Riccò hospitalized for possible kidney ailment

[Mambo95]

No, they wouldn't know about all those studies on clenbuterol unless they had some very specific interests, but that's not really the kind of info I had in mind. My impression is that, in a world like pro cycling where everybody sort of knows everybody, the stories about who's doing what travel fast. We've seen many posts by local US riders who know who's on the hot sauce before they get busted. We hear of Hoogerland and Terpstra gaining colourful nicknames in the Dutch u23 peloton. We've read references to riders freely discussing dope during races, references that span several decades. That's the sort of thing I was thinking about and which I find really hard to believe is not circulating among the pros, regarding some of the most visible stars.

Most of what you're talking about refers back six or seven years. Things have changed. I think it was Brian Holm who said that the rumours used to be about who was clean, now they're about who is doping.

I think the days when riders for opposing teams would discuss doping with each other (as Landis claimed) are a few years in the past.

 

[orbis_25]

http://www.gazzetta.it/Ciclismo/08-02-2011/ricco-nottata-tranquilla-8084685384.shtml

Do we actually have any solid proof that Riccò has admitted to transfusing? I know Gazzetta dello Sport has reported he did and that apparently an investigation has been started. This isn't the same as an official statement, however. If there has been an announcement, forgive me, I must have missed it. But if there hasn't, aren't we demonising Riccò over a hearsay comment? Yea, yea, I get it, all cyclists are dopers and Riccò is an evil monster. But we should be sure before we condemn, much like we should wait till B samples return a positive finding before blurting the news everywhere.

As an aside, I've read a few comments along the lines of, "Things will be better once McQuaid goes." Weren't we all saying, "Oh, things will be so much better once Hein Verbruggen leaves." Now we're all saying the same about McQuaid. It's going to take a lot more than change at the UCI to fix our sport. An entire regime change might do the trick, but how likely is that?

 

[hrotha]

Most of what you're talking about refers back six or seven years. Things have changed. I think it was Brian Holm who said that the rumours used to be about who was clean, now they're about who is doping.

I think the days when riders for opposing teams would discuss doping with each other (as Landis claimed) are a few years in the past.

Maybe, but many, nay, most of the riders we're all thinking of were around already back then.

 

[The Hitch]

You should regard the posters on here with the same sceptical stance that you treat the riders.

Not all riders are clean. Not every poster knows what they're talking about.

View what posters write here with scepticism by all means.

In fact ignore it if you wish.

Its the evidence that you need to look at and make up your mind.

In this case things like the testimonies of Landis and kohl. the number of people who got away scott free from operation Puerto. The eagerness of the peloton to befriend, treat with respect some returning dopers or people who obviously doped, while attack others. The presence of people like Riis at the top eschelons of the sport. The sources which claim epo gives a huge advantage and that it is easy to get away with. etc etc

In fact forget what posters here say. I dont hold my "probably all top gc riders dope" theory because annonimous poster told me so. I hold the opinion because of evidence.


Oh and Jonny, i think over the coming years, Britain will have far more than Cavendish. Team Sky are bringing up a lot of talented riders into the sport, and while Cavendish may be one of the greatest cyclists this country has ever produced, some of the younger guys could by all means be competing for top races over the next few years.

 

[Willy_Voet]

I hope the rumors aren't true. At first I wondered why he would be transfusing so early in the season, but...then I saw he was down to start tomorrow in the Tour de Med.

Seems a little more likely, way more desperate and incredibly sad if true.

 

[alanshearer]

Stephanie says she didn't hear him tell the doctor anything, but I hear Lemond has a tape.

 

[Mambo95]

View what posters write here with scepticism by all means.

In fact ignore it if you wish.

Its the evidence that you need to look at and make up your mind.

I absolutely agree with that.

It's the likes of the
'This rider has the squits, therefore he's doping', (eg Hushovd)
'This rider rode for this team, therefore he's doping', (eg Evans)
'This rider looks a bit ugly, therefore he's doping' (eg Evans again)
'This rider won a race, therefore he's doping' etc, etc, (eg Bobridge)

threads that demands scepticism.

 

[Jonny7c]

Oh and Jonny, i think over the coming years, Britain will have far more than Cavendish. Team Sky are bringing up a lot of talented riders into the sport, and while Cavendish may be one of the greatest cyclists this country has ever produced, some of the younger guys could by all means be competing for top races over the next few years.

I hope so!

I do try and view the evidence objectively but without a vast amount of knowledge of behind the scenes in cycling and the massive criticism of UCI, WADA etc etc it all becomes quite clouded!

 

[orbis_25]

... Sassi was one of the guys at the blood doping forefront when he worked with Francesco Moser.

But people believed (mainly through his own self-promotion) that he had somehow rehabilitated himself and became a strong advocate of a new and cleaner style of racing, and at the Mapei training center of all places.

That place is ground zero for many Italian amateur and pros to get their doping programs. To believe anything else is to kid yourself...

I may be wrong on this, but at the time Sassi was working with Moser blood transfusions weren't considered cheating. Rather it was considered normal practice. If that's true, it's pretty weak to claim that Sassi wasn't anti-doping because of actions that at the time were considered fine.

I still like to believe that Sassi was a proponent of clean cycling, and that the riders under his tutorage didn't dope. I like to believe that, but it doesn't make it true. Still, if these allegations are true Riccò has lost a lot of my respect by doing this to Sassi, and I'm a big fan of Riccò. Who knows, maybe now that Sassi's dead all bets are off?

 

[Benedict XVI]

Proves how short-sighted UCI was in giving ProTour licence to Ricco's Vacansoleil, instead of Menchov&Saste's Geox. Ethic side should be considered after all..

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Proves how short-sighted UCI was in giving ProTour licence to Ricco's Vacansoleil, instead of Menchov&Saste's Geox. Ethic side should be considered after all..

Now there's a statement marinaded in irony...

 

[Race Radio]

You're not insiders. But you pull together all the reports and comments from all sorts of people. You look at the Clen statistics for use in the Spanish cattle industry. You read the academic papers. You do the calculations. You formulate the theories. Some of it may be BS, but you still read it.

Cyclists on the other hand, have better things to do. They just read headlines.

Do you think really any cyclist has delved deep into the Contador saga to find out the truth like they're some sort of lawyer on the case?

Of course not, they know he is a doper

 

[El Pistolero]

@ChristianVDV I wonder if you will say the same about Contador. But he's innocent right? Yeah, Armstrong too! Ok enough joking now.

^ I tweeted this to Christian VDV lol. Hope he responds.

 

[ferryman]

Wow. Just paid my first visit to the clinic forum to see the latest news on Ricco and really wish I hadn't.

I'm fairly new to cycling (last 2 years so i haven't even see Ricco race) but try and follow as many races as possible on tv and through the forums. I've come to accept that a lot (or more?) of the GT contenders are at least under suspicion of doping but it seemed that finger of suspicion was not pointed so regularly at the sprinters and classics contenders (with some notable exceptions). So i'd settled into observing the races I watched using those basic assumptions and still managing to enjoy the outcomes even when those outcomes are subsequently changed by positive tests and bans.

Now after reading this entire thread much of the debate seems to be whether all riders dope or 'only' the majority of riders. It's all a bit depressing but perhaps I shouldn't have been so naive before checking out this forum. I guess I'll continue to root for British riders safe in the knowledge that with the exception of Cav they will probably only win minor races and the odd stage of bigger races for now and therefore I can hopefully assume they are clean. But that may be my naivety again!

Perhaps in future I should stay in my protective bubble away from the clinic.

Welcome to the clinic Why would you assume that any Brirish rider is cleaner than any other? And as for Cav..

 

[The Hitch]

I absolutely agree with that.

It's the likes of the
'This rider has the squits, therefore he's doping', (eg Hushovd)
'This rider rode for this team, therefore he's doping', (eg Evans)
'This rider doesn't hate Armstrong as much as we do, therefore he's doping', (eg Wiggins)
'This rider looks a bit ugly, therefore he's doping' (eg Evans again)
'This rider won a race, therefore he's doping' etc, etc, (eg Bobridge)

threads that demands scepticism.

I agree that all of these are wrong. Its silly when ppl claim Evans is a doper because hgh = big jaw. What a stupid argument. I also got nowhere near any of the other threads you mention. Especially the bobridge one.

But in the case of Wiggins it is absolutely fair to ask what someone who was so staunchly anti doping in 07 is doing defending Armstrong. It doesnt mean he is doping, but the hypocricy of the act is well worth debating.

 

[python]

read few posts at the tail end and and see a lot of comments like 'pro riders are this', 'they all know that', 'every one knows' etc etc..

ye, it's perfectly understandable why we generalize and stereotype. it's very human. but if you walked this green earth for longer than a dozen summers, you also should recognize how varied, multifaceted and unpredictable things could be... you're 100% certain you know everything you can expect from your spouse or your kid and bammm...they have you for lunch.

peloton, like any professional and social group is full of individuals molded by the common activity. they certainly can be typified and fit into a fairly good descriptor. but they also come from dozens of different countries, cultures, educational systems, social strata...they often dont even understand each other. bottom line, peloton is full of rumours, gossip, suspicion and certainly some knowledge, just like the clinic, but don't generalize it too much.

as for cobra, it a tragedy. nothing else to say

 

[ferryman]

But in the case of Wiggins it is absolutely fair to ask what someone who was so staunchly anti doping in 07 is doing defending Armstrong. It doesnt mean he is doping, but the hypocricy of the act is well worth debating.[/QUOTE]

It is. In 07 Wiggins was a nobody in GT terms. As in 08. We all know about his arrival on 09 and his big pay switch to Sky in 10. Just where in between did his vitriol change from that to inertia. What is the song, drugs and money?

 

[neineinei]

Riccò got so scared that he actually told the doctors what he had done so they could have a fair shot at saving his life. At least for a few minutes he must have realized that his life is more important than winning races. I hope he still thinks so.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

People taking pleasure in what is apparently a very serious illness effecting a young athlete need to get a sense of perspective. And a bit of humanity.

I've never been a fan of Ricco and, if the Italian newspaper's story is true, I hope he's banned for life. But whether or not the guy cheated in some bike races is trivial in the greater scheme of things. I hope he makes a full recovery as soon as possible.

 

[Ferminal]

Ricco is a megalomaniacal psycho who refers to himself in the third person. Despite his talent, or more likely because of it, his problems are deeply rooted. I predict things will ultimately go badly for him ala VDB and Pantani. It is a shame, but certainly not unique.

Do you think we should just accept it that once in a while someone goes off the deep end never to return?

A high price to pay... But sadly it looks like it will continue to occur. Can we justify the entertainment we derive from the sport when lives are at stake?

This is what has me concerned about watching a doped sport, I don't care if what I'm seeing is a fake performance, but if I know there are severe consequences around the corner I have to question my own position.

The whole situation is depressing.

 

[Berzin]

I may be wrong on this, but at the time Sassi was working with Moser blood transfusions weren't considered cheating. Rather it was considered normal practice. If that's true, it's pretty weak to claim that Sassi wasn't anti-doping because of actions that at the time were considered fine.

I don't understand this logic at all. The practice of blood doping was never considered "fine". The practice wasn't widespread when Moser used it to attack the hour record, at least not in the cycling world up until then. And Sassi was the one administering this procedure. He was one of the godfathers of this crap, so to give him the benefit of the doubt when Ricco, a rider he was working with right until he died, winds up in the hospital for a botched transfusion it just doesn't cut it.

I would like to know who pioneered this method of cheating in the world of sports, when it became common in pro cycling, when was it banned and why. Maybe a little history can help us get to the bottom of this.

 

[Sanitiser]

Riccò got so scared that he actually told the doctors what he had done so they could have a fair shot at saving his life. At least for a few minutes he must have realized that his life is more important than winning races. I hope he still thinks so.

The problem is for people like that competing is living.

 

[Merckx index]

no, it's not. It's for short-term use to treat anaemia caused by chemotherapy. Some doctors were prescribing it for off-label use to treat long-term anaermia. There's now a specific black box warning regarding that practice, since it's not effective and it increased mortality rates:

http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety...ormationforPatientsandProviders/ucm200297.htm

Epogen®/Procrit® is indicated for the treatment of anemia due to the effect of concomitantly administered chemotherapy, based on studies that have shown a reduction in the need for red blood cell transfusions in patients with metastatic, non-myeloid malignancies receiving chemotherapy for a minimum of 2 months.
ESAs are not indicated for use in patients receiving hormonal agents, therapeutic biologic products, or radiotherapy unless receiving concomitant myelosuppressive chemotherapy.
ESAs are not indicated for patients receiving myelosuppressive therapy when the anticipated outcome is cure.
ESA use has not been demonstrated in controlled clinical trials to improve symptoms of anemia, quality of life, fatigue, or patient well-being.

Along with the mountains of research which have led to this, there's a lot more which has yet to be published, or the publication of which is currently in dispute, because drug companies have a lot of money and ESAs are big business. The entire EPO situation makes the UCI look like an upright organization.

Regardless, is the new news that it was a blood transfusion gone bad?

You simply are incorrect when you claim EPO is for short-term use only. As I posted earlier, there are studies showing it's safety when regularly administered up to two years. Treatment of anemia associated with chemotherapy is only one use of EPO. Another major use is for anemia from renal failure, and here it can and often is used long-term.

The link you posted basically re-affirms what I posted earlier about the adverse effects of EPO. Yes, it is risky for cancer patients to take, because it may promote tumor growth. No surprise, tumors require an enriched blood supply to grow. So, yes, for these patients, you don't want long-term administration of EPO, if it can be avoided. But again, that is only anemia associated with cancer and chemotherapy. The only other adverse effects mentioned in your link result from direct effects on the circulatory system. Again, no mention of effects on kidneys.

A blood transfusion, of course, is an entirely different story.

P.S. - You are basically correct that EPO has not shown a lot of benefits in renal disease patients, but this is a separate issue from the one I was addressing, viz., is it likely to cause kidney problems when taken long-term. I also share your suspicions of any results from studies funded by companies producing the drug, but they are largely all we have to go on.

 

[ansimi]

Most of my objections to doping in sport are that it steers athletes to make unhealthy choices. It really bothers me that a patient can't be honest with their doctor without risking their medical records being seized and possibly used against them in a criminal prosecution. That environment will just make it even more dangerous.

I hope he'll be OK.

 

[Willy_Voet]

Proves how short-sighted UCI was in giving ProTour licence to Ricco's Vacansoleil, instead of Menchov&Saste's Geox. Ethic side should be considered after all..

LOL. You should post more often. Funny stuff