CrueTrue wrote:
I do trust the court. I'm just saying that he did test positive, and that he only managed to avoid getting banned due to a technicality (like Landis tried), not because he didn't dope.
How do you expalin that nandrolone would show up in your tests if you didn't take it? Yes, there's the natural production, but it's so little that there's no chance in hell that you'll get a false positive based on the body's production. Handling a test bad won't make that nandrolone production higher.
Edit: And saying that the rider doesn't benefit from the drug is just plain wrong. An increased red cell production - how does that NOT benefit the rider?
All doping products are only marginally useful, things such as nandrolone, testosteron and all the other doping does not work very well for cyclists, this doping is more for the muscle growth than for endurance which is what cyclists need. Except for EPO, which works very well. We saw it with Kohl, he was an average rider despite taking all kinds of doping. And when he discovered CERA he suddenly was world class. The other doping simply does not work very well.
Oh and about the tests: if tests are not taken properly, things like a higher concentration of the nandrolone can easily happen. Such things listen very closely. When I was in highschool conducting some tests in the lab, a slight mistake had many consequences for the conclusions...
Arnout wrote:
Oh yeah, lets accuse everyone when one rider takes doping
That's not what I did, but if you want me to, sure. Let's. And let's eat churros too, while we're into saying we'll do random things that have nothing to do with the point
Arnout wrote:
(its already very special by the way that he confesses this quickly).
"Very speacial"? Really? Are you going to argue that it's rare?
Arnout wrote:
Can't believe your behavior towards the riders
What behaviour would that be, exactly?
Arnout wrote:
, why do you watch cycling at all?
Because I love the sport. The season planning, the tactics, the racing. Remind me again what this has to do with the point.
Arnout wrote:
Cannot believe you can enjoy a good attack because it is doping. You must be loving the current week of the Tour...
Way to make wildly insane pseudo-deductions.
You fail logic forever.
Arnout wrote:
So when the court says the rider is positive the court is right, but when the court says the rider is not positive the court is wrong. Obvious I have to say.
You also fail understanding my post.
Arnout wrote:
You know, dopingtests are actually very basic. They just test if some substances are beyond a value.
Not at all. For most substances, they test the presence of it. In these cases, for example, the two riders tested positive for exogenous EPO, whose presence is indicated by the spectral analysis of urine samples having completely different bands from urine without exogenous EPO.
Arnout wrote:
This can already happen with an illness or something. It is not that dopingtests are always right, especially not when the CAS says they are defective.
And this goes against what I said, how exactly?
First point: When I said Landaluze was doping individually you immediately made comments on that, about the contract stuff. From that I deduct that you think it may very well be possible the whole team (or part of the team) dopes. Which they don't until proved.
Second point: The very special thing. Yes it is very special if a riders confesses this quickly. Remember Rebellin, Kohl, Schumacher and anyone else who denied their doping usage in the first months.
Third point (about the cycling watching): I know it may sound a bit harsh, but this comments are not meant to be harsh actually. I really am (was, maybe) curious why you love cycling when I read all your posts about cyclists which do brilliant things. I know more people who do that and I always ask them why they are watching cycling because the weird and brilliant things are the things I watch cycling for.
Fourth point (about the basicness of the tests): Well, maybe the tests for CERA are more advanced, but for normal EPO they just test your blood values. If they are above 50 (I think) you are positive, if below, you are negative. Some riders have a natural level of 47, even some have above 50, while others have a value of 39. Rasmussen for example was obviously doped (his blood values went up during the Tour of 2007 which is not possible naturally) but his value was not above 50, so he didn't test positive untill there was a new test for dynepo. The test for nandrolone works just the same. And the way they work I say they are pretty basic, also because it can happen you have high or low bloodvalues because of illnesses.
Fifth point: This is the last post for me on this subject on this forum.
For EPO they actually need to find the substance. That's why it's so difficult, because traces of EPO disappear fast. With the bloodpass it's quite different though, they don't need to find the actual drug but can open a case based on abnormal blood values.
When it is natural EPO (not synthetic) they cannot find the substance because you have it in your body naturally, so they only can look for the blood values.
Arnout wrote:
Fourth point (about the basicness of the tests): Well, maybe the tests for CERA are more advanced, but for normal EPO they just test your blood values. If they are above 50 (I think) you are positive, if below, you are negative. Some riders have a natural level of 47, even some have above 50, while others have a value of 39. Rasmussen for example was obviously doped (his blood values went up during the Tour of 2007 which is not possible naturally) but his value was not above 50, so he didn't test positive untill there was a new test for dynepo. The test for nandrolone works just the same. And the way they work I say they are pretty basic, also because it can happen you have high or low bloodvalues because of illnesses.
Fifth point: This is the last post for me on this subject on this forum.
About your fourth point. Wow. Just wow. The world has moved on from just talking about haematocrit values. 50 (which equates to 50% of your blood volume being made up of Red Blood Cells) is the "legal" limit, and above it raises suspicion. But as Issoisso has said many a time, and is a well known fact, shove a saline solution drip in your arm for 20 minutes and you'll be well below that value, so only the stupid or dehydrated riders get "caught" like this, but even then rarely equates into an actual positive result.
The test for nandrolone tests the amount of nandrolone deriratives in the urine of a cyclist. At rest and after exercise, cyclists levels are rarely above 0.015. The limit for doping is set to 2. To get above that you have to be on a LOT of nandrolone. So it's not an "accident" or a bad supplement.
Nandrolone also aids fat loss, and strength gains. It's quite effective for a steroid.
And I'm glad it's your last point, as you were starting to infuriate me with some of your comments. Even enough to actually make me post a reply. Which is getting rare nowadays.
Arnout wrote:
First point: When I said Landaluze was doping individually you immediately made comments on that, about the contract stuff. From that I deduct that you think it may very well be possible the whole team (or part of the team) dopes. Which they don't until proved.
So you're saying that even though 4 riders on the team test positive over a period of time and others leave the team and test positive afterwards, I'm supposed to assume the team is clean?
By your implied definition of proof, no one would ever be convicted of anything.
Arnout wrote:
Second point: The very special thing. Yes it is very special if a riders confesses this quickly. Remember Rebellin, Kohl, Schumacher and anyone else who denied their doping usage in the first months.
You really do fail logic forever
Your argument for "it's rare that someone does it" is listing occasions where people didn't. It's like saying that there's very rarely fresh bread at the baker because in three specific days over the past year there wasn't.
Arnout wrote:
Third point (about the cycling watching): I know it may sound a bit harsh, but this comments are not meant to be harsh actually. I really am (was, maybe) curious why you love cycling when I read all your posts about cyclists which do brilliant things. I know more people who do that and I always ask them why they are watching cycling because the weird and brilliant things are the things I watch cycling for.
I love the sport. It's as simple as that. Not the doping crap. The sport.
Arnout wrote:
Fourth point (about the basicness of the tests): Well, maybe the tests for CERA are more advanced, but for normal EPO they just test your blood values. If they are above 50 (I think) you are positive, if below, you are negative.
No. You're very much mistaken. Over a decade ago when there was no test for EPO, all they could do was set a cutoff of 50% haematocrit. If your haematocrit was higher you couldn't race for two weeks so you could "regain your health".
Arnout wrote:
Some riders have a natural level of 47, even some have above 50, while others have a value of 39.
That's what they say, to try and fool everyone into thinking their doped values are natural. Riccò had a natural value above 50....except then he tested positive and it turned out he didn't.
The average for a clean human male is around 37. The average for a pro cyclist is around 42, while before EPO it was around 37 as well. That says quite a lot about the current state of doping in the peloton.
Arnout wrote:
The test for nandrolone works just the same. And the way they work I say they are pretty basic, also because it can happen you have high or low bloodvalues because of illnesses.
No. When you take exogenous nandrolone your body proecesses it and produces a byproduct (or metabolite) called 19-norandrosterone.
The test for exogenous nandrolone is simple: it tests for the presence of 19-norandrosterone. If there's any there, you've taken nandrolone recently enough to be caught. If there is none, you haven't taken any or the test wasn't performed inside the extremely small window within which 19-norandrosterone is detectable before disappearing.
It's quite black or white. There's no "if the value is above X it's positive".
There's no offense at all in what I'm about to say to you: read about detection methods before posting about them. You haven't been right about any of the "facts" you presented.
Arnout wrote:
All doping products are only marginally useful, things such as nandrolone, testosteron and all the other doping does not work very well for cyclists, this doping is more for the muscle growth than for endurance which is what cyclists need. Except for EPO, which works very well. We saw it with Kohl, he was an average rider despite taking all kinds of doping. And when he discovered CERA he suddenly was world class. The other doping simply does not work very well.
Oh and about the tests: if tests are not taken properly, things like a higher concentration of the nandrolone can easily happen. Such things listen very closely. When I was in highschool conducting some tests in the lab, a slight mistake had many consequences for the conclusions...
So what you're saying is basically that no riders use other stuff than EPO and blood doping, because it's not effective - what world are you from?
And again, as someone else pointed out, non-natural nandrolone does NOT show up in your body out of nowhere. Just like EPO didn't show up in Armstrong's '99 samples out of nowhere. It's simply not possible.
Your argument that you messed up a test in High School is just laughable. And seeing your other posts,, it does indeed seem like that all your knowledge stem from a school book from 1960. Try to read up, and you'll see that Peña was in no way clean.
And by the way:
Rasmussen for example was obviously doped (his blood values went up during the Tour of 2007 which is not possible naturally)
So far, you've been protecting the riders' rights, and all that "innocent until proven otherwise" stuff. Yet, you're saying that Rasmussen was doped despite the fact that he never tested positive (not officially).
It's not that I disagree (with you saying he was doped). I just find it weird that you protect a Spanish rider who was obviously doped and tested positive, but not the other.
Edited by CrueTrue on 18-07-2009 10:40
1 point Isso: While the average is 37, it IS proven that people can have a natural value above 50, especially when they are living at high altitude.
I even know a friend of mine, who doesn't do sports, with a NATURAL hematocrite of 53 (!!!)
So saying that by definition values above 50 are doped values (Ricco) is not true.
ruben wrote:
1 point Isso: While the average is 37, it IS proven that people can have a natural value above 50, especially when they are living at high altitude.
I even know a friend of mine, who doesn't do sports, with a NATURAL hematocrite of 53 (!!!)
So saying that by definition values above 50 are doped values (Ricco) is not true.
Nobody said it wasn't. Simply Riccò had an exemption for having a natural value of 52, while it was established after his positive that his natural value was in fact in the mid 40s
Also, just a little niggle, but I was led to believe (by my physiology lecture by one of the top physiology researchers in the world) that the male average was 42, and the female 37. But that's just by-the-by.
Rob Hayles also has an exemption now after last year. I have to say if it is natural for him, he's much more likely that Ricco. Not because he's a brit (and I'd obviously be biased) but because he's a massive guy.
Arnout wrote:
All doping products are only marginally useful, things such as nandrolone, testosteron and all the other doping does not work very well for cyclists, this doping is more for the muscle growth than for endurance which is what cyclists need. Except for EPO, which works very well. We saw it with Kohl, he was an average rider despite taking all kinds of doping. And when he discovered CERA he suddenly was world class. The other doping simply does not work very well.
Oh and about the tests: if tests are not taken properly, things like a higher concentration of the nandrolone can easily happen. Such things listen very closely. When I was in highschool conducting some tests in the lab, a slight mistake had many consequences for the conclusions...
So what you're saying is basically that no riders use other stuff than EPO and blood doping, because it's not effective - what world are you from?
And again, as someone else pointed out, non-natural nandrolone does NOT show up in your body out of nowhere. Just like EPO didn't show up in Armstrong's '99 samples out of nowhere. It's simply not possible.
Your argument that you messed up a test in High School is just laughable. And seeing your other posts,, it does indeed seem like that all your knowledge stem from a school book from 1960. Try to read up, and you'll see that Peña was in no way clean.
And by the way:
Rasmussen for example was obviously doped (his blood values went up during the Tour of 2007 which is not possible naturally)
So far, you've been protecting the riders' rights, and all that "innocent until proven otherwise" stuff. Yet, you're saying that Rasmussen was doped despite the fact that he never tested positive (not officially).
It's not that I disagree (with you saying he was doped). I just find it weird that you protect a Spanish rider who was obviously doped and tested positive, but not the other.
Oh and by the way I won't react in depth anymore and I will explain why. I could argue on forever, for example with issoisso with his Ricco example to prove that riders dont have a blood value of 50 and then later saying that that was not to prove this, don't see any logic in this reasoning. And with Cruetrue who is blaming my highschool years (and he is right ), but that was an argument only to point out that mistakes are easily make and that every human sometimes makes mistakes when he or she has to test so much samples of any kind. I could simply talk forever about the court, because I believe in it and its findings (not that i am naive, I know about silly court cases, but why should I worry about it. I will simply follow the courts findings).
But the truth is that I am hurt by your talking about cycling. You know, I am a passionate cycling fan and I feel hurted by your way of talking about cyclists and doping (not only in this topic, but directly after every extraordinary achievement of a rider), by your accusings of riders and team when another rider tested positive. It is not fair to argue that way, it is not fair to the clean riders, to the sport and it is exactly this talking that hurt the sport more than the actual doping cases. I believe in cycling and that's why I don't want to discuss with you anymore because of your view on cycling, cyclists and doping.
Edited by Arnout on 18-07-2009 23:53
CrueTrue wrote:
Serbia's national coach has been arrested along with 12 pro riders. Supposedly, they've been using a new type of EPO.
There's no names yet, but it'd be fun if Ivan Stevic had been caught again - what would UCI do? Give him another life time suspension?
Was it young promise riders who they have given vitamins? Is it Sella or Rebillin who have talked?
Davide Rebellin, Emanuele Sella, Matteo Priamo, Andrea Moletta, Ricco, Julio Munoz, Novembrini, Sasa Gajicic and Francesco Revere, while the three sports managers Simone Mori former Amica Chips, Donato Giuliani (National Electric Hadimec) and Rodolfo Boulders (Massi)(Team Boulders). From https://sportitali...px?id=5370 and Mellow Velo
Latest news on this case is that it's Sella who tipped the police about this. It's said that 30 people are involved in what the Italian media is calling Via Col Doping.
It's also said that Rodolfo Massi, for those who remember who he is, is involved.
