Did EPO use really kill some riders?

[Catwhoorg]

The 50% was the least worst way to limit the risks to riders with what was reasonably available at the time.

The Biopassport works better at limiting excesses.

Im pretty sure there still is a chance that some people are establishing baselines with EPO microdosing included, but that does tie to keep doing so or risk being flagged, and then with better testing methodologies and maybe even "out of hours" testing in some cases in the future, that becomes even more risky.

 

[The Hitch]

lol, at the posts from the parker account saying his source is "common sense" given some of the absolutely ridiculous theories it routinely passes off as fact in other threads.

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

The 50% was the least worst way to limit the risks to riders with what was reasonably available at the time.

The Biopassport works better at limiting excesses.

Im pretty sure there still is a chance that some people are establishing baselines with EPO microdosing included, but that does tie to keep doing so or risk being flagged, and then with better testing methodologies and maybe even "out of hours" testing in some cases in the future, that becomes even more risky.

Biopassport works if athletes are tested regularly. Some go 10 months between blood tests, which make it the BP a joke.

Also BP is beaten by athletes claiming to have trained at altitude, hence the amount of 'training' in Tenerife.

 

[MagnificentMerckx]

Re:

Such as?

A hematocrit test or tests to establish an athletes natural baseline. Particularity done in the off season ?

 

[hrotha]

I don't think that's realistic. They were introducing blood tests for the very first time and you wanted them to do advanced stuff for which the framework didn't exist. In other words, what Merckx index said.

 

[MagnificentMerckx]

Re:

I don't think that's realistic. They were introducing blood tests for the very first time and you wanted them to do advanced stuff for which the framework didn't exist. In other words, what Merckx index said.

Okay, gotcha sir........

 

[Catwhoorg]

Re: Re:

The 50% was the least worst way to limit the risks to riders with what was reasonably available at the time.

The Biopassport works better at limiting excesses.

Im pretty sure there still is a chance that some people are establishing baselines with EPO microdosing included, but that does tie to keep doing so or risk being flagged, and then with better testing methodologies and maybe even "out of hours" testing in some cases in the future, that becomes even more risky.

Biopassport works if athletes are tested regularly. Some go 10 months between blood tests, which make it the BP a joke.

Also BP is beaten by athletes claiming to have trained at altitude, hence the amount of 'training' in Tenerife.

Both true points, but it is undeniably better than the blunt 50% HCT rule

A well run and fully funded biopassport scheme would be even better.

 

[MagnificentMerckx]

Re:

That's hogwash. The alternative was the free for all that resulted in hematocrits in the 60% range. Regardless of the UCI's will or lack thereof to fight doping, that was the best that could be done with the means available at the time.

So basically what you are saying is, that by your standards it is ethical, not dangerous and healthy, to allow cyclists to thicken their blood up to a hematocrit of 50%. It's a good job that you are not GP, and it would seem that you agree then with Dr. Ferrari and his absolutely absurd statement that EPO is as safe as orange juice. The UCI and their cronies have quite a bit to answer for. As I have already stated ; the 50% hematocrit rule is one of the most morally objectionable rules ever introduced in the entire history of sport. In fact it was absolutely ridiculous. I wonder have you ever heard the term 'Health and Safety'.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

So they have no technology (ie central database accessible from all around the world) to monitor blood values, no legtimised way of detecting EPO, but they should take people's Hct readings and use them as a baseline?

Your argument of "this is not the best, they should have done something impossible" looks kinda weak dude.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I have said it before, but I agree with Hrotha - 50% Hct rule was better than nothing, and stopped riders the day it was introduced - 3 of them had to go home, and even then there was outrage from DS's and team managers, etc.

 

[MarkvW]

Re: Re:

That's hogwash. The alternative was the free for all that resulted in hematocrits in the 60% range. Regardless of the UCI's will or lack thereof to fight doping, that was the best that could be done with the means available at the time.

So basically what you are saying is, that by your standards it is ethical, not dangerous and healthy, to allow cyclists to thicken their blood up to a hematocrit of 50%. It's a good job that you are not GP, and it would seem that you agree then with Dr. Ferrari and his absolutely absurd statement that EPO is as safe as orange juice. The UCI and their cronies have quite a bit to answer for. As I have already stated ; the 50% hematocrit rule is one of the most morally objectionable rules ever introduced in the entire history of sport. In fact it was absolutely ridiculous. I wonder have you ever heard the term 'Health and Safety'.

So...what YOU are saying is that the UCI should have shut the sport down until an appropriate EPO test could be implemented...

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I am also wondering if it was even possible, given the fact WADA had not been created, therefore governments around the world had not signed up to their accord, and the IOC had not demanded WADA membership to remain in the Olympics.

 

[hrotha]

Weirdest thing about that ridiculous strawman is he had already replied to that post long before. Maybe someone got a bit lost switching accounts.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re:

Weirdest thing about that ridiculous strawman is he had already replied to that post long before. Maybe someone got a bit lost switching accounts.

Yeah it did seem weird - didn't he agree previously that it couldn't be done after MerckxIndex et al weighed in?

 

[sniper]

anybody know who pushed for the 50% rule?
was it Schattenberg, Zorzoli, someone else? (who was it again Zorzoli succeeded)

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I thought it was Verburggen?

 

[sniper]

Re:

I thought it was Verburggen?

he's no doubt claimed it to be his rule in some interview.
but the UCI medical team of that time must have 'engineered' the rule, surely?
I think Zorzoli is credited for implementing the improved health checks (in 2003 I believe), but I don't think he had anything to do with the 50% rule which it was introduced in 1997, when he wasn't there yet.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/circ-uncovers-serious-weaknesses-in-uci-anti-doping-strategy
here it says the teams themselves came asking for it:

It was the various team doctors and managers who went to the UCI and begged them to start blood controls, with the 50% haematocrit rule and 15-day 'rest' period introduced.

 

[Dr.Guess]

http://www.podiumcafe.com/2011/2/16/199 ... onconi-and

here's a good article about the 50% rule

 

[Dear Wiggo]

This is one of the most interesting web pages I have ever read wrt cycling and doping. It's relevant here and contains names you will recognise instantly, if not with surprise at the position they are taking...

At the risk of sounding arrogant, it's full of DUH comments that made me think, "WTF is with PhDs being so dumb!?".

eg:
* netballers probably take steroids a lot less than body builders.
* steroid use can lead to increased Hct.

http://www.sportsci.org/news/news9703/AISblood.html

 

[D-Queued]

Re: Re:

I thought it was Verburggen?

he's no doubt claimed it to be his rule in some interview.
but the UCI medical team of that time must have 'engineered' the rule, surely?
I think Zorzoli is credited for implementing the improved health checks (in 2003 I believe), but I don't think he had anything to do with the 50% rule which it was introduced in 1997, when he wasn't there yet.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/circ-uncovers-serious-weaknesses-in-uci-anti-doping-strategy
here it says the teams themselves came asking for it:

It was the various team doctors and managers who went to the UCI and begged them to start blood controls, with the 50% haematocrit rule and 15-day 'rest' period introduced.

Ultimately it was Hein blessed, though he probably didn't originate it.

According to Sylvia Schenk (quoted in the Zorzoli thread), it was Zorzoli that led the charge internally at the UCI to raise the flag at how riders & teams were gaming the 50% health check to legally dope.

Dave.

 

[MagnificentMerckx]

Off season hematocrit testing examples. Cyclists are rested and their blood values are normal. Each are tested on several occasions over the course of several weeks in order to establish their average baselines. The results for each rider are documented for future comparisons and race season testing. Small naturally occurring fluctuations will be taken into account when the results of the blood tests are returned during the race season. The riders will not be informed during race season when the testers will arrive to take blood samples so that the rider will not have any time to manipulate their blood in order to lower hematocrit from a high and unnatural state.

Rider A: Hematocrit 42.5% Off season/ Result: 48.9% Race season/ Banned for two years.
Rider B: Hematocrit 42.7% Off season/ Result: 49.4% Race season/ Banned for two years.
Rider C: Hematocrit 45.2% Off season/ Result: 49.2% Race season/ Banned for two years.
Rider D: Hematocrit 43.1% Off season/ Result: 47.8% Race season/ Banned for two years.
Rider E: Hematocrit 42.9% Off season/ Result: 42.6% Race season/ Clean no sanction.
Rider F: Hematocrit 44.7% Off season/ Result: 44.9% Race season/ Clean no sanction.
Rider G: Hematocrit 44.3% Off season/ Result: 49.6% Race season/ Banned for two years
Rider H: Hematocrit 45.6% Off season/ Result: 49.4% Race season/ Banned for two years.

 

[blackcat]

Re:

This is one of the most interesting web pages I have ever read wrt cycling and doping. It's relevant here and contains names you will recognise instantly, if not with surprise at the position they are taking...

At the risk of sounding arrogant, it's full of DUH comments that made me think, "WTF is with PhDs being so dumb!?".

eg:
* netballers probably take steroids a lot less than body builders.
* steroid use can lead to increased Hct.

http://www.sportsci.org/news/news9703/AISblood.html

lol this para on the Australian cyclists was bullsh!t

It is believed that these cyclists were training and competing in a "clean environment" at the time of testing. In other words, it is unlikely that they were taking rhEPO. The maximum hematocrit 52.0%, recorded in one cyclist.

so, phil anderson, henk vogels, neil stephens, stephen hodge, stuart ogrady, robbie mcewen, alan peiper (but peiper and skippy anderson were basically living in europe), clayton stephenson, matt gilmore, scott mcgrory

actually, Dear Wiggo, next time you see the professional netballers on the tv in highlights, look how lean and lithe they look now, look at the shiny skin of a 10yo, and no subcutaneous tissue before the muscle, the greyhoundy[sic] muscle, supple but peptidey[sic]

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

actually, Dear Wiggo, next time you see the professional netballers on the tv in highlights, look how lean and lithe they look now, look at the shiny skin of a 10yo, and no subcutaneous tissue before the muscle, the greyhoundy[sic] muscle, supple but peptidey[sic]

I can believe it without looking. But I am talking about 1997, when this paper was released. And taking an educated guess regarding netballers vs weight lifters at the time and the prevalence of steroid use.

I'm not a gambling man but I'd bet money in this instance, that the % of > 50% Hct observed in both sports closely correlated with the use of steroids in both sports at the time.

Plus, some people just have nice skin.

 

[hrotha]

Congratulations, MagnificientMerckx. You just made sure the whole peloton is on EPO during the off-season.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re:

Off season hematocrit testing examples. Cyclists are rested and their blood values are normal. Each are tested on several occasions over the course of several weeks in order to establish their average baselines. The results for each rider are documented for future comparisons and race season testing. Small naturally occurring fluctuations will be taken into account when the results of the blood tests are returned during the race season. The riders will not be informed during race season when the testers will arrive to take blood samples so that the rider will not have any time to manipulate their blood in order to lower hematocrit from a high and unnatural state.

Rider A: Hematocrit 42.5% Off season/ Result: 48.9% Race season/ Banned for two years.
Rider B: Hematocrit 42.7% Off season/ Result: 49.4% Race season/ Banned for two years.
Rider C: Hematocrit 45.2% Off season/ Result: 49.2% Race season/ Banned for two years.
Rider D: Hematocrit 43.1% Off season/ Result: 47.8% Race season/ Banned for two years.
Rider E: Hematocrit 42.9% Off season/ Result: 42.6% Race season/ Clean no sanction.
Rider F: Hematocrit 44.7% Off season/ Result: 44.9% Race season/ Clean no sanction.
Rider G: Hematocrit 44.3% Off season/ Result: 49.6% Race season/ Banned for two years
Rider H: Hematocrit 45.6% Off season/ Result: 49.4% Race season/ Banned for two years.

You do know people have to knock on the door, right? And you can easily determine who is there and just not answer it yeah? Drug testers can't just kick in the door.

Hence the ABP's whereabouts program. Another thing you cannot do too easily in 1998 coz you know, there's no central database to record where all these riders will be all over the world. Coz like. They travel n stuff you know?

You know that rider's Hct goes down, naturally, during the season due to plasma expansion yeah? ie you can easily dope with EPO and have 0 change in Hct. And EPO micro dosing leads to further plasma expansion, so it's like helping you stay constant.

You know the riders are not told now when the testers will be arriving yeah? But some teams get tipped off? And as an example, Ryder was not tested during his Giro win when he won the pink jersey?

And that all this testing costs mega bucks? And has to be conducted at WADA approved laboratories so the results are water tight and follow SOPs as laid out by WADA? You know. The organisation that does not exist yet?

Man.

Keep going.