Tyler'sTwin said:
Except the FACT that they had sky high hemoglobin just like all the other EPO-chargers. Abnormal blood is evidence you know. Just ask Franco Pellizotti. But I'm sure those 9 (that we know of) norwegians with blood in the please-take-a-14-day-vacation-range all had naturally high values or magic altitude tents that raise Hb by 3 g/dl.
This was my reply in the other thread, it should still apply:
1995 Methodology problems. Testing conducted after the race. The tempreture was horrible for skiing(warm), causing more dehydration. It's likely all values were too high until the methodology was corrected in the 96/97 season when max levels were introduced.
http://www.sportsci.org/news/news9701/EPOfeat.html
1999. I think testing was carried out before the race started. Meaning at least the Norwegians would have been well rested after just having come down from altitude or working out in the Altititude house. hg levels are higher after a period of rest and altitude training as the link writes.
The numbers presented in dagbladet are I asume from the data over their careers. I don't see any problems with these numbers. Who knows the conditions during the testing of individuals(dehydration, etc). Also these values vary from time to time as per link above.
Now your use of the word FACT is a bit expansive. You have arguments you call facts because you believe them. But for something to be called a fact you would need much more knowlege.
Example of things that would need to be answered:
What is sky high hemoglobin? Is it between subjects or within subjects?
What methodologies were used in acquiring these numbers? Dehydration? Faulty measurement? Test takers who do not follow the same procedures?
What is abnormal blood? Same as the above.
Were these high blood values always in relation to competition? We don't know, there is a lot we don't know.
As for abnormal blood being evidence. That was not true untill the introduction of the blood passport in 2008. AFAIK they need a lot of blood tests to esablish a baseline before anything can be evidence.
FIS introduced blood profiling in the 2001-2002-2003 timeframe. It did the same thing as the bloodpassport, but it could AFAIK only be used for targeted testing, and not as evidence.
I'we had a touch of insomnia lately, so I appologize if my arguments don't make much sence. They look ok to me, but with too little sleep, I might make errors.
