Eldron Posted July 3, 2018 Posted July 3, 2018 Some banned substances are naturally occuring at very low levels, like HCG in males. Other compounds are detected through their metabolites rather than the parent compound and the metabolites may also be naturally occurring in very small quantities. This is precisely the case with nandrolone like in the provided example. My point was rather that it always comes down to a threshold at some point and that the lines are not so neatly drawn.Makes sense - thanks for the info!
dave303e Posted July 3, 2018 Posted July 3, 2018 s*** stains, even if it is not your s*** and you have to deal with it, the smell will eventually fade but the stains will remain for a long long time...
DieselnDust Posted July 3, 2018 Posted July 3, 2018 Then ask them..demand it[emoji6]We can't comment in things we don't know about.. maybe other riders tested positive for something or returned am AAF but went after the procedure and the same conclusion was made that the procedure is flawed..so therefore they aren't doping...right?Cause if the procedure is flawed they can't be doping?Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk T he issue is not one of procedural integrity but rather relevance to the community.At best salbutamol could be a fat burner and therefore the testing threshold should be set to target that and not to fall into the zone where the intended therapeutic effect is achieved.
V12man Posted July 3, 2018 Posted July 3, 2018 That we know of.. but sounds like anything to do with urine samples could be flawed.i recall V12 saying that the excretion is not an exact science . Sent from my SM-G950F using TapatalkUrinary excretion should be divided into 2 sections: 1 - where the drug they are testing for is BANNED - then any quantity at all in urine is a failed test - no matter how small - like Contador and the clenbuterol saga. this is easy and the test is definitive - if said substance is present in any concentration in urine, then ban. I don't have any difficulty with this kind of approach. 2 - where the drug is a specified substance (like salbutamol) and is allowed up to a specified dose per day/hour/total or whatever - it requires a huge leap of faith and unsound science to assume that urinary concentrations of the drug even approximate the dose taken. This kind of testing should not be done because there are too many assumptions made to prove anything. I am reasonably confident that Chris's team has exact records of the number and time of all puffs of the inhaler (and there will be corroborating video evidence of the accuracy of a part of these usages if one looks hard enough) - because he was tested every day during the tour, they would have had access to the test results from all the other tests done (WADA data) - so his team simply have to show: 1 - that their count of dosage (puffs) is reasonably accurate.2 - that the relationship of the WADA test data to the dosage taken is inconsistent (has some (or a lot of) variability)3 - that the failed measure is within the variability expected (calculated) given an allowed dosage. If the WADA test is reasonable, then you would assume that say 10 puffs a day results in a urine concentration of say 700, and that it is consistently 10 puffs = 700 - likewise 4 puffs is say 300 consistently and 16 puffs 1000 - BUT: (and this is supported by independant lab tests) this is not so - so 10 puffs could result in anything from 200 to 1200, and 4 puffs from100 to 700 and 16 puffs from 800 to 2000 - and thats the problem. So Chris could have used 16 puffs (legal max dose I think) on 1 day and come with a concentration of 800 (all good) and the very next day, it could have been 2000 (big fail) for the same legal base dose of 16 puffs - and that just means the test is not good enough to be accurate for the purpose they are using it - unlike in 1 above where it is a binary decision. Seems WADA have finally accepted what the science has been saying for years... - using urine concentrations to determine the dose taken does not work accurately enough to be a fair test. I am keen to see if they publish more of the report and sky's arguments - although I don't think they will, and I suspect they will continue to use poor science to ban the innocent on occasion. That all said - I am pleased Chris will be riding - definitely going to make for a more interesting tdf this year - Chris will have a point to make, and i hope he makes it. And I also hope he does not shake the badgers hand.... although he is far to nice a guy to not.
Gen Posted July 3, 2018 Posted July 3, 2018 Urinary excretion should be divided into 2 sections: 1 - where the drug they are testing for is BANNED - then any quantity at all in urine is a failed test - no matter how small - like Contador and the clenbuterol saga. this is easy and the test is definitive - if said substance is present in any concentration in urine, then ban. I don't have any difficulty with this kind of approach. 2 - where the drug is a specified substance (like salbutamol) and is allowed up to a specified dose per day/hour/total or whatever - it requires a huge leap of faith and unsound science to assume that urinary concentrations of the drug even approximate the dose taken. This kind of testing should not be done because there are too many assumptions made to prove anything. I am reasonably confident that Chris's team has exact records of the number and time of all puffs of the inhaler (and there will be corroborating video evidence of the accuracy of a part of these usages if one looks hard enough) - because he was tested every day during the tour, they would have had access to the test results from all the other tests done (WADA data) - so his team simply have to show: 1 - that their count of dosage (puffs) is reasonably accurate.2 - that the relationship of the WADA test data to the dosage taken is inconsistent (has some (or a lot of) variability)3 - that the failed measure is within the variability expected (calculated) given an allowed dosage. If the WADA test is reasonable, then you would assume that say 10 puffs a day results in a urine concentration of say 700, and that it is consistently 10 puffs = 700 - likewise 4 puffs is say 300 consistently and 16 puffs 1000 - BUT: (and this is supported by independant lab tests) this is not so - so 10 puffs could result in anything from 200 to 1200, and 4 puffs from100 to 700 and 16 puffs from 800 to 2000 - and thats the problem. So Chris could have used 16 puffs (legal max dose I think) on 1 day and come with a concentration of 800 (all good) and the very next day, it could have been 2000 (big fail) for the same legal base dose of 16 puffs - and that just means the test is not good enough to be accurate for the purpose they are using it - unlike in 1 above where it is a binary decision. Seems WADA have finally accepted what the science has been saying for years... - using urine concentrations to determine the dose taken does not work accurately enough to be a fair test. I am keen to see if they publish more of the report and sky's arguments - although I don't think they will, and I suspect they will continue to use poor science to ban the innocent on occasion. That all said - I am pleased Chris will be riding - definitely going to make for a more interesting tdf this year - Chris will have a point to make, and i hope he makes it. And I also hope he does not shake the badgers hand.... although he is far to nice a guy to not.Seeing as the urine test are so dodge, can't they just scrap all urine test and work with only blood samples... sure the riders would prefer not to whip it out in front of some.random oke administrating the tests[emoji23] Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
V12man Posted July 3, 2018 Posted July 3, 2018 Seeing as the urine test are so dodge, can't they just scrap all urine test and work with only blood samples... sure the riders would prefer not to whip it out in front of some.random oke administrating the tests[emoji23] Sent from my SM-G950F using TapatalkThey are only dodgy for the second category in my long note above - they are just fine for the first category - catch a lot of dopers that way.
Gen Posted July 3, 2018 Posted July 3, 2018 Can you test for second category in blood?They are only dodgy for the second category in my long note above - they are just fine for the first category - catch a lot of dopers that way.Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
V12man Posted July 3, 2018 Posted July 3, 2018 Can you test for second category in blood?Sent from my SM-G950F using TapatalkYes - you can - but athletes don't like blood tests every day.... Problem with blood tests is the time of the blood test vs the time of the last dose - so you will get wildly different results depending on how much time has passed since the last dose was taken - there is no easy answer here...
TALUS Posted July 3, 2018 Posted July 3, 2018 Seeing as the urine test are so dodge, can't they just scrap all urine test and work with only blood samples... sure the riders would prefer not to whip it out in front of some.random oke administrating the tests[emoji23] Sent from my SM-G950F using TapatalkI used to do testing. It is amazing how invasive it actually is. Naked between knees and navel. Fully sighted. I dont know the current "specs". And females get tested too.... I would choose to have a blood test.
Gen Posted July 3, 2018 Posted July 3, 2018 I used to do testing. It is amazing how invasive it actually is. Naked between knees and navel. Fully sighted. I dont know the current "specs". And females get tested too.... I would choose to have a blood test.Yeah me too..they can have all my blood before strip for them.. Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
Patchelicious Posted July 3, 2018 Posted July 3, 2018 https://youtu.be/G_UOGgBy_gkHe makes some very good points, but they are not Froome specific. They are WADA and UCI problems. I really wish he could bottle his clear hatred for SKY and Froome, their “new fans” and the the insults he throws their way, as he would have a much larger audience and therefore a much bigger influence. He doesn’t like SKY and he constructs really good arguments to justify it.
Butterbean Posted July 3, 2018 Posted July 3, 2018 He makes some very good points, but they are not Froome specific. They are WADA and UCI problems. I really wish he could bottle his clear hatred for SKY and Froome, their “new fans” and the the insults he throws their way, as he would have a much larger audience and therefore a much bigger influence. He doesn’t like SKY and he constructs really good arguments to justify it.Couldn't agree more... The dude just keeps sounding so disappointed that he can't stick it to froome without doubt... Shame... His experience and expertise could do so much if it could be used without bias...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.