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

[Perro Loco]

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?

The first number is all riders at the start, therafter it is random teams selected along with stage winners- etc. I am not sure what would be the effect if everybody knew they would be tested. 80 still amounts to over 50% of riders tested (147 finished).

I think things have improved, perfect? far from it.
It would be great if the UCI would publish all the data. I think they have done a reasonable job (could clearly do better) after initialy sticking their head in the sand.

On the other hand, try and find the average hematocrit for any major marathon in recent years. Boston, London, new york or Olympics. For that matter any endurance sport or one that might benifit from blood doping- swimming, tennis etc. I couldn't find it. I saw some data from ironman, but limited. If someone knows let me know.
There is data from cross country skiing and it doesn't look good.

2001 cross country worlds- 14% "abnormal hematologic profile"
Medalists 50% abnormal 4th-10 33% abnormal.
Stray-Gunderson et al Clin J Sport 2003

Skiing uses a higher cutoff for hemaglobin than does cycling
Hemaglobin of 17.5 ~ alittle more than 52%

 

[Perro Loco]

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!!

I can't see anyway he can prove his innocence- only + over 300 tests 3 samples positive one unable to be tested.
There are rare indiviuals who are mosaics for certain genes (mutation occurs at an early embryonic stage) and it has been described for blood groups. But this would only be one antigen difference in all likelyhood.

 

[sportzgurl]

I can't see anyway he can prove his innocence- only + over 300 tests 3 samples positive one unable to be tested.
There are rare indiviuals who are mosaics for certain genes (mutation occurs at an early embryonic stage) and it has been described for blood groups. But this would only be one antigen difference in all likelyhood.

I didn't quite understand what you were saying there!! lol. Could you please explain that again?? lol thanks

 

[patrickpike2003]

Tyler keeps his gold but has big trouble pending.

I was curious if anyone knew anything about the pink bracelets. I've seen a few around. My girlfriend's mother is a breast cancer survivor who really appreciated the yellow one I gave her, I think she would go nuts if I got her a pink bracelet. So if you know where to get one, post here or send me an e-mail.

-Patrick

 

[antoineg]

I can't see anyway he can prove his innocence- only + over 300 tests 3 samples positive one unable to be tested.
There are rare indiviuals who are mosaics for certain genes (mutation occurs at an early embryonic stage) and it has been described for blood groups. But this would only be one antigen difference in all likelyhood.

You'd think it would be a simple thing to rule out mosaicism or chimaerism by doing DNA testing or an equivalent flow cytometry test on the parents' blood/tissue. Not to mention that these conditions usually are marked by terrible problems in the adult human, not what you'd expect in a world-ranked cyclist.

I do not see how a normal gene mutation could result in a postive using this flow cytometry process.

 

[sportzgurl]

I did mention before that I didn't think too many BIG names had pulled out of Vuelta, but as it turns out they have!! Most with that chronic stomach bug that seems to be doing the rounds there. Is this just a case of the bug spreading around the teams or is it something a bit more suspect. I mean it is getting late in the Vuelta so i suppose you would expect more riders to pull out now, than before, but does anybody think this is just a little suspect??? Could it have something to do with doping? Also just read this on cyclingnews:


More Vuelta positives

Spanish sports newspaper As is reporting that six as-yet-unnamed Spanish riders have returned positive doping controls at the Vuelta a España. However, the substances in question are ones which it is possible for athletes to use, provided they have a medical certificate. The UCI is examining the medical handbooks of the riders - believed to include some of the race's major protagonists - to check that the necessary permissions are in place.

Is this a case of prior notification.....again

 

[mareblu]

http://www.tylerhamilton.com/images/mw-i.jpg

If you want to send a personal note to Tyler Hamilton you can go to

www.tylerhamilton.com

 

[gntlmn]

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....

Did you see the new equipment used by women's fast pitch softball team to zero in on the ball as it is pitched? Pitching equipment shoots out ball with colored number. Batter is supposed to identify the color and the number. It takes about 2 weeks usually for a batter to develop the skill while using the pitching machine. Batters first starting with the machine cannot believe it can be done, but when they stick with it, they improve greatly--so does their batting.

 

[sportzgurl]

Another Tyler update!! It turns out that the reason the IOC B tests were disregarded is because they were frozen, which ruins them. How careless is that!! You would think they would no if freezing the blood stuffs thier tests. But the IOC man (whose name is something Saucy i think) said that he was sure that the A tests were accurate. He said there was definatley two peoples blood in Tylers sample. I heard this on eurosports news. I hope you didn't already know lol.

 

[gntlmn]

Average TDF Speeds 1989-2004 (kmh)


1989 37.5
1990 38.3
1991 38.7
1992 39.5
1993 38.7
1994 38.4
1995 39.2
1996 39.2
1997 39.2
1998 40.0
1999 40.3
2000 38.6
2001 40.0
2002 40.0
2003 40.9
2004 40.6

As you can see, we are looking at average speeds that are between 1-2kmh faster than the early 1990's. Over 90-100 hours of racing this mounts up to a big increase in distance (you can do the maths). The size of the TDF peloton has stayed basically the same at around 190-200 riders. Sure, the route and weather conditions differ from year to year but aerodynamics in TT's don't increase the average that much as they represent a small proportion of the overall route. I don't think that the higher average speeds are due to better training. In my opinion it is due to better recovery that has been assisted by perfromance enhancing drugs. The average speed is the basis of my argument which I know you disagree with, but I think these numbers are very interesting to say the least and cannot be totally explained by better training techniques. Greg Lemond recently commented that he could not finish in the top 20 in the Tour now even if he was in top condition and this to me is very significant.

Don't you think that the percentages involved with the Festina and Cofidis doipng scandals work out at more than 5% of the team?

Sorry, I was busy today and couldn't get back with you right away.

We need more information on this study. The reason is because I don't think any of us really knows what these numbers are referring to yet. Are these the average speeds of the winner of the Tour de France? Or are they the average speeds of each of the riders of the Tour de France?

Let's assume it is the average speed of the winner because I'm pretty sure that's what you're going to tell me. But back me up if I'm not making this assumption correctly.

Now, let me tell you this. If it is the average speed of the winner, then what the peloton does in a support function will greatly increase the speed of the winner, even if many riders fade and cannot keep up with the pack. The faders and the dropouts are not being considered here. If it is the average speed of all riders, then we need to figure out what we're talking about with respect to the dropouts. How do you figure the average speed of everyone if you have a lot of DNF's. Anyway, if it turns out to be that, then we need to get probably so technical that the analysis will bear little fruit. This is another reason why I will figure this by average speed of the winner.

And now I propose that this analysis may be very easy if you consider this. Let's say that next year (this won't happen, but I'm trying to show something here), the Tour de France organizers tell the peloton the following. "We have an additional bonus this year. To win $100 million each, the fastest rider has to reach the finish line in Paris in greater than 45 kph average over the entire course, all stages included. The policy guaranteeing the prizes are being underwritten by an insurance company."

Now I ask you this. Don't you think the peloton could get the first place man there to Paris significantly faster than 40 kph? I think your answer is yes. And the reason is because the peloton is not running to full capacity at all times during the race. It rests because it knows it can get away with it. The race is controlled by the leaders as to whether or not the peloton moves quicker. If the peloton wants to go quicker it can. If it does, the winner gets to Paris quicker too. So as long as the peloton is not running to capacity the whole way, then the first rider to Paris will have an opportunity to get there faster.

 

[gntlmn]

Another Tyler update!! It turns out that the reason the IOC B tests were disregarded is because they were frozen, which ruins them. How careless is that!! You would think they would no if freezing the blood stuffs thier tests. But the IOC man (whose name is something Saucy i think) said that he was sure that the A tests were accurate. He said there was definatley two peoples blood in Tylers sample. I heard this on eurosports news. I hope you didn't already know lol.

Good work. I think I am beginning to disbelieve Tyler. When you hear the story that he approached a doctor for help with doping in the late 1990's, claiming he was acting on behalf of his team and that if the doctor cooperated, he would have a position with the team as team doctor, you might not believe it by itself because it was only disclosed this year. But then when you combine that story with this one, about the alleged doping in the Olympics and Vuelta, you begin to reconsider whether you should have believed the doctor who claims to have refused to provide doping help. I think Tyler is trying to pull an OJ on this one and get off 100% not guilty. Just my opinion.

 

[gntlmn]

They improperly handled the B sample (froze it) so they essentially cannot do the B sample test. Its not a negative and doesn't ivalidate the positive A sample test.

I wasn't too sure about Tyler until I heard the positive on Vuelta sample B. IOC sample B gives me only a double take, until I discover that they destroyed the sample by freezing it. Now I am inclined to believe that Tyler is guilty. How do you explain 3 out of 3 positives? It's not 3 out of 4 because the other sample was destroyed.

 

[gntlmn]

Fact
1998 TDF
14% urine samples tested retrospectively for recombinant epo where positive
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10864311&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.

Where do you get the 14% number? The link makes no mention of that.

 

[sportzgurl]

Good work. I think I am beginning to disbelieve Tyler. When you hear the story that he approached a doctor for help with doping in the late 1990's, claiming he was acting on behalf of his team and that if the doctor cooperated, he would have a position with the team as team doctor, you might not believe it by itself because it was only disclosed this year. But then when you combine that story with this one, about the alleged doping in the Olympics and Vuelta, you begin to reconsider whether you should have believed the doctor who claims to have refused to provide doping help. I think Tyler is trying to pull an OJ on this one and get off 100% not guilty. Just my opinion.

Do you mean you wouldn't have expected Tyler to do that? Yeah, when a doping story comes out in cycling there is never a straight answer to it. There always seems to be a 'hidden secret' that comes out, which adds to the suspision. Is that story ture? Well I know you dont write claims without facts so it must be. So yeah, i have to say that the more we talk about this and look into it, the more the facts begin to stack against Tyler. Your opinion is the same as mine!

But what the hell were the IOC testers doing putting the sample in the freezer? I mean how they test a sample can alter the lives of the sample provider for ever. They can't be so careless as to ruin a sample that could clear or incrimate an athlete. I mean I heard the IOC man say thats what they did so it has to be true but it just seems way to sloppy for the IOC. Doesn't it?

 

[Saucy]

Most with that chronic stomach bug that seems to be doing the rounds there. Is this just a case of the bug spreading around the teams or is it something a bit more suspect. I mean it is getting late in the Vuelta so i suppose you would expect more riders to pull out now, than before, but does anybody think this is just a little suspect??? Could it have something to do with doping?

Sportzgurl, I just read one of your earlier posts. No offense, but you should really try to learn who Greg Lemond is. I know you're young and its before your time, but he is one of the most talented riders ever in the sport. Its worth finding out about the history of the sport and the riders. It will add to your enjoyment of the threads on this site.

As far as the "stomach flu". Well, when a whole group of riders bail on a race, including riders from different teams who have eaten at different hotels, you can take "stomach flu" or "food poisoning" to mean: "The ****'s gonna hit the fan, let's get the hell out of here before it sprays in our face". I'm amazed that the peloton has never come up with anything more creative. But I guess they have to pick an illness that's:

1) Contagious/communicable - to explain why so many riders fell ill at the same time.
2) Temporary in nature - to explain why riders can walk away and enter the next race (when their "vitals" are in an acceptable range).
3) Severe enough - that the rider couldn't continue to race. A rider can still race with a head cold, for example, but not with a stomach ailment.

So "stomach flu" it is. Its been used for years now - an old standy. The dopers have gotten good use out of it.

Now I am inclined to believe that Tyler is guilty. How do you explain 3 out of 3 positives?

I agree. Its official: Tyler's a doper. You're done Tyler! You and me are sooo over!! Wow, what a disappointment. Are there any heroes in this sport?

And who does Phonak think they're kidding? Calling the Olympic B Test a "Negative" when the test simply failed on a technicality? Tyler's camp must be pretty dizzy they're doing so much spinning. And who is going to believe any results from a task force set up by Phonak and Hamilton? Its not an objective source. The IOC and UCI testing is objective and I will believe that before I believe anything from the Phonak camp.

 

[gntlmn]

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

Excellent article! I'm beginning to like Mr. Pound. He seems to be sincerely dedicated to reducing doping in sport. I sure hope cyclists will be forewarned and take heed. The awards and medals and wins they receive may be taken away with a test 8 years later if they are doping now.

 

[gntlmn]

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?

Maybe they focus on the leading 80 to save money on testing. This would make sense. The others will have no chance of winning or getting on the podium no matter whether their blood vessels are overflowing with drugs and other people's blood. It isn't going to make up the time gap for them. But they better not ignore stage winners who are way back on the GC or support riders who are providing huge help to the leaders but not making a good showing on the GC. I don't know how they can do that with a smaller sample size.

 

[philoakley]

Sorry, I was busy today and couldn't get back with you right away.

We need more information on this study. The reason is because I don't think any of us really knows what these numbers are referring to yet. Are these the average speeds of the winner of the Tour de France? Or are they the average speeds of each of the riders of the Tour de France?

Let's assume it is the average speed of the winner because I'm pretty sure that's what you're going to tell me. But back me up if I'm not making this assumption correctly.

Now, let me tell you this. If it is the average speed of the winner, then what the peloton does in a support function will greatly increase the speed of the winner, even if many riders fade and cannot keep up with the pack. The faders and the dropouts are not being considered here. If it is the average speed of all riders, then we need to figure out what we're talking about with respect to the dropouts. How do you figure the average speed of everyone if you have a lot of DNF's. Anyway, if it turns out to be that, then we need to get probably so technical that the analysis will bear little fruit. This is another reason why I will figure this by average speed of the winner.

And now I propose that this analysis may be very easy if you consider this. Let's say that next year (this won't happen, but I'm trying to show something here), the Tour de France organizers tell the peloton the following. "We have an additional bonus this year. To win $100 million each, the fastest rider has to reach the finish line in Paris in greater than 45 kph average over the entire course, all stages included. The policy guaranteeing the prizes are being underwritten by an insurance company."

Now I ask you this. Don't you think the peloton could get the first place man there to Paris significantly faster than 40 kph? I think your answer is yes. And the reason is because the peloton is not running to full capacity at all times during the race. It rests because it knows it can get away with it. The race is controlled by the leaders as to whether or not the peloton moves quicker. If the peloton wants to go quicker it can. If it does, the winner gets to Paris quicker too. So as long as the peloton is not running to capacity the whole way, then the first rider to Paris will have an opportunity to get there faster.

Yes, the speeds do relate to the winner of the Tour de France.

I find your peloton theory difficult to accept. The size of the Tour peloton has remained the same for the last 15 years. The average speed is up between 1-2kmh. I cannot understand why you say the peloton is not a full capacity given that so many riders in the tour are absolutely wasted after the first week. I remember Chris Boardman and Greg Lemond and Charly Mottet making such comments in the Tours of the early 1990's. Perhaps the peloton is going faster because it takes something to help it recover better. To say that a $100m carrot for a 45 kmh average will increase speeds is probably true but also ridiculous as this would be impossible to achieve without perfromance enhancing drugs.

In my opinion, the peloton is getting faster because it can recover faster (due to performance enhancing drugs) and can ride harder for longer and this, as you correctly identify,increases the average speed of the winner. In addition to this, after stomping on the flat stages for a week, the tour riders now go up the mountains faster than ever. If you look at the average speeds of the winners of big mountain stages (4 or 5 1st cat or HC climbs) in the Tour over the last 20 years, you will see that up until the early 1990's typical average speeds were topping out at around 32-32.5 kmh. This is now regularly 33-33.5 kmh which over a 6 hour stage means that the guys of the late 80's, early 1990's would be losing 15 minutes plus on the mountains. Despite better training techniques, this does not stack up in my view. Nor does the progress in distance running where athletes are breaking world records and finishing as fresh as daisies.

As you have said before, I cannot prove anything but I can ask questions and look at what is happening and express my opinion. I just think that to say that training has improved the speed of the peloton is only part of the answer with a large part unexplained.

 

[gntlmn]

I agree. Its official: Tyler's a doper. You're done Tyler! You and me are sooo over!! Wow, what a disappointment. Are there any heroes in this sport?

And who does Phonak think they're kidding? Calling the Olympic B Test a "Negative" when the test simply failed on a technicality? Tyler's camp must be pretty dizzy they're doing so much spinning. And who is going to believe any results from a task force set up by Phonak and Hamilton? Its not an objective source. The IOC and UCI testing is objective and I will believe that before I believe anything from the Phonak camp.

I'm with you on this now. Earlier I said I wanted to get more information before I conclude about Tyler, and I think I have enough now. I agree. He's a doper, and it's a good thing for his family that they caught him. Once he gets sensitized to foreign blood, he can be more easily killed instantly with the wrong transfusion. I think this is great for the sport. These dopers don't realize that no matter how highly people think of them while they secretly dope, they are not greater than the sport of cycling. It's too bad they don't realize that ahead of time. He deserves every bit of bad press he gets now. I hope he loses that Olympics gold. I think he doped then too, and sample b would have confirmed it if it weren't damaged in freezing.

 

[gntlmn]

To say that a $100m carrot for a 45 kmh average will increase speeds is probably true but also ridiculous as this would be impossible to achieve without perfromance enhancing drugs.

I'd have to disagree with you on that too. Otherwise, the leaders could attack at will and the peloton wouldn't reel them in. We know that not to be the case. The peloton often "rests" (goes below capacity) when non tour threats break away from the pack, but it goes gung ho when a gc contender goes. This tells you that it is running sub par. Do you think that they take performance enhancing drugs on the fly? How would they know when a gc contender is going to attack? They simply respond while they are riding, or don't when they are not. They don't know when to dope or when not to.

If the riders can go faster with drugs but are already going faster with drugs as you claim, then you are admitting that the peloton does not run to capacity. That's the nature of the peloton. The race is not an all out race for many of the riders. Even the leaders get to have refuge from the wind in the peloton.