Pantani's broken leg & hematocrit
wsc...@udel.edu
that came out after Pantani broke his leg in Milan-Turin. Weren't
there reports that his hematocrit was very high (like in the 60s) when
first admitted to the hospital but then collapsed to near anemic levels
during his stay?
Patricio Carlos
aplastic anaemia due to antibodies against Epo. This is a side-effect
of Epo use but the rate varies with the type of Epo (Aranesp vs. Eprex
vs ProCrit etc). These antibodies stop the Epo - both your own natural
Epo and the injected stuff - from working so you don't produce enough
red blood cells.
Jim Flom
news:1125377947.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Who doubts Pantani was doping when he won the Tour? Oh but wait -- he isn't
Lance so we'll honor the memory of the warrior poet, and let his B samples
rest in peace. .
trg
8W3Re.220157$HI.136168@edtnps84...
Nah, it's just that we've already busted Pantani. And no one is looking into
Virenque's B samples to see if he was doping when he won one of his record
seven KOM jerseys cause we got him too. After we take down Lance, we'll make
a statue for him. We love fatal character flaws. It allows us to feels
superior to someone who could kick all our asses using just one leg. Ullrich
better watch out, we got him on the XTC bust, but that only counts half,
since it isn't a performance enhancing drug (at least not until they add
hugging as an olympic sport). So before he starts winning too much, he'd do
well to remember that we've got his B sample chilling...
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
news:8W3Re.220157$HI.136168@edtnps84...
> "Patricio Carlos" <pg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1125377947.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> Regarding his anaemia, he did end up with what was almost certainly
>> aplastic anaemia due to antibodies against Epo. This is a side-effect
>> of Epo use but the rate varies with the type of Epo (Aranesp vs. Eprex
>> vs ProCrit etc). These antibodies stop the Epo - both your own natural
>> Epo and the injected stuff - from working so you don't produce enough
>> red blood cells.
>
> Who doubts Pantani was doping when he won the Tour?
Nobody, because he wasn't 'Lance' so he didn't have a bunch of American
liars to make up excuses.
Donald Munro
>> Who doubts Pantani was doping when he won the Tour?
Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
> Nobody, because he wasn't 'Lance' so he didn't have a bunch of American
> liars to make up excuses.
You mean 'LANCE'.
Montesquiou
"Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <nos...@nospam.nl> a écrit dans le message de news:
71e0e$43159f5c$57d27841$19...@news.versatel.nl...
> "Jim Flom " <jimREM...@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:8W3Re.220157$HI.136168@edtnps84...
>> "Patricio Carlos" <pg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1125377947.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>> Regarding his anaemia, he did end up with what was almost certainly
>>> aplastic anaemia due to antibodies against Epo. This is a side-effect
>>> of Epo use but the rate varies with the type of Epo (Aranesp vs. Eprex
>>> vs ProCrit etc). These antibodies stop the Epo - both your own natural
>>> Epo and the injected stuff - from working so you don't produce enough
>>> red blood cells.
>>
>> Who doubts Pantani was doping when he won the Tour?
>
> Nobody, because he wasn't 'Lance' so he didn't have a bunch of American
> liars to make up excuses.
>
Are you sure we live on the same planet ?
Read : Pantani and the Giro in 1999 ......
You can support Lance if you want, it is OK with us, but pls we are not any
Fox-News television-viewers.
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
news:4315a554$0$27402$8fcf...@news.wanadoo.fr...
>
> "Jonathan v.d. Sluis" <nos...@nospam.nl> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 71e0e$43159f5c$57d27841$19...@news.versatel.nl...
>> "Jim Flom " <jimREM...@telus.net> wrote in message
>> news:8W3Re.220157$HI.136168@edtnps84...
>>> "Patricio Carlos" <pg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1125377947.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Regarding his anaemia, he did end up with what was almost certainly
>>>> aplastic anaemia due to antibodies against Epo. This is a side-effect
>>>> of Epo use but the rate varies with the type of Epo (Aranesp vs. Eprex
>>>> vs ProCrit etc). These antibodies stop the Epo - both your own natural
>>>> Epo and the injected stuff - from working so you don't produce enough
>>>> red blood cells.
>>>
>>> Who doubts Pantani was doping when he won the Tour?
>>
>> Nobody, because he wasn't 'Lance' so he didn't have a bunch of American
>> liars to make up excuses.
>>
>
> Are you sure we live on the same planet ?
>
> Read : Pantani and the Giro in 1999 ......
Indeed. In Pantani's case, a rising hematocrit level is taken as proof of
doping use. Nobody complains about false positive rates, no, there can only
be one explanation - the man was guilty. No true positive test, no court
decision or anything like that. Only when Armstrong or Hamilton are
implicated, these things become important. They can fail six tests in a row
and still be called innocent because the bottles were labelled with a B.
Curtis L. Russell
<nos...@nospam.nl> wrote:
>
>Nobody, because he wasn't 'Lance' so he didn't have a bunch of American
>liars to make up excuses.
You really need to go and read the Cycle Sport issue on Pantani's
death. His family and fans have conspiracies coming from all sorts of
directions, from who set him up to who had him killed.
It pretty much reduces your argument to one of two: there are more
American liars than Italian liars - which might be true of most
sports, but not cycling - or the American liars are more believable.
Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...
N. Silver
>> Who doubts Pantani was doping when he won the Tour?
> Nobody, because he wasn't 'Lance' so he didn't have a bunch of American
> liars to make up excuses.
>> Oh but wait -- he isn't Lance so we'll honor the memory of the warrior
>> poet, and let his B samples rest in peace. .
Aw, did baby got up on the wrong side of the bed?
Does it stick in baby's craw that this little man controlled
the Tour for 7, count 'em, 7 consecutive years? That
its riders have been reduced to worshiping at the feet
of the master. All the king's horses and all the king's
men couldn't put poor Ullrich together again.
N. Silver
> Indeed. In Pantani's case, a rising hematocrit level is taken as proof of
> doping use. Nobody complains about false positive rates, no, there can
> only be one explanation - the man was guilty. No true positive test, no
> court decision or anything like that. Only when Armstrong or Hamilton are
> implicated, these things become important. They can fail six tests in a
> row and still be called innocent because the bottles were labelled with a
> B.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, we ignore that
no protocols were followed, and also ignore possible
inadvertent contamination or even contamination of
B samples by untrustworthy lab associates, etc., that
we concede that by today's standards Armstrong is
guilty of doping in 1999.
If all this were true, then what would it amount to?
It would amount to the fact that in 1999, he was not guilty;
that his wins can never be taken away from him; that those
who broke the story understood the he-said-she-said
nature of their evidence; that an unprecedented witch hunt
was embarked on by those who'd rather diminish their own
Tour than give Armstrong his due; that enraged, jealous
and desperate Frenchmen have reached back into the
distant racing past merely to show their champion-of -
champions has clay feet.
Montesquiou
"N. Silver" <mat...@worldnet.att.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
WtiRe.5074$kn4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
>
>> Indeed. In Pantani's case, a rising hematocrit level is taken as proof of
>> doping use. Nobody complains about false positive rates, no, there can
>> only be one explanation - the man was guilty. No true positive test, no
>> court decision or anything like that. Only when Armstrong or Hamilton are
>> implicated, these things become important. They can fail six tests in a
>> row and still be called innocent because the bottles were labelled with a
>> B.
>
> Suppose, for the sake of argument, we ignore that
> no protocols were followed,
and also ignore possible
> inadvertent contamination or even contamination of
> B samples by untrustworthy lab associates, etc., that
> we concede that by today's standards Armstrong is
> guilty of doping in 1999.
>
The problem is that EPO was baned in 1999
It is not a supposition, but a fact.
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
news:WtiRe.5074$kn4....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
>
>> Indeed. In Pantani's case, a rising hematocrit level is taken as proof of
>> doping use. Nobody complains about false positive rates, no, there can
>> only be one explanation - the man was guilty. No true positive test, no
>> court decision or anything like that. Only when Armstrong or Hamilton are
>> implicated, these things become important. They can fail six tests in a
>> row and still be called innocent because the bottles were labelled with a
>> B.
>
> Suppose, for the sake of argument, we ignore that
> no protocols were followed, and also ignore possible
> inadvertent contamination or even contamination of
> B samples by untrustworthy lab associates, etc., that
> we concede that by today's standards Armstrong is
> guilty of doping in 1999.
>
> If all this were true, then what would it amount to?
> It would amount to the fact that in 1999, he was not guilty;
If he wasn't guilty with EPO in his body in 1999, then so would anyone else
using the drug before him...
Some drugs are banned even if there is no test, you know.
> that his wins can never be taken away from him; that those
> who broke the story understood the he-said-she-said
> nature of their evidence;
...and six urine samples with traces of EPO in it. You don't have to say
anything about that.
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
news:l3bbh1hmse9fgpkr6...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 14:15:23 +0200, "Jonathan v.d. Sluis"
> <nos...@nospam.nl> wrote:
>
>>
>>Nobody, because he wasn't 'Lance' so he didn't have a bunch of American
>>liars to make up excuses.
>
> You really need to go and read the Cycle Sport issue on Pantani's
> death. His family and fans have conspiracies coming from all sorts of
> directions, from who set him up to who had him killed.
So, what country are they blaming? Have they shown their extensive knowledge
of history yet by referring to world war II as proof of frustrations against
Pantani? Perhaps the millions of Italians who have been re-naming their
pasta have more fodder now to blame some other country for what happened to
their cycling star. Tell me - what nationality is to blame for Pantani's
death? Because I want to know what adjective to use for insulting
politicians when I go to Italy.
N. Silver
> N. Silver wrote:
>> If all this were true, then what would it amount to?
>> It would amount to the fact that in 1999, he was not guilty;
> If he wasn't guilty with EPO in his body in 1999, then so would anyone
> else using the drug before him...
You are missing the point, sir. Maybe it is because you
have the same biases as the officials involved.
It is irresponsible for officials, organizations,
labs, etc. to release information they know,
in advance, can never be verified or resolved.
You are but a poster on the Internet and are
entitled to your prejudices. Ask yourself,
if you were an official, what purpose would
be served by releasing such scandalous
information?
> Some drugs are banned even if there is no test, you know.
Bulletin: None of the top 10 riders on the Tour were clean.
>> that his wins can never be taken away from him; that those
>> who broke the story understood the he-said-she-said
>> nature of their evidence;
> ...and six urine samples with traces of EPO in it. You don't have to say
> anything about that.
Beliefs aside, that can never be established as fact.
Philo
>well to remember that we've got his B sample chilling
Or do we? Remember there were other cyclists who tested positive in
the virtual '99 test. The names of the others have not been released.
Nobody at that Tour is beyond the virtual conviction at the point.
Neither do we know if Ullrich's samples were even tested, so the
absence of a virtual positive is not a clear pass.
Why can't they just devise a test to see if the samples are stable over
time? Plenty of people take EPO legally. Store their urine and blood
and measure the changes over time. Why do drug testing agencies always
operate outside the norm when developing tests?
-Philo
Jonathan v.d. Sluis
> Jonathan v.d. Sluis wrote:
>> N. Silver wrote:
>
>>> If all this were true, then what would it amount to?
>>> It would amount to the fact that in 1999, he was not guilty;
>
>> If he wasn't guilty with EPO in his body in 1999, then so would anyone
>> else using the drug before him...
>
> You are missing the point, sir. Maybe it is because you
> have the same biases as the officials involved.
Sure, if you try hard enough, you can make me French too.
Ewoud Dronkert
> Neither do we know if Ullrich's samples were even tested
http://www.memoire-du-cyclisme.net/eta_tdf_1994_2003/tdf1999.php#Les%20partants
--
E. Dronkert