Well, there you have it. If you can't be successful without being a cheat, fraud and liar, then go ahead and do it! After all, it's the logical thing to do!
Indeed...
Well, there you have it. If you can't be successful without being a cheat, fraud and liar, then go ahead and do it! After all, it's the logical thing to do!
Indeed...
Merckx index said:
I am not disagreeing with you. But I think that some people here are simplifing Ashenden´s message. Ashenden´s job is to find loopholes and emphasize these loopholes, but overall picture (what Ashenden is supoorting too) is more complicated. But some people here say that peloton is dirty as ever, that not getting caught is easy as ever and so and so on, as a proof they then quote Ashenden or Hamilton or Frei.
But if you actually read what Ashenden and other research show, the picture is not so simple. Yes, it is possible to get away, but not easy and quite risky. For instance, do you think that 25% chance (note, that some other peapers are putting % even higher) of testing positive for EPO test is reasonable risk to take? Well, maybe once, but continuously? I doubt...
I try not to judge individual riders and individual cases, because there are too many unknowns and just lack of information, but I think (and that has been my main point) that peloton is much cleaner than some here think. In fact, I can repeat my opinio - majority of peloton is not involved in blood manipulation, tranfusion or EPO.
Secondly, another important point what I got from Ashenden and others work is that at present day we do not need miracles to fight against doping. Unless there is new undetectable doping product or undetectable technique, we actually need only two things: a) strong and trustworthy enforces (UCI, WADA); b) more tests. It is not 1996 or 2002 when we did not have tools, now we have tools, we just have to use them.
QUOTE=JV1973;1072813]Oh, and Von Mises, thank you for commenting here. You clearly have worked in anti-doping or have a very high level understanding of it. Glad to have you as part of the discussion.[/QUOTE]
Thank you, but no, I have not worked in anti-doping.
Von Mises said:
Isn't that misleading, the probability of testing positive is related to the dosage, the more you take the higher the chance (or have I missed something)? Is there research which identifies that a <1% risk dose is of no performance enhancement? Does the risk include the actual likelihood of being tested?
- Jul 27, 2010
- 5,121
- 884
- 19,680
Von Mises said:
They estimate a 25% chance if the rider is tested within two days of injection. Since in their protocol they injected once a week, or could do it that infrequently, the odds of being caught might be estimated as 2/7 x 25% = 7% + some other fraction based on the odds of being positive after more than two days. Roughly, 10%, perhaps. That is, if a rider is tested one time during the period of several weeks when the highest dose is injected, this is roughly the probability of getting caught.
So the risk is significant, I agree. But again, as Ashenden et al. note, riders aren't tested for EPO all that often. So you have to factor in the odds of being tested for EPO in any four week (say) period, to get the overall odds that a rider on this program will get caught. The latter might be 1 in 20 or 30, say. We would look at that and say it's still too risky, but we know that riders tend to underestimate (or deny) risks. We could also look at the number of EPO positives per year, and from that roughly estimate how many riders are engaging in this risky behavior, since most of them would not be caught. Since we are still getting EPO positives, this suggests to me that a significant number of riders are engaging in risky behavior.
Finally, Ashenden has also shown it's possible to transfuse and beat the passport, and in this case much less EPO is necessary (to raise retics). The odds of testing positive for EPO would be much less than that estimated in this study.
I think the peloton is cleaner than it was before, and have said that here several times, but it's not an opinion I would bet the mortgage on. We're all guessing. JV and others like to point to power values as another line of evidence. But as I've also suggested, those comparisons would be more accurate and useful if we could incorporate a standard stage in every GT--a climbing TT, say, that doesn't change from year to year, so power values could be compared in the absence of many of the variables resulting from different stages that currently confound such comparisons.
- Sep 29, 2012
- 12,197
- 0
- 0
Merckx index said:
CADF report says for 2011 the averages were:
OOC urine tests: 2.1 / rider
IC urine tests: 2 / rider
% of urine tests for EPO: 70% (72% by my calculations :-/)
In 2011, Wiggins raced 70 days - compared to Stannard who raced 93. It's fast and loose, I realise, with results-oriented testing impacting greatly, but worst case scenario given this admission, would see:
365 days when they can be tested.
Fast and loose guesstimation: (it's past 1am, forgive my complete lack of accuracy or even rigor on the formulae applied. Feel free to modify to reality. My 3rd year uni stats / probability exams were passed 20 years ago this week).
Rider: Wiggins
IC: 70 days. EPO testing impacted significantly (I hope) by results.
OOC: 285 days. Likelihood of EPO test:
Likelihood you get tested in a week (7 day) period: 7 * 2.1/285 = 5.2%
Likelihood this is within 2 days of an injection: 2/7 * 5.2% = 1.47%
Add 20% estimate for glow time extending past 2 days: 1.47% x 1.2 = 1.77%
Hence the estimate that you would be subject to a urine sample collection in a week within 2 days (+20%) of injecting EPO: 1.77%
% of urine samples tested for EPO: 70%
Likelihood you would be tested for EPO in that week block: 1.77 x 70% = 1.2%
Likelihood that you would test positive to EPO within 2 days of injection: 25%
Likelihood you would be sampled, that the sample would be analysed for EPO, and that EPO detected would pass the positive threshold in any given week of OOC testing: 25% x 1.2% = 0.3%
Average length of altitude training camps (2012 data. sue me
): 2 weeksLikelihood you would be caught in any 2 week block: 0.6%
For someone like Ian Stannard who raced 93 days, the difference in probability of testing positive is negligible. I chose these 2 riders as they are at relative extremes of riders of interest from a testing POV, not necessarily a UCI POV.
Targeted testing and what not have a bearing, but this is our starting point.
Does not look very risky to me. My sanity check says the starting values of 2.1 tests for 285 OOC days means you're starting with a less than 1% chance of even being sampled on any given day. So the final result of 0.6% doesn't feel too bad.
Merckx index said:
Did he say within 2 days or after 2 days? I understood latter, that they tested exactly 2 days after injection. I guess risk decreases over time (though we do not know exactly how much)- it is higher than 25% within first 24 hours, 25% exactly 48 hours later and less than 25% afterwards.
Gew points:
- to gain from EPO (without triggering passport) you need to take it frequently, so you are widening window for testers
- there is a risk for positive EPO test, but there is also a risk to trigger passport. Let not forget it, that risk comes from two sides. From 10 subjects in Ashenden test group 1 triggered passport and 2 other cases were suspicious (I do not know how testers would act with suspicious results, do they target these riders more?)
- if you take more and if your results improve, you are probably tested more - results themselves lead to more frequent testing. This is third side where risks come.
- overall I think that money-rich riders can run sophisticated doping regimen, though I am sure that even they take much less and gain much less, than riders 5,10 or 15 years ago. But I do not think that these strategies are available for most.
- Sep 19, 2012
- 103
- 3
- 8,835
I have removed my post as I feel that I am not very well informed and that I am adding little to the discussion.
Last edited:
Argyle_Fan said:
Thanks for interesting post.
I think this is much more valuable than the pages that are being spent/wasted on Wiggins non existent link with Ferrari.
Hope you get a good reply.....My view is quite a lot of these drugs can be performance enhancing (eg anti-depressants should make you feel better etc)
BUT I do wonder how open teams are to cataloging usage?
- Sep 19, 2012
- 103
- 3
- 8,835
I have removed my post as I am not very well informed and I feel that I am addinglittle to the discussion.
Last edited:
- Jul 27, 2010
- 5,121
- 884
- 19,680
The numbers are actually quite ambiguous. Reading over their discussion again, I note they say that all samples were positive when tested within two days of injection, and 25% of samples were positive when tested during the maintenance phase. I think what they mean wrt the latter is that when the subjects injected EPO once a week, and testing was conducted randomly once during this week, 25% were positive. Rather than the 10% I estimated. This fits with 100% positives within two days, i.e., 2/7 x 100% is roughly 25%.
But they also say that a second laboratory found no positives, and they note that EPO at some unknown but presumably effective dose was indetectable 12-18 hours after injection. Taking all this into account, at the end they hedge, just saying the probability of a positive is somewhere between 0-25%. IOW, plenty of room for both optimists and pessimists to make their argument.
Taking the 25% extreme, and re-calculating along the lines of what DW was doing, there is a 5% chance of being tested in a certain one week period, a 3.5% chance of being tested for EPO, and a 0.9% chance of testing positive. If we extend to four weeks, the protocol used in the Ashenden study, the probability of testing positive is about 4%. This is in the range of the 1/20 - 1/30 that I was guessing at earlier. Again, I emphasize, this is using the most optimistic (most likely to test positive) numbers. And it suggests that the number of riders doing this might be about 25x the number of riders testing positive during the year.
As far as the ability of the ABP to detect this protocol, Ashenden says quite specifically that none of the subjects in this study was flagged. There was one positive off-score, but that was prior to EPO injections, and they concluded that possibly it was the result of instrument bias. Similarly, Ashenden has done studies of blood transfusions, and finds that without using Hb mass measurements, for which there is currently no approved test, they are very difficult to detect.
But they also say that a second laboratory found no positives, and they note that EPO at some unknown but presumably effective dose was indetectable 12-18 hours after injection. Taking all this into account, at the end they hedge, just saying the probability of a positive is somewhere between 0-25%. IOW, plenty of room for both optimists and pessimists to make their argument.
Taking the 25% extreme, and re-calculating along the lines of what DW was doing, there is a 5% chance of being tested in a certain one week period, a 3.5% chance of being tested for EPO, and a 0.9% chance of testing positive. If we extend to four weeks, the protocol used in the Ashenden study, the probability of testing positive is about 4%. This is in the range of the 1/20 - 1/30 that I was guessing at earlier. Again, I emphasize, this is using the most optimistic (most likely to test positive) numbers. And it suggests that the number of riders doing this might be about 25x the number of riders testing positive during the year.
As far as the ability of the ABP to detect this protocol, Ashenden says quite specifically that none of the subjects in this study was flagged. There was one positive off-score, but that was prior to EPO injections, and they concluded that possibly it was the result of instrument bias. Similarly, Ashenden has done studies of blood transfusions, and finds that without using Hb mass measurements, for which there is currently no approved test, they are very difficult to detect.
- May 2, 2009
- 736
- 7
- 9,995
Argyle_Fan said:
A few minutes on the interwebs googling some of these things could sort these out. I suspect that there are some other motivations at play, though.
Soda doping is an old wive's tale. At physiological pH, lactic acid is lactate. Attempting to neutralize it is pointless. Buffering in the context of the Kreb's or Cori cycle (you can look up which or if it's some other cycle), would require addition of one of the subsequent metabolic products (or addition of a partner in the next reaction).
At any rate, what is your stomach full of? Pointless to drink soda to neutralize blood acid.
Blood letting? Seriously? You are a troll. Why do you think your EPO would increase?
Carbon monoxide: Why is car exhaust so dangerous? Saturation by carbon monoxide eliminates O2 binding sites. You need O2 binding sites. Your body tries to make more, hence EPO rise.
You can do the math on oxygen doping by looking up oxygen carrying volume (or whatever physiological measure they use). Take the highest VO2 max reported and figure it out. My guess is it will last about as long as an Olympic level swimmer can hold his/her breath. Of course, if everyone else has to hold their breath for the first 60 secs of the 10 mile TT, you might have an advantage.
Forgive my sarcasm and condescending tone, but with your sarcastic name, repeated lists of (base) questions, I'm not sure you are actually looking to be taken seriously.
- May 2, 2009
- 736
- 7
- 9,995
Dear JV,
How do you feel about these borderline chemical and physical "interventions"? Would you let any of your riders use them? Is there any evidence they work? Have you heard of their use in the peloton amongst other teams?
BPA
BPA is an estrogen mimic used in cheap in baby bottles as a platicizer. Estrogen can serve as a masking agent to lower your T/E ratio. Would you let your riders use baby bottles as bidons?
Glycogen manipulation
Insulin is banned for non-diabetic riders as it can be abused by helping riders replenish their glycogen stores.
Have you considered hiring all of Team Type 1 since they can use insulin?
What about other methods of glycogen manipulation? I have heard that mixtures of short chain, long chain and hyperbranched carboydrates can induce insulin increases. Would you let your riders carboload a) before races, b) during races, or c) both.
Power to Weight Ratio
Riders' estimated W/kg ratio has been used to identify suspicious performances. Lowering this ratio would make a rider less suspicious. Have you ever considered:
1) Overstating a rider's weight to lower the ratio (i.e. increase the denominator)?
2) removing thigh muscle to lower the ratio (i.e. decrease the numerator)?
What about pre-race blood-letting? This would lower the rider's weight, increasing his W/kg ratio. The blood could be replaced with saline drip post race to return his weight to baseline.
Cheers,
Willy
How do you feel about these borderline chemical and physical "interventions"? Would you let any of your riders use them? Is there any evidence they work? Have you heard of their use in the peloton amongst other teams?
BPA
BPA is an estrogen mimic used in cheap in baby bottles as a platicizer. Estrogen can serve as a masking agent to lower your T/E ratio. Would you let your riders use baby bottles as bidons?
Glycogen manipulation
Insulin is banned for non-diabetic riders as it can be abused by helping riders replenish their glycogen stores.
Have you considered hiring all of Team Type 1 since they can use insulin?
What about other methods of glycogen manipulation? I have heard that mixtures of short chain, long chain and hyperbranched carboydrates can induce insulin increases. Would you let your riders carboload a) before races, b) during races, or c) both.
Power to Weight Ratio
Riders' estimated W/kg ratio has been used to identify suspicious performances. Lowering this ratio would make a rider less suspicious. Have you ever considered:
1) Overstating a rider's weight to lower the ratio (i.e. increase the denominator)?
2) removing thigh muscle to lower the ratio (i.e. decrease the numerator)?
What about pre-race blood-letting? This would lower the rider's weight, increasing his W/kg ratio. The blood could be replaced with saline drip post race to return his weight to baseline.
Cheers,
Willy
- Sep 29, 2012
- 12,197
- 0
- 0
Willy_Voet said:
Blood letting reduces RBCs - leading to hypoxia compared to base line. EPO is stimulated by hypoxia.
But as AF points out, it's counterintuitive.
They are not a troll for mentioning it, as has it has been discussed elsewhere as something mentioned on Michele Ferrari's website, so is a valid item to add to the list, even if it is ultimately not necessarily a good idea.
- Sep 19, 2012
- 103
- 3
- 8,835
I have removed numourous of my posts as I feel that I am not very well informed and that I am adding little to the discussion.
Last edited:
- Sep 19, 2012
- 103
- 3
- 8,835
I have removed numerous of my posts as I feel that I am not very well informed and that I am adding little to the discussion.
Last edited:
- Sep 19, 2012
- 103
- 3
- 8,835
I have removed a number of my posts as I do not consider myself well-informed and I feel that I am adding little to the discussion.
Last edited:
- May 2, 2009
- 736
- 7
- 9,995
Dear Wiggo said:
Ferrari's website should be viewed as his version of the cancer shield.
That last paragraph of his 'article':
Athletes too may benefit from blood donations, as the effect is similar to the stay at altitude, with a much lower economic cost, even though under the scrutiny of Sports Authority as a "hematologic manipulation"...
is borderline nonsense.
Sounds like he is setting up a plausible explanation as to why an athlete might have withdrawn a lot of blood (I was simulating high altitude training!). The reason to go to altitude is to increase RBC. Taking out RBC to simulate going to altitude is a logical fallacy at best. You can use his own arguments against him (article).
- May 2, 2009
- 736
- 7
- 9,995
Argyle_Fan said:
I imagine you would have to time your blood donation pretty precisely to get any benefit?
That is like a salamander cutting off his own tail just to grow a new one. You will get no benefit. You will get back to your baseline level +/- baseline noise.
Probably easier and more efficient to get a hypoxic tent or train at altitude
Yes.
(or use CO...)
No. No. No. Salamander's tail.
- Sep 19, 2012
- 103
- 3
- 8,835
I have removed a number of my posts as I do not feel myself very well informed and I feel that i am adding little to the discussion.
Last edited:
- Sep 19, 2012
- 103
- 3
- 8,835
I have removed a number of my posts as I do not consider myself very well informed and I feel that I am adding little to the discussion.
Last edited:
- Sep 19, 2012
- 103
- 3
- 8,835
I am removing numorous posts as I am not very well informed, and I feel that I am adding little to the discussion.
Last edited:
- May 2, 2009
- 736
- 7
- 9,995
Argyle_Fan said:
Duloxetine/Eprexa in particular - inhibits re-uptake of Sertraline & Epinephrine - although others are prescribed off-label.
Duloxetine inhibits the re-uptake of serotonin and norepinephrine. That said, epinphrine is also a substrate of the norepinephrine transporter, so, in some sense, you are still correct on that. Sertraline is a reuptake inhibitor, you wouldn't inhibit the reuptake of a reuptake inhibitor.
Pain killers (for the ones you listed, I think anti-inflammatories is more appropriate) can lessen the body's own inflammation response mechanisms (disclaimer: this is now getting outside my area of expertise, but I'm married to someone who is an expert in this). By reducing the inflammation response, you are likely reducing the levels of cortisol, testosterone and (maybe) growth hormone you may see without taking the painkiller.
But, if the pain is too much for you to sleep at night, then your body is going to have a hard time recovering on its own. So then taking the anti-inflammatory makes sense.
- Sep 19, 2012
- 103
- 3
- 8,835
I am removing numoerous posts as I do not feel yself very well informed and I feel that I am adding little to the discussion.
Last edited:
- Sep 19, 2012
- 103
- 3
- 8,835
I am removing numerous posts as I do not feel myself very well informed, and I feel that I am adding little to the discussion.
Last edited:
- Sep 19, 2012
- 103
- 3
- 8,835
I am removing numourous posts as I feel that they add little to the discussion - I am not very well informed.
Last edited:
TRENDING THREADS
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 855
-
Tre Valli Varesine 2025, one day race, October 7- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 169
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s ITT, September 21- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 942
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 35K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 40K
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 123
Latest posts
-
-
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Latest: GenericBoonenFan
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram