posted Mar 29, 2008

Drugfreesport: Dilution wouldn't work. You would need to know for sure what time you would be tested to make dilution effective. With much stricter testing measures in place, an athlete would not have the time to adequately dilute their blood to produce a substantially lower haematocrit level.

I would however question the altitude issue. If we are talking about a substantial increase to bring his levels above 50%, he would have needed to be at high altitude very recently before the test. Even then you would be looking at a maximum of five percentage points. I don't think you would be able to claim it was a result of an afternoon in the peak district.

Although no explanation has been given yet. I am very interested at what the explanation is. There's no reason to be naive just because he is British. While the test is officially for health reasons, most of us cycling fans should be aware it was introduced unofficially to detect doping. Rob Hayles does have a case to answer, even if it is just a two week suspension.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Mar 29, 2008

I think the points made by Generic_Fanboy are spot on.

with regards to Hayles there is quite possibly a satisfactory explanation, however, there has yet to be any such explanation provided. I am not going to presume he is guilty but as my friend points out we must not be naive. I get extremely frustrated at the fact that when any such doubt is cast over foreign athletes we are happy to presume their guilt but not when it is one of our own!

With regards comments I have made regarding Landis and Hamilton: it is possible that some of my information was obtained reading foreign media as cycling is scrutinised much more closely on the continent. If you speak Italian or French try accessing the archives of Gazzettadellosport or Equipe amongst others for more info. Some of the doping details I have read, especially regarding Hamilton, are just scary! I ended up doing a university dissertation on the problem of drugs in cycling and by the end was ready to give up believing in any sport! The lengths some athletes will go to win is unbelievable! But we should not allow those who cheat from getting away with it. People should not be so stupid as to believe the rubbish that people like Landis put in books!

Anyone really interested should read about French cyclist Christophe Bassons who was forced out of cycling because of his anti-drugs stance. You'll see the likes of Armstrong in a different light afterwards!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 6, 2008

This is amusing:

"606: DEBATE
Further testing is needed to determine whether (a) that result can be repeated and (b) it is abnormally high for Hayles. Notice how the ban is for 2 weeks, not 2 years? "
(by limeycowbell)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A33864654

is quoted from BBC article http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/other_sports/cycling/7329985.stm "Hayles is expected to Regain Licence", but ... the article has been deleted by the moderators!

So I guess someone in the BBC thought limeycowbell's comment was spot-on, and worth referencing, while another thought it needed deleting

I'm still trying to understand where the line is drawn regarding what is done when the moderators wade in!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 12, 2008

I have known and raced with Rob Hayles for over 5 years. He is not a druggy, he is a frustratingly natural talented rider. He didnt used to train that much and now is doing gut busting training with the coach of the british track squad. His training works, hence 9 golds, and Rob's body has adapted to the severity of the training. I think the 50% rule sucks as people's bodies differ.

The Italians mourn Pantani but who was it that caused his depression after kicking him out of the Giro with 1 stage to go wearing the pink jersey for having a haematocrit level over 50%.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 12, 2008

slight typo, I've known him for nearly 20 years.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 12, 2008

I remember when the Hamilton and the Landis cases hit the headlines that they each made several crazy suggestions for why they had "failed" the various tests. Although Hayles has yet to provide us with any reasons as to why his haematocrit count was fractionally high at least he hasn't descended to level of the Americans' farcical attempts at self-justification. My biggest concern in Rob Hayles' case is why didn't his own team have him tested before the event anyway so that there would have been "no surprises"? Several of the continental teams are now making a crusade out of testing their riders regularly so why haven't the British Track team done the same?

A second issue is "what is the accuracy (or tolerance) of the haematocrit testing equipment?". Being 0.3% over the limit is highly significant if the measuring equipment can guarantee an accuracy of, say, 0.01% but if the accuracy is closer to say 0.1% or higher then it could be that Rob Hayles's results could have been more to do with experimental error. Didn't the now disgraced Bjarne Rijs have the nickname "Mr 60%" when on his way to "winning" the '96 Tour, before haematocrit testing was introduced?

With so many guys that get "caught" these days suggesting that they've been victims of "false positives" I would personally want to be tested regularly by an independent body on a random but fairly regular basis so that I would know whether my body had unusual hormone/haematocrit levels and also it would help to provide a valid question mark against any tester who did suggest I had provided a positive result for a prohibited substance. As has already been suggested, why wasn't Rob Hayles able to turn round and say "Well, I've been tested several times recently by xxx, who told me that my count was only y%" (where y is less than 50). I thought I'd read that during his suspension his haematocrit count was being measured every 2 days anyway? Why haven't those figures been released? If he had used an artificial agent (not necessarily EPO, but I'm sure there must be others available), and I'm not accusing him of so doing, how long would it normally take for his reading to drop below 50% again? Surely that is also significant? There are lots of unanswered questions, and the longer they remain unanswered the more people will draw conclusions that Rob Hayles and British Cycling would prefer not to be drawn. Come on guys, let's have some straight answers.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 12, 2008

I'd love to see a voluntary testing system for cycling that used independent bodies to (a) provide more frequent testing, (b) combine scheduled testing with random, and (c) enact innovations such as 'blitzing' races - top 20 riders all provide samples. Yes, sign up would be voluntary: think about the credibility that would lend to those who signed up.

As to Hayles, so far so good. He needs to go some distance yet to demonstrating his naturally 'high' levels of hematocrit. I think it's important from at least a media and public relations perspective to show what his natural level is and by how much it varies. Trouble is, I have no idea whether the next 2.5 weeks is a sufficiently long enough period of time to provide those data. He and Brailsford seem to assert that it is.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 13, 2008

pantani and hayles - they are not even on the same ocean let alone the same boat! don't go there.....

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 17, 2008

Great post 100meterTony and I totally agree

There is a BIG difference between substances which AID RECOVERY and those which push the human body past it's natural levels

Very few sports push the human body as far as competetive cycling, yet we expect cyclists to push on during 20 stage races on 'legal' substances only.. in recent cases they couldn't even be treated for injuries sustained in falls as the prescription for the healing process is on the banned list

Certain steroids aid recovery - I am forced to use a steroid inhaler to help me recover from chest problems - does this mean I shouldn't ever be able to compete because of a lung condition - EPO promotes the production of red blood cells which then in turn can carry more oxygen to the muscles... Obviously not an aid to recovery unless you have some form of blood deficiency - suicidal!

The banned list needs a revision - you can't blanket all sports with the same list, as the stresses in sports are so diverse, and base levels for individual athletes are needed before looking at percentages across the board

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 24, 2008

To quote "spxxky" (U2159994);
"Very few sports push the human body as far as competetive cycling."
"The banned list needs a revision - you can't blanket all sports with the same list."



I totally agree that the WADA list is not for all sports. Pro cycling is am extreme example of this. I do think that more people should see this.

I obviously do see where fans are coming from when they think drugs are bad - full stop. However as I mentioned on my earlier posts pro cycling is not easy on the body and I know that many fans do not realise or want to know this.

Adding to that much of the physical harm inflicted by the racing can be largely (or even completly) solved by a few simple treatments that are on the WADA banned list. Taking substances that are not found naturally should not be permitted in the vast majority of sports (in my mind) but how about some sports that are not a walk in the park and can do a lot of physical harm that vitimins & minerals and antioxidants can not stop?

On this thread I did not get many answers from posters regarding very real physical damage that occurs from extreme exercise. I feel that some thought posters very wrongly thought that I was bashing the sport as is common practise these days (it happens in athlettics too!).

I do not like people making comments regarding doping when they know very little or nothing about drugs or doping. Don't get me wrong, I am not having a go at anyone - I just don't appreciate worse than useless input by unknowledgable, naieve or ignorant posters (I am not trying to offend or pointing the finger here). You all ARE entitled to you're opinions, and I do appreciate fair comments and replies.

Thanks

add comment | complain about this comment