Mr. .3 Percent?

From Yahoo Sports News:

(quoting):

Brailsford said Hayles was just 0.3 percent over the maximum limit.
Haematocrit levels above 50 percent are an indication, but not proof,
that illegal blood-boosting may have taken place

"I've known Rob a long time and there's never been any doubt in my
mind that Rob is anything but a fantastic athlete for Great Britain,"
Brailsford told Reuters.

"I've spoken to Rob and looked him straight in the eye and he's
devastated as you'd expect. All of our riders are tested and we've had
thousands of tests done on our squad."

"Whilst it's not anything we'd ever wish to happen on the opening day
of the track world championships, I think the system is there to make
sure that everything is kept above board and I'm 100 percent behind
it." (end quote)

"This morning's screening has shown an anomaly that warrants further
investigation and we are working with the UCI to resolve this matter.
Meanwhile, we continue to be focused on delivering the best results
during the world track championships." (end quote)

O brave new world!

"Brailsford loved Uncle WADA".

(What's up over at baseballplayersgotaunion.org?) --D-y

wrote:
From Yahoo Sports News:

(quoting):

Brailsford said Hayles was just 0.3 percent over the maximum limit.
Haematocrit levels above 50 percent are an indication, but not proof,
that illegal blood-boosting may have taken place

What does anorexic Drew Carey say about this?

Magilla

In article
,
" wrote:

From Yahoo Sports News:

(quoting):

Brailsford said Hayles was just 0.3 percent over the maximum limit.
Haematocrit levels above 50 percent are an indication, but not proof,
that illegal blood-boosting may have taken place

"I've known Rob a long time and there's never been any doubt in my
mind that Rob is anything but a fantastic athlete for Great Britain,"
Brailsford told Reuters.

"I've spoken to Rob and looked him straight in the eye and he's
devastated as you'd expect. All of our riders are tested and we've had
thousands of tests done on our squad."

"Whilst it's not anything we'd ever wish to happen on the opening day
of the track world championships, I think the system is there to make
sure that everything is kept above board and I'm 100 percent behind
it." (end quote)

"This morning's screening has shown an anomaly that warrants further
investigation and we are working with the UCI to resolve this matter.
Meanwhile, we continue to be focused on delivering the best results
during the world track championships." (end quote)

O brave new world!

"Brailsford loved Uncle WADA".

(What's up over at baseballplayersgotaunion.org?) --D-y

Okay, super, but what's the problem? I am a naive dumbass (probably
drunk, possibly an ape, apparently owned by a slave), but aside from the
fact that Hayles, in retrospect, ought to have tracked his Hct himself
(and, er, infused saline like there was no tomorrow...), what's the
problem?

The hematocrit test should be the least controversial WADA protocol of
all. Maybe this is the start of the documentation for Rob getting a
"golden ticket" natural-hematocrit exemption, or maybe this is the start
of Rob getting a one-way ticket on the Stolen Underground*, but either
way, not many tears in my beers because he got a two-week health
suspension.

*Should not be mistaken for Jan Ullrich's ticket on the stollen
Underground. Mmm...

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

On Mar 26, 8:14*pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In article
,



" wrote:
From Yahoo Sports News:

(quoting):

Brailsford said Hayles was just 0.3 percent over the maximum limit.
Haematocrit levels above 50 percent are an indication, but not proof,
that illegal blood-boosting may have taken place

"I've known Rob a long time and there's never been any doubt in my
mind that Rob is anything but a fantastic athlete for Great Britain,"
Brailsford told Reuters.

"I've spoken to Rob and looked him straight in the eye and he's
devastated as you'd expect. All of our riders are tested and we've had
thousands of tests done on our squad."

"Whilst it's not anything we'd ever wish to happen on the opening day
of the track world championships, I think the system is there to make
sure that everything is kept above board and I'm 100 percent behind
it." (end quote)

"This morning's screening has shown an anomaly that warrants further
investigation and we are working with the UCI to resolve this matter.
Meanwhile, we continue to be focused on delivering the best results
during the world track championships." (end quote)

O brave new world!

"Brailsford loved Uncle WADA".

(What's up over at baseballplayersgotaunion.org?) *--D-y

Okay, super, but what's the problem? I am a naive dumbass (probably
drunk, possibly an ape, apparently owned by a slave), but aside from the
fact that Hayles, in retrospect, ought to have tracked his Hct himself
(and, er, infused saline like there was no tomorrow...), what's the
problem?

You said "problems" twice.

"I like problems" (yes I watched Blazing Saddles the other night).

Well... "Why is there a hematocrit limit?" Why is the hematocrit
limit set at 50%, when it is known that some, even non-athletic human
beings, can have a higher 'crit? And these are trackies, not worn-down
"endurance athletes" whose hematocrits might be expected to sag during
competition.

Is it because some sanctioning body or two made up some bad rules they
couldn't effectively test for? So, some/many/"all" riders were at
least tempted to "cheat", knowing the guy next to him could probably
dope without getting caught? So, there has to be an arbitrary limit
set, and people get kicked out of competitions, even without a
positive test for dope?

This flunks the NASCAR test (Michael Waltrip's Daytona transgression
of '07 comes to mind) in a big, big way.

"Whoops, we caught you ever so slightly over the 50% limit. You're
busted. Size depending on subsequent events/findings, there's going to
be a fine for you, maybe for people in your racing organization, too.
We need urine and blood and hair and whatever (non-harmful) samples,
which will be quickly tested (i.e., no bull**** delays meant expressly
to prevent participation in the upcoming competition), and you will be
taken to control immediately after the race, also, with those results
obtained immediately."

Compared to the War on People approach. That's what's wrong what's
wrong.

And "infusing saline like there was no tomorrow"? Dang, then what if
he were to ask for some makeup to cover needle marks or something?
Phew, that was some of the strongest hearsay evidence the Lance-haters
were clinging onto back when Lafferty was still posting here.

How much suspicion did Floyd draw to himself with his massive water
"consumption" even if most of it was used for evaporative cooling?

Or, are you suggesting you would have been happier in your beer if he
had "infused like there was no tomorrow" and passed the rushed-into-
place, stopgap hematocrit test limit? Remember, the test the
authorities decided to initiate back when only the police were even
giving the appearance of "catching dopers"? --D-y

In article
,
" wrote:

On Mar 26, 8:14*pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In article
,



" wrote:
From Yahoo Sports News:

(quoting):

Brailsford said Hayles was just 0.3 percent over the maximum limit.
Haematocrit levels above 50 percent are an indication, but not proof,
that illegal blood-boosting may have taken place

Okay, super, but what's the problem? I am a naive dumbass (probably
drunk, possibly an ape, apparently owned by a slave), but aside from the
fact that Hayles, in retrospect, ought to have tracked his Hct himself
(and, er, infused saline like there was no tomorrow...), what's the
problem?

You said "problems" twice.

Well, I may have been drunk. No, actually, I wasn't. I'm just stupid.

"I like problems" (yes I watched Blazing Saddles the other night).

"Mongo only pawn... in game of life." -Ben Franklin

Well... "Why is there a hematocrit limit?" Why is the hematocrit
limit set at 50%, when it is known that some, even non-athletic human
beings, can have a higher 'crit? And these are trackies, not worn-down
"endurance athletes" whose hematocrits might be expected to sag during
competition.

Very few people naturally cross the 50% limit. It's a presumptive limit,
but the golden ticket is easy enough for actual pro athletes to acquire.
Just ask Jonathan Vaughters or any of the few other athletes with the
golden ticket. And that's in sports that self-select for high-hct, at
least in theory.

Is it because some sanctioning body or two made up some bad rules they
couldn't effectively test for? So, some/many/"all" riders were at
least tempted to "cheat", knowing the guy next to him could probably
dope without getting caught? So, there has to be an arbitrary limit
set, and people get kicked out of competitions, even without a
positive test for dope?

Well, arguing that EPO was a case of bad rules is pretty hazardous. EPO
practically dragged the UCI and WADA into this rule because EPO was
gently killing off the first flower of neo-pros in their sleep.

EPO is impressively dangerous in the hands of dumb athletes because its
dose-response apparently responsive right up to the point where it
starts quietly killing you in your sleep. In the interests of not
wanting any more 60-percenters sludging to death, and with no effective
test available, an easily testable speed limit was imposed.

This flunks the NASCAR test (Michael Waltrip's Daytona transgression
of '07 comes to mind) in a big, big way.

"Whoops, we caught you ever so slightly over the 50% limit. You're
busted. Size depending on subsequent events/findings, there's going to
be a fine for you, maybe for people in your racing organization, too.
We need urine and blood and hair and whatever (non-harmful) samples,
which will be quickly tested (i.e., no bull**** delays meant expressly
to prevent participation in the upcoming competition), and you will be
taken to control immediately after the race, also, with those results
obtained immediately."

This might be fair comment if hct was hard to test for, or if the rule
wasn't widely publicized. I mean, if you show up to The Big Race and get
a health-break (but you weren't actually cheating) then you're either
young enough to have years of excellent racing ahead, or old enough to
know better. I assume that if this wasn't the rider's first EPO test,
that his previous values have been disclosed to him? I may be wrong, but
the spectacle of elite athletes who are naive about their hematocrit
numbers seems like discovering a Cat 1/2 who doesn't know his max HR.
Maybe they exist, but where?

Compared to the War on People approach. That's what's wrong what's
wrong.

You don't see riders getting repeated health-breaks unless they're
hopelessly dim (dumber even than me), and most of those riders,
historically, turned out to be dopers. The half-sensible riders either
dial back 5% or go through the process of getting the Golden Ticket.

And "infusing saline like there was no tomorrow"? Dang, then what if
he were to ask for some makeup to cover needle marks or something?
Phew, that was some of the strongest hearsay evidence the Lance-haters
were clinging onto back when Lafferty was still posting here.

Well, I was being a bit sarcastic. As in, when was the first time this
rider had his Hct tested? What happened between now and then?

At best, he's just discovered he's a natural wonder and has to get his
passport stamped.

How much suspicion did Floyd draw to himself with his massive water
"consumption" even if most of it was used for evaporative cooling?

My guess, having watched that stage either live or on the subsequent
repeats but in either case before he was tagged for doping, was "not
much."

A google could prove me wrong, but I don't recall talk about Floyd's
liquid cooling being suspicious, though many saw it as the secret of his
success. What I remember was the nice synergy of his breakaway and his
liquid cooling: the escape meant he could have the team car with him
unimpeded, which meant he could then enact Operation Super Soaker,
something he could not have done in the peloton.

Or, are you suggesting you would have been happier in your beer if he
had "infused like there was no tomorrow" and passed the rushed-into-
place, stopgap hematocrit test limit? Remember, the test the
authorities decided to initiate back when only the police were even
giving the appearance of "catching dopers"? --D-y

It might have been a rushed, stopgap test when it was first implemented.
Was that a decade ago? Now I think it's pretty well understood.

Sheesh. Are we now going to forgive riders because they show up at TTs
with Y-Foils or illegal seat positions? Sucks to be the guy who does
that, but it's not new or tricky.

EPO is an especially easy candidate for this kind of enforcement,
because it's practically the perfect nightmare drug: potent,
undetectable (until recently, and only with difficulty), and more
effective even as the rider crosses into lethal-dose territory.

About the only thing you could add if you were designing the perfect
drug was that it caused you to secrete a pheremone that demoralized your
opponents,

--
Ryan Cousineau http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
Okay, super, but what's the problem? I am a naive dumbass (probably drunk,
possibly an ape, apparently owned by a slave),

In Canada you might be known as Mr 0.08

Ryan Cousineau wrote:

"Whoops, we caught you ever so slightly over the 50% limit. You're
busted. Size depending on subsequent events/findings, there's going to
be a fine for you, maybe for people in your racing organization, too.
We need urine and blood and hair and whatever (non-harmful) samples,
which will be quickly tested (i.e., no bull**** delays meant expressly
to prevent participation in the upcoming competition), and you will be
taken to control immediately after the race, also, with those results
obtained immediately."

This might be fair comment if hct was hard to test for, or if the rule
wasn't widely publicized. I mean, if you show up to The Big Race and get
a health-break (but you weren't actually cheating) then you're either
young enough to have years of excellent racing ahead, or old enough to
know better. I assume that if this wasn't the rider's first EPO test,
that his previous values have been disclosed to him? I may be wrong, but
the spectacle of elite athletes who are naive about their hematocrit
numbers seems like discovering a Cat 1/2 who doesn't know his max HR.
Maybe they exist, but where?

The guy is thirty-five, and has medals from two Olympics. One thing he
definitely isn't is inexperienced or naive. TBH I'd be surprised if he'd
been cheating, but I've been surprised before. Still, he will definitely
have a long series of previous tests, so it should be relatively easy to
prove whether this is in his natural range or not.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; It appears that /dev/null is a conforming XSL processor.

Brailsford interview
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/sol/new...news=1&bbcws=1

On Mar 26, 9:14 pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:
In article
,



" wrote:
From Yahoo Sports News:

(quoting):

Brailsford said Hayles was just 0.3 percent over the maximum limit.
Haematocrit levels above 50 percent are an indication, but not proof,
that illegal blood-boosting may have taken place

"I've known Rob a long time and there's never been any doubt in my
mind that Rob is anything but a fantastic athlete for Great Britain,"
Brailsford told Reuters.

"I've spoken to Rob and looked him straight in the eye and he's
devastated as you'd expect. All of our riders are tested and we've had
thousands of tests done on our squad."

"Whilst it's not anything we'd ever wish to happen on the opening day
of the track world championships, I think the system is there to make
sure that everything is kept above board and I'm 100 percent behind
it." (end quote)

"This morning's screening has shown an anomaly that warrants further
investigation and we are working with the UCI to resolve this matter.
Meanwhile, we continue to be focused on delivering the best results
during the world track championships." (end quote)

O brave new world!

"Brailsford loved Uncle WADA".

(What's up over at baseballplayersgotaunion.org?) --D-y

Okay, super, but what's the problem? I am a naive dumbass (probably
drunk, possibly an ape, apparently owned by a slave), but aside from the
fact that Hayles, in retrospect, ought to have tracked his Hct himself
(and, er, infused saline like there was no tomorrow...), what's the
problem?

The hematocrit test should be the least controversial WADA protocol of
all. Maybe this is the start of the documentation for Rob getting a
"golden ticket" natural-hematocrit exemption, or maybe this is the start
of Rob getting a one-way ticket on the Stolen Underground*, but either
way, not many tears in my beers because he got a two-week health
suspension.

*Should not be mistaken for Jan Ullrich's ticket on the stollen
Underground. Mmm...

--
Ryan Cousineau /
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

Who says he wasn't tracking it himself? I would imagine 0.3% is
within the error margins for the portable centrifuges these guys use.
And if you're already close to 50%, it doesn't take much to go over.
As for infusion, it would only take 15-20 mL of saline to get back
under 50%. And this is the reasoning for the biological passport. If
officials have a time history, they can tell if 50.3% is a guy who's
cheating or a guy who should have had another glass of water the night
before.

On Mar 26, 11:57*pm, Ryan Cousineau wrote:

Very few people naturally cross the 50% limit. It's a presumptive limit,
but the golden ticket is easy enough for actual pro athletes to acquire.
Just ask Jonathan Vaughters or any of the few other athletes with the
golden ticket. And that's in sports that self-select for high-hct, at
least in theory.

None of that means Hayles didn't get screwed.

Well, arguing that EPO was a case of bad rules is pretty hazardous. EPO
practically dragged the UCI and WADA into this rule because EPO was
gently killing off the first flower of neo-pros in their sleep.

Rules you can't enforce by clear/simple/quick testing are bad rules.

EPO is impressively dangerous in the hands of dumb athletes because its
dose-response apparently responsive right up to the point where it
starts quietly killing you in your sleep. In the interests of not
wanting any more 60-percenters sludging to death, and with no effective
test available, an easily testable speed limit was imposed.

That's what happens when drug use is driven underground. I wonder how
many people have seen the inside of a jail cell for trying to provide
clean needles for addicts here in the USA? The mindset is the biggest
part of the problem.

I never said I have any answers; to the contrary, this is an
unsolvable problem. Hypocrisy doesn't help any.

This might be fair comment if hct was hard to test for, or if the rule
wasn't widely publicized. I mean, if you show up to The Big Race and get
a health-break (but you weren't actually cheating) then you're either
young enough to have years of excellent racing ahead, or old enough to
know better.

I don't find it so easy to blow off the cost to the competitors.

I assume that if this wasn't the rider's first EPO test,
that his previous values have been disclosed to him? I may be wrong, but
the spectacle of elite athletes who are naive about their hematocrit
numbers seems like discovering a Cat 1/2 who doesn't know his max HR.
Maybe they exist, but where?

Which, it could be said, makes this exclusion, minus any sort of a
positive test for actual EPO "on board" even more objectionable.


Well, I was being a bit sarcastic. As in, when was the first time this
rider had his Hct tested? What happened between now and then?

"He didn't test positive for EPO" is one thing that happened.

At best, he's just discovered he's a natural wonder and has to get his
passport stamped.

That's a poor outcome.

[Floyd's hundred water bottles]
My guess, having watched that stage either live or on the subsequent
repeats but in either case before he was tagged for doping, was "not
much."

I was thinking after the fact, didn't 'splain clearly.

A google could prove me wrong, but I don't recall talk about Floyd's
liquid cooling being suspicious, though many saw it as the secret of his
success. What I remember was the nice synergy of his breakaway and his
liquid cooling: the escape meant he could have the team car with him
unimpeded, which meant he could then enact Operation Super Soaker,
something he could not have done in the peloton.

That could have been the sponsor link-in of all times: "Evian: In you,
or on you!"

It might have been a rushed, stopgap test when it was first implemented.
Was that a decade ago? Now I think it's pretty well understood.

It's so easy to manipulate. Imperfect, but if short suspensions
("health breaks", gag me with a euphum or sumting) instead of
automatic two year suspensions are the result, it winds up being one
of the worst and best rules at the same time. Such is life.

Sheesh. Are we now going to forgive riders because they show up at TTs
with Y-Foils or illegal seat positions? Sucks to be the guy who does
that, but it's not new or tricky.

Come on, stick to business and don't be ridiculous in search of
making a point.

EPO is an especially easy candidate for this kind of enforcement,
because it's practically the perfect nightmare drug: potent,
undetectable (until recently, and only with difficulty), and more
effective even as the rider crosses into lethal-dose territory.

Or it could be that you could go to a real MD and get treated.
Monitored for safety, kept to safe limits.

About the only thing you could add if you were designing the perfect
drug was that it caused you to secrete a pheremone that demoralized your
opponents

Looks like Cancellara is already there. --D-y