Jeanson banned for life

Even if my stated scenario is hogwash, testing positive on one day and
testing negative three days later matches the profile for catching
someone using EPO given the three to four day window with the urine EPO
test - being negative does not automatically condemn or exonerate her.
Also if you read Jamie Carney's screed on drug usage in the US
track/road - gambling on not being tested in the US is going to work as
long as one isn't stupid.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/riders/20...e/?id=jame0409

On 21 Jan 2006 20:35:39 -0800, "
wrote:
I don't know how often this can happen, and I certainly don't
know how or if she doped, but in general when people say
"three or four days" in a biological application, there's some
distribution, so most of the time it's three or four, sometimes
it's two or five, and sometimes it's seven. Three sigma events
happen. (That's if it's PhDs. If it's MDs saying 3-4, it could be
a uniform distribution from 1 to 30.)

I suppose a **** up could happen. But haven't the news
reports said that the samples supposedly had an extremely high level
of EPO as opposed to trace levels? *If* that is the case, she would
likely have taken it very shortly before the race (perhaps within 24
hours of the race). Also, it would be her first EPO testing "**** up"
after having successfully used EPO for race after race (according to
what some believe) without any detection for years. Of course, if she
could **** up a skill developed over years, so could there be a ****
up in handling of samples, conducting the test, analyzing the test
results or even the design/review of the test.

I don't know if she doped or not, but none of the explanations
seems very plausible to me. Hopefully, more will come out
at the hearings.

T

In article ,
Mark wrote:

On 21 Jan 2006 20:35:39 -0800, "
wrote:
I don't know how often this can happen, and I certainly don't
know how or if she doped, but in general when people say
"three or four days" in a biological application, there's some
distribution, so most of the time it's three or four, sometimes
it's two or five, and sometimes it's seven. Three sigma events
happen. (That's if it's PhDs. If it's MDs saying 3-4, it could be
a uniform distribution from 1 to 30.)

I suppose a **** up could happen. But haven't the news
reports said that the samples supposedly had an extremely high level
of EPO as opposed to trace levels? *If* that is the case, she would
likely have taken it very shortly before the race (perhaps within 24
hours of the race). Also, it would be her first EPO testing "**** up"
after having successfully used EPO for race after race (according to
what some believe) without any detection for years. Of course, if she
could **** up a skill developed over years, so could there be a ****
up in handling of samples, conducting the test, analyzing the test
results or even the design/review of the test.

I don't know if she doped or not, but none of the explanations
seems very plausible to me. Hopefully, more will come out
at the hearings.

Let's take the **** up hypothesis one more step. Maybe she
wanted out. I love hypothesizing about circumstances
wherein I know nothing first-hand.

--
Michael Press

Mark wrote:

I suppose a **** up could happen. But haven't the news
reports said that the samples supposedly had an extremely high level
of EPO as opposed to trace levels? *If* that is the case, she would
likely have taken it very shortly before the race (perhaps within 24
hours of the race). Also, it would be her first EPO testing "**** up"
after having successfully used EPO for race after race (according to
what some believe) without any detection for years.


snip



Dumbass -

Pure bull****.

For years she had a history of avoiding races that had testing.

Most races in the US in her heyday, 4-5 years ago didn't have
hematocrit testing. The EPO test didn't come along till later. They did
have hematocrit testing at the Euro races, but she mostly avoided
those.

It was discussed here in RBR. There was a lot of whispering.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

wrote in message
oups.com...
There's a short three or four day window for testing positive after
injecting EPO. This perfectly fits the scenario where Jeanson is
positive on day one and tests negative three days later, assuming that
dosage occurred three to four days prior to the initial test. The
effect of EPO last several weeks ( if one uses bigger dosages - from
DeClerq's taped calls/journals it sounds like microdosing EPO requires
more maintenance for day to day performance). This fits one plausible
scenario where they gambled on not being tested on day one ( don't get
top three or get the random draw for drugtesting).

Canadian Cylist states that it was actually an out-of-competition test that
she got popped on. Confusing, since it occurred on the day of the TT. I
could be wrong, but I don't remember that USADA even did drug testing at
Toona last year, on the women anyway.
http://www.canadiancyclist.com/default2.html

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 06:27:25 GMT, Michael Press wrote:


Let's take the **** up hypothesis one more step. Maybe she
wanted out. I love hypothesizing about circumstances
wherein I know nothing first-hand.

Yeah, it's fun. Maybe she wanted out and tried to switch the dope to
water w/o Aubut seeing, but didn't have time, but he thought she'd
switched it and added more, so it was a double dose!

And maybe the switching and attempted switching was while they were
sitting around the breakfast table at Denny's outside Altoona trying
to get each other to look the other way by pointing over the other
person's should and saying "Hey, your omelet looks overcooked" or
"Isnt' that Kim Bruckner and didn't she just give you the finger?"

I'll bet it went down like that. Wow. Tha's wild stuff.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 07:36:07 -0500,
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 06:27:25 GMT, Michael Press wrote:

Let's take the **** up hypothesis one more step. Maybe she
wanted out. I love hypothesizing about circumstances wherein I
know nothing first-hand.

Yeah, it's fun. Maybe she wanted out and tried to switch the dope
to water w/o Aubut seeing, but didn't have time, but he thought
she'd switched it and added more, so it was a double dose!

And maybe the switching and attempted switching was while they were
sitting around the breakfast table at Denny's outside Altoona trying
to get each other to look the other way by pointing over the other
person's should and saying "Hey, your omelet looks overcooked" or
"Isnt' that Kim Bruckner and didn't she just give you the finger?"

Like the poison bit from the Princess Bride.

--
Theodore (Ted) Heise Bloomington, IN, USA

On 21 Jan 2006 22:53:13 -0800, "Kurgan Gringioni"
wrote:

Pure bull****.

For years she had a history of avoiding races that had testing.

Most races in the US in her heyday, 4-5 years ago didn't have
hematocrit testing. The EPO test didn't come along till later. They did
have hematocrit testing at the Euro races, but she mostly avoided
those.

It was discussed here in RBR. There was a lot of whispering.

Your theory is that because she didn't want to race in Europe,
she was using EPO? And you appear to be claiming that no
race in the North America, be it national championships, World Cup
races, etc. had EPO testing. I suppose that means you have a list of
races that tested for EPO from 2000 through 2005 and what
out of competition tests she had.

So, if she didn't have the skill to avoid positive EPO results
by microdosing or taking it far in advance and simply avoided those
races, what was she doing at Toona supposedly doped up to the
max?

It was discussed here in RBR. There was a lot of whispering.

Oh, whispering! Now I see.

T

wrote:
There's a short three or four day window for testing positive after
injecting EPO. This perfectly fits the scenario where Jeanson is
positive on day one and tests negative three days later, assuming that
dosage occurred three to four days prior to the initial test.

But I think her claim is stronger than
positive-one-day/negative-another-day - it's that she was
off-the-chart positive on Monday night and clean-as-a-whistle Thursday
morning.

I don't know if there's a way to cleanse your system in 60 hours - and
race two stages effectively in the meantime. Supposedly there isn't.

The
effect of EPO last several weeks ( if one uses bigger dosages - from
DeClerq's taped calls/journals it sounds like microdosing EPO requires
more maintenance for day to day performance). This fits one plausible
scenario where they gambled on not being tested on day one ( don't get
top three or get the random draw for drugtesting).

I'm still wondering about the protocol for the retest - is it a usual
thing, or something Jeanson would have requested, or something UCI
would have requested?

Mark wrote:

Your theory is that because she didn't want to race in Europe,
she was using EPO? And you appear to be claiming that no
race in the North America, be it national championships, World Cup
races, etc. had EPO testing. I suppose that means you have a list of
races that tested for EPO from 2000 through 2005 and what
out of competition tests she had.

So, if she didn't have the skill to avoid positive EPO results
by microdosing or taking it far in advance and simply avoided those
races, what was she doing at Toona supposedly doped up to the
max?

It was discussed here in RBR. There was a lot of whispering.

Oh, whispering! Now I see.



Dumbass -

The entire pro circuit was convinced she was doping - they just didn't
have any evidence until she finally entered a race that had hematocrit
testing (Worlds in Montreal) and they finally started having testing in
North America.

Why do you think she got the lifetime ban?


thanks,

K. Gringioni.