"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?

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.

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

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

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)

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.

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...

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

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

"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