A .250 batting average isn't even good in baseball.



C

crit pro

Guest
3 failed drug tests. the fourth passed only on a technicality. IOC Doc
said draw your own conclusions when asked if the fourth might have
been a positive.

cp
 
>From: [email protected] (crit pro)
>Date: 9/23/2004 8:14 PM Eastern


>3 failed drug tests. the fourth passed only on a technicality. IOC Doc
>said draw your own conclusions when asked if the fourth might have
>been a positive.
>
>cp


Never thought we'd see this. I still want to see what Tyler actually comes up
with in his defense, though it'd have to be pretty incredible.
As for the IOC it's been pretty clear for a long time that they are sleazoid,
money grubbing, lying cheating, stealing, ass kissing losers and that is just
the IOC leadership.
What's a little test doctoring and suppression compared to bribery, influence
peddling, vote selling, ignoring China's human rights record to collect the
cash etc...
Bill C
 
"TritonRider" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >From: [email protected] (crit pro)
> >Date: 9/23/2004 8:14 PM Eastern

>
> >3 failed drug tests. the fourth passed only on a technicality. IOC Doc
> >said draw your own conclusions when asked if the fourth might have
> >been a positive.
> >
> >cp

>
> Never thought we'd see this. I still want to see what Tyler actually

comes up
> with in his defense, though it'd have to be pretty incredible.
> As for the IOC it's been pretty clear for a long time that they are

sleazoid,
> money grubbing, lying cheating, stealing, ass kissing losers and that is

just
> the IOC leadership.
> What's a little test doctoring and suppression compared to bribery,

influence
> peddling, vote selling, ignoring China's human rights record to collect

the
> cash etc...
> Bill C


eezefray ethay odgay amnedday bay amplesay!
 
TritonRider wrote:
>> From: [email protected] (crit pro)
>> Date: 9/23/2004 8:14 PM Eastern

>
>> 3 failed drug tests. the fourth passed only on a technicality. IOC
>> Doc
>> said draw your own conclusions when asked if the fourth might have
>> been a positive.
>>
>> cp

>
> Never thought we'd see this. I still want to see what Tyler actually
> comes up with in his defense, though it'd have to be pretty
> incredible.
>

His defence is simple. Give another blood sample right now, and another next
week, and keep doing so for at least a couple of months. If he's innocent,
these particular blood parameters should not change. Certainly he doesn't
have a fridge full of the same blood to supplement with.
 
>From: "Kyle Legate" [email protected]

>His defence is simple. Give another blood sample right now, and another next
>week, and keep doing so for at least a couple of months. If he's innocent,
>these particular blood parameters should not change. Certainly he doesn't
>have a fridge full of the same blood to supplement with.
>
>
>


That's probably the most sensible thing anyone has suggested so far. So I'd
guess that were back to the "snowball in hell" chance of anything like that
happening.
I do think that it's interesting that Andy seems to be taking a cautious
approach to this whole controversy.
Bill C
 
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:57:11 +0200, "Kyle Legate" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>TritonRider wrote:
>>> From: [email protected] (crit pro)
>>> Date: 9/23/2004 8:14 PM Eastern

>>
>>> 3 failed drug tests. the fourth passed only on a technicality. IOC
>>> Doc
>>> said draw your own conclusions when asked if the fourth might have
>>> been a positive.
>>>
>>> cp

>>
>> Never thought we'd see this. I still want to see what Tyler actually
>> comes up with in his defense, though it'd have to be pretty
>> incredible.
>>

>His defence is simple. Give another blood sample right now, and another next
>week, and keep doing so for at least a couple of months. If he's innocent,
>these particular blood parameters should not change. Certainly he doesn't
>have a fridge full of the same blood to supplement with.


I still think it's possible there was some kind of mistake, b/c it's just
so monumentally stupid to be transfused with someone else's blood, even if
it's a trusted family member. Transfusion medicine is full of stories of
'Uncle Fred' who comes in to give blood for a relative, but privately tells
the donor staff he's gay and can't donate. You never know where ppl have
been, obviously.

Of course, we really don't know the specific details, and there were
multiple questionable samples, it seems, so it's a small possibilty.

I'm not a huge fan of Tyler's although I like the guy, so I'm not trying to
say he's innocent for that reason. I just can't fathom a guy who knows
about doping by being a pro and talking to other pros and stuff taking
homologous blood!

-B
 
Kyle Legate <[email protected]> wrote:
> His defence is simple. Give another blood sample right now, and another next
> week, and keep doing so for at least a couple of months. If he's innocent,
> these particular blood parameters should not change. Certainly he doesn't
> have a fridge full of the same blood to supplement with.


If the donor is known then you could go back to the source.

Unless the donor is the dear departed Tugboat.

Bob Schwartz
[email protected]
 
"Badger_South" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> I still think it's possible there was some kind of mistake, b/c it's just
> so monumentally stupid to be transfused with someone else's blood, even if
> it's a trusted family member. Transfusion medicine is full of stories of
> 'Uncle Fred' who comes in to give blood for a relative, but privately

tells
> the donor staff he's gay and can't donate. You never know where ppl have
> been, obviously.
>
> Of course, we really don't know the specific details, and there were
> multiple questionable samples, it seems, so it's a small possibilty.
>
> I'm not a huge fan of Tyler's although I like the guy, so I'm not trying

to
> say he's innocent for that reason. I just can't fathom a guy who knows
> about doping by being a pro and talking to other pros and stuff taking
> homologous blood!
>


You "like the guy"? I am continually amazed by how strongly fans attack or
defend certain pro cyclists who they don't beyond some spotty mental image
formed by watching a few bike races on TV and reading/hearing carefully
worded interviews and press releases. For those that have convicted Lance in
their minds, but feel there must be a mistake in Tyler's case, can you
please tell me why you feel that way???
 
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:42:49 -0700, "Mark Fennell"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Badger_South" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> I still think it's possible there was some kind of mistake, b/c it's just
>> so monumentally stupid to be transfused with someone else's blood, even if
>> it's a trusted family member. Transfusion medicine is full of stories of
>> 'Uncle Fred' who comes in to give blood for a relative, but privately

>tells
>> the donor staff he's gay and can't donate. You never know where ppl have
>> been, obviously.
>>
>> Of course, we really don't know the specific details, and there were
>> multiple questionable samples, it seems, so it's a small possibilty.
>>
>> I'm not a huge fan of Tyler's although I like the guy, so I'm not trying

>to
>> say he's innocent for that reason. I just can't fathom a guy who knows
>> about doping by being a pro and talking to other pros and stuff taking
>> homologous blood!
>>

>
>You "like the guy"? I am continually amazed by how strongly fans attack or
>defend certain pro cyclists who they don't beyond some spotty mental image
>formed by watching a few bike races on TV and reading/hearing carefully
>worded interviews and press releases. For those that have convicted Lance in
>their minds, but feel there must be a mistake in Tyler's case, can you
>please tell me why you feel that way???


I thought I did explain it in excruciating detail above.

Are you saying that you have no pro cyclists that you've never met, yet you
'like' them, say Jan Ullrich, for his die-hard image, or Hincapie for his
fun-loving attitude (seen in a few OLN Lance chronicles)?

I was trying to say above that I -don't- consider myself a Tyler fan, yet I
'like' him, maybe for the fact that he rode to a fourth place with a busted
collar-bone and that in interviews he seems low-key and unassuming.

Tell me there's no sports starts that you 'like'?

I realize that the TV image is often totally different from the real person
- I'm not planning on asking anyone over for dinner, here. ;-)

-B
 
Bob Schwartz wrote:
> Kyle Legate <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>His defence is simple. Give another blood sample right now, and another next
>>week, and keep doing so for at least a couple of months. If he's innocent,
>>these particular blood parameters should not change. Certainly he doesn't
>>have a fridge full of the same blood to supplement with.

>
>
> If the donor is known then you could go back to the source.
>
> Unless the donor is the dear departed Tugboat.
>



No, because if he is guilty, the same blood group antigens that are
lighting up in the test as being "non-Tyler" will also have caused his
immune system to make antibodies to these antigens. Next time Tyler
gets injected with that kind of blood, he could get very sick (maybe he
already has). That's why when a transfusion is required there is a
cross matching process where they check for such incompatibilities...to
make sure that a person hasn't already made antibodies to certain
antigens from a previous transfusion. So if he's telling the truth, he
will continue to fail the test. The more positives, the better, in his
case.

I only wonder what did or didn't happen at the Tour. This test was
supposed to be implemented back then. I'm sure they drew blood, at
least for the hematocrit tests, and I was under the impression that they
were freezing it too. I hope they used some glycerol.
 
"Bob Schwartz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Kyle Legate <[email protected]> wrote:
> > His defence is simple. Give another blood sample right now, and another

next
> > week, and keep doing so for at least a couple of months. If he's

innocent,
> > these particular blood parameters should not change. Certainly he

doesn't
> > have a fridge full of the same blood to supplement with.

>
> If the donor is known then you could go back to the source.
>

But then the other blood test (HR-OFF) would pick it up (or maybe both of
them would) because of the big jump in RBC levels and everything else. I
guess you could just inject small doses every few days to keep your RBC mix
constant, provided your donor was relatively close.

But as Kyle suggested, constant followup tests giving the same result would
be one way to prove innocence, providing the test is sound. The other way is
to discredit the test, which is what Phonak and Hamilton are trying to do.

Jeff
 
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:19:49 -0400, gym gravity <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Bob Schwartz wrote:
>> Kyle Legate <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>His defence is simple. Give another blood sample right now, and another next
>>>week, and keep doing so for at least a couple of months. If he's innocent,
>>>these particular blood parameters should not change. Certainly he doesn't
>>>have a fridge full of the same blood to supplement with.

>>
>>
>> If the donor is known then you could go back to the source.
>>
>> Unless the donor is the dear departed Tugboat.
>>

>
>
>No, because if he is guilty, the same blood group antigens that are
>lighting up in the test as being "non-Tyler" will also have caused his
>immune system to make antibodies to these antigens. Next time Tyler
>gets injected with that kind of blood, he could get very sick (maybe he
>already has). That's why when a transfusion is required there is a
>cross matching process where they check for such incompatibilities...to
>make sure that a person hasn't already made antibodies to certain
>antigens from a previous transfusion. So if he's telling the truth, he
>will continue to fail the test. The more positives, the better, in his
>case.


You fail to take into account the antigenicity of the antigens. Not
everyone who gets transfused develop antibodies, in fact very few do (<15%)
from a single transfusion. However, if he does have antibodies, it's good
evidence that he's been transfused at one time or another, except for those
that occur naturally, even anti-D and anti-E (Mollison, 8th ed. pp 342-3).

-B

>I only wonder what did or didn't happen at the Tour. This test was
>supposed to be implemented back then. I'm sure they drew blood, at
>least for the hematocrit tests, and I was under the impression that they
>were freezing it too. I hope they used some glycerol.
 
"Badger_South" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 10:42:49 -0700, "Mark Fennell"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"Badger_South" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>
> >> I still think it's possible there was some kind of mistake, b/c it's

just
> >> so monumentally stupid to be transfused with someone else's blood, even

if
> >> it's a trusted family member. Transfusion medicine is full of stories

of
> >> 'Uncle Fred' who comes in to give blood for a relative, but privately

> >tells
> >> the donor staff he's gay and can't donate. You never know where ppl

have
> >> been, obviously.
> >>
> >> Of course, we really don't know the specific details, and there were
> >> multiple questionable samples, it seems, so it's a small possibilty.
> >>
> >> I'm not a huge fan of Tyler's although I like the guy, so I'm not

trying
> >to
> >> say he's innocent for that reason. I just can't fathom a guy who knows
> >> about doping by being a pro and talking to other pros and stuff taking
> >> homologous blood!
> >>

> >
> >You "like the guy"? I am continually amazed by how strongly fans attack

or
> >defend certain pro cyclists who they don't beyond some spotty mental

image
> >formed by watching a few bike races on TV and reading/hearing carefully
> >worded interviews and press releases. For those that have convicted Lance

in
> >their minds, but feel there must be a mistake in Tyler's case, can you
> >please tell me why you feel that way???

>
> I thought I did explain it in excruciating detail above.
>
> Are you saying that you have no pro cyclists that you've never met, yet

you
> 'like' them, say Jan Ullrich, for his die-hard image, or Hincapie for his
> fun-loving attitude (seen in a few OLN Lance chronicles)?
>
> I was trying to say above that I -don't- consider myself a Tyler fan, yet

I
> 'like' him, maybe for the fact that he rode to a fourth place with a

busted
> collar-bone and that in interviews he seems low-key and unassuming.
>
> Tell me there's no sports starts that you 'like'?
>
> I realize that the TV image is often totally different from the real

person
> - I'm not planning on asking anyone over for dinner, here. ;-)
>
> -B


I wasn't directly my comments at you in particular, it's just your statement
about liking him that I reacted to. Maybe I'm too jaded and cynical.
 
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:33:42 -0700, "Mark Fennell"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> I realize that the TV image is often totally different from the real

>person
>> - I'm not planning on asking anyone over for dinner, here. ;-)
>>
>> -B

>
>I wasn't directly my comments at you in particular, it's just your statement
>about liking him that I reacted to. Maybe I'm too jaded and cynical.


Hey, no problem. Having just seen my first TdF and gotten back into biking
at age 50, I'm probably starry-eyed and rapt, heh.

I realize that I'm a little fan-ish, but I do know a little about
transfusion medicine, thus my attempt to contribute to the topic. <sigh> I
guess I want to believe, but I realize deep-down that everyone has doped at
one time, even if it's recreational drugs.

Dumb as it is, I just love watching bike races. Except for the fact that
it's dangerous, and that only those that are sponsored can afford to dope,
I'd say, heck, let 'em dope if they want to. Obviously it's better all
around and it's easier for the recreational, but serious rider to judge
their capabilities against a pro (again, another dumb passtime, heh), if
the pro is natural.

One thing that's true is you can't make a race-horse out of a donkey, and
the stuff LA does can't be done with drugs, but I guess that's beside the
point.

Best,

-B
 
Jeff Jones wrote:
> "Bob Schwartz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Kyle Legate <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> His defence is simple. Give another blood sample right now, and
>>> another next week, and keep doing so for at least a couple of
>>> months. If he's innocent, these particular blood parameters should
>>> not change. Certainly he doesn't have a fridge full of the same
>>> blood to supplement with.

>>
>> If the donor is known then you could go back to the source.
>>

> But then the other blood test (HR-OFF) would pick it up (or maybe
> both of them would) because of the big jump in RBC levels and
> everything else. I guess you could just inject small doses every few
> days to keep your RBC mix constant, provided your donor was
> relatively close.
>

I don't think that supplementing the rider's blood like you suggest would
provide a stable baseline, since the half life of elimination of the foreign
blood cells is not known. A stable baseline is what is required to prove
innocence.

> But as Kyle suggested, constant followup tests giving the same result
> would be one way to prove innocence, providing the test is sound. The
> other way is to discredit the test, which is what Phonak and Hamilton
> are trying to do.
>

That, in itself, says a lot.
 
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 15:49:02 -0400, Badger_South wrote:
> One thing that's true is you can't make a race-horse out of a donkey


I'm not sure that's true. There was an article a while back in a Belgian
paper, where a (Belgian) doctor said it *is* possible.

OK, I'm sure I'm not going to translate it now, so here it is:



INTERVIEW. Hormonenspecialist Francis Coucke wil bio-label in sport
,,Epo-plaag is nog lang niet uit wielerpeloton verdwenen''

Gilbert Roox 02/08/2004

Christophe Brandt was de enige renner die in de voorbije Tour op doping
werd betrapt. Maar dat wil allerminst zeggen dat epo uit het peloton
verdwenen is. ,,En als ze groeihormonen opsporen, kunnen ze de
Olympische Spelen beter niet meer organiseren'', zegt de endocrinoloog
Francis Coucke, zelf ex-renner. Coucke pleit voor profrennerij onder
strikt medisch toezicht.


FRANCIS Coucke (41) is endocrinoloog en koerste ooit nog bij de
amateurs. Hij kent dus evenveel van de menselijke hormonenhuishouding
als van het wielrennen. Daarom wordt hij niet goed van de berichten dat
de dopingjagers van de Internationale Wielerunie UCI de strijd met de
epo-plaag in het wielerpeloton aan het winnen zijn. ,,In de Tour werd
niemand betrapt, maar ze gebruikten allemaal'', zegt Coucke. ,,Bij de
start in Luik werd een gemiddelde hematocrietwaarde van 44,8
vastgesteld. Getrainde sporters komen niet eens aan veertig. En hoe
harder je traint, hoe lager het hematocriet. Behalve bij Armstrong en co
blijkbaar.''

De UCI bepaalde vijf jaar gelden een ovengrens van 50 procent op het
volume van rode bloedcellen in het bloed: wie daarboven gaat, moet aan
de kant. ,,Maar die grens ligt veel te hoog'', zegt Coucke. ,,Een
coureur met een hematocriet van 48 rijdt vijftig per uur, terwijl zijn
niet-gedopeerde concurrenten met 38 bijna tien kilometer per uur trager
zijn. Het is alsof je met water tegen superbenzine concurreert, zoals
Van Hooydonck weleer zei. Een klassebak, maar plots kon hij niet meer
volgen. Hij is dus maar gestopt.''

,,Tourwinnaar Greg LeMond doet dezelfde vaststelling. Begin jaren
negentig was hij met zijn zuurstofopnamecapaciteit van 93 ml/kg/min de
beste van het peloton. Nu zou hij daarmee niet eens meer de beste
vijftig halen. Met training bereik je nooit zo'n sprong vooruit. Dat
komt omdat er middelen zijn die van een muilezel een paard maken.''

En het gaat niet alleen om epo. Ook groeihormoon, dat het spiervolume
doet toenemen, is tegenwoordig algemeen verspreid in de sportwereld.
,,Kijk naar al die buitenmaatse kinnebakken in het peloton'', zegt
Coucke. ,,Als ze groeihormoon opsporen, kunnen ze maar beter geen
Olympische Spelen meer organiseren. Maar er bestaat nog altijd geen
erkende test. Terwijl het eigenlijk simpel is: bepaal voor elke sporter
de IGF1-spiegel en sluit de al te grote afwijkingen uit. In het
ziekenhuis doe ik dat elke dag.''

Met groeiende verbijstering volgt hij de evoluties op het dopingfront.
,,Nu zouden ze zelfs al synthetisch hemoglobine gebruiken, een middel
uit de kankergeneeskunde. Nog eens tien procent sneller: zou dat de truc
van Lance Armstrong zijn?'' Als arts kan Coucke niet begrijpen dat een
voormalig kankerpatiënt zo met de eigen gezondheid speelt. ,,Het is
bijna pervers. Groeihormoon is een zeer kankerverwekkende stof. In het
ziekenhuis aarzel ik om het patiënten in zelfs kleine dosissen voor te
schrijven. Want het doet ook gezwellen razendsnel groeien. Ste, je hebt
een poliep in de darmen: voor je het weet zit je met een heus
kankergezwel.''

Epo-gebruik leidt op lange termijn tot hartproblemen en aderverkalking.
Te veel cortisonen tasten het immuunsysteem aan. ,,Maar toch blijven
renners slikken en spuiten. Ze kunnen niet anders, als ze willen blijven
meedingen. Je moet er niet aan denken dat je zoon ooit wielrenner wil
worden. Dit is geen sport meer, maar een aanslag op de gezondheid.''

Francis Coucke pleit resoluut voor de harde sanering. ,,Hoe ging dat
indertijd met de hormonen in ons vlees? Laat ons ook zo'n bio-label
opzetten voor de sport. Alleen 'propere wielrenners' die week na week
getest zijn, zullen nog worden toegelaten tot wedstrijden. Natuurlijk
zal Lance Armstrong dan niet meer zo snel Alpe d'Huez oprijden, maar het
zal net zo goed topsport zijn. Nu kan ik me er, ondanks mijn liefde voor
de wielrennerij, nog nauwelijks toe brengen naar de Tour te kijken: ik
zie alleen rijdende apothekerkasten.''

De technologie voor zo'n bio-label is voorhanden, zegt de endocrinoloog.
,,Net zoals je nu een hematocriet-grenswaarde hebt, kun je ook een
omvattend hormonaal profiel van alle profrenners vastleggen. Dan zie je
bij controle meteen of er geknoeid is. Slikt iemand groeihormoon, dan
duikt de lichaamseigen productie omlaag. Dan kan maar twee dingen
betekenen: of hij heeft kanker, of hij is gedopeerd.''

Maar is zijn plan niet al te utopisch? ,,Het is dat of de strijd tegen
de doping helemaal opgeven'', zegt Coucke. ,,Nu is het toch alleen een
halfslachtig zoethoudertje. De UCI zamelt elk seizoen duizenden bloed-
en urinestalen in, maar ze speurt niet naar de producten waar het echt
om gaat. En dus vindt de UCI ook nauwelijks epo-slikkers in het
wielerpeloton. Alleen zo'n arme jongen als een Christophe Brandt, die
gepakt wordt op, godbetert, methadon. Terwijl dat wellicht nog een
gemanipuleerd staal is. Als het niet zo treurig was, zou het om te
lachen zijn.''

Copyright De Standaard
 
Kyle Legate wrote:
> Jeff Jones wrote:
>
>> But as Kyle suggested, constant followup tests giving the same result
>> would be one way to prove innocence, providing the test is sound. The
>> other way is to discredit the test, which is what Phonak and Hamilton
>> are trying to do.
>>

> That, in itself, says a lot.


I'm not sure how much it does say. Were I in a situation where I thought a
test was saying something wrong about me, and the test was a new test, I'd
want to know what the test did before I submitted myself to it again. The
key thing I'd want to know was its specificity.

BTW, does anyone know if the blood parameters in the Olympics test were
higher, lower, or the same as the Vuelta test(s)?
 
Robert Chung wrote:
> Kyle Legate wrote:
>> Jeff Jones wrote:
>>
>>> But as Kyle suggested, constant followup tests giving the same
>>> result would be one way to prove innocence, providing the test is
>>> sound. The other way is to discredit the test, which is what Phonak
>>> and Hamilton are trying to do.
>>>

>> That, in itself, says a lot.

>
> I'm not sure how much it does say. Were I in a situation where I
> thought a test was saying something wrong about me, and the test was
> a new test, I'd want to know what the test did before I submitted
> myself to it again. The key thing I'd want to know was its
> specificity.
>

I think a stronger challenge to the test would be to demonstrate that it
consistently gives the incorrect result for Tyler's blood. Maybe then he
could apply for a UCI exemption ceertificate. As already mentioned
elsewhere, this is not a new test; it has just been applied to catching
cheats for the first time.