In the News: Urine test clears Jeanson

[B. Lafferty]

"Richard Adams" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>
> > "Kyle Legate" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> >>Absolutely, just as clean as the others. One thing that struck me during Worlds coverage was how
> >>many of the women had acne. More than the
general
> >>population at that age.
> >
> >
> > Designer steroids? I recall taking much abuse when I noted (not by
name) a
> > 50 year old local racer with active acne. Must have been a natural
hormonal
> > imbalance. ;-)
>
> Might be sunscreen. I've used a coupel which clogged pores and gave me a rash of painful zits.
> Now I live for overcast mornings
>

Not this kind. Typical "roid rash."

 

[Stewart Fleming]

Steven L. Sheffield wrote:
> On 10/24/2003 05:56 PM, in article 1067039811.367105@ns, "Stewart Fleming"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Fred Marx wrote:
>>
>>>I notice that while all the "abnornal" tests got everyone here all lathered up no one seems to
>>>have much to say about the claen second tests........
>>>
>>
>>I'd say that something else was being used that caused the high haematocrit reading and it
>>wasn't EPO...
>
>
>
>
> An altitude tent, perhaps, just like she said????

Possible, but I noted her further comment in the article too: "I have never taken any prohibited
substance..."

That phrase and its related cousins "I have never tested positive for a banned substance" and "I've
been tested heaps of times and always passed" are starting to set my alarm bells ringing now. If
someone says "I have never taken any recognized performance-enhancing substance, listed specifically
by name or as a related substance on the WADA list, with the specific intention of enhancing my
performance", I'd be more convinced. If they said that under oath, I'd be willing to believe it.

 

[Kyle Legate]

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
> But if you don't know someone well, and he/she is near the top of sport, and has those attributes,
> I don't think it's appropriate to speculate that that person is on drugs anymore than his/her
> competitors are.
>
That is exactly what I said.

 

[Stig]

You know.....

In some circles it may be considered "odd" to have such a protracted discussion about a young
lady's urine....

 

[B. Lafferty]

Why? Isn't rbr also a fetish?

"stig" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> You know.....
>
> In some circles it may be considered "odd" to have such a protracted discussion about a young
> lady's urine....

 

[David Sathchel]

Does anyone know much about her social life etc.? I hear her coach is really controlling, a
bit weird.

I hear he controls every aspect of her life and won't let her out of his sight. I hear that he and
the RONA entourage are really really possessive over their "investment". But I am not sure how much
this is hyperbolle via the cycling rumourmongers or truth. I heard she wasn't "allowed" a boyfriend
but then at Hamilton I saw her getting up close and personal with this guy a few times.

Comments? Opinions? Inside view?

"Kyle Legate" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> >
> > But if you don't know someone well, and he/she is near the top of sport, and has those
> > attributes, I don't think it's appropriate to speculate that that person is on drugs anymore
> > than his/her competitors are.
> >
> That is exactly what I said.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Andy Coggan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
>
> One report placed Jeanson's hematocrit at over 50%, which I find surprisingly high. However,
> there is little or no (publically available) data on the effectiveness of altitude tents,
> different acclimatization protocols, etc., for raising hematocrit, so Jeanson's explanation
> certainly can't be ruled out (esp. if she happens to naturally have a hematocrit higher than
> average in the first place).

My normal hematocrit is 48%. It sure wouldn't take much to push me over 50% and I assume that
extreme dehydration like I've experienced a couple of times would cause me to test of 50%.

> Jeason: innocent until proven guilty.

But let us not forget that EPO is here and gone within a day or two whereas the effects of it linger
for a month.

However, EPO forces RBC ejection from bone marrow and the numbers in inadequately developed RBC can
suggest whether the increased hematocrit is caused by EPO or altitude. I can only wish that they
felt sufficient confidence in that theory to inform us of her results.

 

[Andy Coggan]

"Benjamin Weiner" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:3fa07aa9$1@darkstar...
> Andy Coggan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Ironically, last night's Nova was about the field of physics, discussing relativelity, quantum
> > mechanics, and string theory. One of the
scientists
> > interviewed (it might have been David Weinberg) opined that if an idea
or
> > concept doesn't provide for testable hypotheses (as apparently is the
case
> > for string theory), then it represents a philosophy, not science.
>
> Steven Weinberg? (There is a theoretical astrophysicist David Weinberg, but his interests are
> fairly practical - when compared to string theory.)

Must have been - my bad. (I should probably also point out that I at least got the impression that
Dr. Weinberg was actually pro-string theory...his "philosophy" comment seemed to be meant to
indicate the hurdles that must still be overcome to convince others.)

> It's very difficult to construct a mathematically consistent theory that reduces in the observable
> (low-energy) limits to our current theories. String theory is one possible way of doing this. If
> somebody does come up with a consistent string theory that properly encompasses our current
> particle physics and gravitation theories, without contradicting any current facts, it will be a
> major _mathematical_ success even if it makes no new testable predictions. However, it may not be
> considered scientifically verified, if there aren't any ways to test it against some other
> hypothetical theory. IOW, if something is really hard to do, it is impressive to have one way of
> doing it even if it's not unique.
>
> However, since nobody knows what the consistent theory will look like, it's not clear yet that it
> will make no testable predictions.
>
> BTW, of course, if somebody finds the theory and doesn't publish it, it is somewhat less of a
> success.



Andy Coggan

 

[Ewoud Dronkert]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 23:07:47 GMT, Andy Coggan wrote:
> "Benjamin Weiner" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Andy Coggan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > interviewed (it might have been David Weinberg)
> >
> > Steven Weinberg?
>
> Must have been - my bad. (I should probably also point out that I at least got the impression that
> Dr. Weinberg was actually pro-string theory...

Doesn't that pretty much rule out Steven Weinberg? Was it Ed Witten? Starts with a W too!

 

[Andy Coggan]

"Ewoud Dronkert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 23:07:47 GMT, Andy Coggan wrote:
> > "Benjamin Weiner" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Andy Coggan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > interviewed (it might have been David Weinberg)
> > >
> > > Steven Weinberg?
> >
> > Must have been - my bad. (I should probably also point out that I at
least
> > got the impression that Dr. Weinberg was actually pro-string theory...
>
> Doesn't that pretty much rule out Steven Weinberg? Was it Ed Witten? Starts with a W too!

No, it was definitely a Dr. Weinberg (from UT-Austin...which I'm sure helps to know!). The reason
that it wasn't clear to me whether he was a supporter or a detractor of string theory is the way
they spliced the cuts from his interview.

Andy Coggan

 

[runner]

Originally posted by Jason Spaceman
From the article:

-----------------------------------
CBC SPORTS ONLINE - Urine samples taken from Canadian cyclist Genevieve Jeanson at the recent world
road cycling championships in Hamilton, Ont., showed no traces of EPO.

The International Cycling Union (UCI) informed the Canadian Cycling Association of Jeanson's
negative urine test on Friday.

"I'm not surprised or relieved because I wasn't in the least worried," Jeanson said in a news
release issued by her Rona-Esker pro team.
-----------------------------------

The rest at http://www.cbc.ca/pcgi-bin/templates/sportsView.cgi?
news/2003/10/24/Sports/jeanson031024

J. Spaceman

http://www.cyberpresse.ca/sports/article/1,154,1929,112003,497346.shtml

(For those of you who don't speak or read French: Jeanson is holding a press conference in a Montreal Hotel at 15h00 (3pm) ... in 15 minutes. She is (officially as of 2pm today) the cyclist that the doctor Duquette subscribed EPO to....)

 

[Stewart Fleming]

runner wrote:

> (For those of you who don't speak or read French: Jeanson is holding a press conference in a
> Montreal Hotel at 15h00 (3pm) ... in 15 minutes. She is (officially as of 2pm today) the cyclist
> that the doctor Duquette subscribed EPO to....)

Except it isn't that clear who is guilty of what.

He said in front of the tribunal that he was guilty of improper prescription, including EPO. Then he
said outside the tribunal that he wasn't guilty of that. Then Jeanson is named as the cyclist to
whom he prescribed EPO. Then she says she never took it, was never prescribed it.

What are we left with? A cyclist with a history of doping allegations, unbelievable performances and
a exclusion from World Championships with a high haematocrit level, in "athlete's denial" about what
she might or might not have taken or been given. A doctor who attempts to shade the truth by saying
that his guilt related only to the prescription of the anaesthetic and not the EPO. Or are we
getting even deeper into semantics where the substance wasn't EPO because it was Eprex or some other
tradename? Since she has confidentiality of her medical files, she can say what she likes since
there can never be any proof. I know what I choose to believe about this case...

 

[Bob Schwartz]

Stewart Fleming <[email protected]> wrote:
> I know what I choose to believe about this case...

Yep. Clearly the next move is Rona's.

Next year is an Olympic year. Her presence in Athens will give this story a life of its own on the
biggest stage in sports. It doesn't appear that any sporting organization has anything that it can
use to exclude her. It will only get messier from here.

Bob Schwartz [email protected]