|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
"I never tested positive."
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 |
Ads |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
"I never tested positive."
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 |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
"I never tested positive."
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?...l06/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 |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
"I never tested positive."
Bret wrote:
There's talk of a blood volume test. How would they do that? Easy, pump out the whole stuff, measure it, fill it in again. They have already made a trial with Ekimov http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...824ce4652b1d67 |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
"I never tested positive."
Bret wrote:
There's talk of a blood volume test. How would they do that? Ernst Noch wrote: Easy, pump out the whole stuff, measure it, fill it in again. They have already made a trial with Ekimov http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...824ce4652b1d67 And there's the revolutionary and much more cost effective mennonite leech therapy as well. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
"I never tested positive."
in message . com, Ernst
Blofeld ') wrote: 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? Was he? Has evidence of any payment at all by Basso yet been produced? -- (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/ See one nuclear war, you've seen them all. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"I like your bike" | Michael | General | 13 | May 21st 06 06:03 AM |
21 tires tested | gerrit van wijk | Techniques | 1 | June 15th 04 02:10 AM |
Dope tests? | Merovingian | Racing | 4 | August 5th 03 10:21 PM |