Verbruggen says, "6.6% are autologous"

[Tom Kunich]

"Patricio Carlos" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Re: And even then it failed in two out of 24 times (or whatever the
> number is).
>
> No - it was positive in 22/22 that had received transfusions and
> negative in 3/3 that had not received the transfusions they were
> supposed to have. Small numbers published but no errors.

Sorry, I don't have the paper to hand but I read it. There were some 24 (I
believe) candidates who had ALL recieved homologous tranfusions. Of that
number 22 tested positive, 1 tested questionable and 1 negative.

That's a false negative rate of about 8%. What is the false positive rate?
After all, these tests have false positives in every case - without knowing
the rate of false positives it isn't possible to give any credibility to the
test.

What's more, the technician who performed the blood tests had test many,
perhaps hundreds of samples with this test and yet he did NOT mark it as
positive but his feeling was that it was a questionable result. Funny thing
that the man who developed the test had to make the final determination.

Who would you want reading your results - a neutral party only following the
procedure or a man whose reputation is on the line?

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Bob Schwartz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Stewart Fleming <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Bob Schwartz wrote:
>
>>> The PARENT SUBSTANCE is supposed to be in the capsule, not
>>> the metabolite. Oops.
>
>> Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to bad personal hygiene.
>
> Given the scale of the contamination, any bad personal
> hygiene would have to involve a large animal. Even
> bigger than a sheep.

Crit Pro strikes again.

 

[Robert Chung]

Patricio Carlos wrote:

> Using the same test in other circumstances, false positives and false
> negatives are very, very rare.
>
> The Athens lab doing the olympic tests seemed to be struggling all
> around so I wouldn't read too much into their tech saying Tyler was
> negative...

The latter paragraph undercuts the former paragraph.

 

[Patricio Carlos]

For that particular lab perhaps...

 

[Reggie]

"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> "Reggie" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> No reggie, my presumption is that they don't know the accuracy of these
>>> tests and are using clever methods of testing their results by seeing
>>> the reaction of riders.
>>
>> No, the operative reality is that you're a bullshitter who constantly
>> attempts to change the nature of the debate when your ******** is called
>> for what it is.
>
> If you had a clue you wouldn't know what to do with it.

Oh. OK.
>

 

[laudien]

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/apr05/apr18news2

The average SI score for professional cyclists is 90. At
Liege-Bastogne-Liege last year, Hamilton scored 123.8. It was up to
132.9 the next week by the Tour de Romandie, and with it came a
hematocrit level of 49.7% (the UCI's nominal limit is 50%).

 

[Robert Chung]

laudien wrote:
> The average SI score for professional cyclists is 90. At
> Liege-Bastogne-Liege last year, Hamilton scored 123.8. It was up to
> 132.9 the next week by the Tour de Romandie, and with it came a
> hematocrit level of 49.7% (the UCI's nominal limit is 50%).

Hmmm. That's interesting. The SI score is calculated as:
(hemoglobin (in g/L) - 60) * (sqrt(reticulocytes in %))

The "normal" range for hemoglobin is about 135-175 g/L.
The "normal" range for reticulocytes is about 0.5-2%
The UCI SI limit is 133.

I wonder what the joint probability distribution of those two things looks
like.

 

[gym.gravity]

So what do they think he did....

EPO in the spring, siphon off the red cells and save them for the fall?
Then he switched bags accidentally with Perez and coincidentally they
didn't have any adverse transfusion reactions?

He is a chimera, and he does EPO too? He should always fail the
transfusion test.

 

[Andy Coggan]

"laudien" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/apr05/apr18news2
>
> The average SI score for professional cyclists is 90. At
> Liege-Bastogne-Liege last year, Hamilton scored 123.8. It was up to
> 132.9 the next week by the Tour de Romandie, and with it came a
> hematocrit level of 49.7% (the UCI's nominal limit is 50%).

Doesn't Hamilton live in Boulder? (Although reportedly USADA provided data
suggesting that Hamilton's "normal" hematocrit is significantly lower than
49.7%.)

Andy Coggan

 

[Bob Schwartz]

Andy Coggan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Doesn't Hamilton live in Boulder? (Although reportedly USADA provided data
> suggesting that Hamilton's "normal" hematocrit is significantly lower than
> 49.7%.)

Would that matter if he'd been at sea level in Athens and in the
early Vuelta stages? That is, is there a 'memory' to living at
altitude that causes your hematocrit to be higher after spending
time at sea level?

Bob Schwartz
[email protected]

 

[gym.gravity]

Bob Schwartz wrote:
> Andy Coggan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Doesn't Hamilton live in Boulder? (Although reportedly USADA
provided data
> > suggesting that Hamilton's "normal" hematocrit is significantly
lower than
> > 49.7%.)
>
> Would that matter if he'd been at sea level in Athens and in the
> early Vuelta stages? That is, is there a 'memory' to living at
> altitude that causes your hematocrit to be higher after spending
> time at sea level?
>
> Bob Schwartz
> [email protected]

It was 49.7% in April/May at Romandie.

 

[Bret Wade]

Andy Coggan wrote:

> "laudien" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2005/apr05/apr18news2
>>
>>The average SI score for professional cyclists is 90. At
>>Liege-Bastogne-Liege last year, Hamilton scored 123.8. It was up to
>>132.9 the next week by the Tour de Romandie, and with it came a
>>hematocrit level of 49.7% (the UCI's nominal limit is 50%).
>
>
> Doesn't Hamilton live in Boulder? (Although reportedly USADA provided data
> suggesting that Hamilton's "normal" hematocrit is significantly lower than
> 49.7%.)
>
> Andy Coggan
>
>

He lives in one of the canyons above Boulder. Probably somewhere between
6,000 and 8,000 ft. The city street I live on turns into the canyon road
he live's on.

Bret

 

[Andy Coggan]

"Bob Schwartz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Andy Coggan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Doesn't Hamilton live in Boulder? (Although reportedly USADA provided
>> data
>> suggesting that Hamilton's "normal" hematocrit is significantly lower
>> than
>> 49.7%.)
>
> Would that matter if he'd been at sea level in Athens and in the
> early Vuelta stages? That is, is there a 'memory' to living at
> altitude that causes your hematocrit to be higher after spending
> time at sea level?

Well sure - RBCs live for 90-120 days, so it takes a while for hematocrit to
come down even after you return to sea level.

(Having said that, I see now that Hamilton disputes the accuracy of the
49.7% figure in the first place, but since it apparently didn't figure in
the CAS decision, it's all a moot point anyway.)

Andy Coggan

 

[Jet]

On Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:58:19 GMT, "Andy Coggan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>"Bob Schwartz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Andy Coggan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Doesn't Hamilton live in Boulder? (Although reportedly USADA provided
>>> data
>>> suggesting that Hamilton's "normal" hematocrit is significantly lower
>>> than
>>> 49.7%.)
>>
>> Would that matter if he'd been at sea level in Athens and in the
>> early Vuelta stages? That is, is there a 'memory' to living at
>> altitude that causes your hematocrit to be higher after spending
>> time at sea level?
>
>Well sure - RBCs live for 90-120 days, so it takes a while for hematocrit to
>come down even after you return to sea level.

Just wondering aloud if there would not be some fairly immediate
sequestering. Medline didn't turn up anything with the obvious key words.

I did find this, which is probably unrevealing, but interesting
nonetheless:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=2323859

jj


>(Having said that, I see now that Hamilton disputes the accuracy of the
>49.7% figure in the first place, but since it apparently didn't figure in
>the CAS decision, it's all a moot point anyway.)
>
>Andy Coggan
>

 

[Jenko]

Jet wrote:
> Just wondering aloud if there would not be some fairly immediate
> sequestering. Medline didn't turn up anything with the obvious key
words.

If you start from www.siab.ws, or just search for Ashenden, you'll get
more results.

Anyway, this is moot since Hamilton lived at sea level (in Girona)
during the racing season.

Jenko

 

[Robert Chung]

Jenko wrote:
>
http://www.medicalhosting.org/archi...t=details.html&-lay=show&PMID=12651273&-find=

Thanks. In this paper the OFF-hr model is exactly the formula used by the
UCI.

Fig 1B (the panel describing OFF-hr for males) is pretty interesting.

 

[Ewoud Dronkert]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 11:16:22 +0200, Robert Chung wrote:
> Fig 1B (the panel describing OFF-hr for males) is pretty interesting.

B more than A because you think the OFF model is more appropriate for
testing athletes? I don't think I quite understand the term
"ac-/decelerated erythropoiesis". Accelerated from normal erythropoiesis
in the subject, or the population? The OFF model appears more sensitive,
although not much, than the ON model, but the ON situation is more
incriminating I guess.


--
Firefox Web Browser - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/

 

[Van Hoorebeeck Bart]

So, can you like say what all that "means" wrt. the Tyler case ? And wrt.
the test that nailed him?

 

[Ewoud Dronkert]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 12:32:48 +0200, Van Hoorebeeck Bart wrote:
> So, can you like say what all that "means" wrt. the Tyler case ? And wrt.
> the test that nailed him?

UCI (WADA?) claims false positive rate is irrelevant (zero?), but fig. 1
shows a (very much) non-zero false positive rate.


--
Firefox Web Browser - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/

 

[Van Hoorebeeck Bart]

Ewoud Dronkert schreef:

> UCI (WADA?) claims false positive rate is irrelevant (zero?), but fig. 1
> shows a (very much) non-zero false positive rate.
>

Yes. But I am unaware of what is considered an "acceptable" margin of error in
that field. Or shouldn't there be a margin?

And how do all Tyler's explanations fit in. Chimera, tampering, different
values with different machines.