|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"Fuentes disputes positive" or How the USCF promotes doping...
In article ,
Bob Schwartz wrote: WooGoogle wrote: I dunno if he took it or not, but why would one take steroids? Wouldn't EPO result in better performance? The assumption here is that the test catches everything. There are testing statistics in the USADA annual report. From http://www.usantidoping.org/files/ac...eport_2003.pdf Page 36 Out of 6890 total tests only one came up positive for EPO. By that I think one can conclude that either EPO doping is very, very rare or that the test is ****. One or the other. One would imagine that steriods are the most abused performance drug but the testing does not support that. Out of those 6890 tests only 18 came up positive under 'Anabolic Agents'. Four of those were from the Balco THG crowd, another 6 were Nandrolone-Oh-my-God-I-took-a- contaminated-supplement positives. So again, the conclusion is clearly that either no one is using or that the test is ****. I don't think that the lack of positive results for either EPO or anabolics is quite so clearly an "either/or", as you mention. It could easily be both - not many users *and* a crappy test. The end results wind up the same: not many positive tests. -- tanx, Howard So far, so good, so what? remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok? |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Fuentes disputes positive" or How the USCF promotes doping...
wrote in message vers.com... Casey Kerrigan wrote: In article rs.com, wrote: Rumors have surrounded this guy for a while now. I personally do not know him, but have ended up on the podium with him several times and honestly have no ill feelings toward him. I tended to chalk up the rumors to guys that were a little jealous of his results. In my naivety, I thought that "Local" guys just didn't dope. The bigger question I have after reading this is: Why the F@#$ is he being allowed to race after this positive test?!! Positive 4 months ago and still racing. What is to dispute? Is there anyway this could reasonably be a false positive? At Superweek he was flying and in hindsight taking $ out of clean riders pockets. What message does this send? I for one think the USCF should get its head out of the sand and start testing at as many NRC races as possible. ------------cut-------------- Riders have the right to appeal the results of the first test. This is one reason why any sample taken is divided into two samples an A sample and a B sample. If the A sample if found to be positive for drugs then the rider can appeal and ask for the B sample to be tested. I believe that even after the B sample is tested ( if it is also positive) the rider can file an appeal and try to contest how the test was conducted and other things like this. During the appeal process riders can keep on racing. This is the same for any action a rider may be suspended for ( ie the right to appeal the suspension decision and the right to keep racing untill the appeals process has run its course). This isn't a case of the USCF/USAC condoning drug use it is a case of giving riders a fair due process system before suspending them from competition. Thanks for the info Casey. I agree due process is necessary. I just feel it would be better for all involved if it moved along faster; Fuentes if he is innocent or clean riders like me if he isn't. He will have basically raced the entire 2004 season and potentially taken away wins from clean riders before it is resolved. I also feel that unless the USCF/USAC starts testing more, then drug use is only going to increase. I very rarely see or hear about any testing what-so-ever at US events. USAC does NOT conduct any testing; that is the role of USADA. USADA assigns each sport a number of out of competition tests and a number of competitions to test each quarter based on a weighted system. With the thousands of races on the calendar (counting mountain bike), do you really expect testing at all races? USADA's budget would have to be in the hundreds of millions since they also test 45 (I think) Olympic and Pan Am sports as well. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Fuentes disputes positive" or How the USCF promotes doping...
Where does Carney propose the money come from?
You people have no clue. "WooGoogle" wrote in message om... I dunno if he took it or not, but why would one take steroids? Wouldn't EPO result in better performance? local guys not doping - check out Jame Carney's diary on cyclingnews. He is adamant that a lot of local guys are doping and because the USADA only tests one random rider at events when they test, people can play the odds and dope and if USADA shows up to an event, just don't get top three ( and a guaranteed doping test ). Jame wants testing at every event possible for exactly this reason - to weed out the cheaters. wrote in message servers.com... Rumors have surrounded this guy for a while now. I personally do not know him, but have ended up on the podium with him several times and honestly have no ill feelings toward him. I tended to chalk up the rumors to guys that were a little jealous of his results. In my naivety, I thought that "Local" guys just didn't dope. The bigger question I have after reading this is: Why the F@#$ is he being allowed to race after this positive test?!! Positive 4 months ago and still racing. What is to dispute? Is there anyway this could reasonably be a false positive? At Superweek he was flying and in hindsight taking $ out of clean riders pockets. What message does this send? I for one think the USCF should get its head out of the sand and start testing at as many NRC races as possible. ------------cut-------------- Fuentes disputes positive The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has announced that Californian Dave Fuentes is currently involved in the USADA adjudication process after returning a positive test for oxymetholone metabolites at the Redlands Classic on March 25, 2004. Fuentes is disputing the finding. Oxymetholone is a steroid also known under the trade name Anadrol, approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of anemias caused by deficient red cell production. It has has been demonstrated to have significant toxic side effects on the liver. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?...ug04/aug04news |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Fuentes disputes positive" or How the USCF promotes doping...
wrote
Rumors have surrounded this guy for a while now. I personally do not know him, but have ended up on the podium with him several times and honestly have no ill feelings toward him. I tended to chalk up the rumors to guys that were a little jealous of his results. In my naivety, I thought that "Local" guys just didn't dope. The bigger question I have after reading this is: Why the F@#$ is he being allowed to race after this positive test?!! Positive 4 months ago and still racing. What is to dispute? Is there anyway this could reasonably be a false positive? At Superweek he was flying and in hindsight taking $ out of clean riders pockets. What message does this send? The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has announced that Californian Dave Fuentes is currently involved in the USADA adjudication process after returning a positive test for oxymetholone metabolites at the Redlands Classic on March 25, 2004. The bigger question is when will Dave refund the stolen prize money he cheated his fellow bike racers out of at Superweek in July? Go to www.internationalcycling.com for the skinny. He won the Sprinters Jersey. That is a $5000 competition divided by top 5. So conservatively $2000. He won at least one stage of the 16 race long series. The daily list is for $2800, and the winner probably nets around $600. He placed 11th in the overall classification. That probably means a few more hundred dollars. So we'll say $3000 so far in the cheat's pocket. He placed highly in many of those races, as evidenced by his 11th overall. So I'll guess another $1000 in stage money. $4000 so far. He probably took some rich primes. Eddie Van Guys can answer this one. They have a star * legend for Super Prime days. One thru Five stars. Schlitz Park was a 5 star day. That means $15,000 in primes in that 100k criterium. I'll guess about $1000 in primes. I bet it is more like $2000-3000 for Dave the drug Slave Fuentes. So that makes $5000. $5000 CASH. No taxes. Maybe more. minus the pharmacy fee. minus a few friends in the races. Still BIG money. Who knows how much he split back, helping the comeback kid McCook to his best racing in 10 years. That is money from honest hard working souls who gave their all. This guy is despicable. He rode like a ****ing ROCKET in July. Busted earlier for drugs, was still his dirty little secret with each dollar made. He was sprinting like a madman. It was unreal. He was making/driving breaks. Like a motorcycle. This should be a police matter. The Milwaukee Police should investigate the THEFT of over $5000 from the competitors at Superweek 2004. Hope your dad reads this, Dave. He must be real proud of what you have become. A 31 year old bum, who steals to support an illegal drug habit. A true role model for the hundreds of children who cheered for you in July. Go away. Crit Pro |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Fuentes disputes positive" or How the USCF promotes doping...
Bob Schwartz wrote: One would imagine that steriods are the most abused performance drug but the testing does not support that. Out of those 6890 tests only 18 came up positive under 'Anabolic Agents'. Four of those were from the Balco THG crowd, another 6 were Nandrolone-Oh-my-God-I-took-a- Forgot to mention, the only revelation in Swart's TV interview that was news to me was that THG was specifically designed to disintegrate during the testing process. Anyone got confirmation on that? (I hadn't heard that claimed before, is all) |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Fuentes disputes positive" or How the USCF promotes doping...
Ewoud Dronkert wrote in message ...
On Wednesday 04 August 2004 23:13, Bob Schwartz wrote: There are testing statistics in the USADA annual report. From http://www.usantidoping.org/files/ac...eport_2003.pdf Page 36 Out of 6890 total tests only one came up positive for EPO. By that I think one can conclude that either EPO doping is very, very rare or that the test is ****. One or the other. Or the window between using and testing positive is very small. From published studies, EPO is effective for several weeks after the last dose. The urine test is only good for three to four days. Only high level riders ( Lance, Tyler ) are "on call" for a random test out of competition any time, any where IIRC. Other riders with suspicious hemocrit levels, get more attention with out of competition tests. Any one else who wants to try to dope can just stop usage before they attend an event that USADA will likely show up for, and never test positive and reap the benefits of EPO. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Fuentes disputes positive" or How the USCF promotes doping...
On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 21:13:30 -0000, Bob Schwartz
wrote: With respect to Carney's views on the amount of testing that is done, I think he is dead on. A friend in the triathlon arena tells me that when would show up to a race with dope testing they would take the top 5 plus *ten* randoms. Anthough that is from a larger base of competitors than in a typical NRC event, it is still better testing odds than top three plus one random. Just a question - are the USADA rules for testing more stringent (i.e. more expensive) than that done 'locally'? If I want an employee tested, I can run the bill anywhere from $ 15 to about $ 150, and this is just from the smorgasbord of employee hiring tests, and of course is largely based on urine tests, pricing based on the range of substances tested for. Blood tests are a lot more expensive retail. And I think all you really get for the cheap $ 15 test is a receipt that says you tested the employee for drugs, in case you get sued. A three-four race C event could run up a bill pretty quick if it was for a moderate cross section of the illegal substances that are on the list. We're also probably not talking about a test off the menu, since those focus on illegal drugs and performance altering drugs and not performance enhancing and banned drugs. I also assume that we aren't talking about D and E events. The caffeine test would end the 'careers' of the daybreak Cat V event participants working on their third cup of 7-11 whatever-they-call-that-stuff. The officials would also be facing a life ban. Curtis L. Russell Odenton, MD (USA) Just someone on two wheels... |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Fuentes disputes positive" or How the USCF promotes doping...
Sam wrote:
Where does Carney propose the money come from? You people have no clue. That's why I posted budget numbers earlier. What the USADA has to work with is hopelessly inadequate, and way out of scale compared to the size of the industry they regulate. The USADA's financial statement is on p30 (p32 in the PDF document) of the annual report: http://www.usantidoping.org/files/ac...eport_2003.pdf Revenues for 2003 were $10.6 million, roughly split bewteen two thirds from the federal government and one third from the USOC. Bob Schwartz |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"Fuentes disputes positive" or How the USCF promotes doping...
Curtis L. Russell wrote:
Just a question - are the USADA rules for testing more stringent (i.e. more expensive) than that done 'locally'? If I want an employee tested, I can run the bill anywhere from $ 15 to about $ 150, and this is just from the smorgasbord of employee hiring tests, and of course is largely based on urine tests, pricing based on the range of substances tested for. Blood tests are a lot more expensive retail. And I think all you really get for the cheap $ 15 test is a receipt that says you tested the employee for drugs, in case you get sued. The annual report lists $4.3 million in expenses under 'Drug Testing'. That works out to $625/test. There is no breakdown but undoubtedly some of that expense has to do with the Doping Control Officers and enforcement of a collection protocol that holds up in court. There is an expense of $1.3 million listed under 'Legal'. So the answer is yes. The USADA rules for testing are more stringent and expensive than that done locally. Bob Schwartz |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Fuentes disputes positive" or How the USCF promotes doping...
"Bob Schwartz" wrote in message
... WooGoogle wrote: I dunno if he took it or not, but why would one take steroids? Wouldn't EPO result in better performance? The assumption here is that the test catches everything. There are testing statistics in the USADA annual report. From http://www.usantidoping.org/files/ac...eport_2003.pdf Page 36 Out of 6890 total tests only one came up positive for EPO. By that I think one can conclude that either EPO doping is very, very rare or that the test is ****. One or the other. Or that testing for EPO using current methods must be done during the first 3-5 days following cessation of use. One would imagine that steriods are the most abused performance drug but the testing does not support that. Out of those 6890 tests only 18 came up positive under 'Anabolic Agents'. Four of those were from the Balco THG crowd, another 6 were Nandrolone-Oh-my-God-I-took-a- contaminated-supplement positives. Numerous supplements have in fact been found to be contaminated with nandrolone. So again, the conclusion is clearly that either no one is using or that the test is ****. Is the reader an optimist or a pessimist? In the optimistic view the war on drugs is all but won. Frankly I think it was just blind chance that they caught Bergman. With respect to Carney's views on the amount of testing that is done, I think he is dead on. A friend in the triathlon arena tells me that when would show up to a race with dope testing they would take the top 5 plus *ten* randoms. I think your friend is exaggerating - Ironman Hawaii, for example, is well-know for its long history of NO testing. Anthough that is from a larger base of competitors than in a typical NRC event, it is still better testing odds than top three plus one random. To get an idea of just how seriously the US takes the issue of maintaining a drug free Olympic movement one can just look at the financial page. The entire top to bottom budget for the USADA is $10.1 million including $4.3 million for testing. So $4.4 million to conduct 6890 tests - that's about $650 per test, which is pretty steep in the medical realm but may not be unreasonable considering all the ancillary costs. In any case, though, I can't help but wonder where the people who call for a huge increase in testing expect the money to come from...for example, would they be willing to pay an extra $50 for their annual license to help support expanded testing? I bet that most would not. Andy Coggan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Doping or not? Read this: | never_doped | Racing | 0 | August 4th 03 01:46 AM |