Yeah, imagine not making any final conclusions without definitive evidence. Douche.
Yeah, imagine not making any final conclusions without definitive evidence. Douche.
Everyone, put on your "common sense" hats. Lance cheated, but it's not the end of the world. The Earth will keep spinning until, maybe, all of the glaciers melt.
They said there were too many variables and assumptions. How can it be anything but inconclusive? They are warning us against premature conclusions.And as for Zersenay Tadese, I remember it clearly. They reported the article, and then commented on it by casting similar doubts and giving us the implications of Tadese's previously reported VO2max, combined with the newly measured economy. They clearly said "no way!"These guys claim their purpose is to start discussions, not conclude them. And they help give us ammunition, context, and perspective, to help evaluate what we read elsewhere.
wellnow wrote:
Yes indeedy, the science of sport conclusion is
...
inconclusive, which doesn't surprise me. Remeber the silly thread about Zarsenay Tadesse's supposed economy?
Abraham Lincoln wrote:
Yeah, imagine not making any final conclusions without definitive evidence. Douche.
Imagine having a pointless discussion that can't possibly address all the variables, that's science of sport. Twat.
rekrunner wrote:
And as for Zersenay Tadese, I remember it clearly. They reported the article, and then commented on it by casting similar doubts and giving us the implications of Tadese's previously reported VO2max, combined with the newly measured economy. They clearly said "no way!"
They didn't say it clearly, they prattled on a long time whilst suggesting something was maybe wrong with the data, which was completely obvious from the start.
wellnow wrote:
Abraham Lincoln wrote:Yeah, imagine not making any final conclusions without definitive evidence. Douche.
Imagine having a pointless discussion that can't possibly address all the variables, that's science of sport. Twat.
Describes this forum as well.
Back to the old timey glass for blood transfusions.
Who the hell cares what his VO2 is?
They tried to maintain respect for those who measured the data. I don't recall that article being any longer than others. They must prattle on about everything they write I guess.The Sports Scientists claim to help bridge the gap between science and mainstream media, being neither science nor mainstream media. Their target audience are those who may not be entirely familiar with the science, or the scientific implications of what they read and hear in the media, and they attempt to help put it in the proper perspective, in a "science for dummies" kind of way.I can understand the site is not for those who already know everything.
wellnow wrote:
They didn't say it clearly, they prattled on a long time whilst suggesting something was maybe wrong with the data, which was completely obvious from the start.
The win could default all the way down to you, because every guy in the race is on PEDs.
rekrunner wrote:As such, the UCI hired an "independent" lawyer to investigate the issue, and he found there were a few technicalities that prevented sanctioning:
- Some doubt was cast on the integrity of the samples, as some paperwork documenting sample handling did not exist.
- Part of the research injected other samples with EPO. The same doubt was expanded to say that no papers existed that said the 1999 samples weren't also tainted.
- I think the samples in question were already B samples. Sanctioning requires that a positive be confirmed by a second positive on a B sample. This was not possible.
- Contamination of samples can make real EPO look like synthetic EPO. Not enough paper to say this wasn't the case.
- The testing conducted wasn't yet approved. They also used an unapproved accelerated process.
- There was some doubt about how EPO survives 5 years of freezing..
Doesn't the athlete have to be given the chance to be there when they test the B sample (or in this case the only sample).
no b/c it was NOT for sanctioning purposes, was supposed to be for research only. it was only due to the ingenuity of the french journalists that it came to light. damn brilliant if i do say so myself. otherwise how many of us might continue to defend lance? something to think about.
I don't remember all the details myself, but I remember thinking that the positive samples didn't make much sense with respect to the tour schedule? Th
hmmm... wrote:
Yeah... prison for blood transfusions and a little clem in the system. He should definitely serve hard time for that.
he stole $$$ from his competitors.
thebsample wrote:
This lasting finding fits perfectly with the previously asserted theory that the Clenbuterol came from a transfusion of blood Contador had stored while in training (and dosing on Clen).
and "Nail, coffin."
Yes, this will create big problems for him. He had some chance for beating a very small adverse finding that was bracketed by no trace on one side and the expected further decade and then no sign on the two days after.
However, now the finding of the bag possibility makes beating the presumption of guilt harder to overcome. It is even more than the situation of the instant replay where 'clear evidence' is required to overturn the initial call.
Yes, for doping control, if an A sample has already tested positive.But not for "anonymous" research to validate new drug testing. (If the samples are numbered, and can not be linked to any athlete, who would you invite?)
Mrr82 wrote:
Doesn't the athlete have to be given the chance to be there when they test the B sample (or in this case the only sample).
Would all of those dehydrated runners in the med tent getting their IV bags of rehydrating solution test positive for plasticizers?
common wrote:
Blood doping achieves nearly the same result as taking EPO, it's just quicker, but less efficient. In addition, blood transfusions are not minor procedures, and carry some risk due to infection, over-packing (causing sludge, clotting, death), or mishandling of stored blood. That's why it's not allowed.
I think that saying blood transfusions do the same thing as EPO is an over simplification. From my understanding people take EPO while in training because it signals their bodies to produce more red blood cells so that they can recover better from hard training day after day. This allows them to do harder workouts and effectively do more training than an athlete not taking EPO. Usually blood transfusions are used right before competition or mid competition in the case of a long event like the tour de france. They boost an athletes red blood cell count too but to carry more oxygen in the competition. They both do the same thing in the sense that they boost red blood cells but hey are really taken for different reasons.
I would also point out that living at high altitude or sleeping in an altitude tent/house are two other methods that have the same effect of raising red blood cell count but are considered legal because they are considered much safer than transfusions and EPO. In then there are lots of things that enhance an athletes performance other wise why would we take vitamins, do work outs, eat right, get good sleep etc etc, but the things that should be banned are those that put an athletes health in jeopardy. No one should have to take some thing that could hurt them either in the short term or long tern to make them competitive.
EPO increases the red cell count over time, transfusions increase red cell count immediately. I don't care why and when. That is for dopers to decide. The person asked what the difference is, and the difference is time.
Now, if you want to talk oversimplifications, your altitude tent example is a great one. EPO and blood transfusions aren't banned because they're unsafe, they're banned because they're inordinately, unnaturally effective. You can't get the kind of results from real or artifical altitude that you get from EPO or blood transfusions. Not even remotely close. Caffeine can be incredibly dangerous. Just 10 No-Doz (2g) can kill a person. Caffeine is not highly effective at improving performance, however, so it's not banned, even at reasonably high concentrations. PEDs aren't banned on the basis of safety, they're banned on basis of performance enhancement. The moral argument for safety makes for a nice good guys vs. bad guys storyline, but it's not a high priority.
fdadsfdfs wrote:
Everyone, put on your "common sense" hats. Lance cheated, but it's not the end of the world. The Earth will keep spinning until, maybe, all of the glaciers melt.
"Common sense hats" ... Wow