Top (non-LA) Q's in minds of Clinic regulars

[Joe Banks]

Folks, its great that this community exists. I am not a regular visitor and I wonder if anyone cares to respond to a request.

A lot of great information is shared here, and very serious questions are raised (and sometimes answered). However, it is sometimes difficult to find these gold nuggets among the very large threads. There is a lot of BS conjecture (and I am not discouraging that, this is the place for it, just saying that it sometimes clouds things). The most interesting issues often lead to interminably long threads. What comes of them?

If it doesn't already exist, I think it would be a great service to the sport if the denizens of The Clinic could "crowdsource" the most legitimate, pressing unanswered doping-related questions about the current pro peloton.

For example, the question raised about Sky's hiring of Geert Leinders is one that, to my knowledge, has not yet been addressed head-on by Brailsford/Sky. That question (and Leinders' factual history) should be elevated and enshrined somewhere in addition to The Clinic until it is answered. And the sport should be faced with these uncomfortable questions until they are addressed transparently.

What are the other legitimate questions? Perhaps everyone could reply with their top 3, or 5, or 10 questions, and to whom they would ask.

 

[BotanyBay]

For example, the question raised about Sky's hiring of Geert Leinders is one that, to my knowledge, has not yet been addressed head-on by Brailsford/Sky.

And it has not been asked head-on by the cycling media (nor will it)

Remember, Kimmage is no longer considered part of "the media" anymore.

Read this article and see why:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/7552391/Drug-cheat-claims-are-well-founded

 

[Anonymous]

Where are we with respect to testing for plasticizer molecules... autologous blood doping detection?

 

[Joe Banks]

Where are we with respect to testing for plasticizer molecules... autologous blood doping detection?

To whom would you ask this question? Anti-doping authorities? The UCI?

And do we really want the answer? That is, would it be wise for the ADAs to reveal the strength of their tests to the public and the athletes?

 

[the big ring]

To whom would you ask this question? Anti-doping authorities? The UCI?

And do we really want the answer? That is, would it be wise for the ADAs to reveal the strength of their tests to the public and the athletes?

Heads up on the UCI: Unlimited Corruption, Inc. Asking them anything is pointless.

 

[Joe Banks]

Heads up on the UCI: Unlimited Corruption, Inc. Asking them anything is pointless.

So it certainly seems. Which begs a whole other set of questions about how to reform the UCI. Not just replacing the people, but reforming the structure so doping cover-ups are not possible.

 

[Anonymous]

To whom would you ask this question? Anti-doping authorities? The UCI?

And do we really want the answer? That is, would it be wise for the ADAs to reveal the strength of their tests to the public and the athletes?

I'm wondering if this might be part of what the USADA has vis-a-vis LA blood samples of 2009 and 2010.

Yeah, I really want the answer. I want to catch the dopers but I'd rather deter them from doping in the first place.

If a guy knew they could test for transfusion then he'll cross that off the list of possible ways to cheat.

 

[Anonymous]

So it certainly seems. Which begs a whole other set of questions about how to reform the UCI. Not just replacing the people, but reforming the structure so doping cover-ups are not possible.

Get them out of the dope testing business.

 

[twothirds]

So it certainly seems. Which begs a whole other set of questions about how to reform the UCI. Not just replacing the people, but reforming the structure so doping cover-ups are not possible.

All samples are currently tagged with an ID number which corresponds to a form with the athletes personal information. The Lab gets the sample and ID number only. The Sample ID and personal information go to WADA and the Sport Governing Body. Give the labs the authority to announce positive A samples by publishing the sample ID number. Positive result gets published via the Sample ID and then that info is cross referenced to who is the "owner" of the sample with WADA and the SGB's info.

 

[Merckx index]

I'm wondering if this might be part of what the USADA has vis-a-vis LA blood samples of 2009 and 2010.

Yeah, I really want the answer. I want to catch the dopers but I'd rather deter them from doping in the first place.

If a guy knew they could test for transfusion then he'll cross that off the list of possible ways to cheat.

The DEHP or plasticizer test is carried out on urine, not blood samples. In any case, according to information that came out around when the charging letter did, the blood samples are routinely discarded after six months. My understanding is that all USADA or UCI has are the raw data.

There may, however, be stored urine samples, even going back to the earlier years. Python may know if this is the case, I know he has speculated about this. Riders began transfusing after the EPO test was developed, in 2001. But even if there are stored samples from the period or from 09/10, the chances of getting a positive are not great. The DEHP is rapidly cleared from the urine; peak values are detected around twenty-four hours after transfusion, and after forty-eight hours, values return close to baseline. The best hope would be for the earlier years. Assuming he transfused during a TDF rest day, in those years he was likely to be in yellow and/or a stage winner the following day.

But IIRC, the letter USADA sent to UCI a few weeks ago, requesting they send files of LA, made no mention of making available stored urine samples.

As far as future testing goes, apparently not. It has not been approved as a standalone test, and as we saw during the Contador case, even as supplementary evidence it can be challenged. Moreover, riders are now aware of the risk, and can use storage bags that are DEHP-free. So I don't think there is any plan to use this test in the future. Most research efforts currently look for changes in red blood cells or in molecular markers in stored blood that distinguish it from fresh blood.