Michael Ashenden - Voice of Reason

[Alpe d'Huez]

All we have here is another one of Super Lance's bitter, angry, jealous, employees. First Tex-Pat, then Jack Daniels, AKA ManRod, then Frankie, then Chimera twin, master of Tanker, then Dr. Ferrari, then Dr. Ashden. See a pattern here anyone?

You left out George.

And don't forget Levi, Kevin, DZ, Jemison, etc. unless you think they kept mum when subpoenaed.

Isn't Polish a she?

I have pondered that. Is it Polish, as in "nail polish"? Or is it Polish, as in "Lech Wałęsa is Polish"?

 

[flicker]

You left out George.

And don't forget Levi, Kevin, DZ, Jemison, etc. unless you think they kept mum when subpoenaed.



I have pondered that. Is it Polish, as in "nail polish"? Or is it Polish, as in "Lech Wałęsa is Polish"?

I jest,as Dr. F., Kev.,DZNUTZ and Levi are firmly on our side. George I don't know. I imagine he is interested in continuing with his clothing line. I find it hardly plausable that he would risk his future in the cycling business by admitting to using EPO or receiving it and trading back to Lance. Basicallly that is why I believe this is yellow journalism by the NYT. Also very harmful to a future case against Armstrong. I thought Tyler's admissions were wrong also, if the Feds wanted him as a witness he should be mum.
Notice, Floyd is quiet now. Smart.

Sincerely I thought the bright boys in the forum would have taken my cue and discussed why Ashenden is no longer employed by Armstrong.
To me that is more telling than Dr. Ashenden discussing the TdF Lance pos.

 

[Spider1964]

Floyd is quiet now! ROFL!!! LMAO!!! Obviously you don't do twitter Flickie? He's been doing a lot of tweeting through his attorneys @GreyManrod and about half a dozen other accounts.... he's funny, like you. Especially when the Jack Daniels is flowing

But more importantly, is you mate Polish a he or a she? I'm with the Alpe and going with girls nail polish. Please enlighten us Flickster?

 

[sashimono]

I thought it was Polish as in Polish joke.

About Ashenden... Some screwup occurred with the 1999 Lance stuff. Ok. If Ashenden is a scientist, and he thinks using new EPO tests on old samples is a useful endeavor, why doesn't he get the necessary permissions and funding to do such tests correctly and publish the results in a way that would carry some weight, i.e. a peer-reviewed journal? I just don't get why he'd rather be slumming it with pseudo-scientific opinions on nyvelocity. Its not what real scientists do.

 

[flicker]

Floyd is quiet now! ROFL!!! LMAO!!! Obviously you don't do twitter Flickie? He's been doing a lot of tweeting through his attorneys @GreyManrod and about half a dozen other accounts.... he's funny, like you. Especially when the Jack Daniels is flowing

But more importantly, is you mate Polish a he or a she? I'm with the Alpe and going with girls nail polish. Please enlighten us Flickster?

Floyd is just taunting. Like I said before, in Floyd's own words he was not positive for testesterone. Floyd records everything, he is an accountant, he scribes it.
Floyd knows something is not right in that lab in France. He knows somebody set him up. I think that is why he was so glib with Greg, Floyd knew he was clean and Greg checked Floyd's numbers and thought Floyd was clean. Le Mond state that in Velonews.Then Floyd spouted off bragging to Greg about doping, previously and turned Greg into a big enemy. No one wants Greg as an enemy.
Anyway that is my opinion. I am trusting Floyd today.

 

[spalco]

All we have here is another one of Super Lance's bitter, angry, jealous, employees. First Tex-Pat, then Jack Daniels, AKA ManRod, then Frankie, then,Chimera twin, master of Tanker, then Dr. Ferrari, then Dr. Ashden.
See a pattern here anyone?

Um, yes. Lots of people making similar allegations independently of one another. That could be called a "pattern", but I don't think you'd like the logical conclusion of this "pattern".

 

[python]

ashenden has earned his credibility.

does not mean people will always agree with him.

i happened not only to respect his scientific contributions but also to wholeheartedly agree with his critical stance on the zealotry of 'zero tolerance'.

mike is the voice of reason - clear and firm when it needs to be, guarded and cautious when it must be.

 

[AussieGoddess]

I thought it was Polish as in Polish joke.

About Ashenden... Some screwup occurred with the 1999 Lance stuff. Ok. If Ashenden is a scientist, and he thinks using new EPO tests on old samples is a useful endeavor, why doesn't he get the necessary permissions and funding to do such tests correctly and publish the results in a way that would carry some weight, i.e. a peer-reviewed journal? I just don't get why he'd rather be slumming it with pseudo-scientific opinions on nyvelocity. Its not what real scientists do.

umm - the science is not really in question. Only the actual test results in this case (ie whether or not they are definitely Lance's, and whether or not they were tampered with)

That isnt something you can 'research' or get published in a peer review journal.

As far as getting permission and funding - why on earth would the UCI (who are trying their hardest to cover up this stuff) give him permission to retest? and they certainly arent going to fund it.

 

[Benotti69]

God I love this guy.

Straight to the heart of the matter.

Yes Mike - the UCI accepting donations from its current TdF champion who is surrounded by doping allegations IS INCREDIBLY inappropriate.

Yes Mike - LA is lying every time he says he has never used PED's or never tested posative because we all know he has

Yes Mike - the lab doing the testing contacting the rider involved IS INCREDIBLY inappropriate ... and yes the UCI MUST have set that up because otherwise how would the lab have known who's sample it was? The lab only gets sample numbers.

It therefore might have gone something like - test is positive,
- lab contacts UCI,
- UCI tells lab "lets call this one a grey area",
- UCI sets up meeting with LA and JB to discuss the finer points of testing and for gifts to be exchanged??????

Would the above highlighted be considered illegal under any Swiss law?

How can we find out? If so, you can then take seriously the Swiss attitude to corruption? Would Ashenden know?

I wonder how many other DS in the pro peloton have been to meet Lab directors? Riis? Never had a rider test positive!
(^^^maybe a seperate thread^^^^)

 

[Tom T.]

If Ashendon's discussion of how to spike LA's '99 samples is the best criticism the fanboys can come up with then he's on pretty solid ground.

Remember, there were 87 samples that were sent blindly to the lab, meaning they did not know who's samples they were. So to properly spike them you'd have to somehow figure out which were Lance's and then spike them in a way to show 100% isoforms at the prologue—which he won—and then a dropoff to 89.7% the next day. And then another spike to 96.6% at Sestriere, which he also won. Read the article:http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden

If you read that and still think the fix was in then there really is nothing that can be done for you.

 

[Animal]

All we have here is another one of Super Lance's bitter, angry, jealous, employees. First Tex-Pat, then Jack Daniels, AKA ManRod, then Frankie, then,Chimera twin, master of Tanker, then Dr. Ferrari, then Dr. Ashden.
See a pattern here anyone?

Yes.

People get to see what he does, and secrets are rarely kept forever. Simple really.

Unless you're a tinfoil hat wearer.

 

[lean mean &green]

I thought it was Polish as in Polish joke.

About Ashenden... Some screwup occurred with the 1999 Lance stuff. Ok. If Ashenden is a scientist, and he thinks using new EPO tests on old samples is a useful endeavor, why doesn't he get the necessary permissions and funding to do such tests correctly and publish the results in a way that would carry some weight, i.e. a peer-reviewed journal? I just don't get why he'd rather be slumming it with pseudo-scientific opinions on nyvelocity. Its not what real scientists do.

the 99 samples were tested FOR research purposes!

they were essentially validating the test and meant to do so anonymously. the samples were identified to researchers by code number only. people not associated with the research did some digging and correctly tied the code numbers to armstrong.

ashendon has been published many many times. anyone who's ACTUALLY researched anti-doping knows this.

what ashendon should have said is that the probability the 99 samples may have been tampered with is virtually zero.

 

[Big GMaC]

I have pondered that. Is it Polish, as in "nail polish"? Or is it Polish, as in "Lech Wałęsa is Polish"?

Not the first time this has been asked!

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=284507&postcount=19

Still waiting for a reply

 

[Galic Ho]

umm - the science is not really in question. Only the actual test results in this case (ie whether or not they are definitely Lance's, and whether or not they were tampered with)

That isnt something you can 'research' or get published in a peer review journal.

As far as getting permission and funding - why on earth would the UCI (who are trying their hardest to cover up this stuff) give him permission to retest? and they certainly arent going to fund it.

Time to quieten down princess. Ashenden is an Aussie. Worked at the AIS as a sports scientist before heading to Europe. He's seen all the doping in Australia first hand. He invented the EPO test. Quit playing the fool card and do some reading. This is old news. Back in 2009 when the Clinic was wall to wall of info filled threads, this was a MAJOR talking point. An Aussie disputing arguably the most qualified expert on doping in sport, who just happens to be a national icon. Genius, take a bow.

Read the damn NYVelocity article. The numbers are straight to the point. The LNDD owned the samples for testing. They retested for TRAINING and a research paper designed to gain info on the changes in doping between 1999, a year after Festina and also a year where NO EPO TEST EXISTED, and 2005. Tests done in later half of 2005. Random samples selected. 100 tested. 8 positives for EPO. 6 belonged to Armstrong. Six all found out through LA's own hand. French L'Equipe journo knew the sample numbers but had no idea who the ID number belonged to. He asked the UCI and LA for his sample numbers. They willingly gave them out, not aware the French retesting had been done and the journo only had to match the damn ID numbers with LA's.

The UCI hired Vrijman to cover and excuse the whole thing. I doubt you'd have heard of the Vrimjan report. You'd know this if you weren't barking up the wrong tree. Now go google the article and read it for yourself. If you still want to debate and suggest Ashenden is a goof after, by all means, there are plenty of people here who will take up the slack. You are out of your depth. Ashenden has long been rumoured on these threads to be able to sit a rider down and explain on a post-it how to avoid the Bio-Passport safety features whilst doping. World sports need more guys like him who have dedicated their lives to making sport clean and free of doping, so honest hard working naturally gifted sports men and women can compete and win without worrying about needing to juice up or hire a dope doctor/courier.

I'm also guessing you missed the lovely piece of writing the Science of Sports guys posted a few months back on the changes since 1999 to today in doping and blood parameters tabled, recorded and evaluated by Euro scientists. The data shows the changes in questionable blood parameters and indicates a change in doping practices (EPO and Blood transfusions have different effects). For the period of time these LNDD tests covered, EPO was by far the biggest drug used. More numbers and lovely coloured graphs anyone with a smidgen of intellect can understand. They're pretty handy as well and show the Bio-Passport is having an effect. If you have the stomach, you can hang round the Clinic for long enough to see the next piece on such a matter. Always educating. Or perhaps SBS might have some more kosher articles...maybe that's to your taste?

 

[Merckx index]

Ashenden is an Aussie. Worked at the AIS as a sports scientist before heading to Europe. He's seen all the doping in Australia first hand. He invented the EPO test.

No, he was not involved in developing the EPO test. He did develop the homologous blood doping test, more precisely, modify an already existing procedure for application to doping.

Read the damn NYVelocity article. The numbers are straight to the point. The LNDD owned the samples for testing. They retested for TRAINING and a research paper designed to gain info on the changes in doping between 1999, a year after Festina and also a year where NO EPO TEST EXISTED, and 2005. Tests done in later half of 2005. Random samples selected. 100 tested. 8 positives for EPO. 6 belonged to Armstrong.

If you want to quote data, you should do some reading yourself. There were considerably more than eight positives, though six were for LA.

If you still want to debate and suggest Ashenden is a goof

Where do you see that in her posts?

 

[Polish]

I seem to remember reading that Dr Ashenden was responsible for developing the test for HemAssist back in the early 2000's. Maybe he used some of Lance's old samples?

It was referenced somewhere in the Clinic....

And if you guys really need to know, it's Polish as in kielbasa.
Great Grandma Polish moved here to America.
Do not have any memories of her sigh.
But Grandma Polish made wonderful kielbasa.
And crullers too. Homemade crullers at Christmas time.
yum!!!

http://easteuropeanfood.about.com/od/recipestepbyst2/ss/chrusciki.htm
.
.

 

[Galic Ho]

No, he was not involved in developing the EPO test. He did develop the homologous blood doping test, more precisely, modify an already existing procedure for application to doping.



If you want to quote data, you should do some reading yourself. There were considerably more than eight positives, though six were for LA.

Riders named; there were 8 samples. I was putting in the basics dude. Considerably more? Of the total samples taken from the overall 1999 TdF, if I remember correctly only 2-3% were positives.

Yes i know Ashenden didn't solely develop the EPO test. He was heavily involved though. Semantics.

Where do you see that in her posts?

Semantics again. Her tone dude, her tone. It's what she's saying and more importantly how she was stating and displaying it. As I pointed out, as an Aussie, she's probably not even aware of whom Ashenden is, let alone that his work is of high value and relevance. Better, he's one of the real good guys, not a walking talking masquerading imposter deceiving chump fans when off his bike.

 

[Merckx index]

You have a strange view of semantics. Ashenden has done a lot of work on blood parameters, which were used in pre-gel tests for EPO and laying the foundation for the passport, but as far as I know, he was not involved at all in the gel test for EPO. Approximately 10-15% of the '99 samples that were not Armstrong's tested positive for EPO.

But since this is a thread honoring Ashenden, I want to post abstracts of a couple of his recent papers that demolish the notion that the passport is very effective. Sure would like to see this guy testify at Bert's CAS hearing.

Eur J Appl Physiol. 2011 Feb 20. [Epub ahead of print]
Current markers of the Athlete Blood Passport do not flag microdose EPO doping.
Ashenden M, Gough CE, Garnham A, Gore CJ, Sharpe K.
Source
SIAB Research Consortium, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia, heyasho@hotmail.com.
Abstract
The Athlete Blood Passport is the most recent tool adopted by anti-doping authorities to detect athletes using performance-enhancing drugs such as recombinant human erythropoietin (rhEPO). This strategy relies on detecting abnormal variations in haematological variables caused by doping, against a background of biological and analytical variability. Ten subjects were given twice weekly intravenous injections of rhEPO for up to 12 weeks. Full blood counts were measured using a Sysmex XE-2100 automated haematology analyser, and total haemoglobin mass via a carbon monoxide rebreathing test. The sensitivity of the passport to flag abnormal deviations in blood values was evaluated using dedicated Athlete Blood Passport software. Our treatment regimen elicited a 10% increase in total haemoglobin mass equivalent to approximately two bags of reinfused blood. The passport software did not flag any subjects as being suspicious of doping whilst they were receiving rhEPO. We conclude that it is possible for athletes to use rhEPO without eliciting abnormal changes in the blood variables currently monitored by the Athlete Blood Passport.

Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2011 Apr;21(2):235-43. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.01033.x.
Detecting autologous blood transfusions: a comparison of three passport approaches and four blood markers.
Mørkeberg J, Sharpe K, Belhage B, Damsgaard R, Schmidt W, Prommer N, Gore CJ, Ashenden MJ.
Source
Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. jakobmoerkeberg@hotmail.com
Abstract
Blood passport has been suggested as an indirect tool to detect various kinds of blood manipulations. Autologous blood transfusions are currently undetectable, and the objective of this study was to examine the sensitivities of different blood markers and blood passport approaches in order to determine the best approach to detect autologous blood transfusions. Twenty-nine subjects were transfused with either one (n=8) or three (n=21) bags of autologous blood. Hemoglobin concentration ([Hb]), percentage of reticulocytes (%ret) and hemoglobin mass (Hbmass) were measured 1 day before reinfusion and six times after reinfusion. The sensitivity and specificity of a novel marker, Hbmr (based on Hbmass and %ret), was evaluated together with [Hb], Hbmass and OFF-hr by different passport methods. Our novel Hbmr marker showed superior sensitivity in detecting the highest dosage of transfused blood, with OFF-hr showing equal or superior sensitivities at lower dosages. Hbmr and OFF-hr showed superior but equal sensitivities from 1 to 4 weeks after transfusion compared with [Hb] and Hbmass, with Hbmass being the only tenable prospect to detect acute transfusions. Because autologous blood transfusions can be an acute practice with blood withdrawal and reinfusion within a few days, Hbmass seems to be the only option for revealing this practice.

 

[lean mean &green]

Our treatment regimen elicited a 10% increase in total haemoglobin mass equivalent to approximately two bags of reinfused blood. The passport software did not flag any subjects as being suspicious of doping whilst they were receiving rhEPO. We conclude that it is possible for athletes to use rhEPO without eliciting abnormal changes in the blood variables currently monitored by the Athlete Blood Passport.

huge implications. with a very back-of-the-napkin calculation i'd guess that's about a 6-8% increase at FTP and a nice increase across the entire power profile for that matter. anyone super motivated and want to check that? that's without considering the use of anabolics... testo, hgh, or whatever the preference. IOW it's still damn near impossible to compete against an assisted rider within ABP tolerances and win clean in 2011.

Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2011 Apr;21(2):235-43. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.01033.x.
Detecting autologous blood transfusions: a comparison of three passport approaches and four blood markers.
Mørkeberg J, Sharpe K, Belhage B, Damsgaard R, Schmidt W, Prommer N, Gore CJ, Ashenden MJ.
Source
Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. jakobmoerkeberg@hotmail.com
Abstract
Blood passport has been suggested as an indirect tool to detect various kinds of blood manipulations. Autologous blood transfusions are currently undetectable, and the objective of this study was to examine the sensitivities of different blood markers and blood passport approaches in order to determine the best approach to detect autologous blood transfusions. Twenty-nine subjects were transfused with either one (n=8) or three (n=21) bags of autologous blood. Hemoglobin concentration ([Hb]), percentage of reticulocytes (%ret) and hemoglobin mass (Hbmass) were measured 1 day before reinfusion and six times after reinfusion. The sensitivity and specificity of a novel marker, Hbmr (based on Hbmass and %ret), was evaluated together with [Hb], Hbmass and OFF-hr by different passport methods. Our novel Hbmr marker showed superior sensitivity in detecting the highest dosage of transfused blood, with OFF-hr showing equal or superior sensitivities at lower dosages. Hbmr and OFF-hr showed superior but equal sensitivities from 1 to 4 weeks after transfusion compared with [Hb] and Hbmass, with Hbmass being the only tenable prospect to detect acute transfusions. Because autologous blood transfusions can be an acute practice with blood withdrawal and reinfusion within a few days, Hbmass seems to be the only option for revealing this practice.

i think my feelings are already on the record with this one.

 

[rata de sentina]

...massive diatribe....

Your ire should be directed at sashimono who was actually attacking Ashenden, your attacking the wrong target. As far as I can see AG is defending Ashenden.

Merck, Ashenden was involved in developing an indirect test for EPO which was used at the Sydney Olympics (the Parisotto paper). Of course it can detect blood manipulation in general but was initially validated for EPO use. I was obviously replaced by the direct EPO test but contiues to be used in modified form for blood manipulation.

Of course flicker is just being mischeivious by making up a connection between Ashenden and LA because as far as I know that is rubbish.

 

[Galic Ho]

You have a strange view of semantics. Ashenden has done a lot of work on blood parameters, which were used in pre-gel tests for EPO and laying the foundation for the passport, but as far as I know, he was not involved at all in the gel test for EPO. Approximately 10-15% of the '99 samples that were not Armstrong's tested positive for EPO.

But since this is a thread honoring Ashenden, I want to post abstracts of a couple of his recent papers that demolish the notion that the passport is very effective. Sure would like to see this guy testify at Bert's CAS hearing.

I was under the impression Ashenden and a number of other Australians collaborated with the Europeans on the EPO gel test. Oh well, it doesn't matter, he still knows his stuff.

As for the numbers, I read them almost three years back. From memory, I remember reading the 2-3% and thinking at the time it was far too low. Your figures make more sense. Thanks for the correction. Maybe I will go back and read up on the testing of the 99 samples.

Oh and I wasn't inferring the Bio-Passport was foolproof. Far from it. But it is catching people. Pellizotti and Efimkin for one. The article the Science of Sports guys posted showed the number of anomalies in blood profiles over tha past decade and how they have dropped. I can post a link if you want, but I figure most here have seen it on an old thread. Does this mean the Bio-Passport can't be beaten? Not at all. If it were, I wouldn't suggest that Ashenden has been rumoured in the past to be able to tell people how to beat it on a simple post-it note.

As for the total blood haemoglobin volume measuring. I think it should be mandatory for all pro cyclists. It will stop blood doping. But the UCI won't do it. I've wanted it in since I heard about it in 2009. Ashenden talking at Contadors CAS hearing...I doubt it. Plasticizers aren't in, nor is blood doping. It's Clenbuterol that will be the swaying issue. Blood doping hasn't been mentioned in the press, only in forums as an explanation for Clenbuterol. IMO, if you don't catch them with their hand in the cookie jar, nabbing them for something else and twisting it to fight the desired crime is pretty low. Testing needs to catch blood manipulation, be it transfusions or whatever strain of synthetic EPO is in fashion. That HBmass testing would work wonders. But your preaching to the converted. I won't argue with that. I want it pronto, ASAP!

 

[Galic Ho]

Your ire should be directed at sashimono who was actually attacking Ashenden, your attacking the wrong target. As far as I can see AG is defending Ashenden.

Merck, Ashenden was involved in developing an indirect test for EPO which was used at the Sydney Olympics (the Parisotto paper). Of course it can detect blood manipulation in general but was initially validated for EPO use. I was obviously replaced by the direct EPO test but contiues to be used in modified form for blood manipulation.

Of course flicker is just being mischeivious by making up a connection between Ashenden and LA because as far as I know that is rubbish.

If that is the case, then I apologise. But I read it that way. I'll let the foreigners clean up their own backyard. As an Aussie who thinks there needs to be more men in sport like Ashenden, I'll remind other Aussies when they cross the line or when I perceive them to cross the line. If I misinterpret their actions, I have no qualms apologising. It wasn't just one post that led to my reaction, there was more than one, I only quoted the last. Hence, I don't think I misread the tone and context.

Oh and Flicker was banned. Probably not permanently. Ignore him if/when he comes back.

 

[Special_oz_ed]

G'day Merckx index,

I like Mike, and am glad he has spoken out here. But he is not invulnerable to criticism. He claimed his HBT could not have a false positive, which is a statement no scientist should ever make about a test. And while he is correct that one couldn't spike the '99 samples just by adding EPO from a bottle to them, they could have been spiked by using a dilution series. It would have taken someone very knowledgeable to do this, and there are other reasons as well for excluding the spiking scenario, but his original discussion of this would have been more compelling if he had pointed this out.

That said, he is far above Hein and Co. in the credibility dept.

Wouldn't a dilutions series show a fixed ratio of concentration vs synthetic EPO? It would require a person who desired to make the "samples" look non-uniform/faked an incredible amount of time and energy to work out something close to a random series of concentration vs synthetic EPO ratio that the results showed. And to organise those samples to correspond with the days in the race that LA benefited most would be next to impossible. It seems too fantastic even to be a possible scenario - it may be just possible, but is so thoroughly unlikely due to the extent someone would have to go to, and the collusion of others involved (including UCI), that I can see why Ashenden ruled it out without further thought.

 

[AussieGoddess]

Riders named; there were 8 samples. I was putting in the basics dude. Considerably more? Of the total samples taken from the overall 1999 TdF, if I remember correctly only 2-3% were positives.

Yes i know Ashenden didn't solely develop the EPO test. He was heavily involved though. Semantics.

Semantics again. Her tone dude, her tone. It's what she's saying and more importantly how she was stating and displaying it. As I pointed out, as an Aussie, she's probably not even aware of whom Ashenden is, let alone that his work is of high value and relevance. Better, he's one of the real good guys, not a walking talking masquerading imposter deceiving chump fans when off his bike.

did you actually read my post?

I was defending the guy. Hence my first post in this thread .....

God I love this guy.

Straight to the heart of the matter.

Yes Mike - the UCI accepting donations from its current TdF champion who is surrounded by doping allegations IS INCREDIBLY inappropriate.

Yes Mike - LA is lying every time he says he has never used PED's or never tested posative because we all know he has

Yes Mike - the lab doing the testing contacting the rider involved IS INCREDIBLY inappropriate ... and yes the UCI MUST have set that up because otherwise how would the lab have known who's sample it was? The lab only gets sample numbers.

It therefore might have gone something like - test is posative,
- lab contacts UCI,
- UCI tells lab "lets call this one a grey area",
- UCI sets up meeting with LA and JB to discuss the finer points of testing and for gifts to be exchanged??????

If that is the case, then I apologise. But I read it that way. I'll let the foreigners clean up their own backyard. As an Aussie who thinks there needs to be more men in sport like Ashenden, I'll remind other Aussies when they cross the line or when I perceive them to cross the line. If I misinterpret their actions, I have no qualms apologising. It wasn't just one post that led to my reaction, there was more than one, I only quoted the last. Hence, I don't think I misread the tone and context.

I have actually read the velo stuff - and yes I am quite well aware of who he is and how well respected he is thanks.

I have only ever posted very positive stuff about him, as I actually agree with you on pretty much all points. Not sure why you think I am not - but perhaps you are looking at another posters remarks???????

 

[Merckx index]

G'day Merckx index,



Wouldn't a dilutions series show a fixed ratio of concentration vs synthetic EPO? It would require a person who desired to make the "samples" look non-uniform/faked an incredible amount of time and energy to work out something close to a random series of concentration vs synthetic EPO ratio that the results showed. And to organise those samples to correspond with the days in the race that LA benefited most would be next to impossible. It seems too fantastic even to be a possible scenario - it may be just possible, but is so thoroughly unlikely due to the extent someone would have to go to, and the collusion of others involved (including UCI), that I can see why Ashenden ruled it out without further thought.

Keep in mind that every urine sample is different. It doesn't contain a fixed amount of natural EPO, it might not contain a detectable amount. So even if you added a fixed amount of rhEPO to different urine samples, you would not get the same ratio of synthetic/natural in each.

Further complicating matters is that the proportion of different gel bands is different in different samples of endogenous EPO. You could take several urine samples from an undoped rider and analyze them, and you would not see identical gel patterns.

This in a nutshell is why the EPO test is so difficult to judge. A purely natural sample could have a proportion of critical bands that was greater than some endogenous or endogenous/mixed sample. This is why there is a gray area--a proportion of basic bands that almost certainly indicates doping, but which is not scored as such. Because natural EPO can sometimes run on a gel very much like endogenous. All you can do is identify a proportion of certain bands that is so high that it simply can't be all natural.

What all this means is that a higher % of basic bands is not correlated with a higher amount of doping. Depending on the amount of endogenous EPO excreted in the urine, and the band characteristics of it and the natural, one could have a sample with very little synthetic EPO, yet an extremely high % of basic bands, and vice-versa. Repeat: the % of basic bands tells you NOTHING about how much rhEPO the rider used, only the likelihood that he used some. (In this respect, it's a lot like the synthetic testosterone test, where the IRMS ratio tells you the likelihood of doping, but not how much T was used). When you add to this the fact that depending on when he doped, and how much, and when he was tested, there could be large variation in how much synthetic as well as natural EPO was in the urine, there is no possibility of correlating EPO data with the likelihood that a particular stage in the race was critical and required a lot of EPO. None whatsoever.

I do agree with Ashenden and others that spiking can be ruled out. In addition to the knowledge and lab skills required, IMO, the best evidence is that all the riders whose samples were tested showed some positives, yet LA showed a much greater % of positives (6/17 definite, and according to Ashenden 2-3 more in the gray area). Compared to less than 15% for all the other samples. If someone knew which samples were LA's, why spike the others (I know, a fanboy will say all the other riders were doping, but LA wasn't.)? OTOH, if the perp didn't know, and spiked randomly, assuming some of LA's would be included in the random sample, why the much higher %? Statistically not impossible, I guess, but not too likely.