SwissVan Posted July 3, 2018 Posted July 3, 2018 All 48 cyclists took 200 mg of iron fumarate and 50 mg of ascorbic acid, orally per diem.Therapies and placebo were interrupted 12 days before the competition.The rhEPO group showed an average increase of 16% in Hct and 12% in Hb; the two values remained unchanged in the placebo group.On the day of the race the cyclists covered the first 110 km all together in a group, then faced the climb to the top of Ventoux to the best of their ability.Weather conditions were interesting: a temperature of 20° C at the bottom of the climb and of 5° C at the summit, with strong wind from the north (up to 85 km/h). 4 cyclists (2 of each group) did not finish the race due to physical fatigue.The average climbing time within the rhEPO group was 1h40'32", while in the Placebo group the average time was 1h40'15".NO significant difference therefore between the two groups, both having expressed rather remarkable performances, considering the hard route and the strong wind, with a VAM = 1010m/h on average for the climb to Ventoux.At the end of the competition all the participants were asked if they thought they had been treated with rhEPO or placebo: only 39% of those cyclists treated with rhEPO were able to recognize it (61% of them thought they had been treated with placebo!), while 25% of the placebo group believed they had received rhEPO.Hb and Hct showed no correlation with the climbing times of the Ventoux.The rhEPO group showed no side effects superior to placebo administration. Blood pressure, heart rate and coagulation factors were similar among the two groups.Considering the "five-star doping substance" myth attributed to EPO by the media, anti-doping organizations and the stories of the athletes themselves, it is hard to believe that rhEPO actually has no effect on road cycling performances.This study, original and well structured, strongly suggests that the possible effect of rhEPO on real road racing performances has been intensely OVERESTIMATED and EXPLOITED over the years, just like the majority of the so-called performance enhancing substances, whose effects have never really been demonstrated by independent studies (i.e. not directly involved in the Fight Against Doping™). https://www.53x12.com/copy-of-placebo-in-sports
Gen Posted July 3, 2018 Posted July 3, 2018 https://twitter.com/jeroenswart/status/1014184094924771329?s=21 https://twitter.com/jeroenswart/status/1014184332905328641?s=21 https://twitter.com/jeroenswart/status/1014184676142043136?s=21 Think is is fair to say that all the experts (haters, fanboys and neutrals ) and even general public agree that It is a WADA MESS 20 June http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/uci-set-to-ban-tramadol-in-competition-from-2019/ Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
TALUS Posted July 3, 2018 Posted July 3, 2018 Capture1.JPG All 48 cyclists took 200 mg of iron fumarate and 50 mg of ascorbic acid, orally per diem.Therapies and placebo were interrupted 12 days before the competition.The rhEPO group showed an average increase of 16% in Hct and 12% in Hb; the two values remained unchanged in the placebo group.On the day of the race the cyclists covered the first 110 km all together in a group, then faced the climb to the top of Ventoux to the best of their ability.Weather conditions were interesting: a temperature of 20° C at the bottom of the climb and of 5° C at the summit, with strong wind from the north (up to 85 km/h). 4 cyclists (2 of each group) did not finish the race due to physical fatigue.The average climbing time within the rhEPO group was 1h40'32", while in the Placebo group the average time was 1h40'15".NO significant difference therefore between the two groups, both having expressed rather remarkable performances, considering the hard route and the strong wind, with a VAM = 1010m/h on average for the climb to Ventoux.At the end of the competition all the participants were asked if they thought they had been treated with rhEPO or placebo: only 39% of those cyclists treated with rhEPO were able to recognize it (61% of them thought they had been treated with placebo!), while 25% of the placebo group believed they had received rhEPO.Hb and Hct showed no correlation with the climbing times of the Ventoux.The rhEPO group showed no side effects superior to placebo administration. Blood pressure, heart rate and coagulation factors were similar among the two groups.Considering the "five-star doping substance" myth attributed to EPO by the media, anti-doping organizations and the stories of the athletes themselves, it is hard to believe that rhEPO actually has no effect on road cycling performances.This study, original and well structured, strongly suggests that the possible effect of rhEPO on real road racing performances has been intensely OVERESTIMATED and EXPLOITED over the years, just like the majority of the so-called performance enhancing substances, whose effects have never really been demonstrated by independent studies (i.e. not directly involved in the Fight Against Doping™). https://www.53x12.com/copy-of-placebo-in-sportsNever let facts spoil a good story.... Placebo is stronger than anything.
nochain Posted July 3, 2018 Posted July 3, 2018 10 years ago we were ranting about systematic EPO/Testosterone use and blood bags duct taped to walls. Now we're having a global frothy about an AAF for a substance that may or may not be performance enhancing. I reckon that's progress. None of us have an idea of what is happening behind the scenes of course but my gut feel is that it is way harder to dope now than it has ever been.Those "fans" will never be interested in the facts..they will jump on anything they can find.The facts are simple..the only way Salb can assist an athlete other than to alleviate asthma symptoms ..is if taken in huge quantities in tablet form for a prolonged period to assist with weight loss.Chris had 1 adverse level finding...3 days before the end of a Grand tour...you think a cyclist needs to loose weight 3weeks into a GT??It all is extremely laughable.. I also believe we making progress and maybe the focus should be on drugs not listed that are being abused and has a real impact like strong painkillers. At the end of the day the focus should remain to protect the health of our Athletes?? Cycling struggling alot with its current business model and sponsorship is starting to be a real battle in current economic climate. We dont need this negativity at a massive level for something as insignificant as this.
dave303e Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 https://www.outsideonline.com/2324216/uci-just-broke-anti-doping
Fat Boab Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 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... Said it before. The 'new' breed of academics who dedicate much time to 'appearing' in public, as well as, no doubt, their peer-reviewed research, tread a delicate line.....
DieselnDust Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 What an angry little man. Not Froome or Team Sky's fault that the already shakey makeup of the anti doping movement is further shaking. What's weak is weak. It's jo better than the Spanish Inquisition and was hastily implemented. It's wrong to sacrifice innocent people for the appearance of doing the right thing. So who peed under this guys tree??!
Patchelicious Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 What an angry little man. Not Froome or Team Sky's fault that the already shakey makeup of the anti doping movement is further shaking. What's weak is weak. It's jo better than the Spanish Inquisition and was hastily implemented. It's wrong to sacrifice innocent people for the appearance of doing the right thing. So who peed under this guys tree??!He has had a long passion for SKY, he and Dr Jereon had a good debate on the matter many years ago, after they tasted Froome in a Lab (something he keeps asking for). It was in this debate that I decide he has too much emotion invested to be take completely seriously. He scoffs and grunts at counter arguments.... I have posted it before. Will post it again, its worth a listen.
Gen Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 He has had a long passion for SKY, he and Dr Jereon had a good debate on the matter many years ago, after they tasted Froome in a Lab (something he keeps asking for). It was in this debate that I decide he has too much emotion invested to be take completely seriously. He scoffs and grunts at counter arguments.... I have posted it before. Will post it again, its worth a listen.Why don't these scientist invest their time into finding solutions.. fekkit we all know that there is a problem with the science..go find a solution go spend that time and effort to perfecting the science behind excretion and bla bla ..it won't just help with anti doping but with medicine on general.. who knows their may be a nice shiny reward if you get it right. The horse is dead stop beating it ffs. I would rather hear a scientists view who has f all opinion on sport and no personal opinion on riders than these lot... scientist are supposed to study the science and be impartial on who the test subject is. Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
V12man Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 He makes some very good points, but they are not Froome specific. They are WADA and UCI problems. They have always been WADA and UCI problems - unfortunately for athletes - in the case of salbutamol specifically, they have KNOWN the test is unreliable and have ignored that - so they are ultimately the architects of their own downfall and solely to blame for their credibility issues. None of his points are new at all.... just trying to deflect attention from his previous stance... imo
SwissVan Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 Why don't these scientist invest their time into finding solutions.. fekkit we all know that there is a problem with the science..go find a solution go spend that time and effort to perfecting the science behind excretion and bla bla ..it won't just help with anti doping but with medicine on general.. who knows their may be a nice shiny reward if you get it right. The horse is dead stop beating it ffs. I would rather hear a scientists view who has f all opinion on sport and no personal opinion on riders than these lot... scientist are supposed to study the science and be impartial on who the test subject is. Sent from my SM-G950F using TapatalkYou mean like the good ole PROF NOAKES That’s how it should be done ✅
Fat Boab Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 Why don't these scientist invest their time into finding solutions.. fekkit we all know that there is a problem with the science..go find a solution go spend that time and effort to perfecting the science behind excretion and bla bla ..it won't just help with anti doping but with medicine on general.. who knows their may be a nice shiny reward if you get it right. The horse is dead stop beating it ffs. I would rather hear a scientists view who has f all opinion on sport and no personal opinion on riders than these lot... scientist are supposed to study the science and, if they are properly trained and educated and have a moral compass, be impartial on who the test subject is. Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk Just my observation added above, from having worked with and amongst scientists for the last 30 years.......
geomark Posted July 4, 2018 Posted July 4, 2018 HKGK with the scientist behind the test saying not fit for purpose and based on swimmers https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/i-made-terrible-blunder-says-drug-test-adviser-lxcnbrd8f?shareToken=9744f1f83b5e0c75b480e278402b2388
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.