Doctors are always involved - the slimy, smarmy types.....:mad::mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by ilima
Printable View
Doctors are always involved - the slimy, smarmy types.....:mad::mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by ilima
If he was doping, I would think the odds are he was not the only one on his team that was. Maybe that played into the team's decision to withdraw - they didn't want any of their other riders to get caught.
I really hope Mark Cavendish isn't doping. He's such a good sprinter. Since we can't have Tornado Tom on board......
Oh, they'll get caught. They just won't be in France to be manhandled by the French police. Ricco's test was from Stage 4, so the tests are about a week behind. I have no doubt there will be more positives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flur
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/othe...ng/6278316.stmQuote:
Originally Posted by sundial
I don't think so, he is a very outspoken anti-doper. As a British cycling fan it has been great to watch someone so anti-doping win and win three stages. He was even on the main evening news, some good exposure for cycling for a change. Unfortunately (for the Tour) I don't think he's going to continue much longer as in an interview I watched last night he said he was pretty tired and he struggled in the Pyrenees
He's part of the British Olympic track team so he won't want to knacker himself completely.
Watching VS "expanded coverage" last night, it seems that the positive lab test is that the blood isn't normal. Detection of any anomaly beyond normal limits is considered positive for doping. IE you don't need the specific test for drug XYZ.
Latest news (as mentioned in the Yahoo! Eurosport live coverage) is that both Ricco and Piepoli have been sacked from Saunier-Duval. And VeloNews mentioned that the title sponsor has dropped the team. The ripple effect of doping is becoming intense.
Well, yes and no... yes the initial tests are accurate at spotting any abnormal value; no they do not give a definite answer to whether an illicit product was administered to the rider.Quote:
Originally Posted by CA_in_NC
In other words, with the new regulations every abnormal test result is considered 'doping' until proven otherwise. It is a presumptive diagnosis. After an abnormal result a rider is considered positive, and additional tests have to be done to discern between an abnormal result due to the assumption of a banned product - or an abnormal result due to other concomitant medical conditions or natural causes. But as per the new rules, the rider is considered positive for doping and expelled from the race(s) until new evidence is collected.
So in a way you are considered guilty until proven otherwise. It is the only way to make sure that anything suspect gets caught in the net. And that is why in most pro races they collect baseline values before the start now: it is sort of an insurance for both the organizers and the racers (and their teams), so that they can run comparisons when they identify a suspect case.
Laboratory medicine unfortunately is not perfect, they do the best they can do to ensure a honest and clean Tour - hopefully the more strict regulations will help without making unnecessary victims.
In my opinion, I would rather see a 'non-doper' that has to go through further testing to be cleared - than have too many 'dopers' falling through the cracks without getting caught. It is the only way to make pro cycling a clean sport.
It's getting so it sounds funny when they rant and rave about how great a cyclist so and so is, you wonder if they'll have to take it back.
"Look at so-and-so! World's greatest blah blah (hope he isn't on something). We've seen him work miracles (hope he isn't on something)..."
I was just watching the TdF at home for lunch and what Kalidurga said was what was said on air. Though the Tour itself has not confirmed the positive on Piepoli.
BTW, another most excellent stage finish. :D
Only in my wildest dreams, will I ever be up to the caliber of the TDF riders, but since I have good ride days and bad rides days - which can be vastly different thanks to EIA, and % humidity - if a rider is having a terrific recovery ride, whether or not the rider is doping isn't my first thought.
lalalalala :rolleyes: it's a beautiful world I live in :rolleyes:,
so long as i can breathe.
As the Landis incident showed, the doping agencies' laboratory procedures are fatally flawed and scientifically unreliable... but it doesn't matter. Because as soon as you have an abnormal result, the lab tech picks up the phone and calls the reporter at l'Equipe, and the news is on the wires. It's not evidence that would stand up in a court of law, and in fact the process is completely contrary to the club rules that provide for anonymous testing, quality control testing, and the whole thing about A and B samples; but these cases aren't tried in courts of law. WADA, the UCI, and l'Equipe ensure that they are tried first in the court of public and media attention, and if it does go to a third party, it goes to arbitration, not a trial subject to criminal procedures.Quote:
Originally Posted by TxDoc
Is it fair? No. But then, it's showing itself to be pretty effective in finding and weeding out the dopers.
At least it looks like UCI and Pat Quaid are soon to be out of the picture.
This year, at least, news hasn't leaked until the gendarmes showed up. That's a big tipoff.
One thing has bothered me from day one about this abnormal conditions detected and it is this:
These riders are so far from the average, how can anyone with a straight face say that the limits they set for abnormality is appropriate? or to say that the limits used is accurate gauge of doping or not. The tour riders are not 3 sigma's out of the norm not even 4 or 5, they are like way out there beyond 6 sigmas out. Translation is that they constitute less than 1 in a million.
And to think that limits set for the average person is going to be just as applicable to these elite athletes is beyond any common sense. The athletes are there because they have attributes and physiological difference from the average person.
Put into a simpler term, If you were to take million honda's some will perform better some worse but there will not be a single stand out. And only way a particular honda is going to rediculously out perform a similar Honda is if there is something fundamentally different. Like someone replaced the stock engine with a racing engine. These riders are not your average guy on the street. Much larger than average VO2 max, maybe from lung capacity, hemocrit values, larger heart... who knows but to use the same limit on a select group who are way skewed from the general population is just plain wrong. Secratariat, the famed triple crown winner from the 70's. His heart was beyond 6 sigma's out. His heart was more than twice the size of a regular horse not to mention he was huge!! Geeze, test could say he was all pumped up when he was just a freak of nature. Well that is what we are doing with many of these riders. Hemocrit level too high. Gotta be doping. He may infact be one of those freak of nature thing. If you want to acuse someone of doping they better find some tell tale sign that is accurate and not just "well its way out of the norm."
I just hate WADA, UCI and others who use som arbitrary limits to say doping. Yes drug testing is neede but don't declare someone guilty just because hemocrit value is too high. You better base it on facts that says this is artificial/synthetic and not from some tell-tale sign.
just my two cents.
Isn't that the point of the UCI bio-passport program? A profile is built of an individual athlete. Whether UCI administers it properly is another question.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/...UCI-Doping.php
What teams have their own reputable drug-testing/profiling program? These teams are the only ones that I don't automatically put an * next to any result.
Garmin-Chipotle – Agency for Cycling Ethics (ACE)
Columbia – Agency for Cycling Ethics (ACE)
CSC-Saxobank -- Dr. Rasmus Damsgaard (also used by Astana)