"I never tested positive." [Archive]

Ryan Cousineau

June 30th 06, 06:54 PM

In article . com>,
wrote:

> Scott wrote:
> >
> > The whole "I never tested positive" concept is interesting, in that it
> > implies that it's not cheating if you don't get caught. While some of
> > us view cheating as cheating, some folks, in fact some cultures, only
> > see cheating as dishonorable if you're not very good at it. For some,
> > it's an integral part of how they approach life in general and sport in
> > particular. In fact, for some it's honorable to be able to cheat
> > undetected.
>
> Well, we are talking about a sport where riders hang on to support
> vehicles, take unauthorized feeds, throw elbows and more in sprints,
> and sell results... naturally it's a sport dominated by Italians and
> Belgians...

Well, there is such a concept as gamesmanship, and also, the spirit of
the sport.

To give an example from hockey, fighting is penalized by a 5-minute
sit-down. You don't get ejected, you don't get sanctioned. Indeed, there
are circumstances in which the etiquette of the game would demand that
two players fight (ie if one player goons your star player, then the
toughest guy on the ice from your team is expected to skate up and drop
gloves. If the goon doesn't reciprocate, it's VERY bad manners, with
consequences akin to perpetually not working in a breakaway).

In cycling, getting a water-bottle ride is, within reason, not a serious
offense. It's a question, largely, of whether you are a contender for GC
placing. Similarly, you're all but expected to draft your way through
the support caravan.

On the other hand, flicking a rider is a pretty grave thing to do.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Sandy

June 30th 06, 07:03 PM

Scott a critics :
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>
>> Ag2r's Francisco Mancebo, one of those ejected: "I consider myself innocent
>> and I have never tested positive. I'm just going to see how this all evolves
>> now. I'm sick of this world, I am going to hang to my bike up."
>> http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=2213
>>
>> New excuses are needed Francisco.
>>
>
> The whole "I never tested positive" concept is interesting, in that it
> implies that it's not cheating if you don't get caught. While some of
> us view cheating as cheating, some folks, in fact some cultures, only
> see cheating as dishonorable if you're not very good at it. For some,
> it's an integral part of how they approach life in general and sport in
> particular. In fact, for some it's honorable to be able to cheat
> undetected.
>
>
How does this grab you : a person is guilty when the proper authority
proves a set of facts adequate to convince a tribunal that the accused
has committed a specified offense. And, conversely, the same person is
considered innocent if the proper authority fails in this proof. Apply
it to yourself, in your own life, for anything people may have wrongly
accused you of. Do you consider yourself innocent ? Or do you prefer
"angelic" ?

Sandy

June 30th 06, 07:04 PM

Steve Freides a écrit :
> "B. Lafferty" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>
>> Ag2r's Francisco Mancebo, one of those ejected: "I consider myself
>> innocent and I have never tested positive. I'm just going to see how
>> this all evolves now. I'm sick of this world, I am going to hang to my
>> bike up."
>> http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=2213
>>
>> New excuses are needed Francisco.
>>
>
> What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" The presumption of
> guilt and the corresponding need to prove innocence, however seemingly
> justifiable given the circumstances, are still wrong. If he has not
> tested positive and he has not been proven guilty of an offense, he is
> entitled to be assumed innocent, in my opinion.
>
> -S-
>
>
>
One thing to face : that most times, popular opinion is that charges are
enough to determine guilt. The logic being, that a prosecutor wouldn't
waste time unless the proof were there. Really. That's how real life
works. In court and out.

Mike

June 30th 06, 07:36 PM

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 13:18:57 -0400, "Steve Freides"
> wrote:

>What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" The presumption of
>guilt and the corresponding need to prove innocence, however seemingly
>justifiable given the circumstances, are still wrong. If he has not
>tested positive and he has not been proven guilty of an offense, he is
>entitled to be assumed innocent, in my opinion.

Forget that idea, presume everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) is as guilty
as f*ck. It saves a hell of a lot of time, money, effort and debate.

There was a time, maybe 10-15 years ago when I thought testing might
improve to such a level only the truly clean riders would succeed. How
wrong I was.

--

B. Lafferty

June 30th 06, 08:07 PM

"Sandy" > wrote in message
...
> Scott a critics :
>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>
>>> Ag2r's Francisco Mancebo, one of those ejected: "I consider myself
>>> innocent
>>> and I have never tested positive. I'm just going to see how this all
>>> evolves
>>> now. I'm sick of this world, I am going to hang to my bike up."
>>> http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=2213
>>>
>>> New excuses are needed Francisco.
>>>
>>
>> The whole "I never tested positive" concept is interesting, in that it
>> implies that it's not cheating if you don't get caught. While some of
>> us view cheating as cheating, some folks, in fact some cultures, only
>> see cheating as dishonorable if you're not very good at it. For some,
>> it's an integral part of how they approach life in general and sport in
>> particular. In fact, for some it's honorable to be able to cheat
>> undetected.
>>
>>
> How does this grab you : a person is guilty when the proper authority
> proves a set of facts adequate to convince a tribunal that the accused has
> committed a specified offense. And, conversely, the same person is
> considered innocent if the proper authority fails in this proof. Apply it
> to yourself, in your own life, for anything people may have wrongly
> accused you of. Do you consider yourself innocent ? Or do you prefer
> "angelic" ?

Can't I be both?

Frank Drackman

June 30th 06, 08:40 PM

"Steve Freides" > wrote in message
...
> "B. Lafferty" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>> Ag2r's Francisco Mancebo, one of those ejected: "I consider myself
>> innocent and I have never tested positive. I'm just going to see how this
>> all evolves now. I'm sick of this world, I am going to hang to my bike
>> up."
>> http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=2213
>>
>> New excuses are needed Francisco.
>
> What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" The presumption of guilt
> and the corresponding need to prove innocence, however seemingly
> justifiable given the circumstances, are still wrong. If he has not
> tested positive and he has not been proven guilty of an offense, he is
> entitled to be assumed innocent, in my opinion.
>

You are taking a concept from the American legal system and trying to apply
it to sporting event owned by a French company. The American constitution
does not have any relevance to European bike racing or the Tour De France.
ASO has been extremely clear that they have the right to exclude anyone who
doesn't meet their standards for racing.

[email protected]

June 30th 06, 09:20 PM

B. Lafferty wrote:
Sandy asked:
> >Do you consider yourself innocent ? Or do you prefer
> > "angelic" ?

The ever-opportunistic B. Lafferty quickly replied:
> Can't I be both?

Some reading, done by halo-light if that applies:

From:
http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=afp-cyclingusagbr&prov=afp&type=lgns

<The allegations were printed in 2004 in a review of a book called LA
Confidential, The Secrets of Lance Armstrong.

<The Sunday Times insisted the article merely raised fresh questions
about the cyclist but High Court judge Mr Justice Gray supported
Armstrong and said the article "does bear the meaning for which Mr
Armstrong contends."

<The joint statement said: "The Sunday Times and Mr Armstrong are
pleased to announce that they have settled their legal disputes.

<"The Sunday Times has confirmed to Mr Armstrong that it never intended
to accuse him of being guilty of taking any performance enhancing drugs
and sincerely apologized for any such impression.">

Oooh boy, got smart quick and settled the very same day. Or maybe there
was a plan <g>. Whatever. So much for home field advantage?

Someday the details will be leaked <g> and we will find out how many
pieces of gold the Times had to return from the papers it presumably
sold on the back of this braying donkey. Was there a nice fat LAF
contribution, on the road for the billion for cancer research? Time
will tell, given an angle of course.

The book: again, it has no title in English since it was never
presented in that language. I know the reporters and story writers and
editors are just trying to help move understanding along, but this
misstatement does imply a certain popularity (among other possible
insinuations) that was never, for good reason (see above) achieved, at
least as represented by undiscounted sales.

I didn't see any details, but did Greg Lemond testify at this
proceeding, too? Did Lance walk in and, with a little smile on his
face, let everyone see him dispose of some chewing gum in a convenient
wastebasket? Well, all in good time! --D-y

Curtis L. Russell

June 30th 06, 09:22 PM

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:40:35 -0700, "Frank Drackman"
> wrote:

>You are taking a concept from the American legal system and trying to apply
>it to sporting event owned by a French company. The American constitution
>does not have any relevance to European bike racing or the Tour De France.
>ASO has been extremely clear that they have the right to exclude anyone who
>doesn't meet their standards for racing.

You were better off leaving the Constitution out of it - its spends a
lot of time on processes, but not on presumption of guilt. And he did
say it was 'his opinion', which means that what ASO says and does
isn't necessarily relevant either. Its my opinion that they should be
presumed innocent until proven guilty, but it is also my opinion that
innocense or guilt is not what this is all about. And I think I know
that it has little to do with what ASO will do. More and more, ASO
seems to be a fonetic spelling, but then, the Tour isn't my baby.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Steve Freides

June 30th 06, 09:35 PM

"Curtis L. Russell" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:40:35 -0700, "Frank Drackman"
> > wrote:
>
>>You are taking a concept from the American legal system and trying to
>>apply
>>it to sporting event owned by a French company. The American
>>constitution
>>does not have any relevance to European bike racing or the Tour De
>>France.
>>ASO has been extremely clear that they have the right to exclude
>>anyone who
>>doesn't meet their standards for racing.
>
> You were better off leaving the Constitution out of it - its spends a
> lot of time on processes, but not on presumption of guilt. And he did
> say it was 'his opinion', which means that what ASO says and does
> isn't necessarily relevant either. Its my opinion that they should be
> presumed innocent until proven guilty, but it is also my opinion that
> innocense or guilt is not what this is all about. And I think I know
> that it has little to do with what ASO will do. More and more, ASO
> seems to be a fonetic spelling, but then, the Tour isn't my baby.

There are places where appearances matter, e.g., politics - I know
politicians sometimes can't do their jobs effectively if they are under
suspicion of wrongdoing, even if nothing's been proven. But this is not
that, and these guys could race. I'm no fan of performance-enhancing
drugs, but I don't see the entire thing in the stark black-and-white,
right-or-wrong way most people seem to. It's a continuum - the cup of
coffee I have before a bike ride is a performance enhancing drug, the
legal inhaler I have for my marginal case of asthma likewise. My
feeling is that you create the rules you feel are appropriate, which has
been done, and you enforce them to the best of your ability, which the
sport is doing. And once that's done, you're allowed to participate
until you've been proven guilty - medals, podium spots, etc., can be
taken away retroactively if necessary.

The presumption of evidence reflects the idea that it is better to let a
guilty person go unpunished than it is to deny anyone their rights to
due process, a position I agree with wholeheartedly.

Again, just voicing my opinion here as a spectator. I would prefer that
Ulrich, Basso, and the rest be allowed to make the decision on their own
whether or not to participate, based on the knowledge of the evidence
against them.

-S-

Mark

June 30th 06, 09:48 PM

Steve Freides wrote:
> There are places where appearances matter, e.g., politics - I know
> politicians sometimes can't do their jobs effectively if they are under
> suspicion of wrongdoing, even if nothing's been proven. But this is not
> that, and these guys could race.

If we view the racers as product endorsers (they do have corporate names
displayed all over their racing kit), their profession might qualify as
one in which appearances matter.

Remember when Martha Stewart was first charged, and many financial
observers assumed K-Mart would drop her like a stone? (I seem to recall
it didn't turn out that way, but the point remains - sponsors are wary
of suspicious endorsers). Like it or not, the sponsors pay for the
sport, so they are *going* to have major influence.

Mark

Donald Munro

June 30th 06, 09:50 PM

Sandy wrote:
>> Do you consider yourself innocent ? Or do you prefer "angelic" ?

B. Lafferty wrote:
> Can't I be both?

LANCE's angel of doom ?

B. Lafferty

June 30th 06, 10:06 PM

"Donald Munro" > wrote in message
om...
> Sandy wrote:
>>> Do you consider yourself innocent ? Or do you prefer "angelic" ?
>
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> Can't I be both?
>
> LANCE's angel of doom ?
>
A bit overly dramatic, don't you think?

Gunsberg

June 30th 06, 10:48 PM

Steve Freides wrote:
> "B. Lafferty" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> > Ag2r's Francisco Mancebo, one of those ejected: "I consider myself
> > innocent and I have never tested positive. I'm just going to see how
> > this all evolves now. I'm sick of this world, I am going to hang to my
> > bike up."
> > http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=2213
> >
> > New excuses are needed Francisco.
>
> What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" The presumption of
> guilt and the corresponding need to prove innocence, however seemingly
> justifiable given the circumstances, are still wrong. If he has not
> tested positive and he has not been proven guilty of an offense, he is
> entitled to be assumed innocent, in my opinion.
>
> -S

All of the riders implicated in "Puerto" are still deemed to be not
proven guilty by the ICU--until such time as they have gone through
their due process. However, riders do not have a right to race in the
Tour de France. The organizer issues invitations for the riders to
participate. It should be pointed out that the riders have already
signed a pledge to adhere to a Code of Conduct--one that gives the
organizers the right sanction those whom are suspected of violating
doping policies.

At this point, the riders are free to participate in other bike
races, if those race organizers will allow them to do so.

Likewise, teams have similar provisions in their contracts with the
riders, which allows them to terminate the rider based on certain
activities or behaviors which would tend to bring the sponsors into
disrepute.

Guilty until proven innocent is an essential concept--when dealing with
crimnal cases where the defendant faces santions by the State. It is
morally obtuse to assert that everybody is entitles to a presumption of
innocence all of the time, even when facing non-criminal penalties from
team owners or race organizers.

Steve Freides

July 1st 06, 02:42 AM

"Mark" > wrote in message
...
> Steve Freides wrote:
>> There are places where appearances matter, e.g., politics - I know
>> politicians sometimes can't do their jobs effectively if they are
>> under suspicion of wrongdoing, even if nothing's been proven. But
>> this is not that, and these guys could race.
>
> If we view the racers as product endorsers (they do have corporate
> names displayed all over their racing kit), their profession might
> qualify as one in which appearances matter.

So they can lose their endorsement deals, but they still should be able
to race, IMHO.

-S-

> Remember when Martha Stewart was first charged, and many financial
> observers assumed K-Mart would drop her like a stone? (I seem to
> recall it didn't turn out that way, but the point remains - sponsors
> are wary of suspicious endorsers). Like it or not, the sponsors pay
> for the sport, so they are *going* to have major influence.
>
> Mark
>

Steve Freides

July 1st 06, 02:51 AM

"Gunsberg" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Steve Freides wrote:
>> "B. Lafferty" > wrote in message
>> k.net...
>> > Ag2r's Francisco Mancebo, one of those ejected: "I consider myself
>> > innocent and I have never tested positive. I'm just going to see
>> > how
>> > this all evolves now. I'm sick of this world, I am going to hang to
>> > my
>> > bike up."
>> > http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=2213
>> >
>> > New excuses are needed Francisco.
>>
>> What happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" The presumption of
>> guilt and the corresponding need to prove innocence, however
>> seemingly
>> justifiable given the circumstances, are still wrong. If he has not
>> tested positive and he has not been proven guilty of an offense, he
>> is
>> entitled to be assumed innocent, in my opinion.
>>
>> -S
>
> All of the riders implicated in "Puerto" are still deemed to be not
> proven guilty by the ICU--until such time as they have gone through
> their due process. However, riders do not have a right to race in the
> Tour de France. The organizer issues invitations for the riders to
> participate. It should be pointed out that the riders have already
> signed a pledge to adhere to a Code of Conduct--one that gives the
> organizers the right sanction those whom are suspected of violating
> doping policies.

This is a good point, but in my opinion, the concept of that agreement
is flawed as well. What is to stop a malicious person from creating
"evidence", calling a press conference, and derailing an opportunity for
a professional cyclist to compete. How do we know, e.g., that the list
of names found isn't a list of people they're planning to contact but
haven't yet - or any of a milliion other possible explanations?

I have not learned the particulars, and it may well be that the evidence
is damning, but I would like to see what this evidence is.

Again, just my opinion. I find it difficult to believe the likes of
Ulrich and Basso would throw away their chance at a TdF win, two
different guys from two different teams, that they would have this same
"Spanish connection" in common. Just difficult for me to accept based
on what I've heard to date.

> At this point, the riders are free to participate in other bike
> races, if those race organizers will allow them to do so.
>
> Likewise, teams have similar provisions in their contracts with the
> riders, which allows them to terminate the rider based on certain
> activities or behaviors which would tend to bring the sponsors into
> disrepute.

If such activity or behavior actually took place - again, what is to
stop a malcontent from saying it did?

> Guilty until proven innocent is an essential concept--when dealing
> with
> crimnal cases where the defendant faces santions by the State. It is
> morally obtuse to assert that everybody is entitles to a presumption
> of
> innocence all of the time, even when facing non-criminal penalties
> from
> team owners or race organizers.

I disagree. The bigger the consequences, the more important it is to be
certain. The fact that the penalties are non-criminal means nothing
here.

-S-

Michael Press

July 1st 06, 06:14 AM

In article
>,
Ryan Cousineau > wrote:

> To give an example from hockey, fighting is penalized by a 5-minute
> sit-down. You don't get ejected, you don't get sanctioned. Indeed, there
> are circumstances in which the etiquette of the game would demand that
> two players fight (ie if one player goons your star player, then the
> toughest guy on the ice from your team is expected to skate up and drop
> gloves. If the goon doesn't reciprocate, it's VERY bad manners, with
> consequences akin to perpetually not working in a breakaway).

I will go further. Fighting in ice hockey is healthy. Even
then nutting is illegal and is sanctioned, beyond the
coincidental five minute major penalty.

--
Michael Press

Ryan Cousineau

July 1st 06, 06:41 AM

In article >,
Michael Press > wrote:

> In article
> >,
> Ryan Cousineau > wrote:
>
> > To give an example from hockey, fighting is penalized by a 5-minute
> > sit-down. You don't get ejected, you don't get sanctioned. Indeed, there
> > are circumstances in which the etiquette of the game would demand that
> > two players fight (ie if one player goons your star player, then the
> > toughest guy on the ice from your team is expected to skate up and drop
> > gloves. If the goon doesn't reciprocate, it's VERY bad manners, with
> > consequences akin to perpetually not working in a breakaway).
>
> I will go further. Fighting in ice hockey is healthy. Even
> then nutting is illegal and is sanctioned, beyond the
> coincidental five minute major penalty.

Absolutely. Indeed, it's generally seen as a practical, non-dangerous
way to settle disputes when the gentlemen in question are out there with
skates and sticks.

On the other hand, diving in hockey, though it happens, is considered by
most fans to be an utterly classless move. The NHL has made some effort
to get rid of it, mainly through calling penalties on divers (or, in one
of the most confusing plays in sport, the same incident can lead to one
player getting a penalty for tripping/hooking/interference, and the
other player getting a penalty for the dive). As far as I can tell from
watching the World Cup, they must give a best supporting actor award at
the season-end banquet.

***

I hope the feeling in cycling is moving towards the idea that doping is
an outre activity, and not 2 minutes for doping.

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Sandy

July 1st 06, 07:20 AM

Steve Freides a écrit :
> "Gunsberg" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
>
>> Guilty until proven innocent is an essential concept--when dealing
>> with
>> crimnal cases where the defendant faces santions by the State. It is
>> morally obtuse to assert that everybody is entitles to a presumption
>> of
>> innocence all of the time, even when facing non-criminal penalties
>> from
>> team owners or race organizers.
>>
>
> I disagree. The bigger the consequences, the more important it is to be
> certain. The fact that the penalties are non-criminal means nothing
> here.
>
> -S-
>
>
>

Are you under the impression that the guarda civil is not pursuing
criminal prosecutions ?

Simon Brooke

July 1st 06, 09:29 AM

in message >, Steve Freides
') wrote:

> "Mark" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Steve Freides wrote:
>>> There are places where appearances matter, e.g., politics - I know
>>> politicians sometimes can't do their jobs effectively if they are
>>> under suspicion of wrongdoing, even if nothing's been proven. But
>>> this is not that, and these guys could race.
>>
>> If we view the racers as product endorsers (they do have corporate
>> names displayed all over their racing kit), their profession might
>> qualify as one in which appearances matter.
>
> So they can lose their endorsement deals, but they still should be able
> to race, IMHO.

So, "you can race round France for a month if you like, but you won't get
paid and you'll have to pay your own masseurs, mechanics and team car
drivers, and your hotel bills and food and petrol for the cars and..."

Might be realistic if this was an individual sport, but it's not. Nor
could it be. If every rider had his own support car the caravan would be
even more chaotic; and, in any case, the emergence of the team system
merely formalised the realities of road racing - a bunch of guys working
together do better than individuals competing all the time.

In a team where everyone dopes, of course, the riders could club together
to pay their mechanics and drivers... until the money runs out.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

...but have you *seen* the size of the world wide spider?

Simon Brooke

July 1st 06, 09:53 AM

in message >, Steve Freides
') wrote:

> This is a good point, but in my opinion, the concept of that agreement
> is flawed as well. Â*What is to stop a malicious person from creating
> "evidence", calling a press conference, and derailing an opportunity
> for a professional cyclist to compete. Â*How do we know, e.g., that the
> list of names found isn't a list of people they're planning to contact
> but haven't yet - or any of a milliion other possible explanations?
>
> I have not learned the particulars, and it may well be that the
> evidence is damning, but I would like to see what this evidence is.
>
> Again, just my opinion. Â*I find it difficult to believe the likes of
> Ulrich and Basso would throw away their chance at a TdF win, two
> different guys from two different teams, that they would have this same
> "Spanish connection" in common. Â*Just difficult for me to accept based
> on what I've heard to date.

That's what's bothering me. It would be /extremely/ easy to manufacture
false 'evidence' against the cyclists. It could well be that this whole
thing is a betting fraud. The fact that it's /such/ a clean sweep of the
people who were favourites a year ago is suspicious in itself. As I
understand it, all the evidence against Basso that's been revealed so
far is that the name of /his/ /dog/ was found written on the back of a
business card, and the evidence against Ullrich is that 'Rudy's boy' has
been found written on a blood bag.

So if this is a fraud, Fuentes will be able to turn round later and say
with a straight face 'no, of course Basso and Ullrich weren't involved,
I never suggested they were'. If this is a fraud, I find it extremely
hard to see what Fuentes could be charged with - is it illegal to keep
200 bags of blood?

/Presumably/ the Guardia Civil have done DNA analysis on the contents of
the bags, and certainly the UCI have samples of blood from all the
cyclists against which those DNA analyses could be matched, and I assume
by now someone has done this. But I wish someone would stand up and
say "yes, definitely, three of the 200 bags contain [Basso|Ullrich]'s
blood", or, conversely, "no, definitely, we have not found any trace of
[Basso|Ullrich]'s blood here."

Of course, if the word on the street a year ago was 'if you want to win
you have to see Fuentes - he's expensive but he's the best there is'
then you would, sadly, expect to see all the most ambitious and best
paid dopers going to him, so I don't find the idea that '...two
different guys from two different teams...' should go to the same blood
doping clinic surprising in itself.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; An enamorata is for life, not just for weekends.

news.absamail.co.za

July 1st 06, 10:31 AM

> That's what's bothering me. It would be /extremely/ easy to manufacture
> false 'evidence' against the cyclists.

So if all / some riders are found not guilty, would they have any legal
recourse against UCI / ASO / Spanish police for the presumption of guilt
without a trial and so onto loss of earnings etc.

I think a well publisized legal case against these entities would stop the
guilty by innuendo that we currently have, this would hopefully lead to a
situation where there are no smear campaigns but actual facts to prosecute
with.

I do find it a little suspicious that this always seems to start a week or
so before the TDF.

J

Simon Brooke

July 1st 06, 01:25 PM

in message >, news.absamail.co.za
') wrote:

> in message >,
> Simon Brooke ') wrote:
>> That's what's bothering me. It would be /extremely/ easy to
>> manufacture false 'evidence' against the cyclists.
>
> So if all / some riders are found not guilty, would they have any legal
> recourse against UCI / ASO / Spanish police for the presumption of
> guilt without a trial and so onto loss of earnings etc.

I don't see why, sadly. le Tour is ASO's party. You can't make them
invite you to their party, and if they do invite you and then withdraw
the invitation, well tough. No-one has a /right/ to be invited. It is,
essentially, a private event.

I'm still hoping that some of the riders named will be found not guilty.
I'm like a Christian. I /want/ to believe, against all the evidence. I
know I'm clutching at straws.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; my other religion is Emacs

news.absamail.co.za

July 1st 06, 02:17 PM

> I don't see why, sadly. le Tour is ASO's party. You can't make them
> invite you to their party, and if they do invite you and then withdraw
> the invitation, well tough. No-one has a /right/ to be invited. It is,
> essentially, a private event.
Mmmmmm.... don't know if it is a private party, the whole of cycling is
controlled by the UCI, ASO runs under UCI rules, the riders run under UCI
rules.

But my bottom line is that riders are being /hurt/ by innuendo, no one that
has been kicked out of this tour has had any way of defending himself.
Surely there has to be some system in place for this, like someone said,
perhaps this is a put up by the bookies, now all that money placed on the
big names is theirs.

I think the system needs to be challenged so that we get to a point where a
rider does not suffer any sanction until the allegations have been tested in
court.

Jean

mimoso

July 2nd 06, 06:15 PM

it says as much or just add very little?

it's interesting all of them, including lance,
always say:

"i never tested positive"

instead of an enphatic:

"i've never taken performance enhancing drugs"

"Snippy Bobkins" > wrote in message
news:BScpg.85746$I61.76880@clgrps13...
> "B. Lafferty" > wrote in message
> k.net...
>> Ag2r's Francisco Mancebo, one of those ejected: "I consider myself
>> innocent and I have never tested positive. I'm just going to see how this
>> all evolves now. I'm sick of this world, I am going to hang to my bike
>> up."
>> http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=2213
>>
>> New excuses are needed Francisco.
>
> His I "consider myself" innocent says at least as much as the "I never
> tested positive."
>
> --
> Snippy
>

Snippy Bobkins

July 2nd 06, 09:05 PM

"mimoso" > wrote in message
news:HaTpg.116477$IK3.57640@pd7tw1no...
> it says as much or just add very little?
>
> it's interesting all of them, including lance,
> always say:
>
> "i never tested positive"
>
> instead of an enphatic:
>
> "i've never taken performance enhancing drugs"

Lance has also said that but I don't feel like looking it up.

--
Snippy

Raptor

July 3rd 06, 04:46 AM

Snippy Bobkins wrote:
> "mimoso" > wrote in message
> news:HaTpg.116477$IK3.57640@pd7tw1no...
>> it says as much or just add very little?
>>
>> it's interesting all of them, including lance,
>> always say:
>>
>> "i never tested positive"
>>
>> instead of an enphatic:
>>
>> "i've never taken performance enhancing drugs"
>
> Lance has also said that but I don't feel like looking it up.

I'll corroborate, but also not look it up.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,

Patricio Carlos

July 3rd 06, 05:30 AM

B. Lafferty wrote:
> Ag2r's Francisco Mancebo, one of those ejected: "I consider myself innocent
> and I have never tested positive. I'm just going to see how this all evolves
> now. I'm sick of this world, I am going to hang to my bike up."
> http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=2213
>
> New excuses are needed Francisco.

I recently read an interview with David Millar. He talked about the
races he did doped as opposed to the races that he did "basically
clean". Enough said.

Simon Brooke

July 3rd 06, 10:31 AM

in message <HaTpg.116477$IK3.57640@pd7tw1no>, mimoso ')
wrote:

> it says as much or just add very little?
>
> it's interesting all of them, including lance,
> always say:
>
> "i never tested positive"
>
> instead of an enphatic:
>
> "i've never taken performance enhancing drugs"

Had your coffee this morning?

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Das Internet is nicht fuer gefingerclicken und giffengrabben... Ist
nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen. Das mausklicken sichtseeren
keepen das bandwit-spewin hans in das pockets muss; relaxen und
watchen das cursorblinken. -- quoted from the jargon file

Simon Brooke

July 3rd 06, 10:37 AM

in message >, Raptor
') wrote:

> Snippy Bobkins wrote:
>> "mimoso" > wrote in message
>> news:HaTpg.116477$IK3.57640@pd7tw1no...
>>> it says as much or just add very little?
>>>
>>> it's interesting all of them, including lance,
>>> always say:
>>>
>>> "i never tested positive"
>>>
>>> instead of an enphatic:
>>>
>>> "i've never taken performance enhancing drugs"
>>
>> Lance has also said that but I don't feel like looking it up.
>
> I'll corroborate, but also not look it up.

Well if he did - which I doubt - it was clearly untrue. He more probably
said something much more complex about not breaking the rules on
performance enhancing drugs. But his morning coffee is performance
enhancing, and many of the drugs he was given - legitimately - during
and after his cancer treatment are extremely performance enhancing and
would not have been permitted had it not been for his cancer. Armstrong
had a rock solid valid medical excuse for taking performance enhancing
drugs; Millar didn't.

This isn't to say that I know that Armstrong never took performance
enhancing drugs except as prescribed for cancer treatment. I don't. And
I continue to suspect that he was/is prescribed levels of hormone
slightly elevated above strictly replacement levels.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
"This young man has not the faintest idea how socialists think and does
not begin to understand the mentality of the party he has been elected
to lead. He is quite simply a liberal"
-- Ken Coates MEP (Lab) of Tony Blair

Steven L. Sheffield

July 3rd 06, 01:14 PM

On 07/03/2006 03:37 AM, in article
, "Simon Brooke"
> wrote:

> This isn't to say that I know that Armstrong never took performance
> enhancing drugs except as prescribed for cancer treatment. I don't. And
> I continue to suspect that he was/is prescribed levels of hormone
> slightly elevated above strictly replacement levels.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Armstrong has been prescribed any sort
of ongoing hormone replacement therapy.

Raptor

July 3rd 06, 06:21 PM

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message >, Raptor
> ') wrote:
>> I'll corroborate, but also not look it up.
>
> Well if he did - which I doubt - it was clearly untrue. He more probably
> said something much more complex about not breaking the rules on
> performance enhancing drugs. But his morning coffee is performance
> enhancing, and many of the drugs he was given - legitimately - during
> and after his cancer treatment are extremely performance enhancing and
> would not have been permitted had it not been for his cancer. Armstrong
> had a rock solid valid medical excuse for taking performance enhancing
> drugs; Millar didn't.
>
> This isn't to say that I know that Armstrong never took performance
> enhancing drugs except as prescribed for cancer treatment. I don't. And
> I continue to suspect that he was/is prescribed levels of hormone
> slightly elevated above strictly replacement levels.

I'm pretty sure I've heard the words, "I've never doped," from
Armstrong. You can get hung up on the open-ended question of "what's
performance enhancing?" but Armstrong has been as clear as he can that
he followed the doping rules.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,

Bob Martin

July 3rd 06, 09:16 PM

in 511235 20060703 182112 Raptor > wrote:

>I'm pretty sure I've heard the words, "I've never doped," from
>Armstrong. You can get hung up on the open-ended question of "what's
>performance enhancing?" but Armstrong has been as clear as he can that
>he followed the doping rules.

Tyler Hamilton said something similar. So did Richard Virenque.
What do you expect him to say?

Raptor

July 4th 06, 11:04 PM

Bob Martin wrote:
> in 511235 20060703 182112 Raptor > wrote:
>
>> I'm pretty sure I've heard the words, "I've never doped," from
>> Armstrong. You can get hung up on the open-ended question of "what's
>> performance enhancing?" but Armstrong has been as clear as he can that
>> he followed the doping rules.
>
> Tyler Hamilton said something similar. So did Richard Virenque.
> What do you expect him to say?

Nothing more, but the question was whether LANCE had ever clearly denied
doping.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,

Tom Kunich

July 4th 06, 11:10 PM

"Raptor" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Martin wrote:
>> in 511235 20060703 182112 Raptor > wrote:
>>
>>> I'm pretty sure I've heard the words, "I've never doped," from
>>> Armstrong. You can get hung up on the open-ended question of "what's
>>> performance enhancing?" but Armstrong has been as clear as he can that
>>> he followed the doping rules.
>>
>> Tyler Hamilton said something similar. So did Richard Virenque.
>> What do you expect him to say?
>
> Nothing more, but the question was whether LANCE had ever clearly denied
> doping.

MANY times over. But of course that's conveniently forgotten isn't it?

Patricio Carlos

July 5th 06, 01:56 AM

Tom Kunich wrote:
> MANY times over. But of course that's conveniently forgotten isn't it?

As stated above, how many dopers actually admit it prior to being
completely caught out? Tyler never admitted. Heras never admitted. Etc,
etc.

You have recently seen some fairly compelling evidence that all the GC
guys dope. But you still think Lance was clean? Even with the
corticosteroids & Epo in '99? Even with the long association with Dr
Ferrari? Even though "the greatest bike talent" and all the other
dopers couldn't beat him in 7 years?

Razorback

July 5th 06, 02:46 AM

Steven L. Sheffield:
>
> There is no evidence whatsoever that Armstrong has been prescribed any sort
> of ongoing hormone replacement therapy.

Nor is there any evidence that Armstrong has taken any.

Raptor

July 6th 06, 04:46 AM

Patricio Carlos wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> MANY times over. But of course that's conveniently forgotten isn't it?
>
> As stated above, how many dopers actually admit it prior to being
> completely caught out? Tyler never admitted. Heras never admitted. Etc,
> etc.
>
> You have recently seen some fairly compelling evidence that all the GC
> guys dope. But you still think Lance was clean? Even with the
> corticosteroids & Epo in '99? Even with the long association with Dr
> Ferrari? Even though "the greatest bike talent" and all the other
> dopers couldn't beat him in 7 years?

Well-documented physical gifts, strong teams, savvy tactics, luck. These
all explain Lance's TdF success. Doping is not needed, and until proven
can be dismissed.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,

Patricio Carlos

July 6th 06, 06:48 AM

Raptor wrote:

> Well-documented physical gifts, strong teams, savvy tactics, luck. These
> all explain Lance's TdF success. Doping is not needed, and until proven
> can be dismissed.

Do you also believe in the Tooth Fairy?

Donald Munro

July 6th 06, 08:54 AM

Raptor wrote:
> Well-documented physical gifts, strong teams, savvy tactics, luck. These
> all explain Lance's TdF success. Doping is not needed, and until proven
> can be dismissed.

Use your Illusions I

Raptor

July 7th 06, 05:56 AM

Patricio Carlos wrote:
> Raptor wrote:
>
>> Well-documented physical gifts, strong teams, savvy tactics, luck. These
>> all explain Lance's TdF success. Doping is not needed, and until proven
>> can be dismissed.
>
> Do you also believe in the Tooth Fairy?

Interesting question from someone apparently suggesting I believe
something without evidence.

--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall
I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the
trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view,
the most insidious of traitors."
George H.W. Bush, April 16, 1999,

Simon Brooke

July 7th 06, 10:05 AM

in message >, Raptor
') wrote:

> Patricio Carlos wrote:
>> Raptor wrote:
>>
>>> Well-documented physical gifts, strong teams, savvy tactics, luck.
>>> These all explain Lance's TdF success. Doping is not needed, and
>>> until proven can be dismissed.
>>
>> Do you also believe in the Tooth Fairy?
>
> Interesting question from someone apparently suggesting I believe
> something without evidence.

OK, let's talk, for a moment, about evidence.

Testosterone is the alpha male substance. Not an alpha male substance,
the alpha male substance - the one thing that distinguishes alpha males
from the rest of us. Alpha males have more. Testosterone,
unsurprisingly, is produced by the testes. People on reduced levels of
testosterone have quite recognisable behaviour traits: they're mild
mannered, slow to anger, unaggressive, relaxed and unambitious. They
also tend to run to fat. People on half rations of testosterone are
extremely mild mannered.

Headstrong has /never/ looked or acted like someone with suppressed
levels of testosterone, either before or after his cancer. He is,
recognisably, someone who operates on abnormally high levels of
testosterone. When you have a testicle removed it is normal for the
remaining testicle to increase its output of testosterone - a bit. Not
to double it; that's not credible. Yet Headstrong has - allegedly, I
haven't checked myself - had one testicle removed.

His behaviour - not winning seven Tours, but his anger, his aggression,
his ambition - is incompatible with having had one testicle removed,
unless he is having his natural testosterone production artificially
supplemented. This need not be 'doping' - it could be perfectly valid
medical treatment, restoring the level of testosterone he would have
produced naturally.

But claims - by Headstrong himself or by others on his behalf - that he
hasn't taken hormone supplements simply are not compatible with the
visible evidence.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
"This young man has not the faintest idea how socialists think and does
not begin to understand the mentality of the party he has been elected
to lead. He is quite simply a liberal"
-- Ken Coates MEP (Lab) of Tony Blair

Steven L. Sheffield

July 7th 06, 01:08 PM

On 7/7/06 3:05 AM, in article
, "Simon Brooke"
> wrote:

> His behaviour - not winning seven Tours, but his anger, his aggression,
> his ambition - is incompatible with having had one testicle removed,
> unless he is having his natural testosterone production artificially
> supplemented. This need not be 'doping' - it could be perfectly valid
> medical treatment, restoring the level of testosterone he would have
> produced naturally.
>
> But claims - by Headstrong himself or by others on his behalf - that he
> hasn't taken hormone supplements simply are not compatible with the
> visible evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testicular_cancer#Actions_after_treatment

"A man with one remaining testicle can lead a normal life, because the other
testicle takes up the load, and will generally have adequate fertility."

http://www.tc-cancer.com/tcsex.html

"If you have had one testicle removed there is often no reason why your
ability to father children, sexual performance or sexual appetite should be
affected. The remaining testicle will usually make more testosterone (the
male sex hormone) and sperm to make up for the one that has been removed."

http://health.yahoo.com/ency/healthwise/zr1029

"If a man has one healthy testicle, he should not notice any negative change
in his quality of life. Men who do not have one normally functioning
testicle after orchiectomy will need to take hormone therapy to fulfill the
body's need for testosterone."

So ... Assuming that Armstrong's remaining testicle functions normally, then
there should be no reason for hormone replacement therapy.

RicodJour

July 7th 06, 01:22 PM

Simon Brooke wrote:
>
> Testosterone is the alpha male substance. Not an alpha male substance,
> the alpha male substance - the one thing that distinguishes alpha males
> from the rest of us. Alpha males have more. Testosterone,
> unsurprisingly, is produced by the testes. People on reduced levels of
> testosterone have quite recognisable behaviour traits: they're mild
> mannered, slow to anger, unaggressive, relaxed and unambitious. They
> also tend to run to fat. People on half rations of testosterone are
> extremely mild mannered.

A wee bit oversimplified, no? I'm wondering how many read your
one-dimensional life summary and thought, "Guy's never met my wife."

R

Robert Chung

July 7th 06, 03:14 PM

Simon Brooke wrote:

> Testosterone is the alpha male substance. Not an alpha male substance,
> the alpha male substance - the one thing that distinguishes alpha males
> from the rest of us. Alpha males have more.

Listen to the "Contest-osterone" segment of this episode of "This American
Life"
http://207.70.82.73/pages/descriptions/02/220.html

B. Lafferty

July 7th 06, 03:16 PM

"Steven L. Sheffield" > wrote in message
...
> On 7/7/06 3:05 AM, in article
> , "Simon Brooke"
> > wrote:
>
>> His behaviour - not winning seven Tours, but his anger, his aggression,
>> his ambition - is incompatible with having had one testicle removed,
>> unless he is having his natural testosterone production artificially
>> supplemented. This need not be 'doping' - it could be perfectly valid
>> medical treatment, restoring the level of testosterone he would have
>> produced naturally.
>>
>> But claims - by Headstrong himself or by others on his behalf - that he
>> hasn't taken hormone supplements simply are not compatible with the
>> visible evidence.
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testicular_cancer#Actions_after_treatment
>
> "A man with one remaining testicle can lead a normal life, because the
> other
> testicle takes up the load, and will generally have adequate fertility."
>
> http://www.tc-cancer.com/tcsex.html
>
> "If you have had one testicle removed there is often no reason why your
> ability to father children, sexual performance or sexual appetite should
> be
> affected. The remaining testicle will usually make more testosterone (the
> male sex hormone) and sperm to make up for the one that has been removed."
>
> http://health.yahoo.com/ency/healthwise/zr1029
>
> "If a man has one healthy testicle, he should not notice any negative
> change
> in his quality of life. Men who do not have one normally functioning
> testicle after orchiectomy will need to take hormone therapy to fulfill
> the
> body's need for testosterone."
>
>
> So ... Assuming that Armstrong's remaining testicle functions normally,
> then
> there should be no reason for hormone replacement therapy.

Armstrong stated in an interview that he needed hormone therapy but that he
did not do it during his career even though he risked bone loss.
Presumably, he's begun therapy although I don't understand why he couldn't
get a therapeutic exemption during his racing years.

RonSonic

July 7th 06, 04:30 PM

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 14:16:12 GMT, "B. Lafferty" > wrote:

>
>"Steven L. Sheffield" > wrote in message
...
>> On 7/7/06 3:05 AM, in article
>> , "Simon Brooke"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> His behaviour - not winning seven Tours, but his anger, his aggression,
>>> his ambition - is incompatible with having had one testicle removed,
>>> unless he is having his natural testosterone production artificially
>>> supplemented. This need not be 'doping' - it could be perfectly valid
>>> medical treatment, restoring the level of testosterone he would have
>>> produced naturally.
>>>
>>> But claims - by Headstrong himself or by others on his behalf - that he
>>> hasn't taken hormone supplements simply are not compatible with the
>>> visible evidence.
>>
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testicular_cancer#Actions_after_treatment
>>
>> "A man with one remaining testicle can lead a normal life, because the
>> other
>> testicle takes up the load, and will generally have adequate fertility."
>>
>> http://www.tc-cancer.com/tcsex.html
>>
>> "If you have had one testicle removed there is often no reason why your
>> ability to father children, sexual performance or sexual appetite should
>> be
>> affected. The remaining testicle will usually make more testosterone (the
>> male sex hormone) and sperm to make up for the one that has been removed."
>>
>> http://health.yahoo.com/ency/healthwise/zr1029
>>
>> "If a man has one healthy testicle, he should not notice any negative
>> change
>> in his quality of life. Men who do not have one normally functioning
>> testicle after orchiectomy will need to take hormone therapy to fulfill
>> the
>> body's need for testosterone."
>>
>>
>> So ... Assuming that Armstrong's remaining testicle functions normally,
>> then
>> there should be no reason for hormone replacement therapy.
>
>Armstrong stated in an interview that he needed hormone therapy but that he
>did not do it during his career even though he risked bone loss.
>Presumably, he's begun therapy although I don't understand why he couldn't
>get a therapeutic exemption during his racing years.

Perhaps as a cyclist he didn't feel the need for any additional bone mass. As a
climber who went from mediocre to as good as any have ever been it seems to have
been the right decision.

Ron

Simon Brooke

July 7th 06, 05:54 PM

in message >, Steven L. Sheffield
') wrote:

> On 7/7/06 3:05 AM, in article
> , "Simon Brooke"
> > wrote:
>
>> His behaviour - not winning seven Tours, but his anger, his
>> aggression, his ambition - is incompatible with having had one
>> testicle removed, unless he is having his natural testosterone
>> production artificially supplemented. This need not be 'doping' - it
>> could be perfectly valid medical treatment, restoring the level of
>> testosterone he would have produced naturally.
>>
>> But claims - by Headstrong himself or by others on his behalf - that
>> he hasn't taken hormone supplements simply are not compatible with the
>> visible evidence.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testicular_cancer#Actions_after_treatment
>
> "A man with one remaining testicle can lead a normal life, because the
> other testicle takes up the load, and will generally have adequate
> fertility."

Adequate for fertility, yes. Normal levels, no. Exceptional levels -
which Headstrong clearly has - definitely not.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Sending your money to someone just because they've erected
;; a barrier of obscurity and secrets around the tools you
;; need to use your data does not help the economy or spur
;; innovation. - Waffle Iron Slashdot, June 16th, 2002

Tom Kunich

July 7th 06, 11:19 PM

"Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
...
>
> Testosterone is the alpha male substance. Not an alpha male substance,
> the alpha male substance - the one thing that distinguishes alpha males
> from the rest of us. Alpha males have more.

BS.

> Headstrong has /never/ looked or acted like someone with suppressed
> levels of testosterone, either before or after his cancer.

Since you don't know what you're talking about it isn't any surprise that
you don't find what you expect.

> His behaviour - not winning seven Tours, but his anger, his aggression,
> his ambition - is incompatible with having had one testicle removed,
> unless he is having his natural testosterone production artificially
> supplemented.

Tell us all about those people who die because they lose one kidney.

Tom Kunich

July 7th 06, 11:21 PM

"B. Lafferty" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> Armstrong stated in an interview that he needed hormone therapy but that
> he did not do it during his career even though he risked bone loss.
> Presumably, he's begun therapy although I don't understand why he couldn't
> get a therapeutic exemption during his racing years.

I love those citations. That way you can plainly see the interpretations
that Laff@me makes.

Michael Press

July 7th 06, 11:47 PM

In article
>,
Simon Brooke > wrote:

> in message >, Raptor
> ') wrote:
>
> > Patricio Carlos wrote:
> >> Raptor wrote:
> >>
> >>> Well-documented physical gifts, strong teams, savvy tactics, luck.
> >>> These all explain Lance's TdF success. Doping is not needed, and
> >>> until proven can be dismissed.
> >>
> >> Do you also believe in the Tooth Fairy?
> >
> > Interesting question from someone apparently suggesting I believe
> > something without evidence.
>
> OK, let's talk, for a moment, about evidence.
>
> Testosterone is the alpha male substance. Not an alpha male substance,
> the alpha male substance - the one thing that distinguishes alpha males
> from the rest of us. Alpha males have more. Testosterone,
> unsurprisingly, is produced by the testes. People on reduced levels of
> testosterone have quite recognisable behaviour traits: they're mild
> mannered, slow to anger, unaggressive, relaxed and unambitious. They
> also tend to run to fat. People on half rations of testosterone are
> extremely mild mannered.
>
> Headstrong has /never/ looked or acted like someone with suppressed
> levels of testosterone, either before or after his cancer. He is,
> recognisably, someone who operates on abnormally high levels of
> testosterone. When you have a testicle removed it is normal for the
> remaining testicle to increase its output of testosterone - a bit. Not
> to double it; that's not credible. Yet Headstrong has - allegedly, I
> haven't checked myself - had one testicle removed.
>
> His behaviour - not winning seven Tours, but his anger, his aggression,
> his ambition - is incompatible with having had one testicle removed,
> unless he is having his natural testosterone production artificially
> supplemented. This need not be 'doping' - it could be perfectly valid
> medical treatment, restoring the level of testosterone he would have
> produced naturally.
>
> But claims - by Headstrong himself or by others on his behalf - that he
> hasn't taken hormone supplements simply are not compatible with the
> visible evidence.

The adrenal glands also produce testosterone.

Fact: On the run up to a competition testosterone level
rises. Loser's testosterone level drops. Winner's
testosterone level rises or maintains its high level.

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve
&db=PubMed&list_uids=2606468&dopt=Abstract>

Competition = wagering testosterone level.

--
Michael Press

Patricio Carlos

July 8th 06, 03:00 AM

Raptor wrote:
>
> Interesting question from someone apparently suggesting I believe
> something without evidence.

Okay, lets go back to 1999. Lance got spanked by the Gewiss Ballan boys
who were doped up to the eyeballs by Dr Ferrari. After Fleche Wallone,
Lance approached Dr Ferrari and asked for help. Next year he wins
Fleche Wallone. Has continued to work with Dr Ferrari since then. Dr
Ferrari's website still has links to the Livestrong site.

1999 - caught with corticosteroids. Produces a post dated TUE saying he
used it for saddle sores. Yeah right, corticosteroid cream for saddle
sores! Even if you did use such a strange treatment, you would not
absorb enough corticosteroid from using cream on the small area that is
the perineum to register in your urine.

Still in 1999 - 6 samples positive for Epo. He never said the samples
were not his. Just complained (rightly) about the problems with
confidentiality.

We could even go back further to look at his DS. Johan rode in the
super-doped early 1990's under which DS? Manolo Saiz. Do you think
Johan (or Riis) could really tell their riders not to dope when they
achieved their success and are in their current positions partly thanks
to their doping?

A few years ago, can't recall year, team found with actovegin. Yes
prior to it being banned but certainly a performance enhancing
substance.

Personally sponsored by BristolMyersSquibb. Every victory helps them
sell their chemo. You don't think that they'd be willing to help him
out a little?

2006 - fairly clear evidence that pretty much all the top GC guys are
doping. Just the Epo alone would give an 8 - 10% advantage. All the
anabolic steroids, corticosteroids, growth hormone, androgens etc would
probably mean a 15 - 20% advantage. Yet you seriously believe a "clean"
Lance could beat them every time.

You also believe the propaganda that he "trains harder". Have you met
any other pro cyclists? Do they spend their days sitting around
complaining that they can't be bothered to train? Remember when Lance
was partying with Sheryl and clearly not training that hard? Do you
remember that the story changed to "training smarter"?

Lance was clearly the best Tour rider. But don't kid yourself that he
was clean. He was at least as dirty as Basso, Ullrich etc.

B. Lafferty

July 8th 06, 04:34 AM

"Tom Kunich" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Testosterone is the alpha male substance. Not an alpha male substance,
>> the alpha male substance - the one thing that distinguishes alpha males
>> from the rest of us. Alpha males have more.
>
> BS.
>
>> Headstrong has /never/ looked or acted like someone with suppressed
>> levels of testosterone, either before or after his cancer.
>
> Since you don't know what you're talking about it isn't any surprise that
> you don't find what you expect.
>
>> His behaviour - not winning seven Tours, but his anger, his aggression,
>> his ambition - is incompatible with having had one testicle removed,
>> unless he is having his natural testosterone production artificially
>> supplemented.
>
> Tell us all about those people who die because they lose one kidney.

ROTFL!!

Simon Brooke

July 8th 06, 09:28 AM

in message om>,
Patricio Carlos ') wrote:

> We could even go back further to look at his DS. Johan rode in the
> super-doped early 1990's under which DS? Manolo Saiz. Do you think
> Johan (or Riis) could really tell their riders not to dope when they
> achieved their success and are in their current positions partly thanks
> to their doping?

That's a canard.

Whether or not Bruyneel or Riis doped when they were cyclists is no
indicator of whether they would either recommend or tolerate doping as
directuers sportif. Both are exceedingly canny tactical thinkers. As
Liberty Seguros (and, before them, Festina) have amply demonstrated,
doping is a very high-risk strategy for a team: if caught, you're likely
to be out of the game.

There are fundamentally two strategies which a modern DS can follow with
regards to dope: plausible deniability, or very careful adherence to
the /letter/ of the rules. If, as now seems likely, Basso was involved
with Fuentes, I cannot believe that Riis really didn't know; but he
seems to have put all the right mechanisms in place for plausible
deniability. Bruyneel, on the other hand, seems to me to be a 'letter of
the rules' man; I'm not really sure whether that's any more moral.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Age equals angst multiplied by the speed of fright squared.
;; the Worlock

Bart Hommels

July 9th 06, 03:45 PM

On Fri, 07 Jul 2006 20:00:13 -0700, Patricio Carlos wrote:

>
> We could even go back further to look at his DS. Johan rode in the
> super-doped early 1990's under which DS? Manolo Saiz. Do you think Johan
> (or Riis) could really tell their riders not to dope when they achieved
> their success and are in their current positions partly thanks to their
> doping?
>

I do not remember exactly where I have read it, but an article stated that
Manolo Saiz was brought in contact with Fuentes by a certain Roberto
Heras. Roberto 'had been working with Fuentes for some time, and insisted
to continue". He came to the Liberty Seguros team after having served 3
(or was it 4?) years in a certain American Team called US Postal. But, of
course, this is merely gossip instead of real hard evidence, and does not
prove anything.

Patricio Carlos

July 10th 06, 12:57 AM

Simon Brooke wrote:
> Whether or not Bruyneel or Riis doped when they were cyclists is no
> indicator of whether they would either recommend or tolerate doping as
> directuers sportif. Both are exceedingly canny tactical thinkers. As
> Liberty Seguros (and, before them, Festina) have amply demonstrated,
> doping is a very high-risk strategy for a team: if caught, you're likely
> to be out of the game.

Do you really think so? What % of dopers do you think ever get caught?
Probably about 2%.

> There are fundamentally two strategies which a modern DS can follow with
> regards to dope: plausible deniability, or very careful adherence to
> the /letter/ of the rules. If, as now seems likely, Basso was involved
> with Fuentes, I cannot believe that Riis really didn't know; but he
> seems to have put all the right mechanisms in place for plausible
> deniability. Bruyneel, on the other hand, seems to me to be a 'letter of
> the rules' man; I'm not really sure whether that's any more moral.

Then why did Bruyneel let Lance and the team work with Dr Ferrari all
that time? Did you see the recent photos of Tom D with Dr Ferrari. Have
you seen all the Livestrong links on Dr Ferrari's website?

Simon Brooke

July 10th 06, 09:12 AM

in message . com>,
Patricio Carlos ') wrote:

>
> Simon Brooke wrote:
>> Whether or not Bruyneel or Riis doped when they were cyclists is no
>> indicator of whether they would either recommend or tolerate doping as
>> directuers sportif. Both are exceedingly canny tactical thinkers. As
>> Liberty Seguros (and, before them, Festina) have amply demonstrated,
>> doping is a very high-risk strategy for a team: if caught, you're
>> likely to be out of the game.
>
> Do you really think so? What % of dopers do you think ever get caught?
> Probably about 2%.

So if you have twenty riders on the team, the chance of the team getting
caught is 40%.

>> There are fundamentally two strategies which a modern DS can follow
>> with regards to dope: plausible deniability, or very careful adherence
>> to the /letter/ of the rules. If, as now seems likely, Basso was
>> involved with Fuentes, I cannot believe that Riis really didn't know;
>> but he seems to have put all the right mechanisms in place for
>> plausible deniability. Bruyneel, on the other hand, seems to me to be
>> a 'letter of the rules' man; I'm not really sure whether that's any
>> more moral.
>
> Then why did Bruyneel let Lance and the team work with Dr Ferrari all
> that time? Did you see the recent photos of Tom D with Dr Ferrari. Have
> you seen all the Livestrong links on Dr Ferrari's website?

Yes.

But Armstrong was a very special cyclist: he had good valid medical
reasons to be prescribed pretty much every banned substance in the book.
While I don't doubt Ferrari prescribed stuff to Armstrong, I'm
reasonably certain he could make a clear medical justification for all
of it. That's what I mean by 'letter of the rules'.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Woz: 'All the best people in life seem to like LINUX.'
;; <URL:http://www.woz.org/woz/cresponses/response03.html>

mimoso

July 10th 06, 10:39 PM

"Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
...
> in message . com>,
> Patricio Carlos ') wrote:
>
>>
>> Simon Brooke wrote:
>>> Whether or not Bruyneel or Riis doped when they were cyclists is no
>>> indicator of whether they would either recommend or tolerate doping as
>>> directuers sportif. Both are exceedingly canny tactical thinkers. As
>>> Liberty Seguros (and, before them, Festina) have amply demonstrated,
>>> doping is a very high-risk strategy for a team: if caught, you're
>>> likely to be out of the game.
>>
>> Do you really think so? What % of dopers do you think ever get caught?
>> Probably about 2%.
>
> So if you have twenty riders on the team, the chance of the team getting
> caught is 40%.
>
>>> There are fundamentally two strategies which a modern DS can follow
>>> with regards to dope: plausible deniability, or very careful adherence
>>> to the /letter/ of the rules. If, as now seems likely, Basso was
>>> involved with Fuentes, I cannot believe that Riis really didn't know;
>>> but he seems to have put all the right mechanisms in place for
>>> plausible deniability. Bruyneel, on the other hand, seems to me to be
>>> a 'letter of the rules' man; I'm not really sure whether that's any
>>> more moral.
>>
>> Then why did Bruyneel let Lance and the team work with Dr Ferrari all
>> that time? Did you see the recent photos of Tom D with Dr Ferrari. Have
>> you seen all the Livestrong links on Dr Ferrari's website?
>
> Yes.
>
> But Armstrong was a very special cyclist: he had good valid medical
> reasons to be prescribed pretty much every banned substance in the book.
> While I don't doubt Ferrari prescribed stuff to Armstrong, I'm
> reasonably certain he could make a clear medical justification for all
> of it. That's what I mean by 'letter of the rules'.

A valid medical reason? Ha ha ha, you're funny!
You sound like Descartes....

Mark

July 10th 06, 11:46 PM

Simon Brooke wrote:
> There are fundamentally two strategies which a modern DS can follow with
> regards to dope: plausible deniability, or very careful adherence to
> the /letter/ of the rules.

Well, there's a third: Have no plausible deniability and get caught with
your pants down, as demonstrated by Festina and Liberty Seguros.

But you're right, there are two relatively safer strategies.

Mark

Carl Sundquist

July 11th 06, 02:50 AM

"Tom Kunich" > wrote in message
>
> Yeah, that Dr. Ferrari doesn't know the first thing about physical
> conditioning in athletes save with a needle.

Didn't Ferrari create VAM ?

Ryan Cousineau

July 11th 06, 03:20 AM

In article >,
Simon Brooke > wrote:

> in message . com>,
> Patricio Carlos ') wrote:
>
> >
> > Simon Brooke wrote:
> >> Whether or not Bruyneel or Riis doped when they were cyclists is no
> >> indicator of whether they would either recommend or tolerate doping as
> >> directuers sportif. Both are exceedingly canny tactical thinkers. As
> >> Liberty Seguros (and, before them, Festina) have amply demonstrated,
> >> doping is a very high-risk strategy for a team: if caught, you're
> >> likely to be out of the game.
> >
> > Do you really think so? What % of dopers do you think ever get caught?
> > Probably about 2%.
>
> So if you have twenty riders on the team, the chance of the team getting
> caught is 40%.
>
> >> There are fundamentally two strategies which a modern DS can follow
> >> with regards to dope: plausible deniability, or very careful adherence
> >> to the /letter/ of the rules. If, as now seems likely, Basso was
> >> involved with Fuentes, I cannot believe that Riis really didn't know;
> >> but he seems to have put all the right mechanisms in place for
> >> plausible deniability. Bruyneel, on the other hand, seems to me to be
> >> a 'letter of the rules' man; I'm not really sure whether that's any
> >> more moral.
> >
> > Then why did Bruyneel let Lance and the team work with Dr Ferrari all
> > that time? Did you see the recent photos of Tom D with Dr Ferrari. Have
> > you seen all the Livestrong links on Dr Ferrari's website?
>
> Yes.
>
> But Armstrong was a very special cyclist: he had good valid medical
> reasons to be prescribed pretty much every banned substance in the book.
> While I don't doubt Ferrari prescribed stuff to Armstrong, I'm
> reasonably certain he could make a clear medical justification for all
> of it. That's what I mean by 'letter of the rules'.

Well, during his recovery, yes. Aside from that one cortico-steroid
tuckus cream prescription that is so popular around here, do you think
he had a medical waiver for anything else after he returned to
competition?

Even if you assume that the stuff (including, as he has acknowledged
EPO) he was on for his cancer recovery gave him unnatural improvements
beyond his mere recovery period, would that have lasted longer than a
year, at the outside?

I'm not claiming that Lance was clean (nor am I claiming he was dirty),
just that I doubt he had any licit-but-useful drug prescriptions after
he returned to racing.

Do you have any info otherwise?

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Tom Kunich

July 11th 06, 03:46 AM

"Ryan Cousineau" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Simon Brooke > wrote:
>
>> in message . com>,
>> Patricio Carlos ') wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Simon Brooke wrote:
>> >> Whether or not Bruyneel or Riis doped when they were cyclists is no
>> >> indicator of whether they would either recommend or tolerate doping as
>> >> directuers sportif. Both are exceedingly canny tactical thinkers. As
>> >> Liberty Seguros (and, before them, Festina) have amply demonstrated,
>> >> doping is a very high-risk strategy for a team: if caught, you're
>> >> likely to be out of the game.
>> >
>> > Do you really think so? What % of dopers do you think ever get caught?
>> > Probably about 2%.
>>
>> So if you have twenty riders on the team, the chance of the team getting
>> caught is 40%.
>>
>> >> There are fundamentally two strategies which a modern DS can follow
>> >> with regards to dope: plausible deniability, or very careful adherence
>> >> to the /letter/ of the rules. If, as now seems likely, Basso was
>> >> involved with Fuentes, I cannot believe that Riis really didn't know;
>> >> but he seems to have put all the right mechanisms in place for
>> >> plausible deniability. Bruyneel, on the other hand, seems to me to be
>> >> a 'letter of the rules' man; I'm not really sure whether that's any
>> >> more moral.
>> >
>> > Then why did Bruyneel let Lance and the team work with Dr Ferrari all
>> > that time? Did you see the recent photos of Tom D with Dr Ferrari. Have
>> > you seen all the Livestrong links on Dr Ferrari's website?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> But Armstrong was a very special cyclist: he had good valid medical
>> reasons to be prescribed pretty much every banned substance in the book.
>> While I don't doubt Ferrari prescribed stuff to Armstrong, I'm
>> reasonably certain he could make a clear medical justification for all
>> of it. That's what I mean by 'letter of the rules'.
>
> Well, during his recovery, yes. Aside from that one cortico-steroid
> tuckus cream prescription that is so popular around here, do you think
> he had a medical waiver for anything else after he returned to
> competition?
>
> Even if you assume that the stuff (including, as he has acknowledged
> EPO) he was on for his cancer recovery gave him unnatural improvements
> beyond his mere recovery period, would that have lasted longer than a
> year, at the outside?
>
> I'm not claiming that Lance was clean (nor am I claiming he was dirty),
> just that I doubt he had any licit-but-useful drug prescriptions after
> he returned to racing.
>
> Do you have any info otherwise?

There's NOTHING magic about EPO. It increases your hematocrit and that's it.
If he had a hematocrit below the testing threshhold then he never had an
advantage. The fact is that somewhere, perhaps in that leaked court record,
there was a statement that his hematocrit at the time of the test
(supposedly for EPO) was 37%. That's on the low end of normal and what you'd
expect in a hard race.

Another BS thing printed here by the like of lying Lafferty and others is
that the steroid creme used to treat saddle sores was both unusual and back
dated. It was stated by ASO at the time that it was included in the records
of medications allowed as stipulated by the UCI. And steroid creme ARE a
perfectly acceptable and normal treatment for some sorts of saddle sores.

But you know how it is - if you can dethrown the king you don't have to care
how much BS and lies it takes to do it. It's all in the fun of destroying
someone else.

Tom Kunich

July 11th 06, 03:55 AM

"Patricio Carlos" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Simon Brooke wrote:
>> So if you have twenty riders on the team, the chance of the team getting
>> caught is 40%.
> I would not calculate it that way.
> With "good" medical staff and a well organised team, you are very, very
> unlikely to get busted.
> Most of the busts are due to stuff ups by the rider (eg mistaking his
> growth hormone injection for his Epo and thus giving himself too much
> Epo) or by the team staff (?blood mix ups at Phonak).

You seem to misunderstand - the 2% chance of detection INCLUDES all of the
efforts of a "good medical staff". Therefore 2% chance for 20 riders does
mean a 40% chance of detection.

However, I would say that the chance of detection is a great deal higher
during actual testing times though fewer riders are tested. That's why good
dopers are using quantities that have questionable results and probably
mostly in the off seasons.

I have yet to see a good study that says that hGH has any performance
enhancing effects. The ritual seems to be the claim that it enhances
recovery. However, I seem to remember that they have given weight lifters
phony steroids and had them develop as rapidly as with many of the steroids
claimed to be the cause of super bulking up.

The long and the short of it is that there ARE some drugs that enhance
performance but there are many more that are claimed to and don't.

Tom Kunich

July 11th 06, 03:58 AM

"Carl Sundquist" > wrote in message
news:BtDsg.332304$5Z.156038@dukeread02...
>
> "Tom Kunich" > wrote in message
>>
>> Yeah, that Dr. Ferrari doesn't know the first thing about physical
>> conditioning in athletes save with a needle.
>
> Didn't Ferrari create VAM ?

I don't know if it was him or Conconi or someone else. It is really nothing
more than a measure of sustainable output. Now that we have direct power
measurements you can judge the climbing ability of a racer pretty closely by
knowing power output and weight of the rider.

Simon Brooke

July 11th 06, 09:42 AM

in message >, Ryan
Cousineau ') wrote:

>> > Then why did Bruyneel let Lance and the team work with Dr Ferrari
>> > all that time? Did you see the recent photos of Tom D with Dr
>> > Ferrari. Have you seen all the Livestrong links on Dr Ferrari's
>> > website?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> But Headstrong was a very special cyclist: he had good valid medical
>> reasons to be prescribed pretty much every banned substance in the
>> book. While I don't doubt Ferrari prescribed stuff to Headstrong, I'm
>> reasonably certain he could make a clear medical justification for all
>> of it. That's what I mean by 'letter of the rules'.
>
> Well, during his recovery, yes. Aside from that one cortico-steroid
> tuckus cream prescription that is so popular around here, do you think
> he had a medical waiver for anything else after he returned to
> competition?

I think - quite seriously - that if he had tested positive he would have
had a medical waiver. It would have been valid - he did have serious
cancer, he was short one bollock. Cancer is known to recur, and you
can't be too careful.

The suggestion that he wasn't taking hormone replacement simply does not
square with the available evidence. I'm not talking about his behaviour
in stage wins, I'm talking about his behaviour in the peloton, bullying
people who weren't even on his team. The guy was pumped so full of
testosterone it was practically poisoning him; and on one bollock, he
wasn't producing that much naturally.

I don't know whether he was on EPO, but if he had been, a suspected
recurrence of his cancer would have been an entirely adequate excuse.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Das Internet is nicht fuer gefingerclicken und giffengrabben... Ist
nicht fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen. Das mausklicken sichtseeren
keepen das bandwit-spewin hans in das pockets muss; relaxen und
watchen das cursorblinken. -- quoted from the jargon file

Donald Munro

July 11th 06, 10:11 AM

Tom Kunich wrote:
> You seem to misunderstand - the 2% chance of detection INCLUDES all of the
> efforts of a "good medical staff". Therefore 2% chance for 20 riders does
> mean a 40% chance of detection.

The kunich virtual reality extension to the theory of probability.

RonSonic

July 11th 06, 01:28 PM

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:42:49 +0100, Simon Brooke > wrote:

>in message >, Ryan
>Cousineau ') wrote:
>
>>> > Then why did Bruyneel let Lance and the team work with Dr Ferrari
>>> > all that time? Did you see the recent photos of Tom D with Dr
>>> > Ferrari. Have you seen all the Livestrong links on Dr Ferrari's
>>> > website?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> But Headstrong was a very special cyclist: he had good valid medical
>>> reasons to be prescribed pretty much every banned substance in the
>>> book. While I don't doubt Ferrari prescribed stuff to Headstrong, I'm
>>> reasonably certain he could make a clear medical justification for all
>>> of it. That's what I mean by 'letter of the rules'.
>>
>> Well, during his recovery, yes. Aside from that one cortico-steroid
>> tuckus cream prescription that is so popular around here, do you think
>> he had a medical waiver for anything else after he returned to
>> competition?
>
>I think - quite seriously - that if he had tested positive he would have
>had a medical waiver. It would have been valid - he did have serious
>cancer, he was short one bollock. Cancer is known to recur, and you
>can't be too careful.
>
>The suggestion that he wasn't taking hormone replacement simply does not
>square with the available evidence. I'm not talking about his behaviour
>in stage wins, I'm talking about his behaviour in the peloton, bullying
>people who weren't even on his team. The guy was pumped so full of
>testosterone it was practically poisoning him; and on one bollock, he
>wasn't producing that much naturally.

Would you kindly get it through your skull that one nut is capable of producing
more than enough testosterone. This is not a poorly designed system in which
hormone levels are the result of both nads generating all they can. It is a
feedback servo system with redundency.

Ron

Curtis L. Russell

July 11th 06, 02:00 PM

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:42:49 +0100, Simon Brooke
> wrote:

>I don't know whether he was on EPO, but if he had been, a suspected
>recurrence of his cancer would have been an entirely adequate excuse.

Not really. EPO isn't a cancer treatment or preventive, it is in
effect a treatment for the effects of specific cancer regimens (among
other things). There would have to be a recurrence and then the
treatment regimen, then the EPO.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Simon Brooke

July 11th 06, 04:30 PM

in message >, RonSonic
') wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 09:42:49 +0100, Simon Brooke >
> wrote:
>
>>in message >, Ryan
>>Cousineau ') wrote:
>>
>>>> > Then why did Bruyneel let Lance and the team work with Dr Ferrari
>>>> > all that time? Did you see the recent photos of Tom D with Dr
>>>> > Ferrari. Have you seen all the Livestrong links on Dr Ferrari's
>>>> > website?
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> But Headstrong was a very special cyclist: he had good valid medical
>>>> reasons to be prescribed pretty much every banned substance in the
>>>> book. While I don't doubt Ferrari prescribed stuff to Headstrong,
>>>> I'm reasonably certain he could make a clear medical justification
>>>> for all of it. That's what I mean by 'letter of the rules'.
>>>
>>> Well, during his recovery, yes. Aside from that one cortico-steroid
>>> tuckus cream prescription that is so popular around here, do you
>>> think he had a medical waiver for anything else after he returned to
>>> competition?
>>
>>I think - quite seriously - that if he had tested positive he would
>>have had a medical waiver. It would have been valid - he did have
>>serious cancer, he was short one bollock. Cancer is known to recur, and
>>you can't be too careful.
>>
>>The suggestion that he wasn't taking hormone replacement simply does
>>not square with the available evidence. I'm not talking about his
>>behaviour in stage wins, I'm talking about his behaviour in the
>>peloton, bullying people who weren't even on his team. The guy was
>>pumped so full of testosterone it was practically poisoning him; and on
>>one bollock, he wasn't producing that much naturally.
>
> Would you kindly get it through your skull that one nut is capable of
> producing more than enough testosterone. This is not a poorly designed
> system in which hormone levels are the result of both nads generating
> all they can. It is a feedback servo system with redundency.

It's a feedback system with a certain amount of redundancy, yes. A person
with one testicle may have enough testosterone to father children and
live a normal healthy life. Not all people in Lance's position need HRT.
But he doesn't show a base level of testosterone, or a normal level, he
shows an exceptional level. And one not does not produce that.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

I'm fed up with Life 1.0. I never liked it much and now it's getting
me down. I think I'll upgrade to MSLife 97 -- you know, the one that
comes in a flash new box and within weeks you're crawling with bugs.

Ernst Noch

July 11th 06, 06:33 PM

Donald Munro wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> You seem to misunderstand - the 2% chance of detection INCLUDES all of the
>> efforts of a "good medical staff". Therefore 2% chance for 20 riders does
>> mean a 40% chance of detection.
>
> The kunich virtual reality extension to the theory of probability.
>

LOL,

let's use the Socratic method:

How much is the probability of a team of 51 riders that one ges caught?

Mark

July 11th 06, 06:46 PM

Simon Brooke wrote:

> in message >, RonSonic
> ') wrote:
>>Would you kindly get it through your skull that one nut is capable of
>>producing more than enough testosterone. This is not a poorly designed
>>system in which hormone levels are the result of both nads generating
>>all they can. It is a feedback servo system with redundency.
>
>
> It's a feedback system with a certain amount of redundancy, yes. A person
> with one testicle may have enough testosterone to father children and
> live a normal healthy life. Not all people in Lance's position need HRT.
> But he doesn't show a base level of testosterone, or a normal level, he
> shows an exceptional level. And one not does not produce that.

What evidence do you have for this claim that "one ... does not produce
that"? While the claim sounds plausible enough, the opposite does also.
I don't know if you're right or wrong, but I'd like to; bald assertion
just isn't going to cut it.

Mark

Simon Brooke

July 11th 06, 08:23 PM

in message >, Ernst Noch ')
wrote:

> Donald Munro wrote:
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> You seem to misunderstand - the 2% chance of detection INCLUDES all
>>> of the efforts of a "good medical staff". Therefore 2% chance for 20
>>> riders does mean a 40% chance of detection.
>>
>> The kunich virtual reality extension to the theory of probability.
>
> let's use the Socratic method:
>
> How much is the probability of a team of 51 riders that one ges caught?

Wrong question. In a peloton of 200 riders comprising 20 teams of ten
riders each, what is the probability of a specific team - team 'A' -
being caught given that a rider is caught? Given that two riders are
caught? Given that three riders are caught?

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GP/CS s++: a++ C+++ ULBVCS*++++$ L+++ P--- E+>++ W+++ N++ K w--(---)
M- !d- PS++ PE-- Y+ PGP !t 5? X+ !R b++ !DI D G- e++ h*(-) r++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Michael Press

July 11th 06, 08:40 PM

In article >,
Ernst Noch > wrote:

> Donald Munro wrote:
> > Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> You seem to misunderstand - the 2% chance of detection INCLUDES all of the
> >> efforts of a "good medical staff". Therefore 2% chance for 20 riders does
> >> mean a 40% chance of detection.
> >
> > The kunich virtual reality extension to the theory of probability.
> >
>
> LOL,
>
> let's use the Socratic method:
>
> How much is the probability of a team of 51 riders that one ges caught?

C -- Event that a given rider is caught.
p = Pr (C)
N = number of riders.
Assume event that one rider getting caught is independent
of any other rider getting caught. (This assumption does
not hold for the recent Spanish investigation.)

Probability that at least one rider is caught = 1- (1-p)^N
Probability that exactly one rider is caught
= Np(1-p)^{N-1}
If p = 0.02 and N = 51 the probabilities above are
0.64 and 0.37

If p = 0.02 and N = 20 the probabilitie of at least one
rider getting caught is 0.33, contradicting the 40% quoted
above.

--
Michael Press

Ernst Noch

July 11th 06, 10:26 PM

Simon Brooke wrote:
> in message >, Ernst Noch ')
> wrote:
>
>> Donald Munro wrote:
>>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> You seem to misunderstand - the 2% chance of detection INCLUDES all
>>>> of the efforts of a "good medical staff". Therefore 2% chance for 20
>>>> riders does mean a 40% chance of detection.
>>> The kunich virtual reality extension to the theory of probability.
>> let's use the Socratic method:
>>
>> How much is the probability of a team of 51 riders that one ges caught?
>
> Wrong question. In a peloton of 200 riders comprising 20 teams of ten
> riders each, what is the probability of a specific team - team 'A' -
> being caught given that a rider is caught? Given that two riders are
> caught? Given that three riders are caught?
>

Your question - if we assume that you always mean "exactly x riders"
instead of "x riders" - is independent from the probability of a rider
being caught. Therefore I submit that this is the wrong question in any
case if you want to offer it to Tom as an escape to the virtual reality
extension of the theory of probability.

Ernst Noch

July 11th 06, 10:30 PM

Michael Press wrote:
> In article >,
> Ernst Noch > wrote:
>
>> Donald Munro wrote:
>>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>> You seem to misunderstand - the 2% chance of detection INCLUDES all of the
>>>> efforts of a "good medical staff". Therefore 2% chance for 20 riders does
>>>> mean a 40% chance of detection.
>>> The kunich virtual reality extension to the theory of probability.
>>>
>> LOL,
>>
>> let's use the Socratic method:
>>
>> How much is the probability of a team of 51 riders that one ges caught?
>
> C -- Event that a given rider is caught.
> p = Pr (C)
> N = number of riders.
> Assume event that one rider getting caught is independent
> of any other rider getting caught. (This assumption does
> not hold for the recent Spanish investigation.)
>
> Probability that at least one rider is caught = 1- (1-p)^N
> Probability that exactly one rider is caught
> = Np(1-p)^{N-1}
> If p = 0.02 and N = 51 the probabilities above are
> 0.64 and 0.37
>
> If p = 0.02 and N = 20 the probabilitie of at least one
> rider getting caught is 0.33, contradicting the 40% quoted
> above.

Hey Mr. Knowitall,

if Socrates had had peers like you, we would never have heard of him ;-).

Michael Press

July 11th 06, 11:43 PM

In article
>,
Simon Brooke > wrote:

> in message >, Ernst Noch ')
> wrote:
>
> > Donald Munro wrote:
> >> Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>> You seem to misunderstand - the 2% chance of detection INCLUDES all
> >>> of the efforts of a "good medical staff". Therefore 2% chance for 20
> >>> riders does mean a 40% chance of detection.
> >>
> >> The kunich virtual reality extension to the theory of probability.
> >
> > let's use the Socratic method:
> >
> > How much is the probability of a team of 51 riders that one ges caught?
>
> Wrong question. In a peloton of 200 riders comprising 20 teams of ten
> riders each, what is the probability of a specific team - team 'A' -
> being caught given that a rider is caught? Given that two riders are
> caught? Given that three riders are caught?

n = number of teams
m = number of riders per team
N = number of riders
c = number of riders caught.
A = event that team A is caught.

Again assuming rider r_1 getting caught is independent of
rider r_2 getting caught
Denote by binom(x,y) the number of ways to choose y
objects from a population of size x.
Take 0 <= c <= N-m.
Pr(A | c) = 1 - binom(N-m, c) / binom (N, c).
For n = 20, m = 10,

c Pr(A | c)
0 0.000
1 0.050
2 0.098
3 0.143
4 0.187
5 0.228
6 0.268
7 0.306
8 0.342
9 0.376
10 0.409
11 0.440
12 0.469
13 0.498
...
20 0.660
...
30 0.811
...
40 0.899

--
Michael Press

Patricio Carlos

July 12th 06, 05:18 AM

Tom Kunich wrote:
> Another BS thing printed here by the like of lying Lafferty and others is
> that the steroid creme used to treat saddle sores was both unusual and back
> dated. It was stated by ASO at the time that it was included in the records
> of medications allowed as stipulated by the UCI. And steroid creme ARE a
> perfectly acceptable and normal treatment for some sorts of saddle sores.

Steroid creams are not an appropriate treatment for saddle sores. Even
if you did use such a treatment, the amount of cream/skin is so small
that you would not absorb enough to be detected in urine.

Regarding the dates, you are wrong. It was back-dated.

Ernst Blofeld

July 12th 06, 06:06 AM

Tom Kunich wrote:
> There's NOTHING magic about EPO. It increases your hematocrit and that's it.
> If he had a hematocrit below the testing threshhold then he never had an
> advantage.

Um, no.

Most riders test out in the low 40's, absent something like EPO.
Driving up the hemocrit levels to 49.9% by taking EPO A) Gives the
rider a significant advantage, and B) is a violation of the rules. The
50% level was picked for rider safety, not because a hemocrit level
just below 50% confers no advantage. That's why Basso & co were
spending thousands at Doc Fuentes' place--to artificially raise their
hemocrit levels above their natural levels, but below the 50% testing
threshold.

Simon Brooke

July 12th 06, 10:44 AM

in message >, Mark
') wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>
>> in message >, RonSonic
>> ') wrote:
>>>Would you kindly get it through your skull that one nut is capable of
>>>producing more than enough testosterone. This is not a poorly designed
>>>system in which hormone levels are the result of both nads generating
>>>all they can. It is a feedback servo system with redundency.
>>
>> It's a feedback system with a certain amount of redundancy, yes. A
>> person with one testicle may have enough testosterone to father
>> children and live a normal healthy life. Not all people in Lance's
>> position need HRT. But he doesn't show a base level of testosterone,
>> or a normal level, he shows an exceptional level. And one not does not
>> produce that.
>
> What evidence do you have for this claim that "one ... does not produce
> that"? While the claim sounds plausible enough, the opposite does
> also. I don't know if you're right or wrong, but I'd like to; bald
> assertion just isn't going to cut it.

OK, leave it as an assertion and my opinion. I've done a bit of reading
and it seems to be fairly variable, with only some people with one
testicle removed requiring HRT. I still don't believe that it's natural,
but I don't have the knowledge or evidence to prove that it's not.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; I can't work yanks out......
;; Why do they frown upon sex yet relish violence?
;; Deep Fried Lettuce

Simon Brooke

July 12th 06, 10:48 AM

in message >, Ernst Noch ')
wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>> in message >, Ernst Noch
>> ') wrote:
>>
>>> Donald Munro wrote:
>>>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>>>> You seem to misunderstand - the 2% chance of detection INCLUDES all
>>>>> of the efforts of a "good medical staff". Therefore 2% chance for
>>>>> 20 riders does mean a 40% chance of detection.
>>>> The kunich virtual reality extension to the theory of probability.
>>> let's use the Socratic method:
>>>
>>> How much is the probability of a team of 51 riders that one ges
>>> caught?
>>
>> Wrong question. In a peloton of 200 riders comprising 20 teams of ten
>> riders each, what is the probability of a specific team - team 'A' -
>> being caught given that a rider is caught? Given that two riders are
>> caught? Given that three riders are caught?
>
> Your question - if we assume that you always mean "exactly x riders"
> instead of "x riders" - is independent from the probability of a rider
> being caught. Therefore I submit that this is the wrong question in any
> case if you want to offer it to Tom as an escape to the virtual reality
> extension of the theory of probability.

Since Tom was defending my (wrong) assertion, I'm almost honour bound to
try to help him out!

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; I'd rather live in sybar-space

Tom Kunich

July 12th 06, 09:52 PM

"Patricio Carlos" > wrote in message
ps.com...
>
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> Another BS thing printed here by the like of lying Lafferty and others is
>> that the steroid creme used to treat saddle sores was both unusual and
>> back
>> dated. It was stated by ASO at the time that it was included in the
>> records
>> of medications allowed as stipulated by the UCI. And steroid creme ARE a
>> perfectly acceptable and normal treatment for some sorts of saddle sores.
>
> Steroid creams are not an appropriate treatment for saddle sores. Even
> if you did use such a treatment, the amount of cream/skin is so small
> that you would not absorb enough to be detected in urine.
>
> Regarding the dates, you are wrong. It was back-dated.

ASO said that the time that they had been informed AHEAD of time and there
was no backdating.

Perhaps you can tell us what is an appropriate treatment for saddle sores of
the type that are caused by friction irritation?

Tom Kunich

July 12th 06, 10:00 PM

"Ernst Blofeld" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> There's NOTHING magic about EPO. It increases your hematocrit and that's
>> it.
>> If he had a hematocrit below the testing threshhold then he never had an
>> advantage.
>
> Um, no.
>
> Most riders test out in the low 40's, absent something like EPO.
> Driving up the hemocrit levels to 49.9% by taking EPO A) Gives the
> rider a significant advantage, and B) is a violation of the rules. The
> 50% level was picked for rider safety, not because a hemocrit level
> just below 50% confers no advantage. That's why Basso & co were
> spending thousands at Doc Fuentes' place--to artificially raise their
> hemocrit levels above their natural levels, but below the 50% testing
> threshold.

Wrong - the hematocrit levels of riders have been carefully masked for the
last several years but before EPO the levels were USUALLY in the mid to low
40% levels late in the race. Some as was noted in Armstrong's case, were in
the high 30% range.

My natural levels are 48% as tested several times a year for almost a decade
while donating blood. It didn't vary even when I had just returned from a
tour or while I was racing. Imgine what it would be if I went up to, say,
Crestted Butte, Colorado, for a couple of months - I'd probably hit 52%
without a problem at this nearly 3000 meter town.

Because the UCI has begun treating the Hct of riders as confidential
information (which I suppose it ought to be) that allows the press to imply
this is to hide something and not because medical information of riders is
NOT public record.

Since I've been riding the average speed of a couple of rides in the area
has gone up nearly 30%. Can you explain to me how that could happen unless
these guys have been taking drugs?

Carl Sundquist

July 12th 06, 10:34 PM

"Tom Kunich" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Perhaps you can tell us what is an appropriate treatment for saddle sores
> of the type that are caused by friction irritation?
>

Killfiles?

B. Lafferty

July 12th 06, 11:03 PM

"Tom Kunich" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> "Patricio Carlos" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
>>
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> Another BS thing printed here by the like of lying Lafferty and others
>>> is
>>> that the steroid creme used to treat saddle sores was both unusual and
>>> back
>>> dated. It was stated by ASO at the time that it was included in the
>>> records
>>> of medications allowed as stipulated by the UCI. And steroid creme ARE a
>>> perfectly acceptable and normal treatment for some sorts of saddle
>>> sores.
>>
>> Steroid creams are not an appropriate treatment for saddle sores. Even
>> if you did use such a treatment, the amount of cream/skin is so small
>> that you would not absorb enough to be detected in urine.
>>
>> Regarding the dates, you are wrong. It was back-dated.
>
> ASO said that the time that they had been informed AHEAD of time and there
> was no backdating.

Really? Give us a source to back up your latest assertion.

>
> Perhaps you can tell us what is an appropriate treatment for saddle sores
> of the type that are caused by friction irritation?
>
>

B. Lafferty

July 12th 06, 11:57 PM

"Tom Kunich" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> "Patricio Carlos" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
>>
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> Another BS thing printed here by the like of lying Lafferty and others
>>> is
>>> that the steroid creme used to treat saddle sores was both unusual and
>>> back
>>> dated. It was stated by ASO at the time that it was included in the
>>> records
>>> of medications allowed as stipulated by the UCI. And steroid creme ARE a
>>> perfectly acceptable and normal treatment for some sorts of saddle
>>> sores.
>>
>> Steroid creams are not an appropriate treatment for saddle sores. Even
>> if you did use such a treatment, the amount of cream/skin is so small
>> that you would not absorb enough to be detected in urine.
>>
>> Regarding the dates, you are wrong. It was back-dated.
>
> ASO said that the time that they had been informed AHEAD of time and there
> was no backdating.

From Outside on line:
"During Stage 1, his drug test showed evidence of a banned
steroid, triamcinolone. Armstrong subsequently produced a doctor's
prescription for a topical steroid cream, Cemalyt, which he said he had used
to treat a saddle sore, and the matter was dropped."

Key word is "SUBSEQUENTLY." The prescription was presented to the UCI, not
ASO.

>
> Perhaps you can tell us what is an appropriate treatment for saddle sores
> of the type that are caused by friction irritation?
>
>

Patricio Carlos

July 13th 06, 12:56 AM

Tom Kunich wrote:
> ASO said that the time that they had been informed AHEAD of time and there
> was no backdating.
>
> Perhaps you can tell us what is an appropriate treatment for saddle sores of
> the type that are caused by friction irritation?

The ASO were trying to save the Tour from another huge scandal after
the disaster of 1998.

For saddle sores, there are many things to try.
For prevention: chamois cream, cleaning your taint well, washing nicks
in eucalyptus oil etc.
For treatment: a dressing like duoderm to reduce pressure on it,
squeezing the pus out, antibiotics if bad. Corticosteroid cream - which
suppresses local immune cells - runs the risk of making the infection
worse.

Carl Sundquist

July 13th 06, 01:05 AM

"Patricio Carlos" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> For saddle sores, there are many things to try.

Ichthammol.

Ernst Blofeld

July 13th 06, 02:09 AM

Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> There's NOTHING magic about EPO. It increases your hematocrit and that's
> >> it.
> >> If he had a hematocrit below the testing threshhold then he never had an
> >> advantage.
> >
> > Um, no.
> >
> > Most riders test out in the low 40's, absent something like EPO.
> > Driving up the hemocrit levels to 49.9% by taking EPO A) Gives the
> > rider a significant advantage, and B) is a violation of the rules. The
> > 50% level was picked for rider safety, not because a hemocrit level
> > just below 50% confers no advantage. That's why Basso & co were
> > spending thousands at Doc Fuentes' place--to artificially raise their
> > hemocrit levels above their natural levels, but below the 50% testing
> > threshold.
>
> Wrong

What, exactly?

>- the hematocrit levels of riders have been carefully masked for the
> last several years but before EPO the levels were USUALLY in the mid to low
> 40% levels late in the race.

Exactly as I said. The 50% level was set with the aid of data from
riders at a tour of Switzerland, circa 1989, which showed average
hematocrit levels in the low 40's. They figured the three sigma
level was right around 50%, so they set that as an upper control
limit, obstensibly for rider safety, probably more because that
would give a good indication of doping in the days before they
had a test for synthetic EPO. Of course since they weren't directly
testing for EPO, they couldn't accuse the riders of taking it if the
level was above 50%, so they had a face-saving "rider safety"
policy of removing the rider from the race.

> My natural levels are 48% as tested several times a year for almost a decade
> while donating blood.

Shrug. there are medical waivers available for some riders or those
from high
altitude countries.

The facts remain: increasing hct levels from 42% to 49.9% via the
use of EPO both gives a significant advantage and is contrary to
the rules of racing. You said "if he had a hematocrit below the testing

threshhold then he never had an advantage." That's patently
false. The proof of that is all the riders swept up in the Spanish
affair, who were paying thousands to elevate their hct above
their natural levels, but below the 50% threshold.

Tom Kunich

July 13th 06, 02:28 AM

"Ernst Blofeld" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> >> There's NOTHING magic about EPO. It increases your hematocrit and
>> >> that's
>> >> it.
>> >> If he had a hematocrit below the testing threshhold then he never had
>> >> an
>> >> advantage.
>> >
>> > Um, no.
>> >
>> > Most riders test out in the low 40's, absent something like EPO.
>> > Driving up the hemocrit levels to 49.9% by taking EPO A) Gives the
>> > rider a significant advantage, and B) is a violation of the rules. The
>> > 50% level was picked for rider safety, not because a hemocrit level
>> > just below 50% confers no advantage. That's why Basso & co were
>> > spending thousands at Doc Fuentes' place--to artificially raise their
>> > hemocrit levels above their natural levels, but below the 50% testing
>> > threshold.
>>
>> Wrong
>
> What, exactly?

Pardon me Ernst, I should have made that clear - your implication which I
have seen in several written articles as well that ALL riders are running
49.9% The truth is that the actual Hct of a rider is confidential medical
information of his own. The only possible way that any writer could get such
information is by a leak. And in the case of Armstrong they said his Hct was
37%.

>>- the hematocrit levels of riders have been carefully masked for the
>> last several years but before EPO the levels were USUALLY in the mid to
>> low
>> 40% levels late in the race.
>
> Exactly as I said. The 50% level was set with the aid of data from
> riders at a tour of Switzerland, circa 1989, which showed average
> hematocrit levels in the low 40's.

True but today is a different era. Times are much faster and you hear more
and more of "Super Domestiques". That implies that even the lower echelon
riders are much better than they used to be. Remember that when the Tour
began the real racers would have their pals ride on their team regardless of
ability.

>> My natural levels are 48% as tested several times a year for almost a
>> decade
>> while donating blood.
>
> Shrug. there are medical waivers available for some riders or those
> from high altitude countries.

You miss my point - I have essentially NO athletic ability despite the fact
that I have a high Hct. Obviously that's only one single point in a complex
mechanism.

> The facts remain: increasing hct levels from 42% to 49.9% via the
> use of EPO both gives a significant advantage and is contrary to
> the rules of racing. You said "if he had a hematocrit below the testing
>
> threshhold then he never had an advantage." That's patently
> false. The proof of that is all the riders swept up in the Spanish
> affair, who were paying thousands to elevate their hct above
> their natural levels, but below the 50% threshold.

If that's the case you're telling us that the fairly large number of riders
with waivers for Hct's up to 54% all carry an unfair advantage. Explain why
they aren't all stars of the Tour?

Ernst Blofeld

July 13th 06, 07:06 AM

Tom Kunich wrote:
> > The facts remain: increasing hct levels from 42% to 49.9% via the
> > use of EPO both gives a significant advantage and is contrary to
> > the rules of racing. You said "if he had a hematocrit below the testing
> >
> > threshhold then he never had an advantage." That's patently
> > false. The proof of that is all the riders swept up in the Spanish
> > affair, who were paying thousands to elevate their hct above
> > their natural levels, but below the 50% threshold.
>
> If that's the case you're telling us that the fairly large number of riders
> with waivers for Hct's up to 54% all carry an unfair advantage. Explain why
> they aren't all stars of the Tour?

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem, and a fondness for
attributing to me arguments I did not make.

1. Does increasing hct above natural levels but below the 50% threshold
via the use of EPO increase performance? Obviously, yes. That's why
riders do it, and why they blood dope. It's also contrary to the rules
of racing.

2. I don't recall ever saying that a high hct automatically leads to
outstanding
performance in races. That's your invention. If you want to argue
against
that, I suggest you find someone who believes it and take it up with
them.

3. Likewise, I didn't say that faster speeds are necessarily the result
of
doping. Though combined with what we know of doping practices in
the Festina affair and the Spanish affair, the odds are good
that the race performances in the 90's and after are influenced by EPO
and other legal and illegal manipulations of hct.

This is really quite elementary. Riders dope to increase their hct.
They
do it because they think it makes their performance better--and it
does, on
average, when combined with other measures. That's why all those riders

were visiting the doc in Spain and spending tens of thousands of euros
to
increase their hct. Do you think they were getting transfusions just to
pass
the time, with no expectation that it would increase their performance?

Tom Kunich

July 13th 06, 07:46 AM

Ernst - let me just quote you here:

"Does increasing hct above natural levels but below the 50% threshold via
the use of EPO increase performance? Obviously, yes."

"I don't recall ever saying that a high hct automatically leads to
outstanding performance in races."

"I didn't say that faster speeds are necessarily the result of doping."

So what are you arguing?

"Ernst Blofeld" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > The facts remain: increasing hct levels from 42% to 49.9% via the
>> > use of EPO both gives a significant advantage and is contrary to
>> > the rules of racing. You said "if he had a hematocrit below the testing
>> >
>> > threshhold then he never had an advantage." That's patently
>> > false. The proof of that is all the riders swept up in the Spanish
>> > affair, who were paying thousands to elevate their hct above
>> > their natural levels, but below the 50% threshold.
>>
>> If that's the case you're telling us that the fairly large number of
>> riders
>> with waivers for Hct's up to 54% all carry an unfair advantage. Explain
>> why
>> they aren't all stars of the Tour?
>
> You seem to have a reading comprehension problem, and a fondness for
> attributing to me arguments I did not make.
>
> 1. Does increasing hct above natural levels but below the 50% threshold
> via the use of EPO increase performance? Obviously, yes. That's why
> riders do it, and why they blood dope. It's also contrary to the rules
> of racing.
>
> 2. I don't recall ever saying that a high hct automatically leads to
> outstanding
> performance in races. That's your invention. If you want to argue
> against
> that, I suggest you find someone who believes it and take it up with
> them.
>
> 3. Likewise, I didn't say that faster speeds are necessarily the result
> of
> doping. Though combined with what we know of doping practices in
> the Festina affair and the Spanish affair, the odds are good
> that the race performances in the 90's and after are influenced by EPO
> and other legal and illegal manipulations of hct.

Simon Brooke

July 13th 06, 08:53 AM

in message t>, Tom
Kunich ') wrote:

> Ernst - let me just quote you here:
>
> "Does increasing hct above natural levels but below the 50% threshold
> via the use of EPO increase performance? Obviously, yes."
>
> "I don't recall ever saying that a high hct automatically leads to
> outstanding performance in races."
>
> "I didn't say that faster speeds are necessarily the result of doping."
>
> So what are you arguing?

That if you have low natural HCT, increasing it will improve your
performance. That the base performance of someone with low natural HCT
is not necessarily lower than that of someone with high natural HCT.
That someone with HCT boosted above their own body's natural level -
above what there own systems are adapted for - has an advantage over
someone at their natural level, whatever the absolute levels in the case
are.

I'm not saying I believe that argument, I don't know enough about
haematocrit to comment either way. But I /can/ understand it.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; IE 3 is dead, but Netscape 4 still shambles about the earth,
;; wreaking a horrific vengeance upon the living
;; anonymous

B. Lafferty

July 13th 06, 11:26 AM

"Ernst Blofeld" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > The facts remain: increasing hct levels from 42% to 49.9% via the
>> > use of EPO both gives a significant advantage and is contrary to
>> > the rules of racing. You said "if he had a hematocrit below the testing
>> >
>> > threshhold then he never had an advantage." That's patently
>> > false. The proof of that is all the riders swept up in the Spanish
>> > affair, who were paying thousands to elevate their hct above
>> > their natural levels, but below the 50% threshold.
>>
>> If that's the case you're telling us that the fairly large number of
>> riders
>> with waivers for Hct's up to 54% all carry an unfair advantage. Explain
>> why
>> they aren't all stars of the Tour?
>
> You seem to have a reading comprehension problem, and a fondness for
> attributing to me arguments I did not make.

ROTFL! You are quite right. Welcome to the club. :-)

>
> 1. Does increasing hct above natural levels but below the 50% threshold
> via the use of EPO increase performance? Obviously, yes. That's why
> riders do it, and why they blood dope. It's also contrary to the rules
> of racing.
>
> 2. I don't recall ever saying that a high hct automatically leads to
> outstanding
> performance in races. That's your invention. If you want to argue
> against
> that, I suggest you find someone who believes it and take it up with
> them.
>
> 3. Likewise, I didn't say that faster speeds are necessarily the result
> of
> doping. Though combined with what we know of doping practices in
> the Festina affair and the Spanish affair, the odds are good
> that the race performances in the 90's and after are influenced by EPO
> and other legal and illegal manipulations of hct.
>
> This is really quite elementary. Riders dope to increase their hct.
> They
> do it because they think it makes their performance better--and it
> does, on
> average, when combined with other measures. That's why all those riders
>
> were visiting the doc in Spain and spending tens of thousands of euros
> to
> increase their hct. Do you think they were getting transfusions just to
> pass
> the time, with no expectation that it would increase their performance?
>

Ernst Blofeld

July 13th 06, 05:06 PM

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Does increasing hct above natural levels but below the 50% threshold via
> the use of EPO increase performance? Obviously, yes."
>
> "I don't recall ever saying that a high hct automatically leads to
> outstanding performance in races."
>
> "I didn't say that faster speeds are necessarily the result of doping."
>
> So what are you arguing?

HCT is only one element of many that go into race performance. Someone
with a hct of 50% can be beaten by someone with a hct of 42% because
of these many other factors.

But, other things being equal, and for a given rider, increasing hct
will
increase performance. If that increase in hct is gained via EPO or
blood doping it is contrary to the rules of racing and the rider should
be sanctioned.

Faster race speeds are not prima facie evidence of doping. But given
the widespread doping scandals it would be naive to believe that
EPO and blood doping had no effect on race speeds in the last
few years. Basso was faster than anyone else at the Giro. He
was also blood doping. So he was obviously increasing race speeds
by cheating in that case.

Tom Kunich

July 13th 06, 11:56 PM

"Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
...
> in message t>, Tom
> Kunich ') wrote:
>
>> So what are you arguing?
>
> That if you have low natural HCT, increasing it will improve your
> performance.

If you have a low natural Hct exactly how do you propose to have become a
pro in the first place?

> That the base performance of someone with low natural HCT
> is not necessarily lower than that of someone with high natural HCT.

I'm hearing that title song from "Twilight Zone".

> That someone with HCT boosted above their own body's natural level -
> above what there own systems are adapted for - has an advantage over
> someone at their natural level, whatever the absolute levels in the case
> are.

Perhaps you can cite any paper that would EVER suggest such a silly idea?

> I'm not saying I believe that argument, I don't know enough about
> haematocrit to comment either way. But I /can/ understand it.

Actually you just said that the cow jumped over the moon and people ought to
believe it.

Tom Kunich

July 14th 06, 12:01 AM

"Ernst Blofeld" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> But, other things being equal, and for a given rider, increasing hct
> will increase performance. If that increase in hct is gained via EPO
> or blood doping it is contrary to the rules of racing and the rider
> should be sanctioned.

OK, what we have just agreed on is that those who break the rules should be
punished for it. That isn't the same thing as saying that anyone that rides
well is a doper and a cheater which is at the heart of this weird argument.

> Faster race speeds are not prima facie evidence of doping.

Well, according to those like Laff@me they are.

> But given the widespread doping scandals it would be naive to
> believe that EPO and blood doping had no effect on race speeds
> in the last few years. Basso was faster than anyone else at the Giro.
> He was also blood doping. So he was obviously increasing race
> speeds by cheating in that case.

Was Basso the Jr World Champion because he was doping? Was he doping when he
won the U-23 World's? The whole underlying basis of the Dopers Creed is that
once a doper ALWAYS a doper huh?

Ernst Blofeld

July 14th 06, 02:01 AM

Tom Kunich wrote:
> > But given the widespread doping scandals it would be naive to
> > believe that EPO and blood doping had no effect on race speeds
> > in the last few years. Basso was faster than anyone else at the Giro.
> > He was also blood doping. So he was obviously increasing race
> > speeds by cheating in that case.
>
> Was Basso the Jr World Champion because he was doping? Was he doping when he
> won the U-23 World's? The whole underlying basis of the Dopers Creed is that
> once a doper ALWAYS a doper huh?

He's a doper because he used a doctor in Spain to dope.

He was the fastest rider in the Giro; the doping increased his speed;
remove him from the results and the total time to complete the Giro
is lower. Ergo, doping has made racing speeds faster.

Patricio Carlos

July 14th 06, 04:23 AM

Ernst Blofeld wrote:
> HCT is only one element of many that go into race performance. Someone
> with a hct of 50% can be beaten by someone with a hct of 42% because
> of these many other factors.
>
> But, other things being equal, and for a given rider, increasing hct
> will increase performance. If that increase in hct is gained via EPO or
> blood doping it is contrary to the rules of racing and the rider should
> be sanctioned.

Remember also that riders only need that 49.9% hct at the time of
testing - ie several hours before the stage starts.

They can then "top up" or pee put all the extra saline that had been
infused prior to the test and race at 60% like Riis.

Ernst Blofeld

July 14th 06, 06:18 AM

Tom Kunich wrote:
> If you have a low natural Hct exactly how do you propose to have become a
> pro in the first place?

Lemond never tested above 45%. The mean for pro racers, sans
artifical stimulation, seems to be in the low 40's. Of course in the
EPO era yo might need something higher to be competitive, just
because of the prevelance of cheaters.

> > That the base performance of someone with low natural HCT
> > is not necessarily lower than that of someone with high natural HCT.
>
> I'm hearing that title song from "Twilight Zone".

Why, what's so difficult about the concept? Master fattie with hct
of 48% vs. 25 year old Lemond with hct of 42%. Who wins?
(Excluding ex post facto bar tales by the master fattie.)

> > That someone with HCT boosted above their own body's natural level -
> > above what there own systems are adapted for - has an advantage over
> > someone at their natural level, whatever the absolute levels in the case
> > are.
>
> Perhaps you can cite any paper that would EVER suggest such a silly idea?

You just got done arguing that hct was the be-all and end-all of racing
performance, and now you're arguing that the idea of raising hct
from 42 to 49 is a "silly idea." Hmmm.

Here's a question for you: why did that Spanish doctor have such a long
and distinguished list of top racing talent as customers? They were
paying tens of thousands of euros to get their hct boosted above
their natural levels. Do you think it might be because, I don't know,
they thought they would get a performance boost? Or do you think
they were just idly passing the time, and decided to engage in behavior
that could get them kicked out of the TdF and banned for life from
racing
for no good reason at all?

Simon Brooke

July 14th 06, 09:58 AM

in message et>, Tom
Kunich ') wrote:

> "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
> ...
>> in message t>, Tom
>> Kunich ') wrote:
>>
>>> So what are you arguing?
>>
>> That if you have low natural HCT, increasing it will improve your
>> performance.
>
> If you have a low natural Hct exactly how do you propose to have become
> a pro in the first place?
>
>> That the base performance of someone with low natural HCT
>> is not necessarily lower than that of someone with high natural HCT.
>
> I'm hearing that title song from "Twilight Zone".
>
>> That someone with HCT boosted above their own body's natural level -
>> above what there own systems are adapted for - has an advantage over
>> someone at their natural level, whatever the absolute levels in the
>> case are.
>
> Perhaps you can cite any paper that would EVER suggest such a silly
> idea?
>
>> I'm not saying I believe that argument, I don't know enough about
>> haematocrit to comment either way. But I /can/ understand it.
>
> Actually you just said that the cow jumped over the moon and people
> ought to believe it.

I didn't say people ought to believe it. I didn't say I believe it. I
just said, that's the argument that Ernst Blofeld advanced. You were
having comprehension difficulties; I was seeking to assist. It seems I
was attempting the impossible.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; When your hammer is C++, everything begins to look like a thumb.

Simon Brooke

July 14th 06, 10:04 AM

in message om>, Ernst
Blofeld ') wrote:

>
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > But given the widespread doping scandals it would be naive to
>> > believe that EPO and blood doping had no effect on race speeds
>> > in the last few years. Basso was faster than anyone else at the
>> > Giro. He was also blood doping. So he was obviously increasing race
>> > speeds by cheating in that case.
>>
>> Was Basso the Jr World Champion because he was doping? Was he doping
>> when he won the U-23 World's? The whole underlying basis of the Dopers
>> Creed is that once a doper ALWAYS a doper huh?
>
> He's a doper because he used a doctor in Spain to dope.

Do you /know/ that? Does anyone?

> He was the fastest rider in the Giro

True.

> the doping increased his speed;

Assertion.

> remove him from the results and the total time to complete the Giro
> is lower. Ergo, doping has made racing speeds faster.

Hypothesis.

Note: I'm not saying I know he didn't dope. I don't, of course. But this
is a bit of a rush to judgement.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
"The result is a language that... not even its mother could
love. Like the camel, Common Lisp is a horse designed by
committee. Camels do have their uses."
;; Scott Fahlman, 7 March 1995

Donald Munro

July 14th 06, 10:16 AM

Simon Brooke wrote:
> You werehaving comprehension difficulties; I was seeking to assist. It
> seems I was attempting the impossible.

You need expertise in Lisp or Prolog instead of Perl if you want to
improve his comprehension modules. However I suspect the code is somewhat
prolix.

Tom Kunich

July 14th 06, 02:43 PM

"Ernst Blofeld" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> If you have a low natural Hct exactly how do you propose to have become a
>> pro in the first place?
>
> Lemond never tested above 45%. The mean for pro racers, sans
> artifical stimulation, seems to be in the low 40's. Of course in the
> EPO era yo might need something higher to be competitive, just
> because of the prevelance of cheaters.

When volume is high, as it is in athletes, the total count of rbc's is
higher than in normal people with higher Hct's. Ernst, it is a complicated
subject that you're passing off as a couple of simple numbers. After a day
in the saddle many of these riders have Hct's in the high 50's.

>> > That the base performance of someone with low natural HCT
>> > is not necessarily lower than that of someone with high natural HCT.
>>
>> I'm hearing that title song from "Twilight Zone".
>
> Why, what's so difficult about the concept? Master fattie with hct
> of 48% vs. 25 year old Lemond with hct of 42%. Who wins?
> (Excluding ex post facto bar tales by the master fattie.)

And yet you're telling us that to win you have to dope?

>> > That someone with HCT boosted above their own body's natural level -
>> > above what there own systems are adapted for - has an advantage over
>> > someone at their natural level, whatever the absolute levels in the
>> > case
>> > are.
>>
>> Perhaps you can cite any paper that would EVER suggest such a silly idea?
>
> You just got done arguing that hct was the be-all and end-all of racing
> performance, and now you're arguing that the idea of raising hct
> from 42 to 49 is a "silly idea." Hmmm.

Hmm and all this time I thought I was arguing that Hct is only one small
part of the total performance equation and that YOU have been arguing that
Hct is so important that those who boost are evil criminals.

> Here's a question for you: why did that Spanish doctor have such a long
> and distinguished list of top racing talent as customers? They were
> paying tens of thousands of euros to get their hct boosted above
> their natural levels. Do you think it might be because, I don't know,
> they thought they would get a performance boost? Or do you think
> they were just idly passing the time, and decided to engage in behavior
> that could get them kicked out of the TdF and banned for life from
> racing for no good reason at all?

Riders do all sorts of stupid things that they believe will increase their
performance. Do you believe that eating pasta at breakfast is better than
eating white rice? I've actually seen that in writing.

Hct is nothing but the measure of how much O2 your blood can carry. But
consider this - the NORMAL blood oxygen even for those under high stress is
still above 95%. So Hct is not a very good indicator.

Donald Munro

July 14th 06, 02:50 PM

Ernst (Stavro ?)Blofeld wrote:
>> Lemond never tested above 45%.

Tom Kunich wrote:
>Ernst, it is a complicated subject that you're passing off as a couple of simple numbers. After a day
> in the saddle many of these riders have Hct's in the high 50's.

Don't worry James Bond will explain it to him.

Ernst Blofeld

July 14th 06, 05:54 PM

Simon Brooke wrote:
> > He's a doper because he used a doctor in Spain to dope.
>
> Do you /know/ that? Does anyone?

He might be entitled to a presumption of innocence in court,
but those of us outside the legal system can use their
common sense.

> > the doping increased his speed;
>
> Assertion.

So why was he spending tens of thousands of euros and
engaging in career-ending behavior with
the Spanish doc if he didn't think it would make him faster?

Ernst Blofeld

July 14th 06, 09:11 PM

Tom Kunich wrote:
> When volume is high, as it is in athletes, the total count of rbc's is
> higher than in normal people with higher Hct's. Ernst, it is a complicated
> subject that you're passing off as a couple of simple numbers. After a day
> in the saddle many of these riders have Hct's in the high 50's.

Absent a medical waiver, they'll be prohibited from riding if they
tested
out at that level.

The issue isn't absolute hct levels. It's the manipulation of them via
means that include EPO and blood doping. You're arguing that increasing
hct has no effect on performance, which is ludicrous, contradicts
fifteen years of research, and the actions of teams and individual
riders over the last twenty years (going back to the LA Olympics
and before).

> > Why, what's so difficult about the concept? Master fattie with hct
> > of 48% vs. 25 year old Lemond with hct of 42%. Who wins?
> > (Excluding ex post facto bar tales by the master fattie.)
>
> And yet you're telling us that to win you have to dope?

Once again you find it convienient to attribute arguments to me
that I did not make. Once again I ask you to go find someone who
believes that and argue with them.

Let's say uber-talent LeWorld is able to "perform" at level 100, clean.

Less talented rider Capucinno is able to "perform" at level
90, but if he takes EPO can "perform" at level 95 or even 100. Now
instead of being a solid climbing lieutenant and stage win threat
he's a GC contender. LeWorld can still win. but all the clean riders
at level 92, 94, and 96, like rider Hampster, are out of luck because
of Capucinno's cheating. It's as if Capucinno is holding onto
the team car during climbs. that's an obvious violation of the
rules, just as using EPO to increase performance is.

> Hmm and all this time I thought I was arguing that Hct is only one small
> part of the total performance equation and that YOU have been arguing that
> Hct is so important that those who boost are evil criminals.

They may or may not be evil criminals, but those that boost are
VIOLATING THE RULES OF BIKE RACING. We don't tolerate
riders who hop into the team car for the climbs, or riders who take
shortcuts that lop miles off the course. The rules are straightforward:
dope, get caught, and have your wins taken away and get suspended.

> > Here's a question for you: why did that Spanish doctor have such a long
> > and distinguished list of top racing talent as customers? They were
> > paying tens of thousands of euros to get their hct boosted above
> > their natural levels. Do you think it might be because, I don't know,
> > they thought they would get a performance boost? Or do you think
> > they were just idly passing the time, and decided to engage in behavior
> > that could get them kicked out of the TdF and banned for life from
> > racing for no good reason at all?
>
> Riders do all sorts of stupid things that they believe will increase their
> performance.

So you believe EPO and blood doping are just superstition that have
no effect at all on performace?

[email protected]

July 14th 06, 11:01 PM

Ernst Blofeld wrote:
> They may or may not be evil criminals, but those that boost are
> VIOLATING THE RULES OF BIKE RACING. We don't tolerate
> riders who hop into the team car for the climbs, or riders who take
> shortcuts that lop miles off the course. The rules are straightforward:
> dope, get caught, and have your wins taken away and get suspended.

The 'get caught' part is one (extremely) non-straightforward part of
the problem. --D-y

Bret

July 15th 06, 12:31 AM

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Ernst Blofeld" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> If you have a low natural Hct exactly how do you propose to have become a
> >> pro in the first place?
> >
> > Lemond never tested above 45%. The mean for pro racers, sans
> > artifical stimulation, seems to be in the low 40's. Of course in the
> > EPO era yo might need something higher to be competitive, just
> > because of the prevelance of cheaters.
>
> When volume is high, as it is in athletes, the total count of rbc's is
> higher than in normal people with higher Hct's. Ernst, it is a complicated
> subject that you're passing off as a couple of simple numbers. After a day
> in the saddle many of these riders have Hct's in the high 50's.
>
> >> > That the base performance of someone with low natural HCT
> >> > is not necessarily lower than that of someone with high natural HCT.
> >>
> >> I'm hearing that title song from "Twilight Zone".
> >
> > Why, what's so difficult about the concept? Master fattie with hct
> > of 48% vs. 25 year old Lemond with hct of 42%. Who wins?
> > (Excluding ex post facto bar tales by the master fattie.)
>
> And yet you're telling us that to win you have to dope?
>
> >> > That someone with HCT boosted above their own body's natural level -
> >> > above what there own systems are adapted for - has an advantage over
> >> > someone at their natural level, whatever the absolute levels in the
> >> > case
> >> > are.
> >>
> >> Perhaps you can cite any paper that would EVER suggest such a silly idea?
> >
> > You just got done arguing that hct was the be-all and end-all of racing
> > performance, and now you're arguing that the idea of raising hct
> > from 42 to 49 is a "silly idea." Hmmm.
>
> Hmm and all this time I thought I was arguing that Hct is only one small
> part of the total performance equation and that YOU have been arguing that
> Hct is so important that those who boost are evil criminals.
>
> > Here's a question for you: why did that Spanish doctor have such a long
> > and distinguished list of top racing talent as customers? They were
> > paying tens of thousands of euros to get their hct boosted above
> > their natural levels. Do you think it might be because, I don't know,
> > they thought they would get a performance boost? Or do you think
> > they were just idly passing the time, and decided to engage in behavior
> > that could get them kicked out of the TdF and banned for life from
> > racing for no good reason at all?
>
> Riders do all sorts of stupid things that they believe will increase their
> performance. Do you believe that eating pasta at breakfast is better than
> eating white rice? I've actually seen that in writing.
>
> Hct is nothing but the measure of how much O2 your blood can carry. But
> consider this - the NORMAL blood oxygen even for those under high stress is
> still above 95%. So Hct is not a very good indicator.

I googled this subject and found several articles on the topic. It's
incorrect to say that Hct is a measure of how much O2 your blood can
carry. The total number of RBCs is the measure of how much O2 your
blood can carry and studies have shown that increases in RBCs lead to
increases in performance (see link below). HCT alone is not an
indication of total RBCs. RBC transfusions, EPO or altitude training
will all increase both RBCs and Hct. Hct alone can not be used as an
indication of athletic potential.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?N21F1286D

Bret

Bret

July 15th 06, 05:53 AM

Bret wrote:
> Tom Kunich wrote:
> > "Ernst Blofeld" > wrote in message
> > oups.com...
> > >
> > > Tom Kunich wrote:
> > >> If you have a low natural Hct exactly how do you propose to have become a
> > >> pro in the first place?
> > >
> > > Lemond never tested above 45%. The mean for pro racers, sans
> > > artifical stimulation, seems to be in the low 40's. Of course in the
> > > EPO era yo might need something higher to be competitive, just
> > > because of the prevelance of cheaters.
> >
> > When volume is high, as it is in athletes, the total count of rbc's is
> > higher than in normal people with higher Hct's. Ernst, it is a complicated
> > subject that you're passing off as a couple of simple numbers. After a day
> > in the saddle many of these riders have Hct's in the high 50's.
> >
> > >> > That the base performance of someone with low natural HCT
> > >> > is not necessarily lower than that of someone with high natural HCT.
> > >>
> > >> I'm hearing that title song from "Twilight Zone".
> > >
> > > Why, what's so difficult about the concept? Master fattie with hct
> > > of 48% vs. 25 year old Lemond with hct of 42%. Who wins?
> > > (Excluding ex post facto bar tales by the master fattie.)
> >
> > And yet you're telling us that to win you have to dope?
> >
> > >> > That someone with HCT boosted above their own body's natural level -
> > >> > above what there own systems are adapted for - has an advantage over
> > >> > someone at their natural level, whatever the absolute levels in the
> > >> > case
> > >> > are.
> > >>
> > >> Perhaps you can cite any paper that would EVER suggest such a silly idea?
> > >
> > > You just got done arguing that hct was the be-all and end-all of racing
> > > performance, and now you're arguing that the idea of raising hct
> > > from 42 to 49 is a "silly idea." Hmmm.
> >
> > Hmm and all this time I thought I was arguing that Hct is only one small
> > part of the total performance equation and that YOU have been arguing that
> > Hct is so important that those who boost are evil criminals.
> >
> > > Here's a question for you: why did that Spanish doctor have such a long
> > > and distinguished list of top racing talent as customers? They were
> > > paying tens of thousands of euros to get their hct boosted above
> > > their natural levels. Do you think it might be because, I don't know,
> > > they thought they would get a performance boost? Or do you think
> > > they were just idly passing the time, and decided to engage in behavior
> > > that could get them kicked out of the TdF and banned for life from
> > > racing for no good reason at all?
> >
> > Riders do all sorts of stupid things that they believe will increase their
> > performance. Do you believe that eating pasta at breakfast is better than
> > eating white rice? I've actually seen that in writing.
> >
> > Hct is nothing but the measure of how much O2 your blood can carry. But
> > consider this - the NORMAL blood oxygen even for those under high stress is
> > still above 95%. So Hct is not a very good indicator.
>
> I googled this subject and found several articles on the topic. It's
> incorrect to say that Hct is a measure of how much O2 your blood can
> carry. The total number of RBCs is the measure of how much O2 your
> blood can carry and studies have shown that increases in RBCs lead to
> increases in performance (see link below). HCT alone is not an
> indication of total RBCs. RBC transfusions, EPO or altitude training
> will all increase both RBCs and Hct. Hct alone can not be used as an
> indication of athletic potential.
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?N21F1286D
>
> Bret

From:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/jul06/jul15news3

There's talk of a blood volume test. How would they do that?

'Heinrich called for better equipment for increased controls by the
National Anti-Doping Agency. There is a new blood volume test, which
could show blood doping, and complete blood and hormone analyses could
make it easier to see changes in those levels. "But all of these things
cost money," he said.'

Bret