Drugs confession



On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 09:38:25 +0100, Robert Chung wrote:
> avant le contrôle et de boire trois litres d'eau, et
> l'affaire est réglée."

Ah oui très simple. Not.
 
Tom Kunich <[email protected]> schreef in berichtnieuws
[email protected]...
> "JohnB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > Simon wrote:
> > >
> > > Sad, just sad.
> > >
> > > Is it just me, or when he says 'bigger names', is it
> > > pointed?
> > >
> > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/-
> > > 3516584.stm
> >
> > Cycling is well and truly tarnished and this kind of
> > stuff just makes it
> worse.
> > I question Gaumont's motives. Is he just another *****
> > Voet - caught and now wants to make the most of his new
> > found status? When will the T-shirt and film be
> > released? I suspect that the 'bigger names' remark may
> > even have been deliberately planted by Gaumont or his
> > publicity agent to keep the story in the
> headlines.
> > He admits to lying and cheating through his career, so
> > why should now be any different?
> >
> > This is putting me off watching professional racing as
> > we now have no idea who is clean or not. This is having
> > a devastating on what was once a tremendous sport, as I
> > know of youngsters who are now being pulled out of the
> > competitive side because of the links to drugs and the
> > perceptions around cycle racing.
> >
> > Until a 'positive' means a life ban then the problem
> > will not disappear.
>
> Gaumont is seriously trying to make amends in my opinion.
> But so what?
Some
> of the stuff he says is pure unadulaterate myth. You can
> easily tell the difference between a rub-on cream and an
> injection because the quantities
in
> the blood are hugely different.

Then why can riders attribute a positive result to the use
of a rub-on cream and get away with it?

>
> Blood packing may not be detectable but I covered that
> earlier. Just
because
> your hematocrit is high doesn't mean you're getting a
> performance boost.
 
"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom Kunich <[email protected]> schreef in berichtnieuws
> [email protected]...
> >
> > Gaumont is seriously trying to make amends in my
> > opinion. But so what? Some of the stuff he says is pure
> > unadulaterate myth. You can easily
tell the
> > difference between a rub-on cream and an injection
> > because the
quantities
> > in the blood are hugely different.
>
> Then why can riders attribute a positive result to the use
> of a rub-on
cream
> and get away with it?

I don't know what sort of tests they are running but if
they're using chromotography tests I can assure you that
they're getting quantity and not just identity. In
Armstrong's case from one day to the next they could BARELY
detect the presence which was attributed to the creme.

You have to remember that most of these guys are pretty
sophisticated about drug use but in most cases what
they're really relying on is luck of the draw. So all
sorts of myths can spring up about what you can use and
what you can't. Certainly you can use the injection and
then a week later blame a positive on the creme. But you
can't test negative on one day and then positive the next
and say that the amount that is detected can't be
determined because it can be.
 
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:zh96c.26857$%[email protected]...

> You have to remember that most of these guys are pretty
> sophisticated
about
> drug use

I should bloody hope so - given the massive difference in
our riding speeds, anything else would be too humiliating to
contemplate ;-)

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University