"The deadline for your Q3 2010 Whereabouts Filing is tomorrow June 30, 2010.
USADA’s office hours are from 8 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. (MST). USADA will not be available to assist athletes with their username or password information after business hours. To ensure your success in completing your Q3 2010 Whereabouts Filing prior to the June 30th deadline, we encourage you to log on immediately to complete your USADA pool requirements in advance of the June 30th deadline.
To submit your Q3 2010 Whereabouts Filing, you will need to log into your USADA Online Account at https://www.usantidoping.org/athletes/login.aspx. If you have lost or forgotten your log-in information, please do not hesitate to contact USADA."
ME to USADA:
"..Athlete's residence is a single-family multi-story home with primary point of entry at front (NORTH) of house on first floor. However, there is NO functional doorbell or other notification system anywhere at the residence. Therefore, it is crucial that the DCO knock FORCEFULLY and REPEATEDLY on the front door in order to attract the attention of a resident. If unsuccessful, DCO should attempt to raise the athlete by phone (xxx) xxx-xxxx in case he is far from the front door and does not hear the knocking. Alternatively, DCO can circle to the rear (SOUTH) of the house, and identifying the second-floor bedroom window on the RIGHT (EAST) side of the home, should begin throwing pennies or other coins at the window in an attempt to roust the athlete, or otherwise attract his attention."
–Hvad er der sket i senere år?- What happened in recent years?
»Doping er kriminaliseret i en grad, der er vanvittig. "Doping is criminalized in a degree which is crazy. En af de mest ydmygende situationer, jeg har været ude for, har været her i mit eget hus. One of the most humiliating situations I have experienced have been here in my own house. Jeg vågnede kl. I woke up at. halv otte og gik på toilettet. half past seven and walked to the bathroom. Umiddelbart efter kom der en dopingkontrollant. Jeg var i gang med at koge havregrød ovenpå. Immediately after came a doping inspector. I was starting to cook oatmeal on top. Jeg kunne ikke tisse. I could not pee. Jeg sagde, nu spiser jeg min morgenmad, og så må vi vente lidt og tage blodprøven først. I said, now I eat my breakfast, and then we wait and take the blood test first. Den store tysker – en pensioneret mand på 60, der kom fra Monaco – kigger på mig, mens jeg spiser morgenmad og begynder at kommentere indretningen af huset. The big German - a retired man of 60 who came from Monaco - look at me while I eat breakfast and begin to comment on the layout of the house. Jeg siger, nu skal jeg på toilettet: jeg skal ikke tisse, jeg skal skide, siger jeg. I say now I am on the toilet: I will not pee, I'll shit, I say. Nåmen, det er ikke noget problem. Naam, it is no problem. Han skal bare kigge på. He just need to look at. Det skal du bare ikke, siger jeg. It just does not, I say. Jo jo, jeg står herovre i døren og kigger. Well yes, I stand over here in the doorway and looks. Det er en af de mest ydmygende situationer. It is one of the most humiliating situations.At sidde og skide i sit eget hus og blive overvåget.«To sit and shit in his own house and be monitored." Link to original article here.
Previously here at Pappillon, we discussed the trending topic of gene doping and its possible impact on modern sports. While gene doping has been a hot topic of discussion since WADA banned the practice in 2003 - a year before the human genome was decoded - there is still no evidence of an athlete successfully employing the practice to enhance performance illicitly. Some experts suspected that the 2008 Summer Olympics would be the so-called birth place of gene doping, and scientists meekly flagged a warning of a test to catch cheaters. While these tests remain elusive still today, media attention turned to the topic of gene doping once again during this year's Winter Olympics.
Remember our discussion of the experimental drugs GW1516 and AICAR - two orally active agents that genetically switch-on an endurance gene signature discovered in 2008 by Dr. Ronald Evans, a geneticist at the Salk Institude for Biological Studies in San Diego, California? Recently, journalist Ashley Fantz interviewed Dr. Evans for a CNN Health article, The Next Frontier in Athletic Doping - Genes. Here's what was reported:
"I got hundreds of phone calls from everywhere -- a lot of athletes wanting to get it," said Evans, whose research was intended to treat muscle wasting and obesity disorders.
He is accustomed to controversy. In 2005, he showed the world "Marathon Mouse," a rodent whose genes he tweaked so that it was resistant to weight gain and could run twice the normal distance of other mice.
"At first, I was bothered by the reaction," he said. "It's not what we might ideally want to think sport is, but the reality is athletes will do anything to perform better."
I don't know of any particular case where a person has gene doped but the technology is here. If there isn't a case I can point to today, there will be soon.
--Dr. Theodore Friedmann, World Anti-Doping Agency
Last year, Pierre Bordry, the head of France's anti-doping agency (Agence Francaise de Lutte contre le Dopage) told Le Monde that he was "convinced that two new products have been used during the Tour, two drugs that are not yet on the market."
CNN spoke with Bordry, who reiterated his belief, but did not respond when pressed to name those drugs.
There was no detection method for Aicar at the time of the 2009 Tour de France bicycle race, according to WADA spokesman Frederic Donze. If there has been a test developed since then, it's WADA' s policy not to reveal that, he said, adding that the French anti-doping agency has probably stored samples of the 2009 Tour for possible later re-analysis.
"I heard that Aicar had been used, but I have no idea if that's true," Evans said.
To read interviews like those with Evans, it would seem that Pappillon's initial commentary on gene doping is in alignment with some of the best minds in the field. And while no athlete has yet been proved to have gene-doped, it's crucial to ask now what can we do to catch any previous, current, or future gene-dopers? Unfortunately, the answer is complicated.
For the record, there is currently no way of detecting genetic doping. Some of the tests being engineered right now are aimed at finding immediate, direct evidence such as genetic virus fragments and telltale proteins. Looking ahead further, a test is envisioned that will identify the specific patterns of individual drugs, or unique gene expressions. At present, research on these tests is confined to animal studies.
Exceeding the importance of these trial tests though, is the fact that in order to see if a genetic change has occurred, a muscle biopsy must be taken. If you've never seen a biopsy being done I highly encourage you to watch the video below. The procedure is highly invasive, requiring an incision be made in the skin so a biopsy needle can then be deeply inserted within the muscle to remove tissue.
Another challenge is the fact that there would need to be comparable non-doped genetic codes on file for each athlete, which could seemingly evolve [Editor's Note: no pun intended.] into a "Gene Passport", similar to the UCI's Biological Passport used to detect signs of blood doping in cyclists. Right now, however, for genes, we've run ourselves in a circle!
What can we predict about the future of testing for gene doping, or doping in general for that matter? It seems like the fate of future testing will hinge on the debate over whether or not performing muscle biopsies on every athlete in every Olympic sport's anti-doping testing pool is both practical and ethical. While the procedure itself raises great concern for the inhumane treatment of athletes, the confidentiality and safety of the personal genetic coding of elite athletes raises major concerns. While Floyd Landis claims he's not involved, a French anti-doping lab was hacked and computer data altered in an attempt to manipulate evidence for an anti-doping tribunal - so the precedent exists for targeted attacks on athletes' personal medical data. Clearly a long road is ahead of us.
Nonetheless, so as not to conclude this article in such a manner as to leave you feeling despondent about the chance of winning the war on doping, I'll leave you with the refreshing remarks of Olivier Rabin, WADA science director:
"Anything you do to your body changes your body. Is there a perfect crime? Many investigators will tell you no."
[Editor's Note: Thanks to author PhDuane for his excellent contribution to Pappillon, which we know for a fact was written under trying circumstances. Please show your appreciation in the comments section, and you science-minded types should feel free to continue the discussion and either agree or disagree!]
A recent article at SwimNews, Taking The Doping War Into The Shadows, describes what could be a promising new weapon for the war on doping [Ed: Not to be confused with the War on Terror.]. While some individuals in the cycling community are quick to dismiss the idea of a clean future for the sport – stating there will never be a fool-proof method for the detection of autologous blood doping – recent advances in doping control methodologies may compel them to revisit their pessimistic outlook.
Currently, the standard testing procedure for detecting autologous blood doping is the UCI's biological passport – an electronic record for each rider tracking the results of all doping tests over a period of time, and collating them. The passport (click for a brochure) creates a hematological profile for the rider consisting of the combined results of all previous haematological parameters analyzed in a series. Limitations to this system are clearly evident in the indirect method of testing threshold values, but testing for blood doping may become more direct in the near future, the reason being – plasticizers.
What are plasticizers?
When athlete stores their blood for future use, they refrigerate it in plastic bags – just like the ones we saw in Dr. Fuentes' clinic. However, these plastic storage bags, just like any other plastic product, contain tiny trace elements – additives to increase the flexibility and low temperature properties of the product. These additives are plasticizers, and they are found in any of the plastic intravenous products used for blood transfusions. But how reliable could a test for plasticizers be?
A previous study by Maxwell et al. investigated the cause of remarkably high levels (200mg/100ml) of plasticizers found in blood for overdose cases. In determining whether test results were real or artefactual, the scientists tested 25 healthy individuals by methods involving only glass and metal. In no case did any of the samples taken show traces of plasticizers, suggesting that the presence of plasticizers in normal healthy individuals should be cautioned. Another study by Gayathri et al. reports that DEHP, or di (2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate, the plasticizer commonly used in PVC blood storage bags, leaks out to approximately 10mg/100ml after 21 days of storage – a significant amount suggesting the feasibility of reliable testing measures. Moreover, reading from a study by Ljunggren reports that DEHP makes up 40% of the weight of plasticized PVC used for manufacturing blood bags and transfusion tubing.
How's that for detectable?
While this method of testing is still in the early stages of development, its effects may be premature to WADA officially adding it to their official list of doping detection methods. While there is currently no approved and legally binding test in place, the threat of a future test applied retrospectively may be enough to deter some athletes from venturing down the dark road of blood doping.
[Editor's Note: The article above was authored by Pappillon contributor, PhDuane.]
Tour of Guatemala winner's additional test samples made unusable in attack
Guatemalan police are investigating a report that test samples given by last year's Tour of Guatemala winner Nery Velásquez and another Guatemalan rider, Alfredo Ajpacajá, were destroyed during an attack on a parcel delivery van and its driver on December 21.
According to Guatemalan daily Siglo XXI, the driver of the DHL van, Julio Eduardo López, was attacked by unknown assailants who destroyed samples taken by the Guatemalan Olympic Committee (COG) and being sent for testing in Canada. The report made to police also alleges that prior to the attack the two riders had gone to the DHL office looking for the samples.
The destroyed samples had been taken on December 18 in the wake of previous tests made during October's Tour of Guatemala that indicated that Velásquez and Ajpacajá had used an anabolic steroid developed for veterinary use, Boldenone. Having already been banned for EPO use in 2004, Velásquez faces the end of his cycling career if a second doping offence is confirmed.
This second round of testing was undertaken after Guatemala's Anti-Doping Commission highlighted inconsistencies in testing procedures during the country's national tour. As well as submitting to a the test on December 18, the two riders underwent another test on December 28.
Rather than publish it here, I penned a guest post for the Cozy Beehive: How Cycling Pro's Defeat Anti-Doping Control. It wasn't exactly a hard post to write, since all of the examples came from real-world experience. I left blood-doping (homologous or autologous) off the list for just this reason [that is, my experience with traditional blood doping and my affection for transfusions is limited, to say the least]. But the criminality of it all is not minimized as a result.
I strongly recommend that you read the piece in its entirety, and then join the debate in the comments section at Cozy Beehive to keep the discussion going (you can also leave comments here if they're meant for me). In a break from past tradition, I will not repost the entire entry here - just an excerpt - so after reading it, head to the Cozy Beehive for the full text, which begins as follows:
There is doping in cycling, no doubt. However, as we have it, there's a fine line between talking about it and not talking about it. If you don't talk about it, like they say, ignorance is bliss and you have a million happy cycling fans who know little of the real going on's of cycling. If you talk about it, suddenly you're a hater of professional athletes and you are giving the business of cycling a bad name.
As the author of this blog, I cannot live with ignorance and naivety. Inaction is worse than silence. If we don't understand what is really going on in our sport, we will not have the power to help clean it up as fans. The best way to understanding the doping issue is through education.
This Guest Post by none other than ex-racer Joe Papp (also a blogger) describes at length how racers subvert and escape doping control. Joe needs no special introduction. He's been there, done that and I think he's a fine candidate to tell us how slippery the pro's can get from the system. How are athletes tricking our intelligence into believing illegitimate sporting performances? Well, find out by reading the following eye-opening article.
When Ron asked if I would be willing to write a guest post for Cozy Beehive, I readily accepted, thinking I’d be able to oblige within a few days. It’s funny how life throws curve-balls, because it’s been a lot longer than that since I promised the piece, and several more drug scandals have hit cycling during the interim. The topic is but a general overview of some of the ways by which riders attempt to defeat anti-doping controls – a course of study that should have been read by Tom Zirbel and Nicklas Axelsson (at least according to their A-sample results).
The counter-measures an athlete will deploy in hopes of beating a doping control are all drawn from the same bag of dirty tricks, though the specific tactic ultimately depends on which doping product the athlete has ingested and where he can find a possible weakness in the testing protocol... continued.
I don’t know Tom Zirbel as a person so I can’t speak to his character, and I have no first-hand knowledge of his supplement use or medical care (if he received any), let alone whether or not he actually ingested DHEA. But if his B-sample comes back positive or he otherwise fails to clear his name, his world is going to implode, and it won’t be pretty.
Cyclingnews.com reports, "Tom Zirbel has announced he tested positive in an anti-doping test conducted by the United States Anti Doping Association (USADA) following the US Pro time trial championships on August 29, 2009. The A-sample returned positive for an endogenous steroid Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA). Zirbel awaits the response of the B sample. 'I want to inform the cycling community that an 'A' sample of mine from a urine test conducted by USADA on Aug. 29, 2009 after the US Pro TT has tested positive for exogenous DHEA,' Zirbel said. 'I have not yet received notification from USADA on the findings of the 'B' sample, but I expect to receive word any day now.'..."
I can empathize with what Zirbel might feel then, should the B-sample come back positive, as you all know that my own career ended when I was just 31 and was caught doping - which was devastating. Worse, almost no one could understand that, even though I’d brought it on myself to a large degree by doping shamelessly for five years, the feeling of being ripped from the womb of cycling left me so disoriented and adrift that life temporarily lost all meaning and hope. So if Tom doped and is found guilty and sanctioned – or if he didn’t dope but is still sanctioned because of a false positive – I want him to know that he’s not alone and there are other cyclists who can understand the hell in which he’ll find himself and can offer their support. Myself included.
Tom’s case isn’t being adjudicated in the US criminal justice system, so the operative theory isn’t “Innocent until Proven Guilty” and given what I know about the sophistication of doping in cycling, the ease with which controls can be thwarted, the capacity of humans to lie, cheat and steal to get to satisfy their ambition, and the fallibility of even the most pious, saintly men, of course I think it’s possible that he doped. However, it’s also possible that it’s a false positive, though the statistical likelihood of such an anomaly is slight, if I remember correctly.
If Tom is going to first be tried in a court of public opinion, well, then he sure sounds guilty when he says something as disingenuous as “I didn’t knowingly ingest any DHEA,”“I’m ignorant about these things, I didn’t know what DHEA was until I was first notified about my A sample positive.” [ref] Hey, guess what? I didn’t knowingly ingest the steroid (probably some brand of Testosterone Undecanoate ) that led to my positive urinalysis, though it’s entirely possible that it was there because my team gave me a doping product that metabolized into 6α-OH-androstenedione or 6β-OH-androsterone. Furthermore, it is utterly unbelievable that a professional like Tom Zirbel who earns his living from the bike and who would eventually negotiate a contract with a ProTour team for 2010, wouldn’t know what DHEA was as of late-summer 2009, when it was THE doping product that effectively ended Tyler Hamilton’s career - in APRIL 2009.
BUT, by the same token, and in Tom’s defense, the lab very well have made an error. Just like I didn’t knowingly ingest anything that could have left the metabolites 6α-OH-androstenedione or 6β-OH-androsterone, I had taken five other doping products that an accredited-lab failed to detect. I hope people consider both scenarios while we wait for the official disclosure. USADA is a very professional, well-run, seemingly fair organization, and they don't strike me as being the type of people who persecute athletes. In fact, USADA is scrupulous about protecting the privacy of accused athletes, such that when I called a contact there today to discuss the "Zirbel Situation," he wasn't even aware that the cyclist had gone ahead and preemptively announced his A-sample result. USADA would have kept that private until well after the B-sample was analyzed (assuming it was also positive and the athlete chose to continue to defend against the charges). A lab, however, that made an error in analyzing a sample or reporting its findings would have a strong disincentive to publicly admit that and an unethical employee or lab director might hang an athlete out to dry. Might.
I know for a fact that a rider was positive for EPO when he won a US National Criterium Championship – he took a full-strength, non-micro dose within the time frame during which he should have been positive. In fact, his “A” sample WAS positive, but his “B” was declared negative because the EPO levels were interpreted to fall just below the cut-off for a definitive positive. So the labs can make mistakes. Guilty go free (only to be caught later). Some riders cheat. I hope most do not. But to be in Tom’s shoes right now is to be in hell and I wish him and his family the best regardless of what the truth of the matter is.
"You mentioned Jose Maria Jiminez, el Chava, who died in 2003 from a heartattack. Was it the drugs that killed him?"
-Of course, like it killed Pantani. The drugs lead you to other addictions. The anti-depressants almost automatically accompany other doping treatments. I took up to 8 pills of prozac a day when I was racing.
"Why"
-Prozac cuts the appetite, keeps you in another world, a world where you're not afraid of what you're doing. You're no longer afraid to inject yourself with all the crap. It takes you to a world where you don't ask any more questions especially you don't ask your doctor questions either or your sporting director. Then there are periods where you must stop doping you feel like superman. Then one day all of the sudden it stops and you become dramatically depressed.Look at Pantani, Vandenbroucke and all the others we don't even talk about. They are numerous other cyclists and former cyclists that are addicted to cocaine, heroin and other medications. It's not just in the world of cycling..."
Personally, I think Lance Armstrong Doped. But here is an excerpt frompart 4:
"...What becomes evident from the composite prediction is that a rise in Retic between the end of the Giro and 6/16 may have been missed. The low Retic at 6/16 may be consistent with the fall after an initial peak. Similarly, the low point at 1 week after altitude exposure may be consistent with the low point after altitude exposure. Overal, assuming that the Retic did in fact trend up before falling you end up with a somewhat akward but plausible fit.
The explanation becomes less convincing when the Retic stays flat after reaching its low. The Retic does show a recovery, but it comes a week later than expected and is followed by another drop. In the end, altitude could be used to account for the initial drop in Retic, but it is not a solid explanation for a persistent low normal Retic.
Taking into account training status, the effect of a Grand Tour, and altitude exposure the analysis fails to fully explain the persistently low normal retic from 6/16 through the Tour. While other factors may be at play they probably have less of an impact. There is also the possibility of a synergistic effect, but it would be difficult to find data that supports this argument while excluding the possibility of manipulation at the same time..."
"Yes the Tour Hgb is explainable. In fact, the Hgb may have behaved in a completely consistent manner... the the expected volume expansion did in fact take place. It simply started before the second grand tour and reached a physiologic limit before the end of the race. The clue to this possibility is listening to the Retic..."
Watch this space for a link to the full, upcoming article.
The head of research at the Italian Olympic Committee (CONI), Sandro Donati, recounts his personal story about twenty years of fighting against doping in Italian and international sport. An unbelievable story which nevertheless is true.
er kriminaliseret i en grad, der er vanvittig. "
on top. Jeg kunne ikke tisse. I could not pee. Jeg sagde, nu spiser jeg min morgenmad, og så må vi vente lidt og tage blodprøven først. I said, now I eat my breakfast, and then we wait and take the blood test first. Den store tysker – en pensioneret mand på 60, der kom fra Monaco – kigger på mig, mens jeg spiser morgenmad og begynder at kommentere indretningen af huset. The big German - a retired man of 60 who came from Monaco - look at me while I eat breakfast and begin to comment on the layout of the house. Jeg siger, nu skal jeg på toilettet: jeg skal ikke tisse, jeg skal skide, siger jeg. I say now I am on the toilet: 
Posts
