A-RodÂ’s blood treatment care toes a fine line

[krebs303]

A-Rod’s blood treatment care toes a fine line

Interesting article

Debate rages over star's radical treatment
Five years ago, I asked a question: What is a performance-enhancing drug? I had read a study from Denmark that espoused human growth hormone’s ability to heal broken bones faster, and it turned my 20/20 vision on the issue to 20/20,000.

If HGH truly promoted healing when administered in safe doses by a doctor, not only did it belong off banned lists but it needed to be used as regular treatment in trainers’ rooms. Drug regulation in Europe, of course, is far less stringent than in the United States, so studies replicating those findings haven’t been – and won’t be – done here anytime soon. Researchers there continue undeterred, and 20 countries now offer something called Orthokine.

Alex Rodriguez went to Germany for it, though he just as easily could have gone to Italy or Russia or Israel, where doctors too will draw your blood, spin it in a centrifuge with some sort of proprietary concoction to concentrate the growth factors that purport to prevent arthritis and then inject it back into an injured area. A-Rod got it in his balky right knee and left shoulder. He went on the advice of Kobe Bryant, who received treatment on his right knee.

 

[jraama]

After reading the article my first thought was that this is not doping because it is being used to treat injuries, not for enhancing performance. One would expect that an athlete undergoing this procedure is already injured, and therefore is not competing. And the intended effect of the procedure is to aid in healing, not to enhance the use of, an injured joint. When the athlete returns to competition, they will be no better than before the injury.

But there is certainly the potential for others to abuse this procedure for the purpose of enhancing their performance. The procedure involves using the bodies own components (isolated from blood) to stimulate growth factors; growth factors similar to IGF-1, which is banned. So logic dictates that the use of this procedure while competing should be banned.

MLB and the NBA appear to have decided the procedure should be done at your own risk, with the understanding that if you test positive for an HGH, you’re given a stern look.

This may be a case where the potential for abuse means the entire procedure should be banned for athletes. Kinda like the no needles policy in cycling.

 

[Cobblestoned]

Liked that "in Europe, of course, is far less stringent".
Stars and stripes, yeah, Jeff Passan. Building the myth of greatness for da people.

Anyway, I would think that A-Rod went right to Dr. Müller-Wohlfahrt or his institute. Dr. M-W also swears on Actovegin.

 

[Polish]

I think there is a clear distinction between a PED and a RET (Recovery Enhancing Technique). Although WADA makes no distinction between the two.

The technique as described in the article is not a PED, it is a RET.
Transfusing one's own blood is not a PED either, nor the once legal hydration drips. Both RETs. Not drugs. Old school techniques on the latter two.

When performed properly by a Doctor obsessed with an athlete's well being - they are good for an athletes health and recovery.

Of course there is a downside too. Discussions of transfusing one's own bood leads to the stock photo of Jesus Manzano being trolled on cycling forums

 

[Berzin]

This particular procedure is I heard legal in the US, but Rodriguez wanted to go to the best doctor as recommended by Kobe Bryant.

This type of transfusion is medically ethical for treating such injuries, but there is a difference between this and direct transfusions of one's own blood to help a rider climb faster and recover quicker.

So once again Polish, your point is without merit.

 

[Cloxxki]

Oops, I just fractured my pinky finger. It hurts me when I run.
Now I'll go on this treatment to recover. I can't help it if the rest of my body gets stronger from it.

 

[Polish]

This particular procedure is I heard legal in the US, but Rodriguez wanted to go to the best doctor as recommended by Kobe Bryant.

This type of transfusion is medically ethical for treating such injuries, but there is a difference between this and direct transfusions of one's own blood to help a rider climb faster and recover quicker.

So once again Polish, your point is without merit.

Berzin. All Recovery Enhancement Techniques enhance performance too. By definition fcol. And you are picking wrong if you say using RET's 12 days before competition is not as effective as using 12 hours before competition.
Sometimes it is more effective - as in the case of A-Rod and Kobe.

Anyway, anyone - is the technique described in the article legal for Pro Cyclists? Or just the MLB and NBA?

 

[Merckx index]

All Recovery Enhancement Techniques enhance performance too.

Well, this is the problem, isn’t it? If blood transfusion is an RET, then clearly an RET can be PE. Are you in favor of allowing transfusion, Polish? It is clearly one of the most powerful PE treatments there is for endurance athletes, one we all know totally changes the game in pro cycling.

Consider this quote from the article:

For something to make the banned list, Wadler said, it must fulfill three criteria:

• The capacity to enhance performance

• Use can result in negative health consequences

• Violate the spirit of sports.

I agree with Passan that the last two criteria are very problematical. Wadler clearly includes them precisely because he realizes that many treatments that are allowed are in fact PE, so there has to be some way to distinguish them from the banned ones. But these criteria don’t work very well.

Consider the second one. Any doctor or medical scientist knows that there is no treatment that has absolutely zero possibility of negative consequences. It’s a matter of probability. The probability of negative consequences from microdosing EPO is very low, almost certainly as low as the probability of complications from many types of medicines that many people take routinely (check out the descriptions of side effects of just about any drug). So should microdosing with EPO be allowed because it’s as safe as many allowed treatments?

Or conversely, if a treatment has possible negative consequences—e.g., rotator cuff surgery for pitchers, which sometimes weakens their arm—should it be banned? Clearly there is so much overlap in negative consequences between allowed and banned treatments--as much as there is wrt PE--that de facto the health consequences argument is NOT being used to determine what should be banned. It’s thrown in to make people think there is or can be a clear distinction between the two, when in fact it further illustrates that there isn’t.

The third criterion is even worse. What is the “spirit” of sports? All kinds of enhancement procedures involving new ways of training are allowed. Athletes train legally today in ways that would have been absolutely unthinkable a century ago, when the Olympics were still new. What exactly is the line that when crossed violates the spirit?

EPO is a natural substance. In theory, one could get it by drawing blood and concentrating it. If EPO were obtained in this way, would it suddenly be legal to use it? In fact, all PE drugs work by mimicking the action of some natural substance in the body, so in theory one could obtain any kind of PE by obtaining the substance directly from the individual. The only way to counter this point that I see is by arguing that needing the technology of drawing blood and concentrating the substance is the problem. It becomes artificial. And in fact, this is precisely the argument being used implicitly against blood transfusion (since when done under the care of a qualified physician, it is, again, as safe as many routine procedures).

But if this the case, obviously the procedure A-Rod (and Tiger Woods) used also fails. As Polish notes perceptively, if one is going to allow the latter, then one really has to allow transfusion, too.

So maybe the problem is the use of invasive technology. But then you would have to ban rotator cuff surgery, because it’s invasive and also clearly is PE. Some have argued that the key criterion is whether it simply restores performance to what it was before, or makes it better. One problem with this is that rotator cuff surgery often makes the pitcher better than he was before. This may be the case with Strasburg. So should he be banned? In fact, it’s a crapshoot. Sometimes a pitcher comes out better, sometimes the same, sometimes worse. Isn’t that a lot like high vs. low responders of drugs? Doesn’t that add a degree of unfairness—definitely not a level playing field even if everyone is using the same procedures--that makes the situation even worse?

Even if the surgery doesn’t improve performance, even if it just restores the athlete to his previous level, shouldn’t the natural decline with age be taken into account? Rotator cuff surgery, in effect, allows a pitcher to avoid what are generally the natural effects of aging. Endurance or longevity, which has traditionally been considered one important aspect of an athlete’s greatness (there have been some brilliant stars, like Sandy Koufax or Kirby Puckett, whose rank all-time is lower because they had to retire early), becomes available to all. If an athlete can perform at age 40 as well as at age 30, isn’t that an unnatural effect? Bonds and Clemens seemed to perform even better at 40 than 30, but that isn’t why they were vilified. They are considered cheaters not because of the degree of PE they obtained, but because they used treatments that are basically anti-aging. If they had simply performed as well as 40 as at 30 they would still be considered cheaters. In fact, this is basically what Andy Pettite did, and while he has largely been forgiven, it’s not because he is not considered a cheater, but because he confessed.