From the H-test to the Passport: Why the delay?

Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
R.0.t.O said:
"Mapei - the clean team with the dirty reputation." Interesting.
The owner of Mapei, Giorgio Squinz, wanted a clean team. He was very vocal about it. Mapei was one of the most doped up teams in history. Finally, in frustration, Squinz ended the sponsorship.

The DS of Mapei, Patrick Lefevre, went on to start his own teams....in the same mode of what he did at Mapei.
 
Race Radio said:
The owner of Mapei, Giorgio Squinz, wanted a clean team. He was very vocal about it. Mapei was one of the most doped up teams in history. Finally, in frustration, Squinz ended the sponsorship.
Kinda how I see it. Maybe I shoulda said the dirty team with the clean rep? Squinzi certainly did amazing PR. Loads of peeps even believe it.

They did ride clean, for a while, didn't they?
 
Mar 4, 2010
1,826
0
0
The H-test has been tweaked somewhat. The upper limit is still 50% for men and 47% for women, but now a result above 47% for men, and a similarly reduced threshold for women, will result in the rider having to submit a urine sample which will be subjected to the EPO test. If you've used EPO in the last three or four days, the trick is now to dilute your blood so your H-count is below the new lower threshold that triggers an automatic EPO test.

lol, and what if the vampires test you for EPO instead of hct? I doubt any rider is stupid enough to take a dose of EPO that's detectable for a few days and just assume that if a DCO show up they wont test him for EPO unless his crit is >47%.

Relying on them giving you twenty minutes to knock down 2 litres of H20 (would that even work in such a short time?) pre-testing sounds a bit risky as well.
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
fmk_RoI said:
Kinda how I see it. Maybe I shoulda said the dirty team with the clean rep? Squinzi certainly did amazing PR. Loads of peeps even believe it.

They did ride clean, for a while, didn't they?
Their roster would find it difficult to break old habits. Not as bad as Geweiss but it's hard to find a team that bad. Festina was dumber, though.
 
fmk_RoI said:
Thanks. Very interesting information.

Some things kind of caught my attention:

1- It was said in this forum that has not been proof of blood doping in Grand Tours before the 90's. Everybody knew about some isolated incidents like the Francesco Moser and the 1984 Olympic team blood doping, but nothing about doing it in the Grand Tour. Can somebody confirm if this is true?

Despite its limited effectiveness, the EPO test encouraged some riders to turn back the clock and resurrect blood transfusions. When these became popular in cycling is not really discussed much. We know about Conconi and Moser in 1984 and we know about the US LA Olympians the same year.

But do you really think that was the beginning and end of it in cycling? It's definitely not the beginning. Moser claimed it was a practice used by Jacques Anquetil and others ("I was not the only one nor the first who used blood transfusions to improve my performance. I was told that Jacques Anquetil had done it and that was well before my time. [...] It was my own blood. And I was not the only rider doing it."). At least one rider from the seventies - Joop Zoetemelk - confessed that he used blood transfusions, in the 1976 Tour.

2- What about the test from the Pasquale Bellotti's CSAD Team. It was intended to find when a rider was diluting the blood. It was thought on this forum that the test was very difficult and that they had to breathe to a machine that made the riders uncomfortable and then I discover this test from back in the 1999 and 2000. Can somebody with some knowledge on this issue why can't we use test again. By the way, the article says the machine is portable. Here:

But by being concerned about the effects of dehydration, Bellotti's CSAD test could also reveal if the opposite extreme was happening. Which might suggest that the rider had artificially diluted his or her blood. The science bit involves establishing the levels of creatininuria. If a rider tripped the test on that parameter, their blood sample would be subjected to a second round of tests, which would look at a much wider range of parameters, including ferritin levels, reticulocyte count etc. This second level of testing wouldn't find direct evidence of doping - but it could find indirect evidence. Effectively, it was a variant of the kind of EPO test Guy Brisson had developed in 1996, and a forerunner of the current bio-passport
After so much resistance by the riders, eventually some of the riders submitted themselves to the test and actually caught a couple of riders. Here:

Eventually, the Italian riders were convinced to play ball with CSAD and voluntarily submit themselves to the new tests. The first tests were carried out at the start of the seventh stage of the Giro. The results were announced at the stage's end. Out of sixteen riders tested, CSAD caught two riders, Filippo Casagrande (Vini Caldirola) and Guido Trombetta (Mobilvetta), with abnormally low creatininuria levels. Their blood samples showed H-counts of 43% and 48%. Either they were ill, or they had diluted their blood to fool the H-test
The test died on a Political move made by CONI (????)

CONI didn't need to be told by Verbruggen they had a problem with Bellotti. By the end of October 2000 CSAD ceased to exist and the 'I Do Not Risk My Health' programme disappeared. CONI did keep Donati on their payroll. 'Look at us!', CONI were effectively saying, 'We employ the outspoken critic of corruption in sport, Sandro Donati! How could you not trust us?'
 
BroDeal said:
How did Pantani manage not to test positive for cocaine? Gibo, as I recall, tested positive for cocaine metabolites twice.
Was he ever tested? And - if he was - were the testers looking for coke?

Like you I would like to know the ans to the Q.

But we know the tests are fallible. They didn't spot HCG in one dude's samples ...
 
Escarabajo said:
It was said in this forum that has not been proof of blood doping in Grand Tours before the 90's. Everybody knew about some isolated incidents like the Francesco Moser and the 1984 Olympic team blood doping, but nothing about doing it in the Grand Tour. Can somebody confirm if this is true?
The Zoetemelk confession is mentioned on Cyclisme Dopage. That no one before Moser used blood transfusions would surprise me. They were known about since at least '72, and I'm pretty sure I have a ref somewhere to blood doping in general being much - much - older than that. That no one after Moser - until the EPO test came along - used blood doping would amaze me. I would especially look at clients of peeps like Francois Bellocq.

Escarabajo said:
What about the test from the Pasquale Bellotti's CSAD Team. It was intended to find when a rider was diluting the blood. It was thought on this forum that the test was very difficult and that they had to breathe to a machine that made the riders uncomfortable and then I discover this test from back in the 1999 and 2000. Can somebody with some knowledge on this issue why can't we use test again. By the way, the article says the machine is portable.
I mention no machine. It's a straight blood test, a *** with a pin, followed by a urine test. The only mech needed on site is a centrifuge for the H-count.

Escarabajo said:
The test died on a Political move made by CONI (????)
IRC Manuela Ronchi, Pantani's publicist, makes the point in her book that CONI then was riven by faction fighting, with - in her opinion - Donati's hardline anti-doping faction holding the whip hand. On that last point I think Donati and a lot of others would disagree, but the faction issue is prob true. The non-Donati peeps were politically connected. Politicians do not want doping scandals. They want sporting heroes. That CONI might have killed the test themselves doesn't surprise much. CSAD signed their own death warrant by dope testing immediately before an Olympics. It's simply not the done thing.

BTW, much of the CSAD element of that piece can be found in Matt Rendell's excellent Marco Pantani book. I've added additional info where I could find it, but the core of that side of the story is Rendell's work.
 
fmk_RoI said:
...

I mention no machine. It's a straight blood test, a *** with a pin, followed by a urine test. The only mech needed on site is a centrifuge for the H-count.

....
Thanks for the reply.

I am still confused about why the UCI is not using the CSAD test procedure. What are the disadvantages?

I know the other method is quite complicated . This is from another great thread in this forum:


Krebs cycle said:
Thought I'd make a post about this for interested peeps as it seems a few people are aware of the test but not sure how it works.

I have the equipment to do the test in my lab and I have administered the test on at least 100 occasions. I've also done the test myself around 10 times.

It works on the principle of dilution. If you measure the saturation of CO bound to Hb (%HbCO) in the blood before and after a precise dose of CO is given, then the smaller the change in %HbCO, the larger the tHbmass.

%HbCO is measured from a capillary blood sample first. The subject then rebreathes through a glass pipe that looks rather like a big crack pipe or something, which has attachments for a syringe to administer the CO dose and a 3L rebreathing bag. You insert a CO2 scrubber inside the pipe so that you don't end up hyperventilating like a psychopath with a brown paper bag. Upon inserting the CO dose into the rebreathing pipe, the subject breathes for exactly 2min. The remaining CO left in the lung is measured (in ppm) by conducting a complete forced expiration, and the remaining CO in the rebreathing bag is also measured by sucking it out with a hand held piston. Further capillary blood samples are taken after about 5min.

It really is quite a simple test to conduct and is over in about 10-15min. The measurement of %HbCO in the blood samples is rapid and would always be performed immediately to ensure stability of the blood is not compromised by longterm storage.

I don't think the test could ever be conducted in the morning before racing, because you can notice some sluggishness in performance if you train immediately after the test, but after about 3hr, you don't feel any different to normal. The amount of CO administered is so small that within 6-8hrs you are back to baseline values. I don't believe the test can be administered twice in a row, but it most certainly can be done on a daily basis without any long term effect on aerobic performance.

The main source of error is if there is a leak of CO from the rebreathing pipe, but if it is conducted properly, the variation in test results is actually lower than many standard full blood count variables used in the bio-passport. The lower the inherent variability in a measure, the better its use from an anti-doping perspective, because it means the thresholds can be tighter.

The beauty of the test really lies in the fact that it zeros in on the criterion variable. The object of doping manipulation IS to increase tHbmass, so why not measure it directly instead of relying on a host of indirect markers? The only way to beat the test is to know exactly what your previous test result was and know exactly when you are going to be tested, because you could of course remove the appropriate amount of blood, do the test, then just put it back afterwards. Not such an easy thing to do though, if the actual results don't get released to the team doctor. Remember that a big decrease in tHbmass is also evidence of tampering.

The big problem is the leak issue. I think there will be significant legal hurdles to overcome in the event that an athlete continually sabotages the test by causing a leak on purpose ie: not keeping a seal around the mouthpiece through which they must breathe. If they can fix that problem somehow, then we have a winner!
All the responses can be found here:

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=3479
 
Escarabajo said:
I am still confused about why the UCI is not using the CSAD test procedure. What are the disadvantages?
Mail Francesca Rossi at the UCI and I'd bet the answer would be that the bio passport more or less does the same thing. Bellotti, Dine, Bisson, Catlin, they were all looking at the same area from slightly diff angles, indirect evidence of doping, longitudinal testing in one form or another. The fun is they were doing it in the mid to late nineties, and the UCI didn't want to know until independent testing progs came along in the second half of the noughties and theatened a turf war.

Why the creatininuria side of the test isn't used today I don't know. You'd need someone with a white coat to explain whether it worked well or not. Sadly not my area of expertise, and not one I can find enough info on.

Why it wasn't used then seems obvious to me.

Advantages / disadvantages, I'd say one con must be cost. It can't have been a cheap prog.
 
Escarabajo said:
Thanks. Very interesting information.

Some things kind of caught my attention:

1- It was said in this forum that has not been proof of blood doping in Grand Tours before the 90's. Everybody knew about some isolated incidents like the Francesco Moser and the 1984 Olympic team blood doping, but nothing about doing it in the Grand Tour. Can somebody confirm if this is true?




2- What about the test from the Pasquale Bellotti's CSAD Team. It was intended to find when a rider was diluting the blood. It was thought on this forum that the test was very difficult and that they had to breathe to a machine that made the riders uncomfortable and then I discover this test from back in the 1999 and 2000. Can somebody with some knowledge on this issue why can't we use test again. By the way, the article says the machine is portable. Here:



After so much resistance by the riders, eventually some of the riders submitted themselves to the test and actually caught a couple of riders. Here:



The test died on a Political move made by CONI (????)
Nencini 1960

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lance-Landis-Inside-American-Controversy/dp/034549962X

I remember reading this is another book too - possibly Fotheringham's Simpson autobiog. In my mind, not much doubt that a fair number of cyclists have been using blood doping since at least then. But by the '80s the doctors were getting better at it.
 
Jul 19, 2009
949
0
0
simoni said:
Nencini 1960

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lance-Landis-Inside-American-Controversy/dp/034549962X

I remember reading this is another book too - possibly Fotheringham's Simpson autobiog. In my mind, not much doubt that a fair number of cyclists have been using blood doping since at least then. But by the '80s the doctors were getting better at it.

Nencini's case is not a blood doping case, he was discovered by Dr. Dumas perfusing himself different kind of stuffin his hotel room.

If it were blood, it would have been more convenient at that time to have a direct donor in the room.
 
simoni said:
Nencini 1960

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lance-Landis-Inside-American-Controversy/dp/034549962X

I remember reading this is another book too - possibly Fotheringham's Simpson autobiog. In my mind, not much doubt that a fair number of cyclists have been using blood doping since at least then. But by the '80s the doctors were getting better at it.
Neither Walsh not Fotheringham suggest the Nencini incident had anything to do with blood doping. Go read em again.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
simoni said:
Nencini 1960

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lance-Landis-Inside-American-Controversy/dp/034549962X

I remember reading this is another book too - possibly Fotheringham's Simpson autobiog. In my mind, not much doubt that a fair number of cyclists have been using blood doping since at least then. But by the '80s the doctors were getting better at it.
Nencini was not blood doping, he was using an early form of Testosterone. It was mistranslated once and repeated.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS