The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
Galic Ho said:You misinterpreted my stance.
I meant the level of permissable doping was reigned in by the ABP.
I never said they don't dope. Like thehog said after last years Tour, one only needed to open their eyes to see what was going on. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, it's a duck.
People are still being given clear leeway to do more than others are. Why else do you think Ashenden left? He never said he saw full profiles...he said he saw partial values but when he did see them all, well it didn't look good on the top GC rider at the time. That is from values from 2010. We've had almost 3 full seasons since then and the game has changed in terms of who is a GC force. The question is why? Have at it for all I care, it doesn't bother me. I don't need a press conference or some ABP values to tell me the deal...only need to watch the race and see how some people ride. It's absurd at times.
No, it just means they took more risks, got a bigger advantage while still staying within the very generous ranges allowed by the BP.Von Mises said:And if Horner and Armstrong values went up - does it mean that they did not hire so many docs and medical specialists? Or their docs are so bad that they do not know how to manipulate it properly?
Galic Ho said:Yeah that last bit. JV was on the forum sprouting the same nonsense. Have the forum ever heard from a blood expert, like Ashenden, that taking samples after exertion somehow magically transforms the blood and makes it inappropriate for testing? Nope. Just another apologist argument so they can have time to mask a team mate or riders doping.
The plasma issue has been done and dusted. Pump in a few hundred cc's or mls or red blood cells and your crit goes up. How do you bring it down and appear normal? Pump in plasma that has been separated before hand. So total red blood cell count INCREASES, off-score changes because hey, the body knows it doesn't need to make new retics and thus both readings go wacky. BUT the point is total red blood cell and blood volume HAS INCREASED. You literally have more blood and thus can go harder. It's simple science. When they make a total blood volume test, then and only then will they stop this crap. This is exactly what Horner's values depict; a man who pumped in some extra blood, total volume increased and he leveled it out with some plasma, but not accurately enough to make it look clean. If his off-score went off by 40 points as people are saying he should be banned on the spot. Actually every cyclist should...but it's allowed by the rules. The BioPassport DOES NOT WORK properly. It has fundamental statistical flaws within it.
Do you know the actual level of dehydration an athlete can perform at before their output suffers? It's 2%. There is a reason cyclists have domestiques to carry bottles. Literally the only explanations for a wacky off-score are
1. Dehydration: does not fit because if you're dehydrated, you have a Floyd Landis stage 16 2006 Tour de France episode. You literally implode and bonk.
2. Pregnant: we don't need to check up any skirts to debunk this one. Horner is not a hemaphrodite.
3. Diarrhea: I don't even want to think about this one. Did you see Chris jump off his bike to take a dump on the side of the road anytime?
Every other reason is an excuse. The science is simple. Horner got a few blood bags and was most likely micro dosing epo. Just like we've known they're doing for a while now. He is not the only one, but he is the only one stupid enough to release his figures. Sadly people don't look into the science, which is simple enough to understand. Like I said, check the graphs back a page or two. The upper limit for off-score naturally should be 95...100 IMO is the maximum. Over that and you are clearly blood doping because nothing else logical explains it. Did you know the ABP limit for Off-score is 130? You literally have so much leeway to go mental it isn't funny...hence why I made joke about Bottle, aka Levi Leipheimer, Horner's old climbing buddy. He had multiple scores over 115. But don't let that get in the way of a good story, because that would spoil the fun in Levi only doping up till the 2007 Tour and then riding clean.
Von Mises said:I did not want to misinterpret your stance. Mu point is still same - Ashenden and Mørkeberg have said that for majority of riders values go down and it is normal, this is how blood parameters should behave during GT. Ok, maybe "vast majority is clean" is too strong of a statement, but at least it shows that vast majority is cleaner and in my personal opinion - lot of them are actually clean.
In addition, wouldn't professional haematologists know that in general such plasma expansion will (or is likely to) occur during continuous and hard physical strain - of which what happens among clean(ish) cyclists during GTs is an exemplar?Dear Wiggo said:You need to check your facts.
There was a study done of riders on a team during one GT where the plasma volume expansion leading to decrease in Hct was observed. Ashenden and Mokberg have NOT said it goes down for the majority of cyclists, because they have not tested the majority of cyclists.
Their conclusion was as I said: plasma expansion occurs during a GT.
The BP profiles of cyclists are NOT looked at unless they are flagged by the system.
Even then, they are not all run past Ashenden and Mokberg, as there is a panel and the profiles are doled out at random.
richardschoenberg said:If Chris was not doping when all around him were, why would he do it now when all eyes are on him?
Dear Wiggo said:Also: all the people carrying on about dehydration: read the guidelines. No blood testing occurs until after 2 hours post-exercise, for the express purpose of allowing the blood parameters to "renormalise". Not sure if the cyclist can rehydrate during that time, but the guidelines are based on studies that say after that elapsed time, exercise-induced effects are minimised.
meat puppet said:In addition, wouldn't professional haematologists know that in general such plasma expansion will (or is likely to) occur during continuous and hard physical strain - of which what happens among clean(ish) cyclists during GTs is an exemplar?
IMHO their hypothesis is sound, either way.
Von Mises said:And if Horner and Armstrong values went up - does it mean that they did not hire so many docs and medical specialists? Or their docs are so bad that they do not know how to manipulate it properly?
hrotha said:No, it just means they took more risks, got a bigger advantage while still staying within the very generous ranges allowed by the BP.
Dear Wiggo said:You need to check your facts.
There was a study done of riders on a team during one GT where the plasma volume expansion leading to decrease in Hct was observed. Ashenden and Mokberg have NOT said it goes down for the majority of cyclists, because they have not tested the majority of cyclists.
Their conclusion was as I said: plasma expansion occurs during a GT.
The BP profiles of cyclists are NOT looked at unless they are flagged by the system.
Even then, they are not all run past Ashenden and Mokberg, as there is a panel and the profiles are doled out at random.
Yes. In fact, I made my suggestion simply to make the premise more general and thus avoid the excess "noise" and far fetched extrapolations.Dear Wiggo said:I have no problem with the hypothesis that normal athletes experience plasma volume expansion due to intense exercise. This is not in dispute.
If you read the posts to which I am replying, however, the premise is painful to read. Essentially Von Mises is extrapolating the results of a study to say that
1. Ashenden and Mokberg see all riders profiles
- I don't think Mokberg is even on a BP panel
2. Ahenden and Mokberg are saying all riders are clean coz they experience plasma volume expansion
- neither of them see all profiles, so how could they possible know or claim this? Only profiles flagged *by the system* are presented for further scrutiny.
3. The BP is working because of the previous 2 points
- a conclusion that cannot be reached based on the sandy soil of its supporting arguments
meat puppet said:Yes. In fact, I made my suggestion simply to make the premise more general and thus avoid the excess "noise" and far fetched extrapolations.
Dear Wiggo said:At the 2013 Vuelta, Horner wore red for a few days and won overall. He was only tested 4 times over the three weeks.
Taxus4a said:I dont trust Horner a lot becouse he dont have an antidoping ethic as Wiggo have, he defended Armstrong
Netserk said:For the passport
Most likely he was tested more than four times during La Vuelta.
Netserk said:For real?
You don't think Wiggo defended Armstrong?
...and it's sundown!Galic Ho said:Oh you mad little kid?
Cry us a river and go get your jollies watching your boy Froome ride all day watching his top tube.
Obvious doper is an obvious doper. Troll on little kid...troll on. Defending Horner now. Sheesh...the Americans were joking but you're serious. You're in the wrong neighborhood. Move along kid. Move along.
Netserk said:For real?
You don't think Wiggo defended Armstrong?
Netserk said:For real?
You don't think Wiggo defended Armstrong?
It's not proof when your DS and several teammates tell you that they know for a fact that he was a doper?Taxus4a said:I mean after been proof of doping
Taxus4a said:Ashenden could be an expert, but Ramnus Damsgaard give him a good lesson last time he talked.
But I am agree, an expert must analyse the data... I understand that UCI analise the data with experts already anyway, that is the biopassport.