Hamilton blood test shows 'inconsistencies'

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

Just published rhis morning (Europian time).

http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/6984.0.html

It's interesting to compare the headlines:

Cyclingnews.com:
"Hamilton positive"

VeloNews.com (for which Hamilton writes a column):
"Hamilton blood tests show 'inconsistencies' "

The Associated Press:
"Tyler Hamilton's cycling team told he failed tests"

as far as inconsistencies they are basically saying a positive result. The new method of drug testing that can detect blood transfusions, growth hormones etc does not work like a traditional blood test.
They used to test for specific drugs however in the new system the blood is tested and if positive it returns "inconsistencies" as reffered to in the VeloNews headline. These inconsistencies then indicate what particular form of doping has taken place.

Rollo

Saw someone on another posting said he is blaming surgery he had earlier in the year. Having had surgery about two years ago after an accident and having to receive a blood transfusion could this be a cause? and I don't remeber him having a surgery and not all surgery requires a blood transfusion.

On the other post I asked this same question how does the new test (in use at this year's TDF and since then) show that recycled your own blood (espiacially if the blood you take out is not enhanced but merely stored and put back in)?

It was Lance Armstrong's blood. Lance loaned it to him since he wasn't using it for the Olympics. So, really Lance won the Gold Medal. Add that to his list of accomplishments.

I just ordered 10 more Livestrong bracelets.

In all seriousness, this is very disturbing. I say lifetime bans for anyone caught doping. Would that stop it?

Just published rhis morning (Europian time).

http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/6984.0.html

Nice said, Flyer! Very good and simple explanation..

It is an arms race with athletes enrolling into Clinical Phase 1 drug trials eager to get an edge over their competition. Researchers welcome athletes enthusiastically as they zealous fight to create profitable disease cures.

Can you provide an example of this? (Even just the trial, not the specific athletes).

How's This Theory?

Hamilton races badly at tour. Starts to prepare for olympics. Someone at Phonak mixes up the blood they've withdrawn from Tyler with blood drawn from another rider. Tyler thinks its fair and legal to put his own blood back in, just to give him a lift, not enough to be detected or "unfair" (After all aren't they all doing at least that?). The blood is put in, but its someone else's. Ooooops!!! Tyler claims innocence (in his mind legitimately becuase he didnt suspect the mix-up). No one believes him because the results (from two sources) speak for themselves. He goes on to fight the claims because he genuinely thinks he didnt do anything wrong. He gets banned anyway because despite his legit claims of innocence, the results are conclusive. hmmmmm!! I feel sorry for the guy either way. I hope he is innocent and found to be. But it doesnt look good.

:confused:

Response to Roadie_Scum: Interesting name.

I have several private sources for this---all of whom are legally tied up in knots.

However, you may read this August 16, 2004 Time article:

www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1101040816-678649,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1101040816-678649,00.html)

The writers make the point.

With Genic engineering coming soon (here already) doping will need to be combined with DNA transfers. Doping is a very profitable industry so it will never stop---only be improved upon.

Also, just the contents of the trauma drugs found in the 2002 TDF podium finsiher, Ramundas Rumsas' wife's care were staggering---and far more complex than 90% of all Medical Doctors understand or can identify. Especially, the drug product mix, dosages, frequencies and applications.

TDF sports doping is a very serious and potentially deadly matter.


Enjoy the read.

Flyer

I don't disagree with any of what you've said particularly. Mainly agree. Novel performance enhancing uses of common drugs that are not properly understood happens all the time - abuterol and corticoids. I've made the point quite often that there is a lack of research and understanding into the precise action of performance enhancing substances. Ask your local doctor if you can get a performance enhancement by using cortico-steroids and see how they react. No doubt athletes also use untested, unapproved drugs (PFC and HBOC are the obvious examples).

However, I'm sceptical about athletes joining clinical trials for a performance enhancing benefit. Clinical trials will only allow entry if you have the specific disease or condition that the drug is meant to treat. Although athletes might be able to source the substances some other way (and I would say do so), it would be impossible for a bodybuilder/weightlifter to join a clinical trial of a muscular dystrophy drug (for example). Trials are moderated by an ethics committee and tend to be run with the goal of publication in a peer reviewed journal (or suppression by an overbearing pharmaceutical company that provides funding, but that's another issue...). It simply wouldn't be an option to sneak in a bunch of elite athletes. What kind of clinical trial could possibly be joined by an athlete seeking performance enhancement (unless the enhancement sought was removal of a condition that compromised performance like asthma)?

I know that athletes take drugs that are at phase 1, or even before - approved only for animal use. I still can't see them enrolling in clinical trials. For a start, it would be to open to discovery by others. Doping athletes tend to be very secretive. Could you please provide some more information on this? I am interested in what you've said, but to my mind this claim about athletes enrolling in clinical trials compromises the integrity of the other information you've stated.

Thanks for the link to the Time article btw, a good read.

Dear Roadie,

Secrecy and research product trade rights preclude an open discussion on Phase 1 work, sadly. eg: Firms here are trying to develop "oral EPO" which I understand already exists in Europe--but not in the USA. The clinical trials being held in Europe.

I know two regulators who are privy to the phase trials 1, 2, 3 and 4---who do not deny that otherwise healthy athletes may indeed be excellent subjects for Phase 1, 3 & 4 testing. They cannot get specific.

Trials would provide free drugs and professional supervision as well, all bound up with confidentiality agreements. Athletes can and do volunteer every day with complete privacy. Phase 2 trials are for sick people exclusively so I am told.

However, I agree with you that most of the anemia dope can be sourced though more open channels--- and the potential for great freedom of abuse or use exists.

I still remain to be convinced on this one, but it's an interesting idea.

Bear in mind, that Italian rider Danilo DeLuca and several of his teammates were "univited" from the 2004 TDF because of an alleged recorded police phone tap----whereupon Danilo was heard asking his doctor how to get access to CERA--a Roche drug in Phase 1 & 2 trials in the USA by the Giro or at least by the July TDF. CERA is a super EPO anemia chemo recovery entity.

http://www.roche.com/inv-update-2003-12-08c

Much of the dope found in Rumsus' car trunk and Willy Voet's car was indeed, not performance enhancing per se. Corticoids and corticosteroids are catabolic and/or shut down adrenal function. So too with the Interlukin family of renial proteins. They too can be negative---and on the surface appear unnecessary or harmful to IGF-1 production.

Corticoids have a novel performance enhancing use in high dosages on the day of an event. This isn't described in the textbooks but you'll find some sports medicine types are familiar with it. I was surprised too when I first heard, but I trust my source well (several sources now, some having worked with national and international sporting federations).

Drug firms do not ever want to disclose much of their clinical trials work--for obvious reasons. They will do the minimum and only when forced to. Secrecy is all important and the legal teams will attack anyone who leaks anything. It is a big business with lots of money at stake.

A lot of drug company's clinical trials work is done in public hospitals and universities, reviewed by independent practitioners and other experts, ethics committees, etc. I think it's more transparent than you make out.


We have come a long way from Francesco Concini's blood doping---to now his finest pupil, Michele Ferrari, MD to Lance Armstrong and Filippo Simeoni. Quite a trail of blood and blood letting.

Please read Sandro Donati sad story with Italian doping and Olympic Doping Control curruption re: Conconi----Miguel Indurain's blood doctor.

http://www.ergogenics.org/donati.html

This is what we are dealing with, even today.

Please send me anything that you feel might add to or aid my doping reseach.

Thank you very much.

Be well.

Flyer

Interesting info in that article. I have a whole lot of stuff on doping, but I don't keep it very well organised. Perhaps when I have time I will send some through.

Cheers.

Much of the dope found in Rumsus' car trunk and Willy Voet's car was indeed, not performance enhancing per se. Corticoids and corticosteroids are catabolic and/or shut down adrenal function. So too with the Interlukin family of renial proteins. They too can be negative---and on the surface appear unnecessary or harmful to IGF-1 production.

Unless, of course that normal hormone levels are already exceeded through a synthetic means---or if a performance event (time trial or hard stage) is near, then the pain killing effects of corticosteroids would in fact IMPROVE performance by numbing pain. The corticoids would halt adrenal production during sleep hours only--wearing off by morning. A manual override drug.

One drug begets yet another drug---and so on.

That's was Greg LeMond chief point several years ago when he remarked that the Italians have made the sport way too "medical".

Bit more on corticoids:

As well as their well described action in reducing inflammation and pain, in high doses cortico's are likely to be ergogenic in endurance exercise for a number of reasons.
-Higher rate of lipolysis spares glycogen.
-Promotes gluconeogenisis, allows higher blood glucose for longer (drop off in blood glucose precipitates 'glycogen flat' and immediate drop in performance).
-Mild stimulatory/euphoric effect enhances athletes ability to push past normal physical limits.
-Promote increased central nervous system activity.
(-Normally described analgesic and anti-inflammatory action also helps athlete push past normal limits.)

Despite the long term risk of catabolisis and muscle and connective tissue degradation, the availability and low price of cortico's makes them the drug of choice in amateur racing in a lot of Europe.

Can you provide an example of this? (Even just the trial, not the specific athletes).

EPO comes to mind. Approved by the FDA in 1989 but known to be among cyclists from 1986 when it was out in clinical trials. Banned by the IOC in 1990.

A quotable quote from LA when journalists starting to become sceptical about his performances during one of his early TdF successes. LA responded to a question about EPO with words to the effect "I won the World Championship in 1993 when EPO had not been heard of."

EPO comes to mind. Approved by the FDA in 1989 but known to be among cyclists from 1986 when it was out in clinical trials. Banned by the IOC in 1990.[/I]

I agree that there are substances that are the subject of clinical trials that would be advantageous to sports performance. I just don't think that the athletes get their drugs via these channels. It's more likely to be a backdoor route into the drug company or researcher.

I say lifetime bans for anyone caught doping. Would that stop it? No.

It is well established that the main deterrent to crime is fear of detection, not fear of punishment.

Steal $10, punishment $11 fine, detection 100% = no crime.

It's dope detection that's lacking - no shyte, Sherlock!

No.

It is well established that the main deterrent to crime is fear of detection, not fear of punishment.

Steal $10, punishment $11 fine, detection 100% = no crime.

It's dope detection that's lacking - no shyte, Sherlock!
Well, we will never know in this instance until someone gets a lifetime ban and then we will see how the others react.

No one disagrees that better detection is a must, Sherlock.

But real punishments must go with it and not these little slaps on the wrist,

It is well established that the main deterrent to crime is fear of detection, not fear of punishment. Well, we will never know in this instance until someone gets a lifetime ban and then we will see how the others react.

No one disagrees that better detection is a must, Sherlock.

But real punishments must go with it and not these little slaps on the wrist,This is not opinion, it is established criminology over a wide variety of offences. We don't need to test it in the cycling world. And indeed there have been life bans, World Masters sprint champion Gary Edwards, for instance.

So for what reason other than deterrence, which does not work, do we need 'real' punishments?

This is not opinion, it is established criminology over a wide variety of offences. We don't need to test it in the cycling world. And indeed there have been life bans, World Masters sprint champion Gary Edwards, for instance.

So for what reason other than deterrence, which does not work, do we need 'real' punishments?
So what are you saying, Sherlock? That there should be no punishment, because punishment is not a deterrant?

Why even test then?

So what are you saying, Sherlock? That there should be no punishment, because punishment is not a deterrant?

Why even test then?Don't be sarcastic, I haven't been to you.

No. That going from 1 year to 2 year to life ban will not reduce doping, because it is established that punishment beyond simply making the crime unprofitable does not significantly deter, as I've said in my earlier posts.

So, again, why do we need 'real' punishments?

My apologies. You started the "Sherlock" thing. I thought you were being sarcastic with that. My apologies if I misintrepreted.

Okay, I can somewhat see your point. So, how about "real" bans to protect the integrity of the sport and to send a clear message to those that are not doping that they are the real sportsman (if there are any of them really left).


Don't be sarcastic, I haven't been to you.

No. That going from 1 year to 2 year to life ban will not reduce doping, because it is established that punishment beyond simply making the crime unprofitable does not significantly deter, as I've said in my earlier posts.

So, again, why do we need 'real' punishments?

No.

It is well established that the main deterrent to crime is fear of detection, not fear of punishment.

Steal $10, punishment $11 fine, detection 100% = no crime.

It's dope detection that's lacking - no shyte, Sherlock!


Wouldn't the calculus be - chance of detection X profit + (small increment) = effective punishment?

So if there is a low chance of detection you need a high punishment to effectively deter people? But this would have ethical issues attached... using the person caught to achieve a greater goal rather than punishing them specifically for their actions.