blood doping

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

I think all the folks on the DP that are apologists and anti-Lemond assume blood doping HAD to be prevalent in the 1980's because of Moser and Los Angeles '84 Olympic team.

But blood doping with their own blood had limited advantage. Without EPO to boost, they lose much advantage for training, and they cannot store multiple bags without the preservatives as the expiry is about 60 days. You try taking out 3 bags worth in 60 days before the end of a Giro, then replace them, and see how you do. I reckon they could hardly train if they took out that much blood, and without EPO one bag's worth will never be replenished completely in that 60.

Obviously it helps.

But I think what they missed, is EPO enabled blood transfusions also. They went hand in hand.

I am not buying into most of Stratgey's argument. It rests mostly on things that could have happened or were technically feasible at the time and it ignores the timing of jump in performance of many second rate riders. The riders themselves put the date in the 90 - 93 time frame.

Here's what Eddy Planckaert said, "Hugo Camps was the first person who had asked me whether I have earlier used EPO. It was spontaneous conversation and I gave an honest answer. It should be noted that EPO was at that time not forbidden and was not listed on the doping list. Above all it was not known until 1991 and then I was at that end of my career."

He also said this about its effectiveness, "I had a 15 per cent advantage on the riders who did not take it."

I am not buying into most of Stratgey's argument. It rests mostly on things that could have happened or were technically feasible at the time and it ignores the timing of jump in performance of many second rate riders. The riders themselves put the date in the 90 - 93 time frame.

Here's what Eddy Planckaert said, "Hugo Camps was the first person who had asked me whether I have earlier used EPO. It was spontaneous conversation and I gave an honest answer. It should be noted that EPO was at that time not forbidden and was not listed on the doping list. Above all it was not known until 1991 and then I was at that end of my career."

He also said this about its effectiveness, "I had a 15 per cent advantage on the riders who did not take it."
I meant blood transfusion-doping. I was ambiguous.

But, agreed.

I think all the folks on the DP that are apologists and anti-Lemond assume blood doping HAD to be prevalent in the 1980's because of Moser and Los Angeles '84 Olympic team.

But blood doping with their own blood had limited advantage. Without EPO to boost, they lose much advantage for training, and they cannot store multiple bags without the preservatives as the expiry is about 60 days. You try taking out 3 bags worth in 60 days before the end of a Giro, then replace them, and see how you do. I reckon they could hardly train if they took out that much blood, and without EPO one bag's worth will never be replenished completely in that 60.

Obviously it helps.

But I think what they missed, is EPO enabled blood transfusions also. They went hand in hand.

Totally agree. It's one thing to use blood transfusions for a one-day event (Moser hour record, or the Olympics). Quite a different proposition to successfully transfuse over a three week tour, which would require refrigeration, transport, etc. The only "consistent" doping pre-'89 had to have been limited to stimulants.

Read strat carefuly... he good writer, smart, knows much..he dishonest intentional i think… he politely, softly said that smart knowing person as him should say not.

Then read RR…he say same as strat.. same thing… a little later…not softly…rudely, aroganly… all anti lemond...http://cyclingforums.com/images/smilies/mad.gif

They twin, one person... italiano thinkshttp://cyclingforums.com/images/smilies/confused.gif…good cup..bad cuphttp://cyclingforums.com/images/smilies/confused.gif..strat, as bobke hypocrit about all CSC, Riis ...http://cyclingforums.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Edit for substancehttp://cyclingforums.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif....

Australians (name?) proved EPO and blodd transfusions speard together after yr. 2000 as supplementing one another...just as thunder say...also...ther is crit statistics...it show clear...as riders say, EPO spread from yr. 1990...

The riders themselves put the date in the 90 - 93 time frame.
Almost everything I've read indicates that there were several years between EPO becoming available, in '88 I believe, and everyone in the peloton being on it, probably by '94 or '95.

Seems like the doping arms race didn't exist until EPO. IOW, riders were using relatively weak PEDs like steroids, amphetamines, etc. that probably provide marginal benefits and were not absolutely necessary to compete. Riders/docs were not in search of the next "big" drug because it wasn't appreciated that the way to big gains was blood manipulation. Sure smart ones must have known about blood doping but for technical and practical reasons it was probably not used except perhaps in a few cases. Hence EPO was around for a little while before it was "discovered".

However once lots of riders started using EPO since it was so easy it became common knowledge that this was the way forward. Once the window started to close on unrestricted EPO use the "arms race" started, with some enterprising docs (e.g. Fuentes) moving forward by offering transfusions. By that point it was clear to everyone that to gain an advantage you needed to get more oxygen to the muscles, hence transfusions, probably some have been using the artificial hemoglobins.

I see no other reasonable explanation for how EPO was around for a few years but by all accounts was not immediately jumped upon by the cyclists, nor the lack of significant blood doping.

Read strat carefuly... he good writer, smart, knows much..he dishonest intentional i think… he politely, softly said that smart knowing person as him should say not.

Then read RR…he say same as strat.. same thing… a little later…not softly…rudely, aroganly… all anti lemond...http://cyclingforums.com/images/smilies/mad.gif

They twin, one person... italiano thinkshttp://cyclingforums.com/images/smilies/confused.gif…good cup..bad cuphttp://cyclingforums.com/images/smilies/confused.gif..strat, as bobke hypocrit about all CSC, Riis ...http://cyclingforums.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
I agree Italiano :D

Almost everything I've read indicates that there were several years between EPO becoming available, in '88 I believe, and everyone in the peloton being on it, probably by '94 or '95.

Seems like the doping arms race didn't exist until EPO. IOW, riders were using relatively weak PEDs like steroids, amphetamines, etc. that probably provide marginal benefits and were not absolutely necessary to compete. Riders/docs were not in search of the next "big" drug because it wasn't appreciated that the way to big gains was blood manipulation. Sure smart ones must have known about blood doping but for technical and practical reasons it was probably not used except perhaps in a few cases. Hence EPO was around for a little while before it was "discovered".

However once lots of riders started using EPO since it was so easy it became common knowledge that this was the way forward. Once the window started to close on unrestricted EPO use the "arms race" started, with some enterprising docs (e.g. Fuentes) moving forward by offering transfusions. By that point it was clear to everyone that to gain an advantage you needed to get more oxygen to the muscles, hence transfusions, probably some have been using the artificial hemoglobins.

I see no other reasonable explanation for how EPO was around for a few years but by all accounts was not immediately jumped upon by the cyclists, nor the lack of significant blood doping.
Roche must have been on solid gear in 87.

Roche must have been on solid gear in 87.I wouldn't call steroids 'weak' PED's. Every bloke I know who has used them reckons they made a big difference.

Italian cycling was rubbish in 88 and 89, then it started to turn around in 1990, with the the incredible results of riders like Bugno, Ballerini, Argentin. Why? Argentin was deemed past it in 1990, Bugno was a good journeyman 6th year pro and Ballerini was a nobody. 1990 was the year EPO really started IMO, with it being rampant in the whole peloton and in middle distance running by 93.

I wouldn't call steroids 'weak' PED's. Every bloke I know who has used them reckons they made a big difference.

Italian cycling was rubbish in 88 and 89, then it started to turn around in 1990, with the the incredible results of riders like Bugno, Ballerini, Argentin. Why? Argentin was deemed past it in 1990, Bugno was a good journeyman 6th year pro and Ballerini was a nobody. 1990 was the year EPO really started IMO, with it being rampant in the whole peloton and in middle distance running by 93.
classic, I never called roids weak.

and the "every guy I know..." sounds alot like...

"I have a friend of mine, who is worried he might be gay, cos he likes to suck cjock, what do you have for advice?"

:p

classic, I never called roids weak.

and the "every guy I know..." sounds alot like...

"I have a friend of mine, who is worried he might be gay, cos he likes to suck cjock, what do you have for advice?"

:pLets be clear.

I never used to take PED's
I've never partaken of ghey manlove.

I raced in the late 80's and early 90's, plus I had the added 'bonus' of racing many of my fathers acquaintences at the tail end of their careers in the pro-ams (or heard the stories of the ex-eurodog retired ones). Stanazol, testosterone, captigon, caffiene, ephidrine and (if you had mates coming back from Belgium) 'the pot' were rampant.

Lets be clear.

I never used to take PED's
I've never partaken of ghey manlove.

I raced in the late 80's and early 90's, plus I had the added 'bonus' of racing many of my fathers acquaintences at the tail end of their careers in the pro-ams (or heard the stories of the ex-eurodog retired ones). Stanazol, testosterone, captigon, caffiene, ephidrine and (if you had mates coming back from Belgium) 'the pot' were rampant.
awfully defensive :p

on the ghey manonman AK SHORN!

<facetious>

awfully defensive :p

on the ghey manonman AK SHORN!

<facetious>Get farked. And don't bother making anymore booty calls to my number either, you bitch.

I wouldn't call steroids 'weak' PED's.
I would for endurance sports.

I would for endurance sports.
anyone got the Outside Magazine link handy. What was that guy on, just roids, hgh.

Testo and hgh, not sure he did EPO.

anyone got the Outside Magazine link handy. What was that guy on, just roids, hgh.

Testo and hgh, not sure he did EPO.
He did them all, and IIRC said EPO was the only one that made a noticeable difference in his cycling.

In research studies "anabolics" typically show little or no benefits for endurance performance which is not surprising. Endurance has little to do with muscle mass and might even be hindered by it, and increased muscle mass is the primary benefit of anabolic drugs.

I'm not saying given huge training loads, etc. of elite endurance athlete that there might not be some positive performance benefits to stuff like testosterone, HgH or anabolic steroids but they are likely very weak to something like EPO or blood transfusions that increase the oxygen getting to the working muscle.

He did them all, and IIRC said EPO was the only one that made a noticeable difference in his cycling.

In research studies "anabolics" typically show little or no benefits for endurance performance which is not surprising. Endurance has little to do with muscle mass and might even be hindered by it, and increased muscle mass is the primary benefit of anabolic drugs.

I'm not saying given huge training loads, etc. of elite endurance athlete that there might not be some positive performance benefits to stuff like testosterone, HgH or anabolic steroids but they are likely very weak to something like EPO or blood transfusions that increase the oxygen getting to the working muscle.
recovery on 1000 mile weeks

recovery
Yeah that would be the probable mechanism, how ever hard it is to define, but I still stand by my previous statements. Compared to something like EPO or blood doping, any boost in performance would likely be relatively minor. Especially given that one of the supposed boosts of the HgH and possibly other anabolic drugs is to potentiate the blood boosting effects of EPO. Maybe by themselves they would have some effect on attenuating drop in red blood cells with intense training/racing?

recovery on 1000 mile weeksYes, absolutely. Here is a quote from TiMan who actually used drugs and posted experiences in the doping forum: http://www.cyclingforums.com/t271814.html. "I took 175 mg of testosterone per week by injection for one season.The ability to recover after repeated hard days was unreal. This dose of testosterone put my testosterone level above 1000ng/dl...about twice what a normal male puts out. This is what the test does....it helps you recover. You can also get down below 6% body fat without loosing any muscle mass. On the down side test, and all steroids, will make you hold water weight and I was holding about 5 pounds I think. The water, however, is mainly intramuscular and it helps with strength a lot."

I think all the folks on the DP that are apologists and anti-Lemond assume blood doping HAD to be prevalent in the 1980's because of Moser and Los Angeles '84 Olympic team.

But blood doping with their own blood had limited advantage. Without EPO to boost, they lose much advantage for training, and they cannot store multiple bags without the preservatives as the expiry is about 60 days. You try taking out 3 bags worth in 60 days before the end of a Giro, then replace them, and see how you do. I reckon they could hardly train if they took out that much blood, and without EPO one bag's worth will never be replenished completely in that 60.

Obviously it helps.

But I think what they missed, is EPO enabled blood transfusions also. They went hand in hand.

You should also consider homologous transfusions. Your argument doesn't take those into account.