Really, I should google HGH test being used at the Olympics back in '04 or is it the urin tests from the USA and Germany you want me to google for you?elapid said:Any complete blood count will give you this information. Nothing magic about it. However, the passport does not include total hemoglobin volume which is one of the most effective techniques to detect doping because it cannot be manipulated. Hemoglobin and hematocrit can be manipulated.
Manipulated how? It's so easy for you to say it can(takes no knowledge or thinking), but as pointed out your current example is horribly outdated.
You'll need to name existing methods used in the medical industry, because there isn't enough money in cycling so the sport can finance its own R&D.
There was a reason why the treshold had to be so high, not because the UCI was afraid of catching riders but because the court of law isn't geared to handle doping cases. The values had to be so high that it's human impossible to reach them, or else UCI just couldn't win in court.elapid said:Lofty values. UCI. You make me laugh.
Kohl couldn't be caught because the passport's tools to prevent riders from riding like the health ban, had not been put into action.elapid said:Not impossible at all. That's what they're doing. Kohl stated that he used the passport results to manipulate his counts to beat doping controls.
A political and juridical aspect which UCI was negotiating with WADA.
All the bio-pass could be used for was targeting riders, but that would be little help because there was no test for CERA.
But with the bio-pass it becomes even more expensive for the riders to circumvent the system while it becomes easier and there by cheaper to target suspecious riders.elapid said:You are correct. The rich riders can afford the better programs. The poorer riders get caught. Look at the reported costs for Ullrich's and Hamilton's programs. I forget the actual figures, but it was something like 30,000 euros per month. A new professional rider now gets low 20,000 euros per year. That's why so many of us don't like the current state of affairs, because current doping practices change racing results whereas the days of cortisone, amphetamines and perhaps testosterone probably did not change the overall order of results. The strongest rider still won pre-early 1990s. Now the richest rider with the best doctors and best programs win, and they're not necessarily the strongest rider.
It also increases the risk and work for the doctor who will need to bring a laboratory. to balance the values.
You are greatly mistaken, I have been very annoyed with UCI over the years and even argued that ASO though having a financial interest should handle the anti doping testing.elapid said:Firstly, nothing wrong with older papers and evidence. No need to limit searches to the last 12 months. That's probably why you have such a rosy view of the UCI. You haven't dug into their corrupt past.
Not only because of corruption, which just as easily vculd happen there, but because they can ban/not invite riders which have shown manipulated blood values without having to run a court case.
It's straight against my values and probably would make the governing body look like FiA, but that's how displeased I've been with the UCI's effort.
elapid said:Secondly, you stated in a previous post that I (or someone else) do not provide adequate evidence to support my (or our) statements. Well, your information on HGH is not supported by any evidence. Please live by your words and provide evidence to support these statements.
It couldn't possibly be the latest interview here on CN with Ann Gripper you want me to google for you?
I don't get why these conspiracy theories need to be so far fetched, Bush planned 11-09, the moon landing was filmed at Area 51, UFOs landed in are 51, the Swiss black hole experiment is going to crush the Earth(hello physics),.. it's like people want it to be bigger than life.
Doping has been and continues to be a problem, but we must not neglect the important light ahead.
The anti doping measures aren't handled by Patty but manalike Gripper, the biggest critics of UCI are the one's developing the bio-pass and AFLD says the amount of manipulated blood samples has dropped considerably(from more than 80% to 10%) which fits quite well with the slowed climbing we are seeing.
The Bio-pass combined with storing the test for 8 years is clearly the best way to go, especially compared to the alternatives like VO2 max with Watt/kg calculations and blind random testing.
ASO gave UCI a wakeup call and in fear of losing its position it's for the first time doing things the critics have been demanding.
And more important, they are closing legal loopholes which Damsgaard alone sadly couldn't do.
NB: Sorry I do not have time to proof read for spelling errors and things left out.