Road Cycling · Public discussion

vampires strike

Started by Dan Gregory · · Last activity · 92 posts · 1,676 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Road Cycling
Published
26 March 2008
Last activity
3 April 2008
Original author
Dan Gregory
Posts
92
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,676
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 21–40 of 92
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Kyle Legate said:
    MagillaGorilla said:
    Kyle Legate said:

    MagillaGorilla wrote:

    > Mark wrote:
    >
    >> MagillaGorilla wrote:
    >>
    >>> Phil Holman wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "MagillaGorilla" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    >>>> news:[email hidden]...
    >>>>
    >>>>> Amit Ghosh wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> On Mar 26, 7:23 pm, MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Can you name a single pro who keeled over and died while
    >>>>>>> racing because
    >>>>>>> of blood that was too thick? If the answer is no then why
    >>>>>>> does the UCI
    >>>>>>> claim that resting is for their health?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> the 50% scheme is a vestige from when there was an EPO test. it
    >>>>>> should
    >>>>>> be scrapped when there is an EPO test.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I know. I was just being facetious. Exceeding the 50% limit
    >>>>> basically means you were caught, but they just can't prove you
    >>>>> were transfusing blood or using EPO, so they have to call it a
    >>>>> "safety" suspension.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Resting roughly translates to ..... stop doing whatever it was
    >>>> you were doing to raise your hemacrit to > 50%, including legal
    >>>> manipulations.
    >>>>
    >>>> Phil H
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> There are no "legal" ways to raise your hematocrit.
    >>>
    >>> Magilla
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Geez, tell that to the Red Cross nurse won't let you donate blood
    >> due to low hematocrit. Eat foods high in iron. For the athletes,
    >> do some altitude training, hypoxia tents (regardless of [censored] Pound
    >> or whoever that was), etc.
    >>
    >> Mark J.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Training at altitude and hypoxic tents rely on two totally different
    > physiological mechanisms.
    >
    > When you train at altitude, the partial pressure of oxygen at the
    > pulmonary capillary level is less than at sea level. However, the
    > concentration of oxygen in the air stays the same.
    >
    > Hypoxic tents do not change the partial pressure of oxygen in air.
    > Rather they de-saturate the air of oxygen molecules.
    >
    > When you train at altitude, you are really training in a "hypobaric
    > tent" (not a hypoxic tent).
    >
    > That's something hypoxic tent manufacturers don't want to tell you.
    >
    None of that matters. What matters is that they are legal ways to
    raise hematocrit.

    Thanks. Now read this, smart mouth.

    Magilla

    http://www.hypoxico.com/faq.htm

    7Q. Will my Hematocrit level rise?

    A: This was confirmed in a recent independent HYPOXIC ALTITUDE TENT
    study where, although the "tent group" showed significant gains, there
    was no change in hematocrit.

    I imagine they are referring to this study:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16416150?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

    Nobody but you is arguing the effectiveness of the method; that's your
    strawman. The discussion centered around the legality of these methods,
    in which you said "There are no "legal" ways to raise your hematocrit."
    You desperately attacked the tent method based on a study with shady
    interpretation of the results ("biological variation over time" in the
    hypoxic group but not in the control group? Please.), now let's see you
    attack the living at altitude method.

    How is citing a study that hypoxic tents don't raise hematocrit "desperate?"

    Second, I never said living in an altitude tent "wasn't effective." Can
    you cite where I said that? Although not a single winner of the Tour de
    France has ever come from living at altitude. Think about that and ask
    yourself what it means.

    Third, the context of the conversation was two athletes who DON'T live
    at altitude who failed the hematocrit test at worlds. How did they
    raise it LEGALLY?

    The context of the conversation was never that ANYONE couldn't move to
    altitude. It was about these two track riders (and other cyclists) who
    don't live at altitude and don't live in a hypoxic tent.

    Magilla

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

    Quoted message said:
    Kyle Legate said:
    MagillaGorilla said:

    Kyle Legate wrote:

    > MagillaGorilla wrote:
    >
    >> Mark wrote:
    >>
    >>> MagillaGorilla wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Phil Holman wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "MagillaGorilla" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:[email hidden]...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Amit Ghosh wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> On Mar 26, 7:23 pm, MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]> wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Can you name a single pro who keeled over and died while
    >>>>>>>> racing because
    >>>>>>>> of blood that was too thick? If the answer is no then why
    >>>>>>>> does the UCI
    >>>>>>>> claim that resting is for their health?
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> the 50% scheme is a vestige from when there was an EPO test.
    >>>>>>> it should
    >>>>>>> be scrapped when there is an EPO test.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I know. I was just being facetious. Exceeding the 50% limit
    >>>>>> basically means you were caught, but they just can't prove you
    >>>>>> were transfusing blood or using EPO, so they have to call it a
    >>>>>> "safety" suspension.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Resting roughly translates to ..... stop doing whatever it was
    >>>>> you were doing to raise your hemacrit to > 50%, including legal
    >>>>> manipulations.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Phil H
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> There are no "legal" ways to raise your hematocrit.
    >>>>
    >>>> Magilla
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Geez, tell that to the Red Cross nurse won't let you donate blood
    >>> due to low hematocrit. Eat foods high in iron. For the
    >>> athletes, do some altitude training, hypoxia tents (regardless of
    >>> [censored] Pound or whoever that was), etc.
    >>>
    >>> Mark J.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Training at altitude and hypoxic tents rely on two totally
    >> different physiological mechanisms.
    >>
    >> When you train at altitude, the partial pressure of oxygen at the
    >> pulmonary capillary level is less than at sea level. However, the
    >> concentration of oxygen in the air stays the same.
    >>
    >> Hypoxic tents do not change the partial pressure of oxygen in air.
    >> Rather they de-saturate the air of oxygen molecules.
    >>
    >> When you train at altitude, you are really training in a
    >> "hypobaric tent" (not a hypoxic tent).
    >>
    >> That's something hypoxic tent manufacturers don't want to tell
    >> you.
    >>
    > None of that matters. What matters is that they are legal ways to
    > raise hematocrit.

    Thanks. Now read this, smart mouth.

    Magilla

    http://www.hypoxico.com/faq.htm

    7Q. Will my Hematocrit level rise?

    A: This was confirmed in a recent independent HYPOXIC ALTITUDE TENT
    study where, although the "tent group" showed significant gains,
    there was no change in hematocrit.

    I imagine they are referring to this study:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16416150?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
    Nobody but you is arguing the effectiveness of the method; that's
    your strawman. The discussion centered around the legality of these
    methods, in which you said "There are no "legal" ways to raise your
    hematocrit." You desperately attacked the tent method based on a
    study with shady interpretation of the results ("biological variation
    over time" in the hypoxic group but not in the control group?
    Please.), now let's see you attack the living at altitude method.

    How is citing a study that hypoxic tents don't raise hematocrit
    "desperate?"

    Second, I never said living in an altitude tent "wasn't effective."
    Can you cite where I said that? Although not a single winner of the
    Tour de France has ever come from living at altitude. Think about
    that and ask yourself what it means.

    Third, the context of the conversation was two athletes who DON'T live
    at altitude who failed the hematocrit test at worlds. How did they
    raise it LEGALLY?

    The context of the conversation was never that ANYONE couldn't move to
    altitude. It was about these two track riders (and other cyclists) who
    don't live at altitude and don't live in a hypoxic tent.


    Yes well......... you are still clueless about partial pressure.

    Phil H

  3. Phil Holman said:

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

    Quoted message said:
    Kyle Legate said:

    MagillaGorilla wrote:

    >Kyle Legate wrote:
    >
    >
    >>MagillaGorilla wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Mark wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Phil Holman wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    >>>>>>news:[email hidden]...
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>Amit Ghosh wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>On Mar 26, 7:23 pm, MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>Can you name a single pro who keeled over and died while
    >>>>>>>>>racing because
    >>>>>>>>>of blood that was too thick? If the answer is no then why
    >>>>>>>>>does the UCI
    >>>>>>>>>claim that resting is for their health?
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>the 50% scheme is a vestige from when there was an EPO test.
    >>>>>>>>it should
    >>>>>>>>be scrapped when there is an EPO test.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>I know. I was just being facetious. Exceeding the 50% limit
    >>>>>>>basically means you were caught, but they just can't prove you
    >>>>>>>were transfusing blood or using EPO, so they have to call it a
    >>>>>>>"safety" suspension.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>Resting roughly translates to ..... stop doing whatever it was
    >>>>>>you were doing to raise your hemacrit to > 50%, including legal
    >>>>>>manipulations.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>Phil H
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>There are no "legal" ways to raise your hematocrit.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Magilla
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Geez, tell that to the Red Cross nurse won't let you donate blood
    >>>>due to low hematocrit. Eat foods high in iron. For the
    >>>>athletes, do some altitude training, hypoxia tents (regardless of
    >>>>[censored] Pound or whoever that was), etc.
    >>>>
    >>>>Mark J.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Training at altitude and hypoxic tents rely on two totally
    >>>different physiological mechanisms.
    >>>
    >>>When you train at altitude, the partial pressure of oxygen at the
    >>>pulmonary capillary level is less than at sea level. However, the
    >>>concentration of oxygen in the air stays the same.
    >>>
    >>>Hypoxic tents do not change the partial pressure of oxygen in air.
    >>>Rather they de-saturate the air of oxygen molecules.
    >>>
    >>>When you train at altitude, you are really training in a
    >>>"hypobaric tent" (not a hypoxic tent).
    >>>
    >>>That's something hypoxic tent manufacturers don't want to tell
    >>>you.
    >>>
    >>
    >>None of that matters. What matters is that they are legal ways to
    >>raise hematocrit.
    >
    >
    >
    >Thanks. Now read this, smart mouth.
    >
    >Magilla
    >
    >
    >http://www.hypoxico.com/faq.htm
    >
    >7Q. Will my Hematocrit level rise?
    >
    >A: This was confirmed in a recent independent HYPOXIC ALTITUDE TENT
    >study where, although the "tent group" showed significant gains,
    >there was no change in hematocrit.

    I imagine they are referring to this study:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16416150?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
    Nobody but you is arguing the effectiveness of the method; that's
    your strawman. The discussion centered around the legality of these
    methods, in which you said "There are no "legal" ways to raise your
    hematocrit." You desperately attacked the tent method based on a
    study with shady interpretation of the results ("biological variation
    over time" in the hypoxic group but not in the control group?
    Please.), now let's see you attack the living at altitude method.

    How is citing a study that hypoxic tents don't raise hematocrit
    "desperate?"

    Second, I never said living in an altitude tent "wasn't effective."
    Can you cite where I said that? Although not a single winner of the
    Tour de France has ever come from living at altitude. Think about
    that and ask yourself what it means.

    Third, the context of the conversation was two athletes who DON'T live
    at altitude who failed the hematocrit test at worlds. How did they
    raise it LEGALLY?

    The context of the conversation was never that ANYONE couldn't move to
    altitude. It was about these two track riders (and other cyclists) who
    don't live at altitude and don't live in a hypoxic tent.

    Yes well......... you are still clueless about partial pressure.

    Phil H

    So, correct me.

    Magilla

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

    Quoted message said:
    Phil Holman said:

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

    Quoted message said:

    Kyle Legate wrote:

    >MagillaGorilla wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Kyle Legate wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Mark wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>MagillaGorilla wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Phil Holman wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>"MagillaGorilla" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>news:[email hidden]...
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>Amit Ghosh wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>On Mar 26, 7:23 pm, MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>Can you name a single pro who keeled over and died while
    >>>>>>>>>>racing because
    >>>>>>>>>>of blood that was too thick? If the answer is no then why
    >>>>>>>>>>does the UCI
    >>>>>>>>>>claim that resting is for their health?
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>the 50% scheme is a vestige from when there was an EPO test.
    >>>>>>>>>it should
    >>>>>>>>>be scrapped when there is an EPO test.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>I know. I was just being facetious. Exceeding the 50% limit
    >>>>>>>>basically means you were caught, but they just can't prove
    >>>>>>>>you were transfusing blood or using EPO, so they have to call
    >>>>>>>>it a "safety" suspension.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>Resting roughly translates to ..... stop doing whatever it
    >>>>>>>was you were doing to raise your hemacrit to > 50%, including
    >>>>>>>legal manipulations.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>Phil H
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>There are no "legal" ways to raise your hematocrit.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>Magilla
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Geez, tell that to the Red Cross nurse won't let you donate
    >>>>>blood due to low hematocrit. Eat foods high in iron. For the
    >>>>>athletes, do some altitude training, hypoxia tents (regardless
    >>>>>of [censored] Pound or whoever that was), etc.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Mark J.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Training at altitude and hypoxic tents rely on two totally
    >>>>different physiological mechanisms.
    >>>>
    >>>>When you train at altitude, the partial pressure of oxygen at the
    >>>>pulmonary capillary level is less than at sea level. However, the
    >>>>concentration of oxygen in the air stays the same.
    >>>>
    >>>>Hypoxic tents do not change the partial pressure of oxygen in
    >>>>air. Rather they de-saturate the air of oxygen molecules.
    >>>>
    >>>>When you train at altitude, you are really training in a
    >>>>"hypobaric tent" (not a hypoxic tent).
    >>>>
    >>>>That's something hypoxic tent manufacturers don't want to tell
    >>>>you.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>None of that matters. What matters is that they are legal ways to
    >>>raise hematocrit.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>Thanks. Now read this, smart mouth.
    >>
    >>Magilla
    >>
    >>
    >>http://www.hypoxico.com/faq.htm
    >>
    >>7Q. Will my Hematocrit level rise?
    >>
    >>A: This was confirmed in a recent independent HYPOXIC ALTITUDE TENT
    >>study where, although the "tent group" showed significant gains,
    >>there was no change in hematocrit.
    >
    >
    >I imagine they are referring to this study:
    >
    >http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16416150?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
    >Nobody but you is arguing the effectiveness of the method; that's
    >your strawman. The discussion centered around the legality of these
    >methods, in which you said "There are no "legal" ways to raise your
    >hematocrit." You desperately attacked the tent method based on a
    >study with shady interpretation of the results ("biological
    >variation over time" in the hypoxic group but not in the control
    >group? Please.), now let's see you attack the living at altitude
    >method.

    How is citing a study that hypoxic tents don't raise hematocrit
    "desperate?"

    Second, I never said living in an altitude tent "wasn't effective."
    Can you cite where I said that? Although not a single winner of the
    Tour de France has ever come from living at altitude. Think about
    that and ask yourself what it means.

    Third, the context of the conversation was two athletes who DON'T
    live at altitude who failed the hematocrit test at worlds. How did
    they raise it LEGALLY?

    The context of the conversation was never that ANYONE couldn't move
    to altitude. It was about these two track riders (and other cyclists)
    who don't live at altitude and don't live in a hypoxic tent.

    Yes well......... you are still clueless about partial pressure.

    Phil H

    So, correct me.

    It rains knowledge soup and monkey boy uses his soup bowl as a rain
    bonnet.

    Phil H

  5. MagillaGorilla said:
    Amit Ghosh said:

    On Mar 26, 7:23 pm, MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Can you name a single pro who keeled over and died while racing because
    of blood that was too thick?  If the answer is no then why does the UCI
    claim that resting is for their health?

    Quoted message said:

    the 50% scheme is a vestige from when there was an EPO test. it should
    be scrapped when there is an EPO test.

    I know.  I was just being facetious.  Exceeding the 50% limit basically
    means you were caught, but they just can't prove you were transfusing
    blood or using EPO, so they have to call it a "safety" suspension.

    Resting is for their health because it deters them
    from boosting hematocrit above 50%. Letting them
    race after a >50% test wouldn't deter boosting, and
    people would boost to a hazardous level. Thus, the
    50% two-week sitdown is for the riders' health.
    In fact, it is one of the dope tests that actually works
    in terms of leveling competition; you can't boost up
    to 60% and ride away from the peloton anymore.

    The 50% test is less selective but harder to foil than
    the EPO test; that is, the 50% test catches few dopers
    but does limit the effectiveness of doping, but there
    are strategies for completely evading the EPO test
    (microdoses, autologous transfusion, etc). This is
    why I think Amit is wrong about abolishing the 50%
    test. It, along with some other tests (e.g. tests for older
    ridiculously easily detected long-lived steroids like
    stanozolol, nandro, testo, etc) actually does something
    predictable and effective.

    Ben

  6. Quoted message said:
    MagillaGorilla said:
    Amit Ghosh said:

    On Mar 26, 7:23 pm, MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]> wrote:

    Quoted message said:

    >Can you name a single pro who keeled over and died while racing because
    >of blood that was too thick? If the answer is no then why does the UCI
    >claim that resting is for their health?

    Quoted message said:

    the 50% scheme is a vestige from when there was an EPO test. it should
    be scrapped when there is an EPO test.

    I know. I was just being facetious. Exceeding the 50% limit basically
    means you were caught, but they just can't prove you were transfusing
    blood or using EPO, so they have to call it a "safety" suspension.

    Resting is for their health because it deters them
    from boosting hematocrit above 50%.

    On what basis are you saying the UCI cares about the rider's "health?"

    Letting them

    Quoted message said:

    race after a >50% test wouldn't deter boosting, and
    people would boost to a hazardous level. Thus, the
    50% two-week sitdown is for the riders' health.

    On what basis are you saying the UCI cares about the rider's "health?"
    Since when is going over 50 bad for a rider's health? Can you give me
    any examples of riders whose health was harmed from going over 50%?

    Quoted message said:

    In fact, it is one of the dope tests that actually works
    in terms of leveling competition; you can't boost up
    to 60% and ride away from the peloton anymore.

    The 50% test is less selective but harder to foil than
    the EPO test; that is, the 50% test catches few dopers
    but does limit the effectiveness of doping, but there
    are strategies for completely evading the EPO test
    (microdoses, autologous transfusion, etc). This is
    why I think Amit is wrong about abolishing the 50%
    test. It, along with some other tests (e.g. tests for older
    ridiculously easily detected long-lived steroids like
    stanozolol, nandro, testo, etc) actually does something
    predictable and effective.

    Ben

    So then how come some riders are allowed exemptions (i.e. Vaughters)?
    How can the UCI prove they have a naturally high hematocrit?

    Thanks,

    Magilla

  7. MagillaGorilla said:

    So then how come some riders are allowed exemptions (i.e. Vaughters)?
    How can the UCI prove they have a naturally high hematocrit?

    Not 100% proof but Wegelius had family members tested

  8. Dan Gregory said:
    MagillaGorilla said:

    So then how come some riders are allowed exemptions (i.e. Vaughters)?
    How can the UCI prove they have a naturally high hematocrit?

    Not 100% proof but Wegelius had family members tested

    Did you see the test results or are you going by what Wegelius said?
    Because if you go by what a cyclist says, then 60% of pro cyclists have
    clinical asthma.

    Yet the rate of clinical asthma in the normal adult population is
    probably like 0.4%. In cycling it's like 60%.

    Cyclists are professional liars when it comes to getting a TUE.

    As for Vaughters, the guy lives at altitude and took EPO. How does that
    qualify as having a "naturally" high hematocrit?

    I bet you if you test Vaughters right now, his hematocrit would be
    around 45.

    Magilla

  9. MagillaGorilla said:
    Dan Gregory said:
    MagillaGorilla said:

    So then how come some riders are allowed exemptions (i.e. Vaughters)?
    How can the UCI prove they have a naturally high hematocrit?

    Not 100% proof but Wegelius had family members tested

    Did you see the test results or are you going by what Wegelius said?
    Because if you go by what a cyclist says, then 60% of pro cyclists have
    clinical asthma.

    Only the details, it seems his father has a high count and after
    Wegelius was banned and then cleared in 2003 it was assessed that as he
    had had his spleen removed in 1998 following an accident it would be
    higher as the spleen removes red blood cells, increasing his HCT.
    But now you'll surmise that he had it removed as an excuse....

  10. Dan Gregory said:
    MagillaGorilla said:
    Dan Gregory said:

    MagillaGorilla wrote:

    > So then how come some riders are allowed exemptions (i.e.
    > Vaughters)? How can the UCI prove they have a naturally high
    > hematocrit?

    Not 100% proof but Wegelius had family members tested

    Did you see the test results or are you going by what Wegelius said?
    Because if you go by what a cyclist says, then 60% of pro cyclists
    have clinical asthma.

    Only the details, it seems his father has a high count and after
    Wegelius was banned and then cleared in 2003 it was assessed that as he
    had had his spleen removed in 1998 following an accident it would be
    higher as the spleen removes red blood cells, increasing his HCT.
    But now you'll surmise that he had it removed as an excuse....

    I don't see why it would matter if someone has a naturally high
    hematocrit or not. If the limit is 50, it should be 50 for everyone.
    What difference does it make if it's naturally occurring? What does
    natural have to do with fairness? Isn't the 50%-rule suppose to be
    about fairness?

    Living at altitude for the purpose of raising your hematocrit is not
    natural.

    Were you in the surgery room when Wegelius had his spleen removed? I
    didn't think so. 10 years from now Wegelius will write a best-selling
    book where he will reveal his friend posed as a doctor and they faked
    the spleen removal surgery just so he could continue transfusions and
    EPO and get away with an exemption.

    Magilla

  11. In article <[email hidden]>,

    MagillaGorilla said:

    Did you see the test results or are you going by what Wegelius said?
    Because if you go by what a cyclist says, then 60% of pro cyclists have
    clinical asthma.

    What does `clinical' mean in `clinical asthma'?
    Where does exercise induced asthma fit in here?

    --
    Michael Press

  12. Michael Press said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    MagillaGorilla said:

    Did you see the test results or are you going by what Wegelius said?
    Because if you go by what a cyclist says, then 60% of pro cyclists have
    clinical asthma.

    What does `clinical' mean in `clinical asthma'?
    Where does exercise induced asthma fit in here?

    "Exercised induced asthma" is a fictitious diagnosis fabricated by
    athletes (especially cyclists and runners) who want to get an inhaler
    prescribed to them because they think it will help their performance.

    That's like saying you have "sedentary induced obesity" that causes you
    to eat ice cream and hamburgers and put on weight so you can justify
    taking amphetamines.

    It's like a weight lifter saying he has to take steroids because of
    "weight lifting induced muscle fatigue."

    Magilla

  13. On Mar 29, 4:06 am, "[email hidden]" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    The 50% test is less selective but harder to foil than
    the EPO test; that is, the 50% test catches few dopers
    but does limit the effectiveness of doping, but there
    are strategies for completely evading the EPO test
    (microdoses, autologous transfusion, etc). This is
    why I think Amit is wrong about abolishing the 50%
    test.

    dumbass,

    the problem is that no one is sure what a hct over 50% means. it's not
    a doping test. wada doesn't treat it like an AAF., but it can send
    someone's career into a tailspin (pantani).

    the first rider to test over (Erwann Menthéour*) was fired his team,
    but within a month Chiapucci did the same, and his team treated it
    like a yellow line violation.

    if the 50% violation can't be considered an AAF, the UCI should
    clearly dictate what actions can and cannot result from it.

    *he subsequently admitted to being a heavy doper

  14. MagillaGorilla said:
    Dan Gregory said:
    MagillaGorilla said:

    So then how come some riders are allowed exemptions (i.e. Vaughters)?
    How can the UCI prove they have a naturally high hematocrit?

    Not 100% proof but Wegelius had family members tested

    Did you see the test results or are you going by what Wegelius said?
    Because if you go by what a cyclist says, then 60% of pro cyclists have
    clinical asthma.

    Yet the rate of clinical asthma in the normal adult population is
    probably like 0.4%. In cycling it's like 60%.

    I have asthma, but if I didn't race or train to race I would never need
    treatment for it. Never even got diagnosed until mid life.

    Guys who simply amble through life don't have EIA.

    That 0.4% thing, you just made that up.

  15. MagillaGorilla said:
    Dan Gregory said:
    MagillaGorilla said:

    Dan Gregory wrote:

    > MagillaGorilla wrote:
    >
    >> So then how come some riders are allowed exemptions (i.e.
    >> Vaughters)? How can the UCI prove they have a naturally high
    >> hematocrit?
    >
    >
    >
    > Not 100% proof but Wegelius had family members tested

    Did you see the test results or are you going by what Wegelius said?
    Because if you go by what a cyclist says, then 60% of pro cyclists
    have clinical asthma.

    Only the details, it seems his father has a high count and after
    Wegelius was banned and then cleared in 2003 it was assessed that as he
    had had his spleen removed in 1998 following an accident it would be
    higher as the spleen removes red blood cells, increasing his HCT.
    But now you'll surmise that he had it removed as an excuse....

    I don't see why it would matter if someone has a naturally high
    hematocrit or not. If the limit is 50, it should be 50 for everyone.
    What difference does it make if it's naturally occurring? What does
    natural have to do with fairness? Isn't the 50%-rule suppose to be
    about fairness?

    Living at altitude for the purpose of raising your hematocrit is not
    natural.

    So what's your priority "natural" or "fair?" These are not mutually friendly
    standards.

  16. <Hobbes@spnb&s.com> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 16:17:41 -0400, MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    Dan Gregory said:

    MagillaGorilla wrote:

    > So then how come some riders are allowed exemptions (i.e.
    > Vaughters)?
    > How can the UCI prove they have a naturally high hematocrit?

    Not 100% proof but Wegelius had family members tested

    Did you see the test results or are you going by what Wegelius said?
    Because if you go by what a cyclist says, then 60% of pro cyclists
    have
    clinical asthma.

    Yet the rate of clinical asthma in the normal adult population is
    probably like 0.4%. In cycling it's like 60%.

    I have asthma, but if I didn't race or train to race I would never
    need
    treatment for it. Never even got diagnosed until mid life.

    Guys who simply amble through life don't have EIA.

    That 0.4% thing, you just made that up.

    Right, according to the Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Adults:
    National Health Interview Survey, 2003, about 10% of the adult
    population has been diagnosed with asthma at some point and 6% still
    have it. One might expect the incidence to be less in professional
    cyclists but probably not as low as 0.4%.

    Phil H

  17. Phil Holman' piholmanc@yourservice said:

    <Hobbes@spnb&s.com> wrote in message

    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 16:17:41 -0400, MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]>
    wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Dan Gregory wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > MagillaGorilla wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >> So then how come some riders are allowed exemptions (i.e.
    >> Vaughters)?
    >> How can the UCI prove they have a naturally high hematocrit?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > Not 100% proof but Wegelius had family members tested

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Did you see the test results or are you going by what Wegelius said?
    Because if you go by what a cyclist says, then 60% of pro cyclists
    have
    clinical asthma.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Yet the rate of clinical asthma in the normal adult population is
    probably like 0.4%.  In cycling it's like 60%.

    Quoted message said:

    I have asthma, but if I didn't race or train to race I would never
    need
    treatment for it. Never even got diagnosed until mid life.

    Quoted message said:

    Guys who simply amble through life don't have EIA.

    Quoted message said:

    That 0.4% thing, you just made that up.

    Right, according to the Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Adults:
    National Health Interview Survey, 2003, about 10% of the adult
    population has been diagnosed with asthma at some point and 6% still
    have it. One might expect the incidence to be less in professional
    cyclists but probably not as low as 0.4%.

    Phil H- Hide quoted text -

    - Show quoted text -

    Why would anyone expect it to be less? Given the ties of air pollution
    to Asthma, and the amount of polluted air endurance athlete's move
    through their lungs I'd expect incidents and cases to be higher.
    Bill C

  18. "Bill C" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Phil Holman' piholmanc@yourservice said:

    <Hobbes@spnb&s.com> wrote in message

    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 16:17:41 -0400, MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]>
    wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Dan Gregory wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > MagillaGorilla wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >> So then how come some riders are allowed exemptions (i.e.
    >> Vaughters)?
    >> How can the UCI prove they have a naturally high hematocrit?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > Not 100% proof but Wegelius had family members tested

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Did you see the test results or are you going by what Wegelius said?
    Because if you go by what a cyclist says, then 60% of pro cyclists
    have
    clinical asthma.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Yet the rate of clinical asthma in the normal adult population is
    probably like 0.4%. In cycling it's like 60%.

    Quoted message said:

    I have asthma, but if I didn't race or train to race I would never
    need
    treatment for it. Never even got diagnosed until mid life.

    Quoted message said:

    Guys who simply amble through life don't have EIA.

    Quoted message said:

    That 0.4% thing, you just made that up.

    Right, according to the Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Adults:
    National Health Interview Survey, 2003, about 10% of the adult
    population has been diagnosed with asthma at some point and 6% still
    have it. One might expect the incidence to be less in professional
    cyclists but probably not as low as 0.4%.

    Phil H- Hide quoted text -

    - Show quoted text -

    Why would anyone expect it to be less? Given the ties of air pollution
    to Asthma, and the amount of polluted air endurance athlete's move
    through their lungs I'd expect incidents and cases to be higher.
    Bill C

    Purely my opinion. I would expect asthmatics less likely to choose
    cycling as a profession.

    Phil H

  19. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Phil Holman' piholmanc@yourservice said:

    <Hobbes@spnb&s.com> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 16:17:41 -0400, MagillaGorilla <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    Dan Gregory wrote:

    > MagillaGorilla wrote:
    >
    >> So then how come some riders are allowed exemptions (i.e.
    >> Vaughters)?
    >> How can the UCI prove they have a naturally high hematocrit?
    >
    >
    > Not 100% proof but Wegelius had family members tested

    Did you see the test results or are you going by what Wegelius said?
    Because if you go by what a cyclist says, then 60% of pro cyclists
    have
    clinical asthma.

    Yet the rate of clinical asthma in the normal adult population is
    probably like 0.4%. In cycling it's like 60%.

    I have asthma, but if I didn't race or train to race I would never
    need
    treatment for it. Never even got diagnosed until mid life.

    Guys who simply amble through life don't have EIA.

    That 0.4% thing, you just made that up.

    Right, according to the Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Adults:
    National Health Interview Survey, 2003, about 10% of the adult
    population has been diagnosed with asthma

    Does this mean the a large segment have undiagnosed asthma
    and that if everyone were examined the fraction of the
    population with diagnosed asthma would be noticeably greater
    than 10%?

    Quoted message said:

    at some point and 6% still
    have it. One might expect the incidence to be less in professional
    cyclists but probably not as low as 0.4%.

    --
    Michael Press

  20. "Michael Press" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In article <[email hidden]>,

    Phil Holman' piholmanc@yourservice said:

    <Hobbes@spnb&s.com> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 16:17:41 -0400, MagillaGorilla
    <[email hidden]>
    wrote:

    >Dan Gregory wrote:
    >
    >> MagillaGorilla wrote:
    >>
    >>> So then how come some riders are allowed exemptions (i.e.
    >>> Vaughters)?
    >>> How can the UCI prove they have a naturally high hematocrit?
    >>
    >>
    >> Not 100% proof but Wegelius had family members tested
    >
    >
    >Did you see the test results or are you going by what Wegelius
    >said?
    >Because if you go by what a cyclist says, then 60% of pro cyclists
    >have
    >clinical asthma.
    >
    >Yet the rate of clinical asthma in the normal adult population is
    >probably like 0.4%. In cycling it's like 60%.

    I have asthma, but if I didn't race or train to race I would never
    need
    treatment for it. Never even got diagnosed until mid life.

    Guys who simply amble through life don't have EIA.

    That 0.4% thing, you just made that up.

    Right, according to the Summary Health Statistics for U.S. Adults:
    National Health Interview Survey, 2003, about 10% of the adult
    population has been diagnosed with asthma

    Does this mean the a large segment have undiagnosed asthma
    and that if everyone were examined the fraction of the
    population with diagnosed asthma would be noticeably greater
    than 10%?

    I'm not sure that would be a large segment but what I think they were
    getting at was the percentage of adults previously diagnosed with asthma
    (in childhood) is greater than those suffering from it today i.e. some
    manage it by avoiding triggers or grow out of it in adulthood.

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    at some point and 6% still
    have it. One might expect the incidence to be less in professional
    cyclists but probably not as low as 0.4%.



    Phil H

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.