Say it ain't so, Tyler!

And do we see yet another new doping defense emerge here ?

Anyone knows what 'surgery' he might be refering to?

"Steven L. Sheffield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2004/sep04/sep21news2

--
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

I swear on the grave of Tugboat and on the life of my wife, that this was
the result of blood transfused during surgery.

There has to be a first when a new test is introduced. Now, did he declare
his surgical transfusion before the Olympics? Does anyone recall a press
report of Hamilton undergoing surgery in 2004 that would require blood?

I'll bet Prentis Steffen has a wry smile on his face this morning.

"Steven L. Sheffield" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2004/sep04/sep21news2

--
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

HAHAHAHAHAHA.....what an [censored] !!!!

Steven L. Sheffield said:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2004/sep04/sep21news2

Unfortunately, based on the ``Everybody's Doing It`` theorem, it probably is
true.

I, as numerous people know, have supported Cedric Vasseur since he was a
Junior, mostly, admittedly, because I knew his Dad and Grand-Dad.

However, if ever there was a clean rider, I would have said it was Cedric. But
the Cofidis debacle, even though he seems to have been cleared of any personal
infractions, and even to have been ``set up'' by the investigators, has
damaged his career and it's now doubtful if, having regard to his age, he will
ever be able to find another squad to hire him.

Sheesh, does that lad ever make bad career moves. First the Slurpies and then
the the Shylocks.

But in fact, like 99.999% of the fans, I don't give a Monkey's whether he
takes a little something or not. I'm gonna support him anyway.

It will just make it all the sweeter when they finally nail [censored] Numero Uno.

'Cause I sure don't believe they give away 6 (7 ??) Tours with a case of Vitel
or Fig Newtons even though, as I've said before, I'm gullible enough to
believe in the Tooth fairy, God, Santa Klause and that OJ didn't wack Nicole.

--
le Vent a Dos, Davey Crockett
Six Day Site: http://sixday.741.com/
Latest news at http://sixday.741.com/news.html

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Unfortunately, based on the ``Everybody's Doing It`` theorem, it probably

is

Quoted message said:

true.

I, as numerous people know, have supported Cedric Vasseur since he was a
Junior, mostly, admittedly, because I knew his Dad and Grand-Dad.

However, if ever there was a clean rider, I would have said it was Cedric.

But

Quoted message said:

the Cofidis debacle, even though he seems to have been cleared of any

personal

Quoted message said:

infractions, and even to have been ``set up'' by the investigators, has
damaged his career and it's now doubtful if, having regard to his age, he

will

Quoted message said:

ever be able to find another squad to hire him.

Sheesh, does that lad ever make bad career moves. First the Slurpies and

then

Quoted message said:

the the Shylocks.

But in fact, like 99.999% of the fans, I don't give a Monkey's whether he
takes a little something or not. I'm gonna support him anyway.

Isn't that viewpoint in conflict with your third paragraph?

Tyler said:

I swear on the grave of Tugboat and on the life of my wife, that this was
the result of blood transfused during surgery.

according to lafferty swearing on your dog's or wife's life instead of
your own is proof of dopng.

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

Quoted message said:

Tyler said:

I swear on the grave of Tugboat and on the life of my wife, that this was
the result of blood transfused during surgery.

according to lafferty swearing on your dog's or wife's life instead of
your own is proof of dopng.

I don't recall saying that it was proof of doping. I do think it's
interesting that none of them swear on their own lives. Too close to home,
I guess.

*white coated lab analyst*

"I don't believe it! This is...this is DOG BLOOD"!

Tom Hunter said:

*white coated lab analyst*

"I don't believe it! This is...this is DOG BLOOD"!

And further DNA analysis might reveal that the source is a Belgian dog.

in an unrelated story..

VDB mourns disappearance of dog

"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>...

Quoted message said:

There has to be a first when a new test is introduced. Now, did he declare
his surgical transfusion before the Olympics? Does anyone recall a press
report of Hamilton undergoing surgery in 2004 that would require blood?

Homologous blood transfusion =
"Autologous blood is defined as blood drawn from one individual to be
given back to that individual as the need for transfusion arises..."

So this is now illegal? I don't keep up with such thigns.
No illicit drugs or compounds were found, just his own (older?) red
blood cells. ...may the sun not rise tomorrow... BFD.

-Ken

Papai Digital said:

"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>...

Quoted message said:

There has to be a first when a new test is introduced. Now, did he declare
his surgical transfusion before the Olympics? Does anyone recall a press
report of Hamilton undergoing surgery in 2004 that would require blood?

Homologous blood transfusion =
"Autologous blood is defined as blood drawn from one individual to be
given back to that individual as the need for transfusion arises..."

So this is now illegal? I don't keep up with such thigns.
No illicit drugs or compounds were found, just his own (older?) red
blood cells. ...may the sun not rise tomorrow... BFD.

-Ken

It's illegal. Obviously there is a rational basis for banning it, as it provides
a clear advantage in recovery, using a potentially dangerous medical practice.

Dan

Papai Digital said:

Homologous blood transfusion =
"Autologous blood is defined as blood drawn from one individual to be
given back to that individual as the need for transfusion arises..."

No, homologous is allogenic, meaning it was from someone else. It is
named "homologous" because it was typed and matched and is very similar,
but it is from another person. There are many more blood group antigens
than ABO and Rh. Most of them aren't clinically significant (ie, don't
produce an immune response when transfused) so you don't ever hear about
them. But these differences exist and I think that is what the new test
looks for, differences in the minor blood group antigens.

http://www.nybc.org/framesets/FS-F1.htm

I cannot figure out how they are ever going to be able to catch an
autologous transfusion, and to be certain enough about it when they see
it in order to take action.

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

Quoted message said:

No, homologous is allogenic, meaning it was from someone else. It is
named "homologous" because it was typed and matched and is very similar,
but it is from another person. There are many more blood group antigens
than ABO and Rh. Most of them aren't clinically significant (ie, don't
produce an immune response when transfused) so you don't ever hear about
them. But these differences exist and I think that is what the new test
looks for, differences in the minor blood group antigens.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14607758&dopt=Abstract

Quoted message said:

I cannot figure out how they are ever going to be able to catch an
autologous transfusion, and to be certain enough about it when they see
it in order to take action.

That is the trick...

Jeff

Jeff Jones said:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14607758&dopt=Abstract

Quoted message said:

I cannot figure out how they are ever going to be able to catch an
autologous transfusion, and to be certain enough about it when they see
it in order to take action.

That is the trick...

Jeff

the cool thing about that paper is that they figured out that three of
the patients skipped out on getting their prescribed transfusion.

"Jeff Jones" <jeff@cyclingnews-punt-com> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

No, homologous is allogenic, meaning it was from someone else. It is
named "homologous" because it was typed and matched and is very similar,
but it is from another person. There are many more blood group antigens
than ABO and Rh. Most of them aren't clinically significant (ie, don't
produce an immune response when transfused) so you don't ever hear about
them. But these differences exist and I think that is what the new test
looks for, differences in the minor blood group antigens.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14607758&dopt=Abstract

Quoted message said:

I cannot figure out how they are ever going to be able to catch an
autologous transfusion, and to be certain enough about it when they see
it in order to take action.

That is the trick...

Jeff

It's at moments like this, that Usenet proves its worth. Thanks for the
link and related posts.

Jeff Jones' jeff@cyclingnews-punt-com said:

"gym gravity" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14607758&dopt=Abstract>

Quoted message said:

I cannot figure out how they are ever going to be able to catch an
autologous transfusion, and to be certain enough about it when they see
it in order to take action.

That is the trick...

I hope they aren't basing their test off of the results of one paper
with a population of 25 patients!

KP

--
Remove _me_ for e-mail address

B. Lafferty said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I cannot figure out how they are ever going to be able to catch an
autologous transfusion, and to be certain enough about it when they see
it in order to take action.

That is the trick...

Jeff

It's at moments like this, that Usenet proves its worth. Thanks for the
link and related posts.

The way they detect autologous transfusion, among other things is by doing
a 'neocyte' assay. That is, when blood is drawn from you (or other blood
loss), the body makes more, and the new cells are immature forms that still
have a nucleus. There's always a certain number of these, but if it exceeds
a certain level, it's suspicious.

It's further complicated by things like heavy training, and training at
altitude which also causes more blood cell production, but the new
technology seems to be able to detect this and other by-products of doping.

-B