Pulling a Wiggins

[pastronef]

Re: Re:

From the Kimmage interview...

thanks, I just read bits of that

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

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]

Re: Re:

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, will have a read.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

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.

 

[King Boonen]

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.

 

[Robert5091]

To me it's a fishy old tale - but it could be one part of Sky's "Marginal Gains" cocktail.

Why they had to fly it all the way from the UK when it should have been on the bus or just brought from a local pharmacy .... reminds me of Johaug's reluctance to walk 5 minutes to the pharmacy to buy a lip-cream ...

 

[thehog]

Re:

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 tend to agree. It's rather a passive drug, hence why they choose it as the smoking gun. But then I read the Froome interview and he was being injected with it. My sense the entire program is a raft of drugs, not singular and each drug plays it part.

 

[Robert5091]

Seems we have the same "cocktail" idea

 

[Benotti69]

Re:

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.

 

[samhocking]

Re: Re:

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.

You're looking to much into it. It was clearly to do with SPOTY and a swipe at the hypocrisy of the BBC.

 

[ontheroad]

I think more questions arose today than answers. Wiggins, Cope and Freeman should all now be called up before a second hearing of the select committee given the apparent lack of knowledge that Sutton and Brailsford claim to have had.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

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.

I suppose you could claim artificially loosening mucus as a PED.

 

[Robert5091]

Re: Re:

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]

Re: Re:

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,

Recovery is a form of enhancement in sport and especially GTs.

 

[samhocking]

Was good of Wiggins giving the others a chance at the Dauphine and only legally recover with Mucomyst after victory. Bet that was some wheel nut he coughed up after a whole weeks racing!

 

[King Boonen]

I've read the paper. In all honesty Ross Tucker should be embarrassed about tweeting it, I'd expect better from him.

 

[thehog]

Re:

I've read the paper. In all honesty Ross Tucker should be embarrassed about tweeting it, I'd expect better from him.

Agreed. Didn't believe it myself.

In saying that mixing albuterol and Fluimucil via a nebulaizer is worrying. That's a huge no no, were they trying to kill Wiggins?

 

[sniper]

Re:

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.
nothing to be embarrassed about.

I doubt he read the article. As he indicated, fumacil is a red herring. He rightly thinks there was something else in the bag.

Meanwhile he's back to hitting nails on heads:
https://twitter.com/Scienceofsport/status/811152946675220481

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

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.
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.

 

[sniper]

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.

 

[PeterB]

Re:

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.

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.

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?

 

[Stingray34]

Now I know why Wiggins called everyone who questioned him a bone idle wonker: anyone that needs Kenalog and Fluimucil needs to be in hospital - except him, riding and swearing for Britain.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

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.
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.

I would be more inclined to be worried that the sport has not changed and Sky are exactly as thought, another super team on super PEDs. Lambasting Tucker for a tweet, pfffft!

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

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.

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.

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?

No, they can't, for several reasons:

1) You cannot use the same participants for case and control in a double blind study, it's impossible and means that either it was singly blind, open or they don't actually know what they were doing.

2) They do not specifically state the order but they state the wash out period occurred between thiol and placebo treatment. This implies that the thiol treatment happened first and as such they have no baseline data.

3) They have no baseline data for the control/placebo study and you can't just assume it has no effect, you actually have to show that. Again, this means they have no baseline data for their NAC experiment.

These three things alone completely invalidate the conclusions. There is also the small size of the groups to take into account.

The numbers they report seem strange too, although this isn't my area. They show a higher hematocrit and EPO but lower RBC counts which doesn't make sense based on my understanding. The MCV has increased which is what has increased the hematocrit, but at they haven't assessed the Hb-O2 we have not idea if that would even have an effect on exercise (not the point of the study but it is the conclusion people are drawing). They don't address the change in MCV in the discussion. If these are the same people that would be something that really needs addressing.

They haven't assessed the exercise performance so I don't really understand the point of including it, maybe I'm missing it?

Honestly, it reads like a final year project that was written up as a paper. This isn't a problem, the problem is people taking the results and drawing conclusions that really can't be drawn. This is compounded when a respected scientist highlights the work as people who don't really understand it will assume it's right.

 

[King Boonen]

Re:

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.

Here is the problem manifest in the comments section:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/what-is-fluimucil-and-why-would-wiggins-need-it/

According to Nico:

Nico • 20 hours ago
Fluimucil increases your hematocrit. it's that simple. This is doping.

I can almost guarantee if I were to challenge that I would just be referred to Tuckers tweet. Someone else has commented with a link to the article.


That's a general recommendation, likely given to people self-medicating as a side-effect can cause problems. In reality many people with lung problems are given this drug on a regular basis, it's just necessary to monitor them (which is obviously going to happen with Wiggins). Again, it's a case of people taking the first thing they find and running with it without the knowledge or further investigation.

The real, interesting part of all this is something you've pointed out before and Lawton alludes to. It's ridiculous to expect people to believe it had to come to a parliamentary enquiry for them to reveal that it was acetylcysteine and that DB found that out in one phone call. That's the real issue here but all this chat about the thing they claim was in the package will take away from it.