Lol, Smirnov was hilarious in his interview in the documentary.
I trained quite a bit with Tore Bjonviken as a junior. He was a beast. Extremely fit and talented. I would be shocked if he was involved in anything like this.blueskies said:I would personally be extremely surprised if Tore Bjonviken an Verdenius was involved in a team wide doping program.
That's interesting, thanks for sharing.Trond Vidar said:I trained quite a bit with Tore Bjonviken as a junior. He was a beast. Extremely fit and talented. I would be shocked if he was involved in anything like this.
As a curiosity I have tested 17,2 at a couple of occations. No manipulation involved.
so far, you have not posted anything i'd take an issue with...but let me caution you, cloudless blue sky.blueskies said:That's interesting, thanks for sharing.
Bjonviken had the highest value at 17,8..and probably pointed out as a doper by UG if they had looked into it.
Given your knowledge of the norwegian skiing environment/culture at elite (junior) level, would you say it's likely that wide spread doping occures/has occured? Is there a sport wide omerta?
I don't want to jump into any kind of scenario. I want as much openness and knowledge about the matter brought to light. That includes the nuances and the sources of error. If the norwegians were doped, I want that brought into light as quickly and ugly as possible.python said:so far, you have not posted anything i'd take an issue with...but let me caution you, cloudless blue sky.
i like trond's posts, said it before. but keep in mind, we're posting on the internet forum mostly under the names that are not our real names and saying things that we don't have to take an oath to. i am not saying that trond is wrong relating his experience with the suspected of doping skier, but your readiness to 'jump into' a convenient scenario (given your post count and the passion behind your opinions --- yes it leaves me uncomfortable as to your objectivity.
i never said this with respect to another active forum member from norway who understandably defend their compatriots...
you said the same quite passionately before but i am still skeptical as to your objectivity for the reasons i stated above.blueskies said:I don't want to jump into any kind of scenario. I want as much openness and knowledge about the matter brought to light. That includes the nuances and the sources of error. If the norwegians were doped, I want that brought into light as quickly and ugly as possible.
why are his blood parameters being the subject of the suspicions ?You mention "the suspected of doping skier". I'm sorry? Tore Bjonviken is not suspected of doping.
Benny Carlsson: What is hb on the active now, is it much lower?
UG - Hasse Svens: Mean among Swedish and Norwegian skaters in the early 2000s, fell to 14.6 to 14.8. Regards / Hasse
You'd think they'd be eager to share Dæahlie's true results if indeed he was not >17.5 g/dl in Thunder Bay (at sea level).Fredrik: Good that someone grabs it. If the Swedish and Norwegian ski federations have nothing to hide, why do not they print all test values taken?
UG - Hasse John: The question we have asked on several occasions to the Norwegian ski line but have not received a single blood count presented. If Dählies blood values are incorrect then what is the right value, we asked, but we get no response. Regards / Hasse
I note that the difference between normal and low is often much smaller than the difference between normal and high especially for those marked in blue. The Norwegians should just come forward and let someone look at all the values they have.python said:A cut-and-paste from the 2001 Dagbladet article - the self-reported hemoglobin values of the top Norwegian xc skiers. The fis limit at the time was 17.5Men/16Women. the highlights and colouring are mine. also, note how stable were marit’s values.
it is my interpretation that the 'highest/lowest' represent the extremes ever recorded between the years of 1997 and 2001 and the normal is the mean/average for the same period.
comments from myself:
(i) if (as claimed) the instruments were bad -that is, they read consistently high - it would have been reflected in all values equally, but to me, the 'normals' don't look too unusual, which would suggest that the error was 'both ways' rather than a high bias. the high/low values for many, however, suggest a somewhat less than normal (if not a suspect) variability considering the today's knowledge gained from the biopass.
(ii) w/o the % retics the below haemoglobin values alone are a rather crude tool when attempting to infer blood doping and thus should not be over-interpreted.
(iii) not sure if it was true in 2001, but i am not mistaken a spread over 10% will NOT allow fis issuing a blood exemption. several below would not quilify though it looks like they'd need it.
Thomas Alsgaard (29)
H?yest: 17,1 (a candidate for fis hg exemption)
Kristen Skjeldal (33)
H?yest: 17,6 (a candidate for fis hg exemption)
Normal: 15,2 (H 16% above N !)
Odd-Bj?rn Hjelmeset (29)
Espen Bjervig (28)
H?vard Solbakken (27)
H?yest: 17,5 (a candidate for fis hg exemption)
Tor Arne Hetland (27)
Frode Estil (28)
H?yest: 17,5 (a candidate for fis hg exemption)
Erling Jevne (34)
Jan Jacob Verdenius (27)
Tore Bjonviken (26)
H?yest: 17,8 (a candidate for fis hg exemption)
Elin Nilsen (32)
Hilde Gjermundshaug Pedersen (36)
Tina Bay (27)
Marit Bj?rgen (20)
Vibeke W. Skofterud (20)
Ine Wigern?s (31)
Marit Roaldset (23)
Maj Helen Sorkmo (31)
H?yest: 16,7 (a candidate for fis hg exemption)
sources:“In the specifications of the “Hemocue” analyser, the accuracy of the measurement is given. During the 00’s this accuracy was about +/- 1 mmol/l equal to 1.6 g/dl. In addition, extensive data on the “Hemocue” showed measurements on the high side. In comparison, the blood machine used today in anti-doping settings, Sysmex, is at least 10 times more accurate. The implications of this are that a sample result of 16 g/dl is as likely 14 g/dl. It is less likely to be 18 g/dl because the “Hemocue” is as mentioned known to measure on the high side. As a general comment, if a Sysmex had been used the accuracy of the test had been between 15.8 and 16.2 g/dl.
The determination of the haemoglobin concentration on capillary blood is significantly more inaccurate than if using venous blood. Capillary finger-tip blood was used in the 1997 tests.
Lastly, there is a range of factors during the sample collection procedure that is known to affect the analyses which has not been addressed.
In my second interview, I was confronted with handwritten haemoglobin values on two pieces of paper. One for male skiers and one for female skiers. Between one and three or four results were given for each skier. I specifically asked the journalist for the name of the blood analyser. The answer given was that it was a “laboratory test”. I asked a few times more what the ”laboratory test” consisted off and I was by the journalist given a clear impression that the tests had followed normal hospital procedures and guidelines.
The ONLY test results that I was confronted with in the documentary were based on measurements on a “Hemocue” haemoglobin analyser. The “Hemocue” does not produce valid laboratory results used in the diagnosis of patients or in an anti- doping context. By ignoring the question I made to get an answer on which analyser was used and comforting me that the results were of laboratory standards, the journalist circumvented the essential discussion on the validity of each blood result.
In conclusion, the test results are not laboratory results. The tests results are considered screening results and have no place in either hospital nor in anti-doping settings. The mean values established during this research formed the basis for developing the subsequent FIS blood testing program including start prohibition that was introduced in 2001.
“High Values” From a screening point of view, some of the test results are surprisingly high and cannot exclusively be explained by the inaccuracy of the “Hemocue”.
Screening results beyond 18 g/dl for males and 17 g/dl for females should be considered a threat to the health of the athlete and should have triggered an immediate venous blood follow-up test collected and analysed at a hospital.
Screening results below these values but higher than 16 g/dl for males and 15 g/dl for females are more likely to be within the normal range due to the known measurements of the “Hemocue”.”
It is unclear which interview was given first, the one to VG where he claims it was Peter Hemmingsson who'd given him the info that every medal winner in Thunder Bay was over 17,5, or the one to Expressen where he claims the info was from a laptop of his that he'd given to Damsgaard and that he didn't remember the source of the information and that he'd never seen Dæhlie's blood values from Thunder Bay.- A few weeks ago I got data on Bjørn Dæhlie from Peter Hemmingsson (Saltins predecessor as leader of the FIS Medical Committee). They were sensational high - and stable. But after that, Peter pulled back the information.
VG asked where he got the information that everyone medalist in 1995 had hemoglobin level over 17,5, Saltin answered:
- The information comes from Peter Hemmingsson.
Has Saltin gone dement? He's saying that Damsgaard "stole" something from his laptop, but the statements regarding thunder bay and "every medalist over 17,5" is something he has stated repeatedly, including an interview on live swedish television last week.Det är en typisk sådan grej, det står på en graf som jag har haft ifrån 2003. Det är en lista jag har haft som hållpunkt för att kunna kommentera olika saker inom dopingvärlden. Ärligt talat så kommer jag inte ihåg att jag gjort den där grafen, men jag kommer ihåg att Thunder Bay var bland det värsta som hänt i längdskidåkningens historia.
– Jag har aldrig sett några data direkt på Björn Dählie.
Yeah Matschinger the credible sourceTyler'sTwin said:The Humanplasma story died because it was likely false.
* The lab went out of their way to deny only the rumours about germans in the press release in which they admitted to having doped 30-something athletes from several countries (including Austria) and sports until 2006 (confirmed by Bernard Kohl) and named the men who organized it (Matschiner, Mayer, Kessler).
* The austrian anti-doping agency denied investigating germans but confirmed that athletes from a number of other countries (including Austria, Russia, Netherlands, Denmark) and sports were under investigation.
* Matschiner denied, "with 99% certainty", that germans were Humanplasma-clients, but has talked about escorting athletes to humaplasma (or blood bags from HP to athletes) from countries including Italy, Austria, Russia, Denmark and the Netherlands.
* We know the clientel included ~10 cyclists, at least 7 austrian winter sport athletes, at least a handful of rowers and at least a handful of triathletes and track athletes. Reports of 20/30 being DSV does not fit.
I think it's likely that the austrian HP-crew who were busted in Torino said; "they did it too [i.e. doped]" and this was initially misrepresented in the media as germans having been HP-clients.
Sorry, if you don't realize that there was absolutely no way to win anything in the 90es in xc skiing just like in cycling, without doping then you have to live on the moon, sorry.blueskies said:I'm amazed by how low standards some people on this forum set for themselves. I'm sure it feels great to throw around claims of Kristen Skjeldal and Sture Siversten involved in mafia methods and understanding "what's really going on" with no concern of the delicate and complex facts of the matter and the potentially (!) clean athletes involved. There's basically the thought pattern of a conspiracy theorist.
Everyone can agree that doping has been widespread, but that just makes it even more important to treat the complexity of the issue with respect, and out of respect to the athletes who were in fact clean, if any were.
A lot of good things have come out of this subforum, but there are so many losers and conspiracy theorists who subscribe to just as many errors of thought and logic as their naive counterparts. Being "right" about Armstrong and countless other athletes, doesn't mean that one's understanding of the situation is perfect or even good, or even better than those who thought Armstrong and others were clean.
You're just as ignorant of the crucial facts and details of the matter, and the secure knowledge, which is so hard to come by in a field that is filled to the brink with rumours, emotion and ignorance.
The accusations against Dæhlie will now become part of a mythology that you obviously takes part of and believe in blindly, with in fact no solid basis. To implicate doping based on the fragmental, undocumented and highly disputable blood value as SVT does, is wrong in every aspect. I'm not saying Dæhlie was clean with certainty, but there's just nothing there (source material for the documentary), as of now, to depend on with any kind of credibility when making doping accusations.
A serious journalist will have to go much, much deeper into the matter to really uncover something. This documentary is another farce sparked by Kyrö, and since it's produced by SVT, it can very well destroy the good name of Dæhlie.
It's just about the same as 60 minutes claiming Greg Lemond took blood transfusions in order to gain his high max Vo2. That's a ridiculous claim, and the real possibility of Lemond having doped, doesn't change that.
i would not characterize it that way nor would i call it the apex of the investigative journalism...however, some arguments in your longish (yet the very first post on the forum) are suspect. i may come to more specifics later, but suffice to say now is that when saltin cast his suspicions, he was more than well aware of the instrumentation issues you and hemmingsson suddenly discovered ! he was in fact implementing the anti-doping/monitoring procedures during the very period. more, he proceeded to make his vews known (some behind closed doors) and some peer-reviewed.dukoff said:Well, this documentary was a complete joke. <snipped for brevity>
Why do you underline that Hemmingson "suddenly" discovered instrumentation issues regarding "HemoCue"?python said:i would not characterize it that way nor would i call it the apex of the investigative journalism...however, some arguments in your longish (yet the very first post on the forum) are suspect. i may come to more specifics later, but suffice to say now is that when saltin cast his suspicions, he was more than well aware of the instrumentation issues you and hemmingsson suddenly discovered ! he was in fact implementing the anti-doping/monitoring procedures during the very period. more, he proceeded to make his vews known (some behind closed doors) and some peer-reviewed.
yet, he said what he said with the full knowledge of the pitfalls of the measuring methods at that time.
because for hemmingson not to suspect or being aware of the measurement bias would be beyond believable for a professional involved in anti-doping. besides, clearly, it is a convenient position to take today. also, the astronomical early limit of 18.5 must have considered the bias.blueskies said:Why do you underline that Hemmingson "suddenly" discovered instrumentation issues regarding "HemoCue"?
It's a low form of debate to simply call my post suspect. Either come with the arguments or leave the name-calling out.python said:i would not characterize it that way nor would i call it the apex of the investigative journalism...however, some arguments in your longish (yet the very first post on the forum) are suspect. i may come to more specifics later, but suffice to say now is that when saltin cast his suspicions, he was more than well aware of the instrumentation issues you and hemmingsson suddenly discovered ! he was in fact implementing the anti-doping/monitoring procedures during the very period. more, he proceeded to make his vews known (some behind closed doors) and some peer-reviewed.
yet, he said what he said with the full knowledge of the pitfalls of the measuring methods at that time.
i called your line of argument suspect. i also explained why. nothing else. if that is name-calling, your sudden appearance here peddling convenient theories of one side only becomes apparent.dukoff said:It's a low form of debate to simply call my post suspect. Either come with the arguments or leave the name-calling out.