Why do we care about riders using EPO anyway?

What about cow blood and EPO. More lucrative for dealers.

Is that cool too?

In the long run---you are dead with or without.

EPO won't/can't cure Cancer.

Doctor.House said:

What about cow blood and EPO. More lucrative for dealers.

Is that cool too?

In the long run---you are dead with or without.

EPO won't/can't cure Cancer.

How would Epo cure cancer? But Epo is widely used when for example someone is planned to undergo serious surgery and the hospital wants to stack up some blood from the patient. Say the blood is extracted one or two weeks before surgery than this would be dangerous if they did not use EPO after. The patient wouldnt have the time to bounce back his own blood values before the surgery itself. With Epo they do and its widely used.

A better example yet is people with kidney failures. Kidney failure always leads to blood amnesia (translated right?) and in the past people with kidney problems had to undergo blood transfusions on a regular basis in order not to drop dead. So apart from the regular dialisis they also needed constant blood transfusions. Now they dont anymore, its a bless and improved their lives by 300 %.

Epo isnt all evil. And by setting EPO free (but keeping crit values checked) I dont think there would be any harm done. at all..

EPO allows you to play around with your hematocrit level. I don't think anyone has naturally had a level over 50% without the help of drugs. Correct me if I'm wrong. Your natural hematocrit level is one of the most important physical characteristics that give you an edge as an endurance athlete. This and VO2 levels. The great athletes are the ones that naturally have the high numbers and train well enough to exploit it. EPO and other PED's allow one to artificially get to the highest levels and BEYOND.

As far as medications go, they should do something about that loop-hole it seems half the peloton has got a "handicapped parking permit". Seriously how many average folks take hydrocortisone as regular medication. Have a guess how many of the peloton have a doctors script for it on medical grounds. 40%!

Trajectum said:

Seriously.. Erythropoietine is used in the medical field on quite a regular basis. It is a hormone that is produced in the kidneys and stimulates the production of red blood cells in the bone marrow. When the concentration of red blood cells drops, the kidneys produce additional EPO and the hematocrit value bounces back up.

Now the UCI in all its wisdom has declared that you are allowed to have a hemtocrit value of anywhere up to 50 % in your blood. Some people have a high crit by genetics, others dont.

EPO is considered doping by the current definition but couldnt it also be seen as a medicin to compensate for people with a naturally low hematocrit value?

Why not? If you suffer from a low crit you are allowed to take in Iron supplements, all kinds of Vitamin preps, you can sleep in pressure tents or go on altitude training. The only thing you cant take is EPO.. Whats the difference really? The objective is the same.. Increase your crit. And EPO is both safe and effective.

Why not? Where is the line between a medicine and doping?

Think about it.

Yeah that 40 % is a bizzare figure.

I know EPO can take your crit value up and beyond. But I think that the current system where you can have a crit value of max 50 % is not bad. 50 % is a safe figure, it doesnt get dangerous untill you hit the 60's (as your blood gets too thick).

If there are two athletes, one with a 37 % crit and one with a 46 % crit than the 37 % one is handicapped one might say. One could say that it is not fair for the 37 % athlete to use artificial EPO and get his level up to the level of the natural 46 % guy. But one could just as easily argue that it is not fair for the 37 % crit guy to not get it up. He is handicapped with that nasty crit isnt he? The playing field would be much more level if all the riders have roughly the same value and it would take away a lot of the doping problems that we have now.

Crankyfeet said:

EPO allows you to play around with your hematocrit level. I don't think anyone has naturally had a level over 50% without the help of drugs. Correct me if I'm wrong. Your natural hematocrit level is one of the most important physical characteristics that give you an edge as an endurance athlete. This and VO2 levels. The great athletes are the ones that naturally have the high numbers and train well enough to exploit it. EPO and other PED's allow one to artificially get to the highest levels and BEYOND.

As far as medications go, they should do something about that loop-hole it seems half the peloton has got a "handicapped parking permit". Seriously how many average folks take hydrocortisone as regular medication. Have a guess how many of the peloton have a doctors script for it on medical grounds. 40%!

I have to disagree. A level playing field is people training and competing without using biotech drugs to artifically boost performance. You can raise your hematocrit naturally, by training at higher altitude. And you have the added bonus of your body's natural checks and balances to prevent an EPO overdose and overthickening of the blood.

And we still don't know the long term effects of EPO usage, other than softer bones. Think of Flo-Jo dropping dead of heart failure at age 38. To allow artificial hematocrit manipulation is to allow teams to mandate its use.

I don't see any problem with making riders improve their performance the old fashioned and safe way - hard work.

Trajectum said:

Yeah that 40 % is a bizzare figure.

I know EPO can take your crit value up and beyond. But I think that the current system where you can have a crit value of max 50 % is not bad. 50 % is a safe figure, it doesnt get dangerous untill you hit the 60's (as your blood gets too thick).

If there are two athletes, one with a 37 % crit and one with a 46 % crit than the 37 % one is handicapped one might say. One could say that it is not fair for the 37 % athlete to use artificial EPO and get his level up to the level of the natural 46 % guy. But one could just as easily argue that it is not fair for the 37 % crit guy to not get it up. He is handicapped with that nasty crit isnt he? The playing field would be much more level if all the riders have roughly the same value and it would take away a lot of the doping problems that we have now.

JohnO said:

I have to disagree. A level playing field is people training and competing without using biotech drugs to artifically boost performance. You can raise your hematocrit naturally, by training at higher altitude. And you have the added bonus of your body's natural checks and balances to prevent an EPO overdose and overthickening of the blood.

And we still don't know the long term effects of EPO usage, other than softer bones. Think of Flo-Jo dropping dead of heart failure at age 38. To allow artificial hematocrit manipulation is to allow teams to mandate its use.

I don't see any problem with making riders improve their performance the old fashioned and safe way - hard work.

Plus, once doping is allowed, a solution some feel is more realistic that trying to stop doping, then cycling becomes nothing more than a doctor’s race with surrogates.

Is doping as widespread in Triathlon as it is in cycling?

Why should there be a level playing field? It's called talent. Some people have it others don't. Should a fast sprinter be forced to wear a 20-pound weight on his shoulders so it evens out the competition??

Trajectum said:

...The playing field would be much more level if all the riders have roughly the same value and it would take away a lot of the doping problems that we have now.

So following that logic if one rider could hold 50 km/hr on the flats and another only 40 kph then the slower rider could add a small motor to his bike to even the playing field?

The entire human endeavor called sports relies on and requires rules. Without those rules there is absolutely no meaning to sports. Don't agree, then what about when a faired in recumbent or prone HPV lines up behind you in your next flat ITT? Or how about showing up to play football(euro or american who cares) and the other team gets to field an additional 3 players? Without rules there is no sport.

If participants don't follow those rules it's called cheating or "unsportsmanlike conduct" it doesn't matter if its difficult to see whether or not the athletes are cheating, it's still cheating. Think about corked bats in US baseball or Rosie Ruiz riding the New York subway during her marathon "win". Cheating in sports makes the entire enterprise worthless.

It's only a matter of time before someone figures a good way to build a small and silent motor into carbon fiber bike frames or otherwise finds a way to add power in violation of the written rules. Why is that any different than injecting EPO or steroids to gain an advantage over what you were born with or what you can achieve through training?

The only argument I can see for relaxing drug regulations is that it's hard to test for drugs and the good doctors seem to stay one step ahead of the testing curve. Fine let's go with DNA testing and polygraphs but no matter how you slice it, it's cheating whether or not a lot of guys do it.

Markz said:

Is doping as widespread in Triathlon as it is in cycling?

I wouldn't doubt that some use peds to train but probably not close to race day, same with elite runners.

lw

Trajectum said:

Seriously.. Erythropoietine is used in the medical field on quite a regular basis. It is a hormone that is produced in the kidneys and stimulates the production of red blood cells in the bone marrow. When the concentration of red blood cells drops, the kidneys produce additional EPO and the hematocrit value bounces back up.

Now the UCI in all its wisdom has declared that you are allowed to have a hemtocrit value of anywhere up to 50 % in your blood. Some people have a high crit by genetics, others dont.

EPO is considered doping by the current definition but couldnt it also be seen as a medicin to compensate for people with a naturally low hematocrit value?

Why not? If you suffer from a low crit you are allowed to take in Iron supplements, all kinds of Vitamin preps, you can sleep in pressure tents or go on altitude training. The only thing you cant take is EPO.. Whats the difference really? The objective is the same.. Increase your crit. And EPO is both safe and effective.

Why not? Where is the line between a medicine and doping?

Think about it.

Good question.

EPO was developed to be administered under clinical conditions to treat certain medical conditions.
EPO wasn't developed to improve sporting performances.
Therefore clinically the ingestation of EPO in to "healthy" humans (ie cyclists),
raises ethical issues.

Second, the ingesation of EPO by healthy people under non-clinical conditions
is, in my view, like playing russian roulette.
Do we know the long term health effects of EPO ingestation in healthy
people?
No.
Do we know the psychological effect of ingesting EPO (or any PED).
No.

Third, if an athlete does develop long terms health problems as a result of ingesting EPO (or any other PED) : who is liable?
In the immediate term, the athlete is liable.
But is there a case to be answered for by the riders team?
Perhaps.
Does the doctor/soigeur responsible for providing the EPO have a case to answer?
Perhaps.
How is the EPO sourced? Is it sourced leGally?
Who would dispense EPO to a healthy person?
Is there not an ethical question to be answered?

All of these issues confirm my view that EPO and all PED's should continue to remain banned.
And where abuse of such PED's takes place, draconian measures should be employed to punish the guilty parties.

When 18 year-old racers start dropping dead from heart attacks, I think peoples' positions on this subject may change a bit.

Kind of like "Why do we care if NFL players use steroids?"

kennf said:

When 18 year-old racers start dropping dead from heart attacks, I think peoples' positions on this subject may change a bit.

Kind of like "Why do we care if NFL players use steroids?"

The maximum hematocrit value is placed at 50 %. There is no reason to believe that a crit of < 50 % will cauz anyone to drop dead from heart attacks.

As for obeying the rules. Sure.. People should obey the rules. But that doesnt mean that you cannot question the rules. If you suffer from low iron values you are allowed to take supplements, the same accounts for alot of substances. But for EPO it is not allowed, because the rule says that it is not allowed for EPO. Why not? what makes EPO so special as opposed to the countless of other (body natural) substances that you are allowed to take artificially?

The argument that we cannot predict the long term effects of taking EPO sounds valid. I dont know how much study has been done about long term effects of EPO injections but if there are questions about the long term efects than that would be a valid reason not to remove it from the list of forbidden substances.

But arguments that it should be forbidden because a high crit value is not what you are born with isnt. Why not? because there are countless things that you are allowed to take and which make up for the things you are not born with. And because Epo is just one of many ways to increase your crit. Also just one of many substances probably, where certain substances that are currently in use are not yet on the list of banned substances and cannot be detected. (The substance comes first and the tests follow years later when the damage is done).

If everyone were clean and riding with its natural crit values. Fine.. Honest. But we all know thats not the case and that will never be the case. Some teams and riders have acces to Dr. Miracle and others dont. Its a question of how much money you have and how much you are willing to risk.

I am not saying that per definition EPO should be set free, but on the other hand I do think its worth a debate.

I agree with this premise. Let them dope. It's all about money in one form or another. The best cyclists sign to the best teams, which have the benefit of the most money to use on buying/developing products and techniques that enhance their performances. They get equipment that's better than anyone else's, they get the benefit of state-of-the-art wind tunnels, nutrition, and training regimens that are just that much better than everyone else's. If you want a true "level playing field", make them all train with the same coach, with the same nutritionist, with the same dope doctor, with the same budget. And while you're at it, clone them all, because it's not fair that some riders are more naturally gifted than others.

This forum, and the sport itself, has become a big whine-fest for all the losers who can't cope with the reality that other people have advantages they don't. Doping is singled out solely because the advantage gained is incrementally greater than the others I mentioned. Otherwise, it is no different, and it shouldn't be illegal. So it's not particularly good for you. So what? You think risking your life going down a mountain at breakneck speed is a particularly sane thing to do with your body?

Let 'em dope.

The medications permissible today do not dramatically increase your performance, or push your system beyond what it was designed for.

They rode the Tour back in the 1920's without EPO, the distance was the same or greater, and the roads were in far worse shape. Somewhere, I saw a photo of the first climb of Ventoux. It looked like a gravel road.

The only difference between the Tour of the 1920's and today, aside from biotech drugs and better bikes, is the speed at which they ride. Without PED's, the Tour would just be slower, and probably a great deal more entertaining to watch.

IH8LANCE said:

I agree with this premise. Let them dope. It's all about money in one form or another. The best cyclists sign to the best teams, which have the benefit of the most money to use on buying/developing products and techniques that enhance their performances. They get equipment that's better than anyone else's, they get the benefit of state-of-the-art wind tunnels, nutrition, and training regimens that are just that much better than everyone else's. If you want a true "level playing field", make them all train with the same coach, with the same nutritionist, with the same dope doctor, with the same budget. And while you're at it, clone them all, because it's not fair that some riders are more naturally gifted than others.

This forum, and the sport itself, has become a big whine-fest for all the losers who can't cope with the reality that other people have advantages they don't. Doping is singled out solely because the advantage gained is incrementally greater than the others I mentioned. Otherwise, it is no different, and it shouldn't be illegal. So it's not particularly good for you. So what? You think risking your life going down a mountain at breakneck speed is a particularly sane thing to do with your body?

Let 'em dope.

Doping is a trickle down problem. Why are 30 something cyclists with zero shot at going pro doping?

IH8LANCE said:

I agree with this premise. Let them dope. It's all about money in one form or another. The best cyclists sign to the best teams, which have the benefit of the most money to use on buying/developing products and techniques that enhance their performances. They get equipment that's better than anyone else's, they get the benefit of state-of-the-art wind tunnels, nutrition, and training regimens that are just that much better than everyone else's. If you want a true "level playing field", make them all train with the same coach, with the same nutritionist, with the same dope doctor, with the same budget. And while you're at it, clone them all, because it's not fair that some riders are more naturally gifted than others.

This forum, and the sport itself, has become a big whine-fest for all the losers who can't cope with the reality that other people have advantages they don't. Doping is singled out solely because the advantage gained is incrementally greater than the others I mentioned. Otherwise, it is no different, and it shouldn't be illegal. So it's not particularly good for you. So what? You think risking your life going down a mountain at breakneck speed is a particularly sane thing to do with your body?

Let 'em dope.

No one is suggesting that if they didn't dope that they'd all be at the same level.
Of course riders have different capacities and different abilities sans dope.
Those capacities and abilities are accentuated through use of PED's.

There is more than enough empirical evidence throughout sports science which shows that a doper will always beat a clean athlete.

If the dopage was removed, I think the field would be more level : it may not be absolutely level in a clean field : but it most certainly would be more fair and more level than in a doped field.

limerickman said:

If the dopage was removed, I think the field would be more level : it may not be absolutely level in a clean field : but it most certainly would be more fair and more level than in a doped field.

I absoltely agree. But I dont think we could ever really emove doping. I would love to know the crits of the peleton, I bet that not many of the tests give a rider a crit of 37 %.

JohnO said:

And we still don't know the long term effects of EPO usage, other than softer bones. Think of Flo-Jo dropping dead of heart failure at age 38. To allow artificial hematocrit manipulation is to allow teams to mandate its use.

Uhhh... what makes you think all Flo-Jo was on was EPO? Do you really think a track & field man/woman hybrid just took EPO and never touched T, HGH, etc?