Vinokourov left the Tour, but told reporters near his home in Monaco that he believes that injuries sustained in a stage-5 crash may have triggered the positive test. Vinokourov did not receive a blood transfusion from doctors treating his injuries.
Vino failed to types of test. One tests for multiple types of blood in the system, homogeneous blood doping. The other tests for a ratio of old blood to new blood. If you get a flood transfusion when you don't need it your body stops producing new blood cells and they can detect that. His excuse could possible explain that but not the homogenious test.
If you get a flood transfusion when you don't need it your body stops producing new blood cells and they can detect that. His excuse could possible explain that but not the homogenious test.
His excuse implied the swelling caused by his crash caused a build up of old blood cells in his legs that leaked back into his system when he failed the test. A weak excuse but somewhat plausible. Better than Tyler's unborn parasitic siamese fraternal twin brother.
Ok, so the thinking is... swelling is a build up of blood, when the swelling disappates, that blood re-enters the system. Right so far? That blood would only be a week or so old, correct? Can they detect blood age variations that small? Doesn't blood live for like 120 days?
And how much blood contained in the swelling would be needed for that to happen? In other words, wouldn't the swelling/contusion have to be really large?
Ok, so the thinking is... swelling is a build up of blood, when the swelling disappates, that blood re-enters the system. Right so far? That blood would only be a week or so old, correct? Can they detect blood age variations that small? Doesn't blood live for like 120 days?
And how much blood contained in the swelling would be needed for that to happen? In other words, wouldn't the swelling/contusion have to be really large?
Beats the hell out of me. Like I said it is a weak excuse and only explains half of the issues. Actually I think the old blood test isn't considered a failed test but it raises a red flag to test for other types of blood doping.
What I read from Joe Lyndsy's (sp) blog
7:31AM - Rude, good question about tests. I've been reporting on doping for a decade and the number one question I get is "how can they cheat and not test positive?" The simple answer is that some of the techniques they use aren't detectable by current tests and that we don't test enough. Blood tests are expensive - two to three times the cost of a urine test. But for blood doping, they're the only way you can find out whether a rider is cheating - urine tests are designed to catch what are called exogenous substances - synthetics. You can even catch stuff like EPO because it's recombinantly engineered, but the window of detection is small. But with blood tests, you can look for things like mixed-cell populations - a pretty much red-flag clear sign of blood doping - or you can look at the rate that the rider's body is producing new red blood cells. If you're re-injecting whole blood, a process in the body called homeostasis recognizes that you have too much blood and will shut off new red cell production in the body. This test is called the OFF-score and is not a direct sign of doping but it can be used to determine which riders need more targeted testing. Interestingly, the entire Astana, Discovery and T-Mobile teams were hit on Stage 2 with a UCI blood test that did the OFF-score. That result may have told them to target-test Vinokourov with the regular blood test later, and they caught him.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.