Doping and the French

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

Now that there's a lot better control of doping in the peloton we can see
that the French are doing so much better.

Scheldeprijs Vlaander - one Frenchman in the top 50 - 5th
Pais-Roubaix - 2 Frenchmen in the top 25 and first one was 11th
Gent-Wevelgem - First Frenchman 11th
Ronde van Vlanderen - First Frenchman 26th
Amstel - First Frenchman 10th

I suppose one has to question the complaints from the French since they
don't seem to finish any better under much stricter controls than under the
looser ones.

So the questions appears to be -

a) Do drugs make all that much difference?
b) Were so many people using drugs if they're really that effective? (Let's
remember that study I noted before that showed that about the same amount of
people would NORMALLY TEST POSITIVE for testosterone as have been testing
positive even if they never took the drugs.)
c) Were the French using drugs as commonly as everyone else and that's why
under a supposedly stricter regime they're simply holding the same places
they did before?
d) It's beginning to look like Landis was framed after all.

c.

Tom Kunich said:

Now that there's a lot better control of doping in the peloton we can
see that the French are doing so much better.

Scheldeprijs Vlaander - one Frenchman in the top 50 - 5th
Pais-Roubaix - 2 Frenchmen in the top 25 and first one was 11th
Gent-Wevelgem - First Frenchman 11th
Ronde van Vlanderen - First Frenchman 26th
Amstel - First Frenchman 10th

I suppose one has to question the complaints from the French since they
don't seem to finish any better under much stricter controls than under
the looser ones.

So the questions appears to be -

a) Do drugs make all that much difference?
b) Were so many people using drugs if they're really that effective?
(Let's remember that study I noted before that showed that about the
same amount of people would NORMALLY TEST POSITIVE for testosterone as
have been testing positive even if they never took the drugs.)
c) Were the French using drugs as commonly as everyone else and that's
why under a supposedly stricter regime they're simply holding the same
places they did before?
d) It's beginning to look like Landis was framed after all.

I agree with a and c. I'd add:

e) despite the rhetoric, nothing's actually changed.

b and d may also be true, but I don't see them as strongly tied to
recent french results.

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
| Now that there's a lot better control of doping in the peloton we can see
| that the French are doing so much better.
|
| Scheldeprijs Vlaander - one Frenchman in the top 50 - 5th
| Pais-Roubaix - 2 Frenchmen in the top 25 and first one was 11th
| Gent-Wevelgem - First Frenchman 11th
| Ronde van Vlanderen - First Frenchman 26th
| Amstel - First Frenchman 10th
|
| I suppose one has to question the complaints from the French since they
| don't seem to finish any better under much stricter controls than under
the
| looser ones.
|
| So the questions appears to be -
|
| a) Do drugs make all that much difference?
| b) Were so many people using drugs if they're really that effective?
(Let's
| remember that study I noted before that showed that about the same amount
of
| people would NORMALLY TEST POSITIVE for testosterone as have been testing
| positive even if they never took the drugs.)
| c) Were the French using drugs as commonly as everyone else and that's why
| under a supposedly stricter regime they're simply holding the same places
| they did before?
| d) It's beginning to look like Landis was framed after all.

You raise some good questions with A, B & C. But how does any of this have
something to do with Landis being framed?

You can argue (with good cause) that the French screwed up the tests pretty
badly. But it wasn't the French that decided that there was enough evidence
in the flawed tests to consider Landis guilty anyway. Thus I don't see where
the French enter into the equation (regarding Landis being framed) at all.
If that had been the intent, I'm sure they could have done a much better job
right from the beginning. Seriously.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Quoted message said:

| people would NORMALLY TEST POSITIVE for testosterone as have been testing
| positive even if they never took the drugs.)
| c) Were the French using drugs as commonly as everyone else and that's why
| under a supposedly stricter regime they're simply holding the same places
| they did before?
| d) It's beginning to look like Landis was framed after all.

You raise some good questions with A, B & C. But how does any of this have
something to do with Landis being framed?

You can argue (with good cause) that the French screwed up the tests pretty
badly. But it wasn't the French that decided that there was enough evidence
in the flawed tests to consider Landis guilty anyway. Thus I don't see where
the French enter into the equation (regarding Landis being framed) at all.
If that had been the intent, I'm sure they could have done a much better job
right from the beginning. Seriously.

Agreed, but keep in mind that Kunich's nationalistic paranoia and
other assorted problems prevent him from making sense of what he sees,
hears, reads, I wouldn't waste my time on him.

Quoted message said:

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You raise some good questions with A, B & C. But how does any of this have
something to do with Landis being framed?

Floyd has held all along that he didn't use testosterone and the latest
information is that perhaps he is of the type that tests positive most of
the time.

Quoted message said:

You can argue (with good cause) that the French screwed up the tests
pretty
badly. But it wasn't the French that decided that there was enough
evidence
in the flawed tests to consider Landis guilty anyway.

Sorry, but the ASO has been pushing for stronger actions on positive tests
and now we see that these tests are not reliable.

"Keith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Agreed, but keep in mind that Kunich's nationalistic paranoia and
other assorted problems prevent him from making sense of what he sees,
hears, reads, I wouldn't waste my time on him.

It must be terrible for you to feel so insecure and impotent like that.
Though I figure that impotency comes from the way women treat you.

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
| "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
| news:[email hidden]...
| >
| > You raise some good questions with A, B & C. But how does any of this
have
| > something to do with Landis being framed?
|
| Floyd has held all along that he didn't use testosterone and the latest
| information is that perhaps he is of the type that tests positive most of
| the time.

An athlete claiming innocence is rarely evidence of that being the case.
Marion Jones comes to mind. And regarding Floyd, from what I read, it would
be relatively simple to test him to see if he fits into the category of
those who would show false positives.

I have little sympathy for athletes who claim that interesting phenomenon
are responsible for their "false" tests, and yet don't provide evidence
(tests performed on themselves) showing that to be the case. Most (not all)
of this is not open for debate over individual rights. These people chose
their line of work, and essentially, they knew the job was dangerous when
they signed up.

| > You can argue (with good cause) that the French screwed up the tests
| > pretty
| > badly. But it wasn't the French that decided that there was enough
| > evidence
| > in the flawed tests to consider Landis guilty anyway.
|
| Sorry, but the ASO has been pushing for stronger actions on positive tests
| and now we see that these tests are not reliable.

Pushing for stronger actions on those caught doping is not evil. Having
tests that aren't reliable is. We spend too much time pretending that a
problem with one makes the other something to be ignored.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
| "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
| news:[email hidden]...
| >
| > You raise some good questions with A, B & C. But how does any of this
have
| > something to do with Landis being framed?
|
| Floyd has held all along that he didn't use testosterone and the latest
| information is that perhaps he is of the type that tests positive most
of
| the time.

An athlete claiming innocence is rarely evidence of that being the case.
Marion Jones comes to mind. And regarding Floyd, from what I read, it
would
be relatively simple to test him to see if he fits into the category of
those who would show false positives.

Let us review - the INITIAL measurement of Floyd's sample showed 4.5:1 t/e
ratios. The SECOND of the same sample showed 11:1. This was proof positive
of contamination and by UCI's own rules should have disqualified that
sample. - Nevertheless they carried on as if this was a good test.

We also know that under NORMAL conditions you can have a t/e ratio of above
4:1 and that's why the drug testers had always used 6:1 as a switch point
before that.

Now we find out that the test itself can read incorrectly because of
physiological differences from patient to patient.

More importantly the t/e ratio did NOT show increased testosterone but
reduced epitestosterone which could very well be yet another physiological
difference not presently accounted for.

Quoted message said:

I have little sympathy for athletes who claim that interesting phenomenon
are responsible for their "false" tests, and yet don't provide evidence
(tests performed on themselves) showing that to be the case. Most (not
all)
of this is not open for debate over individual rights. These people chose
their line of work, and essentially, they knew the job was dangerous when
they signed up.

Exactly what tests do you presume should be done by Floyd? Do you have any
idea of how much such tests actually cost? Floyd said that he was near
bankruptsy from defending himself. And someone at his age would tend to
spend money with a great deal more abandon that you or I so I'm not very
surprised.

Furthermore, you can't get these tests performed just anywhere and you need
to have them interpretted by someone who actually understands the results.
This isn't easy to find and he'd probably have to pursue the person who
wrote that article. Can you understand what that guy might want to charge?

Quoted message said:

| > You can argue (with good cause) that the French screwed up the tests
| > pretty badly. But it wasn't the French that decided that there was
enough
| > evidence in the flawed tests to consider Landis guilty anyway.
|
| Sorry, but the ASO has been pushing for stronger actions on positive
tests
| and now we see that these tests are not reliable.

Pushing for stronger actions on those caught doping is not evil. Having
tests that aren't reliable is. We spend too much time pretending that a
problem with one makes the other something to be ignored.

Pushing for stronger actions IS most certainly evil if you prefer to ignore
the fact that there are a significant percentage of false positives that
cannot be identified as such.

| > I have little sympathy for athletes who claim that interesting
phenomenon
| > are responsible for their "false" tests, and yet don't provide evidence
| > (tests performed on themselves) showing that to be the case. Most (not
| > all)
| > of this is not open for debate over individual rights. These people
chose
| > their line of work, and essentially, they knew the job was dangerous
when
| > they signed up.
|
| Exactly what tests do you presume should be done by Floyd? Do you have any
| idea of how much such tests actually cost? Floyd said that he was near
| bankruptsy from defending himself. And someone at his age would tend to
| spend money with a great deal more abandon that you or I so I'm not very
| surprised.
|
| Furthermore, you can't get these tests performed just anywhere and you
need
| to have them interpretted by someone who actually understands the results.
| This isn't easy to find and he'd probably have to pursue the person who
| wrote that article. Can you understand what that guy might want to charge?

????

This guy's entire life is on trial here. His past, present & future. Trade
places with him for a moment. If you were innocent, and if there was this
test that could show that, a test that would prove that your body will
produce false positives, and you were certain of the validity of this
test... you WOULDN'T risk EVERYTHING to do it?

C'mon Tom, let's get real. If this test is everything you say it is, and can
prove that what ended his professional cycling career was a bogus test,
you'd do it. You'd sell your house. You'd sell your cars. In fact, you'd
probably go a lot further than that. You'd risk everything in something you
believe so strongly (your innocence).

Wouldn't you?

But there's a problem, isn't there? You're saying he has to pursue "the
person who wrote that article." Article. All of a sudden this is just one
person who can clear the world of this evil, and nobody else. Now that *is*
a problem, isn't it? Because one person isn't enough, is it? You need peer
review and secondary testing to prove something, and you're implying that
this is all about just one person who wrote an article? One person who you
imply is likely to hold Floyd for ransom rather than see this as his ticket
to validation and future financial gain? This is beginning to sound rather
shaky. That's not how research scientists generally work.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
| "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
| news:[email hidden]...
| > "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
| > news:[email hidden]...
| > | "Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
| > | news:[email hidden]...
| > | >
| > | > You raise some good questions with A, B & C. But how does any of
this
| > have
| > | > something to do with Landis being framed?
| > |
| > | Floyd has held all along that he didn't use testosterone and the
latest
| > | information is that perhaps he is of the type that tests positive most
| > of
| > | the time.
| >
| > An athlete claiming innocence is rarely evidence of that being the case.
| > Marion Jones comes to mind. And regarding Floyd, from what I read, it
| > would
| > be relatively simple to test him to see if he fits into the category of
| > those who would show false positives.
|
| Let us review - the INITIAL measurement of Floyd's sample showed 4.5:1 t/e
| ratios. The SECOND of the same sample showed 11:1. This was proof positive
| of contamination and by UCI's own rules should have disqualified that
| sample. - Nevertheless they carried on as if this was a good test.
|
| We also know that under NORMAL conditions you can have a t/e ratio of
above
| 4:1 and that's why the drug testers had always used 6:1 as a switch point
| before that.
|
| Now we find out that the test itself can read incorrectly because of
| physiological differences from patient to patient.
|
| More importantly the t/e ratio did NOT show increased testosterone but
| reduced epitestosterone which could very well be yet another physiological
| difference not presently accounted for.
|
| > I have little sympathy for athletes who claim that interesting
phenomenon
| > are responsible for their "false" tests, and yet don't provide evidence
| > (tests performed on themselves) showing that to be the case. Most (not
| > all)
| > of this is not open for debate over individual rights. These people
chose
| > their line of work, and essentially, they knew the job was dangerous
when
| > they signed up.
|
| Exactly what tests do you presume should be done by Floyd? Do you have any
| idea of how much such tests actually cost? Floyd said that he was near
| bankruptsy from defending himself. And someone at his age would tend to
| spend money with a great deal more abandon that you or I so I'm not very
| surprised.
|
| Furthermore, you can't get these tests performed just anywhere and you
need
| to have them interpretted by someone who actually understands the results.
| This isn't easy to find and he'd probably have to pursue the person who
| wrote that article. Can you understand what that guy might want to charge?
|
| > | > You can argue (with good cause) that the French screwed up the tests
| > | > pretty badly. But it wasn't the French that decided that there was
| > enough
| > | > evidence in the flawed tests to consider Landis guilty anyway.
| > |
| > | Sorry, but the ASO has been pushing for stronger actions on positive
| > tests
| > | and now we see that these tests are not reliable.
| >
| > Pushing for stronger actions on those caught doping is not evil. Having
| > tests that aren't reliable is. We spend too much time pretending that a
| > problem with one makes the other something to be ignored.
|
| Pushing for stronger actions IS most certainly evil if you prefer to
ignore
| the fact that there are a significant percentage of false positives that
| cannot be identified as such.
|

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

This guy's entire life is on trial here. His past, present & future. Trade
places with him for a moment. If you were innocent, and if there was this
test that could show that, a test that would prove that your body will
produce false positives, and you were certain of the validity of this
test... you WOULDN'T risk EVERYTHING to do it?

Excuse me Mike, but maybe you missed the fact that the French have already
said that Floyd is out. His results in the local MTB races demonstrates that
he has essentially lost the will to fight anymore. I wonder if you've EVER
been in a situation like that where everything you do seems to be to no
avail to people.

Quoted message said:

C'mon Tom, let's get real. If this test is everything you say it is, and
can
prove that what ended his professional cycling career was a bogus test,
you'd do it.

If the French are willing to accept it then why would you want to put out
$100,000 you don't have?

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

If the French are willing to accept it then why would you want to put out
$100,000 you don't have?

Please make that: If the French aren't willing to accept it then why would
you want to put out $100,000 you don't have?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.racing
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 1:53 AM
Subject: Doping and the French

Quoted message said:

Now that there's a lot better control of doping in the peloton we can see
that the French are doing so much better.

Scheldeprijs Vlaander - one Frenchman in the top 50 - 5th
Pais-Roubaix - 2 Frenchmen in the top 25 and first one was 11th
Gent-Wevelgem - First Frenchman 11th
Ronde van Vlanderen - First Frenchman 26th
Amstel - First Frenchman 10th

I suppose one has to question the complaints from the French since they
don't seem to finish any better under much stricter controls than under
the looser ones.

Yesterday Dutch newspaper De Volkstrant suggested that thanks to stricter
anti-doping a lot of young unknown Dutch riders are getting the opportunity
to break through: Gesink, Langeveld, Maaskant. etc.

Quoted message said:

So the questions appears to be -

a) Do drugs make all that much difference?
b) Were so many people using drugs if they're really that effective?
(Let's remember that study I noted before that showed that about the same
amount of people would NORMALLY TEST POSITIVE for testosterone as have
been testing positive even if they never took the drugs.)
c) Were the French using drugs as commonly as everyone else and that's why
under a supposedly stricter regime they're simply holding the same places
they did before?
d) It's beginning to look like Landis was framed after all.

And yes, products like EPO are extremely effective. As I wrote once before:
just look at the Alpe d'Huez results. The record for the climb was set by
Fausto Coppi in 1952: 45'22". In 1989 (Fignon) it was 42'15".Meanwhile the
road to the top was asphalted and the bikes much lighter than in the times
of Coppi. In spite of those technical improvements, there was only a small
progress: 3 minutes in 37 years or in other words: five seconds a year. But
in 1994, the year that EPO with the Gewiss team and dr. Ferrari reached its
first apotheosis, the time of the winner (Pantani) was suddenly 37'15", a
progress of five minutes in 5 year! In 1995 Pantani broke his own record:
36'40". In 1995 there were 20 riders faster than Fignon in 1989, in 1997 33.
And by the way, the first five riders were Pantani, Ullrich, Virenque,
Casagrande and Riis.

Benjo

"Benjo Maso" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Yesterday Dutch newspaper De Volkstrant suggested that thanks to stricter
anti-doping a lot of young unknown Dutch riders are getting the
opportunity
to break through: Gesink, Langeveld, Maaskant. etc.

But thinking and actuality are two different things. We could mention that
the peloton is getting older and it would be normal for fresh riders to
begin looking good. These cycles are all pretty normal.

Quoted message said:

And yes, products like EPO are extremely effective.

Well, yes but testosterone doesn't appear to be. Yet those who take
something non-effective are treated like those taking something that really
is effective.

Quoted message said:

As I wrote once before:
just look at the Alpe d'Huez results. The record for the climb was set by
Fausto Coppi in 1952: 45'22". In 1989 (Fignon) it was 42'15".Meanwhile the
road to the top was asphalted and the bikes much lighter than in the times
of Coppi. In spite of those technical improvements, there was only a small
progress: 3 minutes in 37 years or in other words: five seconds a year.
But
in 1994, the year that EPO with the Gewiss team and dr. Ferrari reached
its
first apotheosis, the time of the winner (Pantani) was suddenly 37'15", a
progress of five minutes in 5 year! In 1995 Pantani broke his own record:
36'40". In 1995 there were 20 riders faster than Fignon in 1989, in 1997
33.
And by the way, the first five riders were Pantani, Ullrich, Virenque,
Casagrande and Riis.

Question for you Benjo - during this time there has also been a revolution
in gearing and the manner in which riders climb. I know that here I am
nearing 64 and I'm actually climbing faster than when I was in my late 40's
because I have proper gearing now.

This must have a significant effect among real racers. I suppose the
question is "by how much?"

Tom Kunich said:

Question for you Benjo - during this time there has also been a revolution
in gearing and the manner in which riders climb. I know that here I am
nearing 64 and I'm actually climbing faster than when I was in my late
40's because I have proper gearing now.

This must have a significant effect among real racers.

I will exercise my free won't. I will exercise my free won't.
I will exercise my free won't. I will exercise my free won't.
I will exercise my free won't. I will exercise my free won't.
I will exercise my free won't. I will exercise my free won't.

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

An athlete claiming innocence is rarely evidence of that being the case.
Marion Jones comes to mind. And regarding Floyd, from what I read, it would
be relatively simple to test him to see if he fits into the category of
those who would show false positives.

He wouldn't. He was screened many times prior to his positive test and
they all came back negative.

Then WHAMMO!@#

"Kyle Legate" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Mike Jacoubowsky said:

An athlete claiming innocence is rarely evidence of that being the case.
Marion Jones comes to mind. And regarding Floyd, from what I read, it
would be relatively simple to test him to see if he fits into the
category of those who would show false positives.

He wouldn't. He was screened many times prior to his positive test and
they all came back negative.

Then WHAMMO!@#

So the initial negative tests were all part of the conspiracy? Will the
French stop at nothing? Is Sarkozy involved?

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

Question for you Benjo - during this time there has also been a revolution
in gearing and the manner in which riders climb. I know that here I am
nearing 64 and I'm actually climbing faster than when I was in my late 40's
because I have proper gearing now.

This must have a significant effect among real racers. I suppose the
question is "by how much?"

By 11/12.

Ben

On Apr 21, 5:20 pm, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Tom Kunich' cyclintom@yahoo. com said:

Question for you Benjo - during this time there has also been a revolution
in gearing and the manner in which riders climb. I know that here I am
nearing 64 and I'm actually climbing faster than when I was in my late 40's
because I have proper gearing now.

Quoted message said:

This must have a significant effect among real racers. I suppose the
question is "by how much?"

By 11/12.

Ben

Maybe on flats, but I fail to see how that helps climbing. If one
were to observe lots of guys running larger clusters, maybe, but it
appears everybody uses the same 53/39 11 or 12 to 23 cassette they've
run forever.

I'd like to know what other changes in climbing technique are thought
to have emerged in the last 20 years that would make a difference.

-dB

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> schreef in bericht
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Benjo Maso" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Yesterday Dutch newspaper De Volkstrant suggested that thanks to stricter
anti-doping a lot of young unknown Dutch riders are getting the
opportunity
to break through: Gesink, Langeveld, Maaskant. etc.

But thinking and actuality are two different things. We could mention that
the peloton is getting older and it would be normal for fresh riders to
begin looking good. These cycles are all pretty normal.

I'm not taking the Volkskrants's suggestions very serious. But's it's rather
amusing that more than one country is claiming that the disappointing
results of their riders must be explained by the fact that they are "clean",
unlike all those perfidious foreigners. Not only the French and the Dutch,
but the Belgians as well.

Quoted message said:

And yes, products like EPO are extremely effective.

Well, yes but testosterone doesn't appear to be. Yet those who take
something non-effective are treated like those taking something that
really is effective.

Quoted message said:

As I wrote once before:
just look at the Alpe d'Huez results. The record for the climb was set by
Fausto Coppi in 1952: 45'22". In 1989 (Fignon) it was 42'15".Meanwhile
the
road to the top was asphalted and the bikes much lighter than in the
times
of Coppi. In spite of those technical improvements, there was only a
small
progress: 3 minutes in 37 years or in other words: five seconds a year.
But
in 1994, the year that EPO with the Gewiss team and dr. Ferrari reached
its
first apotheosis, the time of the winner (Pantani) was suddenly 37'15", a
progress of five minutes in 5 year! In 1995 Pantani broke his own record:
36'40". In 1995 there were 20 riders faster than Fignon in 1989, in 1997
33.
And by the way, the first five riders were Pantani, Ullrich, Virenque,
Casagrande and Riis.

Question for you Benjo - during this time there has also been a revolution
in gearing and the manner in which riders climb. I know that here I am
nearing 64 and I'm actually climbing faster than when I was in my late
40's because I have proper gearing now.

This must have a significant effect among real racers. I suppose the
question is "by how much?"

I don't know, but I think gearing has undergone its most radical
improvements in the late 1980's. Of course, since then they're gradually
improving as well, but I don't think it makes riders much faster, and
certainly not 12 % in five years. Anyhow, in spite of all improvements
since 1995, Pantani's climb is still the fastest ever.

Benjo