Off Topic Cafe If it doesn't belong in any of the other forums. Post all Off Topic stuff here.

Lance Armstrong to be banned from cycling

Thread Tools
 
Old 08-24-2012, 11:40 AM
  #11  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
faithofadragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: tacos
Posts: 9,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Vehicle: 2000 Elantra
Default

let him keep the sh*t



put a * in the rule books



call it good
Old 08-24-2012, 12:07 PM
  #12  
Senior Member
 
Tibbi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Vehicle: MC + RD2 + AW11 + 944 = 4x Win
Default

Originally Posted by radu_rd2
Of course there are specific rules, and they pertain to blood/urine samples testing positive. The issue here is whether the USADA has the authority to take away his international competition wins (it was Tour de France not Tour de Florida). It boils down to whether the WADA (World Anti Doping Agency) will back USADA or not. (Though it's starting to look like they will).


I do see articles now that state they have blood samples that are "consistent" with doping. There none of the above that I had seen this morning, but (rules aside) how do you test for doping? Saying he has an elevated red blood count?! I mean, you can throw around the word "consistent" but in all reality how many other causes could produce the same results? Admittedly my knowledge in this filed is slim, but it just seems like he's being used as a whipping boy in the name of the anit-doping.



Again, could be wrong but I'm not reading anything conclusive and I don't see how it could be.
Old 08-24-2012, 12:50 PM
  #13  
Senior Member
 
radu_rd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Vehicle: 2006 Pontiac GTO
Default

First of all I think you are using the very broad term "doping" when you actually mean the much more specific "blood doping". Traditionally "doping" means using any kind of banned substance or technique like blood transfusions. Most banned substances can be tested for directly.



Blood doping is hard to detect directly because there is no foreign substance.. But if your blood contains 5x the amount of red cells that normal (severely elevated red count), then yeah, that's a very good indication and it's "consistent" with doping. Not sure why you are outraged at them looking at the red count. How many causes could produce severely elevated red counts? I suspect not very many lol Probably short of some rare diseases which would probably prevent you from even competing in the first place. Also if you are using a substance like EPO or CERA to increase your count, these substances can be detected (there can be slight differences between the natural and the synthetic variants of these substances).



It's similar to how they test women for testosterone. Yeah, it's a natural hormone, and it's natural to have it in certain quantities. But if it's 10x more than normal, GTFO
Old 08-24-2012, 01:03 PM
  #14  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
faithofadragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: tacos
Posts: 9,533
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Vehicle: 2000 Elantra
Default

Originally Posted by radu_rd2
Blood doping is hard to detect directly because there is no foreign substance.. But if your blood contains 5x the amount of red cells that normal (severely elevated red count)


not following you around and arguing with you i sware



but cant cancer cause raised red blood cells?
Old 08-24-2012, 01:13 PM
  #15  
Senior Member
 
radu_rd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Vehicle: 2006 Pontiac GTO
Default

Probably, so? Are you worried about all the undiagnosed leukemia sufferers who are in good enough shape to compete in a world-class athletic event?



Exceptions are made all the time for diagnosed illnesses and for drugs that are medically prescribed and necessary.



P.S. I think cancer does fit my clause of "Probably short of some rare diseases which would probably prevent you from even competing in the first place"
Old 08-24-2012, 01:39 PM
  #16  
Administrator
 
majik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɯooɹpǝq ɹnoʎ
Posts: 13,943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Vehicle: ǝdnoɔ sısǝuǝƃ
Default

Radu - I think what he's implying is that the cancer Lance Armstrong had could explain elevated red blood cells that would be consistent with "doping" results.
Old 08-24-2012, 01:44 PM
  #17  
Senior Member
 
radu_rd2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Vehicle: 2006 Pontiac GTO
Default

Ah, well the key word is "had" in that he did not have cancer when he was winning Tours. Also I really doubt testicular cancer causes elevated red blood cell count (only blood cancers and other blood disorders would do that).



In any case, like I said if findings can be explained by diagnosed illnesses exceptions can be made. I don't think Armstrong ever tried to use that argument haha
Old 08-24-2012, 02:01 PM
  #18  
Senior Member
 
Tibbi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 4,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Vehicle: MC + RD2 + AW11 + 944 = 4x Win
Default

Originally Posted by radu_rd2
First of all I think you are using the very broad term "doping" when you actually mean the much more specific "blood doping".
Fair enough but given context slightly anal retentive, I can play along though.







Originally Posted by radu_rd2
Not sure why you are outraged at them looking at the red count.
I never said I was







Originally Posted by radu_rd2
But if your blood contains 5x the amount of red cells that normal (severely elevated red count), then yeah, that's a very good indication and it's "consistent" with doping. It's similar to how they test women for testosterone............... Yeah, it's a natural hormone, and it's natural to have it in certain quantities. But if it's 10x more than normal, GTFO
I think throwing around the idea he had severalfold the red blood count is a bit extreme IF there is no proof of the sort. Anyway to get numbers like that he'd have to shoot a fairly large amount of highly concentrated blood, which his team would have known about if not caused. If I'm understanding the situation, he is the one suspect, not his training team. (again, not really following the story)







Originally Posted by majik
Radu - I think what he's implying is that the cancer Lance Armstrong had could explain elevated red blood cells that would be consistent with "doping" results.
In the name of fairness, if blood results from well after recovery are the suspect batch, that I can easily see as suspect.







I see a big lack of fact here and a lot of speculation, and funny enough that was my original criticism.

Unless we see real facts (which probably exist I'm just too lazy to look for them) I say innocent till proven guilty.
Old 08-24-2012, 03:37 PM
  #19  
Senior Member
 
pas1216's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Vehicle: 1991 Impulse RS
Default

Does it suck for Lance - yup



Am I surprised they found an athlete that takes performance enhancing drugs? - not one bit (I think MOST of them do in one way or another)



Do I care - not really



Old 08-24-2012, 06:49 PM
  #20  
Senior Member
 
HyundaiKitCoupe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Washington D.C.
Posts: 11,992
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Vehicle: Hyundai Tiburon FX
Default

No. That is not a good argument.


No it's not, but it is possible. Cancer treatment and chemotherapy cost tens of thousands of dollars. In any case, they have 10 witnesses testifying against him.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:13 AM.