A more reasonable way of EPO testing

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 27 May 2007 19:53:04
From: Caroline
Subject: A more reasonable way of EPO testing

The drug testing entities are driving themselves nuts. Why? Because every
time they think they have the lid on one thing, the lid pops off another.
EPOs, testosterone, HGH, caffeine.... Well, the list is too long to delve
into here, but the list of banned drugs is looooooooong. EPOs are the topic
at hand. Questions of who has used and who (if any) haven't. And the
testing is expensive and not always completely reliable.

Some of these items come into serious question when illnesses are involved.
There is no doubt in my mind that Lance Armstrong was given EPOs as part of
his chemotherapy recovery. It is a standard safeguard for saving the
patient's life. But I have no way of knowing whether he was given them when
he was in competition, nor do I have any way of knowing whether they gave
him any advantage if he was, or if they just brought his red cell count to
"within normal limits." Only his doctors know for sure. He may not even
know.

The point is that there are times when banned substances are required to
keep an athlete functioning normally. Cortisone *MAY* have been a
requirement to keep Landis' hip functioning during TDF.

For all of these drugs there are easy blood tests to show whether they are
in balance, or "within normal limits." Soooo.... Wouldn't it be so much
easier simply to collect pre-race blood samples from all the athletes and
have them analyzed for whatever may be outside normal limits? Simply
announce that if your blood does not meet "race standards" you will be
disqualified. Period. Then who cares if people take EPOs? If they take
enough to give them an unfair edge, they're out of the game!

And the testing is so much easier and cheaper.

Oh... A question was recently asked about what drugs are banned. If you
have any questions, you can call the IOC (or in the U.S. call USOC) Medical
Hotline and ask. They have a current list for everything from cough meds
that contain banned substances (and cough meds that don't) to blood doping
no-nos. (God, I hope this information isn't out-dated!)

Caroline

Date: 01 Jun 2007 11:41:10
From:
Subject: Re: A more reasonable way of EPO testing

> Here's a clue - the phoney "blood test" that they supposedly ran in France
> with Lance's blood that they claimed contained EPO showed a hematocrit of
> 38%.

Please give the source for this.

Date: 02 Jun 2007 21:26:04
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: A more reasonable way of EPO testing

<chiefhiawatha@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1180723270.503571.10950@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> Here's a clue - the phoney "blood test" that they supposedly ran in
>> France
>> with Lance's blood that they claimed contained EPO showed a hematocrit of
>> 38%.
>
> Please give the source for this.

I can't remember the source. It was part of the report that they provided
when they did that claimed EPO test from 1999. Somewhere in there they'd
gotten a blood test for Armstrong and it was 38%. Of course they didn't
advertise that because it makes the EPO claim look pretty silly.

Date: 29 May 2007 11:51:14
From: Simon Brooke
Subject: Re: A more reasonable way of EPO testing

in message <Akl6i.2128$9G3.1906@trnddc07 >, Caroline
('notreal@askforone.com') wrote:

> For all of these drugs there are easy blood tests to show whether they
> are in balance, or "within normal limits." Soooo.... Wouldn't it be so
> much easier simply to collect pre-race blood samples from all the
> athletes and have them analyzed for whatever may be outside normal
> limits? Simply announce that if your blood does not meet "race
> standards" you will be disqualified. Period. Then who cares if people
> take EPOs? If they take enough to give them an unfair edge, they're out
> of the game!

I instinctively dislike your idea, but it does have merits.

I dislike it because it might unfairly penalise people who through
perfectly natural accidents of genetics has parameters which are outside
your 'normal limits' - and, indeed, might penalise them even if their
genetic peculiarity were not 'performance enhancing'. Such a person might
never be able to compete, because it might be impossible to get their body
tuned within the 'normal limits' which had been defined.

However, it would have the great merit of not caring whether your enhanced
haematocrit was caused by physical apparatus (an altitude tent) or
chemical apparatus (EPO). I find those athletes who rail against 'drug
cheats' while using altitude tents nauseatingly hypocritical.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

<p >Schroedinger's cat is <blink><strong>NOT</strong></blink> dead.</p>

Date: 31 May 2007 12:59:22
From: Caroline
Subject: Re: A more reasonable way of EPO testing

"Simon Brooke" <simon@jasmine.org.uk > wrote in message
news:26dti4-cbe.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk...
> in message <Akl6i.2128$9G3.1906@trnddc07>, Caroline
> ('notreal@askforone.com') wrote:
>
>> For all of these drugs there are easy blood tests to show whether they
>> are in balance, or "within normal limits." Soooo.... Wouldn't it be so
>> much easier simply to collect pre-race blood samples from all the
>> athletes and have them analyzed for whatever may be outside normal
>> limits? Simply announce that if your blood does not meet "race
>> standards" you will be disqualified. Period. Then who cares if people
>> take EPOs? If they take enough to give them an unfair edge, they're out
>> of the game!
>
> I instinctively dislike your idea, but it does have merits.
>
> I dislike it because it might unfairly penalise people who through
> perfectly natural accidents of genetics has parameters which are outside
> your 'normal limits' - and, indeed, might penalise them even if their
> genetic peculiarity were not 'performance enhancing'. Such a person might
> never be able to compete, because it might be impossible to get their body
> tuned within the 'normal limits' which had been defined.
>

And we all know there must be at least 250,000 cyclists world wide who fall
into this category, right? '-)

Seriously, if *any* control measures are to be placed successfully, there
must be ways for those who fall outside the norms to appeal. If someone can
document that they have a rare condition, an exception could be made.

> However, it would have the great merit of not caring whether your enhanced
> haematocrit was caused by physical apparatus (an altitude tent) or
> chemical apparatus (EPO). I find those athletes who rail against 'drug
> cheats' while using altitude tents nauseatingly hypocritical.
>

Well, not so much. You don't inject altitude tents into your body. But
maybe I'm unaware of the latest trends?

Caroline

Date: 31 May 2007 22:58:58
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: A more reasonable way of EPO testing

"Caroline" <notreal@askforone.com > wrote in message
news:KEz7i.1902$d63.1325@trnddc06...
>
> "Simon Brooke" <simon@jasmine.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:26dti4-cbe.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk...
>> in message <Akl6i.2128$9G3.1906@trnddc07>, Caroline
>> ('notreal@askforone.com') wrote:
>>
>>> For all of these drugs there are easy blood tests to show whether they
>>> are in balance, or "within normal limits." Soooo.... Wouldn't it be so
>>> much easier simply to collect pre-race blood samples from all the
>>> athletes and have them analyzed for whatever may be outside normal
>>> limits? Simply announce that if your blood does not meet "race
>>> standards" you will be disqualified. Period. Then who cares if people
>>> take EPOs? If they take enough to give them an unfair edge, they're out
>>> of the game!
>>
>> I instinctively dislike your idea, but it does have merits.
>>
>> I dislike it because it might unfairly penalise people who through
>> perfectly natural accidents of genetics has parameters which are outside
>> your 'normal limits' - and, indeed, might penalise them even if their
>> genetic peculiarity were not 'performance enhancing'. Such a person might
>> never be able to compete, because it might be impossible to get their
>> body
>> tuned within the 'normal limits' which had been defined.
>>
>
> And we all know there must be at least 250,000 cyclists world wide who
> fall into this category, right? '-)
>
> Seriously, if *any* control measures are to be placed successfully, there
> must be ways for those who fall outside the norms to appeal. If someone
> can document that they have a rare condition, an exception could be made.
>
>> However, it would have the great merit of not caring whether your
>> enhanced
>> haematocrit was caused by physical apparatus (an altitude tent) or
>> chemical apparatus (EPO). I find those athletes who rail against 'drug
>> cheats' while using altitude tents nauseatingly hypocritical.
>
> Well, not so much. You don't inject altitude tents into your body. But
> maybe I'm unaware of the latest trends?

Quit being logical Caroline. What Simon is saying is that it is OK for teams
to train at high altitude and acquire all the benefits of such training but
it is artificially incorrect to sleep in a hypoxia tent for 25% of the cost.
That way we can guarantee that only the largest teams with the best laid
plans can hope to field the strongest riders.

Date: 01 Jun 2007 10:05:10
From: Simon Brooke
Subject: Re: A more reasonable way of EPO testing

in message <SqI7i.12041$296.2639@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net >, Tom
Kunich ('cyclintom@yahoo. com') wrote:

>>> However, it would have the great merit of not caring whether your
>>> enhanced
>>> haematocrit was caused by physical apparatus (an altitude tent) or
>>> chemical apparatus (EPO). I find those athletes who rail against 'drug
>>> cheats' while using altitude tents nauseatingly hypocritical.
>>
>> Well, not so much. You don't inject altitude tents into your body. But
>> maybe I'm unaware of the latest trends?
>
> Quit being logical Caroline. What Simon is saying is that it is OK for
> teams to train at high altitude and acquire all the benefits of such
> training but it is artificially incorrect to sleep in a hypoxia tent for
> 25% of the cost. That way we can guarantee that only the largest teams
> with the best laid plans can hope to field the strongest riders.

Bollocks.

The benefits of training at high altitude last only a few days when you get
back down to low altitude. So it may help people at a one day
track-and-field event (or, to be fair, a crit) but it makes absolutely
zero difference to the outcome of a stage race. In any case, Caroline's
suggestion would also penalise those who trained at high altitude - any
artificial means of increasing haematocrit.

If EPO is cheating, then hypoxia tents are cheating. If hypoxia tents
aren't cheating, then EPO isn't cheating. They're just alternative ways of
achieving precisely the same result.

--
simon@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

I shall continue to be an impossible person so long as those
who are now possible remain possible -- Michael Bakunin

Date: 02 Jun 2007 21:40:40
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: A more reasonable way of EPO testing

"Simon Brooke" <simon@jasmine.org.uk > wrote in message
news:6345j4-5fd.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk...
> in message <SqI7i.12041$296.2639@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Tom
> Kunich ('cyclintom@yahoo. com') wrote:
>
>>>> However, it would have the great merit of not caring whether your
>>>> enhanced
>>>> haematocrit was caused by physical apparatus (an altitude tent) or
>>>> chemical apparatus (EPO). I find those athletes who rail against 'drug
>>>> cheats' while using altitude tents nauseatingly hypocritical.
>>>
>>> Well, not so much. You don't inject altitude tents into your body. But
>>> maybe I'm unaware of the latest trends?
>>
>> Quit being logical Caroline. What Simon is saying is that it is OK for
>> teams to train at high altitude and acquire all the benefits of such
>> training but it is artificially incorrect to sleep in a hypoxia tent for
>> 25% of the cost. That way we can guarantee that only the largest teams
>> with the best laid plans can hope to field the strongest riders.
>
> Bollocks.
>
> The benefits of training at high altitude last only a few days when you
> get
> back down to low altitude.

Actually they last the lifetime of a Red Blood Cell or thereabouts - about 3
months.

> So it may help people at a one day
> track-and-field event (or, to be fair, a crit) but it makes absolutely
> zero difference to the outcome of a stage race.

Sorry Simon but you don't understand the mechanism very well. Altitude
causes an adatation by the body to maintain an exygen level in the body's
cells. It causes a couple of things to happen - one is that the number of
red blood cells increase, another is something they haven't gotten a handle
on yet - people who train at altitude don't generate nearly as much lactic
acid. And red blood cells somehow become more efficient at carrying oxygen
as well.

All in all it's pretty effective training though using hyperbaric chambers
works slightly better - not physically but the speed at which you get to
high altitude fitness.

> If EPO is cheating, then hypoxia tents are cheating. If hypoxia tents
> aren't cheating, then EPO isn't cheating. They're just alternative ways of
> achieving precisely the same result.

Can't say I agree with you Simon. EPO is a naturally occurring hormone in
the body. Enhancing that chemically is both unenthical and medically
dangerous. As Pantani demonstrated on a couple of occasions, he was pumping
so much EPO into himself that his body shut off all production of it and he
then went into a tailspin with his hematocrit hitting 12% at one point - why
he wasn't dead only means that his personal doctors starting giving him
transfussions until his body reasserted itself.

Altitude chambers are the poor man's way to train at altitude. Mind you, I
don't like either, but if you allow one you should allow the other.

Date: 01 Jun 2007 01:01:51
From: Caroline
Subject: Re: A more reasonable way of EPO testing

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote in message
news:SqI7i.12041$296.2639@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Caroline" <notreal@askforone.com> wrote in message
> news:KEz7i.1902$d63.1325@trnddc06...
>>
>> "Simon Brooke" <simon@jasmine.org.uk> wrote in message
>> news:26dti4-cbe.ln1@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk...
>>> in message <Akl6i.2128$9G3.1906@trnddc07>, Caroline
>>> ('notreal@askforone.com') wrote:
>>>
>>>> For all of these drugs there are easy blood tests to show whether they
>>>> are in balance, or "within normal limits." Soooo.... Wouldn't it be so
>>>> much easier simply to collect pre-race blood samples from all the
>>>> athletes and have them analyzed for whatever may be outside normal
>>>> limits? Simply announce that if your blood does not meet "race
>>>> standards" you will be disqualified. Period. Then who cares if people
>>>> take EPOs? If they take enough to give them an unfair edge, they're out
>>>> of the game!
>>>
>>> I instinctively dislike your idea, but it does have merits.
>>>
>>> I dislike it because it might unfairly penalise people who through
>>> perfectly natural accidents of genetics has parameters which are outside
>>> your 'normal limits' - and, indeed, might penalise them even if their
>>> genetic peculiarity were not 'performance enhancing'. Such a person
>>> might
>>> never be able to compete, because it might be impossible to get their
>>> body
>>> tuned within the 'normal limits' which had been defined.
>>>
>>
>> And we all know there must be at least 250,000 cyclists world wide who
>> fall into this category, right? '-)
>>
>> Seriously, if *any* control measures are to be placed successfully, there
>> must be ways for those who fall outside the norms to appeal. If someone
>> can document that they have a rare condition, an exception could be made.
>>
>>> However, it would have the great merit of not caring whether your
>>> enhanced
>>> haematocrit was caused by physical apparatus (an altitude tent) or
>>> chemical apparatus (EPO). I find those athletes who rail against 'drug
>>> cheats' while using altitude tents nauseatingly hypocritical.
>>
>> Well, not so much. You don't inject altitude tents into your body. But
>> maybe I'm unaware of the latest trends?
>
> Quit being logical Caroline. What Simon is saying is that it is OK for
> teams to train at high altitude and acquire all the benefits of such
> training but it is artificially incorrect to sleep in a hypoxia tent for
> 25% of the cost. That way we can guarantee that only the largest teams
> with the best laid plans can hope to field the strongest riders.

I fully understand what Simon is saying, and "logic" has nothing to do with
it. The problem is with the tacit approval of altitude tents that came from
the IOC when they allowed coaches to modify dorms/housing to give cyclists
an altitude edge during the games in Japan. I objected at the time that
they were opening a can of worms, and so they have. The problem is that
once worms get out and start burrowing, it's damned hard to catch them all
and put them back.

But the fact remains that there is, in my opinion, a huge difference between
doing something to force your body to adapt and perform better using the
body's own natural adpative mechanisms and putting chemicals inside your
body to accomplish the same goal.

Caroline

Date: 31 May 2007 15:06:09
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: A more reasonable way of EPO testing

Dans le message de news:KEz7i.1902$d63.1325@trnddc06,
Caroline <notreal@askforone.com > a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :

> Seriously, if *any* control measures are to be placed successfully,
> there must be ways for those who fall outside the norms to appeal. If
> someone can document that they have a rare condition, an exception
> could be made.

Google "Santhi Soundarajan" and see how natural rare conditions are treated
by the IOC.

--
Sandy

Ce n'est pas que j'ai peur de la mort.
Je veux seulement ne pas �tre l�
quand elle arrivera.

Date: 31 May 2007 19:54:38
From: Caroline
Subject: Re: A more reasonable way of EPO testing

"Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr > wrote in message
news:465ec841$0$17573$426a34cc@news.free.fr...
> Dans le message de news:KEz7i.1902$d63.1325@trnddc06,
> Caroline <notreal@askforone.com> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
>
>> Seriously, if *any* control measures are to be placed successfully,
>> there must be ways for those who fall outside the norms to appeal. If
>> someone can document that they have a rare condition, an exception
>> could be made.
>
> Google "Santhi Soundarajan" and see how natural rare conditions are
> treated by the IOC.
>
> --
> Sandy
>
> Ce n'est pas que j'ai peur de la mort.
> Je veux seulement ne pas �tre l�
> quand elle arrivera.

'-) LOL! And there are how many transgender competitors in cylcing? I
*probably* wouldn't have much of a problem with a female to male competitor
competing with males, but a male to female competing with females could have
an unfair edge. Just my guess.

Caroliine

Date: 31 May 2007 19:50:42
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: A more reasonable way of EPO testing

On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:54:38 GMT, "Caroline" <notreal@askforone.com > wrote:

>
>"Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote in message
>news:465ec841$0$17573$426a34cc@news.free.fr...
>> Dans le message de news:KEz7i.1902$d63.1325@trnddc06,
>> Caroline <notreal@askforone.com> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
>>
>>> Seriously, if *any* control measures are to be placed successfully,
>>> there must be ways for those who fall outside the norms to appeal. If
>>> someone can document that they have a rare condition, an exception
>>> could be made.
>>
>> Google "Santhi Soundarajan" and see how natural rare conditions are
>> treated by the IOC.
>>
>> --
>> Sandy
>>
>> Ce n'est pas que j'ai peur de la mort.
>> Je veux seulement ne pas �tre l�
>> quand elle arrivera.
>
>
>'-) LOL! And there are how many transgender competitors in cylcing? I
>*probably* wouldn't have much of a problem with a female to male competitor
>competing with males, but a male to female competing with females could have
>an unfair edge. Just my guess.

The only one I'm aware of is the Canadian downhill MTB champ.

I'm sure that miserable creature has all sorts of problems in life, but my
sympathy / pity doesn't extend to allowing her to ruin women's sports.

Ron

Date: 01 Jun 2007 01:16:43
From: Caroline
Subject: Re: A more reasonable way of EPO testing

"RonSonic" <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote in message
news:jnnu53dgeq0ldt463nei4l82vl2lhepjrj@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 31 May 2007 19:54:38 GMT, "Caroline" <notreal@askforone.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote in message
>>news:465ec841$0$17573$426a34cc@news.free.fr...
>>> Dans le message de news:KEz7i.1902$d63.1325@trnddc06,
>>> Caroline <notreal@askforone.com> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
>>>
>>>> Seriously, if *any* control measures are to be placed successfully,
>>>> there must be ways for those who fall outside the norms to appeal. If
>>>> someone can document that they have a rare condition, an exception
>>>> could be made.
>>>
>>> Google "Santhi Soundarajan" and see how natural rare conditions are
>>> treated by the IOC.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sandy
>>>
>>> Ce n'est pas que j'ai peur de la mort.
>>> Je veux seulement ne pas �tre l�
>>> quand elle arrivera.
>>
>>
>>'-) LOL! And there are how many transgender competitors in cylcing? I
>>*probably* wouldn't have much of a problem with a female to male
>>competitor
>>competing with males, but a male to female competing with females could
>>have
>>an unfair edge. Just my guess.
>
> The only one I'm aware of is the Canadian downhill MTB champ.
>
> I'm sure that miserable creature has all sorts of problems in life, but my
> sympathy / pity doesn't extend to allowing her to ruin women's sports.
>
> Ron

Don't forget Renee Richards in tennis. But then, tennis seems a bit less
uptight than a lot of other sports.

Caroline

Date: 31 May 2007 21:59:06
From: Sandy
Subject: Re: A more reasonable way of EPO testing

Dans le message de news:2KF7i.6538$XC3.500@trnddc04,
Caroline <notreal@askforone.com > a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
> "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote in message
> news:465ec841$0$17573$426a34cc@news.free.fr...
>> Dans le message de news:KEz7i.1902$d63.1325@trnddc06,
>> Caroline <notreal@askforone.com> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
>>
>>> Seriously, if *any* control measures are to be placed successfully,
>>> there must be ways for those who fall outside the norms to appeal.
>>> If someone can document that they have a rare condition, an
>>> exception could be made.
>>
>> Google "Santhi Soundarajan" and see how natural rare conditions are
>> treated by the IOC.
>>
>> --
>> Sandy
>>
>> Ce n'est pas que j'ai peur de la mort.
>> Je veux seulement ne pas �tre l�
>> quand elle arrivera.
>
>
> '-) LOL! And there are how many transgender competitors in cylcing?
> I *probably* wouldn't have much of a problem with a female to male
> competitor competing with males, but a male to female competing with
> females could have an unfair edge. Just my guess.
>
> Caroliine

You didn't read enough, Caroline. She is not transgendered.

Date: 01 Jun 2007 01:09:36
From: Caroline
Subject: Re: A more reasonable way of EPO testing

"Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr > wrote in message
news:465f290e$0$6103$426a34cc@news.free.fr...
> Dans le message de news:2KF7i.6538$XC3.500@trnddc04,
> Caroline <notreal@askforone.com> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
>> "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote in message
>> news:465ec841$0$17573$426a34cc@news.free.fr...
>>> Dans le message de news:KEz7i.1902$d63.1325@trnddc06,
>>> Caroline <notreal@askforone.com> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
>>>
>>>> Seriously, if *any* control measures are to be placed successfully,
>>>> there must be ways for those who fall outside the norms to appeal.
>>>> If someone can document that they have a rare condition, an
>>>> exception could be made.
>>>
>>> Google "Santhi Soundarajan" and see how natural rare conditions are
>>> treated by the IOC.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sandy
>>>
>>> Ce n'est pas que j'ai peur de la mort.
>>> Je veux seulement ne pas �tre l�
>>> quand elle arrivera.
>>
>>
>> '-) LOL! And there are how many transgender competitors in cylcing?
>> I *probably* wouldn't have much of a problem with a female to male
>> competitor competing with males, but a male to female competing with
>> females could have an unfair edge. Just my guess.
>>
>> Caroliine
>
> You didn't read enough, Caroline. She is not transgendered.

Sorry. "Transgendered" seemed as good a word choice as "hermaphrodite" or
"chromasomally challenged." Whatever label is used, she is an anomally.
The problem appears to be that the gender test is not universally
administered, so why is she subjected to it when there doesn't appear to be
(in my opinion) enough collective information to show what the "normal
limits" are? But then, where is it written that life is fair?

Caroline

Date: 31 May 2007 23:04:49
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: A more reasonable way of EPO testing

"Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr > wrote in message
news:465f290e$0$6103$426a34cc@news.free.fr...
> Dans le message de news:2KF7i.6538$XC3.500@trnddc04,
> Caroline <notreal@askforone.com> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
>> "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote in message
>> news:465ec841$0$17573$426a34cc@news.free.fr...
>>> Dans le message de news:KEz7i.1902$d63.1325@trnddc06,
>>> Caroline <notreal@askforone.com> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
>>>
>>>> Seriously, if *any* control measures are to be placed successfully,
>>>> there must be ways for those who fall outside the norms to appeal.
>>>> If someone can document that they have a rare condition, an
>>>> exception could be made.
>>>
>>> Google "Santhi Soundarajan" and see how natural rare conditions are
>>> treated by the IOC.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sandy
>>>
>>> Ce n'est pas que j'ai peur de la mort.
>>> Je veux seulement ne pas �tre l�
>>> quand elle arrivera.
>>
>>
>> '-) LOL! And there are how many transgender competitors in cylcing?
>> I *probably* wouldn't have much of a problem with a female to male
>> competitor competing with males, but a male to female competing with
>> females could have an unfair edge. Just my guess.
>>
>> Caroliine
>
> You didn't read enough, Caroline. She is not transgendered.

She is, however, a case that would require special dispensation - a genetic
man who never developed into either a man or a woman due to a known medical
condition in which the body doesn't respond to testosterone in early
childhood.

What is important is that Santhi has all of the physical capacity OF A WOMAN
because the testosterone she produces cannot be used by her body. She should
be given a special case dispensation by the sports authorities.

Date: 01 Jun 2007 15:42:23
From: meb
Subject: Re: A more reasonable way of EPO testing

Tom Kunich Wrote:
> "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote in message
> news:465f290e$0$6103$426a34cc@news.free.fr...
> > Dans le message de news:2KF7i.6538$XC3.500@trnddc04,
> > Caroline <notreal@askforone.com> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
> >> "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote in message
> >> news:465ec841$0$17573$426a34cc@news.free.fr...
> >>> Dans le message de news:KEz7i.1902$d63.1325@trnddc06,
> >>> Caroline <notreal@askforone.com> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
> >>>
> >>>> Seriously, if *any* control measures are to be place
> successfully,
> >>>> there must be ways for those who fall outside the norms t
> appeal.
> >>>> If someone can document that they have a rare condition, an
> >>>> exception could be made.
> >>>
> >>> Google "Santhi Soundarajan" and see how natural rare condition
> are
> >>> treated by the IOC.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Sandy
> >>>
> >>> Ce n'est pas que j'ai peur de la mort.
> >>> Je veux seulement ne pas �tre l�
> >>> quand elle arrivera.
> >>
> >>
> >> '-) LOL! And there are how many transgender competitors i
> cylcing?
> >> I *probably* wouldn't have much of a problem with a female to male
> >> competitor competing with males, but a male to female competin
> with
> >> females could have an unfair edge. Just my guess.
> >>
> >> Caroliine
> >
> > You didn't read enough, Caroline. She is not transgendered.
>
> She is, however, a case that would require special dispensation -
> genetic
> man who never developed into either a man or a woman due to a know
> medical
> condition in which the body doesn't respond to testosterone in early
> childhood.
>
> What is important is that Santhi has all of the physical capacity OF
> WOMAN
> because the testosterone she produces cannot be used by her body. Sh
> should
> be given a special case dispensation by the sports authorities.

Sounds like she isn't a "genetic man" either. As best I understand i
she is XXYY although one story believes XXY.

Has the IOC itself addressed this issue or merely the Olympic Counci
of Asia

--
meb

Date: 02 Jun 2007 21:29:34
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: A more reasonable way of EPO testing

"meb" <meb.2rhibb@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com > wrote in message
news:meb.2rhibb@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com...
>
> Sounds like she isn't a "genetic man" either. As best I understand it
> she is XXYY although one story believes XXY.

As far as I know there are special cases of XXY and XYY but Santhi is
neither. She is an XY that never developed into a man because of a natural
allergy to testosterone.

> Has the IOC itself addressed this issue or merely the Olympic Council
> of Asia?

Placing reality in front of committees is sort of like putting a mirror in
front of a vampire - they will do almost anything to avoid addressing the
problems.

Date: 01 Jun 2007 05:55:57
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: A more reasonable way of EPO testing

In article <meb.2rhibb@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com >,
meb <meb.2rhibb@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com > wrote:

> Tom Kunich Wrote:
> > "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote in message
> > news:465f290e$0$6103$426a34cc@news.free.fr...
> > > Dans le message de news:2KF7i.6538$XC3.500@trnddc04,
> > > Caroline <notreal@askforone.com> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
> > >> "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote in message
> > >> news:465ec841$0$17573$426a34cc@news.free.fr...
> > >>> Dans le message de news:KEz7i.1902$d63.1325@trnddc06,
> > >>> Caroline <notreal@askforone.com> a r�fl�chi, et puis a d�clar� :
> > >>>
> > >>>> Seriously, if *any* control measures are to be placed
> > successfully,
> > >>>> there must be ways for those who fall outside the norms to
> > appeal.
> > >>>> If someone can document that they have a rare condition, an
> > >>>> exception could be made.
> > >>>
> > >>> Google "Santhi Soundarajan" and see how natural rare conditions
> > are
> > >>> treated by the IOC.
> > >>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Sandy
> > >>>
> > >>> Ce n'est pas que j'ai peur de la mort.
> > >>> Je veux seulement ne pas �tre l�
> > >>> quand elle arrivera.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> '-) LOL! And there are how many transgender competitors in
> > cylcing?
> > >> I *probably* wouldn't have much of a problem with a female to male
> > >> competitor competing with males, but a male to female competing
> > with
> > >> females could have an unfair edge. Just my guess.
> > >>
> > >> Caroliine
> > >
> > > You didn't read enough, Caroline. She is not transgendered.
> >
> > She is, however, a case that would require special dispensation - a
> > genetic
> > man who never developed into either a man or a woman due to a known
> > medical
> > condition in which the body doesn't respond to testosterone in early
> > childhood.
> >
> > What is important is that Santhi has all of the physical capacity OF A
> > WOMAN
> > because the testosterone she produces cannot be used by her body. She
> > should
> > be given a special case dispensation by the sports authorities.
>
> Sounds like she isn't a "genetic man" either. As best I understand it
> she is XXYY although one story believes XXY.
>
> Has the IOC itself addressed this issue or merely the Olympic Council
> of Asia?

Considering that the IOC has now ruled that M-to-F transsexuals can now
compete as women as long as their surgery was at least two years ago and
they maintain their hormone therapy, I can't see how they would possibly
DQ Santhi.

I'm telling you: gender-neutral handicapped competition is the future of
cycling!

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Date: 01 Jun 2007 17:04:23
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: A more reasonable way of EPO testing

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> I'm telling you: gender-neutral handicapped competition is the future of
> cycling!

Well try cutting of the relevant components and then get back to us with a
race report.

Date: 29 May 2007 10:26:42
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: A more reasonable way of EPO testing

On Tue, 29 May 2007 11:51:14 +0100, Simon Brooke <simon@jasmine.org.uk > wrote:

>in message <Akl6i.2128$9G3.1906@trnddc07>, Caroline
>('notreal@askforone.com') wrote:
>
>> For all of these drugs there are easy blood tests to show whether they
>> are in balance, or "within normal limits." �Soooo.... �Wouldn't it be so
>> much easier simply to collect pre-race blood samples from all the
>> athletes and have them analyzed for whatever may be outside normal
>> limits? �Simply announce that if your blood does not meet "race
>> standards" you will be disqualified. �Period. �Then who cares if people
>> take EPOs? �If they take enough to give them an unfair edge, they're out
>> of the game!
>
>I instinctively dislike your idea, but it does have merits.
>
>I dislike it because it might unfairly penalise people who through
>perfectly natural accidents of genetics has parameters which are outside
>your 'normal limits' - and, indeed, might penalise them even if their
>genetic peculiarity were not 'performance enhancing'. Such a person might
>never be able to compete, because it might be impossible to get their body
>tuned within the 'normal limits' which had been defined.
>
>However, it would have the great merit of not caring whether your enhanced
>haematocrit was caused by physical apparatus (an altitude tent) or
>chemical apparatus (EPO). I find those athletes who rail against 'drug
>cheats' while using altitude tents nauseatingly hypocritical.

I just call them unable to live in the mountains.

Ron

Date: 28 May 2007 22:02:11
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: A more reasonable way of EPO testing

On May 28, 7:07 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Caroline" <notr...@askforone.com> wrote in message
>
> news:Akl6i.2128$9G3.1906@trnddc07...
>
>
>
> > Some of these items come into serious question when illnesses are
> > involved. There is no doubt in my mind that Lance Armstrong was given EPOs
> > as part of his chemotherapy recovery. It is a standard safeguard for
> > saving the patient's life. But I have no way of knowing whether he was
> > given them when he was in competition, nor do I have any way of knowing
> > whether they gave him any advantage if he was, or if they just brought his
> > red cell count to "within normal limits." Only his doctors know for sure.
> > He may not even know.
>
> Here's a clue - the phoney "blood test" that they supposedly ran in France
> with Lance's blood that they claimed contained EPO showed a hematocrit of
> 38%.

dumbass,

you are confused and your argument based on your confusion just makes
you look stupid. the EPO test was on urine, there was never a blood
test as you claim.

Date: 28 May 2007 22:05:06
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: A more reasonable way of EPO testing

On Sun, 27 May 2007 19:53:04 GMT, "Caroline" <notreal@askforone.com >
wrote:

>For all of these drugs there are easy blood tests to show whether they are
>in balance, or "within normal limits." Soooo.... Wouldn't it be so much
>easier simply to collect pre-race blood samples from all the athletes and
>have them analyzed for whatever may be outside normal limits? Simply
>announce that if your blood does not meet "race standards" you will be
>disqualified. Period. Then who cares if people take EPOs? If they take
>enough to give them an unfair edge, they're out of the game!

For all of the drugs? Some of the tests take three days if the lab is
ready for them. Most take several hours at a minimum because the
machinery necessary to make all testing equal has to be set up first
(single assay testing in lots of over 100 isn't a great way to prep
for the later legal battles), followed by the actual testing. You'd
still be disqualifying people hours and days after the day's racing.

FWIW, it still won't be cheap - some test kits - if you do all the
drugs - will cost you in the hundreds for the kit alone, if done in
batches. That will be for one drug in some cases, per person...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 31 May 2007 14:55:29
From: Caroline
Subject: Re: A more reasonable way of EPO testing

"Curtis L. Russell" <curtis@md-bicycling.org > wrote in message
news:ca2n53pq6b379ii645eefmu24tfgssekog@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 May 2007 19:53:04 GMT, "Caroline" <notreal@askforone.com>
> wrote:
>
>>For all of these drugs there are easy blood tests to show whether they are
>>in balance, or "within normal limits." Soooo.... Wouldn't it be so much
>>easier simply to collect pre-race blood samples from all the athletes and
>>have them analyzed for whatever may be outside normal limits? Simply
>>announce that if your blood does not meet "race standards" you will be
>>disqualified. Period. Then who cares if people take EPOs? If they take
>>enough to give them an unfair edge, they're out of the game!
>
> For all of the drugs? Some of the tests take three days if the lab is
> ready for them. Most take several hours at a minimum because the
> machinery necessary to make all testing equal has to be set up first
> (single assay testing in lots of over 100 isn't a great way to prep
> for the later legal battles), followed by the actual testing. You'd
> still be disqualifying people hours and days after the day's racing.

I'm not following how this relates to a "normal limits" overall blood
profile.

>
> FWIW, it still won't be cheap - some test kits - if you do all the
> drugs - will cost you in the hundreds for the kit alone, if done in
> batches. That will be for one drug in some cases, per person...
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...

Would it be absolutely neccessary to test *every* rider? I don't think so.
There would have to be a margin that would test any riders who might slip in
as top finishers late in the game, but no reason to test all.

My primary point is that there has to be a better way than what's happening
now.

Caroline

Date: 05 Jun 2007 20:35:58
From: Curtis L. Russell
Subject: Re: A more reasonable way of EPO testing

On Thu, 31 May 2007 14:55:29 GMT, "Caroline" <notreal@askforone.com >
wrote:

>
>Would it be absolutely neccessary to test *every* rider? I don't think so.
>There would have to be a margin that would test any riders who might slip in
>as top finishers late in the game, but no reason to test all.

And so when you said exactly one post ago that it would be easier to
collect and analyze the blood from 'all athletes', you didn't mean
every rider? Or are you arguing that 'every rider' is a larger set
than 'all athletes'? BTW, this is fine - it is known here as the KG
Master Fattie argument, but you need to try to be clear about that up
front.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Date: 28 May 2007 23:07:24
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: A more reasonable way of EPO testing

"Caroline" <notreal@askforone.com > wrote in message
news:Akl6i.2128$9G3.1906@trnddc07...
>
> Some of these items come into serious question when illnesses are
> involved. There is no doubt in my mind that Lance Armstrong was given EPOs
> as part of his chemotherapy recovery. It is a standard safeguard for
> saving the patient's life. But I have no way of knowing whether he was
> given them when he was in competition, nor do I have any way of knowing
> whether they gave him any advantage if he was, or if they just brought his
> red cell count to "within normal limits." Only his doctors know for sure.
> He may not even know.

Here's a clue - the phoney "blood test" that they supposedly ran in France
with Lance's blood that they claimed contained EPO showed a hematocrit of
38%.

Date: 29 May 2007 02:10:56
From: Tom Grosman
Subject: Re: A more reasonable way of EPO testing

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > a �crit dans le message de news:
MgJ6i.11203$296.4754@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...

Date: 27 May 2007 23:44:54
From: Dan Gregory
Subject: Re: A more reasonable way of EPO testing

Caroline wrote:

> A question was recently asked about what drugs are banned. If you
> have any questions, you can call the IOC (or in the U.S. call USOC) Medical
> Hotline and ask. They have a current list for everything from cough meds
> that contain banned substances (and cough meds that don't) to blood doping
> no-nos. (God, I hope this information isn't out-dated!)

Quicker to go to

http://www.didglobal.com/page/didenqs/home