confused:

Yeah, we all know he's dirty, along with Riis and Contador, but what he says here is just a factual statement. Leave it to CN.com to turn an out of context quote into a headline, though.
 
18-Valve. (pithy) said:
Exaggerated ....relative to other pro sports. That is what he really says. I didn't think folks would take issue with THAT. :confused:

Yeah, we all know he's dirty, along with Riis and Contador, but what he says here is just a factual statement. Leave it to CN.com to turn an out of context quote into a headline, though.
Fine, but even if it was a comparison, what's the point of making that statement? Cycling is better then? :confused:
 
Oct 30, 2012
428
0
0
Visit site
18-Valve. (pithy) said:
Exaggerated ....relative to other pro sports. That is what he really says. I didn't think folks would take issue with THAT. :confused:

Yeah, we all know he's dirty, along with Riis and Contador, but what he says here is just a factual statement. Leave it to CN.com to turn an out of context quote into a headline, though.

Of course it's worthy of a headline! It's a staggeringly crass observation to be making at a time like this, and his own views shine through clear as daylight : "It doesn't matter...who really cares?"
 
Oct 28, 2012
600
0
0
Visit site
Grandillusion said:
Of course it's worthy of a headline! It's a staggeringly crass observation to be making at a time like this, and his own views shine through clear as daylight : "It doesn't matter...who really cares?"

As opposed to "cycling is cleaner" emanating from elsewhere, or the general idea that "everyone is cheating"?
 
Oct 30, 2012
428
0
0
Visit site
Le Baroudeur said:
As opposed to "cycling is cleaner" emanating from elsewhere, or the general idea that "everyone is cheating"?

Sorry, don't get your drift. Tinkoff's statement IMO is crass & insulting, and appears (as does the Spanish federation's voting in of Cerron) to be almost deliberately cocking a snook at those fighting serious battles elsewhere.

Parallel worlds, people like these are the enemy.
 
Oct 28, 2012
600
0
0
Visit site
Grandillusion said:
Sorry, don't get your drift. Tinkoff's statement IMO is crass & insulting, and appears (as does the Spanish federation's voting in of Cerron) to be almost deliberately cocking a snook at those fighting serious battles elsewhere.

Parallel worlds, people like these are the enemy.

You mean like the ex USPS rider, now team manager, calling cycling "cleaner", or the serial dopers now banned claiming "everybody dopes"?
 
Oct 30, 2012
428
0
0
Visit site
Le Baroudeur said:
You mean like the ex USPS rider, now team manager, calling cycling "cleaner", or the serial dopers now banned claiming "everybody dopes"?

No, nothing like them obviously! What the hell are you trying to say?

You think Tinkoff's statement is impressive or something? Not noteworthy?
 
Jul 17, 2012
5,303
0
0
Visit site
meat puppet said:
Enough with the nit picking already! Listen to unca Oleg! Sounds like it's gonna be a menage a trois made in heaven between him, Bjarne and Bert.

Excellent analysis of Rabo's exit too.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tinkov-claims-cyclings-doping-problems-are-exaggerated

This is the sort of stuff we really need to be railing about: resistance to change from within, from the teams and riders themselves. This is an increibly blase, irresponsible statement that shows there are plenty of people involved in the pro-tour that aren't interested in change.
 
Oct 21, 2012
340
0
0
Visit site
Grandillusion said:
Of course it's worthy of a headline! It's a staggeringly crass observation to be making at a time like this, and his own views shine through clear as daylight : "It doesn't matter...who really cares?"
Not really surprising from him though considering Hamilton has already alleged this from his time at Tinkoff Credit Systems in 2007 -

"Already at the first team meeting, where we sat in a conference room, Oleg Tinkov said: 'I do not care what you do, just do not get caught'. You can write this because there were many people in the room who can confirm it, if Tinkov decided to sue me for saying this," said Hamilton.

"There were 20-year-old riders around the table. Was it really something they should hear? He did not say anything specific about it, but he said 'do not be caught'. We do not need such a person in cycling.


http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hamilton-on-tinkov-his-return-is-a-setback-for-cycling
 
Oct 28, 2012
600
0
0
Visit site
JimmyFingers said:
This is the sort of stuff we really need to be railing about: resistance to change from within, from the teams and riders themselves. This is an increibly blase, irresponsible statement that shows there are plenty of people involved in the pro-tour that aren't interested in change.

So calling for the heads of the UCI is resisting change?
 
Oct 28, 2012
600
0
0
Visit site
Grandillusion said:
No, nothing like them obviously! What the hell are you trying to say?

You think Tinkoff's statement is impressive or something? Not noteworthy?

I think his statement reflects the view that not every team is a USPS, but also that I will wait to read the whole transcript before labelling it 'crass' or some other reactionary comment.
 
Mar 26, 2009
342
0
0
Visit site
I agree the comments on Argos-Shimano were "insulting and crass".

As for the doping comments, keep in mind we were not told what the questions were, only Tinkoff's final answers. Even then, what did he say that is so wrong? He says "as he understands it" doping is in all sports, but only in cycling does it get so much attention. Who disagrees with that?
 
silverrocket said:
I agree the comments on Argos-Shimano were "insulting and crass".

As for the doping comments, keep in mind we were not told what the questions were, only Tinkoff's final answers. Even then, what did he say that is so wrong? He says "as he understands it" doping is in all sports, but only in cycling does it get so much attention. Who disagrees with that?
The problem is that the general thrust of his opinion does not seem to be "cycling does more than any other sport, that's great, let's do everything we can to get rid of doping", but rather "cycling does more than any other sport, so I don't know what the fuss is about or why people think there's a problem".
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Visit site
silverrocket said:
I agree the comments on Argos-Shimano were "insulting and crass".

As for the doping comments, keep in mind we were not told what the questions were, only Tinkoff's final answers. Even then, what did he say that is so wrong? He says "as he understands it" doping is in all sports, but only in cycling does it get so much attention. Who disagrees with that?

That's one very good reason to NOT give Saxo a license. Teams like Saxo (or better, guys like Riis and Contador) are the cause for such disproportionate attention to doping in cycling.
 

TRENDING THREADS