Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Just Riding Along
Joined
·
1,024 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/sports/olympics/26doping.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

"Athletes who want to cheat by injecting themselves with a performance-enhancing drug that boosts their blood cell count can do so with little risk of getting caught, a new study indicates, possibly exposing another flaw in what is regarded as the world’s toughest anti-doping program.

"A urine test that is supposed to detect the drug, and that will be used in the Tour de France next month and in the Olympics in August, is likely to miss it, the study says. The substance, recombinant human erythropoietin, known as EPO, stimulates bone marrow to speed up production of oxygen-carrying red blood cells. And with more blood cells, endurance athletes like cyclists and distance runners can perform better....

A Danish physiologist enlisted 8 men and administered EPO. Naturally endurance performance increased. One lab never returned a postive result on the urine tests and the other lab missed more than it caught.

Conclusion - the benefits outweigh the risks.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
13,151 Posts
Even newer study reports doping threads go in the doping forum.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
I'm having a hard time getting excited about this. It's always been known that even when taking large intramuscular doses that the window of detection was at best 2 or 3 days. Microdosing (which I've read is what this study examined, or at least that was part of the dosing protocol) would greatly reduce this even further. I've also read taking intravenous rather than intramuscular injections decreases the detection window.

So this really only seems like news if someone was under the false impression that the EPO test was highly effective at detecting EPO use.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,838 Posts
Dwayne Barry said:
I'm having a hard time getting excited about this. It's always been known that even when taking large intramuscular doses that the window of detection was at best 2 or 3 days. Microdosing (which I've read is what this study examined, or at least that was part of the dosing protocol) would greatly reduce this even further. I've also read taking intravenous rather than intramuscular injections decreases the detection window.

So this really only seems like news if someone was under the false impression that the EPO test was highly effective at detecting EPO use.
Umm, why would it be a test if it wasn't highly effective?

Or - why would some lab no catch it but another on the same sample?

No wonder Lance.... nevermind
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,480 Posts
My one beef with the study is it reports 9-16% increase in performance at max effort (ok...) and 50% increase in performance at slightly lower levels. I haven't had the pleasure of reading the paper first hand, but how are we defining 'maximum' and 'slightly lower'? It seems like a 50% increase in performance would be outrageous, even for EPO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
kbiker3111 said:
My one beef with the study is it reports 9-16% increase in performance at max effort (ok...) and 50% increase in performance at slightly lower levels. I haven't had the pleasure of reading the paper first hand, but how are we defining 'maximum' and 'slightly lower'? It seems like a 50% increase in performance would be outrageous, even for EPO.
Probably the max effort was determined by some sort of incremental exercise test, where the power was increased by x amount of watts every y minutes (i.e. your standard "VO2max" test) whereas the much larger increase was in a "time to exhaustion" test at some set sub-maximal power (either relative, i.e. same % of VO2max or just an absolute work load). I think it's pretty typical, for most sorts of interventions, to have a much greater effect on the latter rather than the former.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top