|
News in August
|
| CountArach |
Posted on 03-08-2014 08:25
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8290
Joined: 14-07-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Jacdk wrote:
Strydz wrote:
This is getting ridiculous now mate, you keep coming up with arguments that make less and less sense so either you have no clue and refuse to learn about how the bio passport works or are actually a troll who is running out of good material.
Mate? im not your mate.
But do please explain your expertise in bio-passport that in your mind proves that he have been using doping and therefore should rightfully receive a ban.
But in case you're wondering and actually want to learn something, Bio-passports are just a collection of data from a riders season which UCI can look at. It is despite you clearly misunderstanding of something thats easy to understand not a positive sample.
So call me a troll all you want i honestly couldn't give a crap, because it just proves that you don't have any arguments and have lost. so enjoy the loss "Mate"
Okay I'm going to try to explain this simply:
The results that are being looked at come from multiple blood tests carried over years. This means that they can chart long-term levels of things such as the amount of blood in oxygen, measured through haemoglobin. Look at the following chart for an example:
https://www.doping...hemato.htm
In the top left chart you can see haemoglobin measurements. The top red line represents the upper allowable amount of oxygen in the blood stream based on WADA standards. This line then comes down to create an individual profile for the athlete based on results received every time they are tested, creating an expected range. For this athlete 145 g/L is the highest they have recorded and on the next test 156 g/L would be the highest they would be allowed before alarm bells went off. This is because to go any higher than this would indicate that they have been tampering with their blood in some way. This would be because the results are above anything they have ever recorded and anything they could ever be expected to record in any situation (things like altitude training aren't going to affect the oxygen levels to that degree). Now if the athlete recorded a reading of, for example, 165 g/L this would be above the expected statistical maximum and would put the result up for review from the three experts. YET, this would not be a positive test because it is still below WADA maximum allowed standards (170 g/L per the article).
Regardless of if it is a positive test or not, this would be a clear example of someone raising their haemoglobin levels through something like EPO. This is what riders in the 90s did before the bio passport. They would dope themselves right up to the maximum allowable level and thus still be 'clean' in the sense of never testing positive, but they were clearly not clean. This is well documented and several examples could be given.
So is this a positive test? No. No one here is claiming that it is.
Is there reason to presume that a massive irregularity was found in Kreuziger's bio passport? Yes, because you can still have highly suspicious blood results without testing positive.
So, in conclusion, if you wish to think that the bio passport isn't the right way to go about these things then there are a lot of riders who never tested positive who have admitted to doping (such as Armstrong) who, by your own logic, were riding clean. It is worth noting that these riders would have had alarm-raising results in the bio passport system. If you want to believe that these people are clean, then go right ahead - I am not going to stop you. But, at the same time, I am also not going to respect your opinion.
Edited by CountArach on 03-08-2014 08:36
|
| |
|
|
| The Hobbit |
Posted on 03-08-2014 08:31
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2730
Joined: 18-08-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
Thanks, you explained that much better than I could have done, nice summary. |
| |
|
|
| Jacdk |
Posted on 03-08-2014 08:50
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 910
Joined: 20-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
felix_29 wrote:
You're hilarious. Same source says
"For the ABP, can a decision rule be defined on a true probability of doping?
Yes, but only in conditions when the prevalence of doping can be precisely estimated."
Also, do you even know what data was released by Horner?
Some experts say that the likelyhood of some kind of blood manipulation carried out by Chris Horner is as high as 99,999999%. Seems like a pointless guessing game based on his age.
This is starting to get to much like trying to teach a monkey to write a shakespeare play.
How come you keep parading experts who clearly state they are guessing, out like they stating facts? and you seem to use experts that back up your preconceived notion of things and disregard experts who don't agree with you.
Again read what the source you even yourself quote from, they themselves say they are dealing with probabilities and not absolute certainties.
So in the end this comes down to who is most trustworthy Expert A who says its one thing or Expert B who says its another. And no Expert A is not more right because you as a layman says he is. |
| |
|
|
| The Hobbit |
Posted on 03-08-2014 08:59
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2730
Joined: 18-08-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
Jacdk wrote:
felix_29 wrote:
You're hilarious. Same source says
"For the ABP, can a decision rule be defined on a true probability of doping?
Yes, but only in conditions when the prevalence of doping can be precisely estimated."
Also, do you even know what data was released by Horner?
Some experts say that the likelyhood of some kind of blood manipulation carried out by Chris Horner is as high as 99,999999%. Seems like a pointless guessing game based on his age.
This is starting to get to much like trying to teach a monkey to write a shakespeare play.
How come you keep parading experts who clearly state they are guessing, out like they stating facts? and you seem to use experts that back up your preconceived notion of things and disregard experts who don't agree with you.
Again read what the source you even yourself quote from, they themselves say they are dealing with probabilities and not absolute certainties.
So in the end this comes down to who is most trustworthy Expert A who says its one thing or Expert B who says its another. And no Expert A is not more right because you as a layman says he is.
The experts who work for the UCI are more likely to be right, because they have the full data, and are completely unbiased. They also work to thresholds and rules, it is not a guess. As Count said, it is virtually impossible for someone to jump a large reading very quickly, if you take data over the course of several years, it will have illnesses in it, and therefore, if someone jumps say 15g/L over their max, then you start to think, thats impossible without doping. Sure it isn't certain, a doping test isn't certain, I can't be certain you aren't Kreuziger himself, but nothing is certain, and to be honest even the limits the UCI set are extremely generous, because they'd much rather let 10 criminals go free, then execute one innocent man, so to speak. This is the right attitude to have, as long as it isn't taken to the extreme, whereas you seem to think if there's even a 20% chance they'll ban him, which is ridiculous. |
| |
|
|
| CountArach |
Posted on 03-08-2014 08:59
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8290
Joined: 14-07-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Please respond to my post Jacdk. Don't act like you didn't see it.
Edited by CountArach on 03-08-2014 09:00
|
| |
|
|
| Eden95 |
Posted on 03-08-2014 09:18
|
Grand Tour Specialist
Posts: 4505
Joined: 05-10-2010
PCM$: 900.00
|
Jacdk wrote:
felix_29 wrote:
You're hilarious. Same source says
"For the ABP, can a decision rule be defined on a true probability of doping?
Yes, but only in conditions when the prevalence of doping can be precisely estimated."
Also, do you even know what data was released by Horner?
Some experts say that the likelyhood of some kind of blood manipulation carried out by Chris Horner is as high as 99,999999%. Seems like a pointless guessing game based on his age.
This is starting to get to much like trying to teach a monkey to write a shakespeare play.
How come you keep parading experts who clearly state they are guessing, out like they stating facts? and you seem to use experts that back up your preconceived notion of things and disregard experts who don't agree with you.
Again read what the source you even yourself quote from, they themselves say they are dealing with probabilities and not absolute certainties.
So in the end this comes down to who is most trustworthy Expert A who says its one thing or Expert B who says its another. And no Expert A is not more right because you as a layman says he is.
Count just said that unless you somehow managed to miss it..
Indosat - ANZ HQ
"This Schleck sandwich is going to cause serious indigestion for Evans" - Phil Liggett |
| |
|
|
| Jacdk |
Posted on 03-08-2014 09:22
|
Breakaway Specialist
Posts: 910
Joined: 20-07-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
CountArach wrote:
Jacdk wrote:
Strydz wrote:
This is getting ridiculous now mate, you keep coming up with arguments that make less and less sense so either you have no clue and refuse to learn about how the bio passport works or are actually a troll who is running out of good material.
Mate? im not your mate.
But do please explain your expertise in bio-passport that in your mind proves that he have been using doping and therefore should rightfully receive a ban.
But in case you're wondering and actually want to learn something, Bio-passports are just a collection of data from a riders season which UCI can look at. It is despite you clearly misunderstanding of something thats easy to understand not a positive sample.
So call me a troll all you want i honestly couldn't give a crap, because it just proves that you don't have any arguments and have lost. so enjoy the loss "Mate"
Okay I'm going to try to explain this simply:
The results that are being looked at come from multiple blood tests carried over years. This means that they can chart long-term levels of things such as the amount of blood in oxygen, measured through haemoglobin. Look at the following chart for an example:
https://www.doping...hemato.htm
In the top left chart you can see haemoglobin measurements. The top red line represents the upper allowable amount of oxygen in the blood stream based on WADA standards. This line then comes down to create an individual profile for the athlete based on results received every time they are tested, creating an expected range. For this athlete 145 g/L is the highest they have recorded and on the next test 156 g/L would be the highest they would be allowed before alarm bells went off. This is because to go any higher than this would indicate that they have been tampering with their blood in some way. This would be because the results are above anything they have ever recorded and anything they could ever be expected to record in any situation (things like altitude training aren't going to affect the oxygen levels to that degree). Now if the athlete recorded a reading of, for example, 165 g/L this would be above the expected statistical maximum and would put the result up for review from the three experts. YET, this would not be a positive test because it is still below WADA maximum allowed standards (170 g/L per the article).
Regardless of if it is a positive test or not, this would be a clear example of someone raising their haemoglobin levels through something like EPO. This is what riders in the 90s did before the bio passport. They would dope themselves right up to the maximum allowable level and thus still be 'clean' in the sense of never testing positive, but they were clearly not clean. This is well documented and several examples could be given.
So is this a positive test? No. No one here is claiming that it is.
Is there reason to presume that a massive irregularity was found in Kreuziger's bio passport? Yes, because you can still have highly suspicious blood results without testing positive.
So, in conclusion, if you wish to think that the bio passport isn't the right way to go about these things then there are a lot of riders who never tested positive who have admitted to doping (such as Armstrong) who, by your own logic, were riding clean. It is worth noting that these riders would have had alarm-raising results in the bio passport system. If you want to believe that these people are clean, then go right ahead - I am not going to stop you. But, at the same time, I am also not going to respect your opinion.
The thing in bold, actually there are several people claiming that its a positive test.
Yes, i don't think bio-passports are the right way to go to fight something that is and always will be apart of cycling, and the reason is because its dealing with probabilities and not certainties, any doubt should always come to the defendants benefit, and since we can have two sets of experts who seemingly is of equal work/experience/education, its a simple matter of what's right. So i would rather have 9 guilty go free then having 1 innocent banned.
Massive irregularities? care to link to that trustworthy source that can actually prove its massive irregularities? particular since UCI said this
"Roman Kreuziger has been provisionally suspended due to abnormalities in his biological passport, the International Cycling Union (UCI) has confirmed."
So where did you get the massive from or is that just a buzz word you use to make your argument seem stronger.
Also there is the small issue of UCI and its experts being of very questionable character and having accepted bribes, that is if you believe several riders. So hey disregard my opinion but if you look across the various cycling sites, i am not alone in questioning UCI and not believe them. In fact i think here is the only place where i have heard anyone actually defend uci to this degree. |
| |
|
|
| Ad Bot |
Posted on 22-11-2024 22:33
|
Bot Agent
Posts: Countless
Joined: 23.11.09
|
|
| IP: None |
|
|
| The Hobbit |
Posted on 03-08-2014 09:42
|
Small Tour Specialist
Posts: 2730
Joined: 18-08-2013
PCM$: 200.00
|
Ok, show me where someone says it is a positive test.
Yes, they are 'massive' irregularities, bcause if they were small ones, or average sized ones, it would not be a doping case, and they would not release information to the public. The only irregularities we will ever hear about are the massive ones, where it is pretty much certain that it is caused by doping.
Haha, that last point is hilarious. Naturally, if a rider is found to have doped, the UCI must have been bribed, because so many people want Kreuizger banned that they'll break the law. |
| |
|
|
| wackojackohighcliffe |
Posted on 03-08-2014 15:45
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 7681
Joined: 19-02-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Stop wasting your time engaging.
|
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 04-08-2014 06:45
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
Little of us doubt that irregularities mean something other than doping. Good that Roman is finally suspended, because it will stop potential situations, where he would be striped of any results later.
I dont like any dopeheads, nationality is not important here...
But UCI should get their shit straight, they are slower than czech justice and that says a lot.
But i dont agree with many people here, saying that on 100% UCI/WADA experts are unbiased in comparsion to other experts, that were given the data in anonymity (anonymity of Kreuziger). It is pretty serious accusation about the crime, to say that Kreuziger has his payed experts, who are biased. Nobody here know a shit about it, so stop accusing people about serious crimes, especially you Count.
We all know UCI is corrupted organ and it was proven in the past that they like money, so why it should be unbiased now. We dont know, so dont post your thoughts as facts. thanks
Edited by Avin Wargunnson on 04-08-2014 07:00
|
| |
|
|
| CountArach |
Posted on 04-08-2014 06:56
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8290
Joined: 14-07-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
I'm not accusing, I'm speculating. But why especially me? I'm really curious.
|
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 04-08-2014 06:59
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
CountArach wrote:
I'm not accusing, I'm speculating. But why especially me? I'm really curious.
Because you called me naive. 
And because i am used to more reasonable discussion with you, it seems that Jackd trolling got the level of discussion lower.
|
| |
|
|
| CountArach |
Posted on 04-08-2014 07:14
|
Grand Tour Champion
Posts: 8290
Joined: 14-07-2008
PCM$: 200.00
|
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
CountArach wrote:
I'm not accusing, I'm speculating. But why especially me? I'm really curious.
Because you called me naive.
And because i am used to more reasonable discussion with you, it seems that Jackd trolling got the level of discussion lower.
I have been reasonable. To me it is reasonable to put forward explanations for evidence that appears to contradict your conclusion. In this case the alleged results from Kreuziger need to be explained because they do not fit my conclusion. I believe that one explanation is that they have been manipulated or attained by bribery. There are a lot of crooked doctors out there who know a lot about haematology, and the last few decades of this sport should tell us that. Thus it is not unreasonable to assume that Riis and Tinkov know some of them, particularly with their histories and will to win at all costs, and would be willing to send this to them to get their tick of approval.
I don't know if I am right but years of watching this sport have taught me to be cynical at all costs.
|
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 04-08-2014 07:27
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
CountArach wrote:
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
CountArach wrote:
I'm not accusing, I'm speculating. But why especially me? I'm really curious.
Because you called me naive.
And because i am used to more reasonable discussion with you, it seems that Jackd trolling got the level of discussion lower.
I have been reasonable. To me it is reasonable to put forward explanations for evidence that appears to contradict your conclusion. In this case the alleged results from Kreuziger need to be explained because they do not fit my conclusion. I believe that one explanation is that they have been manipulated or attained by bribery. There are a lot of crooked doctors out there who know a lot about haematology, and the last few decades of this sport should tell us that. Thus it is not unreasonable to assume that Riis and Tinkov know some of them, particularly with their histories and will to win at all costs, and would be willing to send this to them to get their tick of approval.
I don't know if I am right but years of watching this sport have taught me to be cynical at all costs.
OK, i undestand, but i dont believe in UCI much more than you do with Riijs and Tinkov, also because of past experiences and Cookson is someone i dont believe a word...
Another hillarious tweet btw...
|
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 04-08-2014 08:16
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
Meanwhile, lawyer of Kreuziger says they will send their appeal to CAS againbst the suspension. He says that UCI has 0 chance to suceed in this and he hopes eveyrthing be settled in time to let Kreuziger ride the Vuelta.
Well lawyers....we will see.
|
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 04-08-2014 09:28
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
Kreuziger made public, that he was only blood tested 8! times since start of 2012 till now, while he was tested 8times in 2011 and in 2008.2009 and 2010 he was tested aprox. 16 times per year.
So this is increased rate of testing to seee the signs of doping?
|
| |
|
|
| Stromeon |
Posted on 04-08-2014 09:34
|
Classics Specialist
Posts: 3507
Joined: 06-10-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Kreuziger made public, that he was only blood tested 8! times since start of 2012 till now, while he was tested 8times in 2011 and in 2008.2009 and 2010 he was tested aprox. 16 times per year.
So this is increased rate of testing to seee the signs of doping?
Once every 4 months... wow...
|
| |
|
|
| jako3219 |
Posted on 04-08-2014 10:12
|
Junior Rider
Posts: 48
Joined: 28-01-2012
PCM$: 200.00
|
https://twitter.c...2791030784
Love this guy! |
| |
|
|
| Avin Wargunnson |
Posted on 04-08-2014 11:45
|
World Champion
Posts: 14236
Joined: 20-06-2011
PCM$: 300.00
|
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Kreuziger made public, that he was only blood tested 8! times since start of 2012 till now, while he was tested 8times in 2011 and in 2008.2009 and 2010 he was tested aprox. 16 times per year.
So this is increased rate of testing to seee the signs of doping?
I forgot to add that according to hos words, last time he was tested for biopassport was this years January. After that, only usual urine tests...
|
| |
|
|
| Miguel98 |
Posted on 04-08-2014 12:51
|
World Champion
Posts: 10497
Joined: 23-06-2011
PCM$: 200.00
|
Looks like was is on between Tinkoff and UCI.
https://www.tinkoffsaxo.com/news/open-...n-cookson/ |
| |
|
