My experince with drugs and blood doping

MJtje

House got to disagree with you again........seems that you don't like the subject doping a bit!!!!!

What was timan supposed to say: do you really think he will give names of his friends who doped and teams and years.........naive on youre part!

Example: when lotz doped maarten ducrot (commentator NOS) told that there is whole cycling community that lives in Lanaken and that Lotz couldn't have doped alone............whoaaaah De Groot didn't want to talk to the NOS and also other riders didn't like the comments of ducrot (epo-user, he would know....). The omerta rules the peloton......if you speak up youre 'non grata'.......same with cat 1's or in real live......never put the dirty laundry outside.....

Still I think it's good that someone tells there personal experience......and what's up with not believing people anymore......do people really need to give there name etc before you or I need to believe them?????

House

I guess that's the difference between you and I. I want evidence, not "because I said so" while you, apparently are happy if someone sounds like they know what they are talking about.

Verite

How does the act of giving one's name constitute evidence? Are you saying that if you knew this person's name then you would suddenly find his statements credible? I personally find that hard to believe. It seems to me that people such as yourself will choose to never accept the fact that pro cyclists in general, and your 'heroes' in particular, are fully doped up. And this is in the face of overwhelming evidence, albeit sometimes circumstantial. Even in the face of a logical, cohesive argument, such as the one Veloflash gave regarding LA's POSITIVE control in the 99 TdF you still choose to stick your head in the sand and blindly tow the party line. In order for you to believe that someone is guilty you claim you need evidence, presumably in the form of a positive dope test. But as soon as this happens people of your ilk protest the effectiveness of the test (i.e. the Hamilton case). Its almost as if in order to believe a rider has doped you need to physically see him inject himself. Additionally, most of the drug testing is completely ineffectual. For example, a rider can begin an EPO treatment 5 weeks before a big event and then stop 1 week before the start of the race. By doing this they will not test positive but will benefit from an increased oxygen carrying capacity for several weeks due to the fact that the lifespan of a red blood cell is roughly 90 days. Regarding TiMan's posting, I find it credible because there is a level of detail in his descriptions that would be difficult to totally fabricate. One more thing, before you attempt to dismiss my posting as a personal attack, let me assure you that this is not the case. I don't even know you so how can I attack you personally?

House

A few comments of response:

1) I never asked for his name (perhaps you should do a better job of reading before you post)

2) Everything I said in my discussion about the '99 corticoid test was logical. Veloflash didn't agree but couldn't prove me wrong. We have two different opinions, so be it.

3) You truly believe that everything about the Hamilton case was cut and dried, no oddities, nothing? The two negatives that suddenly turned positive when tested by the maker of the test, the fact that it is not a positive or negative test, but a test of numbers in the middle of a scale. I have said over and over that I don't know if Tyler is guilty or not, just that there are too many oddities for people "of your ilk" to say with 100% certainty he is guilty.

4) The level of detail Timan gave is credible because he could have looked it up on google and got the same info. I could claim to be a mad bomber and give you details about making bombs but I can easily find that and sound credible using google. Try a search on some topic you know nothing about read an article or two and see if you can create a couple of paragraphs that sound credible. Any college student can do it with ease.

5) You say this wasn't a personal attack...obviously you didn't read what you wrote since it was all a personal attack.

Verite

1) Perhaps not expressly, but by asking for a team affiliation and past results its effectively the same thing.

2) No, in your disscussion with Veloflash you were illogical because in spite of irrefutable evidence that LA tested positive for a banned substance you chose to believe that he was innocent. In the face of concrete facts, there is no room for opinion. That's like saying 'Okay, all scientific evidence indicates that the world is round but its my opinion that the world is flat and hey, since its my opinion, its valid.

3) The only thing I find odd about the Hamilton case is his defense. In spite of what he and his camp want you to believe, chimeras and vanishing twin syndrome are extrordinarily rare conditions. Search PubMed if you don't believe me. What two negatives are you referring to? As far as I know there was a re-examination of his Athens test but the Vuelta test was conclusive. To state that the test is flawed because it is not a 'positive or negative' test is to display a fundamental lack of understanding of the science of the test. Flow cytometry is used to detect, among other things, markers on cells, be they red blood cells, immune cells, or any other type of cell. Flow results are in the form of a histogram showing distribution of the markers in question, in effect showing that a cell is either positive or negative for them. Combine that fact with the fact that all of a person's RBCs should have the same markers on them and you can see how the test can be used to differentiate a positive vs negative blood doping sample. I should remind you that Hamilton's defense is not that the test is inherently flawed, he's not disputing that there was a mixed population of RBCs in his body. He is stating that the test can't determine where they came from. Hence, the preposterous defense of a vanishing twin or chimera. Also, much noise has been made over the fact that one of the arbitrators agreed with him however you should know that in arbitration proceedings each side gets to pick a representative and those two in turn pick a neutral third party to join the panel. So in Hamilton's case what happened in all likelyhood is that the neutral party found that there was sufficient evidence to believe that Hamilton had doped.

4) Sure, a person could google the different drugs used by endurance athletes. But, there is a difference between just having the information and having a personal narrative where dosages, schedules, and most importantly personal motivations and experiences are discussed. If TiMan had said 'I took EPO and it made me fast' then I would be less inclined to believe him. But because of his detail I find him credible.

5) No, it wasn't a personal attack. A personal attack would have been me saying that you're retarded for holding your opinions. I merely said that you are not willing to accept the fact that some of your favorite cyclists are using dope just because you consider them 'heroes' even in the face of convincing evidence.

House

So that's wrong? I guess in your mind you just believe someone...if they say what you want to hear. I thought you actually said "giving one's name" I guess you are now acknowledging, kind of, sort of that you were wrong, while not admitting you are wrong.


So you are saying that if a guy at a lab tells a paper that there was a positive it would not be the right PR move to say their was a positive but the person had permission to take the medication? A year after the Festina Affair? No, a basic marketing class tells you that you acknowledge it and then provide the proof it was not a problem. I never said Lance did not use a corticoid, just that these "concrete facts" that you and he insist upon are easily explained, but it's obvious by this response that you have made a decision and will not have an open mind about it or actually discuss it in any way, so what's the point???? It's like talking to Flyer, what's the point when one person has a closed mind.


Well this response is all over the place and barely touches on what I actually said. His test was negative twice at the Olympics until the maker retested it (I would think someone trying to argue would know something as simple as this). The way the test is done is that you are positive if it is between two numbers, say 90 and 95 (arbitrary numbers for the sake of easy) what makes 89.5 or 96 not a positive? If that doesn't provide some food for thought then you have made up your mind and nothing will sway it no matter what. To move away from what I said, on your comments about Chimeras and vanishing twins, why have a number of respected scientists come out and disputed what you said, that it is so rare? Why do you choose to ignore what they say?


Oh, really? I just searched google for about 20 seconds and found info that I could easily repost here and sound credible www.rajeun.net/bicycle.html Obviously you either went to college before the net or are just not a creative person because anyone can sound like they really used something, or did something just by searching google and having some writing skills. Do what I said, pick a subject you know nothing about, do a search and then try to write a few paragraphs sounding like you really know about the subject first hand. I'm betting you won't try because that would prove you are wrong in your reasoning.


Obviously you felt your words were going to sound like a personal attack otherwise you wouldn't have "assured" me it wasn't and then tried to give reasoning why it "couldn't be." Yet you choose to word things in a personal attack manner: "because you consider them 'heroes'" (how do you know who my heroes are if you "don't even know me?") "People such as yourself" (that's not a personal attack and then you throw that hero word in again, of course we know a hero is not something personal), "you still choose to stick your head in the sand and tow the party line" (nah, that's not personal, just a general statement).

What it comes down to is that while I repeatedly acknowledge that there is doping in cycling(as in every other sport) I demand actual proof before I convict someone, while you prefer to convict without actual proof. While you prefer to not examine, in detail, what occurs simply to accept anything that fits your view, I examine and form my own opinion. Try to open your mind and look at things from another viewpoint, you might be surprised how your world opens up.

Verite

There are so many contradictions in your post that I don't know where to start so I'll just focus on a couple. Regarding your defense of LA, your argument is flawed because you say he had permission to use corticosteroids however if that were really the case then there would have been no positive result in the first place because as Veloflash said, the offending product would have been on his TUE list. But it wasn't, so that's why he was announced as being positive. Furthermore, a backdated prescription is not the same thing as a TUE. Also, I read the article you googled and it has nowhere near the level of detail that TiMan's post does. It basically says that 'I took EPO and rode fast' which, if you remember, was exactly the type of narrative that I said I'd be leery of. As far as my post regarding the Hamilton situation, that was an attempt on my part to explain the basics of flow cytometry (which I use everyday in my research) to you thereby permitting you to understand that the test isn't as arbitrary as you seem to believe it is. Obviously I have failed. You seem to be basing your opinions on cherry-picked facts that suit your initial position. Finally, since you chose to end your last post with a personal attack, here's one for you. Have fun wearing your Livestrong bracelet, wearing your Discovery jersey, while riding your Trek Madone you Fred.

House

Here we go again. Mr. Closed Mind. Talk about cherry-picking! You picked what you liked and dismissed out of hand anything else,without any attempt to see both sides. Then you end your post with a lot of maturity. I guess you really had nothing to stand on so you had to go on the attack, either that or you were embarassed how dead on I was about you. Nice playing with you, at least Flyer was fun to laugh at. Get your last word in if you need to, I've finished with you, like a burnt steak.

Borg

You haven't finished with anyone House! You are as deluded as the hardliners in Bush's administration. Verite has it over you (quite obviously) in the IQ stakes so give up now and get back to pedalling that Madone. Also, watch your use of their/there you ignoramus (or are you still sitting your finals? ).

House

Let's see first you make a claims with nothing to back them up, then throw in some political ranting, go for an attack on my intelligence and then the clinchers: name calling and spelling! Thank you for demonstrating in one post that you are about 12 years old and have noting of value to contribute to this forum. I am sure that your fragile self esteem will need to get in a lst word so fell free to do and then go school shopping with mommy.

kennf

I think it's time for the administrator to drive a stake in the heart of this thread.

House

Couldn't agree more!

Dead Star

you can't handle the truth!!!

VeloFlash

If you go to USADA's website statistics you will find a number of US pro riders are tested more than LA.Armstrong went from an ordinary climber to the peloton's most superlative climber not just because of his weight loss. It is documented that his pre cancer climbing power (wattage) increased by nearly 20% to 2001. He did not just lose weight to increase his wattage/per kilo. Increased power was the big assistance in flatland TTing where it is power over the hole you punch in the air. Do you recall
Big Mig blasting past LA in a pre 1999 TdF TT? Big Mig made him look very pedestrian.Where were these genetics pre cancer?

If cancer mentally toughened him why did he fail his comeback in 1997/98 (after cancer) and temporarily retired from racing?

__________________
VF

"Remember, even if you win the rat race, you are still a rat"