Does this seem comical to anyone else?

Helmut, what is your opinion?

You think Jens, Stuey, DZ, Schleck are still circumventing Damsgaards testing?

HGH, insulin, testosterone supplementation? Mirco-dosing.

I wonder how sensitive those bio-markers actually are.

Do you get any inside infor from your sources at Velonews?

I doubt that CSC or the labs they use, have any motivation to conspire against CSC racers by falsifying or spiking the samples. Unlike ASO, UCI, and LLND.

UCI needs to worry more about keeping their own noses clean.

DiabloScott said:

I doubt that CSC or the labs they use, have any motivation to conspire against CSC racers by falsifying or spiking the samples. Unlike ASO, UCI, and LLND.

UCI needs to worry more about keeping their own noses clean.

Angels with dirty noses? Whatever, breathing is not the burning issue.

Making more money is what UCI board members do. Hein Verbrugen is making a killing over at the IOC covering up their doping crimes and Olympic venue kickbacks. Commercial cycling federation work qualifies Verbrugen as an expert. Patty McQuaid will get his big payoff someday too.

The riders can keep doping on a daily basis---as they always have and always will.

thunder said:

Helmut, what is your opinion?

You think Jens, Stuey, DZ, Schleck are still circumventing Damsgaards testing?

HGH, insulin, testosterone supplementation? Mirco-dosing.

I wonder how sensitive those bio-markers actually are.

Do you get any inside infor from your sources at Velonews?

I think it's funny that that a team like CSC, with Mr. 60%, is the standard bearer for doping control.

Next part, about HGH, insulin, testosterone. There's not test for HgH or insulin. I'd imagine someone with some expertise could identify markers in an athltete's blood profile that, if elevated from baseline, would indicate they were using, but, who's to say there weren't jacked up on HgH or insulin to start with. As for the testosterone test, it's a joke. I mean, when I run 250-300mg/week of testosterone, which definitely makes a difference in athletic performance, my levels are still within what the UCI would consider normal ranges.

As for Velonews or cyclingnews.com... I have a lot of respect for those reporters and editors, but really, they're not educated on doping issues. They don't even know what questions to ask and they don't know when they're being lied to. Plus, if they're chasing down doping stories, they can't cover racing. Reason: no one will grant them an interview.

Aside from the irony of Riis being in charge of it, I think this is a huge step in the right direction. The key is monitoring blood parameters. This will limit the ability to use EPO or blood doping. The other drugs are minor. They have an effect but if we can go back to the way doping was before the early 90s then riders won't be in a position where they are forced to dope to survive beyond their current contract.

helmutRoole2 said:

...I mean, when I run 250-300mg/week of testosterone, which definitely makes a difference in athletic performance, my levels are still within what the UCI would consider normal ranges...

Seriously Helmut? If so, why? Is it just because the belt can get a bit heavy at times? or...

helmutRoole2 said:

I think it's funny that that a team like CSC, with Mr. 60%, is the standard bearer for doping control.

Next part, about HGH, insulin, testosterone. There's not test for HgH or insulin. I'd imagine someone with some expertise could identify markers in an athltete's blood profile that, if elevated from baseline, would indicate they were using, but, who's to say there weren't jacked up on HgH or insulin to start with. As for the testosterone test, it's a joke. I mean, when I run 250-300mg/week of testosterone, which definitely makes a difference in athletic performance, my levels are still within what the UCI would consider normal ranges.

As for Velonews or cyclingnews.com... I have a lot of respect for those reporters and editors, but really, they're not educated on doping issues. They don't even know what questions to ask and they don't know when they're being lied to. Plus, if they're chasing down doping stories, they can't cover racing. Reason: no one will grant them an interview.

understood.

My question was directed because Basso had his profile watched by some anti-doping organisation last year, yet he could manage to keep his levels even enough without raising suspicion. Was he not put up as an example of a clean athlete.

I also saw the program Damsgaard inplemented. Most of the testing is centred out of competition, and for the pre-season where blood might be stored. This does not account for in-competition testing where perhaps only the yellow jersey will be tested with a stage winner. Ofcourse there are randoms, but large fields reduces the possibility, so one can micro does with impugnity. Perhaps Armstrong was keen Voeckler, Voigt, Virenque et al took over the yellow so he never had to front at control post stage.

It makes it ludicrous, and Rumsas managed to probably dodge testing until the Champs Elysees. I wonder how many times Joseba Beloki was tested during the tour. He never won a stage, he never wore yellow. He only would have been tested as part of ONCE team testing, and the random. Plus Champs Elysees.

Beloki may have only been tested 4 or 5 times during the Tour in his peak years. Now, to me, this is absurd, he should have been tested every stage.

Re: Heras. The UCI had to specificall request his test for EPO.

With the testing window, his urine could have been positive for a few stages prior to that test, and it was never tested for EPO.

This is a fallacy when Heras appeals that to dope on this stage in non-sensical, on the presumption he was clean for EPO in the previous stage. Not a correct thesis.

Ofcourse, he may have just had the blood transfusion ready to go for the tt stage and went ahead anyway, knowing he could not lose the race with or without the transfusion though there may have been trace amounts of the testosterone.

Heras always timetrialled well above himself in the Vuelta. The Vuelta has the deepest timetrial field outside the tour and the worlds, yet Heras always managed to snag the podium or be threreabouts.

Bro Deal said:

Aside from the irony of Riis being in charge of it, I think this is a huge step in the right direction. The key is monitoring blood parameters. This will limit the ability to use EPO or blood doping. The other drugs are minor. They have an effect but if we can go back to the way doping was before the early 90s then riders won't be in a position where they are forced to dope to survive beyond their current contract.

In theory it sounds good. But I do have a couple (well... at least a couple) of reservations.

First, if all they're going to do is monitor hematocrit (and other blood) levels to make sure that the riders' levels are below the 50% limit, and every single rider somehow miraculously comes-in with a hematocrit level of exactly 50% (like they do now), what good will that do? I mean, they'll still be able to microdose like mad to maintain their levels without getting caught (like they do now).

Second, If the team is responsible for testing, monitoring the results, and reporting those results, who's responsible to make sure the testing and the results and the reporting are on the up and up? The lab that the team is paying to do the work? My guess is that every test is going to come back negative. Hell, CSC is already batting 1.00 with 300 out of 300 tests coming back negative. Any surprise?

I like the spirit of the concept but it doesn't really seem like a viable means of ensuring that the athletes are clean. Not to me. Not by a long shot.

Bro Deal said:

The other drugs are minor. They have an effect but if we can go back to the way doping was before the early 90s then riders won't be in a position where they are forced to dope to survive beyond their current contract.

The other drugs aren't minor. HgH forms new satellite muscles cells. Testosterone and steroids grow those cell. Combine that with increased rbcs and the presence of testosterone forcing those rbcs across the cell membrane... it's pretty effective. Without the testosterone, steroids, HgH, EPO would be less effective.

I think those guys are doing everything they can without getting caught. It's just part of the game.

meehs said:

First, if all they're going to do is monitor hematocrit (and other blood) levels to make sure that the riders' levels are below the 50% limit, and every single rider somehow miraculously comes-in with a hematocrit level of exactly 50% (like they do now), what good will that do? I mean, they'll still be able to microdose like mad to maintain their levels without getting caught (like they do now).

My understanding is that they will monitor trends and changes, so having an Hct of 42 during the offseason and 49 during competition would be suspicious. Microdosing would not work because they are looking at the effects instead of traces of exogenous EPO.

meehs said:

In theory it sounds good. But I do have a couple (well... at least a couple) of reservations.

First, if all they're going to do is monitor hematocrit (and other blood) levels to make sure that the riders' levels are below the 50% limit, and every single rider somehow miraculously comes-in with a hematocrit level of exactly 50% (like they do now), what good will that do? I mean, they'll still be able to microdose like mad to maintain their levels without getting caught (like they do now).

Second, If the team is responsible for testing, monitoring the results, and reporting those results, who's responsible to make sure the testing and the results and the reporting are on the up and up? The lab that the team is paying to do the work? My guess is that every test is going to come back negative. Hell, CSC is already batting 1.00 with 300 out of 300 tests coming back negative. Any surprise?

I like the spirit of the concept but it doesn't really seem like a viable means of ensuring that the athletes are clean. Not to me. Not by a long shot.

unlike others I dont doubt the probity of the system.

It would need to be a huge conspiracy and I dont believe professional will put their reputations on the line for Riis. Just like I doubt the lab techs at LNDD are sloppy or unprofessional.

Now I think Riis got himself into a position where he has the third or so highest budget in the Protour with this increased recent contract. Behind Tombile and Astana, perhaps not as much as Disco, but about the same or more than Cofidis and Rabobank.

With that, he has afforded himself to buy the best talent in the peloton, and Riis never overpays his riders like Cofidis. He is frugal, he gets his money's worth.

He also has a strong squad that are all competent in timetrialling disciplines.

Remember a few seasons back, Riis, minus his current guns, Schleck, Ogrady, Cancellara, Zabriskie, targeted the "weak spots" in the UCI calendar. The early season races were typically base miles and form builders for Milan San Remo and the season proper.

He got his A team to shift their season 2 months eariler on their calendar wso their base mile seson was much earlier almost when the previous year calendar was coming to a close. Then he had Julicha nd /Voigt in their best form effectively cherry-pickng results early in the season to provide the sponsor value. He was not competing with 100% of the peloton like he may do in the spring or June and Juy, but he got his publicity quotient fulfilled for the year. Julicha nd Voigt dominating MEd and P-N.

Now the compeition has lifted to then also, but he picked up Basso on the cheap and got a strong enough squad to compete in any race.

Basso's performance now bought him one of the biggest budgets in the Protour, and now he has a very deep squad, and a strong enough squad to still get results even if they cannot dope.

Now I come from the school "the majority of winners are on it". And I don't like Riis, and think his pre-season commando team building trips are bullshyt and not the reason why he wins across the spectrum of the calendar. So I concede this may come across as some Riis fandom post...

Anyhow, without Armstrong, without the Fuentes lab, the peloton will not be quite soo hot, Quickstep will be more careful, a little less raging, so that will help them get their results.

Ofcourse, there are still those products that cannot be detected.

Helmut the MR 60 % is a little bit of a Chinese Whispers construct that the Festina guys perpetuted. I think his doc had recorded him at 55 at one stage but I have never seen evidence of him at 60.

Bro Deal said:

My understanding is that they will monitor trends and changes, so having an Hct of 42 during the offseason and 49 during competition would be suspicious. Microdosing would not work because they are looking at the effects instead of traces of exogenous EPO.

yep, that was the flaw in my micro dosing suggestion.

However, Basso's paramaters were studied...

helmutRoole2 said:

The other drugs aren't minor. HgH forms new satellite muscles cells. Testosterone and steroids grow those cell. Combine that with increased rbcs and the presence of testosterone forcing those rbcs across the cell membrane... it's pretty effective. Without the testosterone, steroids, HgH, EPO would be less effective.

Muscle is not worth much in aerobic sports if you don't have the oxygen to power it. I am not aware of any studies that have been done that show an increase in aerobic power due to steroids or HgH. In fact the benefits, if any, of HgH are controversial. In contrast, the gains for EPO are well documented.

thunder said:

However, Basso's paramaters were studied...

When were Basso's parameters monitored? I thought CSC only started this for the 2007 season and before that they were not doing much.

I think you are right with Riis getting a bum rap as Mr. 60%. Ferrari's records had his Hct at 56%. Ugramov was the true Mr. 60%.

I hear you. It's his monicker for a reason, though.

As for securing drugs for the season... they'll still get them. You don't need a doctor to administer this stuff safely and effectively. You need the blood tests to make sure you're not going over the edge, so maybe this CSC program is designed to do that.

I'm not a conspiracy hound, but yes I think this program is not intended to catch any cheaters on the team. It's PR and maybe what I mentioned earlier. When the game is played dirty, you play the game dirty. Everyone resorts to the same tactics and it doesn't seem like cheating.

Bro Deal said:

Muscle is not worth much in aerobic sports if you don't have the oxygen to power it. I am not aware of any studies that have been done that show an increase in aerobic power due to steroids or HgH. In fact the benefits, if any, of HgH are controversial. In contrast, the gains for EPO are well documented.

EPO is half the equation. Look at Hamilton's prescriptions from OP: IGF-1, HgH, Testosterone, some other steroid that I can't remember and EPO. All of those are injected. I can't imagine someone injecting that much stuff if they weren't getting results.

Check out this thread: http://forums.steroid.com/showthread.php?t=253402

Forums are the place to look into these issues. People are out there using these drugs recreationally and sharing their experiences.

Here's another forum: http://www.cuttingedgemuscle.com/Forum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=9

Bro Deal said:

My understanding is that they will monitor trends and changes, so having an Hct of 42 during the offseason and 49 during competition would be suspicious. Microdosing would not work because they are looking at the effects instead of traces of exogenous EPO.

Well... You guys certainly know more about this stuff than I do. But what if a rider microdoses throughout the year to maintain a reasonably high crit level? Then it would not be possible to establish an unusual trend, like a rise in the average level. Not only that, I just don't think a 6% jump in crit level is going to be enough for a rider's own team to report him. Let alone ban him! That doesn't even constitute proof of doping by UCI standards. As long as you're below 50%, you're good to go. And it's my understanding that if an athlete is microdosing, it's impossible to test for exogenous EPO, which is why microdosing is supposedly so prevelent now. So that's sort of irrelevent. It would be nice if a progeam like this could be made to work. I'm just a little sceptical.

meehs said:

Well... You guys certainly know more about this stuff than I do. But what if a rider microdoses throughout the year to maintain a reasonably high crit level? Then it would not be possible to establish an unusual trend, like a rise in the average level. Not only that, I just don't think a 6% jump in crit level is going to be enough for a rider's own team to report him. Let alone ban him! That doesn't even constitute proof of doping by UCI standards. As long as you're below 50%, you're good to go. And it's my understanding that if an athlete is microdosing, it's impossible to test for exogenous EPO, which is why microdosing is supposedly so prevelent now. So that's sort of irrelevent. It would be nice if a progeam like this could be made to work. I'm just a little sceptical.

I think that micro dosing might have the effect of normalising endogenous EPO production and you may not necessarily ee the complete rise.

I think this is why most drugs are cycled. To maintain the body's noraml parameters and only get the lift when it is needed.

Helmut, how do you think Armstrong would have managed to maintain a progam like Hamilton when he was getting hit more often with randoms?

Is there another "clear" floating around somewhere. Armstrong could not supplemment with a steroid witht he relative impugnity Hamilton could.

helmutRoole2 said:

EPO is half the equation. Look at Hamilton's prescriptions from OP: IGF-1, HgH, Testosterone, some other steroid that I can't remember and EPO. All of those are injected. I can't imagine someone injecting that much stuff if they weren't getting results...

The anecdotal evidence is interesting but not convincing at all. People saying they feel better when using HgH and they think it has improved their performance are pretty much worthless compared to a controlled study. Hell, I feel better a little while after I start exercising or I increase my volume/intensity.

I also don't think the argument that riders would not use something if it were not effective is very convincing. There is a long history or people using ergogenics that have been shown to be ineffective. Everything from bee pollen to baking soda falls has been and continues to be used.

My point is that EPO has been shown through extensive tesing to improve VO2Max by 8 -10%. Stuff like steroids and HgH have not been shown to significantly affect aerobic capacity. I suspect that most of the gain Hamilton made through doping come from EPO and blood doping rather than the other stuff he was on. The people who are most likely to know the facts are probably doctors Conconi, Ferrari, and Checchini.