stephens said:You seriously missed the point. It was not an argument against the existence of blood doping: it was an argument against a bunch of laymen on the internet being able to look at some numbers and declare who has or hasn't been doping.
The suggestion is that we can all read one article, understand the biological passport, look at some numbers, and declare who has been blood doping or using epo. I don't believe it will be so easy. Is a change in hemoglobin due to doping or hydration level or prolonged exertion or legal training methods or illness or disease or just-the-way-that-person's-body-functions?
To suggest that cycling fans (that aren't hemotologists or hemopathologists) are qualified to make that determination is just silly to me.
As for my personal tests - it isn't just that 2% were out of line. It's that the only number that really matters (my body's ability to deliver oxygen to its cells) is out of order and all the other numbers that should show why aren't showing why since they come back normal. If I had been a pro-cyclist, people would probably be saying I had damaged my body through years of cheating. (isn't that what people are saying about Joe Papp right now? what they are saying about Fignon's cancer?)
I have to agree with TTF. There are medical professionals on this forum, including a hematologist if memory serves me correctly. This is not my field but I am a surgical oncologist and have a limited knowledge of doping and its effects. Over time, many of us have come to learn about doping and its effects. This also does not require a medical degree, just a level of interest and intelligence.
I am also a researcher and know how to do a medical literature review. It doesn't take a hematologist to realize that the changes in Armstrong's TdF possible are not possible naturally. In this or another thread, I provided three papers showing the progressive decrease in hematocrit over the course of a grand tour and intensive exercise in professional cyclists. I cannot find any documented case to show that hematocrit increases during a period of intensive exercise, especially a grand tour. More importantly, the hematocrit increasing while reticulocyte count remains low is also a physiologic impossibility by natural means because reticulocytes, or immature red blood cells, are a natural prerequisite for increasing hematocrit. If the hematocrit increases without a corresponding increase in reticulocytes, then a blood transfusion is responsible for this response.
I have long been a critic of the release of hematocrit levels without the corresponding total protein levels. Hematocrit can increase or decrease naturally with decreased (ie, dehydration) or increased (ie, overhydration) plasma volume. A corresponding total protein, which is run routinely with hematocrit in hospitals, would help determine whether an increased hematocrit is because of dehydration because a decreased plasma volume would result in a higher total protein count. So, increased hematocrit + increased total protein = dehydration, but an increased hematocrit + normal or decreased total protein = doping (EPO or blood transfusion).
Lastly, neither Joe nor Fignon are saying their illnesses are due to their doping. They have both raised that possibility - I believe Fignon's doctors said it was very unlikely and Joe is currently seeing his endocrinologist to determine the cause of his illness.