Following material copied from Cyclingnews Forum ;
Originally Posted by Merckx index 
Maybe. But LMG, you were the one who pointed out to me that riders could start in the off season with very small amounts of blood withdrawn/transfused, and work up. 3% of total blood volume is 150-200 ml., one could certainly begin with that or less. One could also get a significant PE effect with volumes on that order.
If it is a game-changer, I think it will catch riders not during the off-season, but when they transfuse before a major race or GT stage, without an immediately preceding withdrawal. I think that's when they're most vulnerable.
But also keep in mind that riders are strongly opposed to this CO test, they claim, correctly or not, that it may be detrimental to their performance. This test has been around for a long time, I think they need a better one.
i resisted responding b/c it's hard to do so without getting into the nitty gritty of how i think autologous transfusions occur and that would turn this into the longest post ever. you are correct, i implied that if you were exercising extreme caution (not necessarily the case) you could begin an autologous transfusion cycle with small amounts but the goal would still be to pair withdraw/reinfusion/dilution/microdosing in such a way as to avoid detection and gradually build up banked blood volumes of a full unit or more. IOW, always withdraw slightly more than you reinfuse and correct a little quicker with microdosing - if you do it right there aren't any big withdraws to cover up and there's hardly even a need to dodge DCO's. 
tHb-mass makes reinfusing that banked blood in larger amounts during a peak/priority event nearly impossible - not the case at present.
3% increases are seen over a longer timeline - not suddenly right before an event or in the middle of a stage race. i would think that when cross referenced with retics, 150-200 mL of whole blood (approx 30g Hb-mass) would be enough to get you into trouble.
could a rider transfuse less than 150 mL and get away with it? possibly. would that result in noticeable PE? yep, some. would a talented athlete unwilling to take those measures now be able to compete? maybe, but we're getting a lot closer. it's reasonable to think that risk reward will shift in a measurable way and the graph below (from OP SoS articles) suggests that the even small innovations can act as an effective limiter. mass measurements force some to think about whether or not the benefits of such small transfusions are no longer worth the risk.
also, tHb-mass irregualarities are a stronger and more defensible position for authorities pursuing a case of ABP abnormalities than we have at present. based upon the independent observer report last summer i'd say that the UCI is stuck in no man's land at the moment. they're commited to the ABP but not nearly enough for it to make a profound difference. new and better parameters are needed and sampling is too infrequent and predictable. at the same time they appear to have diverted resources away from testing blood and urine for specific substances. some see it as convenient negligence but it might just be a difficult period of transition. i honestly don't know.
__________________
"In great attempts it is even glorious to fail" -V Lombardi
Last edited by lean,mean,&green; Today at 17:08.
What is going to happen in the Giro & TDF this year ?
No comments:
Post a Comment