Mr. Juicy Juice

not from concentrate? bull**** ...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/...levels-debated

On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 18:32:05 -0700 (PDT), bar
wrote:

not from concentrate? bull**** ...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/...levels-debated

Let's see...what are the requirements? Is it some Danish dude's
opinion or is it the Blood Passport values standard deviation cut
offs?

It's the cut-offs. So it doesn't matter if Armstrong wears a freaking
T-shirt saying "I support blood doping", or "I 3 (heart) autologous
transfusions". They can't do a fsking thing about it if he comes in
under the prescribed limits.

On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:43:18 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 18:32:05 -0700 (PDT), bar
wrote:

not from concentrate? bull**** ...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/...levels-debated

Let's see...what are the requirements? Is it some Danish dude's
opinion or is it the Blood Passport values standard deviation cut
offs?

It's the cut-offs. So it doesn't matter if Armstrong wears a freaking
T-shirt saying "I support blood doping", or "I 3 (heart) autologous
transfusions". They can't do a fsking thing about it if he comes in
under the prescribed limits.


To be more clear, there are several reasons why his results could show
up as they did.

1. He's acclimated better to the stress of racing so his hct doesn't
drop;
2. He's taking iron or other allowed supplements and nutrients, maybe
even some secret, but not banned nutrient, herb, nut or berry,
ginseng, or dessicated liver;
3. He was dehydrated or had the runs.

This Danish guy knows this. So what is the point of his 'inquiry'?
He's a freaking headline grabber and an idiot.

Nobody wrote:
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 18:32:05 -0700 (PDT), bar
wrote:

not from concentrate? bull**** ...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/...levels-debated

Let's see...what are the requirements? Is it some Danish dude's
opinion or is it the Blood Passport values standard deviation cut
offs?

It's the cut-offs. So it doesn't matter if Armstrong wears a freaking
T-shirt saying "I support blood doping", or "I 3 (heart) autologous
transfusions". They can't do a fsking thing about it if he comes in
under the prescribed limits.



Looks like the same old ****. People get wound up in micro-examinations
of Armstrong's test results and ignore everyone else's.

Ullrich can come out of retirement and race "clean" again.

On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:50:46 -0700, Fred Fredburger
wrote:

Nobody wrote:
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 18:32:05 -0700 (PDT), bar
wrote:

not from concentrate? bull**** ...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/...levels-debated

Let's see...what are the requirements? Is it some Danish dude's
opinion or is it the Blood Passport values standard deviation cut
offs?

It's the cut-offs. So it doesn't matter if Armstrong wears a freaking
T-shirt saying "I support blood doping", or "I 3 (heart) autologous
transfusions". They can't do a fsking thing about it if he comes in
under the prescribed limits.



Looks like the same old ****. People get wound up in micro-examinations
of Armstrong's test results and ignore everyone else's.

Ullrich can come out of retirement and race "clean" again.

I'm being a bit sarcastic, but it goes to show that the whole 'Blood
Passport' is a joke. Those that are very, very good at the 'regime'
can easily fly under the radar.

In fact, a rider could come into the race/tour with a high Hct, as
long as it's under the cut off and his standard deviation (the OFF
score, the hemoglobin Z-score, and the OFF Z-score) is within the
cut-offs. A rider just needs to know his values.

As we've seen they must know them, because we've seen the chart of
Armstrong's values. (I'm not entirely sure how he got them, or if
that's kosher - I thought the riders were not supposed to be in
possession of them to preclude 'tweaking' their levels).

So, it may be that LA hired someone to test him and disclose them
while at the same time was informed of what his values were, allowing
some manipulation. As time goes on, the riders will only get better at
this and since normal variation, due to dehydration and nutrition and
acclimation can occur naturally, they can't define the cut-offs too
narrowly. It's just enough to allow talented riders to tweak.

Obviously, the lower your hematocrit is naturally (within limits) the
more you benefit from top off transfusions (unlike those with
naturally higher levels).

On Sep 9, 10:00*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:50:46 -0700, Fred Fredburger





wrote:
Nobody wrote:
On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 18:32:05 -0700 (PDT), bar
wrote:

not from concentrate? *bull**** ...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/...-tour-blood-le....

Let's see...what are the requirements? Is it some Danish dude's
opinion or is it the Blood Passport values standard deviation cut
offs?

It's the cut-offs. So it doesn't matter if Armstrong wears a freaking
T-shirt saying "I support blood doping", or "I 3 (heart) autologous
transfusions". They can't do a fsking thing about it if he comes in
under the prescribed limits.

Looks like the same old ****. People get wound up in micro-examinations
of Armstrong's test results and ignore everyone else's.

Ullrich can come out of retirement and race "clean" again.

I'm being a bit sarcastic, but it goes to show that the whole 'Blood
Passport' is a joke. Those that are very, very good at the 'regime'
can easily fly under the radar.

In fact, a rider could come into the race/tour with a high Hct, as
long as it's under the cut off and his standard deviation (the OFF
score, the hemoglobin Z-score, and the OFF Z-score) is within the
cut-offs. A rider just needs to know his values.

As we've seen they must know them, because we've seen the chart of
Armstrong's values. (I'm not entirely sure how he got them, or if
that's kosher - I thought the riders were not supposed to be in
possession of them to preclude 'tweaking' their levels).

So, it may be that LA hired someone to test him and disclose them
while at the same time was informed of what his values were, allowing
some manipulation. As time goes on, the riders will only get better at
this and since normal variation, due to dehydration and nutrition and
acclimation can occur naturally, they can't define the cut-offs too
narrowly. It's just enough to allow talented riders to tweak.

Obviously, the lower your hematocrit is naturally (within limits) the
more you benefit from top off transfusions (unlike those with
naturally higher levels).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

4 Bradley Wiggins (GBr) Garmin - Slipstream

maybe he moves up to third.

bar a écrit profondement:

| not from concentrate? bull**** ...
| http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/...levels-debated
|

Lance Don't Dope

Nzither did Anquetil, Marckx or Moser

--
Davey Crockett
-
Wanted: 6 ft of Rope + Vacant Lamp Post
-
Tony Blair was been appointed to the board of investment bank JP
Morgan Chase - at a salary of £2 million a year - just as the
announcement was* made that Northern Rock has sold its portfolio of
lifetime home equity release mortgages for £2.2bn to JP Morgan. A
coincidence, Davey is sure.

The AssHoles don't even try to hide it anymore and flaunt it in the
Simpering News Outlets.

"Nobody" wrote in message
...

Let's see...what are the requirements? Is it some Danish dude's
opinion or is it the Blood Passport values standard deviation cut
offs?

It's the cut-offs. So it doesn't matter if Armstrong wears a freaking
T-shirt saying "I support blood doping", or "I 3 (heart) autologous
transfusions". They can't do a fsking thing about it if he comes in
under the prescribed limits.


To be more clear, there are several reasons why his results could show
up as they did.

1. He's acclimated better to the stress of racing so his hct doesn't
drop;
2. He's taking iron or other allowed supplements and nutrients, maybe
even some secret, but not banned nutrient, herb, nut or berry,
ginseng, or dessicated liver;
3. He was dehydrated or had the runs.

This Danish guy knows this. So what is the point of his 'inquiry'?
He's a freaking headline grabber and an idiot.

The "study" looked at 7 riders. Think about that. Do you suppose that 7
riders demonstrate the millions of genetic possibilities properly?

I'm not too surprised that crap is being posted on the "new improved
Cyclingnews.com"

On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 19:19:23 -0700 (PDT), Andre
wrote:

So, it may be that LA hired someone to test him and disclose them
while at the same time was informed of what his values were, allowing
some manipulation. As time goes on, the riders will only get better at
this and since normal variation, due to dehydration and nutrition and
acclimation can occur naturally, they can't define the cut-offs too
narrowly. It's just enough to allow talented riders to tweak.

Obviously, the lower your hematocrit is naturally (within limits) the
more you benefit from top off transfusions (unlike those with
naturally higher levels).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

4 Bradley Wiggins (GBr) Garmin - Slipstream

maybe he moves up to third.

Based on what? If he was not able to be caught using microdosing EPO,
if so, in the previous 7 tours, he is CERTAINLY not going to be caught
(only) doing modest autologous transfusions for certain stages.

Suspect all you like. What you need to take action is proof, a lab
value. In fact the more they emphasize 'lab values' and 'profiles' the
easier it is for the riders to use PEDs. All they need to do is come
in under the line.

On Wed, 9 Sep 2009 19:37:26 -0700, "Tom Kunich"
wrote:

"Nobody" wrote in message
.. .

Let's see...what are the requirements? Is it some Danish dude's
opinion or is it the Blood Passport values standard deviation cut
offs?

It's the cut-offs. So it doesn't matter if Armstrong wears a freaking
T-shirt saying "I support blood doping", or "I 3 (heart) autologous
transfusions". They can't do a fsking thing about it if he comes in
under the prescribed limits.


To be more clear, there are several reasons why his results could show
up as they did.

1. He's acclimated better to the stress of racing so his hct doesn't
drop;
2. He's taking iron or other allowed supplements and nutrients, maybe
even some secret, but not banned nutrient, herb, nut or berry,
ginseng, or dessicated liver;
3. He was dehydrated or had the runs.

This Danish guy knows this. So what is the point of his 'inquiry'?
He's a freaking headline grabber and an idiot.

The "study" looked at 7 riders. Think about that. Do you suppose that 7
riders demonstrate the millions of genetic possibilities properly?

I'm not too surprised that crap is being posted on the "new improved
Cyclingnews.com"

Yeah, like I said, it just doesn't matter if he's doing the 4th
possibility (auto-transfusions). If he's careful enough they may
suspect it but if he stays within the parameters there is absolutely
nothing they can do about it...but flap their gums.

If I seem to be cavalier about 'cheating' or 'doping', or use of PDEs,
legal or not so legal, I'm not offering a value judgement or
moralizing. It's happening, it will continue to happen. I'm merely
talking about my understanding of the process.

But, let's face it. Everyone in athletics uses performance enhancers,
be it supplements, vitamins, tents, or training. Some train harder
than others. They have genetic gifts of recovery. Some have larger
descending aortas. Some have higher VO2max, some have lower lactate
levels during exercise, some have better genetics. Some respond to
various vitamins and supplements better than others. Some are able to
diet better (as opposed to Ullrich). Some are obsessive about details
and millimeters.

In a way, allowing less genetically gifted riders to dope, levels the
playing field.

Those who would win, will still be among the winners.