I just read 19 pages of this thread, Let's see if I got this right. The ex-Kelme doc was using dogs, doping causes cancer....no wonder "Tugboat" died of a blood disorder. ;)

For all of you rooting for Millar, what's to say he isn't still using. He didn't test positive before... and still hasn't.

Creatine is not a drug since it is naturally occurring in the body and in foods. The definition of a vitamin is something the body needs but cannot produce (but not foodstuffs so essential amino acids and fatty acids don't count).

Hormones are typically considered drugs. An interesting exception is DHEA which is a precursor to testosterone. In small doses studies show it didnot increase androgen levels in men. At levels of 500mg's in addition to zinc I think it would have an effect on androgen levels. The testosterone would all be produced by the testes so the shut down of production would be avoided. This is great if you're a health nut but how the UCI views this I don't know. Ordinarily testosterone that is injected is the same as regular testosterone so it's not detectable other than by limits and if this is the case why bother with DHEA.

HGH as produced by the pituitary (or where ever) can be optimized or deminished in a number of ways. Low levels are also found in whey protein supplements and in products like natraflex (which GNC's couldn't give away oddly w/ the $100 homeopathic formulas they do carry). Digestion can distroy the molecules and those that are left aren't always absorbed. HGH gains are capped. It isn't produced/released in the awake state however.

Elevating red blood counts can be achieved by acclimating to low oxygen partial pressures. Exactly what is required as far as exposure is concerned, I'm not sure of. Less oxygen is striking the blood cells. Increasing exposure could be done by increasing lung capacity through breathing exercises like forcing air into the lungs. You can also breath in real quick and put resistance on the exhale in effect increasing the atmospheres of pressure in the lungs. This may not be healthy though. If you were to take in that much deep lung air on a roadway with moderate traffic you would be exposed to very serious carcinogens and particulates in addition to caustics that magnify vulnerability at certain thresholds only to be exacerbated by dehydration. I would not be surprised if LA cancer originated in his lungs or near by organs and spread else where, where it was detected.

Q10 is kind of a designer vitamin since it is produced in the body. There aren't any food sources for it though. I saw a product gaik (sp?) made by muscle tech makers that claims to increase lactic acid thresholds immediately upon first use. I believe it had a patent on it although it may have been the formulation. Patents can only be issued for non naturally occurring substances. In the case of Q10 I believe it was the manufacturing process that was patented. Anyways gaik might be another nadh+ -- kind of a high energy metabolic intermediate, same is another example -- or it may be a designer nutrient like acetylated aminos or ester-c which is kindof two foodish chemicals reacted together -- it could happen -- or it may be seen as too deviant and be considered a drug. Chemically speaking I believe it is metabolized but so are many drugs. The biological implications would have to be examined to see if it conformed w/ metabolic pathways or not. I don't know of any drug off hand that bypasses metabolic pathways.

Correct, any type of oral administerd Growth Hormone is not going to work, none of those over the counter nasal sprays either. A lot of crap is marketed as being a substance which causes the body to release more growth hormone, but they all have the sentance on the, "the FDA has not investigated these claims etc etc etc..

All the kids with growthe Hormone deficincey and dwarfism etc.. would love a pill, or spray, but at the moment, the real deal has to be injected.


Also in regards to drugs that bypass metabolic pathways, there are some synthetic blood substitues similair Postals Actovegin etc. but are totally inert, they can last 3 years at room temperature, and do not metabolize in the body, They carry up to 5 times as much oxygen as regular blood, and they are passed out of the body through the lungs.


To give an example of their use. After the WADA testers don't show up at your hotel by 10:00 AM, you know they are not coming. So you could inject your blood substitute, race like a madman, and by the end of the stage be clean, as it has passed out through your lungs over the 6 hour stage.

Maybe we will see brethalyzer tests before the races leave the neutral zone one day.

Just playing devil's advocate here but do you think they test the blood of a European on the second step as rigorously as they test the blood of an American on the podium?

Yes because the testing labs don't know who the samples are from AFAIK

Ignorant in that you assume that no other elite athletes experienced a period as a junior wherte they beat everyone. What I *said* was that there is no pattern distinctive of doping. Nowhere do I say that that's unique to Lance. It's your assumption, not mine, so which of us is ignorant?

And disgusting because anyone who posts so confidently on a cycling forum but clearly has very very little knowledge of the sport is repulsive to all right-thinking people. "Right thinking people"? Elitism is disgusting to thinking people. To whit, one doesn't have to make an argument that stands on its own; one just asserts the truth that "all right-thinking people know", then denigrate those who don't agree.

Your post had 'I just put down the Lance Armstrong book' written all over it. I've not read Lance's book and have no real desire to.

And a sworn court testimony, and a test of his urine from 1999 and links with Ferrari and I also have insider knowledge from people who have trained with the Postal team. Feel free to PM me for the details. I'm a UK racer who knows many people who train with pros on mainland Europe. Uncorroborated testimony that the court found not to be persuasive. Urine tests that probably were never done and an independent report on that mess that essentially found no truth to the allegations and recommended that those involved be fired. Unproven links to Dr. Ferrari that, even if true, show nothing. Secret knowledge that you won't make public. An implication of hearsay.

Overwhelming evidence! :eek:

Read the rest of my posts in this thread for the reasons I object to Armstrong doping and winning ... Did. I'm especially interested in how you're so concerned for the well-being of "thousands of little girls with cancer" that you're working so strenuously to disillusion them.

You bitten off more than you can chew with me. Why? Do you consider debate to be an endurance sport?

Bit of info. on EPO and the testing done to detect it: http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=3874

Looking For Clues
In 1998, the Festina team was expelled from the Tour de France following a police raid. Large quantities of EPO were discovered and this marked the explosion of rEPOrts of widespread EPO use in the peloton. The race to develop a test was running in earnest and by the 2000 Sydney Olympics a test for synthetic EPO had been introduced. This was pioneered in cycling in 2001.

The test has been refined in recent years and is based on the fact that Endogenous (produced by the body) and recombinant (synthetically produced) human forms of EPO have different patterns of ‘molecule modification‚ called glycosylation. Simply put, the molecule’s structure and ‘technology‚ are slightly different. This causes the natural and synthetic molecules to exhibit different electric charges. The test uses a technique called isoelectric focusing to separate these molecules according to their electric charge. This takes place on a bed of gel which is transferred to a special paper where a second technique called ‘double immunoblotting is used to identify the molecules further.

This technique has been called into question as it is very much dependent upon the skills of the operator on the basis of a colour reaction with an antibody that occurs in the test. This introduces the possibility of human error. The different molecules are called isoforms: a version of the protein with some small differences. A positive test for EPO is based upon the percentage of these ‘basic isoforms’ in the urine sample. More than 80% is declared as positive for EPO use.


Testing the Test
A number of athletes have questioned the validity of the EPO test. Most recently Roberto Heras but in August last year, Belgian triathlete Rutger Beke had his conviction for EPO use overturned on the basis of a scientific investigation that concluded the he was found to excrete molecules that would yield a positive test due to ‘post-exercise proteinuria.

His body excreted more of these proteins naturally and would push the percentage of such proteins over the 80% limit. The next problem is that the antibodies used to identify the EPO proteins are not specific to EPO. They may react with other unrelated proteins in the urine. These questions were raised with WADA who conducted a review of the IOC’s urine test for EPO. They concluded that it “has undergone an extensive scientific validation..." and that "it is a well-established procedure widely accepted by the scientific community.”

However, in a pre-published study in ‘Blood‚ the Journal of the American Society of Haematology’ on February 21st this year it claims, “these earlier publications missed critical control experiments and were not designed to exclude non-specific false-positive misidentification of other non-EPO urine components”. This is a specific reference to the reaction of EPO antibodies with proteins unrelated to EPO.

In January 2005, WADA issued a directive to make testing more qualitative. This based the criteria on the bands which form on the special paper onto which the gel is transferred following the reaction with the antibodies. Rather than simply declaring a minimum percentage, at least three bands are identified with the two most intense bands being identified to declare the result. This is determined visually or by a statistical technique called densitometry. This validity of this method is contested by some but research is ongoing into the refinement of the EPO testing protocol. Interestingly, last year’s scandal surrounding Lance Armstrong’s 1999 Tour de France urine was based upon research that was being conducted on the samples in the French Châtenay-Malabry laboratory.

On the other side of the globe, scientists in Australia are developing a new method using two-dimensional gel electrophoresis. The present method of isoelectric focusing only takes place in one dimension, the new method would add a second dimension to the testing on the gel at a right angle to the first. It is hoped that this will increase the validity of the EPO testing method.

Blood packing has been superseded by EPO.

What was the hematocrit level of Bjarne Riis when he won the tdf?

Is this the same guy who just suspended Ivan Basso under suspicion of doping?

FMP

What I *said* was that there is no pattern distinctive of doping. Nowhere do I say that that's unique to Lance. It's your assumption, not mine, so which of us is ignorant?
You, because all your information about his team and his career is based on the publicly-available information, rather than insider knowledge.

Uncorroborated testimony that the court found not to be persuasive.
Corroborated by a taped telephone call.

Urine tests that probably were never done
and here your argument begins to falter… nobody in either camp asserts that the tests were never done. All Armstrong says in his defence (which he’s too scared to take to court) is ‘the French hate me’ and ‘I never tested positive’ :)

and an independent report on that mess that essentially found no truth to the allegations and recommended that those involved be fired.
A report that was smashed by the people responsible for controlling doping in sport…more faltering

Unproven links to Dr. Ferrari that, even if true, show nothing.
and the coup de grace... you mean a bit like the ‘hard evidence’ you mentioned earlier against Basso and Ullrich? They have just been linked to a doping doctor, like Lance was. How can it be ‘hard evidence’ for one and ‘show nothing’ for Lance? :) :) :). If Ullrich's DNA test is positive, then how can we be sure the test ever happened, if Lance's EPO test probably 'never happened'?

Secret knowledge that you won't make public. An implication of hearsay.
It will be knowledge for you if you PM me, but you seem a little scared. I would make it public here, but there are legal implications...

Not sure his level when he won the TdF, but most of the peleton was over 50% back before the Hematocrit limit was put in place.

There was a Danish TV program several years back, where the investigators found some medical records from some old UCI tests. While riding for Team Gewiss, Riis's Hct went from the low 40's to 58% or so in several weeks. I have the chart around here somewhere, but the specifics aren't that important. What is important is the extremely quick increase to what is a dangerously high limit. The team Dr. on Gewiss was Michele Ferrari, who when questioned about his riders crazy Hct numbers, attributed them to "diet and training"

Halfway down the page under Riis and Doping.



http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/1999/apr99/apr10.shtml

What was the hematocrit level of Bjarne Riis when he won the tdf?
Don't know the answer to that, but I do recall hearing Riis referred to as "Mr. 60%," and I don't think it was a reference to his win rate.

Question for smoothie -

At this time it seems that every time they come up with a test to defeat a drug, a new drug or method pops up allowing a way around them testing pos.

Do you think that there will ever be a time that testing becomes intensive enough to catch all possible forms of doping and the dopers simply run out of ways to dodge the tests?

Halfway down the page under Riis and Doping.



http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/1999/apr99/apr10.shtml

Thanks!

Question for smoothie -

At this time it seems that every time they come up with a test to defeat a drug, a new drug or method pops up allowing a way around them testing pos.

Do you think that there will ever be a time that testing becomes intensive enough to catch all possible forms of doping and the dopers simply run out of ways to dodge the tests?


I doubt it, the desire for fame, glory, and $$$ will always be stronger than desire to catch those that are doping.

There aren't that many biotech companies that have the capability to manufacture EPO or other growth hormones. I believe they're made by recombinant DNA technology, i.e. putting the DNA sequence that encodes them into bacteria or yeast, growing the microorganisms in HUGE bioreactors, then separating, purifing, and preserving the hormones. We're talking $100+ million and a lot of smart people, so its not like you'll find someone making growth hormones in their basement like so many recreational drugs.

There are plenty of shady doctors that will prescribe them though. You probably wouldn't even need one in Mexico. No way of stopping that route.

It should be possible to add some marker to these blood doping hormones at the production stage so they would be easy to detect. That, along with vigorous testing, would go a long way towards solving the athlete doping problem.

The basic purpose of any sport imo is to display character, right?. No other aspect really means anything. You collect a group of athletes with similar skills, form a contest with rules designed to equalize every factor possible then let the winning team or individual be decided based on character and will. The character and will to train well, to sacrifice, to support teammates etc..., and to play fair when you can get away with cheating. Nothing else means anything. So what if a guy is born with better abilities than average? I can marvel at a physical specimen sometimes, the 7 foot BB player, the 300lb/4.0 40 lineman or the cyclist with super endurance. You can give credit to God for that if you want, but not to them.

So, even though I admire the hard training and sacrifice these guys put in, the idea a lot of them have been cheating and lying repeatably over years to cover it up has me scrambling for a reason to watch the sport. If doping is really as rampant as what I've read, it would'nt bother me if they cancelled the TDF till they found a way to handle it.

The basic purpose of any sport imo is to display character, right?. No other aspect really means anything. You collect a group of athletes with similar skills, form a contest with rules designed to equalize every factor possible then let the winning team or individual be decided based on character and will. The character and will to train well, to sacrifice, to support teammates etc..., and to play fair when you can get away with cheating. Nothing else means anything. So what if a guy is born with better abilities than average? I can marvel at a physical specimen sometimes, the 7 foot BB player, the 300lb/4.0 40 lineman or the cyclist with super endurance. You can give credit to God for that if you want, but not to them.

So, even though I admire the hard training and sacrifice these guys put in, the idea a lot of them have been cheating and lying repeatably over years to cover it up has me scrambling for a reason to watch the sport. If doping is really as rampant as what I've read, it would'nt bother me if they cancelled the TDF till they found a way to handle it.

You're right up until atheletes get paid to perform.

Sports are a form of entertainment. Millions of people pay millions of dollars to be enterained by atheltes. And sponsors pay millions of dollars to display their products to those millions of spectators. Billions of dollars are involved. Once atheletes start getting paid, the purpose is to win. Character flies out of the window at that point. Character is important in that you maintain a clean image to keep the sponsorship dollars rolling in. And even then, if your ability is significant enough, it can overcome character flaws when it comes to sponsors. That is the way of ALL professional sports.

Corroborated by a taped telephone call. Which the court found to be unpersuasive.

you mean a bit like the ‘hard evidence’ you mentioned earlier against Basso and Ullrich? They have just been linked to a doping doctor, like Lance was. No, not "like Lance was". Basso and Ullrich's "links" were the doctor's doping records (and partly-unspecified corroborating evidence). No such link for Lance.

Ullrich, at least, wasn't tossed for that anyway. He was tossed for making false statements to his team.

It will be knowledge for you if you PM me, but you seem a little scared. I would make it public here, but there are legal implications...
Why do you need me to PM you? Can't you just send it along? :confused:

As for "legal implications", it's not libel if it's true and if you can prove it you're safe. That you can't make it public indicates to everyone that you can't prove it.

Ullrich, at least, wasn't tossed for that anyway. He was tossed for making false statements to his team.

.

Ullrich was suspended for the same reason all the riders where suspended. In 2005 the teams signed a code of conduct agreement with the ProTour. In that agreement it states that any ride under formal investigation will be immediately suspended. The teams have tried to spin it to seem like it was all about them doing the right thing but that's not the whole truth. What the teams did agree to was not to replace any of the suspended riders.

So wait...They have been kicked off their teams, but not kicked out of the tour. Couldnt they have somehow still riddin with another team that would have been happy to have their skill.

So wait...They have been kicked off their teams, but not kicked out of the tour. Couldnt they have somehow still riddin with another team that would have been happy to have their skill.

No, once under investigation they have their UCI license suspended.

So wait...They have been kicked off their teams, but not kicked out of the tour. Couldnt they have somehow still riddin with another team that would have been happy to have their skill.

Not that close to the race. A couple of years ago when Matt White crashed warming up for the prologue and broke his collarbone, he could not be replaced, even though "technically" the race had not started. For "moral" issues like this, the contracts the teams have with the Pro Tour is that a named rider in an investigation like this has to be removed and cannot be replaced. That was done for a reason...to try to prevent teams from putting riders that might not be clean in the race in the hopes that they might make it through.

Ullrich, at least, wasn't tossed for that anyway. He was tossed for making false statements to his team.
Ullrich was suspended for the same reason all the riders where suspended. We know that's the real reason, but the team said what I reported above - that Ullrich and Sevilla were suspended from the team for making false statements. Reportedly they signed statements to the effect that they had no contact with Fuentes and the "corroborating evidence" from Spain proved otherwise. http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/jun06/jun30news2

Not that close to the race. A couple of years ago when Matt White crashed warming up for the prologue and broke his collarbone, he could not be replaced, even though "technically" the race had not started. For "moral" issues like this, the contracts the teams have with the Pro Tour is that a named rider in an investigation like this has to be removed and cannot be replaced. That was done for a reason...to try to prevent teams from putting riders that might not be clean in the race in the hopes that they might make it through.
I guess there is no way to get around the "he'd be replacing somebody issue" but it seems unfair (to the degree that "fair" fits here) that Vinokourav couldn't ride.

Not that close to the race. A couple of years ago when Matt White crashed warming up for the prologue and broke his collarbone, he could not be replaced, even though "technically" the race had not started. For "moral" issues like this, the contracts the teams have with the Pro Tour is that a named rider in an investigation like this has to be removed and cannot be replaced. That was done for a reason...to try to prevent teams from putting riders that might not be clean in the race in the hopes that they might make it through.

White was replaced in that Tour, by Peter Farazijn. Farazijn was expecting three weeks holiday and had drunk a few beers at a car rally on the morning of the Prologue. He had to get a Police escort to make the start on time! Funny.:D

http://www.cyclingnews.com/road/2004/tour04/?id=results/prologue

Steroids.

Well, I wasn't thinking about steroids - I just had EPO in mind.

Still, the same question holds - can/does steroids cause testicular cancer? Is there a doctor in the house?

Well, I wasn't thinking about steroids - I just had EPO in mind.

Still, the same question holds - can/does steroids cause testicular cancer? Is there a doctor in the house?

A doc answered this in another thread. Gave a real good answer. If I can find it I'll post it here, but it was basically along the lines that it didn't cause testicular cancer. There was some kind of evidence for a different kind of cancer, but that was rare if I recall correctly. The most common side effect of steroids was "gonoidal atrophy" :eek: Apparently the kind of cancer Lance had wasn't too common but when it does occur it happens in men of an age range that Lance fell square into. So basically, based on that it just simply looks like he got cancer the old fashioned way. Just unlucky.

Now, I have heard there as some growth hormone drugs that cyclist have been taking that DO cause cancer. Not sure if it would be testicular or not.

This was posted by Frogge in this thread: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=199763&page=2&highlight=cancer+steroids

Quote: I happen to be a cancer doc. I believe Lance had an advance embrynal cell ca of the testis. This is a very rare cancer. Because of its rarity you would expect and increase to be quickly reported if associated with epo. Epo is a very benign drug. There are reports of rare cases of red cell aplasia that may be associated with epo. Anabolic steroids are a whole different kettle of fish, but I think gonadal atrophy is more common than any cancer. I very much doubt that Lance was doing any doping during his tour runs. The testing technology is good enough to pick up any doping that would have given any edge, any other doping would be extremely stupid given the risks(not medical,but financial). If Lance were caught doping not only would his titles be tainted,but his endorsements and foundation would be destroyed. He seems much too carefull to take the risks. Toodles,Frogge.

This was posted by Frogge in this thread: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=199763&page=2&highlight=cancer+steroids

Quote: I happen to be a cancer doc. I believe Lance had an advance embrynal cell ca of the testis. This is a very rare cancer. Because of its rarity you would expect and increase to be quickly reported if associated with epo. Epo is a very benign drug. There are reports of rare cases of red cell aplasia that may be associated with epo. Anabolic steroids are a whole different kettle of fish, but I think gonadal atrophy is more common than any cancer. I very much doubt that Lance was doing any doping during his tour runs. The testing technology is good enough to pick up any doping that would have given any edge, any other doping would be extremely stupid given the risks(not medical,but financial). If Lance were caught doping not only would his titles be tainted,but his endorsements and foundation would be destroyed. He seems much too carefull to take the risks. Toodles,Frogge.
Frogge is an expert on cancer, but not on doping. Events prove that doping during the tour frequently goes undetected for years at a time.

True, True...

I guess there is no way to get around the "he'd be replacing somebody issue" but it seems unfair (to the degree that "fair" fits here) that Vinokourav couldn't ride.

It's the AIGCP (directeur sportif association ) that unanimously made the decision of not replacing the riders last Friday (30th June).

Frogge is an expert on cancer, but not on doping. Events prove that doping during the tour frequently goes undetected for years at a time.

I don't disagree - I just posted that in response to the question of "do steroids cause cancer". He answers that pretty directly.

A scandal!

The "Code of Silence" will go the way of the Dodo. When the Po-Po run in 20 punks, one is gonna' spill his guts....This is too big to onesie-twosie the accused, they are going to burn the lot.

A young scared rider, with years of pro riding on the horizon will start talking. I reckon the entire peloton (listed or otherwise, past and present) is shakin' in their cleats.

I volunteer for the first shift on the Tyler Hamilton suicide watch.

Everybody has been runnin' the junk since god knows when, and the busts have been relatively isolated, but now the UCI must clean house.

I liken this scandal to the old "Take a two hour lunch" syndrome. Everybody in the office does it, management is fully aware.....but there is a breaking point (there always is). Management starts cracking skulls en masse, and all are back to an honest half hour......for a little while. The company rebel goes for 40 minutes, takes a few with him......a year later...same problem again.

Well, this just sucks. I was on vacation during the weeks leading up to the Tour, so I missed all this news, then this morning I wanted to see how Ullrich and Basso were doing on the Tour. Hmmm, can't find them on the official TdF roster...Operacion Puerto? WTF?

I think I'm done paying attention to pro cycling.

I think I'm done paying attention to pro cycling.


i felt the same way, but i can't stay away. keep checking in on the web, or listening to a live feed.

I think I'm done paying attention to pro cycling.

One might argue that on the contrary, this might be the best time to start paying attention to pro cycling.

Well, this just sucks. I was on vacation during the weeks leading up to the Tour, so I missed all this news, then this morning I wanted to see how Ullrich and Basso were doing on the Tour. Hmmm, can't find them on the official TdF roster...Operacion Puerto? WTF?

I think I'm done paying attention to pro cycling.

where did you go on vacation? a cave? this story is everywhere...in all the papers, on the news, etc.

I think I'm done paying attention to pro cycling.

I think you've already stopped paying attention to pro cycling!:roflmao:

Man. Lance is out and American's are all poised well. I wouldn't be suprised if there was a payoff to finger all the top riders to give american's a better chance. Also, this years tour is way more interesting. Who hell wants to sit around waiting for lance to win. BORING!

I did some number crunching. This is a crude calculation, but it demonstrates how close all of the contenders are.

1) Using the power calculator, and assuming 500 miles are really fought out between the GC's in the TDF the difference is very small. I plugged in an average slope of 2%, cadence of 90rpm's, and used the same height & weight measurements for all 3 wattages.

300 watts time 25 hours, 22 minutes and 50 seconds.
297 watts time 25 hours, 30 minutes and 36 seconds
295 watts time 25 hours, 38 minutes and 27 seconds

3 measley watts gives identical riders almost and 8 minute differece in time.

That is a 1% difference. I think it is certainly possible for someone to be gifted enough to maintain a 1% difference without PED's. I am not saying it was done, but possible.

Has anyone found a study on PED's and the elite riders? I wonder how much difference they make? I suspect it would be less than someone who is untrained.

Richard

One might argue that on the contrary, this might be the best time to start paying attention to pro cycling.

Agreed. The remaining contenders may not be drug free, but at least the known dopers are out. I'm encouraged by the strong stance against doping. BTW F&@$ Barry Bonds. Who the F$%& cares how many home runs he hits on steroids. Way to go Hank Aaron!

I can't understand why some people are so upset. So two guys got booted because they got caught. One guy got booted because his team management and teammates were caught. Now we have Tour that is now too close to call. I don't feel one bit sorry for Ullrich or Basso, the guy I feel sorry for is Valverde. He's out and that was nothing but bad luck. I kind of feel sorry for Vino but Saiz has had a rep as condoning dope use so he should have known what he was getting into. Besides he could have gone to Disco or Ag2r so it wasn't like he didn't have a choice. Regardless we have what may be the closest Tour in last 10 years playing out and I for one am really enjoying it!

I did some number crunching. This is a crude calculation, but it demonstrates how close all of the contenders are.

1) Using the power calculator, and assuming 500 miles are really fought out between the GC's in the TDF the difference is very small. I plugged in an average slope of 2%, cadence of 90rpm's, and used the same height & weight measurements for all 3 wattages.

300 watts time 25 hours, 22 minutes and 50 seconds.
297 watts time 25 hours, 30 minutes and 36 seconds
295 watts time 25 hours, 38 minutes and 27 seconds

3 measley watts gives identical riders almost and 8 minute differece in time.

That is a 1% difference. I think it is certainly possible for someone to be gifted enough to maintain a 1% difference without PED's. I am not saying it was done, but possible.

Has anyone found a study on PED's and the elite riders? I wonder how much difference they make? I suspect it would be less than someone who is untrained.

Richard

Yet the guys who have raced and been a part of all this mess all claim that the difference is phenomenal, and that one cannot finish, let alone compete without them

I don't know how much difference PED's make to an an elite cyclist. The point I was making is the small difference in power output versus finishing times. It is really very close between the top riders, so I suspect PED's are very tempting.

The only reason I hold out hope for Lance, but not much, is I can't imagine climbing out of your death bed, and asking to be pumped full of possible cancer causing drugs.

Richard

Meanwhile, back in the lab...

In a phone conversation on May 14, at 21:46, the two discuss the Giro stage to Maielletta, won by Basso. Fuentes allegedly said in a 'wink wink' tone, "A stranger won, Basso, Ivan Basso." Labarta responded, "A certain Ivan Basso."

After that stage, Basso and José Enrique Gutierrez Cataluna (a Dr Fuentes client) were lying first and second on the general classification. Labarta: "Well done boy, first and second with a certain Basso and a certain Guti." Fuentes: "Good heavens." Labarta: "Hey...first and second."

On the previous day (May 13), Labarta called Fuentes at 20:02 and spoke about the great performance of the "Buffalo" - Gutierrez' oft-used nickname - who finished fourth in stage 7 on that day. A surprised Fuentes said, "Buffalo?", to which Labarta responded in the affirmative, also listing the stage placings behind Rik Verbrugghe: "Savoldelli [2nd - ed.], yes, and behind at 16 seconds, Birillo arrived with Simoni, at 20 seconds Zapatero [who was identified as Scarponi], at 24 seconds, Uno [La Gazzetta claimed it was Unai Osa, but he finished at 34 seconds - ed]. All very well. I want to say that all those who you are looking after, or who you are interested in, are in the race and also doing well."

In addition to Basso and Simoni, only Rebellin and Gonchar finished at 16 seconds on the seventh stage. Both those riders, as well as Simoni and Savoldelli, have been excluded from having any connection with Dr Fuentes. But "Birillo" happens to be the name of Basso's dog. In Fuentes' code key, it is associated with number 2. The 226 bags of blood and plasma that were seized from Dr Fuentes' apartments in Madrid are encoded with similar numbers and nicknames, and presumably a DNA test could verify whether the blood contained in a "number 2" bag is the same as Ivan Basso's.

The fourth link is a document with Dr Fuentes' company letterhead on it that features a list of "contributors and participants in the festival taking place in the month of May." Basso, Marcos Serrano, Michele Scarponi, José Enrique Gutierrez and Jan Ullrich are all on the list. The Civil Guard has interpreted the 'festival' as being the Giro d'Italia, since all those riders took part in it.

From the usual source, cyclingnews.com (http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2006/jul06/jul05news4)

the guy I feel sorry for is Valverde. He's out and that was nothing but bad luck. I kind of feel sorry for Vino... I too feel bad for Vino, but not much for Valverde. He was named as one of the "58" - his name appears in the Dr.'s notebooks - but there was insufficient corroborating evidence to exclude him. Perhaps in time we'll see his bad luck as Cosmic Justice.


(Disclaimer: Since the notebooks were coded, some identities are still open to doubt.)

Fuentes said today that more of his clients are still in the tour. Let's assume that he had 18 riders in the Tour (9 that got excluded and 9 more that are still in) that's 10% of the peloton that are riding doped by this one doctor. There certainly more DS's like Saiz and doctors like Fuentes out there.

Can't we just forget about the PEDs for a while and enjoy the large portions of the sport that are not affected? Drugs aren't going to improve teamwork and they wont help strategy, tactics or style either.

Name names, dammit. Clean the tour up as much as possible. How can Fuentes fall back on his oath and maintain the anonymity of his clients when it's illegal practice to begin with? Oh and I for one am not having a problem with this year's tour missing out on the big names, I just want to get to the hills and enjoy watching the peleton explode.

Name names, dammit. Clean the tour up as much as possible. How can Fuentes fall back on his oath and maintain the anonymity of his clients when it's illegal practice to begin with? Oh and I for one am not having a problem with this year's tour missing out on the big names, I just want to get to the hills and enjoy watching the peloton explode.

Hills?! Who needs hills? Man these sprint finishes have been really exciting. So far this has been a great race! I can't wait to see the battle on Sat for the TT this is going to be really close. Which in a way I'm happy that Basso and Ullrich are gone. I feel that those two would have been far ahead of the third through fifth anyway.
Now, especially since Valverde is gone, the top five are going to very very close.