If Lance really is doping....

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

Quoted message said:

Is micro-dosing of EPO impossible to detect? If it is, it would also seem
impossible to get a benefit from, or that the testing techniques are very
poor.

I don't know. I've just seen it suggested on the internet as a means
to avoid detection, so it must be true.

Quoted message said:

So you think there's a possibility that athletes like Lance and others are
getting a heads up about upcoming suprise tests?

Well, if you take the most pessimistic view of professional athletics
and drug testing, I would say definitely. The govorning bodies want
thier sport to look clean. Lots of negative tests with an occasional
positive serves that purpose (or it may be the case that only 5% are
doping, and 1% are getting caught).

Pistof said:

If Lance was doping, why was his performance so relatively poor in 2003?
Did he forget his dope that year, or what?

He may be on dope. He likely would have beat anybody else out there under equivalent circumstances anyway. I'm guessing he still has the right mix of talent, focus and determination to win on a level playing field.

I want the best cyclist to win the TDF. I think that has happened the last 6 years.

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Pistof said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You do understand that some of the drugs being taken can't be tested
for yet.

Why is that. Is it because they are so new that testing methods are

still

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

being developed. I can't imagine that more than a month or two would be
needed, right?

Well, there is a test now for EPO, but it will only detect it in the
test subject a few days after the EPO has been taken. But the benefits of
the EPO appear (and stay much) later. As for the time needed to develop

the

Quoted message said:

tests, consider that they have been trying to come up wth a test for EPO
for years.

But wouldn't a high hematocrit be an indicator? If you come from a low
lying country like Belgium and have a hematocrit just under 50% that has got
to look suspicious. The way I understand it, hematocrits this high are
very, very odd.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If the substances are not known about then they wouldn't necessarily be
banned, right? It would seem hard to ban a substance when you don't

know

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it exists.

True, but that won't stop people from using the substance.

Then they would not be cheating.

But this is besides the point. I am trying to understand why some people
think Lance must be doping. He has recently cleared the waters on this
issue. He has {finally} said in no uncertain terms that he has not doped.
Also, he has never failed a test. I know that there are no guarantees, but
until there is hard evidence that he is doping, wouldn't assuming that he is
clean be the fair thing to do?

I find it hard to believe that 30-95% of the division I teams are doping.
That is a large number of people and we would be seeing far more busts than
we are, it would seem. This many people can not keep a secret.

Dave

Casey Kerrigan said:

The drug takers are always ahead of the drug testers.
Look at some of the other now admitted drug taker who managed to always
pass their drug tests.

It's interesting to note that there's a steady stream of busts
for drugs that are driven by searches or disgruntled former
team members, and fewer high profile suspensions as a part
of testing. Kelme was discovered only when a former team
member got [censored] and told. That suggests to me there's
still a significant doping culture, though probably not as
bad as in the mid-90's, and that testing isn't catching
anywhere near all of it.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Pistof

Quoted message said:

Then why hasn't he tested positive for it? Just like Meirhaeghe was
recently surprised with an out of competition test, are the top ranked
cyclists not of greater focus?

If Lance was doping, why was his performance so relatively poor in

2003?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Did he forget his dope that year, or what?

Or simply, is the UCI in cahoots with Lance??? A lot of things don't

add

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

up.

You do understand that some of the drugs being taken can't be tested
for yet.

Why is that.

I assume you want an answer. Are you not aware that some of the most
effective drugs are not distinguished from the precise substance that occurs
naturally? Cheating occurs when levels of the naturally occuring substance
are supplemented to levels optimal for performance. It is not always
affordable or even possible to distinguish between naturally optimal levels
and those that supplement illegally. It really is a strange situation and
maybe the only thing anyone should be concerned about is that these
substances are at a healthy level. The situation with EPO after the health
checks but before the Festina Scandal was reasonable. Now it is not, and
there are numerous witch hunts going on because of the perception that these
drugs can do more than they really can. I suggest that athletes should be
checked for healthy optimal levels of the substance so that the rules really
are the same for everyone. Many sports have written their drug rules
precisely this way and it seems to be great for them. Why should someone
with talent and a hard work ethic be punished for having lower than normal
HCT or some other substance that can be optimized with modern medicine? Why
can't pro athletes take the same substances that Joe Blow can take to set a
personal best during his next century bike ride? The whole situation has
gotten out of control and the IOC has lead many sports down the wrong (IMO)
path. Pro cyclists have to live like Mormons. Why is that? Are all of you
doping critics aware of this? Do you realize that doping in one sport is
simply a way to optimize health to other sports or even to non-athletes?

Quoted message said:

Is it because they are so new that testing methods are still
being developed. I can't imagine that more than a month or two would be
needed, right? If the substances are not known about then they wouldn't
necessarily be banned, right? It would seem hard to ban a substance when
you don't know it exists.

Quoted message said:

Other drugs can be covered up or masked using other
substances. The drug takers are always ahead of the drug testers.
Look at some of the other now admitted drug taker who managed to always
pass their drug tests.

So your feelings are that Lance is taking a performance enhancing drug but
that he is able to hide it from blood tests by means of covering it up

with

Quoted message said:

additional non-banned substances?

Quoted message said:

The sad thing in this whole drug mess is that testing clean doesn't
offer any assurance that the athlete really is clean.

But they are getting busted. Or is it that just the dumb ones are?

Dave

"Tim Lines" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:91GOc.55265$8_6.37804@attbi_s04...

Quoted message said:

Howard Kveck said:

Well, there is a test now for EPO, but it will only detect it in the
test subject a few days after the EPO has been taken. But the benefits

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the EPO appear (and stay much) later.

So, if I understand what you're saying, the guy who's strongest towards
the end of the TdF ought to be the guy who's LEAST reliant on EPO.
True?

No.

Especially if he's been finishing toward the front and getting

Quoted message said:

consistently tested, you'd know at a minimum that he hasn't doped since,
say 3 days before the start.

Dude, they are *ALL* tested at the start, and then subsequent testing is
done on the podium of each stage, the GC leaders, and then random riders
that are selected based on just about anything. Strong contenders are
probably checked more frequently even before they move up on GC.

Quoted message said:

Presumably his competition hasn't either.
The effects of EPO should have been at their minimum during that final
time trial this year.

Replaced by the effects of going in to the race fresher than they would have
been otherwise, among other variables not discussed. No, you are wrong about
your assumptions. You can't use results to determine whether or not anyone
doped. At best, you can look at trends over several years *if* you know for
certain that a rider had doped for part of that time. The only examples I
can think of are Virenque and Zulle (and one other Swiss rider whose name
escapes me, and had a similar decline in performance after his confession in
the Festina Affair).

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

Quoted message said:

In article <91GOc.55265$8_6.37804@attbi_s04>,

Tim Lines said:

Howard Kveck said:

Well, there is a test now for EPO, but it will only detect it in

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

test subject a few days after the EPO has been taken. But the benefits

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the EPO appear (and stay much) later.

So, if I understand what you're saying, the guy who's strongest towards
the end of the TdF ought to be the guy who's LEAST reliant on EPO.

I'd say that sounds fairly reasonable -

Really? How is it reasonable? You mean you don't see the flaw in his logic
and that makes it reasonable?

Quoted message said:

either it's that or he's the guy

Right. Either that or he's the guy that was stronger because of X, Y and Z.

Quoted message said:

who has figured out his timing and dosages to result in max hct towards

the

Quoted message said:

end of the race. And just to make it clear, I'm not one of the "they're

all

Quoted message said:

doping" crowd. I don't know, but there is evidence that *some* are using
illegal substances.

Quoted message said:

True? Especially if he's been finishing toward the front and getting
consistently tested, you'd know at a minimum that he hasn't doped since,
say 3 days before the start. Presumably his competition hasn't either.
The effects of EPO should have been at their minimum during that final
time trial this year.

Again, these seem like reasonable assumptions to make, if you believe
riders are using EPO.

No. These assumptions are reasonable only if you buy in to other assumptions
about using results as an indication of doped vs. clean riders.

"Ernst Blofeld" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:9HROc.220842$Oq2.7006@attbi_s52...

Quoted message said:

Casey Kerrigan said:

The drug takers are always ahead of the drug testers.
Look at some of the other now admitted drug taker who managed to always
pass their drug tests.

It's interesting to note that there's a steady stream of busts
for drugs that are driven by searches or disgruntled former
team members, and fewer high profile suspensions as a part
of testing. Kelme was discovered only when a former team
member got [censored] and told. That suggests to me there's
still a significant doping culture,

This is not what I would call typical of cultural pressures. There are
likely many are doping because of assumptions about what other racers are
doing, and not because of what they really know. Even the racers are as
mystified about the actual scale of the problem, except that they know what
they do and they know what a few of their close peers are doing or have
done. There is a big difference IMO, and I would not consider this a
cultural problem. The people that have the best information are the handful
of MDs that advise the racers. The assumptions of the racers are as much
influenced by the press as your assumtions are, if we take away what they
know about a select few others. It is useful to remember that when you want
to understand the reactions and behaviors of some of the racers that get
caught. Given the number if raids and the relatively few that are caught, I
would say that most people are over-stating the problem. The advantages of
the doping products in question are also usually over-stated.

Quoted message said:

though probably not as
bad as in the mid-90's, and that testing isn't catching
anywhere near all of it.

There are always going to be at least a few others that try to cheat, no
matter what happens with testing or anything else.

Tim Lines said:

Howard Kveck said:

Well, there is a test now for EPO, but it will only detect it in
the test subject a few days after the EPO has been taken. But the
benefits of the EPO appear (and stay much) later.

So, if I understand what you're saying, the guy who's strongest towards
the end of the TdF ought to be the guy who's LEAST reliant on EPO.
True? Especially if he's been finishing toward the front and getting
consistently tested, you'd know at a minimum that he hasn't doped since,
say 3 days before the start. Presumably his competition hasn't either.
The effects of EPO should have been at their minimum during that final
time trial this year.

The results released by the UCI regarding the blood testing done during
the Tour tend to bear this position out - on average Hct and haemoglobin
counts dropped from start to end of the Tour. The final TT performances
were not exactly stellar, either.

Chris said:

"Tim Lines" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:91GOc.55265$8_6.37804@attbi_s04...

Quoted message said:

Howard Kveck said:

Well, there is a test now for EPO, but it will only detect it in the
test subject a few days after the EPO has been taken. But the benefits

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the EPO appear (and stay much) later.

So, if I understand what you're saying, the guy who's strongest towards
the end of the TdF ought to be the guy who's LEAST reliant on EPO.
True?

No.

I don't suppose you had a reason to go with that?

Quoted message said:

Especially if he's been finishing toward the front and getting

Quoted message said:

consistently tested, you'd know at a minimum that he hasn't doped since,
say 3 days before the start.

Dude, they are *ALL* tested at the start, and then subsequent testing is
done on the podium of each stage, the GC leaders, and then random riders
that are selected based on just about anything. Strong contenders are
probably checked more frequently even before they move up on GC.

Exactly. This is fully consistent with what I said and my assumptions.
So it sounds like you're in agreement with me, other than the
unexplained "No" above.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Presumably his competition hasn't either.
The effects of EPO should have been at their minimum during that final
time trial this year.

Replaced by the effects of going in to the race fresher than they would have
been otherwise, among other variables not discussed. No, you are wrong about
your assumptions. You can't use results to determine whether or not anyone
doped. At best, you can look at trends over several years *if* you know for
certain that a rider had doped for part of that time. The only examples I
can think of are Virenque and Zulle (and one other Swiss rider whose name
escapes me, and had a similar decline in performance after his confession in
the Festina Affair).

--

--------------------

Remove CLOTHES to reply

Stewart Fleming said:

Tim Lines said:

Howard Kveck said:

Well, there is a test now for EPO, but it will only detect it in
the test subject a few days after the EPO has been taken. But the
benefits of the EPO appear (and stay much) later.

So, if I understand what you're saying, the guy who's strongest
towards the end of the TdF ought to be the guy who's LEAST reliant on
EPO. True? Especially if he's been finishing toward the front and
getting consistently tested, you'd know at a minimum that he hasn't
doped since, say 3 days before the start. Presumably his competition
hasn't either. The effects of EPO should have been at their minimum
during that final time trial this year.

The results released by the UCI regarding the blood testing done during
the Tour tend to bear this position out - on average Hct and haemoglobin
counts dropped from start to end of the Tour. The final TT performances
were not exactly stellar, either.

Now THAT, I didn't know. Really interesting.

--

--------------------

Remove CLOTHES to reply

Howard Kveck said:

In article <91GOc.55265$8_6.37804@attbi_s04>,

Tim Lines said:

Howard Kveck said:

Well, there is a test now for EPO, but it will only detect it in the
test subject a few days after the EPO has been taken. But the benefits of
the EPO appear (and stay much) later.

So, if I understand what you're saying, the guy who's strongest towards
the end of the TdF ought to be the guy who's LEAST reliant on EPO.

I'd say that sounds fairly reasonable - either it's that or he's the guy
who has figured out his timing and dosages to result in max hct towards the
end of the race. And just to make it clear, I'm not one of the "they're all
doping" crowd. I don't know, but there is evidence that *some* are using
illegal substances.

Is it possible that someone could time their dosages to result in max
hct 3+ weeks after the dosages have stopped? I assume that the last
dosage would occur a couple days prior to the start of the tour, but the
precise amount of time is not critical. That's where I'm getting 3+ weeks.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

True? Especially if he's been finishing toward the front and getting
consistently tested, you'd know at a minimum that he hasn't doped since,
say 3 days before the start. Presumably his competition hasn't either.
The effects of EPO should have been at their minimum during that final
time trial this year.

Again, these seem like reasonable assumptions to make, if you believe
riders are using EPO.

--

--------------------

Remove CLOTHES to reply

Chris said:

No. These assumptions are reasonable only if you buy in to other assumptions
about using results as an indication of doped vs. clean riders.

You misunderstood. My assumption is that by the end of the TdF, the GC
contenders have been frequently enough tested that they've been dope
free for 3+ weeks. That assumption might be wrong. I'd be interested
in hearing why you think that's the case.

Another assumption is that the effects of whatever drug would decrease
over a 3+ week period.

Bottom line is that I theorize that the final time trial of the TdF this
year was about as free from the influence of doping as anything we're
likely to see.

--

--------------------

Remove CLOTHES to reply

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

Quoted message said:

"Charles Hizark" <[email hidden]> a écrit dans le message de :
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

All of this speculation about Lance and the rest of the peleton adds
up too trying to prove a negative.

You are caught up in the mathematical or logical (pure) proof of negatives.
The real world gets a sense of belief that does not need to be 100% in order
to be valid. You also missed my point.

It sounds as though you referring to the Napoleonic code. Or guilt by
insinuation....

"Tim Lines" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:b_UOc.191819$%_6.160553@attbi_s01...

Quoted message said:

Chris said:

No. These assumptions are reasonable only if you buy in to other

assumptions

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

about using results as an indication of doped vs. clean riders.

You misunderstood. My assumption is that by the end of the TdF, the GC
contenders have been frequently enough tested that they've been dope
free for 3+ weeks. That assumption might be wrong. I'd be interested
in hearing why you think that's the case.

Another assumption is that the effects of whatever drug would decrease
over a 3+ week period.

Bottom line is that I theorize that the final time trial of the TdF this
year was about as free from the influence of doping as anything we're
likely to see.

That is interesting since the last ITT of the 2003 Tour was probably won by
a cheater that did not test positive. That is the claim of several witnesses
against David Millar, and he may have already conceded that he did dope *for
that stage*. I could be wrong on the cofession though.

In any case, being drug free for 3 weeks and free from the effects of drugs
are 2 *entirely different* issues and that is what my point was. In fact,
cyclists can use EPO for the entire pre-season and have some benefit through
the entire year. It may not show up in HCT, but training with EPO will allow
at the very minimum a much fresher mental state while in competition. Those
that have to compete may be at a disadvantage simply because they had to
work so much harder to get their fitness. It may not even make a difference
in the results but it is still a factor to consider. My point in all of this
is that the rules need to be enforceable and consistent. As of now they are
not.

"Tim Lines" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:NUUOc.194115$IQ4.126926@attbi_s02...

Quoted message said:

Howard Kveck said:

In article <91GOc.55265$8_6.37804@attbi_s04>,

Tim Lines said:

Howard Kveck wrote:

> Well, there is a test now for EPO, but it will only detect it in the
>test subject a few days after the EPO has been taken. But the benefits

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>the EPO appear (and stay much) later.

So, if I understand what you're saying, the guy who's strongest towards
the end of the TdF ought to be the guy who's LEAST reliant on EPO.

I'd say that sounds fairly reasonable - either it's that or he's the

guy

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

who has figured out his timing and dosages to result in max hct towards

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

end of the race. And just to make it clear, I'm not one of the "they're

all

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

doping" crowd. I don't know, but there is evidence that *some* are using
illegal substances.

Is it possible that someone could time their dosages to result in max
hct 3+ weeks after the dosages have stopped? I assume that the last
dosage would occur a couple days prior to the start of the tour, but the
precise amount of time is not critical. That's where I'm getting 3+

weeks.

No, but you would still have benefit from being fresher through the previous
stages. EPO improves recovery, and how long do you think the effects would
last if you could make your training seem to be about 25% easier? I think
that benefit could last an entire season without ever running the risk of a
positive test or "health test failure". Look at Virenque before he was
entangled in the Festina affair. He was able to go out at attack his way to
a second place against Ullrich in the '97 Tour and he had other good GC
results prior. After he was put under investigation (and eventually
confessed) he was never really able to mount an effective GC campaign and
does not even try any longer. One or two stages and the KoM jersey are all
he can dream hope for.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

True? Especially if he's been finishing toward the front and getting
consistently tested, you'd know at a minimum that he hasn't doped since,
say 3 days before the start. Presumably his competition hasn't either.
The effects of EPO should have been at their minimum during that final
time trial this year.

Again, these seem like reasonable assumptions to make, if you believe
riders are using EPO.

--

--------------------

Remove CLOTHES to reply

"Tim Lines" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:zOUOc.59827$8_6.16314@attbi_s04...

Quoted message said:

Chris said:

"Tim Lines" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:91GOc.55265$8_6.37804@attbi_s04...

Quoted message said:

Howard Kveck wrote:

> Well, there is a test now for EPO, but it will only detect it in the
>test subject a few days after the EPO has been taken. But the benefits

of

Quoted message said:

>the EPO appear (and stay much) later.

So, if I understand what you're saying, the guy who's strongest towards
the end of the TdF ought to be the guy who's LEAST reliant on EPO.
True?

No.

I don't suppose you had a reason to go with that?

I explained in another article (actually several others) already.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Especially if he's been finishing toward the front and getting

Quoted message said:

consistently tested, you'd know at a minimum that he hasn't doped since,
say 3 days before the start.

Dude, they are *ALL* tested at the start, and then subsequent testing is
done on the podium of each stage, the GC leaders, and then random riders
that are selected based on just about anything. Strong contenders are
probably checked more frequently even before they move up on GC.

Exactly. This is fully consistent with what I said and my assumptions.
So it sounds like you're in agreement with me, other than the
unexplained "No" above.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Presumably his competition hasn't either.
The effects of EPO should have been at their minimum during that final
time trial this year.

Replaced by the effects of going in to the race fresher than they would

have

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

been otherwise, among other variables not discussed. No, you are wrong

about

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

your assumptions. You can't use results to determine whether or not

anyone

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

doped. At best, you can look at trends over several years *if* you know

for

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

certain that a rider had doped for part of that time. The only examples

I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

can think of are Virenque and Zulle (and one other Swiss rider whose

name

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

escapes me, and had a similar decline in performance after his

confession in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the Festina Affair).

--

--------------------

Remove CLOTHES to reply

"Tim Lines" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:FPUOc.191766$%_6.180225@attbi_s01...

Quoted message said:

Stewart Fleming said:

Tim Lines said:

Howard Kveck wrote:

> Well, there is a test now for EPO, but it will only detect it in
> the test subject a few days after the EPO has been taken. But the
> benefits of the EPO appear (and stay much) later.

So, if I understand what you're saying, the guy who's strongest
towards the end of the TdF ought to be the guy who's LEAST reliant on
EPO. True? Especially if he's been finishing toward the front and
getting consistently tested, you'd know at a minimum that he hasn't
doped since, say 3 days before the start. Presumably his competition
hasn't either. The effects of EPO should have been at their minimum
during that final time trial this year.

The results released by the UCI regarding the blood testing done during
the Tour tend to bear this position out - on average Hct and haemoglobin
counts dropped from start to end of the Tour.

That happens regardless of whether they are doped or not. I thought all
informed dope discussers knew that.

Quoted message said:

The final TT performances

Quoted message said:

were not exactly stellar, either.

Hmm, what exactly does that mean? Not stellar? How would you know when the
course this year requires you to throw out any other recent Tour as a
comparison (and modern equipment and training means only a recent Tour has a
chance to be a valid benchmark). How would you do if you raced in 2 ITTs in
the third week of a GT (first on a Wednesday and the second 3 days later on
Saturday!) for the only time in your life? Add to that the the first ITT
(the 3 days prior) was a mountain ITT and an entirely different effort. You
think your time would be "stellar"? Statistics are a crappy way to argue
anything when there are so many variables unaccounted for.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now THAT, I didn't know. Really interesting.

--

--------------------

Remove CLOTHES to reply

In article <[email hidden]>,

Chris said:

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

Quoted message said:

In article <91GOc.55265$8_6.37804@attbi_s04>,

Tim Lines said:

Howard Kveck wrote:

> Well, there is a test now for EPO, but it will only detect it in

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> test subject a few days after the EPO has been taken. But the benefits

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> the EPO appear (and stay much) later.

So, if I understand what you're saying, the guy who's strongest towards
the end of the TdF ought to be the guy who's LEAST reliant on EPO.

I'd say that sounds fairly reasonable -

Really? How is it reasonable? You mean you don't see the flaw in his logic
and that makes it reasonable?

Well, Chris, I didn't read his statement as saying that he thought EPO
use was a certain thing. It seemed more of a hypothetical to me. But
Stewart's reply (a couple further downstream of the one you replied to)
seemed to explain it a lot more clearly than I did.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

either it's that or he's the guy

Right. Either that or he's the guy that was stronger because of X, Y and Z.

That's pretty much how I see the situation in real life (not the
hypothetical). Like I mentioned, I'm not a "they're all on drugs" guy.

--
tanx,
Howard

So far, so good, so what?

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article <NUUOc.194115$IQ4.126926@attbi_s02>,

Tim Lines said:

Howard Kveck said:

In article <91GOc.55265$8_6.37804@attbi_s04>,

Tim Lines said:

Howard Kveck wrote:

> Well, there is a test now for EPO, but it will only detect it in the
>test subject a few days after the EPO has been taken. But the benefits of
>the EPO appear (and stay much) later.

So, if I understand what you're saying, the guy who's strongest towards
the end of the TdF ought to be the guy who's LEAST reliant on EPO.

I'd say that sounds fairly reasonable - either it's that or he's the guy
who has figured out his timing and dosages to result in max hct towards the
end of the race. And just to make it clear, I'm not one of the "they're all
doping" crowd. I don't know, but there is evidence that *some* are using
illegal substances.

Is it possible that someone could time their dosages to result in max
hct 3+ weeks after the dosages have stopped?

As far as I have been able to figure out, that is pretty much what they
do. I don't think very many people (of the ones who were using it) were
using it all the time. That would be based on things I've read by people
who got caught and talked about their use, by the way.

Quoted message said:

I assume that the last dosage would occur a couple days prior to the start
of the tour, but the precise amount of time is not critical. That's where
I'm getting 3+ weeks.

You'd have to take the final dosages before that (your "a couple of
days"😉, as the test the UCI has that will actually detect EPO can detect it
a few days after it's been taken. After that time, they are relying on
hematocrit counts to be a possible indicator of use (though if one's hct is
too high, it doesn't count as a "positive", but you're not allowed to race
due to "health reasons"😉. I don't recall off the top of my head how long it
takes for EPO to have an effect, but it does take time for the body to
start pumping up the hematocrit.

--
tanx,
Howard

So far, so good, so what?

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?