Advertise on Bikeforums.net



User Tag List

Page 6 of 71 FirstFirst ... 456781656 ... LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 1760
  1. #126
    Upgrading my engine DXchulo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Reno
    Posts
    5,637
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
    Thanks. Such knowledge may be well-known among the competitive bicycling community, but I am looking for reputable sources that affirm the existence of the various methods of cheating those tests.
    http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012...ughts-and.html

    Look under #1.

    Then you have the less scientific ways of passing tests like "donations" to the UCI.
    centuryperweek.blogspot.com

  2. #127
    Senior Member Eclectus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    My Bikes
    Cervelo RS, Specialized Stumpy, Schwinn 974
    Posts
    1,874
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
    Eclectus, you write like a professional pharmacist. Would you mind letting me know, roughly, how you know this stuff? What are some of the sources of this information?
    I don't even know anymore. I can tell only tell you this stuff is in the archives. I know this sounds like a copout, but when I was an undergrad at Berkeley, they didn't have the journal articles I was looking for, I had to go over to UCSF to get to deeper-historic sources. When I was a stupid lab tech at UCSD, I had to find out what the Scripps Institute Library had that USC Bimed library didn't. When in Orange County, I had to go to UCLA Biomed to get to first-report sources. When at Harvard, I had to go deep into the basement stacks at Francis Countaway Library. Basement level 3, yeah I did that Information exists, but accessing it depends upon where you are.

    What I showed, in two lines of research was, "Here is what has been presented, the next logical step is obvious." The next logical step hadn't been appreciated by anyone else, but it was lying out there, ready to be jumped upon.

    I had really low expectations. I just wanted to get into med school. My machinations worked, I had a 3.4 GPA, but profs said, "Admit this kid." Mostly I was interested in cool stuff, like radioactivity. Like I called Rosalyn Yallow, whose published method wasnt working. She gave me advisement on the phone. It totally worked. Fortunately I called her before she won the Nobel Prize. I have no idea why her Nobel-Prize-winning published stuff was crap. I only knew, "I'm really good in the lab, I've repliccated your published materials and methods, and it's not working, what am I doing wrong? And she shared with me her unpublished secrets.

    "You aren't really using guinea pigs, you are using rabbits?" After harvesting antibodies from female, injectate-harmed NZ rabbits, I let them **** with male rabbits and make babies. I have no idea why I did it, but those rabbits really loved ****ing. I live in a place where rabbits nibble at stuff. That's okay.

  3. #128
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    15
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Eclectus View Post
    I don't even know anymore. I can tell only tell you this stuff is in the archives. I know this sounds like a copout, but when I was an undergrad at Berkeley, they didn't have the journal articles I was looking for, I had to go over to UCSF to get to deeper-historic sources. When I was a stupid lab tech at UCSD, I had to find out what the Scripps Institute Library had that USC Bimed library didn't. When in Orange County, I had to go to UCLA Biomed to get to first-report sources. When at Harvard, I had to go deep into the basement stacks at Francis Countaway Library. Basement level 3, yeah I did that Information exists, but accessing it depends upon where you are.

    What I showed, in two lines of research was, "Here is what has been presented, the next logical step is obvious." The next logical step hadn't been appreciated by anyone else, but it was lying out there, ready to be jumped upon.

    I had really low expectations. I just wanted to get into med school. My machinations worked, I had a 3.4 GPA, but profs said, "Admit this kid." Mostly I was interested in cool stuff, like radioactivity. Like I called Rosalyn Yallow, whose published method wasnt working. She gave me advisement on the phone. It totally worked. Fortunately I called her before she won the Nobel Prize. I have no idea why her Nobel-Prize-winning published stuff was crap. I only knew, "I'm really good in the lab, I've repliccated your published materials and methods, and it's not working, what am I doing wrong? And she shared with me her unpublished secrets.

    "You aren't really using guinea pigs, you are using rabbits?" After harvesting antibodies from female, injectate-harmed NZ rabbits, I let them **** with male rabbits and make babies. I have no idea why I did it, but those rabbits really loved ****ing. I live in a place where rabbits nibble at stuff. That's okay.
    Ever think about joining Mensa? I am not kidding. The consensus of the online Mensa forum is that Armstrong's drug testing record proves his innocence, and they could really use some of your knowledge.

  4. #129
    Senior Member colombo357's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,986
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
    Thanks. Such knowledge may be well-known among the competitive bicycling community, but I am looking for reputable sources that affirm the existence of the various methods of cheating those tests.
    The only reputable source in this case would have to be a rider who hasn't ever been caught for doping, has nothing to gain, and comes forward about his personal doping experience without writing a book about it.

    Ain't gonna happen.
    Last edited by colombo357; 09-03-12 at 02:19 AM.
    "I just googled triple crank set and i see what your saying. this bike has 9 of those "cranksets".
    "They are showing [the TDF of Versus] at 5 different times in the day. It doesn't say which one is the live one."

  5. #130
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Jacksonville Florida
    Posts
    206
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I read several days the statement from the governing agency- wish I'd clipped it for here.

    The methods were three fold according to them:


    1. Blood doping- i.e. the Transufusions I described above
    2. Cortisone- a pain killer, I think often injected, as Bernard Thevenet back in the '70's admitted to
    , and
    3. testosterone- not sure if that means steroids or what- some of you know his testicular condition so I have to wonder if he'd have some defense here.

    at any rate- the charges are NOT about stimulants, but other performance enhancing substances and techniques- the transfusions are not really detectable, like the stimulant testing- I'm not sure about the cortisone and testosterone
    but if others on the team were going to testify about a lot of use, then Lance could be on shaky ground I guess

  6. #131
    moth -----> flame Beaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    My Bikes
    11 CAAD 10-4, 07 Specialized Roubaix Comp, 98 Peugeot Horizon
    Posts
    5,908
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's a little known fact that bikeforums is an online feeder school for Mensa.

  7. #132
    powered by Racer Ex gsteinb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    teh Jersey
    Posts
    16,692
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Does one need to be a member of mensa to beat a drug test or to provide insight into how it occurs? It seems between Hamilton's book, Kimmage's book, Vogt's book, Millar's book and a host of articles and interviews it's pretty clear that the knowledge of how to dose or use masking agents is out there. This is not rocket science...just chemistry.

  8. #133
    Senior Member Shimagnolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Zang's Spur, CO
    Posts
    6,426
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by gsteinb View Post
    Does one need to be a member of mensa to beat a drug test or to provide insight into how it occurs? It seems between Hamilton's book, Kimmage's book, Vogt's book, Millar's book and a host of articles and interviews it's pretty clear that the knowledge of how to dose or use masking agents is out there. This is not rocket science...just chemistry.
    I recently read Vogt's book and Parkin's, and it is clear you don't always need chemistry when there are assorted ways to ensure the fluids that are tested by the lab did not come from the individual supposedly being tested.

  9. #134
    Senior Member mprelaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Cape Cod, Massachusetts
    Posts
    1,915
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
    Ever think about joining Mensa? I am not kidding. The consensus of the online Mensa forum is that Armstrong's drug testing record proves his innocence, and they could really use some of your knowledge.
    Just proves my long-held opinion that education and intelligence don't necessarily go together. There are such things as highly intelligent ignoramuses (ignorance being lack of sufficient information to come to an informed opinion).

  10. #135
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    15
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mprelaw View Post
    Just proves my long-held opinion that education and intelligence don't necessarily go together. There are such things as highly intelligent ignoramuses (ignorance being lack of sufficient information to come to an informed opinion).
    I think you are right. It is like having a computer with a high clock rate and bad software.

  11. #136
    Senior Member colombo357's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,986
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ApostateAbe View Post
    I think you are right. It is like having a computer with a high clock rate and bad software.
    Or like having a computer with a bad clock rate and high software. Yes?
    "I just googled triple crank set and i see what your saying. this bike has 9 of those "cranksets".
    "They are showing [the TDF of Versus] at 5 different times in the day. It doesn't say which one is the live one."

  12. #137
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    15
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by colombo357 View Post
    Or like having a computer with a bad clock rate and high software. Yes?
    As you prefer, but I take intelligence (IQ) to be more analogous to clock rate and software more analogous to knowledge.

  13. #138
    Upgrading my engine DXchulo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Reno
    Posts
    5,637
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Here's a good podcast on the background of the case:

    http://velocastcc.squarespace.com/ra...l-edition.html
    centuryperweek.blogspot.com

  14. #139
    Senior Member Shimagnolo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Zang's Spur, CO
    Posts
    6,426
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DXchulo View Post
    Here's a good podcast on the background of the case:

    http://velocastcc.squarespace.com/ra...l-edition.html
    They make an interesting point about the doping tests prior to LA's diagnosis; Testicular cancer causes a spike in testosterone levels which should have been flagged in the tests but that never happened.

  15. #140
    Upgrading my engine DXchulo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Reno
    Posts
    5,637
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Shimagnolo View Post
    They make an interesting point about the doping tests prior to LA's diagnosis; Testicular cancer causes a spike in testosterone levels which should have been flagged in the tests but that never happened.
    Here's an article on Jake Gibb, who may have been saved by a positive test: http://missoulian.com/sports/olympic...a4bcf887a.html
    centuryperweek.blogspot.com

  16. #141
    Upgrading my engine DXchulo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Reno
    Posts
    5,637
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Also, isn't it possible that instead of them missing the test or covering it up that Armstrong was taking masking agents to pass the test?
    centuryperweek.blogspot.com

  17. #142
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    15
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DXchulo View Post
    Here's a good podcast on the background of the case:

    http://velocastcc.squarespace.com/ra...l-edition.html
    Thanks. Very informative and disturbing. I hope to eventually come across a good defense of Lance Armstrong. I am starting to believe that Lance Armstrong is the Antichrist, and I don't even believe in the Christ.

  18. #143
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    264
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Equinox View Post
    If we are to believe the drug testing agency that Armstrong cheated without ever being caught, the only logical conclusion is that all of the negative tests are unreliable an ALL of the competitors doped. A negative test is meaningless, apparently.
    Yes, in a way. A more scientific way of putting it is that the negative predictive value (TN/(TN + FN)) of the doping test is relatively low, while the positive predictive value (TP/(TP+FP)) is relatively high - but not necessarily high in absolute terms.

    where:
    TN = true negative
    FN = false negative
    TP = true positive
    FP = false positive

    No test is going to be 100% accurate, which would mean that there are no false negatives and no false positives. When designing a blood doping assay that uses a binary classifier, the cut-point (i.e. the boundary between a "positive" and a "negative" result) would have been selected with the aim of minimizing false positives, for obvious reasons, with the result that the percentage of false negatives is relatively high.

    If you wanted, you could set the cut-point such that there are very few false negatives, i.e. the test would be much more "sensitive" in detecting cyclists who were doping. But then there would almost certainly be a lot of false positives and no-one would believe that a "positive" result actually meant anything. Such a test would have little credibility with anybody.

    If you really want to understand what I'm talking about, look up "receiver operating characteristic" in Wiki or somewhere. This is a very good article that I've used in giving a seminar to a group of statisitians:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receive...characteristic

    Note: I am not a statistician myself but I do run these sort of analyses. I'm often in the business of selecting cut-points when running correlative analyses on predictive biomarker data in oncology. Trust me, these are difficult and somewhat arbitrary decisions to make but there's no getting around making them if you want to have an assay with any actual utility. Sometimes I find myself defending a particular cut-point to journal reviewers, collaborators and the like. There are ways to optimize cut-point selection but these also have their limitations.
    Last edited by ChasH; 09-04-12 at 02:26 PM.

  19. #144
    Senior Member Eclectus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    My Bikes
    Cervelo RS, Specialized Stumpy, Schwinn 974
    Posts
    1,874
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks AA, but my IQ has dropped by 20 points. Interestingly, their tests have really good puzzles. You can study them, get the answers, and learn what they are thinking, and re-frame your thinking to attack the tests. If you take the time to learn, you can join Mensa.


    I have no idea why most Mensa members support Lance's innocence. What do I think? I don't know what he did. I know when I saw successful premeds drink caffeine, and drug-free I wasn't making the grade, but with it, I excelled. I learned from a pretty good biochemist (ultimately a billionaire biotech entrepreneur)that med students, interns and residents routinely took amphetimines in the 50s and early 60s to get through 36-48 hr no-sleep shifts. They learned to do what they had to, to get through grueling high-perforance regimens.

    Amphetimines didn't work for me, for last-minute cramming in college. I learned that I really needed to take notes, make margin notes ASAP after class, rewrite them at night, go to office hours for clarification, study my xme-day and previous notes everynight, make high enough grades to get access to library stacks, camp out, read amazingly informative papers dating back nearly a century (starting with recent papers, reading their references, and then backtracking their references), so I could understand the evolution of scientific thought. I once came upon a Science article with a two-image hemoglobin drawing, with an accompanying red-green pair of glasses. "Oh, 3D hemoglobin structure, this is AMAZING. I SEE! Wow!"

    Who comes up with this kind of stuff? Geniuses. Artistic scientists.

    Back to Lance. I could envision a poor Dallas-project-raised youngster being informed he could dramatically improve his performance using drugs. And then, being helped to employ drug-detection-defeating agents. I can see how the technology was existent.

    For example, I used Rosalyn Yallow's telephone-conversation methodology to get rabbits to produce antibodies to gastrin. I radiolabled the antibodies with Iodine-125. Centrifugation precipitated the gastrin, radiolabeled antibodies. We counted the precipitate. The gastrin left in the solute was really small. But you can majorly reduce circulating EPO by giving antibodies, and letting the immune system do the plasma removal.

    Could Lance, or any other cyclist, beat EPO detection? Totally. How about the effects of EPO, generating red blood cells? Easy enough to beat, by diluting rbcs with salt solutions or salt and albumin solutions, to enable high rbc counts to be "masked" in simple hematocrit counts.

    Did Lance use drugs, self-transfusions? I have no idea. In an era of rampant performance-enhancement, he was at the top in the TdF. He was a real athlete. Nobody says he didn't work really hard.

  20. #145
    moth -----> flame Beaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    My Bikes
    11 CAAD 10-4, 07 Specialized Roubaix Comp, 98 Peugeot Horizon
    Posts
    5,908
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think my IQ has dropped 20points just reading this thread.

  21. #146
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    15
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Beaker View Post
    I think my IQ has dropped 20points just reading this thread.
    Shoot. Does that mean you'll vote Republican?

  22. #147
    Senior Member himespau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    7,655
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Does Tyler Hamilton's book give any clues as to how they did it? There's a pro who has admitted to doping.

    I know when I was in high school for our physicals we needed to compete in sports we had to take a piss test. The guy next to me offered to buy my cup of piss, but it'd taken me like 15 minutes to work it out so I wasn't giving it up to anyone. I'm sure professional athletes have more stringent controls on them than that, but I heard of a pro football player getting busted with something called the Whizzinator.
    Punctuation is important. It's the difference between "I helped my uncle, Jack, off a horse" and "I helped my uncle Jack off a horse"


  23. #148
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Bossier City, La
    My Bikes
    70's Motobecane, 89 Centurion Ironman
    Posts
    611
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DXchulo View Post
    http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012...ughts-and.html

    Look under #1.

    Then you have the less scientific ways of passing tests like "donations" to the UCI.
    +100.... and tests are easier to pass when you have "TIME TO STUDY"

  24. #149
    Bicyclist
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    12
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Great thread. It's quite apparent that there are a whole host of methods to dope and avoid detection, and remember that Armstrong hired the best positive-test-evading expert in the world, Michele Ferrari, to help him exclusively. So they were probably using masking agents, techniques and maybe even PEDs that nobody else even knew about, much less could test for.

    But something not mentioned yet is that the premise that he never failed a test is false. From a review of Hamilton's book:

    The 2011 60 Minutes story on Armstrong’s doping reported that he had once failed a drug test in 2001 at the Tour of Switzerland, a story Hamilton backs up: “Yes, Lance Armstrong tested positive at the Tour of Switzerland.” He describes an encounter with Armstrong just after Stage 9 of the race. “You won’t ****ing believe this,” he allegedly told Hamilton. “I got popped for EPO.” According to the 60 Minutesinvestigation, the UCI stepped in after the positive test, requesting that “the matter go no further,” and then set up a meeting between the lab’s director, Armstrong, and team director Johan Bruyneel. The insinuation is clear: Lance was using connections within the UCI to help his cause. Hamilton describes a climate in which this doesn’t seem at all far-fetched. “Sometime after that, I remember Lance phoning Hein Verbruggen from the team bus ... and I was struck by the casual tone of the conversation. Lance was talking to the president of the UCI, the leader of the sport. But he may as well have been talking to a business partner, a friend.”
    The USADA has already indicated their suspicions of the UCI's involvement in protecting Armstrong. Who knows where this might go.

  25. #150
    Bicyclist
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    12
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by ChasH View Post
    Yes, in a way. A more scientific way of putting it is that the negative predictive value (TN/(TN + FN)) of the doping test is relatively low, while the positive predictive value (TP/(TP+FP)) is relatively high - but not necessarily high in absolute terms.

    where:
    TN = true negative
    FN = false negative
    TP = true positive
    FP = false positive

    No test is going to be 100% accurate, which would mean that there are no false negatives and no false positives. When designing a blood doping assay that uses a binary classifier, the cut-point (i.e. the boundary between a "positive" and a "negative" result) would have been selected with the aim of minimizing false positives, for obvious reasons, with the result that the percentage of false negatives is relatively high.

    If you wanted, you could set the cut-point such that there are very few false negatives, i.e. the test would be much more "sensitive" in detecting cyclists who were doping. But then there would almost certainly be a lot of false positives and no-one would believe that a "positive" result actually meant anything. Such a test would have little credibility with anybody.

    If you really want to understand what I'm talking about, look up "receiver operating characteristic" in Wiki or somewhere. This is a very good article that I've used in giving a seminar to a group of statisitians:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receive...characteristic

    Note: I am not a statistician myself but I do run these sort of analyses. I'm often in the business of selecting cut-points when running correlative analyses on predictive biomarker data in oncology. Trust me, these are difficult and somewhat arbitrary decisions to make but there's no getting around making them if you want to have an assay with any actual utility. Sometimes I find myself defending a particular cut-point to journal reviewers, collaborators and the like. There are ways to optimize cut-point selection but these also have their limitations.
    In other words, the tests are designed to be reliable for positives (if it returns positive, it's almost certainly a true positive), at the price of often being unreliable for negatives (a negative says very little about whether the subject is truly negative).

    Further, the cut-points are known to the riders' doctors, so they can design regimens that allow them to dope without testing positive. There is a plethora of evidence that this is exactly what happens, especially for the rich riders like Armstrong who can afford the best doctors.

Page 6 of 71 FirstFirst ... 456781656 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •