Cyclingnews article concerning the percentage of pro peleton doping... I wonder how credible this is. To me it sounds credible if for no other reason than the researcher admits his data doesn't constitute true "positives." Seems like a pretty good indicator of what's what in the pro peleton, though. I'm not surprised, just surprised to see our suspicions confirmed by (I suppose) an unbiased, competent source:

The director of the WADA-accredited Swiss Laboratory for Analysis of Doping in Lausanne, Switzerland, has told Belgian newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws that he believed there was still widespread doping in the Tour de France this year. "47 out of 189 riders raced on blood transfusions or EPO," Martial Saugy alleged. "We have been able to show this from the samples taken at the health controls."

Still, Saugy added that these test results did not fulfil the requirements to be declared as 'positive'. "It is appalling, but we find so many test results that undoubtedly point to manipulation," he continued. "But there is a big difference between a suspicious sample and one that can be declared positive."

Saugy also found indications for the use of testosterone and growth hormone. "Especially the latter product is very popular at the moment," he added. "As soon as there will be a water-proof test for growth hormone, it will show that 80 percent [of the peloton] is taking it. I am disillusioned: the use of growth hormone is as bad as was the use of EPO and blood doping in the 90's."

"But there is a big difference between a suspicious sample and one that can be declared positive."

Didn't Saugy just ignore that difference? And if the WADA labs are so bad a proving doping where's the outcry for them to do the job they were chartered to perform.

By the way, I just found evidence of life on Saturn. Really. I can't prove it, but trust me, the evidence is overwhelming. I can't share it with you due to privacy concerns, but it's true. Really. I mean it.

its not necessarily the labs fault. The lab is given a threshold for non positive versus positive. What this study says is that the riders/teams are doping in strategic ways not to get caught.

Didn't Saugy just ignore that difference?

NO! His point is there's an awful lot of evidence, not enough to constitute the "proof" required to suspend an individual, but enough to draw conclusions about the doping habits of the TdF peleton as a whole.

To use your Saturn example, if a credible scientist showed data supporting the existence of life on Saturn, I'd tend to believe it even if the lifeforms themselves hadn't been spotted. Saugy has the data to support his claim. (I guess. I haven't actually seen the data, but 47 of 189 blood manipulation is pretty darned quantitative. I can't think of a reason he would lie about this.)

The pro riders have found ways to skate around the boundaries of the rules -- and in some cases not. Then they get caught. In the 2007 TdF, a few got caught and a bunch didn't.

Exactly. Consider the T/E ratio, the mean value of which is normally 1:1 to 1:1.5 for healthy, adult males. And it's a very small percentage (<1%) that exceed 6:1, the old standard for a positive test. The new standard is 4:1, but it's pretty easy to see how one could use testosterone and produce a suspicious test that is not positive.

its not necessarily the labs fault. The lab is given a threshold for non positive versus positive. What this study says is that the riders/teams are doping in strategic ways not to get caught.

This ties right into the concept of "Playing the Game".

And remember back when there was talk about how a large percentage of the pros are perscribed Asthma sufferers.

To use your Saturn example, if a credible scientist showed data ... (I guess. I haven't actually seen the data, but 47 of 189 blood manipulation is pretty darned quantitative. I can't think of a reason he would lie about this.)

Right, you haven't seen it because it was never released. Saugy produced no more data to support his conclusion than did I, yet you believe him because he supports what you already believe while my conclusions are contrary to your beliefs so you discount them without proof. 47 out of 189 is quantitative, but since Saugy doesn't show the data that led to the 47 number it's just putting a value on a made up result.

47 out of 189 is quantitative, but since Saugy doesn't show the data that led to the 47 number it's just putting a value on a made up result.

Well it could be made up, and it could be real. For that matter, even if data were presented it could be made up or real.

From what I understand, the Swiss lab is the one in charge of the new longitudinal (quarterly?) health checks so if anyone is able to discern abnormality in riders or a given riders samples, it is probably this guy.

Didn't Saugy just ignore that difference? And if the WADA labs are so bad a proving doping where's the outcry for them to do the job they were chartered to perform.

By the way, I just found evidence of life on Saturn. Really. I can't prove it, but trust me, the evidence is overwhelming. I can't share it with you due to privacy concerns, but it's true. Really. I mean it.

Ok Copernicus,

It is important to understand that the bar for a positive test is artificially high. Even a HCT level of over 50% is not a positive test, even though it is rarely achieved in the normal population. Instead a rider is asked to sit for 2 weeks until his level returns to normal.

I would assume smiler parameters that despite not triggering a positive test, raise a high level of suspicion when looked at as a group. At the start of the tour Landis had a hematocrit level of 44.8 percent 10 stages into the Tour, his hematocrit had increased to 48.2. There is a very limited number of ways to achieve this, none of them natural. I would image that Saugy saw similar movements with his sampling of tour riders. Certainly not natural but also not a positive test.

HGH use raises the level of other hormones in the body. WADA has not approved a test to nail one guy on it but when most of the peloton comes back with elevate Nadrolone levels it looks a little strange.

There is also the measurement of new vs old red blood cells, a very likely sign of doping. Unfortunately it does not trigger a positive test, even though it is very rare, if not completely unheard of, for this to be naturally occurring. When you see a group of people who as a group have a abnormal ratio of new/old then it would be easy to assume that many of them are blood doping.

OEven a HCT level of over 50% is not a positive test, even though it is rarely achieved in the normal population.

I don't know how you define "rarely" but HCT 50% is only about 1 standard deviation above the norm so it would be expected that about 16% of the population has higher values. I don't consider that rare.

I don't know how you define "rarely" but HCT 50% is only about 1 standard deviation above the norm so it would be expected that about 16% of the population has higher values. I don't consider that rare.

Could you provide a source for this? Are you saying that 16% of the population is higher then 50? From what I see average HCT levels are in the mid 40's for men, with not a tremendous amount of deviation. Beside, if a rider can legit show that they are "Naturally" higher then 50% the can get an exemption like Cuengo

Otherwise, my post was not about the validity of the 50% speed limit, it was about the various markers that could show doping, especially if you look at a group of people rather then an individual. A jump of 10% in during 10 days of competition cannot be explained in a normal manner. It is especially strange in Floyds case as the higher level was taken the morning after a rest day, when one would assume a rider would not be dehydrated.

I would assume smiler parameters that despite not triggering a positive test, raise a high level of suspicion when looked at as a group. At the start of the tour Landis had a hematocrit level of 44.8 percent 10 stages into the Tour, his hematocrit had increased to 48.2. There is a very limited number of ways to achieve this, none of them natural.

Dehydration increases hematocrit.

I'm sure testosterone & hgh is huge in any sport, even cycling. Blood doping may be on the downfall...

Could you provide a source for this? Are you saying that 16% of the population is higher then 50? From what I see average HCT levels are in the mid 40's for men, with not a tremendous amount of deviation. Beside, if a rider can legit show that they are "Naturally" higher then 50% the can get an exemption like Cuengo

I stand corrected the 50% limit represents 2 sigma from the mean. http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/7135.0.html
but that still means 5% of the population will have natural levels above this. I still wouldn't term that as rare.

You know alot of riders/DS scream at the labs, talk about how they are wronged, how horrible and crappy the labs are, after only the Americans, how innocent they are, etc... I know the labs aren't perfect, but I think most of the time they are right... and the poor athlete can't understand those positive tests and then when the tests don't catch them, the police uncover bags of blood and still they all deny, deny, deny....... kind of like Basso only "attempted' to dope with all those bags of blood....

I tend to believe what this guy, Saugy is saying....

I stand corrected the 50% limit represents 2 sigma from the mean. http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/7135.0.html
but that still means 5% of the population will have natural levels above this. I still wouldn't term that as rare.

I would consider 5% rare,

but regardless of the semantics the validity of the 50% threshold was not the reason for my post or this thread. I would think that there are many markers, beyond what WADA tests for, that indicate doping. It is these markers and variations that make up the core of CSC, T-Mobile, and Slipstream's in house programs. I would think Mr. Saugy opinion of what these markers mean is more experienced then you or I.

I stand corrected the 50% limit represents 2 sigma from the mean. http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/7135.0.html
but that still means 5% of the population will have natural levels above this. I still wouldn't term that as rare.

I've had 4 blood tests in the past 2.5 years, hematocrit level: 48,49,50,50. Never above 50, but right at the limit.

Now why can't I cycle like Cunego :)

I've had 4 blood tests in the past 2.5 years, hematocrit level: 48,49,50,50. Never above 50, but right at the limit.

Now why can't I cycle like Cunego :)


Maybe 'cause you're not using PEDs? :D

Right, you haven't seen it because it was never released. Saugy produced no more data to support his conclusion than did I, yet you believe him because he supports what you already believe while my conclusions are contrary to your beliefs so you discount them without proof. 47 out of 189 is quantitative, but since Saugy doesn't show the data that led to the 47 number it's just putting a value on a made up result.

asgelle,

It was released at least to WADA since Saugy's lab is one of those WADA uses, and there would be no other reason for him to perform the tests. Naturally he couldn't release it publicly because the privacy concerns you downplay are real.

How do you know your conclusions are contrary to my beliefs? Maybe I believe in life on Saturn. :D Of course it doesn't matter because you're not an extraterrestrial biologist (I realize I have no proof of what I just said, and maybe you really are). OTOH, Mr. Saugy actually is a professional paid to analyze blood and urine samples for evidence of doping. That's why I think he's credible. Like I said, I don't know why he would lie about this.

Why do you think the "47 of 189" statistic is made up. Is there evidence that Mr. Saugy's lab has made up info in the past? Is there a reason he might choose to do so?