Re: Re:
thanks, I just read bits of that
thehog said:From the Kimmage interview...
thanks, I just read bits of that
thehog said:From the Kimmage interview...
King Boonen said:Benotti69 said:Fluimucil alters a patients haematology. Can be 9% ride in Hct.!!!
Why is that not showing on Wiggins ABP???
Citation required.
Benotti69 said:King Boonen said:Benotti69 said:Fluimucil alters a patients haematology. Can be 9% ride in Hct.!!!
Why is that not showing on Wiggins ABP???
Citation required.
via Ross Tucker Sports Scientist
https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/810941221019549696
and https://twitter.com/tonsoffun (Reg nurse)
http://www.biomed.cas.cz/physiolres/pdf/58/58_855.pdf
Benotti69 said:King Boonen said:Benotti69 said:Fluimucil alters a patients haematology. Can be 9% ride in Hct.!!!
Why is that not showing on Wiggins ABP???
Citation required.
via Ross Tucker Sports Scientist
https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/810941221019549696
and https://twitter.com/tonsoffun (Reg nurse)
http://www.biomed.cas.cz/physiolres/pdf/58/58_855.pdf
King Boonen said:I had a quick look. There are a fair few problems but the biggest is that there is no baseline data for the groups. Without it it's impossible to draw the conclusions they have done.
King Boonen said:I had a quick look. There are a fair few problems but the biggest is that there is no baseline data for the groups. Without it it's impossible to draw the conclusions they have done.
thehog said:Benotti69 said:King Boonen said:Benotti69 said:Fluimucil alters a patients haematology. Can be 9% ride in Hct.!!!
Why is that not showing on Wiggins ABP???
Citation required.
via Ross Tucker Sports Scientist
https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/810941221019549696
and https://twitter.com/tonsoffun (Reg nurse)
http://www.biomed.cas.cz/physiolres/pdf/58/58_855.pdf
Thanks. Most interesting. I'm actually surprised at the arrogance of Wiggins posting his taunt ala Lance pre-hearing.
Benotti69 said:King Boonen said:I had a quick look. There are a fair few problems but the biggest is that there is no baseline data for the groups. Without it it's impossible to draw the conclusions they have done.
I think that Barloworld injected into riders meant there was a performance enhancement.
Froome admitted receiving Fluimucil injections. He denied there was a PED effect.
Since this was given at the end of a race, I would guess it was a "recovery" medicine, so Froome could be technically correct as it was not PED for next race, or day, just restored normal ability.Benotti69 said:King Boonen said:I had a quick look. There are a fair few problems but the biggest is that there is no baseline data for the groups. Without it it's impossible to draw the conclusions they have done.
I think that Barloworld injected into riders meant there was a performance enhancement.
Froome admitted receiving Fluimucil injections. He denied there was a PED effect.
Robert5091 said:Since this was given at the end of a race, I would guess it was a "recovery" medicine, so Froome could be technically correct as it was not PED for next race,Benotti69 said:King Boonen said:I had a quick look. There are a fair few problems but the biggest is that there is no baseline data for the groups. Without it it's impossible to draw the conclusions they have done.
I think that Barloworld injected into riders meant there was a performance enhancement.
Froome admitted receiving Fluimucil injections. He denied there was a PED effect.
King Boonen said:I've read the paper. In all honesty Ross Tucker should be embarrassed about tweeting it, I'd expect better from him.
he merely retweeted the abstract as it was brought to his attention.King Boonen said:I've read the paper. In all honesty Ross Tucker should be embarrassed about tweeting it, I'd expect better from him.
sniper said:he merely retweeted the abstract as it was brought to his attention.King Boonen said:I've read the paper. In all honesty Ross Tucker should be embarrassed about tweeting it, I'd expect better from him.
nothing to be embarrassed about.
I doubt he read the article. Fumacil is a red herring. There was something else in the bag.
Meanwhile he's back to hitting nails on heads:
https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/811152946675220481
Why you do not like those conclusions? You say there are no baselines but their approach is not comparing measurements against the baselines. It is important to realise that CNAC and NAC are the same people. They took 15 people and did the first test during 8 days. Then they allowed for "wash-out" 3-week period and did the second test. They do not mention whether the first test was with NAC and the second with placebo, or vice versa, but let's assume results are not affected by the sequence.King Boonen said:I had a quick look. There are a fair few problems but the biggest is that there is no baseline data for the groups. Without it it's impossible to draw the conclusions they have done.
King Boonen said:sniper said:he merely retweeted the abstract as it was brought to his attention.King Boonen said:I've read the paper. In all honesty Ross Tucker should be embarrassed about tweeting it, I'd expect better from him.
nothing to be embarrassed about.
I doubt he read the article. Fumacil is a red herring. There was something else in the bag.
Meanwhile he's back to hitting nails on heads:
https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/811152946675220481
He's a scientist and didn't even bother scanning the paper based on his retweet. Sorry, but a scientist retweeting that work is embarrassing. He chose to retweet it, he should have chosen to read it.
PeterB said:Why you do not like those conclusions? You say there are no baselines but their approach is not comparing measurements against the baselines. It is important to realise that CNAC and NAC are the same people. They took 15 people and did the first test during 8 days. Then they allowed for "wash-out" 3-week period and did the second test. They do not mention whether the first test was with NAC and the second with placebo, or vice versa, but let's assume results are not affected by the sequence.King Boonen said:I had a quick look. There are a fair few problems but the biggest is that there is no baseline data for the groups. Without it it's impossible to draw the conclusions they have done.
So what they actually measured was that the same people had different blood values after taking NAC than they had after taking placebo. Isn't it then a fair conclusion that NAC had some effect on the blood? The measurements they did after trial with placebo can in fact be considered as the baseline you were missing, no?
sniper said:That's probably fair enough.
And props for checking it instead of just accepting it.
What is interesting is that fumacil is not recommended for asthma patients.
And the fact that Matt Lawton is tweeting about this seems to suggest he knows what was really in the bag and that it wasn't fumacil.
I wonder what legal obstacles there might be for Matt that might prevent him from publishing what was in the bag according to his informant.
Nico • 20 hours ago
Fluimucil increases your hematocrit. it's that simple. This is doping.