Rob Hayles out of Worlds

[SheilaH]

Nor being caught with someone else's blood in your veins (Vino) or lying about your whereabouts (Rasmussen)

 

[gillan]

43-47 is within the normal range 50 is not

50 is so far out of the normal range is is considered a risk to health

whilst there is no proof its big red flag being flown in your face saying this guy is probably manipulating his blood

the onus is now on him to prove he's not. It's not the other way round. If he's been tested before there should be a range of readings on which to make a longitudinal comparison

It may well turn out that he has a high 'normal' level

someone who is presumed innocent until proven otherwise is someone with a reading which sits close to their 'normal'...that tends to be quite a bit under 50

 

[yello]

I would presume he has been tested before so one would know his natural haemocrit level? So could you further presume that this test shows a higher-than-expected level? Not that that is in itself proof of doping, I hasten to add!, I'm sure there are a number of acceptable reasons for an elevated level.... as you can tell, I knowing nothing about the science!

 

[wafflycat]

43-47 is within the normal range 50 is not

50 is so far out of the normal range is is considered a risk to health

whilst there is no proof its big red flag being flown in your face saying this guy is probably manipulating his blood

the onus is now on him to prove he's not. It's not the other way round. If he's been tested before there should be a range of readings on which to make a longitudinal comparison

It may well turn out that he has a high 'normal' level

someone who is presumed innocent until proven otherwise is someone with a reading which sits close to their 'normal'...that tends to be quite a bit under 50

It's high, but it's not exactly rare either. I know several folk who have given readings over 50 and they aren't involved in cycling (or any competitive sport) and are otherwise healthy. Turned out that they were a bit dehydrated at the time of the test. There was nothing more sinister to their high readings than that.

 

[gillan]

waffly

I've heard anecdotal stories like this before, I have also read more scientific litreture that suggests that 50 is within the 'normal' range

I find it difficult to belive. The UCI must have used pretty firm evidence based science on which to base the 50% in the first instance. If it were as 'normal' as some suggest and could be the result of dehydration then why did we not see Pantanis lawyers kick into action after his exclusion from the giro based on a just over 50% reading. That UCI action could have cost pantani millions.

If this is the case then should we note see Hayles and BC (and/or anyone else) caught out challenging the UCI over their use of 50%? BC are signed up to the UCI, have they made their feelings known the 50% is too low? have any other federations?

It seems to me that 50% seems to be about right and that to get to that level 97/98 from 100 would need to manipulate their blood to reach it. There are anomolies but then should BC/hayles not be aware of that seeing as he a full time athlete and that he can be tested at any time in and out of comptetition. If I were him or his manager I would have pre-empted this. Have the fight before an 'anomolous' reading rather than after, have the fight for others in your charge and who may be in your charge in the future. How much damge to halfords for example?

If there is no sceince to base 50% on, someone should have the fight. The fact that there has been no fight, to me, suggests its the correct figure?

 

[Dave_1]

indirect signs of self transfusion and urine test for synthetic EPO will clear Hayles if he did not do anything

 

[Flying_Monkey]

If there is no sceince to base 50% on, someone should have the fight. The fact that there has been no fight, to me, suggests its the correct figure?

In most of these things, there is a bell-curve distribution, which means that there will always be outliers. There is no 'correct figure', there is an indicative figure. If there was a correct figure then you could ban anyone outside it immediately and not have to investigate. So you have to have an indicative figure and you have to base this on normal distribution.

This means you will get some 'false positives' (i.e.: people with naturally high levels, whether permanent or temporary, who are not taking EPO), and you will get some 'false negatives' (i.e.: people you don't catch with a low natural level who are using EPO). The balance is tricky. But everyone understands that there has to a balance, so there is no challenge, and there would be none, unless it was put so low that the numbers of false positives increase to huge proportions.

 

[girofan]

From memory he was 0.3% over the limit, well within the error limits of that particular test. Professional riders have high ht levels in any event. Lance Armstrong's sits around 43-47 I thought. It doesn't have to be drug related and he should have the benefit of the doubt unless it is proved otherwise.

It is this sort of rationalisation that has led the UCI down a tortuous path since 1998. Setting a random level of haemocrit, thinking it so far above normal levels that no person will be caught out, therefore absolving the UCI of any responsibility for sanctions. But it has not worked out this way has it?
Festina, Pantani and de dum de dum de dumb have all been caught above 50% when the science says that the sort of gut wrenching physical excercise cyclist endure should put their levels way down!
Don't follow the well-worn path of the UCI nay-sayers, they want to turn the clock back to cycling smelling of roses, when the reality says it smells of s**t!!!!

 

[gillan]

FM

which suggests that the figure is about right i.e. you are very unlikley to be caught out innocently

in the era of litigation and where positives are fought tooth and nail up to and including the CAS (is that right? the place where Landis is?) i find it very difficult to believe that the current system, the system in place as signed up to by every federation in the UCI and accepted by the riders could be so badly designed as some posters here (and elsewhere) are indicating (not you incidentally)


an olympic medal is worth millions as is a tour win. To be exluded on whimsical science and by a potentially random figure offends natural justice and I cannot see how a successful case could not be built to challenge

as this has not been done I would conclude that those caught are, in the vast majority of cases, guilty of manipulation

that asata boy took the UCI to court on their right to actually test him however nobody has legally fought a rule on just being 'normal'. Talk about restraint of trade!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you've got a naturally high reading and or don't know what your reading is, go to the doctor get a reading, give it to your federation and ask them to lobby the UCI....

Should BC not be publishing our squad members parameters anyway? We could then look at the results ourselves. As indicated above, heavy training depletes RBCs, it doesn't increase them to 'abnormal' levels

 

[Flying_Monkey]

which suggests that the figure is about right i.e. you are very unlikley to be caught out innocently

Indeed. But given the number of tests on riders on the numbers of occasions they are tested, it also suggests that there will still be a number of false positives in absolute terms, even though this may be small in relative terms.

In other words, 10 false positives still looks like a lot if you don't know that there were actually 100000 tests (and it amounts to only 0.001%).

 

[rich p]

I may be wrong but I seem to remember reading once that when the acceptable haematocrit level was raised some years ago, the level of the riders rose too, so they all hovered just under whatever the bar was at.
I stand to be corrected however.

 

[Dave5N]

Woah!

Let's wait for the tests.