Doping in XC skiing

[Tubeless]

No, "bohøyde" is living altitude.

The data on Dæhlie that was measured by the external research group 96-98 (they were Finnish for what it's worth), shows one value of 16.6 on Dæhlie. And that has also been confirmed before that he often was above 16. (Note the 2nd value of Dæhlie was 16.6, not 15.6 which was reported in some news articles ).

If you have a 16.6 lab value, you can easily be measured at 175 on an HemoCue due to the 1g positive bias we have discussed before, or even higher due to the tolerances. Specially in 1995 when they did the screen test after the races.

So every Norwegian Hb value that's "too high" was taken with HemoCue which does not give accurate readings and its margin of error was always on the upside?

This study, not tainted with national bias from the era we're talking about concludes that HemoCue gives values that are in fact LOWER than actual Hb - and the margin of error is +/- 0.6 g/dl, not significant enough to dismiss for the purpose of our discussion.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9495289

Did you know that FIS medical commission routinely denied special dispensation for "natually high Hb" for any athlete whose Hb values varied by more than 10% as FIS considers such a variability a possibility of blood doping. There were reportedly no exceptions to this rule - as German Evi Sachenbacher could bitterly confirm.

Daehli's 16.6 g/dl value is outside of the 10% variability rule based on the list of values reported today. 14.9 being the lowest - 10% up from that is 16.4.

But let's assume for a moment that the 16.6 g/dl value was due to spending several months at an altitude camp at 3000 meters, or sleeping continuously in an altitude-adjusted bedroom.

It still does not explain the 17.5 g/dl measurement from Thunder Bay. The 1995 Thunder Bay venue was at sea level - which means that altitude-elevated blood values would return back to "normal" during the course of the games, and would in fact start dropping immediately as athletes arrived, most likely several days before due to the travel, time zone change and general preparation.

 

[Discgear]

Well done, publishing blood values primarily from the off-season...
That will stop the speculations

Yesterday press conference was a bizarre charade. Who are the Norwegian Ski Federation think they could satisfy, by publishing blood values from June to November? It’s seems that by pushing the VO2Max levels they have created a severe oxygen shortage in the brain. The main argument was to proof that the rise of mean HB values among the skier’s in the 90s didn’t go for the Norwegians. The observed rise of HB-values was based on all the tests that FIS collected with hemocue in connection with races in the 90s. Now the Norwegian Ski Federation proofs it didn’t concern Norwegian Skiers by publishing values from off season performed with laboratory equipment. It’s hilarious!

I have picked out some parts of the official denial from the Norwegian Ski Federation that they published after Uppdrag Granskning which is worth commenting in the light of yesterday’s press conference. http://www.skiaktiv.no/artikkel/3814...nsloepere.html

Concerning Bjørn Dæhlie, it’s not un-normal with 17.5 after a race, measured with Hemocue equipment and the indifferences that could follow with this method. Bjørn Dæhlie has always had high natural values. When arriving to Tunder Bay in 1995 his values were over 16.

From yesterday’s press conference Dæhlie:

15.7, 16.6, 15.3, 16.0, 15.3, 14.9, 15.1

There is one peak value at 16.6, otherwise it seems that his median value is somewhere around 15.3, not very high.

Natural training behaviors before a championship, permits a raise of HB- Values from 15 to a value 17 during a championship. This is confirmed by FIS doping expert Rasmus Damsgaard.

This is also a very strange claim in the official denial, when we now have seen the values the Norwegians could reach during extensive High Altitude training.

Data before and after 17 days living at 2000m altitude, training up to 3200m. Shows average increase of 0.7 points. Some 0.3, some 1.2.

So every Norwegian Hb value that's "too high" was taken with HemoCue which does not give accurate readings and its margin of error was always on the upside?

This study, not tainted with national bias from the era we're talking about concludes that HemoCue gives values that are in fact LOWER than actual Hb - and the margin of error is +/- 0.6 g/dl, not significant enough to dismiss for the purpose of our discussion.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9495289

Good find, which supports Saltin and Morkeberg.

 

[dukoff]

So every Norwegian Hb value that's "too high" was taken with HemoCue which does not give accurate readings and its margin of error was always on the upside?

This study, not tainted with national bias from the era we're talking about concludes that HemoCue gives values that are in fact LOWER than actual Hb - and the margin of error is +/- 0.6 g/dl, not significant enough to dismiss for the purpose of our discussion.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9495289

Did you know that FIS medical commission routinely denied special dispensation for "natually high Hb" for any athlete whose Hb values varied by more than 10% as FIS considers such a variability a possibility of blood doping. There were reportedly no exceptions to this rule - as German Evi Sachenbacher could bitterly confirm.

Daehli's 16.6 g/dl value is outside of the 10% variability rule based on the list of values reported today. 14.9 being the lowest - 10% up from that is 16.4.

But let's assume for a moment that the 16.6 g/dl value was due to spending several months at an altitude camp at 3000 meters, or sleeping continuously in an altitude-adjusted bedroom.

It still does not explain the 17.5 g/dl measurement from Thunder Bay. The 1995 Thunder Bay venue was at sea level - which means that altitude-elevated blood values would return back to "normal" during the course of the games, and would in fact start dropping immediately as athletes arrived, most likely several days before due to the travel, time zone change and general preparation.

The HemoCue had a bias, and a tolerance, that is two different things. The bias consists of two factors, the capillary vs vein, which makes out +0.5g bias, and the HemoCue vs standard blood cell count which makes out another 0.5g bias.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12132319
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10778695

The study you refer to compare two measuring equipment that neither is a standard blood cell count. +/-0.6g is not the tolerance, it is a 1SD varitation. And that of samples ranging from 2g to 18g. 1SD being only 68% of the samples. If you read further you would see: "exhibits a 8-10 times higher variability with only 86.4% of HbHC being within +/- 10% of HbCOOX". A typical tolerance would be set by a 3SD, not a 1SD. And a 3SD would here be significantly larger than +/- 10%. It's not for nothing that you hear references like some posts above even today saying the HemoCue has a +/-1g variance. It's a highly inaccurate measurement.

About start prohibition, you're also wrong. There has never been a minimum +10% variation limit. There was a limit of the mean of the athlete's lowest Hb values, plus 15%. That is excluding low extremes. And in 2006 WADA suggested future individual values for all racers with a variation of +/- 10%. And all of these variation limits being subject to standardized testing procedures first being introduced in 2001.

 

[dukoff]

One needs to put in perspective the purpose of the HemoCue tests in the 90s, for which it worked perfectly:
1. To prevent skiers dropping dead along the tracks which at the time was seen to happen in cycling.
2. To establish mean levels and variability of Hb for the purpose of developing future procedures.

When you look at a data set of a large number of athletes, it does not matter if you have an inaccurate device, because the mean will be still very accurate. But for picking out single values, you simply can't say anything at all, unless it's at a very extreme level.

 

[python]

i think the arguments about the hemocue machine accuracy could be brought on the proper scientific track if the norwegian side and/or fis clarify (with proper evidence) the following set of questions. lacking that, the arguments are largely pointless and are a waste of time as there are plenty of studies falling on either side b/c they were designed to examine different clinical and blood banking situations.

1. what exact model did fis use in the distant 90s.
2. how was the machine’s accuracy defined by the manufacturer in the 90s. (there are literally dozens of ways currently in use to define data variability - precision, accuracy, reliability, correlation to name a few..) . this fact is sometimes used to skew the results. see the example below as to how hemocue defined the accuracy of todays machines.
3. what studies did the manufacturer use to support the accuracy claims
4. how samples were collected (is it a 100% fact that the capillary blood was always used)
5. Time of collection ? (always morning, always pre-race, after races)
6. were any of the disputed samples measured at altitude, what elevation
7. was fis staff properly trained
8. was the capillary measurement on a given individual immediately replicated as recommended to reduce variability
9. what hand (right or left) was used to take the capillary blood
Etc etc etc

HemoCue® Hb 301 System specifications
http://www.labmarketplace.com/products/hemocue-hb-301-analyzer

Accuracy: Correlation of 0.99 when compared to the reference method (ICSH method).

Video, how the machine is used
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIJVNZ-6nV8

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

To selectively release blood data from internal testing in the off-season, but none from the in-season, and present it as evidence of cleanliness is extremely dishonest and makes one look guilty. They must understand that those numbers do absolutely nothing to prove they were clean, they only prove they did NOT have naturally high blood parameters. Which doesn't exactly strengthen their case. Even Marco Pantani had documented normal blood values in the off-season, while his hematocrit was as high as 64%(!) at the Tour de France. So what exactly does off-season values say about their in-season values? The correct answer is; absolutely nothing! As the norwegian ski federation aren't stupid, we must conclude that this was nothing but a PR-coup.

I see Marti Mikkelsplass commented on the release as follows:

Jag är glad för att Norges skidförbund har gjort ett grundligt jobb. Det har varit en tung tid för mig och familjen. Jag hoppas att det här sätter punkt för den här saken i dag.

I'm glad the Norway Ski Association has done a thorough job. It has been a tough time for me and my family. I hope this puts an end to all of this.

But why should it? Let's have a look at what we know about Mikkelsplass. We have just one in-season Hb-value from Marit. It was taken before a WC-race in Lahti 1997 that she won and her Hb was an impressive 16.1 g/dl. Now we also have her off-season values and they show her median Hb is a perfectly normal 13.X /dl with a peak at 14.2 g/dl. What conslusions should be drawn from this information? Well, certainly not "move on, nothing to see here". No questions have been answered, except we can easily throw out "naturally high" as a plausible explanation.

They may be correct, we can not dismiss it. But if true it must have been extreme measurement values, as the majority of the data we have show different levels.

THEN SHOW US ALL THE DATA! If these values are in fact one-offs it can only benefit the norwegians to present the full picture, as it would show just that. One-offs, no connection between championships and abnormal blood values, no connection between top results and abnormal blood values. The same goes for Dæhlie. Here we're told his Hb in Thunder Bay was not at all >17.5 g/dl and poor Bjørn Dæhlie feels powerless against these awful allegations. But is he really? If the allegations are in fact false, couldn't he just release the actual values from Thunder Bay and prove them wrong? Isn't that what any innocent person should do? What's stopping him from clearing his name?

But the worst part of this farce is the comparision between median FIS-values and median norwegian values, that supposedly prove they did not contribute to the rising Hb-levels of the 90's.

- Värdena vi lägger fram här bekräftar att det inte har varit frågan om någon onaturlig höjning av hemoglobinvärden hos norska längdskidåkare, inte heller att det varit någon förändring över tid och framför allt att de inte har dopat sig, säger Röste

- The values ​​we present here confirm that there has been no question of unnatural increase in hemoglobin values ​​for Norwegian cross-country skiers, nor was there a change over time, and above all they have not doped themselves.

- Det som har bekymrat FIS (internationella skidförbundet) är ökningen av hemoglobinnivåerna. De norska värdena har under den här perioden legat stabilt. Vi har inte varit med på den genomsnittliga ökningen, säger Rönsen.

- What has worried FIS (International Ski Federation) is the increase in hemoglobin levels. The Norwegian values ​​during this period remained stable. We have not contributed to the average increase.

Here's the problem. It's not a relevant comparision at all. They are comparing data from FIS-tests at WC-races and the WCH/OG with blood values they took in the off-season. That's bloody irrelevant. Wanna prove you didn't contribute to the rise in median Hb in the 90's? How about showing us the RELEVANT data instead? The relevant comparision is of course, data from FIS-tests at WC/WCH/OG-races versus the norwegian data from THE SAME competitions. When they misrepresent data and compare apples with oranges, it becomes so blatantly obvious that the purpose is to mislead the norwegian people. And sadly, they are succeeding, thanks to cognitive dissonance on a national scale and a psychophantic media that parrots their bull**** and wouldn't dream of criticizing or scrutinizing their heroes. I mean, what are they - journalists?

Finally, if one is willing to share blood values from the off-season, but not in-season, the logical conclusion has to be that the in-season values are inconsistent with the off-season values. Why else wouldn't they release them too? They say they don't have reliable in-season data, but that's essentially an admission that the in-season numbers do not glue with the off-season numbers. Why else would you dismiss them as unreliable? On what grounds do you dub them "unreliable" unless they are in fact inconsistent with the off-season values? It wouldn't make any sense, would it? There is just no way these guys would be unwilling to release the in-season values if they looked as clean as the off-season values they have given us. And you know what? The median values really shouldn't differ all that much, off-season versus in-season. They can go on and on about unreliable readings, but it goes both ways, so the median should not be significantly altered. We know this, because when FIS started testing, the median was perfectly normal! And guess what, the peak values would increase even more than the median values in the 90's, so what does that say about the "faulty readings responsible for our ridiculous blood values"-defence?

I'm quoting from "Changes in hemoglobin values in elite cross-country skiers from 1987-1999" published in the year 2000:

Hemoglobin data have been available from ski teams beginning from 1987, and from 1989 to 1999 we have followed hemoglobin values in elite cross-country skiers in international competitions. The mean values at the 1989 World Nordic Ski Championships were lower than population reference values, as would be expected from plasma volume expansion associated with endurance training. However, an increase, particularly in the maximal values, became obvious in 1994 and rose further in 1996. These extreme values provide both a health risk to the individual athlete and unfair competition. After a rule limiting hemoglobin values was introduced, the drop of the highest values was remarkable: among men 15 g/l (0.23 mmol/l) and among women 42 g/l (0.65 mmol/l). It would appear that the rule had achieved its goal of limiting extreme hemoglobin values. Yet the mean hemoglobin concentrations in men and women have continued to rise, suggesting the continued use of artificial methods to increase total hemoglobin mass.

Let's repeat that

The mean values at the 1989 World Nordic Ski Championships were lower than population reference values, as would be expected from plasma volume expansion associated with endurance training.

the mean hemoglobin concentrations in men and women have continued to rise, suggesting the continued use of artificial methods to increase total hemoglobin mass.

Are we supposed to believe that the tests were just fine for determining the median before EPO-use became widespread, but the quality of the measurements would then degenerate throughout the 90's, becoming ever more biased towards a high median as more and more skiers jumped on the EPO-train? Or are the median values actually reliable and that's why they were normal before EPO and then went higher and higher with more and more EPO-use? What do you think is more likely?

However, an increase, PARTICULARLY IN THE MAXIMAL VALUES, became obvious in 1994 and rose further in 1996.

After a rule limiting hemoglobin values was introduced, the drop of the highest values was remarkable: among men 15 g/l (0.23 mmol/l) and among women 42 g/l (0.65 mmol/l).

Okay, so either the margin of error in FIS Hb-measurements increased dramatically during the EPO-era, producing an even larger increase in the maximal values than in the median values, and then decreased by a whooping 4 g/dl after the introduction of the Hb-limit, or maybe the abnormally high values of the 90's were actually caused by skiers injecting themselves with EPO rather than measurements being so utterly useless?

 

[Tubeless]

The HemoCue had a bias, and a tolerance, that is two different things. The bias consists of two factors, the capillary vs vein, which makes out +0.5g bias, and the HemoCue vs standard blood cell count which makes out another 0.5g bias.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12132319
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10778695

The study you refer to compare two measuring equipment that neither is a standard blood cell count. +/-0.6g is not the tolerance, it is a 1SD varitation. And that of samples ranging from 2g to 18g. 1SD being only 68% of the samples. If you read further you would see: "exhibits a 8-10 times higher variability with only 86.4% of HbHC being within +/- 10% of HbCOOX". A typical tolerance would be set by a 3SD, not a 1SD. And a 3SD would here be significantly larger than +/- 10%. It's not for nothing that you hear references like some posts above even today saying the HemoCue has a +/-1g variance. It's a highly inaccurate measurement.

About start prohibition, you're also wrong. There has never been a minimum +10% variation limit. There was a limit of the mean of the athlete's lowest Hb values, plus 15%. That is excluding low extremes. And in 2006 WADA suggested future individual values for all racers with a variation of +/- 10%. And all of these variation limits being subject to standardized testing procedures first being introduced in 2001.

I think you're losing most everyone with your statistical math. Your basic argument is that if the test data does not support your side, there was a problem in methodology or equipment. And while clearly the equipment has a +/- bias, you keep stating that the error is always in your favor. Further, FIS did not have "standard procedures" to follow when doing their testing, therefore, any high value must be a testing error - and can be dismissed from discussion.

Releasing data exclusively from the summer training season is another curious step. The official explanation goes:

“Because we have not had laboratory tests and instruments with us at the Championships and World Cups of completely explainable and natural causes. We have taken some samples with this instrument in the 90s, but we don’t have the same test series from December to February, that’s the way it is, Rønsen says to VG.”

Surely the national team spent a few days at home in between world cups during the racing season?

 

[dukoff]

I think you're losing most everyone with your statistical math. Your basic argument is that if the test data does not support your side, there was a problem in methodology or equipment. And while clearly the equipment has a +/- bias, you keep stating that the error is always in your favor. Further, FIS did not have "standard procedures" to follow when doing their testing, therefore, any high value must be a testing error - and can be dismissed from discussion.

Releasing data exclusively from the summer training season is another curious step. The official explanation goes:

“Because we have not had laboratory tests and instruments with us at the Championships and World Cups of completely explainable and natural causes. We have taken some samples with this instrument in the 90s, but we don’t have the same test series from December to February, that’s the way it is, Rønsen says to VG.”

Surely the national team spent a few days at home in between world cups during the racing season?

It would perhaps be a bit more appropriate for you to be slightly humble and admit your understanding of the numbers were dead wrong, instead of suggesting my statistical math is what..? Well you didn't say incorrect, you said I was losing everyone. Maybe I did lose some; everyone who never done a single statitstical calculation.

You are good to invent quotes for me. I have not suggested anything near it. If there is a bias, the bias is equal for everyone, Norwegian, Russian or Finn. Same with a variance. The study shows only 86.4% of samples being within +/-10%. That means 13.4% of all tests will be greater than 10% off. If you assume half is + and half is -, that is 7% of all tests being greater than +10% off. This doesn't just mean it could happen. It means it does happen, 7% of the time, statistically. This is not my math, it's just math, from the study you defined as "not tainted with national bias".

If you took a complete random race, if you have 14 racers from one nation, 1 of them would test greater than +10% statistically. Every race, one of the athletes. If you have 7 racers, then every 2nd race one would test at +10%.

You should easily see that if one picks out selectively the highest values one can find for a particular nation from a data set, you are then extremely likely to hit one of such outliers due to statistical measurement variance.

 

[the sceptic]

Norwegians are lucky that skiing is such a mini sport that noone outside Norway cares about any of this stuff. That way they can just let the media continue with the bull**** nationalism, show some nice low blood values and just wait for everyone to forget about Saltin.

 

[Tubeless]

It would perhaps be a bit more appropriate for you to be slightly humble and admit your understanding of the numbers were dead wrong, instead of suggesting my statistical math is what..? Well you didn't say incorrect, you said I was losing everyone. Maybe I did lose some; everyone who never done a single statitstical calculation.

You are good to invent quotes for me. I have not suggested anything near it. If there is a bias, the bias is equal for everyone, Norwegian, Russian or Finn. Same with a variance. The study shows only 86.4% of samples being within +/-10%. That means 13.4% of all tests will be greater than 10% off. If you assume half is + and half is -, that is 7% of all tests being greater than +10% off. This doesn't just mean it could happen. It means it does happen, 7% of the time, statistically. This is not my math, it's just math, from the study you defined as "not tainted with national bias".

If you took a complete random race, if you have 14 racers from one nation, 1 of them would test greater than +10% statistically. Every race, one of the athletes. If you have 7 racers, then every 2nd race one would test at +10%.

You should easily see that if one picks out selectively the highest values one can find for a particular nation from a data set, you are then extremely likely to hit one of such outliers due to statistical measurement variance.

But you're conveniently leaving out that part of the study where it says HemoCue was consistently reporting LOWER values. The study concludes that "HemoCue thus underestimates the Hb concentration by 2-5%" which nearly makes up for the statistical inaccuracy in the up direction - but also amplifies the possibility of an error in the down direction.

The point is, this study suggests you cannot dismiss values taken by the HemoCue as being irrelevant as has been your argument in past posts.

What's troubling is that there's little objectivity in the Norwegian response to the accusations. Blood test values are provided only for the training season. High values are explained as "one-offs" caused by dehydration, inaccurate testing equipment, or improper methodology. Bengt Saltin is labeled as an old fool. Swedes are said to be envious of the Norwegian success. FIS has been looped in to support the Norwegian position, whereas its Norwegian leadership should recuse itself to retain the appearance of impartiality - or agree to release all its data.

Care you comment why Norwegians would not be tested for Hb at their own national championships or at any time during the racing season from 1990 to 2000? No data exists or was it all taken with the inaccurate HemoCue machine?

 

[Discgear]

But the worst part of this farce is the comparision between median FIS-values and median norwegian values, that supposedly prove they did not contribute to the rising Hb-levels of the 90's.

Prof. Saltin gives his view about yesterday’s press conference by the Norwegian Ski Federation to Verdens Gang. It’s clear that he is not going to be intimidated. http://www.vg.no/sport/ski/langrenn/artikkel.php?artid=10114567

[my translation, based on google translate]

- The figures presented are totally uninteresting in the context of the current discussion. You don’t walk around with high blood levels throughout the year. You adjust that two or three weeks before the competition. One may wonder what kind of advisor of the Norwegian Ski-president has when you arrange something like this, says the Swedish doping hunter Bengt Saltin VG.

He finds it strange that the world's best ski team had full control of their blood values between the seasons, but don’t have any valuable figures in connection with the races in the winter.

To say that one could not measure blood values and get trustworthy results in the field, is "absolutely ridiculous," says Saltin.
- When you are at a High Altitude camp, on a glacier, you could measure the hemoglobin levels with great precision. For those who have knowledge of this, that is hypocrisy. There is an attempt to mislead and deceive people. But for those with the slightest insight, it’s just silly.

Sports Director Åge Skinstad is in today's Aftenposten quoted as saying:

"Now all doubts are removed".

It gets Bengt Saltin to chuckle.
- Who are they trying to fool? Everyone who has insight about the field would start to laugh.

Saltin was for several years the head of FIS Medical Committee. The 78-year-old is an honorary doctorate in 13 different universities around the world, including the NIH.

……..

Dæhlie should, according to documentary, have measured hemoglobin levels of 17.5 in Thunder Bay in 1995. The figure, according to Bengt Saltin originated from Peter Hemmingsson, which was responsible for the doping controls during the championship.
But Hemmingsson has subsequently said that Bjorn Daehlie did not have sensationally high values.

- The only thing I have to say about this is that the mentioned values are accurate. But in retrospect, the source has withdrawn his statements, said Saltin - who admits that he dislikes how Hemmingsson apparently has changed position.

- Doping Expert Arne Ljungqvist has also spoken out against SVTs documentary?

- Yes. I also think it was wrong to the point out single athletes. I'm trying to comprehend what happened in this period, if there was a system. I’m not interested in the individual contestants. Vladimir Smirnov came forward himself and discussed his values. It was strong. He was part of a system - but I do not know if it was like that in Norway.

Saltin is considered to be one of the world's foremost experts on blood values. When he spoke to VG Thursday, he had just returned home after attending a conference in Asia representing the Swedish government.

- You do not fear for your rennommé?

- No. Among those who has insight in hemoglobin levels and how to measure it, I have full support. Apparently with the exception of Norway

 

[Tubeless]

It would perhaps be a bit more appropriate for you to be slightly humble and admit your understanding of the numbers were dead wrong, instead of suggesting my statistical math is what..? Well you didn't say incorrect, you said I was losing everyone. Maybe I did lose some; everyone who never done a single statitstical calculation.

You are good to invent quotes for me. I have not suggested anything near it. If there is a bias, the bias is equal for everyone, Norwegian, Russian or Finn. Same with a variance. The study shows only 86.4% of samples being within +/-10%. That means 13.4% of all tests will be greater than 10% off. If you assume half is + and half is -, that is 7% of all tests being greater than +10% off. This doesn't just mean it could happen. It means it does happen, 7% of the time, statistically. This is not my math, it's just math, from the study you defined as "not tainted with national bias".

If you took a complete random race, if you have 14 racers from one nation, 1 of them would test greater than +10% statistically. Every race, one of the athletes. If you have 7 racers, then every 2nd race one would test at +10%.

You should easily see that if one picks out selectively the highest values one can find for a particular nation from a data set, you are then extremely likely to hit one of such outliers due to statistical measurement variance.

One other point. One of the sources for the Swedish documentary was a PowerPoint slide by Bengt Saltin that says all men's medal winners at the 1995 world champs in Thunder Bay had a Hb higher than 17.5 g/dl. Daehli won 3 medals and would have been tested 3 times. Let's assume the testing used the HemoCue machine. Can you use your statistical mastery to determine the likelihood that each of Daehli's 3 samples would be wrong enough to fall within his normal mean Hb of 15.3 g/dl, as shown by the Norwegian's own data. And to be fair, let's just use the minimum 17.5 g/dl value for Daehli for all 3 tests.

 

[dukoff]

But you're conveniently leaving out that part of the study where it says HemoCue was consistently reporting LOWER values. The study concludes that "HemoCue thus underestimates the Hb concentration by 2-5%" which nearly makes up for the statistical inaccuracy in the up direction - but also amplifies the possibility of an error in the down direction.

The point is, this study suggests you cannot dismiss values taken by the HemoCue as being irrelevant as has been your argument in past posts.

What's troubling is that there's little objectivity in the Norwegian response to the accusations. Blood test values are provided only for the training season. High values are explained as "one-offs" caused by dehydration, inaccurate testing equipment, or improper methodology. Bengt Saltin is labeled as an old fool. Swedes are said to be envious of the Norwegian success. FIS has been looped in to support the Norwegian position, whereas its Norwegian leadership should recuse itself to retain the appearance of impartiality - or agree to release all its data.

Care you comment why Norwegians would not be tested for Hb at their own national championships or at any time during the racing season from 1990 to 2000? No data exists or was it all taken with the inaccurate HemoCue machine?

Ok, but it doesn't "nearly make up" for it. You have to chose how to analyze it. Either we must say the bias varies from 2% to 5%, or we must say it's an average 3.5%. Then how to account for the study that does show a +0.5g bias? Well let's just for the sake of argument analyse it with only a 3.5% negative bias. The capillary bias of 0.5g will still remain. So:

15.5 => (15.5 + 0.5) * 0.965 * 1.1 = 17.0
16.0 => (16.0 + 0.5) * 0.965 * 1.1 = 17.5
16.5 => (16.5 + 0.5) * 0.965 * 1.1 = 18.0

And this is within only 86.4% of the samples, still well below 2SD. And it's showing the minimums of those remaining 13.4% samples. As it's >10%, not exactly 10%. If go further out to 2SD or 3SD the variance would increase, while the chance of them occuring would go down.

My view on the off-season stuff you may obviuosly say is subjective. It will not lead to much to discuss it, but I'll nevertheless express my thoughts if for any interest:

They haven't said they havent been tested during the racing season, and I'm not sure if the data wasn't included or just that the majority was from June-Nov. What they said of season-data was that they have much less data, and most of it is not quality data, hence flawed with the great variations we have looked at. I don't find this totally unreasonable. The support team will have a lot less responsibilities and more time in the off-season, giving better oportunity to do more quality lab testing at training camps etc. And you're not really so desperate in need of knowing your blood values at any time if you are not doing something wrong. They said this was how they worked in the 90s, and later they did start to bring more lab equipment in-season.

Honestly if it was me in their position, I would absolutely never get into a scene of discussion where screening tests is the underlying data material. Even if I had own screening data that was completely normal, this is data that is taken by just a team physician, not analysed by a third party, can not be confirmed by lab or hospital either by value or time or fact of existence. Then how can such discussion lead to anything else then continued accusations? And even if data is to be trusted, how do you get anywhere with data where uncertainty is greater than +/-10%. What they have done is to lift the whole discussion up to a level where they use data that can be confirmed by trusted external parties, and where accuracy is good. This move I find totally reasonable. You would be stupid not to do this.

 

[dukoff]

One other point. One of the sources for the Swedish documentary was a PowerPoint slide by Bengt Saltin that says all men's medal winners at the 1995 world champs in Thunder Bay had a Hb higher than 17.5 g/dl. Daehli won 3 medals and would have been tested 3 times. Let's assume the testing used the HemoCue machine. Can you use your statistical mastery to determine the likelihood that each of Daehli's 3 samples would be wrong enough to fall within his normal mean Hb of 15.3 g/dl, as shown by the Norwegian's own data. And to be fair, let's just use the minimum 17.5 g/dl value for Daehli for all 3 tests.

This is totally unrealistic. As said before, regardless if FIS has dismissed this idea, the argument that is without bias whatsoever is that they never tested all the races at that time.

 

[Tubeless]

This is totally unrealistic. As said before, regardless if FIS has dismissed this idea, the argument that is without bias whatsoever is that they never tested all the races at that time.

Well, even FIS's own press release denying the existence of the high values confirms that testing was done at 3 cross-country events in Thunder Bay:

Concerning the statement that all medal winners from 1995 had haemoglobin values over 17,5, this is refuted by Peter Hemmingsson, FIS Medical Supervisor at the 1995 Championships in Thunder Bay, who was involved with the testing there. He confirmed that blood testing was only carried out in three Cross-Country Skiing events and one Nordic Combined event and no Swedish or Norwegian athletes had haemoglobin values over 17,5.

This could have passed the FIS lawyers with the simple step that since only 3 events were tested, it is not accurate to say that "all medal winners tested above 17.5". The list of medal winners in men's events:

Smirnov, KAZ
Fauner, ITA
Prokourorov, RUS
Myllyla, FIN
Isometsa, FIN
Daehli, NOR

We can give credence to the fact that someone as experienced as Bengt Saltin would not have presented the data unless he was comfortable that it was correct. Curiously, Saltin says one of his sources for the data was Peter Hemmingsson, who reversed his position only after the Swedish documentary came out. It is these types of retractions that only serve to raise suspicions, not reduce them. Saltin is sticking with his data & sources.

 

[ToreBear]

yes, as sure as the uci medical commission they still list it as an abnormal trigger. if you have the source stating otherwise, i'd like to see it. the difference with fis is that the uci uses both the hct=50% and the hg=17 whereas fis has always (with good reason) referred to haemoglobin only. the uci may be considering to drop the cut-off due to their blood passport facility and data but they haven't done so yet.

Nope I'm taking your word for it. My thinking was based on a series of assumptions. I remember seeing a twitter exchange related to the announcment by fis about fully implementing the passport(HGB limit removal might be one of them?)where JV commented. Hinting better late than never, someone then asked him if things would be alright without hgb limits, and he apeared to affirm.

I thought that:
Either JV was thinking that FIS did not have a passport, and that cycling was the good boy in antidoping, getting critisism when everyone else gets off the hook,
or that removing hgb limits is a feature of the passport that cycling was quick to remove.

You just confirmed/strengthened my first hypothesis. JV did'nt know what he was commenting on, and probably still thinks FIS is far behind cycling in antidoping work.

the cost and administration benefits should only matter if they promote anti-doping.

Well they both do, and don't do. For the federations participating this saves cost. It might also be beneficial to anti doping too, but that would take a longer reply.

For Fis antidoping, the cost of having to do the health test, and administration in regards to certifying athletes that often fall above 17,0, can, and I think will go to strengthening the other areas of their work. For all I know they could still do the blood test before the race, but the athletes don't have to worry so much that their values are below the limit(hydrated enough, etc). It's just another test for the passport.

And those that are under a suspicion list might get more attention paid to them due to more resources being available.

on the corruption angle read below. as to the main drawback, as i pointed out in a post above, relying exclusively on the computer software to flag abnormalities (which seems the new fis way), leaves the door open for a sophisticated doper to beat the system. i gave an example from the ashenden/UCI exchange when the uci referred to the software inability to pick up armstrong-type spikes that the human eye of ashenden easily saw. the uci may have used it as a convenient ploy, but it may be a real drawback of the blood passport. ashenden in one study showed how blood passport software missed blood doping big time.

I think it's another example of UCI pr being desperate. As for the ashenden study, I would think those working seriosly on enhancing the passport are working on ways to improving it. I doubt we would get a press release though. If I were them, I would think it be better to catch the doper unaware. But that's just a theory.

I think FIS unlike the UCI is cooperating very well with wada in their implementation of the blood passport.

on corruption...

scandal avoidance is not necessarily a corruption. more like not washing its laundry in public. compared to the downright corrupt uci, the fis is like an exclusive gentlemen club.. if you have not heard how ‘creative’ the fis can become in order to avoid scandals, read up on bengt-erik bengtsson, the same guy who signed the leaked document from lahti…how he admitted to covering up virpi kuitunen’s high blood values. how many coverups and embarrassing details remain sealed from about the same time period (late 90s), given this event surfaced ? There is always a ‘kitchen’ and there are always the kitchen insiders and the outsiders. In 2013 (compared to the dirty 1990s) the fis kitchen is ultra modern, with more transparency and such but it still tries to keep the outsiders noses out, b/c the kitchen politics ALWAYS stink. and there is always, at least SOME politics.

I haven't read up on that Bengsson story in regards to Virpi, but I think you have to remember that he operated in an environment were doing the right thing was difficult, and scandal avoidance as you say was the preffered outcome for his superiors.

Searching after something else I came across some interesting tidbits.

A bullet point by Ingard Lereim where he also mentions difficulties relating to counterforces etc.
http://www.google.no/url?sa=t&rct=j...ooHIAw&usg=AFQjCNFQB79rYd8RY3nU7zQQwEYN3pAGnQ

Also has a titbit about a transfusion gone wrong in 1992 Alberville Olympics, with the IOC president stepping in and blocking any investigation.


And also this very interesting article about the history of FIS antidoping efforts and how the Lahti scandal got the ball rolling.
http://www.google.no/url?sa=t&rct=j...9IL_5bZXLhx_ejOdafysh0Q&bvm=bv.43287494,d.bGE


It also gives me grounds for a theory as to why some in FIS might not want to dig up old dirt.


If you or anyone else reading this post believes Norway is all powerfull in FIS, and don't want anything to change your mind, then don't read this article. Otherwise I think it gives a pretty good idea of why not more was done before the Lahti scandal changed the status quo.

 

[ToreBear]

As to this release of data. I would have preffered if they waited til after Falun, since this distracts me from my skiing enjoyent.

Anyway they said they would release the data they had to show that their skiers did not take part in the blood race.

Ola Rønsen explained that he could get this data on short notice, while if someone external was brought in it would have taken 6 months.

According to this article:
http://www.vg.no/sport/ski/langrenn/artikkel.php?artid=10108429

They have applied for more data from two different labs from the period of 1990-1995 and 1998-2002. But that requires written concent from the skiers, and Norway probably had a lot of skiers that were tested at one time or another.

So that will probably take some time.

I think this is what they they could get quickly and release on short notice. (1 week fulltime work).

I get the impression they focused on data they could be assured of were tested to a good procedural standard.

I also get the impression they didn't want to dig too hard, because any data that might be important might be subject to accusation of coverup etc. I think they are waiting for some impetus for someone to start digging, and they don't want there to be any percieved coverup.

Anyway I can imagine they had a lot of work to do in finding, punching in and analyzing 675 measuremts.

As for the FIS data, I'm unsure of what they have, if they have it, and weather they are willing to release it. It might not be as simple as NSF and the athletes asking for the values to be given to them. There could be legal hurdles, political hurdles, logistical hurdles etc.

Also Bengtsson to my understanding denied that there were any abnormal 17,5 ish data on Dæhlie. One might wonder if he can deny, why can't he just say the value? Well there might be some legaleeze involved. Some rules relating to confidentiality allows for saying something is wrong.

So the rumoured Dæhlie 17,5 -17,5+ will be wrong, and he is allowed to refute the rumour.

In theory one could try: Was it 16,9 17 17,1?etc. And he would not deny the right one.


Also now I'm wondering about the Swedish data from the 90s. Are they still intending to release them? Or did they feel that the media got what they wanted with the bp data from current skiers, and they don't have to go looking for blood values like the Norwegians did?

It would be nice if someone asked the swedish federation, and they said it is difficult to gather so much data, and they needed more time.

Have the Swedish media just forgotten about it?
Or are they patient like the Norwegian media?
Or does the critical media part only apply when it's Norwegian issues they want to focus on?

Right now I'm wondering.

 

[Discgear]

Norwegians and rhetoric’s

What is with Norwegians and rhetoric’s? It seems that the prime method is to go into straw man arguments.

The Ski Federation is now building a huge case against Hemocue tests during the 90s.

Signature dukoff, when discussing Norwegian dominance during the EPO-era, is moving the discussion to a discussion about glide.

Signature dukoff, when discussing the very strange fact the Norwegian Ski federation published some values from off season (jun-nov) to proof that it was not anything suspect to the Norwegian skiers in comparison with the detected rise in mean HB-levels for all the skiers in race season – turns the discussion into a debate about Hemocue-tests and mathematical probabilities.

Signature ToreBear, when discussing the above mentioned anomalies in the press conference want’s to turn the discussion into a debate about the Swedish data and Swedish media.

and so on....

 

[neineinei]

Gudmund Skjeldals take on it all (including a story about Walter Mayer at Kangaroo Hoppet 1992):

http://morgenbladet.no/samfunn/2013/det_som_ikkje_kan_seiast#.UUL3Yxesh8E (Norwegian)

 

[Shardi]

Since the blood race documentary during the WC, there has been numerous new norwegian signatures trying to fend off arguments and turn the discussions and evidence in more or less orthogonal directions

Is it so hard for you to blieve that your national heroes in the only sport you excel at as a nation, were f***ed up on drugs and part of the same system as all the other prominent 90s skiers?

 

[neineinei]

One explanation for being "a new signature" might be that they have only been reading before, not writing. Reading to learn about doping in cycling, the Armstrong saga and so on. Then something comes up where you feel you have something to contribute, or you just disagree so much with something that you have to speak your mind, and you become a new signature. Cross country skiing does no doubt interest Norwegians (and Swedes, Finns and people from some parts of Russia) more than it does the population of the rest of the world. It is a small sport. If they were starting up the Winter Olympics today cross country skiing probably would not meet the criteria for inclusion.

Still, 361 out of the 451 Olympic medals Norwegians have won are from other sports than cross country skiing.

 

[Alesle]

Since the blood race documentary during the WC, there has been numerous new norwegian signatures trying to fend off arguments and turn the discussions and evidence in more or less orthogonal directions

Is it so hard for you to blieve that your national heroes in the only sport you excel at as a nation, were f***ed up on drugs and part of the same system as all the other prominent 90s skiers?

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see much of anyone here categorically denying the possibility of them being doped during the 90s. What I have seen is comments on the presented facts, and attempts to pass on what the national skiing federation has said in media as well as the reasoning behind what they have said/presented (and some attempts at quantifying possible explanations other than doping, to see if such explanations could be reasonable).

Personally I don't know if they doped, but if anything the blood race documentary (and the subsequent discussion) have made me less inclined to believe they did (though a more accurate assessment is probably that it has failed to convince me either way).

It's simple to say that the competition doped, and as they beat the competition they must have been doped as well. However, from a documentary that seemed intent on backing up this line of thought I'm a bit astound at the lack of substantial evidence (or even circumstantial). A single measurement with a measurement device known to have a large variance doesn't prove much either way (unless it's staggering high), though with many measurements it could. That being said, I find the anonymous claim about Jevne testing at 17.0 before he Olympics in '02 intriguing, and I think it merits a closer look (I assume the accuracy of the testing there was much better).

What I do know is that I'm yet to see any compelling evidence from either side of the argument, and as such I'm not quite ready to acquit the national team either. So for now I'm keeping my options open, and follow the discussion closely as I find it very interesting.

 

[Discgear]

Personally I don't know if they doped, but if anything the blood race documentary (and the subsequent discussion) have made me less inclined to believe they did (though a more accurate assessment is probably that it has failed to convince me either way).

What I do know is that I'm yet to see any compelling evidence from either side of the argument, and as such I'm not quite ready to acquit the national team either. So for now I'm keeping my options open, and follow the discussion closely as I find it very interesting.

I think that the documentary merely started the discussion and raised a couple of questions that has been pretty much taboo before.
The biggest benefit with the documentary was the previous unknown document from Lahti. My interpretation is that prof. Saltin couldn’t comment on any values from tests he had been working on, as medical expert at FIS due to his professional codex of honor.

Here, it was a previously unknown document which he could speak and comment openly about. It was obvious in the following debate, that Saltin have during his work in FIS had problems with the Norwegians and their arguments. He expressed it as: “What the Norwegians always forget to tell …. in the discussion about High Altitude training as an explanation to measured high values.

I think the chronicle by Saltin and Morkeberg was much more dramatic than the documentary, where they clearly smashed all the arguments the Norwegian Ski Federation are fronting. Also the bizarre press conference with the publishing of off season blood values, and Saltin’s response to that was really remarkable. Knowing this, it really doesn’t make sense to hide behind the shortcomings in the documentary.

 

[Cloxxki]

3 Austrian biathletes in the top-6 sprint today. Amazing how their rise and fall seems in sync.
Martin Fourcade is on his own planets. So dynamic, unfatiquable, it's just uncanny. His brother, in principle very similarly talented, is an also-ran in comparison.
I don't know what to make of the minor nations. Soukalova is too pretty (she sings too) to distrust. But dang, she sweets the tracks with everyone else.
Henkel is feeling young again.
Russians are slow on home snow, which seems odd. Their speed is so lacking in biathlon, relative to their XC compatriots, that they kind of do come across as clean-ish.

Domracheva was able to do something amazing on the skis in Sochi, those tracks really suit her, but it also seems to have taken something out of her. Is it possible to dig too deep and need more recovery in biathlon? It sure seems to be. Is that a sign of humanity or something to distrust? So many biathletes seem to be top fit the day after an exceptional ski.
I am a fan of Domracheva, and hate Bjoerndalen for whatever he did to her (and his wife). Domracheva seems like an impressionable girl, especially as she lost her father too young and had few men to look up to in this sport.

It's not consistent, but there seemed to be a bit of non-natural peaking going on at the world champs. Especially from Czech Republic, the host nation, and some other minor nations. Moravec did well after the world, then lost a bit of form. Soukalova re-peaked this weekend.
Svendsen is back, but slow, after weeks of sniffles. I prefer that over Bjoergen, being out with heart problems and returning unbeatable even in a 30km.

Funny about racing in Khanty every year. After the races you could draw some blood (season is over afterwards anyways), dig a hole in the woods somewhere, bury the BB, and retrieve it the next season, well preserved. Put back in body.
Like Fuentes' freezer, "Siberia" ;-)
Ideal, you perform well at one extra world cup (3 races) and don't give up training time over the summer to generate the red blood cells. You're drained AFTER the last WC race, but you're taking it easy for a couple weeks anyways.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

This was Soukalová's first time on the podium since Pokljuka, when she podiumed every race. She was actually less impressive at Nové Město than for much of the season, surprisingly, though otherwise the quite noticeable improvement in Czech performance this year has been notable. Fourcade is just mind-boggling. The men's field is supposed to be much closer in terms of ski speed than the women's, so winning a sprint with that kind of margin (I think Peiffer was the only one within 30 seconds of him for ski speed) is crazy talk. Domracheva broke a ski pole on the first lap, though that doesn't account for her losing time to a World Cup rookie in Laura Dahlmeier on the last lap. Mäkäräinen clearly fastest, with Gössner, Kuzmina and Soukalová all around 18-20" behind for the women. Even Tora Berger is tired. It seems that the World Championships peakers (the Polish and Ukrainian women, for example) are fading away, and some previously top performers who had disappointing championships are now reappearing near the tops of leaderboards again, though others are dropping off in quite extreme fashion (Jakov Fak's season has fallen apart in the last few weeks it seems, not even qualifying for the pursuit despite shooting 9/10 today, while Alexis Bœuf hit all 10 and still couldn't make the top 60. Malyshko also, though poor shooting is the culprit for him).