Old friend Velo Vortmax thinks so as he “re-laments” the ridiculous unfairness of the current anti-doping system. VV asserts that Floyd Landis is doomed to forever race in the US domestic series due to the vindictive nature of the ASO which VV feels will NEVER allow Floyd to race in France. Let’s hope VV is wrong, but:
…Sorry Floyd but you know better than to trust ASO in anything that makes sense. Floyd you have been branded as a doper by a vindictive group of people who will hate you forever for challenging their system and raising awareness of the problems inherent in the WADA monopoly. You should have done what Ivan Basso did, lay down and grovel, then you would have been given an opportunity to participate again. As it is you are Persona non Grata and you will remain so forever…
Meanwhile CyclingNews posts a bit of an “April Fools” aboput the ASO. Fools indeed! Uh April fools only of course...
This “flash” from CN is NO JOKE, especially if you are Alejandro Valverde:
The Italian Olympic Committee (CONI) requested a two-year suspension on Wednesday in Rome for Spanish cyclist Alejandro Valverde. CONI reportedly used DNA evidence to connect the 28-year-old Caisse d’Epargne rider to the Operación Puerto investigation
VeloNews’ “explainer” discusses the legality of the “praying Landis” aero position.
Bike World News runs an April Fools contest of sorts, and there is a fleeting reference to Floyd Landis.
And finally, for tonight anyway, a tip from TBV leads us to this article. Seems someone from Greenpeace got into a a bit of trouble after breaking into LNDD’s offices in Chatenay-Malabry. One can only imagine what a Greenpeace activist would have been looking for at LNDD. Update: After looking at the story again this morning, reference to LNDD has been pulled. Hmmm.
It was LNDD/AFLD’s shoddy practices that tarnished the 2006 TdF.
Floyd won the race. Not too many of their contemporaries champion the idea that Oscar P was the rightful winner. Oscar P himself hasn’t even been particularly strong in his assertions. Those are the people that know. I’ll go with their opinion, not some parochial geek half arsed lab hacks.
ASO places the blame wrongly.
Rant, I have to say that I agree with VV. I don’t believe the ASO will ever forget the man who challenged (and exposed) them. As they said, had he laid down and not raised such a ruckus, I believe he would have been welcomed back into the fold after paying the proper pennance. I also believe that just the THREAT of the ASO dis-inviting any pro team who dares hire him would make him the Typhoid Mary of the peleton, and thus too hot to handle. I truly hope that I’m wrong in my predictions…I still believe Floyd is innocent, and it’s a crying shame that his name isn’t in the record books at the WINNER of the 06 TDF. And who knows what else he would have done (and won) by now had he not had his livelehood yanked out from under him.
Hi Matt, this is strbuk here, I agree with you. I was very pleased to see that VeloVortmax has not forgotten Floyd, nor have many others
VV is correct about Floyd ever being back to anything in France. But I respectfully disagree with his conclusion: Floyd most certainly *should not have* laid down and grovelled for anything. That he did not is why he is a personal hero to me. Not saying that being eightzero’s champion makes one avoid persona non-grata, but there are others who feel as I do. See Bill Hue’s final post on the subject over at TBV. Wish I could write as well as Judge Hue.
There has been much speculation about whether UCI/ASO/WADA went after Floyd with so much vindictiveness because of what they feel “was done to them” by Lance Armstrong. Some have speculated FL was offered a “deal” to roll on LA, and when he didn’t give them what he wanted, they tore FL a new one. (For further light reading on the reliability of confessions, I recommend Justice Warrens’ opinion in Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966).)
What will happen to LA when he comes under the jurisdiction of thesesame inquisitors this coming July? Indeed, ASO seemed to welcome him back. Who on Astana might they have dirt on, and when in July will they announce it?
It doesn’t have to be WADA/UCI/ASO, it could simply be a vindictive lab tech. I have no wish here to cast aspersions on the 2 lab techs involved at the Malibu hearing, unless there is good evidence otherwise, I am willing to assume shoddy training and practices were more to blame than a deliberate attempt by them to nail FL. However, I would hazard a guess that the 2 are not the only employees at LNDD, or whatever it goes by these days. The second arbitration hearing especially seems to this legal layman to establish a pretty low standard for lab practices and hence a pretty good window of opportunity for a lab tech to alter the results of a competition, whether to seek revenge for some perceived wrong, or to elevate some favored rider, or for whatever reason.
I also have always felt that, even had Landis prevailed, he would be well advised to stay out of competition in France, however much we would like to see him again in le Grand Boucle. There is always the Giro and Vuelta.
Could they? If this is a real question then you haven’t been paying attention. Their whole case against Floyd was not ‘we have proof,’ but, ‘we can say you’re guilty and you will be.’
When lance announced his comeback my first thought was that now they’ll find something on him in the tour. Now I’m not so sure. Lance has been good press and they might want that more right now. Perhaps they’ll find something on another big name rider?
I have to say, I truly hope that the ASO would allow Floyd back in 2010 (or whenever he gets a contract with a ProTour team). But the cynic in me wonders if they might be so vindictive as to keep him out for good. In fighting the good fight, he certainly exposed a lot of flaws in the system, and flaws in how various organizations function. VV may well be right, but I hope he’s wrong.
William, I wouldn’t hire those two Pharm Techs for the day shift at a suburb Walgreen’s. They’re as cross-eyed as the Attorney General in Steve Martin’s original classic, “The Jerk”. They screwed up the calibration of the machine, and they fouled up every other step along the way.
The rest of the story is about the cover up to cover up the ineptitude of those two female versions of “Beavis and Butthead.”
I mean it. Jean luc will probably step in to defend them, but even he can’t deny that they wiped the word “procedure” off the ink board before learning to spell it, then define it.
Rant – given Floyd’s recent lack of results, we shouldn’t be putting the cart before the horse. I was expecting someone filled with silent rage, but maybe his fitness and racing 6th sense are taking a bit longer to develop after so much time off. It happened with Hamilton, but it took years.
Someone call Arnie Baker and ask him what’s up.
RW,
The best training for competition (in my experience) has always been competition. So I wouldn’t be surprised if it takes Floyd a while to race his way into shape. And it might just be time to give Arnie a call. Haven’t talked to him in a good long while …
Rant and VV have a good case for ASO holding a grudge against Floyd. It seems rather small of them to do so, though. After all, they got the result they wanted. Their allies made sure.
In other news, CONI is in the process of declaring a two-year ban on Valverde in Italy and will be asking for the ban to be honored worldwide/by the UCI.
http://eurosport.yahoo.com/01042009/58/valverde-charged-doping-offence.html
This is another example of how/where WADA has failed miserably in standardizing/unifying the anti-doping movement.
First, Floyd had to fight the same charge on two fronts. One in the U.S. with USADA and the other in France. The French can argue they had not yet signed on the dotted line wrt the 2006 TdF and any sanctions that might have arisen from that race, but they could have taken the higher ground and gotten in on the ground floor wrt the spirit of unifying the process. They didn’t, demonstrating their small, trite, insignificant nature.
AFLD has more recently gone about collecting hair samples from a noted foreign rider, although hair samples are not accepted protocol for WADA or the UCI. Another opening of Pandora’s box where one country attacks another’s for political or sporting reasons/motives.
Most recently, we have CONI involved in the same sort of behavior. The Italians are taking it upon themselves to prosecute a violation that allegedly took place in Spain, with a Spanish rider??? CONI is apparently pissed that Spanish riders have been largely unaffected by Operation Puerto, while their own such as Ivan Basso (disclaimer-I like him as a rider) was suspended.
I blame WADA for this. This is precisely what happens when an organization abandons its principles/codes/regulations for expediency. This is what happens when an organization sanctions the testing of B-samples whose corresponding A-samples never tripped an AAF. This is what happens when an organization says a half arsed record of CoC is sufficient. This is what happens when a regulatory agency rigs the system to ensure the outcome it desires.
When expediency comes before ethics, before the science, before common decency, then this is what we get. We get what was supposed to be one of the key fiascos WADA was supposed to be set up to avoid. We get political payback from one nation feeling slighted by another over issues related to its athletes. Tit for tat, you suspend my rider and I’ll suspend your rider.
ASO gets in on the act by virtue of running the 2009 TdF through parts of Italy, making an Italian suspension of Valverde, even if only a suspension in Italy (doubtful), a defacto suspension from the 2009 TdF.
And so it goes in the WADA/IOC/UCI/AFLD led world of the bungling idiots………
In other (mostly unrelated) news, Rivkin (Floyd’s CAS hearing) wound up on the wrong end of the most recent America’s Cup ruling.
http://www.nycourts.gov/ctapps/decisions/2009/apr09/25opn09.pdf
I never thought that Bush had so damaged education in US !
Richard,
Floyd was found to have doped by a french lab. Their findings have been confirmed by US NADA and TAS.
Floyd has many positive samples, and had a strange bonk followed by an stupefiant recovering. Because you are a cycling coach , maybe you may explain what kind of bonk it was, and how he recovered so well
As I pointed earlier, more we learn about doping, more we believe that ALL riders ranked in the first places were doped during the EPO and blood doping period.
Now we know that EPO were found in Valverde’s blood. Pevenage stated that there is/were 5 other Fuentes officines. And of course Kohl is going to tell us more besides Humanplasma clinic. So we have something that correspond to the description made by retired riders, by Woet,…
During the old days we have learn that an athlete who stopped training during a period T needed a period T to come back at his normal level (not the top form). The Landis ‘struggling shows me that he is clean now. I saw a french interview of him, he looked a bit devastated and have some remords. He said that he shouldn’t have follow some advices.
Probably he is a victim of the doping system but not of the anti-doping movement who caught him.
>> I saw a french interview of him, he looked a bit devastated and have some remords. He said that he shouldn’t have follow some advices.
Probably he is a victim of the doping system but not of the anti-doping movement who caught him.<<
What French interview? Is this recent, give specific examples and urls please.
str
Jean C,
As you make your points, you seem to move a bit far off center wrt what the author actually said/wrote. Also an interesting summary regarding the science part. Creative work!
Now, let’s see the citations that support your contentions. Still waiting for the cite (from 3/22) that supports your notion that AFLD can’t track foreign athletes when in France. They can and do.
R Wharton
Agreed, the lab techs were incompetent, or so it seems. Some seem to be suggesting that there was a deliberate scheme to deprive Landis of his victory. I think it was more a case of they screwed up unintentionally, then everybody jumped in to CYA. There was a lot of talk that had Landis won his case, the whole ADA system would collapse. I rather tend to doubt that would have been the case: they could have written this off as a doper getting off on a “technicality”.
FWIW, I generally agree with William Schart’s take.
I doubt the conspiricy was in the begining. However, the system was set up, from the start, for CYA. I can hardly congratulate the alphabet soup for fully exercising the corrupt system they created.
But then again the system has never been about the health of the athletes or the notion of fair competition. It is and was always about covering the oozing boil infested buttock that is the IOC. Insults aside (but rightfully due), WADA was set up to protect the olympic brand in order to keep the money flowing.
That’s about it.
William,
In looking back, I now think that if Landis had actually won, the system would not have collapsed in on itself. Instead, the fallgirls would have been Ms. Mongongu and Ms. Frelat, and the powers that be would have hung them out to dry. Their performance in Malibu was enough to give the original arbitration panel some pause. And, I think you’re right, the other part of the storyline would have been that he got off on a technicality.
Jean,
I always find it interesting that people see Landis’ comeback on Stage 17 in the light you suggest. While Landis was certainly better fueled and taken care of on that day than he was the day before, a good part of his comeback had to do with the teams that refused to chase. They let him get away. Pererio and/or his team figured he wasn’t a threat. No one else did. They all figured he’d blow up on the last major climb — or maybe earlier — and that would be the end of it. By the time the peloton actually gave a real chase, it was too late. Tactics, good on Landis’/Phonak’s part and bad on the part of everyone else, were a big factor in that “miraculous” comeback.
(Put another way, if your Ferrari or Porsche runs out of fuel, and then you refuel the beast, it will be able to perform just as well afterwards. Landis refueled and was ready to go the next day. Pereiro and company miscalculated and figured that he hadn’t completely filled his tank and would run out of fuel again.)
Now, you’re factually correct that both panels found against Landis. That’s the record. The reasoning on their decisions, however, defines a whole new form of logic. But on that you and I disagree.
Given that Floyd hasn’t come back at top form, and that he seems to be coming back into that form over time, that follows your own statement (which I agree with, through my own experience) that if you’re off the bike for X it will take at least Y amount of time to re-achieve the level of fitness and competitiveness you had before. While I agree that it shows Floyd is racing clean these days, I don’t think it proves anything about whether or not he was racing clean in the past.
The only thing that might have looked a bit unnatural would have been if he came back at completely top form, with only a few unsanctioned mountain bike races to keep that competitive fitness going since 2006. Had that happened, and had he been at top form for his first races, I can imagine the tongues would have been wagging with tales of suspicious training methods and regimens.
And, if you’re flabbergasted by the American educational system, you haven’t been here much. It’s gone downhill in a big way over time. But that has nothing to do with Jeff’s critiques of how the anti-doping system works. The anti-doping system isn’t perfect. Surely you would admit that much, wouldn’t you? There are many aspects that need to be improved. We may disagree on what they are, but I think we can all agree that the system does not work as well as it should.
Jean C,
You infer Bush (W) is an idiot and if so, I would tend to agree. Your shot at the U.S. education system fails to hit the mark if aimed toward me. Much of my education occured abroad.
Still, I’d love to see that cite.
Strbuk,
The same interview has given 2 different versions on 2 different channels of the national TV.
http://sport.france2.fr/stade2/index-fr.php
http://sport.france3.fr/tout-le-sport/index-fr.php?page=accueil
I saw the 2 differents, they were close even if we could had not the same sentiment at the end, maybe too because of the second times viewing.
At the moment, I was not able to find at least one of them. That was done at ToC.
Rant,
I agree with you the peloton gave to Landis a freepass. But he rode alone all day long, with no time to recover es you can do inside a peloton, even the downhill needed to be done with a position that it’s not good for recovering or stretching. And of course, he set up one of the best time in the last climb ! Besides Sinkewitz, who was convicted later of doping and who is under heavy suspicion of blood doping was not able to stay in his wheels despite he never worked. Difficult to believe that Sinkewitz gave Landis a Freepass after he stayed 20km behind in the valley.
The last col was a fight for everyone and Landis had done an excellent time by comparaison with “fresh riders”.
The day later, Landis had stated that his bonk was not a fringale (out of fuel) bonk so normaly it’s difficult to perform well after an other kind of bonk.
About the testing, the samples of other stages were tested too. If there were flaws everyone could have easily detect it.
Of course, testosterone alone in one shot can never give a such boost, his hct levels were clearly not in favour of Floyd. EPO like CERA were undectable at that time… autologus blood transfusion too.
Floyd could have get off on a technicality nevertheless he doped during that TDF like almost all other contenders.
—-
About the comeback of Floyd I just wanted to point that he was doing it clean unlike other athletes who are often back after injuries or beach hollidays within a few days and be successfull. Blood doping is fantastic.
When I said time bring us more clues and evidences about doping I missed to cite the recent Ullrich’ innuendo that everyone was doing it.
About the anti-doping system, of course, it’s not perfect but could we find something perfect here?
Everything is limited by humans and their possibilities especially when on earth not everyone has justice, food, water,… yet it’s not difficult to understand that will require time, money and personnal investments to do but that will never be a first priority. What has done in a few year WADA is well by comparaison with some other international organisations.
I can only regret that not enough dopers are caught because that is the clean athletes that are cheated every day, and are forced to dope to survive.
So even if the system is not perfect I will not complaint when my favourite athletes who was clearly doping is caught by a process that I think not completely fair.
I have to balance all the things before to accuse the other of my problems. That is what are able to do educated people often.
Jean C,
Your argument fails to take into account which rider was being most efficiently cooled on a very hot day, among other important details. Anecdotal stories, such as those related to your apparent assumption that Floyd must have been doped because he rode Sinkewitz, a probable doper, off his wheel during the stage is unfounded as it ignores a plethora of variables and other possibilities. It’s overly simplistic and should be unworthy of you.
A cite would be appreciated wrt Landis describing his bonk on S16. I don’t remember it as you describe it. I’m interested to see in print, where he said what you said he said. Perhaps you could also contribute definitions of various types of “bonks” and their associated effects to Wikapedia so the masses might be enlightened?
You really don’t want to bring up LNDD’s testing of the other samples, do you? LNDD’s performance was (how should I put it politely?) less than stellar.
The next paragraph assumes LNDD conducted competent testing. The Majority Opinion Arbs at Pepperdine were not even willing to give a positive endorsement of LNDD. Garbage in, garbage out.
IMHO, Floyd didn’t need a technicality to get off. He only needed an honest panel, not subject of, or susceptible to systemic corruption, like the judges who handed down the most recent America’s Cup decision, to be exonerated. Instead, he faced down a Kangaroo Court or Star Chamber, take your pick.
So your theory is essentially that as long as Floyd doesn’t have great performances, then he is not doped and coming back clean. Would it then follow that anyone doing well is doped? If not, which, of the ones doing well are doped and which ones are not???
With more of the recent doping catches coming via law enforcement, and not via lab testing, I’m at a loss as to why we should be impressed with the labs? If LNDD/AFLD is capable of learning from its mistakes, we’ll someday have a wonderlab (say that with a German accent for effect) as the list of their mistakes is long and legendary.
Jean,
While not perfect, if we see that the system needs to be improved, we should speak out. If an athlete is caught, and the evidence is solid, I have no problem with that.
Assuming, of course, that the testing and the theory behind the testing is also solid. If it happens to be someone I’m a fan of, well, I’ll be disappointed. But if it’s a fair catch, that’s the way it goes.
But if the testing, the methods used or the theories behind those tests and methods turn out to be flawed, I believe we have an obligation to speak up in favor of better methods. If the process isn’t fair, I don’t think we should stay silent. I find it ironic that a system conceived in part to ensure fairness in competition would be unfair to those accused of cheating. Rigging the system so that an accusation is as good as a conviction is unjustified and unjustifiable. As you said, the system is limited by humans and human error. The adjudication part of the system needs to take that into account, too. At the present time, it doesn’t appear to do so. At least, not from what I’ve seen.
While one of Lnadis’ hct figures was indeed very close to the established limit, it did not exceed the value. As I recall, the value in question was 49, and 50 is the limit. So Landis cannot be convicted of anything through the WADA system for this particular result. There has been considerable discussion here, TBV, etc. as to whether or not such a figure at that point in the TdF could be indicative of doping or not, with plenty of people coming down on one side or the other. Mostly it all seems to be a lot of personal opinion: everybody’s entitled to his own, but we all know what opinions are like. The fact remains: Landis did not have any AAFs other than the one for testosterone. He cannot be held liable for something for which no evidence usable in the WADA exists.
I have a sneaky feeling that those who bring up the issue of the hct value, like Jean has done, realize that there are valid questions about the LNDD tests, and drag up the hct issue as a red herring. “He maybe didn’t do the T or at least the evidence is questionable, but hey, he probably is doing some other, undetectable, dope, so we should nail him anyway.”
Jean C probably knows hct will vary in the same individual, on the same day, and under controlled circumstances. Hct will vary depending upon what time of day the sample was taken, how hydrated the subject was when the sample was taken, level of physical activity pre-sample taking, and a myriad of other factors that have nothing to do with doping. And that doesn’t even factor in competence wrt LNDD testing. Yep, I think Jean C knows he was throwing out a red herring.
What is funny is that people could argue that hct variation has no value when the biological has been build on that kind of point.
Every blood expert who has analysed Landis blood values had made that he was doping.
We all know that blood samples are taken the morning before the race, so the riders are not dehydrated. If they were thay couldn’t be good that day. Isn’t hydration one of your points to explain the Landis performance of stage 17?
Of course, Landis can say that his hct level were inside the limits.
We bring up the hct values because people who believe that a clean rider could have rode like did Floyd (or many other riders)… that kind of performance can only be explained by blood doping practises.
Muhlegg, Vino, Moser, Lasse Viren, Festina,… and many other cases showed us what kind of “great” performances was achievable by blood doping.
Could you explain why Landis was able to compete against the blood doped T-Mobile (or Puerto) riders during those years?
There is no clues and no evidence to support that a world athlete could had beaten another world athlete using blood doping, expecially on an event like TDF. The 2006 TDF was not cleaner than the precedent, the speed and power on cols were similar… and that is like that since Riis, coincidentaly we had an decrease on performance and performance after the hct limit introduction.
I can only recommand the reading of
http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=2500
Okay Jean C,
Enough bravo sierra already. I answered your post directly, point for point. When you don’t seem to have answers that are on point, you ramble off in other directions. (“Look at the monkey, look at the silly monkey” – a defense parodied on South Park)
I’ll be plain. The hct variations quoted have no comparative value. We should all know (an you too) that blood samples are taken the morning before the race (or stage), immediately following the race, during dinner, or at anytime during the wee hours of the night. The timing of the “Vampire” visits is well documented. If you’d like multiple cites, I’ll be happy to provide them to you once you’ve provided the few cites I have asked for from you previously.
Landis’ values were within the limits. That’s surprising, but reassuring, considering the samples were taken under a variety of conditions that would have affected reported values. (variations are being represented as if they approximated values from a controlled study, which they were not)
Equipment calibration has been shown to be a LNDD weakness. (multiple cites available from the Malibu hearing) The lab techs at LNDD may very well have used “their experience” in calibrating the equipment that provided the hct values?
The whole “admitted dopers rode ~as fast or faster” argument is also bravo sierra, and you should know it. It’s among the weakest of your arguments. Human performance progresses, with or without chemical enhancement. If not, explain how LeMond (example of champion rider/damaged individual who claims not to have used performance enhancing products and is held up as something of a saint by the current anti-doping movement) performed better on the cols than riders from previous eras who were tanked up on anything they could get their hands on?
Would you like me to recommend some reading for you???
In re-reading my last post, I found an error. Instead of:
The whole “admitted dopers rode ~as fast or faster” argument is also bravo sierra..
It should read:
The whole “admitted dopers rode ~as fast or slower”……
Also, of the admitted dopers . Some were not good enough to beat “clean” riders, others beat everyone, doped or not, and some clean riders had/have the talent to beat everyone, doped or not. I hope that is clear, even if the notion is lost on you Jean.
Blood transfusion were used openly before their bans as doping practice.
One of the first was Lasse Viren, he was assisted by Dr. Elkström. He provided us with a lot of research evaluating at the end of his career EPO.
Lasse Viren won 4 gold medals (5000m and 1000m in 72, 5000m and 1000m in 76 and finished 5 of the Marathon). No one had thought it was possible to run 5000, 10000 and Marathon in the same JO. Of course, it was only possible with blood transfusion that increase performance and recovering.
An blood transfused was Moser who beated Merckx world record despite he never showed abilities to challenge it earlier. In fact he was one of the blood experimentation of the famous Italian doctors ( Cechini, Conconi and later the student Ferrari joined them). Under their work Italia won many medals during JO with blood transfusion.
One other well-known case is the USA cycling team of Los Angeles who won many medals with riders that never had made such performances.
Then there is a lot of doping cases that shows us how efficient is blood doping (transfusion or EPO): Muhlegg and the russian women who destroyed the ski running in Salt Lake city, one whole national scandinav team who was fired by his own federation, Vinokourhov, Hamilton, Virenque,..
To think that because we could get stronger with time, so a man could beat the blood doped don’t stand because the doped athlete is naturally stronger too, and so he has still his blood doping advantage.
So since we know that a lot of top-riders have been caught doping … we can assume with a very few error margin that riders who beat them during the same races were doped too.
So if one of those riders tested positive … many times and with suspicious others values… the odds that he would had been clean are smaller than to win the Las Vegas jackpot 2 times in a row.
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/11/effect-of-epo-on-performance-who.html
http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
http://www.dailypeloton.com/displayarticle.asp?pk=6730
http://miketnelson.blogspot.com/2008/07/does-epo-enhance-performance.html
More BS Jean C
Look at the monkey, look at the silly monkey.
I’ve never disputed blood transfusions have been used to increase athletic performance. I know about the practices you descibe as having taken place at the Los Angeles olympics. (The olympics are bad, mkay, and littered with Nazi authored pageantry to this day btw) If you want to give a sermon, do it in church. Your post is off point as usual.
You assume doped riders always beat clean riders. They don’t. It’s not true. I gave you an example wrt LeMond, to which you again did not respond. LeMond, the poster boy for the anti-doping movement, was doped to the gills by your logic (not mine). Interesting. But then, by your logic, anyone that wins was doped.
Your first off point cite contains interesting headlines, however “‘time-to-exhaustion’ or TTE is not necessarily the best predictor of performance. In addition, these “open-ended” tests tend to have high variability. In fact it puzzled us when we read this study why they chose a TTE and not a time trial. it is certainly a limitation to this study.” (Jonathan, Science of Sport)
Jonathan goes on to state the tests are not the best measure of performance. Another quote: “for this is such a large change that even if it overestimates, there is still likely an improvement—although we cannot be sure if it is 1%, 5%, 10%, or something else.”
The study says 54% improvement. The analyst supporting the study says it’s not 54%, but could be 1%, 5%, 10% or something else. (Jonathan, Science of Sport) I’ll agree the study indicates an improvement, but that’s far too much variability (could be 0.005% ???). A reliable measure of improvement is critical here. Crap in and crap out.
WRT your 2nd off subject cite, Ashenden’s claim that the samples in question were B-samples is false. To claim they were B-samples is to assume proper published protocol was followed, which it has found to have not. They may have been LA’s samples or they may not have been. They may have been spiked/manipulated? We’ll never know due to wild violations of CoC and/or misuse of samples. Ashenden relies on the recollections of the lab techs. A) the lab techs were to be blind testing samples. If not, then another key violation of protocol that prejudices accurate testing, even if we assume the samples were genuine, which is a long stretch. B) recollections from years previous are notoriously unreliable. A serious amount of crap in and more crap out.
I have met, ridden with, and talked with Andy Hampsten about the subject. His quote from the Daily Peloton source you cite is consistent with what he told me, “Like Greg, I too saw what I believe were the effects of EPO when it entered pro cycling in the early 90s. In the first years it grew from a few individuals reaping obscene wins from exploiting its “benefits,” to entire teams relying on it, essentially forcing all but the most gifted racers to either use EPO to keep their place in cycling, quit, or become just another obscure rider in the group.” is at least as supportive to my position as it is to yours. “all but the most gifted racers”…. I tend to agree with Andy. The trouble is that zealots have selectively adopted his words and have proclaimed that talented clean riders cannot beat doped riders. Andy disagrees. The other problem is that the anti-doping alphabet soup has been so inept that we don’t know, beyond flawed logic and innuendo, who doped and who didn’t dope. Thanks for playing and thanks for the cite!
Your final off point cite is from a blog that provides a lot of info on epo. What is your point?
I’m still waiting for those cites I requested from you previously. Three doesn’t seem too many to ask for? You either lied, misrepresented, or were just plain wrong about:
1) AFLD’s ability to track and target non-French athletes when they are in France.
2) Quotes you attributed to Floyd Landis that he did not make.
3) When blood is drawn from elite bike racers.
I enjoy practicing my typing skill when I respond to you (it helps me learn to type faster), but wish it were a more enlightening exercise. That you’ll go off on a tangent is all too predicable. The only amusement I derive is guessing in which direction. FWIW
Jeff,
Did you ride bike without helmet? That could explain why we couldn’t connect the dots.
Or the truth hurts?
Are you a fan of Armstrong to trash Lemond like you do? You are saying that Floyd or Lance were unfairly accused of doping… and you are accussing one of the alleged cleanest rider with no proofs and even clues.
With a bit of consistency we look nicer.
I am free to post what I want here, of course with the respect to Mr. Rant. And I’m free to not respond to your requests.
It was my last exchange with you until you use civilized, well argued rant with pieces of proofs and clues. Not just thought in your brain.
And I will give you those gifts as last posts
1) AFLD on french soils has all powers given by the French government. You can dislike it, that is like that.
Armstrong on french soil is subject to french laws like any other French.
An international agreement like WADA is under french laws, not stronger, that only said that the national laws are at least conform with the international agreement, they have the minimum requested by the international agreement!
2) Floyd said on French TV that is bonk was not a fringale just after the line!
Go on ina.fr and just look to find it…
Have you heard Floud referring to a fringale?
3) Blood can be taken after races, but often that is done before the race…
Look at when Floyd’s samples were taken…
And to affect the hct level, dehydration should be great… so a great dehydration that is lot of power lost… so how could have finished a rider with only 80% or 90% of his capacity?
Don’t forget too that by drinking a small dehydration can be cleared i less than a hour. And I have never heard a rider, especially a GC contender or yellow jerzey to have blood withdrawn after a stage… He only have to piss ! and then he goes on TV for an hour or more!
To resume a rider with a severe dehydration able to affect enough his hct level cannot stay a contender! So if Floyd has been suject to dehydration on that TDF he should have lost a lot of time on those stages.
Coincidentally EPO increases dehydration but EPO overlays the lowering of power caused by dehydration, and of course affects the hct level… To limit it, EPO riders use as much of water as they can (drinking, refreshing)…
Do you connect the dots?
(Sorry Rant, but I had tried to resist)
Redirect:
From the velonews: http://www.velonews.com/article/90320/lance-armstrong-says-he-is-outraged-over-claims-that-he
News Flash, folks: They got to Floyd. They will get to LA too. As Louie (Jean C?)says, “round up the usual suspects.” AFLD and ASO do not care about anything but their own prestige, power, wealth and influence; and they will do *anything* to protect those interests.
Jean C,
Thank you. You finally responded to a few of my questions, which were fairly posed. It gives us a chance to argue the argument. Feel free to respond to me or not. I’ll feel free to address your posts when I see they contain partial truths or outright falsehoods. I might even ignore them, depending upon my mood or how much time I have on my hands? Then again, there is some small chance I might agree with you? Rant away if you need to. This would seem to be the correct forum for a rant. In the meantime, reach down, straighten out your panties, and take some deep breaths. There, your face isn’t so red and you’ll feel better. You had me worried for your health.
I have some more pressing business on my agenda right now, but will get back to you shortly regarding your most recent post. I’ve only had time for a quick scan so far. The subject matter won’t be particularly difficult to comment upon.
Cheers, Jeff
Seems as though my little project of posting things related to Floyd once and a while here on Rant has created quite an unintended stir. Oh well argue away if you must.
strbuk
eightzero,
Armstrong refutes the insinuation:
http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug=ap-armstrong-drugtest&prov=ap&type=lgns
It’s only prudent to verify the credentials of the sample takers. After all, it could have been “just some French guy with a backpack and some equipment to take my (Armstrong’s) blood and urine” playing a prank. Or, it might have been someone playing a stooge for Damien Ressiot? However, it appears to have been legitimate, by French standards
Jean C,
I always ride with a bike helmet on. Thank you for your concern. My children insist upon me wearing a helmet because I require them to do the same. Unlike the anti-doping alphabet soup, I think it is important to set a “do as I say and as I do” example in my household whenever possible. It seems fair and just makes good sense.
I have had my fair share of head injuries though. Even in my diminished state, I’m more than a match for you wrt connecting dots. Break out the paper & pencils and let the games begin!
Sometimes the truth hurts. More often than not, truth is liberating. Give it a try.
I’m not really a fan of anyone. I do admire the accomplishments of others and sometimes appreciate their company. I’m neither a fan of Armstrong or LeMond. LeMond was a great rider and Armstrong still is. Each has their own personal problems, and that’s largely their own business. However, if forced to make a choice, I’d have to go with diva Armstrong over diva LeMond.
The subject was not the trashing of LeMond. The subject centered upon your twisted logic about who is and who is not a doper. You put forth the theory that clean riders cannot beat dopers. Because LeMond defeated known dopers, your logic dictates that he is also a doper. That’s your logic, not mine. You’ll need to reconcile it, not me. I’m not accusing Saint LeMond of anything. I’m simply pointing out a fatal flaw in your logic and used LeMond as a hypothetical example you might understand. I’d suggest you re-read your recent Daily Peloton citation. While Andy Hampsten took care not to offend either LeMond or Armstrong, he came damned close to hitting the nail on the head.
I think that Armstrong is being unfairly targeted. I know Floyd was railroaded by a corrupt system.
Post and respond what you wish. Agreed. If you don’t want to respond to my posts, then don’t. However, if you contend that you’ve supported your posts with on point citations more so than I have, then sir, you’ve gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.
Thanks for the gifts.
1) “AFLD on french soils has all powers given by the French government. You can dislike it, that is like that.
Armstrong on french soil is subject to french laws like any other French.
An international agreement like WADA is under french laws, not stronger, that only said that the national laws are at least conform with the international agreement, they have the minimum requested by the international agreement!”
*Generally agreed. However, AFLD does not conform to WADA and UCI standards wrt the taking of hair samples. It would be less problematic if AFLD conformed to WADA and UCI standards unless and until such time as a consensus agreement for change is agreed upon by all involved parties. (come on Jean, have some respect and type an upper case F when you key in the word “French”)
2) “Floyd said on French TV that is bonk was not a fringale just after the line!”
*I have to be honest. I think you are just making this one up. If you provide a credible citation, I’ll believe you. I understand, “fringale”, but it might help the reading audience if you could define the various subcategories of “bonks” and their associated consequences. In any case, without a credible direct citation, you are just making it up.
3) “Blood can be taken after races, but often that is done before the race…
Look at when Floyd’s samples were taken…
And to affect the hct level, dehydration should be great… so a great dehydration that is lot of power lost… so how could have finished a rider with only 80% or 90% of his capacity?
Don’t forget too that by drinking a small dehydration can be cleared i less than a hour. And I have never heard a rider, especially a GC contender or yellow jerzey to have blood withdrawn after a stage… He only have to piss ! and then he goes on TV for an hour or more!
To resume a rider with a severe dehydration able to affect enough his hct level cannot stay a contender! So if Floyd has been suject to dehydration on that TDF he should have lost a lot of time on those stages.
Coincidentally EPO increases dehydration but EPO overlays the lowering of power caused by dehydration, and of course affects the hct level… To limit it, EPO riders use as much of water as they can (drinking, refreshing)…
Do you connect the dots?”
*Your previous position was that blood is only drawn in the morning before races. Now that has changed. We’re making progress and coming closer to the truth. Chapeau! Yes, I agree. Look when Floyd’s samples were taken. Hint: they were not taken at consistent times of day. S17 of the 2006 TdF was a hot and difficult day for all the riders who finished the stage. I’d venture to say that most people in a position to know would stipulate that every rider completing the stage suffered some level of dehydration. In terms of dehydration, all the riders were in a similar, but not identical, situation. Some rode faster or slower as a result of dehydration and other factors. No, the heat of the day and the energy expended makes it impossible for any rider finishing the stage to clear their hydration (approximating your words) in less than an hour by drinking a small amount. What you write is simply false. After a day like that, the riders had to make significant efforts to become re-hydrated. Individual riders could be expected to have a wide range of recovery responses to re-hydrating and replenishing. And your point is??? It could be any number of things. You are a creative guy, but it’s not up to me or the other readers to divine your point or play connect the dots with you. Say what you mean and mean what you say. What can I tell you Jean? If you’ve never heard of a rider, GC contender, and yellow jersey wearer having his blood drawn after a stage, then you have not been paying attention. In S17, they were all significantly dehydrated. They all lost time vs being hypothetically perfectly hydrated. Unless going beyond a certain set point where a riders reasoning skills are diminished, what you describe as a tactic for epo users wrt re-hydrating works the exact same way with non-epo users wrt re-hydrating. Jean C said: “riders use as much of water as they can (drinking, refreshing)… Do you connect the dots?”
Jean C, your own words damn your argument. My sympathies about the frailty of your arguments are my gift to you
strbuk,
My apologies to Jean C, you, and Rant for the “panties” comment in one of my previous posts to Jean C. I was just slightly put off by his bike helmet comment and a little oversensitive considering my history of concussions. Neither was appropriate, I’m sorry for my part and will endeavor to stick to the issues in the future. (Jean C need not feel obligated to apologize to me)
Please keep at it strbuk. Who knows, the discussion might come around to something approaching productive?
“…it appears to have been legitimate, by French standards…”
Hahaha! Good one! You can pretty much summarize the AAA and CAS findings in Floyd’s cases with essentially this as well.
Those standards suck. All I’m saying is, “wait for it…”
Gotta say, I wish I was a bit less busy with my day job so I could respond a bit quicker to things here. Interesting discussion that’s grown out of the original post. I took the time to read some of the links that Jean provided. Ashenden’s interview, and subsequent responses to commenters questions, is a very interesting read. But that could be a topic for another post.
Jean, if I’m following your logic correctly, you said something to the effect that only a person who’s doping could beat other doped riders. Do I have that right?
If so, then here’s my response. No one doubts that EPO and blood doping have a performance-enhancing effect. But the effect is that they make the individual a bit better than he or she was before. How much better hasn’t been definitively settled, as far as I can tell. And I suspect that’s in part due to variation among individuals. The overall effect may average out to X in various studies, but that means for some athletes the effect will be greater and for some the effect will be not so great.
Because of variability between individuals, there’s something else we can establish. If using EPO and/or traditional blood doping was enough to make an average athlete great, then a racer of my standing (Category 3) could conceivably dope to the gills and become a Tour contender. That’s never going to happen in reality. The reason is the same as why a particular doping technique may have a greater effect on one person than another: variability between individuals. No amount of doping is going to make a rider of average ability into a dominating athlete in the manner of Miguel Indurain or Lance Armstrong at the Tour (no matter how either one may have become that dominating).
Even at the elite levels, there is a range of ability. Some riders/athletes are more gifted/determined/train harder/whatever than others. Some dope. And those who dope will (assuming the doping is effective) perform better than they would have otherwise. (If the doping isn’t effective, well, they’ve wasted a lot of time and money.) But that doesn’t automatically mean that all doped riders will beat all clean riders.
Given the variation among individuals, it stands to reason that there will be some athletes who are naturally gifted who do manage to beat those who are doped to their gills. Some may beat the dopers based on luck. Some may beat them because of greater physical ability. Some may win because of better tactics. As my first coach used to tell me, it’s not always the strongest rider who wins. It’s the one whose got the smartest tactics. But there will be some clean riders who beat the cheaters. Maybe not many, but some.
To test the idea that it’s not possible for a clean rider to beat a doped rider, consider the 2008 Tour. Bernhard Kohl has recently admitted to using CERA at the Tour, and he finished third (before his placing was taken away). If only doped riders could have beat Kohl, then that would mean that both Carlos Sastre and Cadel Evans also doped. And yet, no one’s made any credible claims in that regard — or offered anything that even approximates proof of such a proposition.
I’m of the opinion that Sastre and Evans competed cleanly. I can’t prove it, but neither can anyone disprove it. Neither one has tested positive for anything up to this point. So if Sastre and Evans are clean, that disproves the point that only doped riders can beat other doped riders.
Anyway, it’s certainly been an interesting discussion.
For the record, while it is widely surmised that Lasse Virren blood doped, there is no proof of any kind, and he has steadfastly denied it.
TBV
Rant,
Not sure to have understood all the nuances of your words but I think you have understood most of my points.
First I will give straight responses and then I will rewrite in another form my arguments.
Yes, my logic only applies to blood doped riders.
Blood doping as doping product produces probably different effects on each athletes, Voet says so. But most of them will have a huge gain (more that 10% on a period greater than 6 months). So in a peloton with 15% of blood doper riders, there is at many riders who have the such big advantage…maybe they would not win every classic race but they will win all GT because physical is more prepoderent than tactics.
I never thought that Sastre or Evans are clean…None of the top 10 of last TDF or last GIRO!
—–
What we know?
Scientist studies have been done, I think I have already linked some of them in one of my olddest posts here. From memory, one of Elkstrom’s done with regional athletes gives an increase of 3% for a single EPO shot, a 6% with repeated shots during 14 days, and 12-15% after 2 months. Other studies have similar findings, one of them gives a 20% of performance after a 4-6 months period.
All of that is supported by the cases of Viren , Moser’s WR , US JO team, Riis,… or the confessions of repentants: so blood manipulation (EPO or transfusion) gives the huge advantage (from 15% to 20% = the difference between 2 categories of riders) to their users against clean athletes (or doped athletes with “second class” PED like T,…) for sports like cycling, rowing, ski-running,…
So a clean Lemond could had beasten the doped riders of his era, but a clean rider would never have beaten EPO doped riders on a GT. Of course my grandfather doped to the gills with EPO, IGF, and T would never won against a clean Jean C and a clean Armstrong would have never beaten a EPO doped Maurizio Soler or Manuel Sella!
In procycling EPO was seen with the famous 1-2-3 of Gewiss team and probably Indurain. We can see it on charts, just have a look at http://www.cyclismag.com/article.php?sid=2500.
How to explain the increases of number of riders over 410W and a such growth of average power in just 3 years? Could you see the effect of the rules of the hct limit?
(The cyclismag study uses normalised power (same weight for all rider), it’s usefull to do comparaison through the years and with different climbs.)
With that chart we can see the other doping events like the fear of gendarmes after Festina year, the EPO test, and then the introduction of new doping methods (microdosing, blood transfusion, soap,…)
Is Armstrong unfairly targeted?
Is he more tested than other riders? How many times were testes Cancellara or Schleck?
Do the testers need more data for a rider that has no data recorded for the precedent years?
Of course not, by following the precedent logic. He is more a Riis than a Bassons, he is linked to doping by his doctor Ferrari, by Actovegin, by the backdated TUE of the 99 affair, by witnesses, by the 200 syringes and blood transfusin material found in US Postal rubbish, by money to UCI, … and of course his 6 2 samples of the 1999 Tour de France containing EPO.
Should I quote Ashenden about the 99 samples of Armstrong
from http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
And if someone think he is targeted, that is by UCI and probably by AFLD, and probably like other suspected riders
Some link to find studies about blood doping and its effects on performance
http://www.google.fr/search?q=physical performance doping Erythropoietin
Effects of prolonged low doses of recombinant human erythropoietin during submaximal and maximal exercise
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=13557408
http://bjsm.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/37/3/190
Dr Bjorn EKBLOM had already measured a 10% advantage amongst athlete in 1989 ! See (in french, sorry http://books.google.fr/books?id=RjAInSNJkbYC&pg=RA1-PA467&dq=Ekblom blood doping performance )
Jean C
Other than “divine wisdom” or just making it up as you go along, show something that points to Sastre and Evans doping in/for the last tour. That goes for the other 10 in the Giro/Tour who have not admitted/been implicated. Painting with such a broad brush diminishes your credibility to near zero. Connect the dots…..connect the dots……
TBV,
Thanks for pointing that out. Viren has steadfastly denied blood doping, though many claim he must have done so to accomplish the “double-double” in 1972 and 1976. There are other explanations, including something that’s become more common in our times, but which was less so back then. He targeted particular competitions and focused on training for those competitions, rather than competing in each and every big event that came along. Among others, Lance Armstrong and Johan Bruyneel adapted that same philosophy in developing Armstrong’s training plans for the Tour starting in 1998/1999.
Jean,
Your comments deserve a lengthier reply than I have time for right now. Thanks for supplying the links.
One thing I would point out, regarding your comment about Armstrong. Is he unfairly targeted? Not any more so than any other rider at his level. I don’t think Armstrong, himself, has made that claim, although Johan Bruyneel said something to that effect the other day. Testing comes with the job of being a top-level professional cyclist. The conclusion I draw is that the testing authorities are building up longitudinal data on Armstrong, to quickly integrate him into the bio passport system. No one has said it exactly that way, but the amount of testing certainly indicates something of that sort.
Jean c,
Your “logic” only applies to blood doping? Want to try again??? Your logic is still flawed, but comes closer, with epo as the example. Jean Jean, Jean, you had a 50/50 shot…………….. What re we going to do with you? What are we going to do?
Don’t waste your time Rant. Unless you can read French (I can, but not well) or enjoy reading mechanical translations (I don’t), Jean C’s links will be of no help. Kudos to Jean for being bilingual or better. However, this is an English language site and it does the readers little good to receive French language links, especially since there is an abundance of English language content available on the subject. I wouldn’t presume to send English language links to readers of a French language blog. Jean, are you purposely being obtuse or is it just a random occurrence?
eightzero probably has a good point.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2009/apr09/apr08news
(Armstrong’s full response, 4th down)
I’m unhappy the system has caused needless hardship for innocent athletes.
I’ll take some considerable pleasure in watching AFLD be instrumental in the process of marginalizing he current anti-doping movement. The more it diverges from international norms and breaks its own code, the weaker the corrupt system becomes. The implosion will be some time in coming, but will be all the sweeter when it finally happens.
“In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist; And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist; And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew; And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.” – Martin Niemoller
I think LA will speak up. Floyd certainly did.
If they manage to create some BS scandal just prior to the TdF this year, then I’m done with them for at least a generation, or I might spend my energy haranguing their advertisers for supporting a drama queen race? Irritating their advertisers could be fun, non? FWIW.
eightzero,
Spot on. I’ve always loved that quote.
Eight Zero
You misunderstood my sarcastic opinion of the anti-doping system. I did not expect Floyd to enter into any agreements with Travis Tygart of USADA to blow the whistle on Lance Armstrong. Nor did I expect Floyd to bow to Dick Pound. Floyd defended his honor and lost. This does not diminish my respect for him. The system expected him to lay down, grovel, confess, and repent like David Millar. Ivan Basso was caught with conclusive evidence, he took the least expensive route, took his punishment. Now Basso is racing with a UCI Pro Tour Team. I am still convinced that Floyd will never be employed by another UCI Pro Tour Team or ever race in another Tour de France.
Somewhere I read that Floyd’s hematocrit increased slightly during the Tour when the natural expectation would be that the hematocrit would decline during the latter stages of the Tour, even though the hematocrit never exceeded 50% Some have stated that this suspect hematocrit profile was the bases for LNDD to conduct further tests on Floyd….LNDD was searching for something, anything that would indicate that Floyd was using prohibited substances. If anyone knows if this assertion has a factual basis I would appreciate a comment. Thank you.
Jon,
You’re right, USADA tried to play a card related to Floyd’s hematocrit during the Pepperdine Hearings, as I recall. They were looking for something to somehow prove that Floyd must’ve been on something. And I believe you’re right, there was a slight uptick in his hematocrit during the Tour. There are those who take that as proof that he must’ve been blood doping or using EPO.
But there are other explanations for such a change, not the least of which is that the portable equipment used to take those readings is not nearly as accurate as that used in a full-time lab. So, within the margin of error for the instruments used (plus/minus 10% or more), the changes in his values are negligible. Another possible explanation for elevated values would be dehydration. Depending on exactly when each sample was taken, and how well hydrated Landis might have been at the time, you’d see some variation in the numbers for that reason, too. More dehydrated = higher hematocrit.
With regard to the 50% cutoff, that’s an arbitrary division. If you do a bit of research, you’ll find that a number of sources (including various clinical labs) state that the normal hematocrit range of values for men is between 40 and 53 — again, if I recall correctly. I wrote a whole post about this some time ago. By the way, take note of where WADA’s cutoff falls. It’s within the normal range, not above.
Rant is on point regarding the portable equipment that measures hct. The numbers can be manipulated, which is one of he many reasons blind testing is crucial, though LNDD/AFLD gives us a plethora of examples of violations of blind testing.
Here’s an analogy about the hct variability wrt the measuring equipment. On my water ski boat there are three different speedometers. Two are analog and come equipped with calibration dials. One is gps. The two analog speedometers are quite accurate, within a range of speeds, if calibrated properly. In the old days, we calibrated the speedometers by running up and down a regulation slalom course (standard course of known distance) to dial in the right speed. During our practice sessions, I usually had skiers that needed accurate pulls at both 34 mph and 36 mph. As close as those speeds were, it was most accurate if one speedometer was calibrated for 34 mph and the other for 36 mph. Speeds were verified via stopwatch with known values taken at each end of the course and a point in the middle. The analog speedometers are accurate within a narrow range of speeds if calibrated properly. The gauges allow them to be easily read to about 1/8 mph.
They can also be easily made to be either slightly or wildly inaccurate. With the third gps speedometer, we can now get fairly accurate speeds (as accurate as the gvpt allows electronically) without necessarily needing a slalom course to calibrate the analog speedometers.
This straightforward example of the speedometers on my ski boat is meant to illustrate that instruments can purposely be made inaccurate. It also illustrates that even simple instruments need attention and skill to properly calibrate. More complicated instruments that measure hct require much greater attention and skill to verify their accuracy.
There are many variables that need to be looked at wrt the reported hct values. Jean C’s protestations to the contrary, dehydration and equipment calibration are but two. With Jean’s considerable knowledge base, he should be cognizant of those facts.
Rant,
As you point it, there were some problem with the hct measure equipment in the first years but since if I remember it correctly that issue has been solved with the new generation of equipment.
How would the riders have obtained so many 48-49% as results? For sure they were adjusting their values with the same kind of equipment..
Even clean athlete with a natural hct of 48 will have tested 52 sometimes…