'CYCLIST FAILS BLOOD TEST' is the kind of headline that elicits cynicism in many, despair in others – and surprise in no-one. But in the case of yesterday's headlines, concerning the British cyclist Rob Hayles' exclusion on the opening day of the World Track Championships in Manchester, it is worth reading on; and, for the moment, giving Hayles the benefit of the doubt.
There is no denying that, for British Cycling, in Olympic year, on the opening day of a world championship on home soil, the episode was a huge embarrassment. "The timing couldn't be worse," admitted David Brailsford, British Cycling's performance di
rector, "let's not shy away from that."
And certainly Brailsford, who leads Britain's most successful team in an Olympic sport, cannot be accused of shying away from the thorny subject that blights his sport – drugs. In the case of the British team, the subject has been raised before. At last year's World Championships in Palma, they won 41 per cent of the available titles, and the questions followed; the president of the Italian Federation even asked Brailsford, outright, what drugs his athletes were using.
It was Brailsford who broke the news to 35-year old Hayles, telling him that his blood had elevated haematocrit – in other words, a higher than permitted concentration of oxygen-rich red blood cells. The limit is 50 per cent; Hayles recorded 50.3 per cent. Yet a figure in excess of 50 can have an explanation that does not involve blood doping or the use of EPO.
"Rob was devastated when I told him," said Brailsford. "He felt disbelief. He had to phone home to tell his wife. When you listen to someone making that phone call, you sense whether someone is telling the truth."
Brailsford is convinced, for the moment, that Hayles was telling him the truth when he assured him, on Wednesday morning, that he had not taken anything. It is that claim – as well as his blood and urine – that will be rigorously tested over the next fortnight. The Hayles case is complicated by the fact that the blood screening – or so-called "health check" – is not a drugs test. Only two sports currently implement such tests – cycling and skiing. And no sport does it to the extent that the International Cycling Union (UCI) does. Sixty-six tests were carried out on the first day of these championships, another 47 yesterday, with no adverse findings.
Chris Jarvis, the UCI doctor, yesterday explained the background. "In the early 1990s, it became clear that a lot of cross-country skiers had very high haematocrit, which meant their capacity for carrying oxygen was high. That gives an advantage, but, apart from the fact it leads to unfair competition, the risk is of heart attacks or strokes. The blood is thicker, so in effect it's like pumping treacle around.
"When they tested the cross-country skiers' haematocrit they found some pretty phenomenal figures," Jarvis continues. It was widely assumed that this owed to the abuse of EPO.
By 1997, cycling had woken up to the fact it had a similar issue, and introduced "health checks." And although a urine test has since been developed for EPO, the health checks remain – and the list of riders prevented from competing is long.
"The (50 per cent] figure was relatively arbitrary," admits Jarvis. "Now I think most people consider it to be a reasonable figure, but there are those who have naturally high haematocrit."
One example is Charly Wegelius, the British road cyclist who in 2003 suffered a similar fate to Hayles, but who, as subsequent tests revealed, had a naturally high level. He now races with a certificate that exempts him from the health check. "There are others," says Jarvis, "who are either over, or they hover around the figure.
"I have come across athletes who have recorded plus-50 haematocrit and are not guilty of doping – absolutely," he continues. "There are various physiological factors that can affect it. Training hard and then tapering off can have a significant effect. One colleague told me of an individual who, at the end of a long stage race, had a haematocrit of 40. After resting for a week he was above 50. There are other possible factors – dehydration, even moving around.
"The best time to do the test is when an athlete is in bed, which is why they're done first thing in the morning. I understand, though, that (Hayles] had been up and about for a couple of hours. That could have an effect."
The question for Hayles now is how does he prove his innocence? "He's had the urine test for EPO," says Jarvis. "He'll be tested by the UCI in two weeks. And I understand that he's undergoing daily blood tests by British Cycling."
Though all parties – including Hayles, Brailsford and Jarvis – have reiterated their support for the health checks, it does seem unfortunate that clean athletes can be excluded, and suffer the stigma and suspicion that surrounds doping. Jarvis agrees. "We need to do more research on elite athletes, to see how much variation there can be in their haematocrit."
The full article contains 869 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
