Salanson dead

  • Thread starter Alexander Lackn
  • Start date



Status
Not open for further replies.
In article <[email protected]>, Kurgan Gringioni
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:050620032102509943%[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>, Nick Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Another rare moment when Tom nails it. EPO is harmless at levels that
> allow
> > > passing the "health" tests.
> >
> > And you know this how?
>
>
>
>
> It's not unusual for people to be naturally above 50%.
>
> That's why the UCI can only issue a 2 week health suspension if someone tests higher.

I know this. I wondered how he knows that "EPO is harmless" even when the 'crit level is 50 or less.

-WG
 
"warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:050620032237535374%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Kurgan Gringioni
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:050620032102509943%[email protected]...
> > > In article <[email protected]>, Nick Burns <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Another rare moment when Tom nails it. EPO is harmless at levels
that
> > allow
> > > > passing the "health" tests.
> > >
> > > And you know this how?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > It's not unusual for people to be naturally above 50%.
> >
> > That's why the UCI can only issue a 2 week health suspension if someone tests higher.
>
> I know this. I wondered how he knows that "EPO is harmless" even when the 'crit level is 50
> or less.

Here's a good anecdote:

A friend of mine is a professional racer and his mother has been worried about the lure of
performance enhancing drugs and what it might do to his health (she is a nurse).

Finally, one day she asked him about it. He told her he was clean (he is). Then she asked him what
the doped up riders were taking. He said "EPO". She was very relieved. She doesn't think it's a big
deal because she sticks it into patients all the time.

Medical people also don't think that 50 is a health risk. 60, OTOH, is a problem and 65 (which some
riders supposedly got up to) is very much a big risk.

The reason the riders wanted the limit at 50 is they didn't want to have to dope up to 65 to be
competitive (and maybe kill themselves).

The 50 thing is so arbitrary - what they need to do is just test for EPO, regularly.
 
Interesting item on BBC's Today programme this morning (you can hear it on www.bbc.co.uk) about the
winter olympics where doctors were aware of many athletes taking someone of the same blood group
with them so they could have a blood transfusion to up their red count. Since 9/11 you can no longer
smuggle blood sacs through airports but if it's another tourist ..... Also of note at the Paris
tennis tournament (where there is the threat of dope testing) is that the tough women are not doing
so well All the best Dan Gregory
 
In article <[email protected]>, Kurgan Gringioni
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:050620032237535374%[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>, Kurgan Gringioni
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:050620032102509943%[email protected]...
> > > > In article <[email protected]>, Nick Burns <[email protected]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Another rare moment when Tom nails it. EPO is harmless at levels
> that
> > > allow
> > > > > passing the "health" tests.
> > > >
> > > > And you know this how?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It's not unusual for people to be naturally above 50%.
> > >
> > > That's why the UCI can only issue a 2 week health suspension if someone tests higher.
> >
> > I know this. I wondered how he knows that "EPO is harmless" even when the 'crit level is 50
> > or less.
>
>
> Here's a good anecdote:
>
> A friend of mine is a professional racer and his mother has been worried about the lure of
> performance enhancing drugs and what it might do to his health (she is a nurse).
>
> Finally, one day she asked him about it. He told her he was clean (he is). Then she asked him what
> the doped up riders were taking. He said "EPO". She was very relieved. She doesn't think it's a
> big deal because she sticks it into patients all the time.

She gives to people who can't make enough red cells already. What about people who can? What does
EPO do to their body's normal mechanisms to regulate the blood? Remember the wild swings Pantani
had? This problem occurs for creatine and testosterone supplementation and perhaps EPO.

-WG
 
"warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:060620030805380324%[email protected]...
>
> She gives to people who can't make enough red cells already. What about people who can? What
> does EPO do to their body's normal mechanisms to regulate the blood? Remember the wild swings
> Pantani had?

His body quit making natural EPO so obviously he was on it all the time.

Read the part in the previous post about 50% vs. 60%.
 
"Dan Gregory" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> Interesting item on BBC's Today programme this morning (you can hear it on www.bbc.co.uk) about
> the winter olympics where doctors were aware of many athletes taking someone of the same blood
> group with them so they could have a blood transfusion to up their red count. Since 9/11 you can
> no longer smuggle blood sacs through airports but if it's another tourist ..... Also of note at
> the Paris tennis tournament (where there is the threat of dope testing) is that the tough women
> are not doing so well All the best Dan Gregory

Very interesting. I've had my suspicions that cyclists could be kickin' it old school with regards
to blood doping. The mule could be on epo.
 
I don't think it is arbitrary at all. It is specifially chosen to be low enough to discourage unsafe
abuse when they can't always catch all of the abusers.

"Kurgan Gringioni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:050620032237535374%[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>, Kurgan Gringioni
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:050620032102509943%[email protected]...
> > > > In article <[email protected]>, Nick Burns <[email protected]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Another rare moment when Tom nails it. EPO is harmless at levels
> that
> > > allow
> > > > > passing the "health" tests.
> > > >
> > > > And you know this how?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It's not unusual for people to be naturally above 50%.
> > >
> > > That's why the UCI can only issue a 2 week health suspension if
someone
> > > tests higher.
> >
> > I know this. I wondered how he knows that "EPO is harmless" even when the 'crit level is 50
> > or less.
>
>
> Here's a good anecdote:
>
> A friend of mine is a professional racer and his mother has been worried about the lure of
> performance enhancing drugs and what it might do to his health (she is a nurse).
>
> Finally, one day she asked him about it. He told her he was clean (he is). Then she asked him what
> the doped up riders were taking. He said "EPO".
She
> was very relieved. She doesn't think it's a big deal because she sticks it into patients all
> the time.
>
> Medical people also don't think that 50 is a health risk. 60, OTOH, is a problem and 65 (which
> some riders supposedly got up to) is very much a big risk.
>
> The reason the riders wanted the limit at 50 is they didn't want to have
to
> dope up to 65 to be competitive (and maybe kill themselves).
>
> The 50 thing is so arbitrary - what they need to do is just test for EPO, regularly.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Nick Burns <[email protected]> wrote:

> I don't understand your question. You are surprised that people other than you are aware of this?
> Why? That seems arrogant to me.

So enlighten me/us. How do you know EPO is harmless when the 'crit level is kept below 50%? You made
the statement so where is your proof of its accuracy?

-WG

>
>
> "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:050620032102509943%[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>, Nick Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Another rare moment when Tom nails it. EPO is harmless at levels that
> allow
> > > passing the "health" tests.
> >
> > And you know this how?
> >
> > -WG
 
"warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:060620031454468457%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Nick Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I don't understand your question. You are surprised that people other
than
> > you are aware of this? Why? That seems arrogant to me.
>
> So enlighten me/us. How do you know EPO is harmless when the 'crit level is kept below 50%? You
> made the statement so where is your proof of its accuracy?

I admit it, I don't have any proof.

A friend of mine who is a doctor doesn't think 50% is dangerous, but yeah, that's not proof.

Another guy I know has 49% all the time. He is also not very fast, almost no fast twitch, can't deal
with changes in pace.

No proof.

But - when does anyone die of 50% hematocrit? Why aren't people who live at high altitude
keeling over?

60%, that's another story.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Kurgan Gringioni
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:060620031454468457%[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>, Nick Burns <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I don't understand your question. You are surprised that people other
> than
> > > you are aware of this? Why? That seems arrogant to me.
> >
> > So enlighten me/us. How do you know EPO is harmless when the 'crit level is kept below 50%? You
> > made the statement so where is your proof of its accuracy?
>
>
>
>
> I admit it, I don't have any proof.
>
> A friend of mine who is a doctor doesn't think 50% is dangerous, but yeah, that's not proof.
>
> Another guy I know has 49% all the time. He is also not very fast, almost no fast twitch, can't
> deal with changes in pace.
>
>
> No proof.
>
> But - when does anyone die of 50% hematocrit? Why aren't people who live at high altitude
> keeling over?
>
> 60%, that's another story.

My point is not about the %, it's about the effect that using EPO will have on your body's normal
mechanisms for regulating the %, or perhaps some other long-term effect.

-WG
 
"warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:060620031532180713%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Kurgan
> >
> > 60%, that's another story.
>
> My point is not about the %, it's about the effect that using EPO will have on your body's normal
> mechanisms for regulating the %, or perhaps some other long-term effect.

Beats me. I'll google it later.

Here's something:

http://www.rajeun.net/hb.html

check out the hemtocrit levels for the 95th percentile. They are all above 49%.
 
My opinion is based on clinical experience. Do you have proof or evidence to the contrary? You also
mention testosterone. The evidence of testosterone having an effect on the testicle's ability or
tendency to produce testosterone is ambiguous and you treat it as a given. There may be a risk of
EPO use, but it is only theoretical, unless you know something that I don't. Please share if you do.

"warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:060620031454468457%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Nick Burns <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I don't understand your question. You are surprised that people other
than
> > you are aware of this? Why? That seems arrogant to me.
>
> So enlighten me/us. How do you know EPO is harmless when the 'crit level is kept below 50%? You
> made the statement so where is your proof of its accuracy?
>
> -WG
>
>
> >
> >
> > "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:050620032102509943%[email protected]...
> > > In article <[email protected]>, Nick Burns <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Another rare moment when Tom nails it. EPO is harmless at levels
that
> > allow
> > > > passing the "health" tests.
> > >
> > > And you know this how?
> > >
> > > -WG
 
Advantage, Warren.

"warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:060620031532180713%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Kurgan Gringioni
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:060620031454468457%[email protected]...
> > > In article <[email protected]>, Nick Burns <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I don't understand your question. You are surprised that people
other
> > than
> > > > you are aware of this? Why? That seems arrogant to me.
> > >
> > > So enlighten me/us. How do you know EPO is harmless when the 'crit level is kept below 50%?
> > > You made the statement so where is your proof of its accuracy?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I admit it, I don't have any proof.
> >
> > A friend of mine who is a doctor doesn't think 50% is dangerous, but
yeah,
> > that's not proof.
> >
> > Another guy I know has 49% all the time. He is also not very fast,
almost no
> > fast twitch, can't deal with changes in pace.
> >
> >
> > No proof.
> >
> > But - when does anyone die of 50% hematocrit? Why aren't people who live
at
> > high altitude keeling over?
> >
> > 60%, that's another story.
>
> My point is not about the %, it's about the effect that using EPO will have on your body's normal
> mechanisms for regulating the %, or perhaps some other long-term effect.
>
> -WG
 
In article <[email protected]>, Kurgan Gringioni
<[email protected]> wrote:

> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Advantage, Warren.
>
>
>
>
> If you read what he wrote, we're not taking opposite sides.

It's only Nick Burns who claims to know something contrary for which he doesn't want to divulge his
proof. I'm here trying to learn something but I won't take Nick's word for fact. Especially when
Ferrari himself has hinted that he is not certain about the long-term dangers of EPO use.

-WG
 
warren wrote:

> but I won't take Nick's word for fact. Especially when Ferrari himself has hinted that he is not
> certain about the long-term dangers of EPO use.

A few studies are emerging now that hint that long-term EPO use inhibits the body's capacity to
produce a certain type of red blood cell. Excessive iron levels are cited as the cause since the use
of artificial EPO causes the body not to use iron stores in the normal way.

So, blood as thick as ketchup for a few years, anaemic for the rest of your life. STF
 
Warren, EPO is a naturally occurring hormone that all but a few very rare and short lived people
have in their bodies. The body has a very high tolerance for this stuff for several reasons. But
the important thing is that it has been used in megadoses for very ill cancer patients and athletes
have been using it in very high doses as well. There are certain families that are missing a gene
that controls the body's production of EPO and so we know that there is a very high tolerance to
the stuff.

There can be no allergic effect to hEPO or else you'd already have died. Therefore the only way to
kill yourself with EPO is to use so much of it that your blood thickens up like syrup and your
heart, being enlarged and with a deep slow stroke from athletic training, slows to the speed at
which it stalls. This generally occurs in sleep or sometimes when you are doing something like
meditating.

I was relieved when the UCI set a hematocrit limit instead of relying on an EPO blood test. EPO is
voided from the body quite rapidly and the marked rhEPO only is detectable for a couple of days.
However, since the danger sign is excessively high red blood cell count, limiting this to the high
end of the natural hematocrit pretty much eliminates EPO as a health threat to racers. And it also
makes it possible for athletes who wish to stay clean to have the same hematocrit as cheaters just
by high altitude training. 2 birds with one stone.

You can look it up on Medline if you like.

"warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:060620030805380324%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Kurgan Gringioni
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:050620032237535374%[email protected]...
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
Kurgan
> > > Gringioni <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:050620032102509943%[email protected]...
> > > > > In article <[email protected]>, Nick Burns <[email protected]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Another rare moment when Tom nails it. EPO is harmless at
levels
> > that
> > > > allow
> > > > > > passing the "health" tests.
> > > > >
> > > > > And you know this how?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It's not unusual for people to be naturally above 50%.
> > > >
> > > > That's why the UCI can only issue a 2 week health suspension
if someone
> > > > tests higher.
> > >
> > > I know this. I wondered how he knows that "EPO is harmless" even
when
> > > the 'crit level is 50 or less.
> >
> >
> > Here's a good anecdote:
> >
> > A friend of mine is a professional racer and his mother has been
worried
> > about the lure of performance enhancing drugs and what it might do
to his
> > health (she is a nurse).
> >
> > Finally, one day she asked him about it. He told her he was clean
(he is).
> > Then she asked him what the doped up riders were taking. He said
"EPO". She
> > was very relieved. She doesn't think it's a big deal because she
sticks it
> > into patients all the time.
>
> She gives to people who can't make enough red cells already. What
about
> people who can? What does EPO do to their body's normal mechanisms
to
> regulate the blood? Remember the wild swings Pantani had? This
problem
> occurs for creatine and testosterone supplementation and perhaps
EPO.
>
> -WG
 
In article <[email protected]>, Tom Kunich
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Warren, EPO is a naturally occurring hormone that all but a few very rare and short lived people
> have in their bodies. The body has a very high tolerance for this stuff for several reasons. But
> the important thing is that it has been used in megadoses for very ill cancer patients and
> athletes have been using it in very high doses as well. There are certain families that are
> missing a gene that controls the body's production of EPO and so we know that there is a very high
> tolerance to the stuff.

They may be choosing the lesser of two evils. Wouldn't you?

> There can be no allergic effect to hEPO or else you'd already have died.

So the injected form of EPO behaves exactly the same as the EPO already in you?

Who said death was the effect we're concerned about? What about Stuart's comments about the effect
on your body's ability to maintain iron balance. Perhaps there are other effects just like when
someone circumvents their body's regulation of testosterone or dozens of other chemicals. You're
familiar with the "side effects" of some drugs on our physiology. Why was Pantani's natural EPO
regulation so screwed up during his hospital visit? How is it now? Like many things in the
pharmacology of sports the people who know the answers aren't writing about it.

> I was relieved when the UCI set a hematocrit limit instead of relying on an EPO blood test. EPO is
> voided from the body quite rapidly and the marked rhEPO only is detectable for a couple of days.
> However, since the danger sign is excessively high red blood cell count, limiting this to the high
> end of the natural hematocrit pretty much eliminates EPO as a health threat to racers. And it also
> makes it possible for athletes who wish to stay clean to have the same hematocrit as cheaters just
> by high altitude training. 2 birds with one stone.

I used to think that way too.

Ferrari said that EPO was more convenient because the rider could stay at his normal home with his
family, could sleep normally, and this whole procedure was more effective at maintaining the rider's
normal recuperation from training and racing.

His rationale was that a rider will ask him, Will EPO help me race my bike better? Yes. Do you know
if EPO will harm me in the long term? I don't know. Is there a risk with EPO? Yes. And the rider
will say that if he doesn't take EPO he will have to go drive a truck or work in a factory and he
could be killed doing that so EPO is the better choice.

> You can look it up on Medline if you like.

Look what up? A long-term study done on athletes using EPO?

-WG
 
Contrary to what? Anyone like you can claim that something may have negative effects and then ask
for proof that there are none. First tell me what your standards are for proof.

If your standards are the same as the FDA, then look up the results of the clinical trials. Why so
you need me? If your standards are more stringent than the FDA, what can I possibly do about that?

"warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:060620031720505229%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Kurgan Gringioni
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Advantage, Warren.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > If you read what he wrote, we're not taking opposite sides.
>
> It's only Nick Burns who claims to know something contrary for which he doesn't want to divulge
> his proof. I'm here trying to learn something but I won't take Nick's word for fact. Especially
> when Ferrari himself has hinted that he is not certain about the long-term dangers of EPO use.
>
> -WG
 
Status
Not open for further replies.