[OT] Tyler Hamilton positive?

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:35:08 +0200, Francesco Devittori

frenkatfrenkdtcm said:

Is it confirmed? :-(((

BBC says "yes".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_sports/cycling/3675726.stm
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:35:08 +0200, Francesco Devittori

frenkatfrenkdtcm said:

Is it confirmed? :-(((

Correction: "Yes, but..."

The BBC report states that a second test will be performed;
apparently, that test could clear him of the charge. He failed the
first test, but apparently this isn't necessarily fully conclusive.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Werehatrack said:

Quoted message said:

Is it confirmed? :-(((

Correction: "Yes, but..."

The BBC report states that a second test will be performed;
apparently, that test could clear him of the charge. He failed the
first test, but apparently this isn't necessarily fully conclusive.

According to Velonews, there have been two tests so far, both with
positive results:

"UCI informed Phonak team doctor Inaki Arratibel that blood samples
taken Aug. 19 and Sept. 18 showed traces of mixed blood cells.
Follow-up tests were scheduled for later Tuesday."

http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/6984.0.html
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 07:50:14 -0700, Terry Morse <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Werehatrack said:

Quoted message said:

Is it confirmed? :-(((

Correction: "Yes, but..."

The BBC report states that a second test will be performed;
apparently, that test could clear him of the charge. He failed the
first test, but apparently this isn't necessarily fully conclusive.

According to Velonews, there have been two tests so far, both with
positive results:

"UCI informed Phonak team doctor Inaki Arratibel that blood samples
taken Aug. 19 and Sept. 18 showed traces of mixed blood cells.
Follow-up tests were scheduled for later Tuesday."

http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/6984.0.html

BBC states that there's an "A" test that he has failed twice, but that
the "B" test has not been run yet.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Terry Morse <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Werehatrack said:

Quoted message said:

Is it confirmed? :-(((

Correction: "Yes, but..."

The BBC report states that a second test will be performed;
apparently, that test could clear him of the charge. He failed the
first test, but apparently this isn't necessarily fully conclusive.

According to Velonews, there have been two tests so far, both with
positive results:

"UCI informed Phonak team doctor Inaki Arratibel that blood samples
taken Aug. 19 and Sept. 18 showed traces of mixed blood cells.
Follow-up tests were scheduled for later Tuesday."

http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/6984.0.html

I haven't wanted to say this (although others certainly have brought
it up) all through discusions of Lance's "Cleanness", But I doubt that
20% of the European potelon is clean. By European, I mean thoes who
compete in Europe. I doubt that anyone can be competetive & be clean.
Until science comes up w/ a foolproof test, that's how it's gona be.
One is lucky if he/she wins & tests clean. And unlucky if s/he wins &
tests dirty. I truly don't see any solution to it.
I once had a brilliant professor who often said that "an unenforcable
law or rule is worse that no law at all". She was right. What really
pisses me of about it all, is the hypocracy of the French press's
accusations of Lance's using. Of course he's dirty & so is most
everyone else in the potelon. I think it has a lot to do w/ how good a
riders doctor is. The last two people I want see test dirty are Tyler
& Lance.
Regretably, John
Sorry I can't get Word to open today to spell check this.

(John McGraw) said:

Until science comes up w/ a foolproof test, that's how it's gona be.
One is lucky if he/she wins & tests clean. And unlucky if s/he wins &
tests dirty. I truly don't see any solution to it.

I think a step in the right direction would be to legalize the use of
performance enhancing drugs that can be proven (in the FDA type sense)
to be safe and effective. This might help do a few things like:
1) Move the use of the majority of the drugs out into the light of day
where it can be better monitored
2) Guide atheletes away from crank, voodoo treatments that don't work
3) Get rid of the arbitrary and non-sensical way we currently decide
on banned substances and acceptable substances
4) Give the governing bodies greater freedom to impose real sanctions
like life-time bans for violators.

The only question of any merit in my mind should be, "Is it safe and
effetctive?"

Quoted message said:

I once had a brilliant professor who often said that "an unenforcable
law or rule is worse that no law at all". She was right. What really
pisses me of about it all, is the hypocracy of the French press's
accusations of Lance's using. Of course he's dirty & so is most
everyone else in the potelon.

Thing is, I think most of the people reading this post are "dirty" to
some degree. Anybody here taking glocoscimine (sp?) for their knees?
Ibuprophen? Which is better, power-ade or gatorade? GU or Powergel?
What is the best way to boost blood cells? Sleep at altitude? Train at
altitutude? Sleep in a pressure camber? Ugg.

The issue is not, Do we take things or do things to enhance our
performance? The answer to that is an obvious "Yes" that applies to
just about everybody. The only question is, "Is it safe"?

-- Dave
==============================================
"It is impossible, or not easy, to do noble acts
without the proper equipment."
Aristotle, <<Politics>>, 1323a-b, trans Jowett
==============================================

pinnah said:

I think a step in the right direction would be to legalize the use of
performance enhancing drugs that can be proven (in the FDA type sense)
to be safe and effective. This might help do a few things like:
1) Move the use of the majority of the drugs out into the light of day
where it can be better monitored
2) Guide atheletes away from crank, voodoo treatments that don't work
3) Get rid of the arbitrary and non-sensical way we currently decide
on banned substances and acceptable substances
4) Give the governing bodies greater freedom to impose real sanctions
like life-time bans for violators.

There are a lot of potential problems here, from both a legal and an
ethical standpoint. Perhaps the biggest is that if a given drug
actually works, by legalizing its use you've just mandated that
everyone is going to have to take it in order to be competitive. Read
Larry Niven's "Achilles' Choice" for an indictment of that idea.

Quoted message said:

The only question of any merit in my mind should be, "Is it safe and
effetctive?"

First, "proven safe and effective" is not the same thing as "actually
safe to use"; remember that the active ingredient in the old
formulation of Contac, an over-the-counter cold remedy, was
*considered safe and effective*, but had a fairly significant chance
of causing a cerebral haemorrhage resulting in a stroke, often
fatally. That's far from the only example.

Second, the only way to create a potentially level playing field is if
all of the competitors have the same rules to abide by...and laws
governing the use and prescription of drugs vary from nation to
nation. Thus, it's quite likely that you'd end up with a situation in
which some athletes could get and use whatever they wanted, others
would have a restricted list that they could only get with difficulty,
and some might not be able to legally get anything useful at all.
From a practical standpoint, then, the rational choice for a level
playing field is one that's structured to provide the same
opportunities for everyone by default...and that's one without
performance-enhancing drugs.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I once had a brilliant professor who often said that "an unenforcable
law or rule is worse that no law at all". She was right.

I would agree in principle, but I question whether the assertion is
applicable to the venue in question. From where I sit, the rules
*are* enforceable, as is demonstrated by the fact that some
competitors get caught every so often. Where there's an imperfect
test, as is possibly the case for blood doping, the assertion has some
merit...but does that mean it should be legalized, given the known
problems with the technique? It's *not* proven safe, by a long shot,
and legalizing it would likely result in a bunch of competitors
finding themselves faced with an unpleasant choice.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What really
pisses me of about it all, is the hypocracy of the French press's
accusations of Lance's using. Of course he's dirty & so is most
everyone else in the potelon.

You have proof? I have doubts.

Quoted message said:

Thing is, I think most of the people reading this post are "dirty" to
some degree. Anybody here taking glocoscimine (sp?) for their knees?

Perfect example of "not proven safe or effective"; it says so right on
the label. Of course, it's also not classified as a drug; it's sold
as a "dietary supplement"...and its value is open to question even for
the reduction of arthritis symptoms.

Quoted message said:

Ibuprophen? Which is better, power-ade or gatorade? GU or Powergel?
What is the best way to boost blood cells? Sleep at altitude? Train at
altitutude? Sleep in a pressure camber? Ugg.

You're touching on the tip of the iceberg of the legalized p-e drug
problem here, whether you intended to do so or not.

Quoted message said:

The issue is not, Do we take things or do things to enhance our
performance? The answer to that is an obvious "Yes" that applies to
just about everybody. The only question is, "Is it safe"?

And that is an issue which is, in the majority of cases, either not
proven *for the uses to which the drugs would be put*, or one for
which they are known not to be safe. Part of the definition of safety
touches on whether a drug's side effects are less serious and
life-threatening than the condition that they are intended to
ameliorate or treat; when there is no disease involved, they flunk the
test if they have hazardous side effects at all...and most p-e drugs
do, indeed, have potentially hazardous side effects.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

John McGraw said:

What really pisses me of about it all, is the hypocracy of the French

press's

Quoted message said:

accusations of Lance's using. Of course he's dirty & so is most
everyone else in the potelon. I think it has a lot to do w/ how good a
riders doctor is. The last two people I want see test dirty are Tyler
& Lance.
Regretably, John
Sorry I can't get Word to open today to spell check this.

Why are the French press hypocrits? They think everyone and the whole sport
is pretty much doping. Armstrong gets more attention than other riders, good
and bad.

"David L. Johnson" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Jim Smith said:

The same techniques are being adapted to detect autologous
transfusions. See:
http://snipurl.com/992t

I don't see any mention of autologous transfusions in the abstract. I
didn't look up the full text.

Quoted message said:

Now, I'm no MD, but in reading that article it seemed that it actually
tested for blood cells with different antigens, so (I presume) from
different people. It then went on to claim that it could be used to
detect homologous transfusions. How? I thought blood-doping
techniques used the person's own stored red blood cells. Wouldn't
they have the same antigens?

I think you're mixing homologous and autologous.

-A

How long can blood from a transfusion(somebody else's blood) be detected?

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

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

Quoted message said:

First, "proven safe and effective" is not the same thing as "actually
safe to use"; remember that the active ingredient in the old
formulation of Contac, an over-the-counter cold remedy, was
*considered safe and effective*, but had a fairly significant chance
of causing a cerebral haemorrhage resulting in a stroke, often
fatally. That's far from the only.......

Saying this with the utmost sincerity, Werehatrack, I really enjoy your
comments. Straight forward, no lame sarcasm, and well thought out. Thanks.

(Qui si parla Campagnolo ) said:

How long can blood from a transfusion(somebody else's blood) be detected?

Red blood cells have an average life of around 120 days. Standard
immunological techniques can detect blood transfused from another
individual for about this long. See:

http://www.siab.ws/

The same techniques are being adapted to detect autologous
transfusions. See:

http://snipurl.com/992t

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

How long can blood from a transfusion(somebody else's blood) be detected?

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

RBC's, the cells this test uses, have a lifespan of 120 days. I think after 90 days, you should be "clear".

This test is suspect. It is very easy to get a false positive when working with labeled IgG which is why there is another test to be performed. The foreign RBC's have slightly different IgG on their surfaces. Another complimentary IgG is then labeled with a fluorscent dye and this is introduced to the blood sample. The RBC's are then sorted according to the presence or lack of fluorscent dye.

Like my boss said, "experimental biochemistry can resemble vodoo". She couldn't (easily) replicate my SDS-PAGE runs on labeled monoclonal IgG. And forget about silver staining. I had the "touch".

"Qui si parla Campagnolo " <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

How long can blood from a transfusion(somebody else's blood) be detected?

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

According to the Nelson et al paper ((J. Hematology/Haematologica
88:1284-1295, 2003) and based upon a full unit infused, they are confident
that they can easily detect out to 60-90 days post infusion (they believe
that assay is probably sensitive out several additional weeks). They are
aware of theoretical false positives but they are considered a low
probability. In a Caucasian population and using the reagents they used in
their published study, only 1.7 people out of 1,000 would be able to give
you blood that wasn't able to be detected.
-Mike

Jim Smith said:

The same techniques are being adapted to detect autologous transfusions.
See:

http://snipurl.com/992t

Now, I'm no MD, but in reading that article it seemed that it actually
tested for blood cells with different antigens, so (I presume) from
different people. It then went on to claim that it could be used to
detect homologous transfusions. How? I thought blood-doping techniques
used the person's own stored red blood cells. Wouldn't they have the same
antigens?

--

David L. Johnson

__o | And what if you track down these men and kill them, what if you
_`\(,_ | killed all of us? From every corner of Europe, hundreds,
(_)/ (_) | thousands would rise up to take our places. Even Nazis can't
kill that fast. -- Paul Henreid (Casablanca).

quote='David L. Johnson'On Wed said:

The same techniques are being adapted to detect autologous transfusions.
See:

http://snipurl.com/992t

Now, I'm no MD, but in reading that article it seemed that it actually
tested for blood cells with different antigens, so (I presume) from
different people. It then went on to claim that it could be used to
detect homologous transfusions. How? I thought blood-doping techniques
used the person's own stored red blood cells. Wouldn't they have the same
antigens?

--

David L. Johnson

__o | And what if you track down these men and kill them, what if you
_`\(,_ | killed all of us? From every corner of Europe, hundreds,
(_)/ (_) | thousands would rise up to take our places. Even Nazis can't
kill that fast. -- Paul Henreid (Casablanca).[/QUOTE]

Antigenic response is constantly changing. Since RBC's are constantly being generated, any change to the immune system from when the stored RBC's were taken and the testing date would POSSIBLY show.

This is beyond the scope of normal screening. Specific antigens need to be determined and its entirely possible there would be no difference.

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

How long can blood from a transfusion(somebody else's blood) be detected?

Don't know. But I'm surprised a racer would use someone else's blood when
he could store and use his own. While not exactly safe (and certainly not
ethical), it at least avoids the HIV issue and is undetectable.

Art Harris

qtq said:

"David L. Johnson" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Jim Smith said:

The same techniques are being adapted to detect autologous
transfusions. See:
http://snipurl.com/992t

I don't see any mention of autologous transfusions in the abstract. I
didn't look up the full text.

Quoted message said:

Now, I'm no MD, but in reading that article it seemed that it actually
tested for blood cells with different antigens, so (I presume) from
different people. It then went on to claim that it could be used to
detect homologous transfusions. How? I thought blood-doping
techniques used the person's own stored red blood cells. Wouldn't
they have the same antigens?

I think you're mixing homologous and autologous.

Yes, you are corect. SIAB has received funding from USADA to research
possible methods of detecting autologous blood after they demonstrated
the ability to detect homologous blood.

The full text is available online at:

http://www.haematologica.it/2003_11/index.htm

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

Quoted message said:

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

How long can blood from a transfusion(somebody else's blood) be

detected?

Quoted message said:

Don't know. But I'm surprised a racer would use someone else's blood when
he could store and use his own. While not exactly safe (and certainly not
ethical), it at least avoids the HIV issue and is undetectable.

Art Harris

I read that blood taken for doping purposes can not be stored for more than
6 months (maybe that's only the halflife, in which case figure 2 or 3 months
for potency). That would mean that for Tyler to benifit from an autologous
transfusion, he would have had to have given blood in the middleof the
cycling season to have still aroundit for the olympics/vuelta. Doesn't make
sense.