**** Breaking News: Hamilton Tested Positive? ***

Lonnie Utah

The problem with using these averages is that the course changes every year. It's not like say baseball where you have the same # of games each year (minus strike years). So my question is this, Babe Ruth's home run record stood from 1927 until 1961. That record stood until 1998 when it was broken by both Mcguire and Sosa. Bonds broke it again in 2001 with 73. Has the equipment in Baseball changed that much, not really. What has changed? Training and conditioning. Is Bonds doping ? Was Mcguire, Sammy ? I just don't think so. I'm willing to accept that there is indeed some doping going on, but I don't think it's wide spread.

What's more interesting is looking at the mid 50's to mid 70's. It appears to be a decrease in the average TDF speed over those years. Anybody care to speculate why. Technology should have improved over those years....

__________________
Cheap, Strong and Light.
Pick any Two.

antoineg

It's an interesting conundrum for the "there's no doping in cycling" crowd. If you accept that there was no doping then, and no doping now (or very little anyway), and technology was changing rapidly in both eras, then you can explain it maybe a couple ways:

1) lower-quality riders
2) lower motivation
3) harder courses
4) riders were tired from entering a lot more races every year

Of course I have no idea if any of this is true or not, just possibilities. To my mind the introduction of EPO, NESP, Eprix, HGH, blood doping etc. have a lot to do with the speed increases, but that's just my opinion.

Perro Loco

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php...ep04/sep23news4

Turns out his Olympic B sample is not negative but inconclusive. Not enough cells. So this does not really invalidate his first positive.

Perro Loco

Although some of my posts may seem to state otherwise, I think there has been a significant problem with Blood Doping in Cycling and remains today, but that things have improved- how much- is open to question.

A few facts I'll throw out and let you say what you will about them (hopefully a rational discussion will proceed, but who knows?)

Fact
1998 TDF
14% urine samples tested retrospectively for recombinant epo where positive
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...1&dopt=Abstract
Speculation- probably underestimates the # of users as test picks up rEPO only ~72 hours after use. They tested only those with high epo levels.

Fact
Average Hct has declined in the TDF over the past few years
The decline over two weeks is physiologic
Scource- UCI and Multiple reports in Cyclingnews

1998 45.5
1999 44.7
2001 44.3
2002 43.6
2003 43.2 Start 44.9, two weeks 41.8
2004 43.8 Start 44.8, two weeks 42.3

Virenque

So..thats official now, he is guilty!

philoakley

These are interesting points. Like you, I welcome a rational discussion.

I suppose that I am probably more cycnical than most, but as far as the HCT is concerned it is relatively well known that there are techniques used to dilute it down from high levels within 10-20 minutes. ie after the doping offcial has given you notice of a drug test. That said, on the face of it the statistics point to a slightly improving situation.

The haematocrit level after 2-3 weeks is probably the most interesting observation. In races as hard as the Tour, it would not be surprising (in fact I would expect to see it) to see haematocrit levels below 40 depending on the severity of the race.

philoakley

Apologies for those that read this article earlier in the year. Bike.com has the translation of Jesus Manzano's interview with the Spanish newspaper, MARCA. I draw your attention to his comments that the average speeds in tours would not be 41 kmh without Epo and that doctors can low Haematocrit levels by 4 points within 30 minutes.


http://www.bike.com/template.asp?da...sectionnumber=1

antoineg

I'd love to see the original sources for this data. Can you provide some URLs or references? Ideally the UCI would publish hematocrit levels for all cyclists tested, for each test. This would do a lot to remove the perception that the UCI is trying to sweep the drug problem under the rug.

Virenque

I prefer what he said too, but nobody want to read/believe that! Check more here!

Perro Loco

I will try and dig up the references for this- most where on Cyclingnews.com qouted from the famed JML. I have these from a lecture a while back. I am always cautious with facts. I agree, that individual riders data should be published. I think this is probably the only way out.
Regarding lowering the hematocrit- yes it is possible with rapid saline infusion. For that reason the UCI has tried to do unannouced testing in the morning.
I think also encouraging is the index based on the % of reticulocytes that was used in this years TDF. Detect epo usage 2-3 weeks out and not be aaltered as much by dilution. I think this, more frequent out of competition is chasing people back to the older methods- transfusions.

Stimulation Index = hemaglobin (in g/L) - 60 x square root of reticulocytes (in %). The limit is 133.

Virenque

For all, who are interested in how the new blood test works, click here!

Perro Loco

for 2003
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/?id...aug03/aug04news

for 2004
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php...ul04/jul30news3

more info from CN
http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/...1/jul05news.php
Peloton hematocrit values decreasing



According to the latest set of UCI figures, the average hematocrit of cyclists in the peloton is steadily falling. In 1998 it was 45.5%, dropping to 45.1% in 1999, 44.7% in 2000, and 44.3% in the most recent assessment.




WHile it is not primary data cyclingnews has been very reliable.

It took a lot of searching to find this info the first time. I even came across a report on the UCI website that the average hct at the tour de suisse in 1996 was 46%. If I remember correctly it was a small sample and somewhat voluntary.
I have never seen reliable data for the tour in the "dark years" 90-97 pre 50% rule. I am very curious. If anyone has seen any let me know.
A lot could be done by publishing the data.

antoineg

Interesting. I'd like to see the primary data, and I'd also like to ask why the UCI drops the sample sizes in each successive test during the Tour? I.e. in 2004 the sample size dropped from 189 to 107 to 80 as the Tour progressed. Not all of that can be explained by dropouts, can it?

sportzgurl

Sooo,back to Tyler just for a sec lol. I looks like he will be found guilty by the UCI as his B test from Vuelta is positive. But not the IOC, they have dropped the case against him. If Tyler is innocent, what defence is he going to use???
Is the reason the IOC test didn't have enough intact red blood cells to use due to the testing prosses or just Tylers blood??? Can you tell me please. Also it scares me a little that the IOC did wait to make Tylers results public because, this is the IOC we are talking about here. And after their big thing on cheats at the Olympics to think they weren't convinced of their own testing prosseses is a bit of a worry!! And now that Tyler is guilty what will he do if he is innocent??? I mean how can he argue a positive test??? Unless he pulls out the surgery card!!