Daily Peloton Forums: 2006 Tour Blood Test Results - Daily Peloton Forums

Jump to content

  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

2006 Tour Blood Test Results

#1 User is offline   sundaymorning 

  • Cat-2
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,515
  • Joined: 08-May 06

Posted 08 July 2007 - 09:09 PM

Landis pedaling uphill against accusers

Floyd's hematocrit was 44 before the start of the 2006 Tour and 48 on the first rest day. That's very suspicious. His hemoglobin rose as well, from 15.5 to 16.1 (the threshold is 17). This mirrors his unnatural testosterone readings, which started very low-around 10 ng/ml IIRC, and spiked to the mid 40s after stage 17.

Edit: If you aren't familiar with these type of results, they all should fall during a long stage race if no doping is going on. Floyd's values rose.

This post has been edited by sundaymorning: 08 July 2007 - 09:34 PM

0

#2 User is offline   rational head 

  • Moderator
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 3,769
  • Joined: 14-May 06

Posted 08 July 2007 - 09:57 PM

USADA's attorney, during the hearing, got Landis to mention that Phonak's internal hematocrit limit was 47%.
THe article mentioned 48% after the 1st rest day and 44 before start.

The pertinent quote from the article:

QUOTE
For months, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency asked Landis to release results from blood screens that the UCI, cycling's international governing body, periodically performs on professional riders. Landis kept saying he didn't have them.

The issue came to a head during his testimony at the May arbitration hearing, when USADA attorneys produced e-mails from UCI officials indicating they had long since sent the blood data to Landis. The next day, the Landis camp handed over a spreadsheet of eight blood screens from 2005 and 2006.

USADA said it received them too late to incorporate in its prosecution, but the data was entered into evidence nonetheless and, as such, became available to the public. The Union-Tribune obtained a copy last month from the arbitration panel.

The blood screens aren't considered a formal doping test and can't produce positive results. Instead the UCI uses them as health checks, issuing a 15-day suspension for male riders with hematocrit levels, which measure red blood cells, over 50 percent and hemoglobin concentrations above 17 grams per deciliter of blood.

Landis has no readings above the 50 and 17 thresholds, but an internationally respected blood doping expert from Australia did find unusual patterns after reviewing a copy of Landis' results, particularly when their corresponding dates are taken into consideration.

In a pre-Tour blood screen from June 29, two days before the 2006 race began, Landis had a hematocrit level of 44.8 percent and hemoglobin level of 15.5. On July 11, 10 stages into the Tour, his hematocrit had increased to 48.2 and his hemoglobin to 16.1.

This caught the attention of Michael Ashenden, project coordinator for an Australian research consortium called Science and Industry Against Blood Doping, because the body's concentration of red blood cells naturally decreases during an exhausting competition such as the Tour de France.

“Going from 15.5 to 16.1 (in hemoglobin) is not that unusual when not competing,” Ashenden said by phone from Australia. “But it is very unusual to see an increase after a hard week of cycling. You'd expect it to be the reverse. You'd expect that to fall in a clean athlete. An increase like this in the midst of the Tour de France would be highly, highly unlikely.

“There's nothing where I could point to one value and say, 'This guy definitely doped.' But it raises red flags for me. I would definitely recommend to anti-doping authorities that an athlete presenting these values should be target-tested for blood doping.”

One explanation is that readings can fluctuate depending on the machinery or other variables.

“It's hard to compare them,” says Jacobs, Landis' attorney who has handled blood doping cases with other athletes, “because you can get different readings depending on the machines that were used. You can't draw any conclusions unless you look at all the calibration data. That's why they are health checks and not anti-doping tests.”

The more cynical explanation is that the July 11 test came the morning after the 2006 Tour's first rest day, and actual doping diaries seized in last year's Operation Puerto investigation in Spain indicate rest days are the preferred time for reinfusion of blood bags during the Tour.

Thanks
0

#3 User is offline   swimyouidiot 

  • Soigneur
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 761
  • Joined: 04-February 07
  • Location:Rockford, Illinois
  • Interests:Run, bike, swim. They Might Be Giants. Church. Dogs. Rwanda. Jane Austen. Good vegetarian food. <br /><br />Real name: Mike Solberg<br /><br />

Posted 08 July 2007 - 10:10 PM

QUOTE(sundaymorning @ Jul 8 2007, 04:09 PM) View Post

Landis pedaling uphill against accusers

Floyd's hematocrit was 44 before the start of the 2006 Tour and 48 on the first rest day. That's very suspicious. His hemoglobin rose as well, from 15.5 to 16.1 (the threshold is 17). This mirrors his unnatural testosterone readings, which started very low-around 10 ng/ml IIRC, and spiked to the mid 40s after stage 17.

Edit: If you aren't familiar with these type of results, they all should fall during a long stage race if no doping is going on. Floyd's values rose.

Hmmm...this does get my attention, but I don't know much about hematocrit levels. I'd like to know more before jumping to any conclusions. Links to DPF discussions of the past?

Peace
0

#4 User is offline   ludwig 

  • Cat-2
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,404
  • Joined: 02-May 06

Posted 08 July 2007 - 10:42 PM

QUOTE(swimyouidiot @ Jul 8 2007, 10:10 PM) View Post

Hmmm...this does get my attention, but I don't know much about hematocrit levels.


EPO and related products raise hematocrit. 50% hematocrit means getting banned from competition unless you have an exemption. These percentages are how Bjarn Riis got the nickname "Mr. 60%".

Question to the scientists--what are other ways to explain rising hematocrit besides doping?

This post has been edited by ludwig: 08 July 2007 - 10:47 PM

0

#5 User is offline   D-Queued 

  • Elite
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,745
  • Joined: 11-December 06

Posted 08 July 2007 - 10:58 PM

QUOTE(ludwig @ Jul 8 2007, 03:42 PM) View Post

EPO and related products raise hematocrit. 50% hematocrit means getting banned from competition unless you have an exemption. These percentages are how Bjarn Riis got the nickname "Mr. 60%".

Question to the scientists--what are other ways to explain rising hematocrit besides doping?

Alien DNA.

Dave.
0

#6 User is offline   sundaymorning 

  • Cat-2
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,515
  • Joined: 08-May 06

Posted 08 July 2007 - 10:59 PM

QUOTE(ludwig @ Jul 8 2007, 03:42 PM) View Post

EPO and related products raise hematocrit. 50% hematocrit means getting banned from competition unless you have an exemption. These percentages are how Bjarn Riis got the nickname "Mr. 60%".

Question to the scientists--what are other ways to explain rising hematocrit besides doping?


Dehydration can cause falsely high hematocrit and hemoglobin readings. However, you wouldn't expect a cyclist to be dehydrated on a rest day. The blood testing is usually done at times which minimize the chance of dehydration.
0

#7 User is offline   rational head 

  • Moderator
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 3,769
  • Joined: 14-May 06

Posted 08 July 2007 - 11:10 PM

QUOTE(ludwig @ Jul 8 2007, 06:42 PM) View Post

.........
Question to the scientists--what are other ways to explain rising hematocrit besides doping?

Brief answer: dehydration, environment, measurement method. If anyone is interested in more detail, I recommend to read Ashenden and Ferrari. I am not endorsing Ferrari, but I always considered his writings perceptive. I got Ashenden’s articles and links some place but I’m running out of time.

Ferrari on hematocrit:
http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=24

Accuracy /inaccuracy/method:
http://www.hemametrics.com/TechNotes/TechNotes4.pdf
Thanks
0

#8 User is offline   swimyouidiot 

  • Soigneur
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 761
  • Joined: 04-February 07
  • Location:Rockford, Illinois
  • Interests:Run, bike, swim. They Might Be Giants. Church. Dogs. Rwanda. Jane Austen. Good vegetarian food. <br /><br />Real name: Mike Solberg<br /><br />

Posted 08 July 2007 - 11:31 PM

QUOTE(rational head @ Jul 8 2007, 06:10 PM) View Post

Brief answer: dehydration, environment, measurement method. If anyone is interested in more detail, I recommend to read Ashenden and Ferrari. I am not endorsing Ferrari, but I always considered his writings perceptive. I got Ashenden’s articles and links some place but I’m running out of time.

Ferrari on hematocrit:
http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=24

Accuracy /inaccuracy/method:
http://www.hemametrics.com/TechNotes/TechNotes4.pdf

Thanks, RH. After reading those two articles at least, you would have to know all the specifics of how and when the tests were taken before you could begin to draw any meaningful conclusions. Just posture (i.e. standing up or laying down) can change the level by as much as 10% (within the variation given above for Floyd). There is obviously a reason they don't use this as a meaningful doping test.

By the way, again, we would need to know more specifics, but it does sound like team Landis was being a little, eh, misleading, about not having the test results. During the trial didn't Suh say something like "Oh, those blood test results. Sure we can hand them over to you." Anyway, if I understand the rules of evidence right from what Bill Hue quoted somewhere, USADA might have been able to admit them as evidence even if the hearing was over. I don't think the panel would give them any weight given the variability.

Peace

This post has been edited by swimyouidiot: 08 July 2007 - 11:37 PM

0

#9 User is offline   sundaymorning 

  • Cat-2
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,515
  • Joined: 08-May 06

Posted 09 July 2007 - 12:44 AM

QUOTE(swimyouidiot @ Jul 8 2007, 04:31 PM) View Post

Thanks, RH. After reading those two articles at least, you would have to know all the specifics of how and when the tests were taken before you could begin to draw any meaningful conclusions. Just posture (i.e. standing up or laying down) can change the level by as much as 10% (within the variation given above for Floyd). There is obviously a reason they don't use this as a meaningful doping test.

By the way, again, we would need to know more specifics, but it does sound like team Landis was being a little, eh, misleading, about not having the test results. During the trial didn't Suh say something like "Oh, those blood test results. Sure we can hand them over to you." Anyway, if I understand the rules of evidence right from what Bill Hue quoted somewhere, USADA might have been able to admit them as evidence even if the hearing was over. I don't think the panel would give them any weight given the variability.

Peace


It is a very meaningful test (though officially no presumption of doping is made), the rider is suspended for a couple weeks if the threshold of 50 is breached. Remember, Pantani got suspended while leading the Giro in 1999 as a result of a high hematocrit. The UCI has been doing this test for 10 years, so they are aware of the variables and ways to mitigate them. As are the riders; who use saline drips, plasma expanders and even drinking copious volumes of water to keep their hematocrits below 50.

Obviously these results shouldn't mean much to the panel, and Floyd wasn't over 50, but they do harken back to the testosterone levels, as I posted above. And there are the issues of Phonak's policy on hematocrits over 47% and Ashenden's comments in the article (among other things, he is the principal behind the homologous blood doping test that caught Hamilton and Perez).





0

#10 User is offline   Pelotonium 

  • Assistant Mechanic
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 386
  • Joined: 25-August 06
  • Location:Montreal, Canada
  • Interests:Triathlon<br />Cycling<br />Running<br />Cross-Country Skiing

Posted 09 July 2007 - 12:47 AM

QUOTE(D-Queued @ Jul 8 2007, 06:58 PM) View Post

Alien DNA.
Dave.


I was going to say "Nazi frogmen". laugh.gif

0

#11 User is offline   swimyouidiot 

  • Soigneur
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 761
  • Joined: 04-February 07
  • Location:Rockford, Illinois
  • Interests:Run, bike, swim. They Might Be Giants. Church. Dogs. Rwanda. Jane Austen. Good vegetarian food. <br /><br />Real name: Mike Solberg<br /><br />

Posted 09 July 2007 - 01:31 AM

QUOTE(sundaymorning @ Jul 8 2007, 07:44 PM) View Post

It is a very meaningful test (though officially no presumption of doping is made), the rider is suspended for a couple weeks if the threshold of 50 is breached.

That is, at least ostensibly, for health reasons, right? It's not safe to have your blood so "thick," no matter the cause?

If they carefully controlled as many variables as they could in giving the two tests in 2006, then this would seem like a yellow flag (not red) to me. For those who think he's a doper on other grounds, this would likely strengthen their conviction, but for those who think he's not (like me), it's too variable a test to say anything about doping.

Peace
0

#12 User is offline   frenchfry 

  • Cat-2
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,195
  • Joined: 03-August 06
  • Location:France

Posted 09 July 2007 - 10:40 AM

QUOTE(ludwig @ Jul 9 2007, 12:42 AM) View Post


Question to the scientists--what are other ways to explain rising hematocrit besides doping?

It helps to believe in miracles - that's usually good for about 5 points of increased hematocrit.
0

#13 User is offline   dbrower 

  • Soigneur
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 796
  • Joined: 25-August 06
  • Location:Bay Area, CA

Posted 09 July 2007 - 06:51 PM

QUOTE(rational head @ Jul 8 2007, 04:10 PM) View Post

Brief answer: dehydration, environment, measurement method. If anyone is interested in more detail, I recommend to read Ashenden and Ferrari. I am not endorsing Ferrari, but I always considered his writings perceptive. I got Ashenden's articles and links some place but I'm running out of time.

Ferrari on hematocrit:
http://www.53x12.com/do/show?page=article&id=24

Accuracy /inaccuracy/method:
http://www.hemametrics.com/TechNotes/TechNotes4.pdf


These are informative. Ferrari notes a boatload of problems with repeatability, and the second article says:
Summary of In-Vitro Errors
In general, Dilution, MCV, and Technique Errors are
inherent to in-vitro Hct determination and cannot be
ignored. The overall potential error can be as high as +/-
5 Hct units.

-dB



Trust but Verify for Landis news, research, and comment

http://trustbut.blogspot.com
trustbut.com

0

#14 User is offline   fab 

  • Cat-4
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,577
  • Joined: 15-October 06
  • Location:Takanaka - Krozambenin

Posted 09 July 2007 - 07:37 PM

There is few riders who are caught above the 50% limit, so I believe that many factors are more controlled today, and have less impact. If it's not the case also riders have wonderful technics to avoid it!
Cycling is a fairy_tale --- 7 - 1999 (+2001 Swiss) = 6 + 2 +1
0

#15 User is offline   sundaymorning 

  • Cat-2
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,515
  • Joined: 08-May 06

Posted 09 July 2007 - 08:03 PM

QUOTE(dbrower @ Jul 9 2007, 11:51 AM) View Post

These are informative. Ferrari notes a boatload of problems with repeatability, and the second article says:
Summary of In-Vitro Errors
In general, Dilution, MCV, and Technique Errors are
inherent to in-vitro Hct determination and cannot be
ignored. The overall potential error can be as high as +/-
5 Hct units.

-dB





I still don't fully buy this for a few reasons. First, the UCI has been doing Hct testing for 10 years and has implemented procedures to stabilize the sampling and testing, including duplicate testing of the A samples. They do, however, do a confirmation test by a second method.

Here's another reason, a product sheet for the UltraCrit Plus, a handheld tester which has a comparable accuracy to that of labs, +/- 0.4 % Hct.

I also read a brief report from SportScience Journal, which states this about riders who try to fool the test:

So it's possible for a cyclist to take enough EPO to increase the hematocrit to around 52%, then infuse saline just before the test to bring the hematocrit back below the limit of 50% (or 51%, to allow for error of measurement).

I even had a chance recently to look at three years of Hct tests on myself, by 4 different labs. They were all within a couple percent.


0

#16 User is offline   dbrower 

  • Soigneur
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 796
  • Joined: 25-August 06
  • Location:Bay Area, CA

Posted 09 July 2007 - 09:13 PM

QUOTE(sundaymorning @ Jul 9 2007, 01:03 PM) View Post


I even had a chance recently to look at three years of Hct tests on myself, by 4 different labs. They were all within a couple percent.



All I know is what I read, and it says it can vary. I can't argue with your personal anecdote, because I've only had mine done once, and it was neither good enough to write home about, nor bad enough to be a good excuse.

-dB


Trust but Verify for Landis news, research, and comment

http://trustbut.blogspot.com
trustbut.com

0

#17 User is offline   D-Queued 

  • Elite
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4,745
  • Joined: 11-December 06

Posted 09 July 2007 - 09:48 PM

QUOTE(dbrower @ Jul 9 2007, 02:13 PM) View Post

All I know is what I read, and it says it can vary. I can't argue with your personal anecdote, because I've only had mine done once, and it was neither good enough to write home about, nor bad enough to be a good excuse.

-dB

Actually thought your post on the matter was fair. The reference from Ferrari, while interesting, must be considered in the context of its source.

the Hct 50 cut-off was instituted directly for EPO. While an EPO test had not yet been perfected, it was clear that high Hct was dangerous to your health. The 'health suspensions' can bar a cyclist from something as important as the Tour. As we know from various testimony, most teams practice safe Hct management. Like Phonak, there are internal guidelines (e.g. 47) so as to not raise suspicion nor run the risk of a test failure.

With the widespread exposure to the UCI 'Vampires', the teams, athletes, and doping control officers are all very experienced with this very common test procedure. The teams all have their own equipment and run the tests themselves for Pete's sake -- which as we know from Festina is all about manipulation of this value. This combined experience and the athlete's self-interest to test low would reduce the random variability considerably.

The logical motivation of the athlete is to avoid the screening limit. Thus, having a reading which exceeds your own internal limits and approaches the official limits should be an automatic red flag for the athlete and the team. Floyd had such a reading.

Dave.
0

#18 User is offline   sundaymorning 

  • Cat-2
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2,515
  • Joined: 08-May 06

Posted 09 July 2007 - 09:54 PM

QUOTE(dbrower @ Jul 9 2007, 02:13 PM) View Post

All I know is what I read, and it says it can vary. I can't argue with your personal anecdote, because I've only had mine done once, and it was neither good enough to write home about, nor bad enough to be a good excuse.

-dB


Right, and you can't argue with the rest of my post either. BTW, my hematocrit was always over 50%, so it's definitely not everything (and I would be at a disadvantage if I was an elite rider using EPO).
0

#19 User is offline   one-mint-julich 

  • Cat-3
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1,966
  • Joined: 03-May 06

Posted 09 July 2007 - 10:09 PM

This study http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/pdf%2F8005%2F8005a4.pdf found a 4 unit (not %) increase in HT going from lying to standing, which really surprised me. However, I agree with SM that the testers are surely aware of this effect. If not, an athlete worried that his HT might be too high could get the minimum value by lying down during the test. Conversely, an athlete worried about his HT rising during a race would want to stand when getting tested before the race. I really wouldn't put it past Ferrari to coach his clients to that effect if he thought the testers were not aware of this, but since he has published this information on the internet, it obviously is no secret.

FWIW, my HT, too, has been very consistent, within one unit. I think if one is tested under similar conditions (same posture, no unusual athletic efforts, health problems, etc. preceding some but not all tests), the tests will probably be consistent. I haven't looked at the second link, but I tend to think that testing variations are overblown. In principle, HT is one of the simplest medical tests possible. It is just the % of blood volume taken up by cells. Can't get much more straightforward than that.

I also think Ashenden has it about right. Changes like this are not proof of doping, but they are suspicious enough to warrant further testing, particularly in the supposedly new ethical environment that teams are creating. A rise of 3-4 units is suspicious just by itself, but especially when the higher reading occurs after a process that one would expect to lower the HT. The effective difference--between the HT at the start of the Tour and a reasonable value after 10 days--is more like 6-7 units, which is at the very edge of what all these other effects that are discussed can cause.
0

#20 User is offline   duckstrap 

  • Assistant Mechanic
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 278
  • Joined: 11-October 06

Posted 09 July 2007 - 11:18 PM



Oh please give me a break! First, Floyd's HCT did not go up by 4, it went up by 3.4 on a measurement that is known to be highly variable. I give you the following. On this graph from team CSC there are 15 or 20 hematocrit profiles. On it, I can probably show you 15 or 20 different places where each rider's HCT went up by at least 3, followed by an equally large drop. Analogous thing for hemoglobin. This a bunch of nothing that someone is trying to make into something.


Newly Minted Assistant Mechanic. Me, Floyd and Lance--we have 8 TdF titles between us!

0

Share this topic:


  • 4 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users