Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Looks like it likely will go "live" in a few weeks.

http://www.uci.ch/Modules/ENews/ENe...=/Templates/UCI/UCI5/layout.asp?MenuID=MTYxNw

They're doing it the right way, like they did with hemotacrit. So much could have been avoided if they would have implemented this 10 years ago. It would have given them a mechanism to clean the sport from the inside, rather than have a clean-up forced on them from the outside.

Let the speculation begin. I wonder if UCI will decide to sit-down some riders just before the Tour starts and will ASO respect the decision?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,765 Posts
Dwayne Barry said:
Let the speculation begin. I wonder if UCI will decide to sit-down some riders just before the Tour starts
Probably.
and will ASO respect the decision?
Absolutely.

With all the huffing and puffing ASO has done about being embarassed by Astana, l'affaire de Chicken, etc. they will ban anyone who has even the faintest whiff of of taint.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,375 Posts
Dwayne Barry said:
Looks like it likely will go "live" in a few weeks.
"As soon as the Management Committee has approved the new “no start” clause (on 12-13 June), “no starts” on the basis of blood values compared to riders’ individual limits may be issued by the UCI on the advice of experts."

So basically no standards whatsoever. Any rider some group of "experts" see as suspicious can be sat down. The same experts who told us the only possible explanation for a T:E ratio over 4 was through exogenous testosterone use?

"Sorry Alberto, your hematocrit in Feb. was 41.7, but now we see it's 41.8. You're above your individual limit, no Vuelta start for you."
 

·
Impulse Athletic Coaching
Joined
·
5,758 Posts
asgelle said:
"As soon as the Management Committee has approved the new “no start” clause (on 12-13 June), “no starts” on the basis of blood values compared to riders’ individual limits may be issued by the UCI on the advice of experts."

So basically no standards whatsoever. Any rider some group of "experts" see as suspicious can be sat down. The same experts who told us the only possible explanation for a T:E ratio over 4 was through exogenous testosterone use?

"Sorry Alberto, your hematocrit in Feb. was 41.7, but now we see it's 41.8. You're above your individual limit, no Vuelta start for you."
That is why professionals will oversee it. A hematocrit of 41.7 on day one and 44.0 after the 2nd week of a stage race == suspicious. It's similar to the current concept of a 2 week suspension if it's over 50%. It's a great start when you track a 21yr old who starts with a 43 and works his way up to 47 somehow.

Also, Landis had a 11:1 ratio (or was it higher?) which isn't normal by any means. In fact, even people with naturally high testosterone ratios rarely have higher than 3:1.

In other news, I just had my hematocrit checked in a blood test and "scored" a 47%. Sweet!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,375 Posts
iliveonnitro said:
That is why professionals will oversee it. A hematocrit of 41.7 on day one and 44.0 after the 2nd week of a stage race == suspicious.
Did I miss the regulation where they spelled out the definition of "suspicious"? But even if I did, I think it goes against any reasonable standard of justice that someone be punished based on a suspicion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,375 Posts
iliveonnitro said:
In other news, I just had my hematocrit checked in a blood test and "scored" a 47%. Sweet!
Isn't the normal average around 42%? Seems suspicious to me. Maybe I should report this to USCF and see if they think a licensed coach should give the obvious appearance of doping.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,241 Posts
asgelle said:
So basically no standards whatsoever. Any rider some group of "experts" see as suspicious can be sat down. The same experts who told us the only possible explanation for a T:E ratio over 4 was through exogenous testosterone use?

"Sorry Alberto, your hematocrit in Feb. was 41.7, but now we see it's 41.8. You're above your individual limit, no Vuelta start for you."
In the end it was not the ratio that killed the Landis appeal but the presence of synthetic testosterone.

Nobody is saying the movement of a .1 will draw a positive, however an increase from 44.8 to 48.2 during the 3rd week of a Grand Tour would surely draw a sit down. Even bigger would be the increase from 41 to 48.5 like Lance had. The idea that this increase could be caused by anything else but doping is simply unbelievable.

There are many more measurements then just HCT. The UCI used to have a pretty good description of what they were measuring on their website. I will try to dig it up.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,241 Posts
asgelle said:
Did I miss the regulation where they spelled out the definition of "suspicious"? But even if I did, I think it goes against any reasonable standard of justice that someone be punished based on a suspicion.
Plenty of people are held without bail, happens every day. Many of them are innocent.
 

·
Impulse Athletic Coaching
Joined
·
5,758 Posts
Heh, pros would probably prefer a lower hematocrit count because there is "more room for improvement."

Suspicion is a valid excuse to kick someone out of a race. Everything starts with suspicion, but that doesn't mean we should let the killer run loose until we can prove he's guilty. Eg, Rasmussen, operaction puerto, and the list goes on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
asgelle said:
Did I miss the regulation where they spelled out the definition of "suspicious"? But even if I did, I think it goes against any reasonable standard of justice that someone be punished based on a suspicion.
Well they all seem to have accepted the 50% hematocrit rule rather well. You know why? Because there is a pretty good probability that someone who exceeds it is doping and he's just grateful he's not suspended for 2 years. And even if he isn't, it's not that big of a deal, unless of course, your team fires you.

This has already happened to Astorloa at the beginning of the Giro, but it is unclear whether it was an internal control that turned up suspicious numbers or if UCI informed Milran he had funny numbers. That's the kind of case that is likely to end up in court.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,375 Posts
Dwayne Barry said:
Well they all seem to have accepted the 50% hematocrit rule rather well.
The 50% limit was a published quantitative value everyone could see. Like I said, I might have missed it, but I haven't seen any standards for defining suspicious. bigpinkt writes no one says a movement of 0.1% will draw a sanction, but what is that based on? Just because it's absurd, doesn't put it past something WADA/UCI would try..

Remember, 50% hematocrit is only one standard deviation above the norm so a large fraction of the normal population exceeds it (16%?). A value so low, no informed statistician would accept it as meaning anything. Above 60% is also fairly common. I know two people who have it that high.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,241 Posts
asgelle said:
The 50% limit was a published quantitative value everyone could see. Like I said, I might have missed it, but I haven't seen any standards for defining suspicious. bigpinkt writes no one says a movement of 0.1% will draw a sanction, but what is that based on? Just because it's absurd, doesn't put it past something WADA/UCI would try..

Remember, 50% hematocrit is only one standard deviation above the norm so a large fraction of the normal population exceeds it (16%?). A value so low, no informed statistician would accept it as meaning anything. Above 60% is also fairly common. I know two people who have it that high.
The Bio Passport is not "WADA/UCI" WADA has nothing to do with it. Were did you get the info that 16% of the population exceeds 50%? Are you friends with Riis?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
asgelle said:
Remember, 50% hematocrit is only one standard deviation above the norm so a large fraction of the normal population exceeds it (16%?). A value so low, no informed statistician would accept it as meaning anything. Above 60% is also fairly common. I know two people who have it that high.
And there is a mechanism in place to allow for those with a consistently high value to exceed the 50% (e.g., Vaughters and Cunego).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,671 Posts
it's not as though cycling has been crippled by a flood of false positives. While there's been some questionable lab conduct, most of the perceived problems with testing have been the result of high-priced lawyering trying to deflect guilt by putting the labs on trial. If anything, the sport still suffers from rampant false negatives, which allow the weasel defense (from Indurain to you know who): let me just say, I've never tested positive..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,375 Posts
bigpinkt said:
The Bio Passport is not "WADA/UCI" WADA has nothing to do with it. Were did you get the info that 16% of the population exceeds 50%? Are you friends with Riis?
The passport is not, but the point of this announcement is that UCI is going to take that information and start sanctioning riders based on it. From there it isn't a hard stretch to see WADA becoming involved.

If you don't know that in a normal distribution 16% of the data is greater than one standard deviation above the norm, I don't think your in any position to evaluate the probability of anything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,765 Posts
bigpinkt said:
The Bio Passport is not "WADA/UCI" WADA has nothing to do with it.
I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. WADA has removed their previously-promised funding for the project, which UCI says was intended to fund one staff person who would have been used to analyze data.

WADA and its affiliates, however, are the still the formal drugs testing authority, and standard-setting body, for the UCI and all organizations in the Olympic movement. As I understand it, violations found under the bilogic passport regime will be, must be, reported to the appropriate WADA affiliates. The passport itself is comprised of tests administered by WADA national affiliates, in addition to tests administered by the UCI and its national federations.

JSR
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,241 Posts
asgelle said:
If you don't know that in a normal distribution 16% of the data is greater than one standard deviation above the norm, I don't think your in any position to evaluate the probability of anything.
As expected, you are unable to provide any studies to support your 16% figure.
 

·
haole from the mainland
Joined
·
5,966 Posts
bigpinkt said:
As expected, you are unable to provide any studies to support your 16% figure.
It's actually based on Statistics 101. But the 50% rule was actually based on TWO standard deviations from the mean, so only about 2% of the population should be above this value.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Standard_deviation_diagram.svg

Whether or not the mean value for a typical 'healthy' male is appropriate for professional cyclists is another matter.
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top