spotlight on Horner

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

Quoted message said:

Since the governing bodies do not wish to actually solve the problem
(they simply wish the reporting of the problem would go away)...What
you propose would empower them to essentially "wish away" the problem
altogether. If they report no allgations, then they can "exonerate"
everyone, and, viola! Zee problem is finis!...And no one would ever
know anything different.

So how are the athletes any different governing bodies in their real concern
to solve the problem? And if not the governing bodies or the athletes to
step forward and address the problem, then who should do it?

Quoted message said:

At least we know that a (very) good percentage of those caught are
actually guilty (thank those that sang like birds)...I wanna know when
they test positive, so that I can pay attention to the due process
that you cited.

How many testing appeals have you actually paid attention to (other than the
final results)?

Personally I figure there are a lot more riders who aren't caught than are
caught. Even then, there are a lot more that are caught than there are with
false positives or otherwise get off, but at what point do you say, "Screw
the riders' rights! We've got a witch hunt on our hands!"

OTOH, law enforcement and the civil/criminal justice system are not perfect
either, so perhaps as L. Seer says, "...a perfect utopia isn't necessary.".

Quoted message said:

-k

"Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Carl Sundquist" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

> Who should solve the problem? Isn't it the riders
> who are suppossedly falsely accused or choose/extorted/cohersed to

use

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> product if they want to be successful in the current arena? I think
> the riders should play a bigger role than they currently do. They

are

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> all so PC on this issue...for many reasons...

I do too, but not necessarily in the same direction as you. If the Pro

Tour

Quoted message said:

makes it, then the riders need to push for a more powerful riders

union to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

force greater accountability.

Isn't it in the best interest of everyone involved (riders, sponsors,

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

sport itself) to not disclose what ultimately turns out to be a false
positive? Who benefits from public disclosure of a false positive?

"L. Seer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So where is the accountability when, among others, Benoit Joachim
(nandrolone, 2000) or Christophe Brandt (methadone, 2004), Armstrong
(corticoids, 1999), and the Peruvian candy eater (Simoni?) are announced

as

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

testing positive? Rightly or luckily, all of these riders were

exonerated.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

However, shouldn't due process be exhausted before such announcements

are

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

made public?

What do your examples that have to do with tracking and publishing hct
and hgb?

It still comes down to a loss of personal privacy.

Quoted message said:

Public tracking along with the hematology passport would
make for some level of deterence without the need for any sanction.

I'm far from an expert on hematology or EPO, but how can you be sure it
wouldn't backfire and athletes wouldn't just nurse themselves along with a
little EPO to supplement an oxygen tent and stay close to the 50% threshold
year round? I heard 10 years ago that athletes were monitoring their
testosterone/epitestosterone ratios to ensure they wouldn't exceed them on
tests.

Quoted message said:

FYI...Lance's '99 positive was not properly executed. He did not
present a certificate for that substance at the time of the test as
required by protocol which mandates a sanction for non-compliance.
Just ask Ludo who was sanctioned for the same offence at the '99
Tour...even though he had a prescription on file...and in fact only
listed it on his proclomation and did not test positive.

Lance presented two public versions of that incident,"I didn't think I
had to register a cream [or there abouts]," and later in his book he
said,"I cleared it with the Tour authorities in advance of the race."

Lier or doper? Kind of off-subject but still hilarious!

That's why I wrote, "Rightly or luckily, all of these riders were
exonerated."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > That is why I suggested public transparency on this.
>
> That is neither the rider's fault nor problem to solve.
>
> Among other issues would be the potential use of published blood

records

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

as

Quoted message said:

> a source of strategic information.

Who is at fault?

For public disclosure without due process? Who do you think?

I still don't get what you are talking about. Due process for what?

Sorry. I keep thinking of the larger picture of doping control, not an
focused look at EPO (and variants) control.

However I still disagree that public disclosure of riders' blood values is
an appropriate means curbing illegal blood manipulation.

(crit pro) said:

From: [email hidden] ([email hidden])
Subject: Chris Horner article in S.D. Union-Tribune
Date: 1997/01/30

From the San Diego Union Tribune:
...
To the best of
anybody's memory, Horner thus became the only American cyclist besides
LeMond to ride for a French-supported team.
...
Copyright Union-Tribune Publishing Co.

1986, Hampsten, La Vie Claire.

-Gerard

Gerard Lanois said:

(crit pro) said:

From: [email hidden] ([email hidden])
Subject: Chris Horner article in S.D. Union-Tribune
Date: 1997/01/30

From the San Diego Union Tribune:
...
To the best of
anybody's memory, Horner thus became the only American cyclist besides
LeMond to ride for a French-supported team.
...
Copyright Union-Tribune Publishing Co.

1986, Hampsten, La Vie Claire.

Boyer rode for Renault-Gitane, and Rogers, Knickman and maybe some
other guys were part season on La Vie Claire.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On 09/13/2004 10:21 PM, in article [email hidden], "Gerard

Lanois said:

(crit pro) said:

From: [email hidden] ([email hidden])
Subject: Chris Horner article in S.D. Union-Tribune
Date: 1997/01/30

From the San Diego Union Tribune:
...
To the best of
anybody's memory, Horner thus became the only American cyclist besides
LeMond to ride for a French-supported team.
...
Copyright Union-Tribune Publishing Co.

1986, Hampsten, La Vie Claire.

Bobby Julich, Cofidis - 1997-1999, Credit Agricole - 2000-2001
Frankie Andreu, Cofidis - 1997
Kevin Livingston, Cofidis - 1997-1998
Lance Armstrong, Cofidis - 1997
Jonathan Boyer, Renault - 1981, SEM - 1982-1983

Now, granted, even if they weren't aware that Cofidis was a French team,
they should have been able to find Jonathan Boyer ...

--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
veloworks at worldnet dot ay tea tee dot net
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [four word] slash

While I can not cite a precise number of appeals I've followed
vigorously, you may remember from some of my past posts that I have a
pretty good file going in my head. By and large, what I do see in the
testing appeals is that rarely do the riders ever refute the accuracy
of the test itself. I see a lot of (otherwise) healthy individuals
who suddenly are able to produce prescriptions for a wide variety of
(usually) uncommon medications that somehow must be the real culprits.
History has shown me that most of these scripts exist simply for use
in potential testing appeals. Either that or some other creative
explanation (and there have been many of those. Never do i see an
appeal that says "your test is just plain wrong".

I've always felt that the problem will only be solved by the riders
themselves. Personal accountability. If we ALL started murdering
people today, only a miniscule percentage would ever get caught. So
if that started happening, I'm supposed to "go with the flow"? But
we don't have that. Most people don't murder other people. Morality
keeps most of us in line. The consequences keep even more in line,
and then there are the idiots. A few innocent ones here and there do
slip through the cracks. But those few innocent people are basically
our cost for not having a generally murderous society.

The difference is that most falsely accused murderers don't have a
prescription hidden away in their lock box that falsely fooled the
police into thinking they'd committed murder in the first place. You
don't see defendants coming back and saying that some obscure
medication transformed their DNA or fingerprints.

I realize Carl, that you're part of the elite circle (or at least
were). Your heyday happened in the infancy of this problem. Sure, if
you went to the local track on Friday nights, you were likely racing
against some total MEATHEAD (wink) who had himself on meth. That's
nothing compared to guys who have now acheived whole new dimensions of
fitness due to the blood boosting products they take combined with
steroids and HGH. The worst you could expect in your time was a
really great natural athlete who had a little help for the sprint.

The governing bodies "could" choose to catch a lot more riders during
the early season. Heck, most of the entire "second string" could
easilly get popped if tested at the right times. I'd like to see WADA
show up at prospect park when the Navigators decide not to travel that
weekend. It'll never happen.

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

Quoted message said:

So how are the athletes any different governing bodies in their real concern
to solve the problem? And if not the governing bodies or the athletes to
step forward and address the problem, then who should do it?

How many testing appeals have you actually paid attention to (other than the
final results)?

Personally I figure there are a lot more riders who aren't caught than are
caught. Even then, there are a lot more that are caught than there are with
false positives or otherwise get off, but at what point do you say, "Screw
the riders' rights! We've got a witch hunt on our hands!"

OTOH, law enforcement and the civil/criminal justice system are not perfect
either, so perhaps as L. Seer says, "...a perfect utopia isn't necessary.".

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

Quoted message said:

(crit pro) said:

From: [email hidden] ([email hidden])
Subject: Chris Horner article in S.D. Union-Tribune
Date: 1997/01/30

From the San Diego Union Tribune:
...
To the best of
anybody's memory, Horner thus became the only American cyclist besides
LeMond to ride for a French-supported team.
...
Copyright Union-Tribune Publishing Co.

1986, Hampsten, La Vie Claire.

Jonathan Boyer

Thurlow Rogers

Roy Knickman

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

Quoted message said:

While I can not cite a precise number of appeals I've followed
vigorously, you may remember from some of my past posts that I have a
pretty good file going in my head. By and large, what I do see in the
testing appeals is that rarely do the riders ever refute the accuracy
of the test itself.

That is probably at least partially because they lack the scientific acumen
and/or the financial resources to be able to even attempt to do so.

Andy Coggan

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

Quoted message said:

athletes wouldn't just nurse themselves along with a
little EPO to supplement an oxygen tent and stay close to the 50%

threshold

Quoted message said:

year round?

Some are probably already doing so. However, given that there is significant
variability in measuring hematocrit (especially, apparently, when it is done
by the UCI), you couldn't stay that close and still feel safe. Thus, unless
your natural hematocrit is quite low, 50% threshold effectively limits the
magnitude of the benefit you might obtain from using EPO to perhaps 5-10%.

Andy Coggan

Didn't John Eustice ride for a Sem/France-Loire team of Sean Kelly alongside
Jonathan Boyer

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

(crit pro) said:

From: [email hidden] ([email hidden])
Subject: Chris Horner article in S.D. Union-Tribune
Date: 1997/01/30

From the San Diego Union Tribune:
...
To the best of
anybody's memory, Horner thus became the only American cyclist besides
LeMond to ride for a French-supported team.
...
Copyright Union-Tribune Publishing Co.

1986, Hampsten, La Vie Claire.

Jonathan Boyer

Thurlow Rogers

Roy Knickman

"Dave Stoller" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Didn't John Eustice ride for a Sem/France-Loire team of Sean Kelly

alongside

Quoted message said:

Jonathan Boyer

I'm pretty sure he only rode for Italian teams.

kaiser said:

Quoted message said:

While I can not cite a precise number of appeals I've followed
vigorously, you may remember from some of my past posts that I have a
pretty good file going in my head. By and large, what I do see in the
testing appeals is that rarely do the riders ever refute the accuracy
of the test itself.

Andy Coggan said:

That is probably at least partially because they lack the scientific acumen
and/or the financial resources to be able to even attempt to do so.

And the WADA witchhunters don't appear to operate under normal western
legal limitations (perhaps [censored] pound co-operated in drawing up the
patriot act).

Dave Stoller said:

Didn't John Eustice ride for a Sem/France-Loire team of Sean Kelly alongside
Jonathan Boyer

Yeah. Two years with Kelly.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Donald Munro <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

kaiser said:

Quoted message said:

While I can not cite a precise number of appeals I've followed
vigorously, you may remember from some of my past posts that I have a
pretty good file going in my head. By and large, what I do see in the
testing appeals is that rarely do the riders ever refute the accuracy
of the test itself.

Andy Coggan said:

That is probably at least partially because they lack the scientific acumen
and/or the financial resources to be able to even attempt to do so.

On the 50% rule...two standard deviations (normal population...not
athletes which appear to run a bit lower hct) plus an extra 4% (nobody
is busted unless they are over 52%)...and a sizeable margine of error
is included...not to mention the ability for naturally high hct
athletes to secure a limited exemption. Appeals on this matter (the
subject of my commentary) do not exist since there are no sanctions,
just vacations.

Quoted message said:

And the WADA witchhunters don't appear to operate under normal western
legal limitations (perhaps [censored] pound co-operated in drawing up the
patriot act).

Please don't confuse privacy/legal issues with sports participation.
When athletes signs up for participation, they must follow the rules
no matter how invasive. Privacy is really only protected from
unjustified government intrusion, not when athletes take out a racing
license and agree to participate within the rules under a broad, vague
authority. This is not really a legal matter...it's just part of what
you sign up for...good and bad.

There is no comparision to the Uniting and Strengthening America by
Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct
Terrorism Act, which involves non-consentual government intervention.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

athletes wouldn't just nurse themselves along with a
little EPO to supplement an oxygen tent and stay close to the 50%

threshold

Quoted message said:

year round?

Some are probably already doing so. However, given that there is significant
variability in measuring hematocrit (especially, apparently, when it is done
by the UCI), you couldn't stay that close and still feel safe. Thus, unless
your natural hematocrit is quite low, 50% threshold effectively limits the
magnitude of the benefit you might obtain from using EPO to perhaps 5-10%.

Andy Coggan

2 sd from non-athlete population levels plus 4% is quite a bit...even
with a vari-measure UCI reputation. Practicing the speed and
magnitude at which levels can be reliablly lowered within an hour
could easily create a reasonably safe feeling.

Only 5-10%! ;-) Given that conservative estimate, that's obviously no
small deal (uh...as you well know, that is massive, particularly when
climbing)! I'd bet it is larger for those who run 38-40 when under
heavy work-loads and then efficiently play the get under 52% game.
Talk about a transformation...

Carl, I don't buy the effectiveness of altitude and/or simulation of
altitude in terms of hct (I think it is a bit of a smoke-screen). My
impression, perhaps slighly faulty, is that there is so much
variability between individuals as to how they respond to that kind of
stimulus that there is no blanket certainty that such stimulus will
raise hct, and if it does, it is minimal. In fact, there was an AIS
study that showed a decrease in VO2 with the use of simulated
altitude. The real stuff really works though.

Carl, don't you sell Oxygen tents?

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

Quoted message said:

"L. Seer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So where is the accountability when, among others, Benoit Joachim
(nandrolone, 2000) or Christophe Brandt (methadone, 2004), Armstrong
(corticoids, 1999), and the Peruvian candy eater (Simoni?) are announced

as

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

testing positive? Rightly or luckily, all of these riders were

exonerated.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

However, shouldn't due process be exhausted before such announcements

are

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

made public?

What do your examples that have to do with tracking and publishing hct
and hgb?

It still comes down to a loss of personal privacy.

Quoted message said:

Public tracking along with the hematology passport would
make for some level of deterence without the need for any sanction.

I'm far from an expert on hematology or EPO, but how can you be sure it
wouldn't backfire and athletes wouldn't just nurse themselves along with a
little EPO to supplement an oxygen tent and stay close to the 50% threshold
year round? I heard 10 years ago that athletes were monitoring their
testosterone/epitestosterone ratios to ensure they wouldn't exceed them on
tests.

Quoted message said:

FYI...Lance's '99 positive was not properly executed. He did not
present a certificate for that substance at the time of the test as
required by protocol which mandates a sanction for non-compliance.
Just ask Ludo who was sanctioned for the same offence at the '99
Tour...even though he had a prescription on file...and in fact only
listed it on his proclomation and did not test positive.

Lance presented two public versions of that incident,"I didn't think I
had to register a cream [or there abouts]," and later in his book he
said,"I cleared it with the Tour authorities in advance of the race."

Lier or doper? Kind of off-subject but still hilarious!

That's why I wrote, "Rightly or luckily, all of these riders were
exonerated."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > That is why I suggested public transparency on this.
> >
> > That is neither the rider's fault nor problem to solve.
> >
> > Among other issues would be the potential use of published blood

records
as

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > a source of strategic information.
>
> Who is at fault?

For public disclosure without due process? Who do you think?

I still don't get what you are talking about. Due process for what?

Sorry. I keep thinking of the larger picture of doping control, not an
focused look at EPO (and variants) control.

However I still disagree that public disclosure of riders' blood values is
an appropriate means curbing illegal blood manipulation.

Carl, don't you sell Oxygen tents?

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

Quoted message said:

"L. Seer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So where is the accountability when, among others, Benoit Joachim
(nandrolone, 2000) or Christophe Brandt (methadone, 2004), Armstrong
(corticoids, 1999), and the Peruvian candy eater (Simoni?) are announced

as

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

testing positive? Rightly or luckily, all of these riders were

exonerated.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

However, shouldn't due process be exhausted before such announcements

are

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

made public?

What do your examples that have to do with tracking and publishing hct
and hgb?

It still comes down to a loss of personal privacy.

Quoted message said:

Public tracking along with the hematology passport would
make for some level of deterence without the need for any sanction.

I'm far from an expert on hematology or EPO, but how can you be sure it
wouldn't backfire and athletes wouldn't just nurse themselves along with a
little EPO to supplement an oxygen tent and stay close to the 50% threshold
year round? I heard 10 years ago that athletes were monitoring their
testosterone/epitestosterone ratios to ensure they wouldn't exceed them on
tests.

Quoted message said:

FYI...Lance's '99 positive was not properly executed. He did not
present a certificate for that substance at the time of the test as
required by protocol which mandates a sanction for non-compliance.
Just ask Ludo who was sanctioned for the same offence at the '99
Tour...even though he had a prescription on file...and in fact only
listed it on his proclomation and did not test positive.

Lance presented two public versions of that incident,"I didn't think I
had to register a cream [or there abouts]," and later in his book he
said,"I cleared it with the Tour authorities in advance of the race."

Lier or doper? Kind of off-subject but still hilarious!

That's why I wrote, "Rightly or luckily, all of these riders were
exonerated."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > That is why I suggested public transparency on this.
> >
> > That is neither the rider's fault nor problem to solve.
> >
> > Among other issues would be the potential use of published blood

records
as

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > a source of strategic information.
>
> Who is at fault?

For public disclosure without due process? Who do you think?

I still don't get what you are talking about. Due process for what?

Sorry. I keep thinking of the larger picture of doping control, not an
focused look at EPO (and variants) control.

However I still disagree that public disclosure of riders' blood values is
an appropriate means curbing illegal blood manipulation.

Carl, don't you sell Oxygen tents?

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

Quoted message said:

"L. Seer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So where is the accountability when, among others, Benoit Joachim
(nandrolone, 2000) or Christophe Brandt (methadone, 2004), Armstrong
(corticoids, 1999), and the Peruvian candy eater (Simoni?) are announced

as

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

testing positive? Rightly or luckily, all of these riders were

exonerated.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

However, shouldn't due process be exhausted before such announcements

are

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

made public?

What do your examples that have to do with tracking and publishing hct
and hgb?

It still comes down to a loss of personal privacy.

Quoted message said:

Public tracking along with the hematology passport would
make for some level of deterence without the need for any sanction.

I'm far from an expert on hematology or EPO, but how can you be sure it
wouldn't backfire and athletes wouldn't just nurse themselves along with a
little EPO to supplement an oxygen tent and stay close to the 50% threshold
year round? I heard 10 years ago that athletes were monitoring their
testosterone/epitestosterone ratios to ensure they wouldn't exceed them on
tests.

Quoted message said:

FYI...Lance's '99 positive was not properly executed. He did not
present a certificate for that substance at the time of the test as
required by protocol which mandates a sanction for non-compliance.
Just ask Ludo who was sanctioned for the same offence at the '99
Tour...even though he had a prescription on file...and in fact only
listed it on his proclomation and did not test positive.

Lance presented two public versions of that incident,"I didn't think I
had to register a cream [or there abouts]," and later in his book he
said,"I cleared it with the Tour authorities in advance of the race."

Lier or doper? Kind of off-subject but still hilarious!

That's why I wrote, "Rightly or luckily, all of these riders were
exonerated."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > > That is why I suggested public transparency on this.
> >
> > That is neither the rider's fault nor problem to solve.
> >
> > Among other issues would be the potential use of published blood

records
as

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > a source of strategic information.
>
> Who is at fault?

For public disclosure without due process? Who do you think?

I still don't get what you are talking about. Due process for what?

Sorry. I keep thinking of the larger picture of doping control, not an
focused look at EPO (and variants) control.

However I still disagree that public disclosure of riders' blood values is
an appropriate means curbing illegal blood manipulation.

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

Quoted message said:

Carl, don't you sell Oxygen tents?

Nope. That's Wally.

http://www.hypoxictent.com/sdut092001.html

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Chris Horner article in S.D. Union-Tribune
Date: 1997/01/30

From the San Diego Union Tribune:
...
To the best of
anybody's memory, Horner thus became the only American cyclist besides
LeMond to ride for a French-supported team.
...
Copyright Union-Tribune Publishing Co.

IIRC, Greg Oravetz rode for BIC in the late 80's, but I'm not sure if he was
a pro at the time.