Gagnez le Tour!

[goober]

The biopassport has had a curious beginning. Even within the limitations of this particular iteration of a biopassport the impact has been less than stellar. Ashendon had been a big fan yet LA's profile has been serioulsy questioned. Given the farce of the UCI's anti-doping at last years TdF and the pointedly obvious reluctance to persue high profile riders the organisation has to be on its last legs.

Perhaps that is why Ashenden is hanging around?

Seriously questioned by who? Ashenden and his 'colleagues'? The group whom base their 'scientific' results on inadequate sample sets and generalized categorization without true regard to science?

 

[Cobblestones]

If WADA got hold of you during those few weeks at altitude there might be some difficulty explaining a lower haematocrit than the grand tour normal. Your retic count would be high but not too high, as 1. microdosing regimen with folate, B12 and Fe2+ supplementation would return your values to normal expediently and 2. the medical support is at altitude and can haemodilute you to lower the retic count prior to a test.

It's a high end system, the medical support will test the riders independently of WADA and ALFD to ensure no positives. Remember the effects of altitude training are open for debate, how do you prove doping when riders can explain big changes in haematocrit with dehydration or gastric illness?

The bolded part is where you lost me. I don't think that's possible in the way you write it.

 

[lean mean &green]

Seriously questioned by who? Ashenden and his 'colleagues'? The group whom base their 'scientific' results on inadequate sample sets and generalized categorization without true regard to science?

look at the OP. it has nothing to do with armstrong's passport values. feel free to continue this discussion in the appropriate thread or to start a new one.

 

[ColumbusSL]

Seriously questioned by who? Ashenden and his 'colleagues'? The group whom base their 'scientific' results on inadequate sample sets and generalized categorization without true regard to science?

Dr Ashenden is one of the scientists who run the biopassport team for WADA. Are you suggesting they/the team have - or are using - faulty science? If so, what is the basis of your suggestion?
The other fellow is the Danish specialist (reported widely) who rightly pointed out that to race a 3 week endurance event and not have lowered 'crit levels was bordering on implausible and certainly not in character of Armstrong as his results of the previous tour (Swiss?) showed a gradual decline throughout.

How the UCI managed to not investigate this just gives amunition to those who want it disbanded or current board members pushed out.

 

[Hillavoider]

But Pat the Rat is saying now that Basso's blood tests showed a gradual decrease in the giro which means the sport is clean. Ha HA, Pat has unwittingly shat on armstrong OR all the big dopers, like Basso, have worked out how to show a decrease in hct over three weeks while still doping.

OP as you seem to know a bit about doping is that possible?

 

[goober]

Dr Ashenden is one of the scientists who run the biopassport team for WADA. Are you suggesting they/the team have - or are using - faulty science? If so, what is the basis of your suggestion?
The other fellow is the Danish specialist (reported widely) who rightly pointed out that to race a 3 week endurance event and not have lowered 'crit levels was bordering on implausible and certainly not in character of Armstrong as his results of the previous tour (Swiss?) showed a gradual decline throughout.

How the UCI managed to not investigate this just gives amunition to those who want it disbanded or current board members pushed out.

I am not sure he "rightly pointed out that to race a 3 week endurance event and not have lowered 'crit levels was bordering on implausible..." as you state and Ashenden (not the passport team) feeds off this implausible comment (why I responded as I did). The 'Danish Specialist" as you call him also performed the original study (which many feel is flawed based on sampling) with other 'specialists' that disagree with his statement that this 'indicates doping' (although possible). Albeit they are 'suspect' but there is not much you could do with these values as they will not pump out a passport red flag. What is the UCI to investigate? My understanding (or possible misunderstaning) is the mathematical formulas that analyze the passport and the group of experts (more than Ashenden) do not identify Mr Armstrong as suspect as they have for other riders 'caught' by the PP.

 

[goober]

But Pat the Rat is saying now that Basso's blood tests showed a gradual decrease in the giro which means the sport is clean. Ha HA, Pat has unwittingly shat on armstrong OR all the big dopers, like Basso, have worked out how to show a decrease in hct over three weeks while still doping.

OP as you seem to know a bit about doping is that possible?

Hopefully Basso will continue to post his values (all of them) throughout the TDF (not sure he will). Hopefully we will see more than three data points and what I suspect you will see is jumping up and down as you saw with Lance's values last year - hope he is tested every other day but probably not. Plot Lance last year at three data points and depending on when they were taken you could get a decrease. Look at Basso's values across the year and ask yourself WTH is happening with his values and why? Understand OFF scores, etc. Pat the Rat's comments were a joke (what's new). I do believe in general the values should drop...

 

[mitochondrion]

Reticulocytes and the future of doping

As cobblestones has quite rightly pointed out the reticulocyte percentage would not be affected by haemodilution. Absolute numbers will drop. The effects of altitude and training on reticulocyte count are unclear and open for interpretation. I don't have much faith in off scores and high end medical support can ensure one's values don't step off the acceptable path.

However, I am not a haematologist but an intensivist, my experience lies in improving cardiac output and oxygen delivery. As I mentioned last year, I think we have seen the limits of human performance without doping at an oxygen utilisation level.

I do believe PDE-5 inhibitors will enable athletes to maintain high level performance at altitude. I am not sure they are on the banned list yet either!

 

[lean mean &green]

I do believe PDE-5 inhibitors will enable athletes to maintain high level performance at altitude. I am not sure they are on the banned list yet either!

not completely prohibited by wada but thresholds have at least been set at therapeutic levels. wada says review of research is still ongoing.

 

[CycloErgoSum]

Seriously questioned by who? Ashenden and his 'colleagues'? The group whom base their 'scientific' results on inadequate sample sets and generalized categorization without true regard to science?

Unless you're an exercise physiologist, and therefore familiar with the conceptual tools physicians make to review and critique the work of others, the only reason to criticise Ashenden, a specialist employed by WADA and the UCI, is ideological or emotional.

Wait, don't tell me, it's Dr. Goober, right? Will you peer-review my forthcoming article*, Dr. Goober?

*Its subject is world-class douchebags

 

[ColumbusSL]

I am not sure he "rightly pointed out that to race a 3 week endurance event and not have lowered 'crit levels was bordering on implausible..." as you state and Ashenden (not the passport team) feeds off this implausible comment (why I responded as I did).

I am not sure what you are getting at here... are you suggesting that crit levels stay the same after intensive effort?

The 'Danish Specialist" as you call him also performed the original study (which many feel is flawed based on sampling) with other 'specialists' that disagree with his statement that this 'indicates doping' (although possible).

I believe we are discussing different Danes... Jakob Moerkeberg commented on Armstrongs complete biopassport results from the 09 TDF... he is not involved in WADA

Albeit they are 'suspect' but there is not much you could do with these values as they will not pump out a passport red flag. What is the UCI to investigate? My understanding (or possible misunderstaning) is the mathematical formulas that analyze the passport and the group of experts (more than Ashenden) do not identify Mr Armstrong as suspect as they have for other riders 'caught' by the PP.

this is the point... the result of the Armstrong biopassport was suspect (though the lab don't know who it is) and Ashenden wanted this result investigated. Others outside WADA commented on the result including Moerkeberg ... however the UCI who matches lab numbers to names didn't investigate. Why? It adds arrows to the argument to radically change the UCI.

 

[bigloco]

As cobblestones has quite rightly pointed out the reticulocyte percentage would not be affected by haemodilution. Absolute numbers will drop. The effects of altitude and training on reticulocyte count are unclear and open for interpretation. I don't have much faith in off scores and high end medical support can ensure one's values don't step off the acceptable path.

However, I am not a haematologist but an intensivist, my experience lies in improving cardiac output and oxygen delivery. As I mentioned last year, I think we have seen the limits of human performance without doping at an oxygen utilisation level.

I do believe PDE-5 inhibitors will enable athletes to maintain high level performance at altitude. I am not sure they are on the banned list yet either!

At least there's an easy visual test for those under it's effects!

 

[goober]

I am not sure what you are getting at here... are you suggesting that crit levels stay the same after intensive effort?

I am suggesting that Moerkeberg's study was not complete enough to draw the conclusions being thrown around. Even one of the co-authors of the study indicate this.

I believe we are discussing different Danes... Jakob Moerkeberg commented on Armstrongs complete biopassport results from the 09 TDF... he is not involved in WADA.

If you are discussing Jakob Moerkeberg as the "Danish Specialist" then we are discussing the same person.

this is the point... the result of the Armstrong biopassport was suspect (though the lab don't know who it is) and Ashenden wanted this result investigated. Others outside WADA commented on the result including Moerkeberg ... however the UCI who matches lab numbers to names didn't investigate. Why? It adds arrows to the argument to radically change the UCI.

Here is most likely why. Armstrong's biological passport did not fall outside the Bayesian analysis performed on his numbers and possibly other experts that reviewed that data did not have the same impression Ashenden did. You need to keep Moerkeberg out of the picture - the biological passport is much more than the generalized study he (with others) performed. So let's just make pretend the UCI listened to Ashenden - what would they do next? There is no basis it inidcates doping - just might suggest doping. The Bayesian models take this into account. The UCI could have Armstrong tested more, which I bet they are doing, but unless they get a positive I bet Armstrong falls withing the WADA biological passport. Ashended is a bit to aggressive - might be on the right track; but, science has to agree...

I have provided this link before - it contains the most complete information regarding how biological passports are analyzed, etc. Biological Passport. I suggest everyone who has questions read all the information on this site. I also strongly suggest everyone read Jakob Moerkeberg (and others) study that came to the conclusion that the levels decrease during the TDF. All good reading.

 

[Morgazano]

I don't know if you guys believe me or not, but since appearing at the Landis hearing, and being revealed to have established the world's first commercially-successful internet-based blood-doping facilitation venture, I have a significant amt. of interaction with both anti-doping authorities and criminal investigators.

So...after LA returned from retirement, I was speaking with a member of the biopassport committee, who at the time was considering quitting. He and his colleagues were reviewing profiles and he had found one that he believed to be clearly worthy of official scrutiny and merited opening a case against the rider who provided the samples. However, the UCI informed him (and his colleagues) that the sample in question belonged to someone who would not be investigated.

The scientist in question was convinced to not quit the biopassport program in protest, but he since began speaking more openly and honestly about his suspicions of past and present doping of the rider in question.

Are you bragging here?
Are you serious?
You now think you're a hero on internet forums. Wake up......!

 

[python]

moderators, why is the intentional insult above allowed to stand ?

 

[ColumbusSL]

I am suggesting that Moerkeberg's study was not complete enough to draw the conclusions being thrown around. Even one of the co-authors of the study indicate this.

I am not aware of a 'study' he co-authored - perhaps a link if you could? - his comments on VN indicated it was the fact that LA's 'crit dropped 'normally' in the Suiss tour yet stayed up in the TdF that raised suspicions...

Here is most likely why. Armstrong's biological passport did not fall outside the Bayesian analysis performed on his numbers and possibly other experts that reviewed that data did not have the same impression Ashenden did. You need to keep Moerkeberg out of the picture - the biological passport is much more than the generalized study he (with others) performed. So let's just make pretend the UCI listened to Ashenden - what would they do next? There is no basis it inidcates doping - just might suggest doping. The Bayesian models take this into account. The UCI could have Armstrong tested more, which I bet they are doing, but unless they get a positive I bet Armstrong falls withing the WADA biological passport. Ashended is a bit to aggressive - might be on the right track; but, science has to agree...

I have provided this link before - it contains the most complete information regarding how biological passports are analyzed, etc. Biological Passport. I suggest everyone who has questions read all the information on this site. I also strongly suggest everyone read Jakob Moerkeberg (and others) study that came to the conclusion that the levels decrease during the TDF. All good reading.

I am aware of the analysis system used in the BP program (as much as an engineer can know anyway ) ... and while I agree with your thoughts re the statistical analysis on the TdF numbers on their own... it doesn't seem explain why the lack of action from the UCI given the differences between the Suiss results and the TdF results.

I believe this is the argument taken by Ashenden on a professional level and others who are 'commentators' in an expert witness sense...
.... I would suggest it is important to note that journo's are the conduit for 'commentators' of nearly all 'whistle blowing'...

 

[goober]

I am not aware of a 'study' he co-authored - perhaps a link if you could? - his comments on VN indicated it was the fact that LA's 'crit dropped 'normally' in the Suiss tour yet stayed up in the TdF that raised suspicions...

Moerkeberg's Study

I am aware of the analysis system used in the BP program (as much as an engineer can know anyway ) ... and while I agree with your thoughts re the statistical analysis on the TdF numbers on their own... it doesn't seem explain why the lack of action from the UCI given the differences between the Suiss results and the TdF results.

Again, the numbers fall within the accpetible limits of his passport. You cannot just apply "the numbers should fall" theory based on the above study. Although they generally will. The UCI could do nothing with the Ashenden suggestion of doping other than test Lance more. As I said before it will be very interesting to see Basso's numbers for all the tests in this TDF since he is the only rider posting them. Taking three samples across a grand tour has a probability higher than you might think of dropping values even if in fact they are all over the board as Basso typically is, etc. Statistically I dont feel the Suisse or Basso results mean a enough.

Edit: Look at the Moerkeberg study closely, number of samples, randomness of samples, the quote "random riders" which I highly doubt any true contenders were included and you can see this study needs work...