Re: How much blood doping does it take?

When they spin the cells down, they get left with 'packed cells' which
is effectively red blood cells, a few (very few) white blood cells and
a little bit of plasma. It is still in a liquid form so can be
transfused as is. It does its own reconstitution as it goes in your
veins. Packed cells are transfused rather than injected. The process
should not damage many red cells although prolonged storage will (given
the average life of a red cell).

The anecdotal information in the below note is not generally true. Although
there is pretty clear evidence that increasing the hematocrit in an
individual will increase their aerobic output there is not a clear
correlation between hematocrit and aerobic output across the board. In
other words, there are individuals who have a lower than average hematocrit
but an higher than normal aerobic output and vice versa. "Natural"
hematocrit is not predictive of performance.

--
Mike Murray MD

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

i got my crit tested every 3 months when I was racing
full time, with a teammate. we had a friend who
worked at a hospital blood lab and he would sneak
us in.
we lived at 5000 feet.
my crit was always around 43, his was 50 +,
usually 52, naturally I should add.
He was a pretty good cat. 1 and trained about
10 hours a week, I always wondered why
he was so good for a skinny emaciated nerd who
didn't train - it was his crit. his VO2 max was lower
than mine and he wasn't exactly what you'd call
an athlete, he liked to drink 40's and raced for
fun and had no ambition.
this is all anecdotal I realize, but
my point: your blood composition is very
important to cycling, one of the most important
factors that determine how good you will be at
the sport, and there isn't really all that much you
can do about it either - except for doping.
which is why so many cyclists dope.
If I could have raised my crit from 43 to 52,
I would have realized an incredible increase
in performance, and it opened my eyes
to why so many cyclists dope - it has to
be incredibly tempting.
When I read about berzin and others having
a crit of 60, I sometimes think maybe it is possible
to turn a donkey into a racehorse with the right
dope.
Vo2 max and LT are trainable, so if you don't have
the best genetics you can work on them, but your crit
actually goes down with hard training.

what does this mean?

"Although there is pretty clear evidence that increasing the
hematocrit in an individual will increase their aerobic output there
is not a clear
correlation between hematocrit and aerobic output across the board"

Then pros with HC's in the high 50's in the mid 90's, why?
cycling performanceis dependant on many variables, but a high natural
(or unnatural) HC with a high aerobic output is best.

I've heard that some coachs will determine
a cyclists "potential" by finding a very good cyclist,
with a low HC, because they know with some
blood doping, this athlete will be much much faster
and has room for "improvement"
so you are saying that natural HC is different than
"unnatural" HC? oxygen carrying red blood cells,
is that what we are talking about? because
i'm an ignorant layman, but I've heard these are good
for cycling.

aerobic output is dependant on many things, but fast blood
is crucial in cycling, or cyclists wouldn't do all the things they
do to get fast blood - sleeping in expensive tents, take EPO,
blood doping, training at altitude.
doctors love to say there is not a clear correlation between anything,
doctors were saying that anabolic steroids had no effect in
sports until recently - and athletes knew differently.
high crit is good for cyclists, it's one of the reasons they
train at altitude.
I do understand what you are saying though,
I was able to do well in cycling with a crit of 42, and from
testing I know I have relatively high aerobic output,
while a cyclist with a natural crit of 52 could
have a super low VO2 max and never win a race.
but tell me, if I had used EPO and raised my crit
to 52, would I not have improved my aerobic output?

If you were an east german coach, picking
10 young riders out of 10,000 to train (let's just
say no doping here), would you pick the rider
with identical other stats (vo2max, lt threshold whatever)
but an HC of 43 or 52?

if blood wasn't so important in cycling, why
all the blood doping?

educate me, seriously.

Quoted message said:

"Then pros with HC's in the high 50's in the mid 90's, why?"

Likely do to blood boosting in some fashion.

Quoted message said:

"cycling performanceis dependant on many variables, but a high natural (or
unnatural) HC with a high aerobic output is best."

This is incorrect. The next statement, below, is more correct. A high
hematocrit does not corrolate well with high aerobic output capacity. In
other words, if you were to rank 100 individuals by hematocrit level it
would be an entirely different ranking compared to the list you would
compile ranking them by aerobic capacity. It would make sense that a higher
hematocrit would corrolate with higher aerobic capacity in a population but
this does not seem to be the case when actually measured. This is probably
because hematocrit is only one of the multiple variables that detirmine
aerobic capacity and the other variables overpower hematocrit. Within an
individual a higher hematocrit will corrolate with that individual's aerobic
output.

Quoted message said:

"I've heard that some coachs will determine a cyclists "potential" by
finding a very good cyclist, with a low HC, because they know with some
blood doping, this athlete will be much much faster and has room for
"improvement""

This would be an unethical approach and against the rules of the sport but
would make sense since an athlete with a low hematocrit would benefit from
blood boosting whereas an athlete with an already high hematocrit would not.

Quoted message said:

"so you are saying that natural HC is different than "unnatural" HC? oxygen
carrying red blood cells, is that what we are talking about?"

Hematocrit, generally abbreviated Hct is the percentage of blood volumne
occupied by red cells. The difference between the "natural" Hct and an
"unnatural Hct" is whether it the amont of red cells have been manipulated
or not.

Quoted message said:

"aerobic output is dependant on many things, but fast blood is crucial in
cycling, or cyclists wouldn't do all the things they do to get fast
lood - sleeping in expensive tents, take EPO, blood doping, training at
altitude."

Definately there is a benefit to having a higher Hct but if, out of the box
and unmanipulated individual A has a Hct. of 35 and individual B has a Hct
of 45 you can not assumke that individual B has a higher arobic capacity or
that he has been confered a natrual advantage. If both individuals were to
manipulate their Hct to raise it to 50, individual A would see more benefit.

Quoted message said:

"doctors love to say there is not a clear correlation between anything"

Not this one but there are certainly corrolations that are generally
believed but which don't hold up under scrutiny and measurement.

Quoted message said:

" I do understand what you are saying though, I was able to do well in
cycling with a crit of 42, and from testing I know I have relatively high
aerobic output, while a cyclist with a natural crit of 52 could have a
super low VO2 max and never win a race."

Correct.

Quoted message said:

"but tell me, if I had used EPO and raised my crit to 52, would I not have

improved my aerobic output?"

Yes you would as raising the Hct in an individual will increase their
aerobic capacity.

Quoted message said:

" If you were an east german coach, picking 10 young riders out of 10,000
to train (let's just say no doping here), would you pick the rider with
identical other stats (vo2max, lt threshold whatever) but an HC of 43 or
52?"

In the abscence of any available method to manipulate Hct there would be no
reason to work Hct into the decision making at all. If manipulating the Hct
is being considered then one would pick the athlete with the lower Hct
because there is a clear method to improve him.

Quoted message said:

"if blood wasn't so important in cycling, why all the blood doping?"

Never said it wasn't. What I said was:
"Although there is pretty clear evidence that increasing the hematocrit in
an individual will increase their aerobic output there is not a clear
correlation between hematocrit and aerobic output across the board. In
other words, there are individuals who have a lower than average hematocrit
but an higher than normal aerobic output and vice versa. "Natural"
hematocrit is not predictive of performance."

Let me know if this hasn't made the point clear.

Mike Murray

Hi everyone,
I'm new on this forum and there is something I would really like to
point out in this subject. Berzin was my favourite rider and I'm really
fed up with these statements about his supposedly 60% hematocrit. I
would be very glad to know where the people who use this figure
associated to Berzin so easily have actually found it. This is but a
rumour which comes from the release of the figures of the hematocrit of
the Gewiss team for the year 1995. Being a fan, I keep searching
documents about Berzin and therefore I have found these figures. Not
only is he far from 60%, but he is also far from having the highest in
the team, and also far from having the biggest gap between his
hematocrit in winter and in May-June.
Most people seem to think that he was "a donkey turned into a race
horse", while they don't know that he had exceptional qualities, a very
hard training from his USSR years, an almost perfect position and that
he used a very high pedalling rythm well before Armstrong.
I'm not saying that he never took anything, I'm not that naive, but it
is totally unfair that he should be made the symbol of the general
phenomenon of doping so often. So, unless you have these figures which
would interest me very much, I'd be glad if you could stop dropping
names and figures without being sure that they're well-founded.

"charlotte" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi everyone,
I'm new on this forum and there is something I would really like to
point out in this subject. Berzin was my favourite rider and I'm really
fed up with these statements about his supposedly 60% hematocrit. I
would be very glad to know where the people who use this figure
associated to Berzin so easily have actually found it. This is but a
rumour which comes from the release of the figures of the hematocrit of
the Gewiss team for the year 1995. Being a fan, I keep searching
documents about Berzin and therefore I have found these figures. Not
only is he far from 60%, but he is also far from having the highest in
the team, and also far from having the biggest gap between his
hematocrit in winter and in May-June.
Most people seem to think that he was "a donkey turned into a race
horse", while they don't know that he had exceptional qualities, a very
hard training from his USSR years, an almost perfect position and that
he used a very high pedalling rythm well before Armstrong.
I'm not saying that he never took anything, I'm not that naive, but it
is totally unfair that he should be made the symbol of the general
phenomenon of doping so often. So, unless you have these figures which
would interest me very much, I'd be glad if you could stop dropping
names and figures without being sure that they're well-founded.

What - you don't have complete faith in the numbers from Lafferty and the
rest of those professionals on RBR?

"charlotte" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi everyone,
I'm new on this forum and there is something I would really like to
point out in this subject. Berzin was my favourite rider and I'm really
fed up with these statements about his supposedly 60% hematocrit. I
would be very glad to know where the people who use this figure
associated to Berzin so easily have actually found it. This is but a
rumour which comes from the release of the figures of the hematocrit of
the Gewiss team for the year 1995. Being a fan, I keep searching
documents about Berzin and therefore I have found these figures. Not
only is he far from 60%, but he is also far from having the highest in
the team, and also far from having the biggest gap between his
hematocrit in winter and in May-June.
Most people seem to think that he was "a donkey turned into a race
horse", while they don't know that he had exceptional qualities, a very
hard training from his USSR years, an almost perfect position and that
he used a very high pedalling rythm well before Armstrong.
I'm not saying that he never took anything, I'm not that naive, but it
is totally unfair that he should be made the symbol of the general
phenomenon of doping so often. So, unless you have these figures which
would interest me very much, I'd be glad if you could stop dropping
names and figures without being sure that they're well-founded.

Interviewed in 1994 after three of his clients (Gewiss riders Moreno
Argentin, Evgeni Berzin and Giorgio Furlan) had made a clean sweep of the
Belegian Fleche Wallonne classic, Ferrari was asked by a l'Equipe journalist
whether his riders used EPO. Ferrari's response was: "I don't prescribe this
stuff. But one can buy EPO in Switzerland for example without a
prescription, and if a rider does, that doesn't scandalize me. EPO doesn't
fundamentally change the performance of a racer." When the l'Equipe
journalist responded that EPO was dangerous and that ten dutch riders had
died because of it in the last few years, Ferrari said: "EPO is not
dangerous, it's the abuse that is. It's also dangerous to drink 10 liters of
orange juice." Ferrari was sacked by Gewiss subsequent to l'Equippe
publishing the interview. Armstrong described Ferrari's comments as being
"unfortunate."

The vampires came out this morning to test all 180 riders before the start
of the Tour. The start of the Tour will have three riders less than what was
planned. Ivanov (Farm Frites), Brasi (Polti), and Hauptman (Vini Caldirola)
all were deemed unfit to start the Tour. This is the second time this year
for Vini Caldirola to fall into trouble with a hematocrit test. Berzin, from
the same team, was deemed unfit at the start of the Giro.

Variations in Hematocrit levels - Gewiss riders 1994-1995
15.12 1994 24.05 1995
Vladislav Bobrik (Rus) 42.7 53
Bruno Cenghialta (Ita) 37.2 54.5
Francesco Frattini (Ita) 46 54
Giorgio Furlan (Ita) 38.8 51
Nicola Minali (Ita) 41.7 54
Piotr Ugrumov (Rus) 32.8 60
Alberto Volpi (Ita) 38.5 52.6
14.01 1995 24.05 1995
Evgeni Berzin (Rus) 41.7 53
14.01 1995 09.08 1995
Ivan Gotti (Ita) 40.7 57
14.01 1995 10.07 1995
Bjarne Riis (Den) 41.1 56.3

Before the start, each of the 180 starters was drug tested, and one man
didn?t pass. Evgeni Berzin (Mobilvetta Design-Rossin), winner of the Giro in
1994, tested high and was not allowed to start. His Mobilvetta team
immediately sacked him, putting the once brilliant time-trialist?s career in
jeopardy.

"I have been a bit ill, and that might have been what brought my hematocrit
up,? Berzin said. "I don?t think it is legal to judge me without any kind of
proof, but that has already happened and I'm not happy about going home in
this condition."

Thanks for the figures, these are exactly the ones I was speaking of.
They are the only ones which have been published as far as I know, and
everybody can see that Berzin's hematocrit is 53%, which is not exactly
the same as 60%... If someone feels like calculating the variations, he
will see that he is among the lowest while being the best rider in the
team. These were taken just before the Giro in which he ranked second.

There is only one mistake, in the 2nd paragraph : Berzin never was in
the Vini Caldirola team. He was riding for Mobilvetta when he was
"declared unfit" for the Giro as said in the other paragraph. One could
point out that his hematocrit on that day was 53, exactly the same as
in 1995, while the results were inexistant in 2000. So much for the
people who think that only his hematocrit made him win.

Re: "Close, but wrong. PRBCs are usually given, and usually are
luekocyte
depleted as well. Further, they are never given IV by themselves.
They are given with an IV of 0.9% Normal Saline; a y-tubing set allows
both to run simultaneously"

I currently work in 10 different hospitals and have worked in at least
10 others throughout my career and we don't run packed cell
transfusions with a Y-tube setup. In fact, if medical staff want to
give hydration, eg normal saline, at the same time, the hospital
protocols are generally to do that through a separate IV. Part of the
reason for not running saline at the same time is to reduce the risk of
pulmonary oedema from over-hydration. I am very happy to send you such
current hospital protocols specifying not to run blood transfusions
with simultaneous saline if you'd like.

As an aside, even when leucocyte depleted, there will still be a "few
(very few) white blood cells" in the transfusion.

"charlotte" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Thanks for the figures, these are exactly the ones I was speaking of.
They are the only ones which have been published as far as I know, and
everybody can see that Berzin's hematocrit is 53%, which is not exactly
the same as 60%... If someone feels like calculating the variations, he
will see that he is among the lowest while being the best rider in the
team. These were taken just before the Giro in which he ranked second.

There is only one mistake, in the 2nd paragraph : Berzin never was in
the Vini Caldirola team. He was riding for Mobilvetta when he was
"declared unfit" for the Giro as said in the other paragraph. One could
point out that his hematocrit on that day was 53, exactly the same as
in 1995, while the results were inexistant in 2000. So much for the
people who think that only his hematocrit made him win.

My hematocrit has varied from 38 (though it is normal to fall to 42) to its
normal 48.8 or so. When it's down I feel like [censored] all the time and when
it's back to normal I can ride well enough not to embarass myself.

Variations such as what are listed tend to suggest EPO was used but looking
at Ugrimov one has to think that a doctor might very well have prescribed
EPO in the first place for an hc of 32%.

"charlotte" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Thanks for the figures, these are exactly the ones I was speaking of.
They are the only ones which have been published as far as I know, and
everybody can see that Berzin's hematocrit is 53%, which is not exactly
the same as 60%... If someone feels like calculating the variations, he
will see that he is among the lowest while being the best rider in the
team. These were taken just before the Giro in which he ranked second.

There is only one mistake, in the 2nd paragraph : Berzin never was in
the Vini Caldirola team.

The quote is from Frankie Andreau's diary.

Quoted message said:

He was riding for Mobilvetta when he was
"declared unfit" for the Giro as said in the other paragraph. One could
point out that his hematocrit on that day was 53, exactly the same as
in 1995, while the results were inexistant in 2000. So much for the
people who think that only his hematocrit made him win.

I have no doubt that he was boosting with EPO. That is not to say that he
wasn't a world class rider. It's also ironic that his one win of a Monument
was LBL like Hamilton.

Quoted message said:

CyclePro said:

Variations in Hematocrit levels - Gewiss riders 1994-1995
15.12 1994 24.05 1995
Vladislav Bobrik (Rus) 42.7 53
Bruno Cenghialta (Ita) 37.2 54.5
Francesco Frattini (Ita) 46 54
Giorgio Furlan (Ita) 38.8 51
Nicola Minali (Ita) 41.7 54
Piotr Ugrumov (Rus) 32.8 60
Alberto Volpi (Ita) 38.5 52.6
14.01 1995 24.05 1995
Evgeni Berzin (Rus) 41.7 53
14.01 1995 09.08 1995
Ivan Gotti (Ita) 40.7 57
14.01 1995 10.07 1995
Bjarne Riis (Den) 41.1 56.3

Laff,

WHEN POSTING RESULTS, PLEASE POST THE PODIUM IN THE HEADERS,
IN ACCORDANCE WITH RBR GUIDELINES.

Also, when you post results or quotations, try to give the
attributions. Otherwise it's bad lawyering. Or plagiarism.
Of course, attributions would strengthen your case here
(since AFAIK those are all from reputable sources, even if
the hematocrit table is from L'Equipe.)

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

CyclePro said:

Variations in Hematocrit levels - Gewiss riders 1994-1995
15.12 1994 24.05 1995
Vladislav Bobrik (Rus) 42.7 53
Bruno Cenghialta (Ita) 37.2 54.5
Francesco Frattini (Ita) 46 54
Giorgio Furlan (Ita) 38.8 51
Nicola Minali (Ita) 41.7 54
Piotr Ugrumov (Rus) 32.8 60
Alberto Volpi (Ita) 38.5 52.6
14.01 1995 24.05 1995
Evgeni Berzin (Rus) 41.7 53
14.01 1995 09.08 1995
Ivan Gotti (Ita) 40.7 57
14.01 1995 10.07 1995
Bjarne Riis (Den) 41.1 56.3

Laff,

WHEN POSTING RESULTS, PLEASE POST THE PODIUM IN THE HEADERS,
IN ACCORDANCE WITH RBR GUIDELINES.

Also, when you post results or quotations, try to give the
attributions. Otherwise it's bad lawyering. Or plagiarism.
Of course, attributions would strengthen your case here
(since AFAIK those are all from reputable sources, even if
the hematocrit table is from L'Equipe.)

BJ,
If I posted it I would. The attributions are easy enough to find via
google, which is how I did it. You too?

<I have no doubt that he was boosting with EPO. That is not to say
that he
<wasn't a world class rider. It's also ironic that his one win of a
Monument
<was LBL like Hamilton.

I don't really have doubts either; but the other point on which I don't
really have doubts is the fact that the 99% of the others used as much
EPO as he did... People who believe he beat Indurain at the Giro thanks
to EPO simply don't realize that there is absolutely no reason why an
almost unknown Russian who was struggling with his team for salary and
payment of his rent only a few months earlier, and who rode in the
shadow of very good riders of his own team should be the only one who
would be given the 'privilege' of EPO, while a rider like Indurain
would be lagging behind.
As for LBL, I don't think it is really significant, I truly think that
the fact of being caught or not is very much linked to chance, although
I suspect there might have been some protection for well-known riders
(this would require further investigation, but it is quite puzzling to
see the number of riders who never got caught until they were somehow
in "disgrace"😉.

NobodyMan said:

On Sat, 07 May 2005 03:02:54 GMT, "Tom Kunich"

<[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"NobodyMan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 4 May 2005 21:59:14 -0700, "Patricio Carlos" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

>When they spin the cells down, they get left with 'packed cells'

which

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>is effectively red blood cells, a few (very few) white blood cells

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>a little bit of plasma. It is still in a liquid form so can be
>transfused as is. It does its own reconstitution as it goes in

your

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>veins. Packed cells are transfused rather than injected. The

process

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>should not damage many red cells although prolonged storage will

(given

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>the average life of a red cell).

Close, but wrong. PRBCs are usually given, and usually are

luekocyte

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

depleted as well. Further, they are never given IV by themselves.
They are given with an IV of 0.9% Normal Saline; a y-tubing set

allows

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

both to run simultaneously.

That's the way I remember it but last time I was looking into it was

about 5

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

years ago.

It's still done that way. Further, the average person will have a
difficult time doing this; I don't know any medical professional who
will put their medical license on the line so you can increase your
HCT and HGB and "ride faster."

What about all the infamous Italian and Spanish sports doctors, gym
teachers, and veterinarians?

charlotte said:

I don't really have doubts either; but the other point on which I don't
really have doubts is the fact that the 99% of the others used as much
EPO as he did...

You should have doubts about this because it isn't true.

Italian sports medicine made a breakthrough about that time in
the application of blood thinners in combination with increased
dosages of EPO. Even if everyone was taking EPO, they were not
all taking the same amount.

Bob Schwartz
[email hidden]

Maybe the Italians were ahead in this field but given the number of
riders who got through this system it was done on a huge scale... And
the reason for Italian hegemony is that their science was not limited
to the use of EPO, but also to a very strict system of training and
dietetics.
Anyway I truly believe that the best riders of the time, if not all the
riders, were more or less equal concerning doping, and if what I read
is true Conconi had many "pupils" who were not necessarily limited to
Italy...
However I'm not a scientist, and there is so much secret around this
that I don't think we will ever know what was actually going on,
therefore I'd rather not venture further on a subject I don't know well
enough.
To go back to the beginning what I wanted to say is that it is easy to
mention Berzin all the time as the emblem of doping while there are
many reasons to think he was simply doing the same as most of his
rivals.

On 8 May 2005 16:29:00 -0700, "Patricio Carlos" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Re: "Close, but wrong. PRBCs are usually given, and usually are
luekocyte
depleted as well. Further, they are never given IV by themselves.
They are given with an IV of 0.9% Normal Saline; a y-tubing set allows
both to run simultaneously"

I currently work in 10 different hospitals and have worked in at least
10 others throughout my career and we don't run packed cell
transfusions with a Y-tube setup. In fact, if medical staff want to
give hydration, eg normal saline, at the same time, the hospital
protocols are generally to do that through a separate IV. Part of the
reason for not running saline at the same time is to reduce the risk of
pulmonary oedema from over-hydration. I am very happy to send you such
current hospital protocols specifying not to run blood transfusions
with simultaneous saline if you'd like.

As an aside, even when leucocyte depleted, there will still be a "few
(very few) white blood cells" in the transfusion.

Strange. I've worked in MORE than 10 different hospitals - I still
work in a hospital - and we ALWAYS run PRBCs through Y-tubing (made
specifically for transfusions) along with NS. The saline is not given
for hydration, as it is barely running. So the protocols where you
have worked are different than the protocols where I've worked.

Oh, and I've also worked in blood banks and we ALWAYS gave out this
tubing for the very purpose of running saline through the blood
tubing. I'll take a blood bank recommendation on adminstering blood
products any day. After all, administration of blood products is
monitored by the FDA - ALL transfusions.

As they say, there are many ways to skin a cat. What is done in one
ward/hospital/state/country may not be the only way of doing things.

"Patricio Carlos" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

As they say, there are many ways to skin a cat. What is done in one
ward/hospital/state/country may not be the only way of doing things.

Another thing that bothers me is your mentioning pulmonary oedema from
over-hydration which you don't get in healthy individuals being transfused
if memory serves (and since I'm to lazy to get out the book). Your kidney's
will void excessive hydration almost as fast as it is inserted if you're a
health individual.