- Mar 4, 2010
- 1,826
- 0
- 0
I would add to this that when the passport came into use, riders who had much earlier switched to transfusions to avoid an EPO positive again began using a microdose form of EPO in order to raise their retics following a transfusion. In the normal transfusion cycle, a withdrawal is followed immediately by a transfusion, so there is no perturbation of hematological parameters. However, when a rider transfuses for PE, there is no preceding withdrawal. As a result, HT increases and simultaneously, retics decrease--a sure fire way to trigger a passport positive. To avoid this, as I noted in my earlier post, riders a) transfuse saline, to reduce the HT, and b) take EPO, to raise retics. The latter, then, is another form of micro-dosing, which Floyd first told investigators about.python said:then around 2000-'01, epo doses (micro-doses) and the injection schedules changed correspondingly because they had to be incorporated into the overall blood doping programme relying on blood transfusions during the major races.
tyler did describe the phenomena in his book though he lacked many technical details he communicated to usada/wada. for example, he described a sophisticated doper advised by ferrari had to stop subcutaneous 2000 i u twice a week and go to a 500-1000 i u every day or 2 intravenously. again, this was required to beat the urine epo test as prior to 2008 the passport at least formally) did not exist.
Here's the complete article: http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/37/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00421-011-1867-6.pdf?auth66=1351987102_c35477537d8faff8941cd711189d88ea&ext=.pdfi freely admit that i did not read the whole ashenden paper referred to by von mises and don't know the doses he used (would like to know though), but reading the abstract the paper appears to have missed the most important - trying to replicated the behavior of a sophisticated doper trying to beat the system.
Definitely. And as discussed in this forum previously, MA has also published work suggesting blood transfusions can also easily beat the passport.that the bio-passport failed to catch a twice-a-week micro-dose as opposed to even a smaller dose daily is alarming.
The Ashenden study was twice a week. I believe the reference to once a week is because a study involving once a week injections found 25% EPO positives. They are saying that if they injected the total dose obtained by two weekly injections in one weekly dose, their study would be like that study.Ferminal said:I'm confused, don't know if the doses are per injection or per week.
Can you please confirm this link? I would like to read the full article also.Merckx index said:
Wasn't his excuse not drinking enough water?Tyler'sTwin said:Didn't Frei say he shot 500 iu IV when he tested positive?
Mrs John Murphy said:Question for JV:
You've said that Matt White should have a future in cycling. My question is 'who should have no future in cycling and why?'
If anyone on my team is asked any questions about past doping, by an authority, they are obliged, by their employer to be honest. Policy isn't just for ex-usps riders.Mrs John Murphy said:JV you said that CA/GE had every opportunity to ask MW about his past but did not. Did you discuss with MW his doping at USP? Have you discussed past doping with your other riders?
Or do you operate a version of don't ask, don't tell policy, where you do not ask your riders about doping but with the caveat that should a rider be outed you will not sack him (even though he was not forthcoming about past doping)?
I assume that this is what you meant by 'same treatment as the rest of my guys'.
Which brings me back to the question from before - why is Dekker treated differently to dopers who have not yet been outed?
How does keeping a doper who maintains omerta until outed in cycling, help cycling?
Mrs John Murphy said:Question for JV:
You've said that Matt White should have a future in cycling. My question is 'who should have no future in cycling and why?'
Which seems to suggest that you don't ask your riders yourself if they doped on their former teams.JV1973 said:If anyone on my team is asked any questions about past doping, by an authority, they are obliged, by their employer to be honest. Policy isn't just for ex-usps riders.
The question would be 'how do you know his doping was more recent and extreme than other members of your team if you haven't asked them?'JV1973 said:Dekker was tested extensively because his doping was much more recent and extreme than any other member of my team.
Can you help me out with timelines here. The Armstrong investigation began cSummer 2010, when White was still on your staff. I assume that he had been sacked before investigators came knocking on the door of Garmin otherwise he would have been obliged to talk to investigators the same as active riders?JV1973 said:And, yes, I spoke to Matt White about his past doping. Absolutely.
Yes nice summary. thanks . It's also how I interpreted the EPO era. But now for what is happening since... Found this interesting link on Haemassist and other oxygen carrying blood substitutes:python said:he did...
but what seems to be missing from all the comments i read so far, is that the role of epo as a performance enhancer (at the most sophisticated level) - and this is a well known fact to ashenden - the role was evolving from epo being the main blood doping element of a programme (through the 90's up to 00) to the one being a supplemental element being used in combination with blood transfusions from '00-'01 and on. there are a couple of reasons. one, of course, being the epo test introduction in 2000 (2001 in cycling).
the term epo micro-dosing needs to be qualified. it existed both before and after the epo test intro.
prior to the epo test, the riders only had to beat the 50% hct limit. they'd try to quickly build hct with the relatively large subcutaneous epo doses prior to the major races and then maintain their hct - again subcutaneously - (thus the therm a maintenance dose) during a major grand tour. tyler suggests that he was using 2000 iu every 3d day. this was micro-dosing then. it was easy to beat the 50% limit b/c each self-respecting team had spinners.
then around 2000-'01, epo doses (micro-doses) and the injection schedules changed correspondingly because they had to be incorporated into the overall blood doping programme relying on blood transfusions during the major races.
tyler did describe the phenomena in his book though he lacked many technical details he communicated to usada/wada. for example, he described a sophisticated doper advised by ferrari had to stop subcutaneous 2000 i u twice a week and go to a 500-1000 i u every day or 2 intravenously. again, this was required to beat the urine epo test as prior to 2008 the passport at least formally) did not exist.
ironically, according to ashenden et al, this 10 year old (!) epo schedule designed to beat the urine test appears to be also relatively safe today against the fully implemented blood passport.
i freely admit that i did not read the whole ashenden paper referred to by von mises and don't know the doses he used (would like to know though), but reading the abstract the paper appears to have missed the most important - trying to replicated the behavior of a sophisticated doper trying to beat the system.
that the bio-passport failed to catch a twice-a-week micro-dose as opposed to even a smaller dose daily is alarming.
You rate yourself too highly, unless by "drilling hard" you're referring to masturbatory technique. JV already has you pegged :Dear Wiggo said:I think if anyone was drilling this hard (like I dunno me, for example), JV would walk out of the interview and block their twitter account. Just hazarding a guess.
JV1973 said:You really need to stop commenting on things that you have zero knowledge about. It brings down the whole group's understanding of the issues and does not contribute anything worthwhile.
Yes, that all makes sense now. And to think that I thought that there was something a little nefarious going on - need to learn (yet again…) to trust, and it‘s sometimes hard with pro-cycling, ya know! Sorry again for the excessive interrogation a few posts ago - but I was in fact fairly confident you’d be able to explain in some fashion I was unable to think of.JV1973 said:While my quotes re this during the TdF could seem untruthful, at that time no bans had been given or agreed to by my riders. Why? My guess is that USADA was hoping that there would be a broader truth and reconciliation effort across the sport and that bans would be put aside, as the need for full disclosure from multiple parties would be needed. However, when UCI started kicking up about jurisdiction, etc, they figured it would not be a cooperative effort, but instead a contentious one. Too bad.
Anyhow, at that point, my guess is, they realized the need for 6 mod bans, as no truth and reconciliation would occur.
Really.autologous said:You rate yourself too highly, unless by "drilling hard" you're referring to masturbatory technique. JV already has you pegged :
hypothetically, what if say a rider named Cark Mavendish, is also hardcore, but now, like Armstrong, is like AGI and Goldmans, ie too big to fail.JV1973 said:My opinion? Ricco is a good example. A guy who kept at it, hard core, long after most others had called a truce. That's just my opinion and its very subjective.
Given that you had been doping for a while already by the time you won on Mont Ventoux, could this mean you were given A-class treatment for the Dauphiné to act as a sort of tester for the team leaders' program for the Tour? And that therefore the questions it answered was, essentially, "What could I accomplish on an A-class program"?“Did it feel massive? Did you feel happy?”
“I felt okay. I wasn’t ecstatic.”
“That doesn’t make sense?”
“Well, for sure, it was the best form of my life as a bike rider, but I wasn’t . . . I was just sort of . . . I will leave it at this; I wasn’t overly pleased with that victory. It was interesting to me. It answered a lot of questions. But it wasn’t the most ecstatic moment of my life by any means.”
"most others had called a truce"? what does that mean? stopped doping full throttle and shifted to bandwidth doping? stopped doping period? And who are "most others"? Certainly the Spanish armada didn't hear about the truce, did they? Just the anglo-phone teams or what?JV1973 said:My opinion? Ricco is a good example. A guy who kept at it, hard core, long after most others had called a truce. That's just my opinion and its very subjective.
What info does JV have to know others called a truce?sniper said:"most others had called a truce"? what does that mean? stopped doping full throttle and shifted to bandwidth doping? stopped doping period? And who are "most others"? Certainly the Spanish armada didn't hear about the truce, did they? Just the anglo-phone teams or what?
Care to give an objective opinion? Pretty easy singling out Ricco.
wouldn't Rabobank have preferred to stay in the business if any such truce did really exist? Rather, I recall Rabobank stepped out because they don't believe cycling is capable of cleaning itself up. They should've called JV for a second opinion!Benotti69 said:What info does JV have to know others called a truce?
that Ricco was exaggerating, very well. but what the hell does it mean that "most others" called for a "truce"? It sounds like cheap PR if it isn't specified any further. You know as well as I do that nobody called for a truce. Look at the Spanish riders apologizing for Armstrong and dominating the Vuelta. Were the Spanish not part of the truce? Look at Rabo not believing in clean cycling. Did Rabo not know about the truce? Look at Vino at the Olympics. Look at Sky. Also, Bruyneel and Riis were certainly still in the game when JV's alleged truce was called for. Did they welcome the truce? Did they sabotage it?hrotha said:I think that, as you don't trust JV, you're choosing to call BS on everything he says, regardless of how reasonable it is. I'd say it's clear that, in 2008, with the introduction of the passport, there were some folks partying like it was 2007, and they stood out (Riccò, Piepoli, Sella & friends, Schumacher, etc).