DiLuca positive for EPO (CERA) ?? - Page 2

I take great offense to this comment.

__________________
Lance Armstrong’s Last Words, August 10, 2007 - “We're proud of our record. We won eight Tours, a Vuelta, a Giro and other races and not one positive test," Armstrong said. “I’m not sure if there are many other teams who can say that right now. Couple that with our ethical record, despite all the gossip and nonsense that goes on.”

no the new variation of CERA is not detectable. Thats why Contador hasnt been caught yet. The new CERA only requires one injection for a 3 week tour. Its very very easy to avoid detection. Thats why 2009 Tour de France has been free of positive tests. Eveyone knows how to beat the controls

Either way, to be truly effective as a performance enhancement, EPO triggers an increase in hematocrit levels that exceeds UCI thresholds. So while EPO itself may not be detected in certain instances, its effects remain detectable. Basically, if the quick and cheap hematocrit screen doesn't show anything unusual, the would-be cheater isn't getting much out of it. By the end of each Grand Tour, each rider has been subjected to at least one blood and urine test, and many twice. This is how Di Luca was caught.

__________________
Originally Posted by Flyer:
It is a matter of reading comprehension that you challenged by.

remember, we dont know the exact developments of doping at the moment. totally untraceable genetic doping is believed to be used by athletes in the last 6 months.
i agree with you about epo. it does of course, at the end of the day, increase the hermatacrit. Its just a shame that 50% is deemed the threshold, anything below is clean. Its ludicrous really. armstrongs regularly veered from 41 to 49 in his tour wins. he was quite brilliant at ensuring it went no higher than 49. 1% is deemed to be the difference between a legend and a cheat. BS.
i think the day will come, in the not too distant future, when the tour will be pulled. we've had one good year in the last 15 (2008). Something very serious needs to happen for UCI to cop on. As terrible as it is to say, an athelete may need to die before UCI are pressured into taking anti-doping seriously

This is beginning to sound somewhat like a UFO conspiracy theory. The average hematocrit for an adult male is ~46-47%. This can be increased naturally, so 49% wouldn't indicate doping. Long term testing (e.g. blood passport) reveals any unusual fluctuations in hematocrit that would be indicative of EPO use.

As for the UCI, it isn't like there is one grand poobah that makes doping decisions behind closed doors. If a sample of anything comes back positive, that isn't something that's going to be easily hushed. The UCI took 2300 individual samples for testing during the Giro alone, so I'm not sure how much more serious it could be.

__________________
Originally Posted by Flyer:
It is a matter of reading comprehension that you challenged by.

Yes but hermatacrit should always decrease during an event such as the tour de france. its impossible to maintain or increase hermatacrit over 3 weeks of intense cycling. yet many of them do, particularly armstrong. the key is controlling it. something pantani couldnt do but the latest cyclists seem to be able to achieve comfortably.
i dont know about a hush-hush. but it would make sense. no positives from 174 riders. whats the explanation? there are too many powerful sponsors involved. im pretty sure that Nike would never allow armstrong to fail a control, one way or another. this has been the most high profile tour ever, and has generated more money than any other tour. why? because of armstrong. why would UCI shoot themselves in the foot? if he failed, pro cycling would never recover

Ok, but you are implying that something is happening that isn't humanly possible, and I see no credible confirmation of said claim. Some individuals are more naturally gifted than others, and to be honest, I don't know enough of Pantani's long term blood history to even form an intelligent comment.

As far as no positives from 174 riders, several were caught prior to the Tour de France and aren't there. If others test positive, it quite possibly wouldn't be known until after the tour, as it takes time to process all those samples.

__________________
Originally Posted by Flyer:
It is a matter of reading comprehension that you challenged by.

yes, i believe what contador's doing isn't humanly possible. he's out of his saddle for hours every stage. very reminiscent of armstrong during his 7 wins. and armstrong was, of course, doping.
pantani doped from aged 17. but everyone did. he just kept letting his hermatacrit slip over 50%. doping killed him in the end, leading to addictions to coke and craic. he's a victim i guess

This is but an opinion, as is the assertion that Contador is doing something humanly impossible. Opinions cannot realistically be expressed as absolutes and retain any credibility, especially when there is far more evidence in dispute of said opinion than otherwise. We can't just go around and claim anyone is 'of course, doping'. It's far worse to accuse an innocent party than to let a guilty one go unpunished.

__________________
Originally Posted by Flyer:
It is a matter of reading comprehension that you challenged by.

Whats the evidence in dispute of my opinion that armstrong doped?
Argument 1/ He's the most tested athelete in the world?
Heres a fact: armstrong wasn't even in the top 10 most tested cyclists in the world during his 7 victories. As he only competed in the Tour de France, he avoided all other controls. Armstrong was one of the LEAST tested cyclist in the Tour de France.
Argument 2/ Armstrong has never failed a doping test.
Armstrong has failed 7. For cortisoids in 1999 and EPO in 2005. His legal team wrangled their way out of it, as usual (the cortisoids prescription for saddle sores was written AFTER the failed test, the EPO failures were from B samples and deemed too old).
There are far more indicatoins of guilt than innocence. A little probing and research and the truth becomes clear

oh well at least this means carlos sastre gets his podium finsh to complete his set of the 3 grand tours, well deserved!

forgot he was 4th. the man deserves it. him and menchov have had horrible tours. wonder why

EPO protein degrades fairly quickly, even in frozen samples. I have enough of a background in analytical chemistry to state with unwavering sincerity that this *alleged* result wouldn't be worth the paper on which it's printed in any credible scientific argument. But if you prefer to believe the National Enquirer and other sensational journalism ...

As for corticosteroidal cream (e.g. hydrocortisone), it definitely helps to reduce inflammation of saddle sores and skin issues. It doesn't exactly increase one's lactate threshold or VO2 Max.

If this is the best 'evidence', it's flimsy. Produce one excessive hematocrit, anabolic metabolites, or something, anything scientifically verifiable and demonstrably linked to performance enhancement.

__________________
Originally Posted by Flyer:
It is a matter of reading comprehension that you challenged by.

with your flowery language, you sound like one of his many lawyers! dont get confused, i was just obliterating the 2 arguments he incessently puts forwards as proof of his innocence. there is much evidence pointing towards his guilt. I shall enighten you later this evening, when i have the time

One good aspect to this story, Phil.

It's a pity Sastre did not get the chance to appear on the podium of the top 3 in Roma, at the time though.

__________________
.."But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. [I]I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it" - Armstrong 2005 TDF
morelike hypocrisy.