Discussion in 'Pro Cycling (Road and Track Racing)' started by walker, 26 Mar 2008.
One can but hope he was merely dehydrated...
I doubt he would be under any sort of drugs, I very much Doubt team Halfords are expecting much from him this year, what with only a two man squad this year.
Good job ASO aren't running the event or the whole of the British team would be out!
Thank goodness for the UCI.
What are the possible reasons for such a high level if not sauce?
Is dehydration a possibility, Waffly? It seems a bit of an easy get-out-of-jail card if it is?
The 50% rule is supposed to take account of dehydration however the problem is that has never been proven to be completely accurate in only finding blood dopers amongst sports people therefore whilst you may find yourself banned on the basis of it it is entirely possible that you are innocent with little hope of being able to prove it.
As for the get of jail card well if it is an explanation then out of jail is where you should be. In our clamour to find the cheats we should never forget that these are real people whose names we will blacken forever as well as cutting of their income. It's a bit like the old argument for or against capital punishment. I see the innocent whereas others only see the guilty.
Actually, many folk have a reading of over 50%. And yes, dehydration can be an entirely truthful explanation, just as much as 'sauce'. The level was brought in as a *guide* to possible EPO use when there was no accurate test for EPO and also as a health issue, as if the level is too high, it can lead to stroke amongst other things.
Hence having a haemocrit level of over 50% is *not* an automatic positive for drugs, but is used as a guide which leads to further testing. This is why he's banned for 14 days whilst further tests are carried out. That's fair enough. They know the rules.
If it comes out he really has been on the 'sauce', as far as I'm concerned, he should have a lifetime ban as a cheat. BUT it has not been proven that is the case. Innocent until proven guilty is, I think, the proper stance to take.
He's a good guy and we should give him the benefit of the doubt at least until the proper results are in.
Remember, all the training he's done in preperation will have boosted his HC level naturally.
I agree with Waffly, let's wait and see the outcome of the investigation before making a judgement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We seem to judge a foreign rider immediately, eg. Rasmussen, Vinokorov et al. Why should it be any different with Hayles?
Yes he's a nice bloke but.........
It's not a question of judging a foreigner differently. Indeed there was a foreigner, one Pim Ligthart (Dutch) dropped from the worlds for exactly the same reason as Hayles. I'd say exactly the same about him. You'll note a lack of baying for the blood of said foreigner...
The thing is, a high haemocrit level is not *proof* of doping, it is merely an indication that there *may* be just as it's an indication that there *may* be ill-health and it's also an indication of dehydration. That's why, because it is not *proof* of doping that further tests are now carried out to establish the real reason for the high level.
Now, if the high haemocrit level of Rob Hayles and/or Pim Ligthart turn out to be due to doping, then as far as I'm concerned, they should be thrown out of the sport. BUT AS YET, DOPING/BAD REASON FOR HAVING A HIGH HAEMOCRIT LEVEL HAS NOT BEEN PROVED. It may well turn out to be an entirely legitimate reason(s) as to why these guys have a high haemocrit level. The rules are being followed and that's as it should be.
From memory he was 0.3% over the limit, well within the error limits of that particular test. Professional riders have high ht levels in any event. Lance Armstrong's sits around 43-47 I thought. It doesn't have to be drug related and he should have the benefit of the doubt unless it is proved otherwise.
Charly Wegelius has a natural haemocrit level of over 50 and a certificate to prove it. So do some other riders.
Of course Rob Hayles and Pim Ligthart could be doping, but there is as yet no proof of this, so until then they remain simply the subjects of an investigation. This is quite routine, and is not remotely in the same league as having secret code names and blood banked with a dubious doctor...
Separate names with a comma.