• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Apparently EPO Does Not Work!

Dec 6, 2012
80
0
8,680
I do not know if this has been posted already.

Taken from this article: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling...says-peerreviewed-journal-20121206-2awx3.html

PARIS: Cyclists who dope themselves with EPO may not gain any performance advantage even though they are putting their health at risk, scientists said on Thursday.

In a review of the evidence, a team of European researchers scoffed at the entrenched notion that EPO gives cyclists an edge.

And they pointed out that the drug has many perils for those who use it illicitly, including blood clots that can cause strokes and heart attacks.

"Athletes and their medical staff may believe EPO enhances performance, but there is no evidence that anyone performed good experiments to check if EPO would actually improve performance in elite cyclists," said Adam Cohen, a professor at the Centre for Human Drug Research in the Netherlands.
Advertisement

EPO -- erythropoietin -- is a natural hormone, produced in the kidneys, which helps regenerate the red blood cells that transport oxygen around the body.

A man-made version of the hormone is licensed for treating renal patients to help them combat anaemia.

As early as 1990, the drug appeared on the International Olympic Committee's banned list, given the suspicions that by increasing red-blood cell mass, it also boosts exercise capacity.

EPO then engulfed professional cycling, breeding a scandal that erupted this year when Lance Armstrong was stripped of his record seven Tour de France titles.

But, said the new study, no solid evidence exists to back the belief that EPO is as effective as dodgy trainers and team doctors believe.

And, it added, there are plenty of reasons to say the faith is as dangerous as it is misplaced.

Cohen's team trawled through published studies that tested EPO's effect on healthy cyclists but found none which had participants of competition level, whose genetic profile and training programmes differ from those of sub-elite groups.

The big belief behind EPO is that it improves maximal oxygen uptake -- known in scientific parlance as VO2 max -- and thus boosts power output.

But Cohen found no proof for this, at least as far as pro cycling is concerned.

In tests, cycling volunteers were usually assessed for VO2 max for just 20 minutes or so, a far cry from a five-hour grind of a cycling race.

In any case, said the study, VO2 max is only a minor factor in the performance of endurance cyclists.

Only small segments of professional cycling races are cycled at such severe intensities that VO2 max is decisive. There are many other factors, none of them influenced by EPO.

They include the blood lactate threshold, which determines the point at which muscles tire; work economy, which is the efficiency of the metabolic system to convert energy into movement; increased cardiac volume; and the quantity of muscle mass available for sustained power production.

"There is no scientific basis to conclude EPO has performance-enhancing properties in elite cyclists," is the blunt conclusion of the study, which appears in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology.

"Additionally, the possibly harmful side-effects have not been adequately researched for this population, but appear to be worrying at least."
 
beowulf said:
I do not know if this has been posted already.

Taken from this article: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling...says-peerreviewed-journal-20121206-2awx3.html

lack of proof doesn't mean the reverse is proved.

there's very little incentive to prove EPO works. IOW's we know it works and it's already banned so researchers aren't going to spend time and hard to come by grant money to prove a small non therapeutic population of racing cyclists will "benefit". my two cents.
 
May 12, 2011
241
0
0
lean said:
lack of proof doesn't mean the reverse if proved.

there's very little incentive to prove EPO works. IOW's we know it works and it's already banned so researchers aren't going to spend time and hard to come by grant money to prove a small non therapeutic population of racing cyclists will "benefit". my two cents.

True if we are sure that it works. It does raise the interesting question of how they decided to ban EPO if such testing has not proven that it provides an advantage. If a drug testing program is to have validity you need to have something more than a hunch that a given PED works before it should be banned.

Clenbuterol is an example. During the Contador situation there was a lot of discussion on what advantage it actually provides. Adderall is another in that kind of situation. Some ban it, some do not. In some places you can use if diagnosed with ADHD but not if you don't have ADHD. Doesn't that provide an advantage to someone with ADHD?

Some drugs are flat out banned but others can get a TUE. Why?

If the CCN guys want to prevail, all these issues and tons more need to be answered.
 
Now that's just silly.

As for proof, Mads Kaggestad and Gabriel Rasch underwent a test some years ago for research, when Mads was given EPO and Rasch was given placebo. Mads Kaggestad's said that he immediately went from being average to being able to drop everyone in training with ease. His test results improved enormously and he also stressed that his recovery became so great he could do 6 hour rides and feel nothing the next day. In fact, the test-results were so good that he possibly would've been a top contender in ardennes classics and such on EPO (clean, he was barely worthy of being a watercarrier at CA).

Gabriel Rasch, who was given placebo, felt no effect and showed no improvement in the tests.
 
May 12, 2011
241
0
0
maltiv said:
Now that's just silly.

As for proof, Mads Kaggestad and Gabriel Rasch underwent a test some years ago for research, when Mads was given EPO and Rasch was given placebo. Mads Kaggestad's said that he immediately went from being average to being able to drop everyone in training with ease. His test results improved enormously and he also stressed that his recovery became so great he could do 6 hour rides and feel nothing the next day. In fact, the test-results were so good that he possibly would've been a top contender in ardennes classics and such on EPO (clean, he was barely worthy of being a watercarrier at CA).

Gabriel Rasch, who was given placebo, felt no effect and showed no improvement in the tests.

From a serious scientific perspective, that test is crap. Proving results would take a serious regime of testing and analysis. One test even if this were really done as a double blink test is far from any proof. In the pharma industry tests proving any specific causal link can take years. At best this kind of off license use is always scientifically iffy since no one ever goes on record as doing this kind of testing.

Now, there are specific medical uses for all the drugs which certainly lead to a high probably that they work for the reasons cyclists want them to but it is far from proof.
 
Jan 10, 2012
451
0
0
maltiv said:
Now that's just silly.

As for proof, Mads Kaggestad and Gabriel Rasch underwent a test some years ago for research, when Mads was given EPO and Rasch was given placebo. Mads Kaggestad's said that he immediately went from being average to being able to drop everyone in training with ease. His test results improved enormously and he also stressed that his recovery became so great he could do 6 hour rides and feel nothing the next day. In fact, the test-results were so good that he possibly would've been a top contender in ardennes classics and such on EPO (clean, he was barely worthy of being a watercarrier at CA).

Gabriel Rasch, who was given placebo, felt no effect and showed no improvement in the tests.

Very interesting. Do you have any further information about this?

I believe some historical climbing times are clear enough to attribute some performing enhancing effects to EPO. I think there could be some kind of optimum, on a personal level, if you push it to the edge. Nevertheless, in general I guess it's often to unclear to really differentiate the (positive) effects and know for sure if they outweigh the negatives. The fact that we almost never (at least in recent years) without any doubt can say if a performance is clearly doped, says enough about the uncertainty and vagueness of this topic.
 
Aug 12, 2010
63
0
0
Journalists may wish to check the last 20 years of cycling results to see if it works before they publish this drivel.
 
Aleajactaest said:
True if we are sure that it works. It does raise the interesting question of how they decided to ban EPO if such testing has not proven that it provides an advantage. If a drug testing program is to have validity you need to have something more than a hunch that a given PED works before it should be banned.

WADA code and it's list of banned substances is not arrived at casually or by hunches. this assumption is silly.

Aleajactaest said:
Clenbuterol is an example. During the Contador situation there was a lot of discussion on what advantage it actually provides. Adderall is another in that kind of situation. Some ban it, some do not. In some places you can use if diagnosed with ADHD but not if you don't have ADHD. Doesn't that provide an advantage to someone with ADHD?

Some drugs are flat out banned but others can get a TUE. Why?

If the CCN guys want to prevail, all these issues and tons more need to be answered.

your questions are fair but most, if not all, of them have been answered here, in the professional literature, and all over the internet many times before. try the search feature and happy hunting. :D
 
Is there any chance at all the study was funded by Amgen? The IOC? Ed Coyle?

The tobacco industry in the U.S. used to manufacture research like this too.

What is known, is that there is a range of responses to taking EPO depending on the athlete. You have super-responders like Wonderboy and according to a JV1973 post, he claimed it didn't help him much.

We have other anecdotal evidence from confessed dealers that it is very much like a puzzle. You have to find the combination that generates the biggest response for each athlete. David Anthony's interview confirms this. When he sorted out the combination that worked, it was a big benefit.

None of this has been presented as "testing research" but that's not the point. The point is to pretend EPO isn't the be-all end-all drug it really is for many endurance athletes.
 
Apr 9, 2009
976
0
0
Well that proves it. All those cyclists from the early '90s through today took epo only for the placebo effect. That's gotta really upset the clean riders who dropped out of the sport.
 
May 12, 2011
241
0
0
lean said:
WADA code and it's list of banned substances is not arrived at casually or by hunches. this assumption is silly.



your questions are fair but most, if not all, of them have been answered here, in the professional literature, and all over the internet many times before. try the search feature and happy hunting. :D

The list says what is banned but I don't see details on how they built the list. Also, certainly, there are a wide variety of effectiveness within that list. As I noted earlier, some of the drugs were not universally banned by everyone. Now most just accept the WADA list which unifies the list but really just allows the governing bodies to skip the step of actually seeing if the drugs actually do the same thing for their sport. e.g. drugs that assist Vo2 are much less important to weight lifters than to cyclists and other drugs aide some sports more than others.
 
May 12, 2011
241
0
0
Kennf1 said:
Well that proves it. All those cyclists from the early '90s through today took epo only for the placebo effect. That's gotta really upset the clean riders who dropped out of the sport.

As with all sports, cyclist rely on what they hear from others. In the early days there was some really silly stuff going on. They were all positive that it helped them but now we KNOW for a fact that it did nothing.

e.g. blood letting and use of leaches was state of the art medicine at one point but not so much anymore. Additionally, it is medically proven that due to different genetics some drugs have ZERO effect on one person but are tremendously effective for others.
 
Nilsson said:
Very interesting. Do you have any further information about this?

I believe some historical climbing times are clear enough to attribute some performing enhancing effects to EPO. I think there could be some kind of optimum, on a personal level, if you push it to the edge. Nevertheless, in general I guess it's often to unclear to really differentiate the (positive) effects and know for sure if they outweigh the negatives. The fact that we almost never (at least in recent years) without any doubt can say if a performance is clearly doped, says enough about the uncertainty and vagueness of this topic.

Kaggestad is on Twitter. I'll ask if it was ever published anywhere.
 
Quick response! Prof Roald Bahr at NIH (Norges Idrettshøyskole) is the Guy to Google.

@Mads_Kaggestad: @trond_vidar da må du ta kontakt med professor Roald Bahr på NIH. Jeg vet ikke om studien av #epoprosjektet er gutt ut?
 
Oct 21, 2012
340
0
0
conspiracy theory

Is this some sort of sly attempt by pharmstrong to get back his 7 titles, rep etc.??
He can finally admit to using EPO AND POINT TO THE FACT THAT IT GAVE HIM NO ADVANTAGE WHATSOEVER - IN FACT (oops caps are on) he managed to win his 7 titles with a handicap because his blood was clotted etc.
This could be a supreme tactic!! :D:D He's so devious I have to admire it sometimes!
 

mountainrman

BANNED
Oct 17, 2012
385
0
0
One issue which is really important in this is the proven power of placebo.
The mind is a complex machine. The belief of benefit of a drug can indeed sometimes simulate the benefit believed

That is why "anecdotal" evidence is largely useless.

The only thing that proves efficacy is double blind trial which is why it forms the basis of all drug regulatory systems.

This is not a comment on EPO per se, only the reliability of statements based on limited numbers of people who knew or thought they were taking it at the time.
 
May 12, 2011
241
0
0
mountainrman said:
One issue which is really important in this is the proven power of placebo.
The mind is a complex machine. The belief of benefit of a drug can indeed sometimes simulate the benefit believed

That is why "anecdotal" evidence is largely useless.

The only thing that proves efficacy is double blind trial which is why it forms the basis of all drug regulatory systems.

This is not a comment on EPO per se, only the reliability of statements based on limited numbers of people who knew or thought they were taking it at the time.

it's why spinning/running use music. It allows you to ride harder than you can without it. It tricks your mind into not noticing some of the pain.

A quick google didn't find authoritative data but I thought I read that distance runners were not allowed to listen to music. It aides in pain mitigation and it can assist in pacing.
 
May 12, 2011
241
0
0
Le Baroudeur said:
They used to fund research to show us tobacco has no benefits and is bad for you? :D

It has been attributed to Mark Twain( falsely) that there are three kinds of lies. Lies, Damned lies, and statistics.

You can make a test have any result if you ask the proper question.
 
Jan 29, 2010
502
0
0
Aleajactaest said:
As with all sports, cyclist rely on what they hear from others. In the early days there was some really silly stuff going on. They were all positive that it helped them but now we KNOW for a fact that it did nothing.

e.g. blood letting and use of leaches was state of the art medicine at one point but not so much anymore. Additionally, it is medically proven that due to different genetics some drugs have ZERO effect on one person but are tremendously effective for others.

I have a friend who has been diagnosed with a condition (can't remember the name, but something to do with too much iron in his blood) where the only treatment is blood letting. I don't think they're using leaches to drain the blood, but he periodically has to go and have blood removed to remain healthy.
 
Oct 28, 2012
600
0
0
Aleajactaest said:
It has been attributed to Mark Twain( falsely) that there are three kinds of lies. Lies, Damned lies, and statistics.

You can make a test have any result if you ask the proper question.

Within reason there is truth to this, however, you can also propagate and control a faith based system to the same effect, and unlike scientific studies, they can be immune to reason and proof...
 
Oct 30, 2012
428
0
0
Le Baroudeur said:
They used to fund research to show us tobacco has no benefits and is bad for you? :D

No, the tobacco industry would fund pseudo-research to show us tobacco was not dangerous.

It's the "pseudo" bit, the disinformation masquerading as objectivity, that DW is referring to. Obviously. As you well know. So, maybe take the :D somewhere it might be appropriate?

Funny how all the dope-apologists are coming out of the woodwork.

I'm off to the climbing wall for a few hours, so will be replying to the yawn-inducing rejoinder then.