Pellizotti been given a 2 year ban [was - prematurely- Pellizotti acquitted !]

[hrotha]

Personally I doubt many tried it in the first place. Logistically it seems easier to use your own blood rather than to have to secure other blood sources.

 

[localcyclist]

Tyler used Haven's blood prior to knowing the test was available. The UCI sat him down and said that they had this new test and as soon as it was valid he would be in trouble. By that time it was too late as it takes months to get the foreign blood out of your system. By the time they got him at the Vuelta it was a very small part of his blood population.

As for Vino, who knows what he was thinking. There have been rumors of mixed up bags and of him using his fathers blood but who knows. Regardless the test is air tight and can detect it for months. I doubt many are attempting it anymore.

i agree that autologous transfusion is more likely, but i wouldn't be so confident that the autologous test is air tight.

the test relies on the presence of proteins that antibodies can stick to. if the proteins where degraded or covered by something already stuck to them you may not find them with your antibody.

also you can only pick so many proteins to test for. if you look long enough, you may be able to find a donor that is compatible across those proteins as well.

 

[Merckx index]

Tyler used Haven's blood prior to knowing the test was available. The UCI sat him down and said that they had this new test and as soon as it was valid he would be in trouble. By that time it was too late as it takes months to get the foreign blood out of your system. By the time they got him at the Vuelta it was a very small part of his blood population.

Do you have a link for this? The problem with the theory that the Vuelta blood had been transfused back in May is that the antigens found in the Olympic test were not the same as those found at the Vuelta. Tyler made a big point about this at his hearing, and as far as I know, it was never resolved. The Vuelta results can only be explained by assuming a second transfusion after the Olympics, but then the antigen concentrations should have been higher, assuming the amount of blood transfused was enough to have much of an effect.

This is why the possibility of cross-contamination with Perez's blood gained traction. Unlikely as it seems, it is the best explanation for such very low antigen levels. Perhaps his used bag ended up in a pile with new ones.

the test relies on the presence of proteins that antibodies can stick to. if the proteins where degraded or covered by something already stuck to them you may not find them with your antibody.

This has not been a problem in tests of the method. It has been used successfully for years in hospitals to monitor blood transfusions. It is certainly not a big enough problem for someone to think he might beat the test because of it.

As RR notes, red cells have a long lifetime, about four months. In Ashenden’s study, a transfusion of two units (admittedly, larger than riders would probably use) could be detected sixteen weeks later. So not only is the test very sensitive, but it can nail dopers over a period of time during which they are virtually certain to be tested.

also you can only pick so many proteins to test for. if you look long enough, you may be able to find a donor that is compatible across those proteins as well.

Ashenden’s original study used a panel of about a dozen proteins, and they estimated the odds of finding a match were 2-3 in a thousand, depending on ethnicity. They also suggested at the time that the panel could be expanded to twenty proteins, lowering the odds considerably more..

 

[Escarabajo]

Tyler used Haven's blood prior to knowing the test was available. The UCI sat him down and said that they had this new test and as soon as it was valid he would be in trouble. By that time it was too late as it takes months to get the foreign blood out of your system. By the time they got him at the Vuelta it was a very small part of his blood population.

As for Vino, who knows what he was thinking. There have been rumors of mixed up bags and of him using his fathers blood but who knows. Regardless the test is air tight and can detect it for months. I doubt many are attempting it anymore.

If he was warned about the test and he had already done the transfusion, why did he ride La Vuelta then?

 

[Escarabajo]

RR, I get what you are saying and agree. But if two top names (Hamilton and Vino) were willing to use other people's blood, wouldnt it make sense that a lot more riders were using other people's blood? It's just still hard to fathom that so few were caught if it was/is so prevalent in the peloton.
...

You would think that what you are saying is correct, but look at what Landis said. They were doing autologous transfusion long before Tyler and Vino were caught. So at least the most important GC contenders looked to be doing autologous transfusions. The Fuentes files prove it that way too. Maybe Vino and Tyler were desperate for results and took a bigger risk. Who knows.

 

[localcyclist]

Do you have a link for this? The problem with the theory that the Vuelta blood had been transfused back in May is that the antigens found in the Olympic test were not the same as those found at the Vuelta. Tyler made a big point about this at his hearing, and as far as I know, it was never resolved. The Vuelta results can only be explained by assuming a second transfusion after the Olympics, but then the antigen concentrations should have been higher, assuming the amount of blood transfused was enough to have much of an effect.

This is why the possibility of cross-contamination with Perez's blood gained traction. Unlikely as it seems, it is the best explanation for such very low antigen levels. Perhaps his used bag ended up in a pile with new ones.




This has not been a problem in tests of the method. It has been used successfully for years in hospitals to monitor blood transfusions. It is certainly not a big enough problem for someone to think he might beat the test because of it.

As RR notes, red cells have a long lifetime, about four months. In Ashenden’s study, a transfusion of two units (admittedly, larger than riders would probably use) could be detected sixteen weeks later. So not only is the test very sensitive, but it can nail dopers over a period of time during which they are virtually certain to be tested.



Ashenden’s original study used a panel of about a dozen proteins, and they estimated the odds of finding a match were 2-3 in a thousand, depending on ethnicity. They also suggested at the time that the panel could be expanded to twenty proteins, lowering the odds considerably more..

again, i agree authorities have a good test. but there is a difference between good and air tight or infallible. For example, for a provider to find a match for one client and the chances are 1:1000, it seems unrealistic. but if that provider had 10 or maybe 100 clients what are the chances of them finding at least some matches? Sure not everyone benefits, but the provider still creates a couple of new stars with an advantage.

with regards to the proteins, i was thinking more along the lines of a way to process rbcs to mask or cleave the proteins. its not happeneing now, but it is one approach that may be developed by researchers to create universal donor blood.

my point isn't really whether the test is good or not but the problems with of over confidence leading to complacency. the biopassport is a perfect example of a good test only capable of snagging a couple of low hanging fruit because of a lack of foresight of how dopers could manipulate results and the lack of will to clean out the past.

 

[Merckx index]

Maybe Vino and Tyler were desperate for results and took a bigger risk. Who knows.

More likely, they used homologous blood doping because it does have advantages over autologous. Mainly, you don’t have to withdraw blood ahead of time. If your racing schedule is such that you can’t easily fit in a withdrawal before a big race when you want to transfuse, it’s a lot easier to use someone else’s blood. Or if you want to do a transfusion several times in a short period of time (like the TDF), you will probably need more blood than you can easily withdraw in advance. Also, even before the passport, blood withdrawal could sometimes be detected by off scores (in fact, Tyler’s early season warnings were precisely because of this). Both withdrawal and transfusion can raise flags, but obviously if you can avoid the withdrawals, you increase your chances of not getting detected.

again, i agree authorities have a good test. but there is a difference between good and air tight or infallible. For example, for a provider to find a match for one client and the chances are 1:1000, it seems unrealistic. but if that provider had 10 or maybe 100 clients what are the chances of them finding at least some matches? Sure not everyone benefits, but the provider still creates a couple of new stars with an advantage.

The question is, is it worth going to all that trouble? You’re going to have to do a lot of work just to establish that someone else’s blood matches yours, not simply for the major antigens, but all these minor ones as well. As I noted above, homologous doping does have advantages, but I think at this point riders have been using the autologous approach for several years, and have learned how to set up a schedule so that withdrawals don’t interfere with their racing. The possibility of withdrawing during the off season and freezing cells makes the process even more attractive.

my point isn't really whether the test is good or not but the problems with of over confidence leading to complacency. the biopassport is a perfect example of a good test only capable of snagging a couple of low hanging fruit because of a lack of foresight of how dopers could manipulate results and the lack of will to clean out the past.

That’s an oversimplification. The biopassport was never regarded as a sure way of identifying dopers, in any way comparable to the HBT. It was understood all along as only one more anti-doping tool. No one is surprised that dopers can beat the passport. Frankly, I’m surprised that enough evidence was obtained to render a decision against Pellizotti and Caucchioli. It’s very difficult to make a case from changes in blood parameters.

I do agree with you that the HBT is not infallible; but no test is. Compared with tests for EPO, testosterone, and autologous blood doping (there is a test for it, though it's not used), to mention just a few examples, the HBT is remarkably sensitive. It’s far more likely to catch dopers than those other tests are.

 

[BroDeal]

RR, I get what you are saying and agree. But if two top names (Hamilton and Vino) were willing to use other people's blood, wouldnt it make sense that a lot more riders were using other people's blood? It's just still hard to fathom that so few were caught if it was/is so prevalent in the peloton.

It is not hard to fathom if very few people were ever subjected to the test.

Jesus Manzano said that Dr. Fuentes asked him about relatives that could provide blood. I think it was common practice for a while. Supposedly Mayo's homologous blood fueled performance took a dive when Armstrong ratted him out to the UCI.

 

[webvan]

Supposedly Mayo's homologous blood fueled performance took a dive when Armstrong ratted him out to the UCI.

Where did that come from ?!

 

[localcyclist]

More likely, they used homologous blood doping because it does have advantages over autologous. Mainly, you don’t have to withdraw blood ahead of time. If your racing schedule is such that you can’t easily fit in a withdrawal before a big race when you want to transfuse, it’s a lot easier to use someone else’s blood. Or if you want to do a transfusion several times in a short period of time (like the TDF), you will probably need more blood than you can easily withdraw in advance. Also, even before the passport, blood withdrawal could sometimes be detected by off scores (in fact, Tyler’s early season warnings were precisely because of this). Both withdrawal and transfusion can raise flags, but obviously if you can avoid the withdrawals, you increase your chances of not getting detected.



The question is, is it worth going to all that trouble? You’re going to have to do a lot of work just to establish that someone else’s blood matches yours, not simply for the major antigens, but all these minor ones as well. As I noted above, homologous doping does have advantages, but I think at this point riders have been using the autologous approach for several years, and have learned how to set up a schedule so that withdrawals don’t interfere with their racing. The possibility of withdrawing during the off season and freezing cells makes the process even more attractive.



That’s an oversimplification. The biopassport was never regarded as a sure way of identifying dopers, in any way comparable to the HBT. It was understood all along as only one more anti-doping tool. No one is surprised that dopers can beat the passport. Frankly, I’m surprised that enough evidence was obtained to render a decision against Pellizotti and Caucchioli. It’s very difficult to make a case from changes in blood parameters.

I do agree with you that the HBT is not infallible; but no test is. Compared with tests for EPO, testosterone, and autologous blood doping (there is a test for it, though it's not used), to mention just a few examples, the HBT is remarkably sensitive. It’s far more likely to catch dopers than those other tests are.

first, i appreciate your well informed responses and i think we likely agree on the basic science

to the question of whether it is worth the trouble you already raised most of the arguments in favor as well as against.

i would add that if somebody thinks they can make money doing it then of course it is worth it, ethics aside.

the more interesting part of the question to me is what is feasible with autlogous doping these days. can enough blood be banked to meet performance expectations without raising flags on the biopassport? specifically how do you hide the elevated retic? altitude training and hypoxic tents can be used to justify some elevation. maybe recovering after an "illness" or "blood loss" can justify some more, but at some point your body has to make the extra cells. to make the extra cells it will be ramped up either acutely from the blood loss, or from a cycle of epo to raise counts to prepare for withdrawal, or chronically from micro withdrawals, or micro dosing epo.

assuming autologous methods how much blood do you need for a grand tour these days? two grand tours? grand tours plus a classic or week long stage race?

over what period of time does the withdrawal need to be spread over if its 500ml, 1000ml, 1500ml, etc so as to not trip the passport?

how much can you shorten that period with epo? and at what risk of creating patterns in your hgb or retic.

and finally how can you shift that time frame with fairly well matched (in terms of minor antigens) homologous cells, or since its the off season and noone is presumably looking for transfusions with homologous cells matched just for major antigens? or a mixed pool of homologous cells that will raise the background noise for minor antigens enough to obscure peaks? (note that last one is a particularly bad idea in terms of your body becoming sensitised to multiple minor groups)

please note that i don't blood dope athletes for a living and don't know the answers to thsee questions. they stem from a frustration with the paternalistic tone from some expertts and self proclaimed experts about the concerns of armchair hemotologists, the use of biopassport data as a marketing /public image tool and the lack of analysis and education from official sources, while the experts where recently suprised to learn that epo could be used to mask transfusions. the last point here i guess is that a little reading would go along way to proposing some informed conclusions. time and motivation permitting i guess thats the next writing project. until then forum venting hopefully over.

 

[MarkvW]

Targeting

More likely, they used homologous blood doping because it does have advantages over autologous. Mainly, you don’t have to withdraw blood ahead of time. If your racing schedule is such that you can’t easily fit in a withdrawal before a big race when you want to transfuse, it’s a lot easier to use someone else’s blood. Or if you want to do a transfusion several times in a short period of time (like the TDF), you will probably need more blood than you can easily withdraw in advance. Also, even before the passport, blood withdrawal could sometimes be detected by off scores (in fact, Tyler’s early season warnings were precisely because of this). Both withdrawal and transfusion can raise flags, but obviously if you can avoid the withdrawals, you increase your chances of not getting detected.



The question is, is it worth going to all that trouble? You’re going to have to do a lot of work just to establish that someone else’s blood matches yours, not simply for the major antigens, but all these minor ones as well. As I noted above, homologous doping does have advantages, but I think at this point riders have been using the autologous approach for several years, and have learned how to set up a schedule so that withdrawals don’t interfere with their racing. The possibility of withdrawing during the off season and freezing cells makes the process even more attractive.



That’s an oversimplification. The biopassport was never regarded as a sure way of identifying dopers, in any way comparable to the HBT. It was understood all along as only one more anti-doping tool. No one is surprised that dopers can beat the passport. Frankly, I’m surprised that enough evidence was obtained to render a decision against Pellizotti and Caucchioli. It’s very difficult to make a case from changes in blood parameters.

I do agree with you that the HBT is not infallible; but no test is. Compared with tests for EPO, testosterone, and autologous blood doping (there is a test for it, though it's not used), to mention just a few examples, the HBT is remarkably sensitive. It’s far more likely to catch dopers than those other tests are.

The biopassport is also a great tool for targeting riders that need more testing.

 

[D-Queued]

The biopassport is also a great tool for targeting riders that need more testing.

For a moment there, I thought you may have suggested that the biopassport is also a great tool for targeting riders that need more doping.

Good thing I read the post a second time.

Dave.

 

[thehog]

I wonder if Pelli is reading the paper today mounting a new defence?

 

[TubularBills]

The biopassport is also a great tool for targeting riders that need more testing.

If the list that L'Equipe just unveiled is the the real deal. It proves that the Bio-Passport is a crock. 66.6% of riders require more testing? Hardly scientific. Test them all, or just shut down Pro Cycling.

 

[thehog]

If he was warned about the test and he had already done the transfusion, why did he ride La Vuelta then?

Because Tyler bummed out of the Tour that year. He needed results. Also like Lance at the TDS in 2001. When you get away with it for so long you start to believe you can't be caught. Gamblers high. Lance dealt with it the mobs way. Tyler not. The warnings came at LBL timeframe.

 

[Benotti69]

If the list that L'Equipe just unveiled is the the real deal. It proves that the Bio-Passport is a crock. 66.6% of riders require more testing? Hardly scientific. Test them all, or just shut down Pro Cycling.

Bio-passport is not a crock as far as those running the sport are concerned, it is a barometer for doping. That's all it has ever been, to enable the doping, but also the UCI copped on that they could use it to threaten, blackmail and ban riders.

The riders are the true guinea pigs of the sport and until they demand and force a change in the sport i can't see it happening.

 

[python]

finally, cas published full record of the ruling. i was seriously concerned it will never happen (in french)
http://www.tas-cas.org/d2wfiles/document/4912/5048/0/Sentence FINALE_internet_.pdf

for analysis of the facts, skip to page 10.

lots of very interesting stuff - raw haematological data, where and why cas agreed/disagreed with the uci etc.

 

[TourOfSardinia]

Thanks python for the link.

If GoogleTrans got it right:

Pelizzotti's HGB (hemoglobin concentration) actually increased during the Giro d'Italia 2009 when it would be expected to fall - like it had done during Giro 2008.

From p15 of the report:

Samples of the Giro d'Italia 2009 (7, 10 and May 31, 2009) show an increase
of the HGB, the value increases from 145 just before the competition (May 7) to 153 at the end of competition (May 31).