[sundaymorning]

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.

So are you saying that hematocrit shouldn't drop during a GT? It should. Can you tease out the riders in the Giro on that graph?

[duckstrap]

So are you saying that hematocrit shouldn't drop during a GT? It should. Can you tease out the riders in the Giro on that graph?

Sure. I see two whose HCT went down by 3 points, another one whose HCT went up by 3, and a few more who stayed about the same. Overall variability about the same as they showed through out the season.

[one-mint-julich]

Sure. I see two whose HCT went down by 3 points, another one whose HCT went up by 3, and a few more who stayed about the same. Overall variability about the same as they showed through out the season.

In the first place, these are pro cyclists, not controls. We have no reason to believe that some if not all of them were not on some doping program when the measurements were made. Even if they were not doping, their training/racing program would be expected to result in considerably more variation, up and down, than for non-athletes. The same could be said for Floyd, too, except in his case we know that one measurement came just before the TDF, the other during it, a relationship that, as SM has emphasized, should tend to result in a decreased second value.

In the second place, the CSC results, even if they were typical for non-athletes, don’t show all that much variation. Measurements were made every two weeks over a period of six months. Assuming random variability of the values, the spread of values for any particular rider should be about +/- 1.5 SDs. For all of the riders that I can see, except for one very anomalous appearing value for one rider (that was addressed in this forum earlier), the spread is at most about 5 units. So a typical rider has a mean HT of roughly 43%, and a SD of 1.7.

Given that typical value, what are the odds that two consecutive measurements would differ by 3.4 HT units? That is two SDs, so the odds are about 20:1. And indeed, if you look at the graph, very rarely, as far as I can tell in this confusing tangle of lines, do two consecutive measurements for one rider differ by this much.

Again, I’m not saying this is strong evidence of doping for Floyd. I’m just saying it’s suspicious. If two HT values differ by a degree that, by the odds, is quite unlikely, and particularly in just the opposite direction one would expect given that one was before the TDF and one during it, I think the level of suspicion rises to the point where the rider should be tested (hypothetically, of course, since this is all in the past for Floyd).

[sundaymorning]

Sure. I see two whose HCT went down by 3 points, another one whose HCT went up by 3, and a few more who stayed about the same. Overall variability about the same as they showed through out the season.

You can't use that graph to show that hematocrit doesn't drop during a Grand Tour. There are some riders whose values drop precipitously around the first week of the Giro (it started 5/12), I don't know if they were in the race. Could have been. There are some riders whose plots stop before the Giro.

[one-mint-julich]

You can't use that graph to show that hematocrit doesn't drop during a Grand Tour. There are some riders whose values drop precipitously around the first week of the Giro (it started 5/12), I don't know if they were in the race. Could have been. There are some riders whose plots stop before the Giro.

Yes, and to emphasize again, the fact that the riders were training and racing during much of this time virtually guarantees that we will see a much higher degree of variation of HT than is normally the case (i.e., measurement is made on subject in essentially identical conditions). And what I think Duck is particularly forgetting is that given that HT values are given to some natural variability (result of changes in physiology, measurement error, etc.), it is always possible to find evidence of a maximum degree of variability if you make enough measurements over a long enough period of time, and compare the highest to the lowest. What we need to address in the case of Floyd's numbers is the probability that any two measurements of an individual taken at random will show a particular level of variability.

[duckstrap]

In the first place, these are pro cyclists, not controls. We have no reason to believe that some if not all of them were not on some doping program when the measurements were made. Even if they were not doping, their training/racing program would be expected to result in considerably more variation, up and down, than for non-athletes. The same could be said for Floyd, too, except in his case we know that one measurement came just before the TDF, the other during it, a relationship that, as SM has emphasized, should tend to result in a decreased second value.

This is team CSC, you know, one of the three with a really comprehensive and public anti-doping program. If they aren't clean, who is?

In the second place, the CSC results, even if they were typical for non-athletes, don't show all that much variation. Measurements were made every two weeks over a period of six months. Assuming random variability of the values, the spread of values for any particular rider should be about +/- 1.5 SDs. For all of the riders that I can see, except for one very anomalous appearing value for one rider (that was addressed in this forum earlier), the spread is at most about 5 units. So a typical rider has a mean HT of roughly 43%, and a SD of 1.7.

I didn't do any calculations, but practically every single rider has at least one and generally more than one where the HCT changes by more than 3 units between consecutive measurments out of 7-8 measurments. So,as for the odds of any two consecutive measurements showing a change as large as three, I'd say they're pretty darn good, i.e. around a quarter to a third of the time.

Given that typical value, what are the odds that two consecutive measurements would differ by 3.4 HT units? That is two SDs, so the odds are about 20:1. And indeed, if you look at the graph, very rarely, as far as I can tell in this confusing tangle of lines, do two consecutive measurements for one rider differ by this much.

Are you looking at the same graph I am? For almost every rider, I can pick out at least one point that is more than 3 different from one of its immediate neighbors.

[duckstrap]

Yes, and to emphasize again, the fact that the riders were training and racing during much of this time virtually guarantees that we will see a much higher degree of variation of HT than is normally the case (i.e., measurement is made on subject in essentially identical conditions). And what I think Duck is particularly forgetting is that given that HT values are given to some natural variability (result of changes in physiology, measurement error, etc.), it is always possible to find evidence of a maximum degree of variability if you make enough measurements over a long enough period of time, and compare the highest to the lowest. What we need to address in the case of Floyd's numbers is the probability that any two measurements of an individual taken at random will show a particular level of variability.

I'm not forgetting anything. There are not that many measurments per rider here, on the order of 7-8. It's probably reasonable to assume that the riders with 3 measurements in quick succession from the 5/1 to 5/12 were in the Giro. There are by my count 8 riders with HCT measurements on 5/15. As I said 2 showed fairly large drops, there are 2 with fairly large rise increases (I squinted and found 2 lying on top of each other), and the other 4 were within 1-2 of their previous values.

[D-Queued]

This is team CSC, you know, one of the three with a really comprehensive and public anti-doping program. If they aren't clean, who is?
...

Floyd?

Dave.

[sundaymorning]

Here are a couple interesting things.

From Cyclingnews, in 2002:

His (Raimondas Rumsas) Lampre-Daikin director Pietro Algeri explained to L'Equipe that "The first one revealed an abnormal rise in his hematocrit level. In such cases, the UCI inspectors demand a second test for verification."

The urine test was negative for EPO, which means that Rumsas could not have taken artificial EPO within the previous 72 hours, the effective range of the test.

Rumsas started in Luxembourg with a hematocrit of 46, but this had risen to 47.8 at the time of the Vaison-la-Romaine test (on the rest day), after two weeks of intense racing. This is opposite to physiological norms, where a rider's hematocrit will generally drop over the course of a stage race.

Algeri added, "Rumsas suffered from dysentery, he was dehydrated [note: the Mont Ventoux stage was raced in 33 degree conditions], that had an effect on his blood parameters."

That's the year his wife was busted carrying PEDs in her car. The next year he tested positive for EPO.

There are many studies that confirm that hematocrit should drop during a stage race. Here's one done on mountainbikers that showed a big drop in Hct over the first 6 stages.

This post has been edited by sundaymorning: 10 July 2007 - 01:21 AM

[duckstrap]

...Irrelevant to the current discussion...

There are many studies that confirm that hematocrit should drop during a stage race. Here's one done on mountainbikers that showed a big drop in Hct over the first 6 stages.

The first week wouldn't have been much more than training for Floyd, since it was primarily flat sprinters stages. As a protected rider he was sitting in the peloton doing 30% less work than anybody who was actually pedaling. I doubt he got very close to lactate threshold except on the time trial.

[sundaymorning]

The first week wouldn't have been much more than training for Floyd, since it was primarily flat sprinters stages. As a protected rider he was sitting in the peloton doing 30% less work than anybody who was actually pedaling. I doubt he got very close to lactate threshold except on the time trial.

You can't be serious. First, it's the Tour, the racing is hard. Secondly, they had raced about 1400 km. And the TT was an hour.

[duckstrap]

You can't be serious. First, it's the Tour, the racing is hard. Secondly, they had raced about 1400 km. And the TT was an hour.

Just as serious as anybody seriously claiming that an isolated 3 point change in HCT between two normal values could possibly be evidence of doping. The stages would be fairly easy, he was out of the wind, he was well trained (I'm pretty sure he'd put in multiple consecutive 6 h days in the saddle prior to le Tour), and put 1 hour's serious effort for the week. Not the same as the trans alp challenge with 2800 m climbing per day. Maybe later in the tour, but not in the first week.

[rational head]

The first week wouldn't have been much more than training for Floyd, since it was primarily flat sprinters stages. As a protected rider he was sitting in the peloton doing 30% less work than anybody who was actually pedaling. I doubt he got very close to lactate threshold except on the time trial.

The allegation refers to beyond the first week. Per the article, 48% value was registered mid-tour, 10 days in. I haven't had a chance to re-check the 2006 terrain, but SM and OMJ points regarding general and observable drop in hematocrit (by 2-4 points) in most Tour riders over a 3-week event are hardly disputable. Whether Floyd Landis was riding at his threshold between the values of 44 (start) and 48 (measured at mid race) is going to matter little as the opposite of the expected (and well documented) hematological phenomena occurred - hematocrit went up after 10 days of racing in stead of going down.

Increase is NOT what's supposed to happen to red blood cell population. It's well documented that un-augmented hemopoiesis lags behind numerous factors that destroy RBCs during vigorous prolonged exercise.

Unless, of course, Floyd is unique.

[sundaymorning]

Just as serious as anybody seriously claiming that an isolated 3 point change in HCT between two normal values could possibly be evidence of doping. The stages would be fairly easy, he was out of the wind, he was well trained (I'm pretty sure he'd put in multiple consecutive 6 h days in the saddle prior to le Tour), and put 1 hour's serious effort for the week. Not the same as the trans alp challenge with 2800 m climbing per day. Maybe later in the tour, but not in the first week.

Physical training itself has no significant effect on selected hematological variables (Hct and HB) in athletes compared with untrained controls (link).

[duckstrap]

Physical training itself has no significant effect on selected hematological variables (Hct and HB) in athletes compared with untrained controls (link).

The point is that for the first week, he wasn't doing anything that was particularly strenuous for him. Obviously, later that all changes. Really, if this were anything more than innuendo in this "finding", then I'm sure USADA would have thrown the book at him. All there is here is a minor, common change between two values that were both within normal limits. You can write a book, but that's all there is.

[D-Queued]

The point is that for the first week, he wasn't doing anything that was particularly strenuous for him. Obviously, later that all changes. Really, if this were anything more than innuendo in this "finding", then I'm sure USADA would have thrown the book at him. All there is here is a minor, common change between two values that were both within normal limits. You can write a book, but that's all there is.

Have you ever raced your bike?

What did they average in those first nine stages anyways, 44kph? Five hours at a time? All kinds of Cat 3 and 4's. Heck that isn't strenuous at all. Big pack like that? They should have been averaging at least 50k to make it strenuous.

The HCT levels did not constitute an AAF, and were not related to the AAF in question. Thus the USADA would not have pursued it as a first priority. This is unlike the additional B samples which tested positive, and which directly support the AAF. As we know, there was limited time for both sides at the hearing. You clearly pick what you believe to be your very best stuff and go with that.

Dave.

Edit - spelling nits

This post has been edited by D-Queued: 10 July 2007 - 02:37 AM

[swimyouidiot]

This is team CSC, you know, one of the three with a really comprehensive and public anti-doping program. If they aren't clean, who is?

Floyd?

Dave.

Welcome to the good side, Dave.

Peace

This post has been edited by swimyouidiot: 10 July 2007 - 11:01 AM

[swimyouidiot]

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.

It seems to me OMJ is right about this. It's a yellow flag, worthy of more investigation, but certainly not conclusive (or in my view, anywhere near it) in and of itself. Obviously if we had additional values from later in the Tour that would tell us a lot. Were there any more blood tests? Mark Zeigler doesn't mention any. If not, this is probably a dead issue.

Peace

[Ali]

The point is that for the first week, he wasn't doing anything that was particularly strenuous for him. Obviously, later that all changes...

This is true. Anyone familiar with the tactics of a multistage/multidiscipline event like the TdF understands this. Yet still some persist to post in ignorance on the tactics involved in this "race". Even calling each stage a "race" is not strictly accurate. Yes, for some, it's a goal to win a stage or two, but for the real contenders, it's an exercise in conserving energy and not losing time to other contenders (usually no more than a handfull of other riders), until they get to the key stages ... the mountains and the time trials.

I'm glad you raised this as I'm convinced that this may be the root of many misconceptions about the nature of this sort of event. Misconceptions held by the media and the public. Some people think each stage consists of the entire field having a flat out race for victory. It's not, OK !. All effort is carefully metered out with one eye firmly fixed on the other contenders. If it weren't, it would be impossible to finish the three weeks without doping, never mind winning. That's why many people find it so easy to believe that everyone must be doping. If I shared their misconceptions, I would probably think the same.

[duckstrap]

Have you ever raced your bike?...

As it happens, I have. Mid-pack in the old-farts Cat 5 on a good day. Best I can do on my 2 h per week training "regimen".