Apparently EPO Does Not Work!

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
What a load of pure rubbish. The only real argument in that study is not that epo has no effect....its proven it does. The argument is that it has not been studied and published in a scientific journal on pro level cyclists therefore the result is not proven. Well thats a shock considering its a banned substance.

They should just ask ferrari for his notes and studies. Thatll clear it up.
 
May 12, 2011
241
0
0
WinterRider said:
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.

There are some practical uses ( e.g. they use them to relieve pressure on reattachment surgeries.) but in the old days they used them for everything.
 
More from Roald Bahr

http://www.sportsci.org/jour/9804/inbrief.html

SKELETON IN THE FREEZER
Stephen Seiler PhD, Institute for Sport, Agder College, 4604 Kristiansand, Norway. Email: stephen.seiler=AT=hia.no. Sportscience 2(4), sportsci.org/jour/9804/brief.html#freeze, 1998 (338 words)
If Professor Roald Bahr of the Norwegian University of Sport has his way, that skeleton would take the form of an extra blood sample drawn from athletes during testing for illegal but currently undetectable substances such as injected erythropoietin (EPO). The idea is to create a so-called C sample.
Currently, cross-country skiers and professional cyclists in theory give two blood samples: the A sample, which is analyzed immediately, and the B sample, which serves as a verification sample in the event of an initial positive. Bahr suggests that a third sample should be drawn and deep frozen immediately for later analysis when new, more advanced detection techniques are developed. He argues that the increased threat of being retroactively caught for doping months or even years later would serve as an added deterrent against the use of EPO and other substances that currently cannot be detected in a judicially air-tight manner. Today, a "positive" EPO test is based on hemoglobin concentration or hematocrit being over a pre-defined limit. Because of the uncertainty of this indirect method, athletes testing positive are merely denied participation until they are back to a legal level.
Olympic gold medalist cross-country skiers Thomas Alsgaard and Vegard Ulvang (retired) approve of the idea of a C sample. According to Alsgaard, "All methods that scare are positive. A lot of substances are currently used that the doping-hunters don't even know about." Ulvang is now engaged at the international administrative level by FIS, the International Ski Federation. He adds, "A very clever suggestion. This can scare someone from doing something illegal." The suggestion has also drawn support from the Norwegian cycling community, including newly-crowned U-23 world time trial champion Thor Hushovd. The suggestion is currently under political and judicial evaluation by the Norwegian Sports Federation.
Meanwhile, international steeplechaser Jim Svenøy also welcomes a C sample, but points out the question is moot within track and field. The International Amateur Athletic Federation does not employ blood testing at all, despite suspicions that EPO is widely used among distance runners.
 
May 12, 2011
241
0
0
Grandillusion said:
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.

So, I assume you expect execution for all doping offenses. No possibility that the are circumstance you might now have considered?

The issue at hand is how are the "offending" substances chosen. What level of testing and care? It goes to the hard of the matter. How do you establish with a sustainable level of credibility that any given substance "helps".

Of course "helps" itself is a loaded topic. It has been believed that High Altitude training helps. Should that be disallowed as unfair since some can't afford the expense? Maybe it's unfair to live where the climate is advantageous? What about better quality food? Personal chefs? Pressure Boots? There are so many things that could be considered to help
 
Oct 28, 2012
600
0
0
Grandillusion said:
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.

No, it's a straight forward call on a poor analogy.

Funny how 'experts' crawl out of the cracks to insult users of whom they have no knowledge of stance or position...

Grandillusion said:
I barely know anything about professional cycling apart from the fact it's riddled with cheating and corruption.
 
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
Aleajactaest said:
So, I assume you expect execution for all doping offenses. No possibility that the are circumstance you might now have considered?

The issue at hand is how are the "offending" substances chosen. What level of testing and care? It goes to the hard of the matter. How do you establish with a sustainable level of credibility that any given substance "helps".

Of course "helps" itself is a loaded topic. It has been believed that High Altitude training helps. Should that be disallowed as unfair since some can't afford the expense? Maybe it's unfair to live where the climate is advantageous? What about better quality food? Personal chefs? Pressure Boots? There are so many things that could be considered to help

Again not relevent. The climate is naturally occuring, food is available to all. personal chefs, what someone to look after your diet, therefore making life easier.....yes it helps but its not changing your body structure or boosting blood cells unnaturally like EPO or steroids.

Dont bother trying to justify that argument ,its almost as bad as the epo doesnt work "scientific study".
 
Oct 28, 2012
600
0
0
noddy69 said:
Again not relevent. The climate is naturally occuring, food is available to all. personal chefs, what someone to look after your diet, therefore making life easier.....yes it helps but its not changing your body structure or boosting blood cells unnaturally like EPO or steroids.

Dont bother trying to justify that argument ,its almost as bad as the epo doesnt work "scientific study".

Of course 'effect' is relevant as are many other considerations. Caffeine used to be a banned substance too... Any study will of course be open to pier revue, but the notion that a substance that has neither a performance benefit or a health risk should be banned is silly.
 
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
Le Baroudeur said:
Of course 'effect' is relevant as are many other considerations. Caffeine used to be a banned substance too... Any study will of course be open to pier revue, but the notion that a substance that has neither a performance benefit or a health risk should be banned is silly.

Eh pier review....

And the study did not show that. In fact it wasnt even a well done study. In fact they only studied literature of what others have studied mostly. Some of which show the great advantages of EPO, just not on pro cyclists because they were not tested,which is why they came to that conclusion

I think Ill write a paper on the effects of alcohol on pioneers. It doesnt get them drunk.In fact there is no scientific proof that it works on pioneers.



......seriously my friend you will really have to do better.
 
Apr 9, 2009
976
0
0
Le Baroudeur said:
... the notion that a substance that has neither a performance benefit or a health risk should be banned is silly.

Yes, that is a silly notion. And no one is advocating it.
Unless of course you're talking about masking agents.
 
May 12, 2011
241
0
0
noddy69 said:
Again not relevent. The climate is naturally occuring, food is available to all. personal chefs, what someone to look after your diet, therefore making life easier.....yes it helps but its not changing your body structure or boosting blood cells unnaturally like EPO or steroids.

Dont bother trying to justify that argument ,its almost as bad as the epo doesnt work "scientific study".

Yes, the argument is somewhat spurious. It was intended to be. However the issue of scientific study is not. Your basis for banning any substance has to be based on, as is popular at the moment, reasoned decision making. We suspect it will help, without proof is a pointless basis for banning any substance. You might as well ban it due to having too many consonants in the name. There needs to be systemic and disciplined basis for banning any substance or method before it happens. I believe that exists to some degree but the list of banned substances that WADA list dozens of possible ways they could help but they do not specify how they came to that conclusion and to what degree and in what dose to they have to be taken to help. See Contador vs UCI.

BTW, you addressed the one argument without addressing the other question. Upon what evidence/testing does the WADA rely in determining what substances should be banned?
 
Oct 28, 2012
600
0
0
noddy69 said:
Eh pier review....

And the study did not show that. In fact it wasnt even a well done study. In fact they only studied literature of what others have studied mostly. Some of which show the great advantages of EPO, just not on pro cyclists because they were not tested,which is why they came to that conclusion

I think Ill write a paper on the effects of alcohol on pioneers. It doesnt get them drunk.In fact there is no scientific proof that it works on pioneers.



......seriously my friend you will really have to do better.

Do better? Ever so lightly condescending reply to a perfectly valid point...

It's a study... not a piece of legislation. If the findings ever pass review, and or other studies show a similar conclusion, then maybe action is needed, would be taken. Until that time EPO is still on the list.
 
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
Aleajactaest said:
Yes, the argument is somewhat spurious. It was intended to be. However the issue of scientific study is not. Your basis for banning any substance has to be based on, as is popular at the moment, reasoned decision making. We suspect it will help, without proof is a pointless basis for banning any substance. You might as well ban it due to having too many consonants in the name. There needs to be systemic and disciplined basis for banning any substance or method before it happens. I believe that exists to some degree but the list of banned substances that WADA list dozens of possible ways they could help but they do not specify how they came to that conclusion and to what degree and in what dose to they have to be taken to help. See Contador vs UCI.

BTW, you addressed the one argument without addressing the other question. Upon what evidence/testing does the WADA rely in determining what substances should be banned?
But there is proof. The study is flawed and should be viewed as such and thus gingerly thrown in the bin as rubbish and a waste of time and very little effort.

I suggest you send a mail and find out how they draw up the list. They will be more than happy to reply.
 
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
Le Baroudeur said:
Do better? Ever so lightly condescending reply to a perfectly valid point...

It's a study... not a piece of legislation. If the findings ever pass review, and or other studies show a similar conclusion, then maybe action is needed, would be taken. Until that time EPO is still on the list.

Your point was neither valid nor reasonable therefore it ellicited the response such a post deserved.
 
May 12, 2011
241
0
0
noddy69 said:
But there is proof. The study is flawed and should be viewed as such and thus gingerly thrown in the bin as rubbish and a waste of time and very little effort.

I suggest you send a mail and find out how they draw up the list. They will be more than happy to reply.

I'm not commenting now, nor have I ever on this specific study quoted. I do believe it would have been nearly impossible for the WADA to actually test the degree of advantage the items on the list provide an advantage. I think the list is near 200 give or take. Each of the drugs is reputed to provide advantages in numerous ways. Testing each drug for each advantage would be prohibitively expensive. So, I doubt they did so. I suspect they used other research and based on that banned them.

BTW, I spend some time trying to find out how they compiled the list but have not yet found it.

Some of the drugs are silly. Why alcohol or pot. What advantage do you get?
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
If people who clearly do not love Lance come out in support of this uh study, I might give them some time, but the pro-"EPO has no effect" posters have post history that is decidedly pro-Lance.

I understand the power of placebo, but you only need to read Tyler's book to realise the different effects practically preclude that phenomenon.

If blood transfusions increase performance, it is through increased Hgb. EPO increases Hgb. Therefore EPO increases performance.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Aleajactaest said:
Some of the drugs are silly. Why alcohol or pot. What advantage do you get?

1. Safety:
I almost never drink alcohol, never to excess. I've never smoked pot. In both cases, I have seen / interacted with people who do / are doing so. Have you?

Riders and other athletes move at very high speed, making split-second decisions.

Now imagine the same person doing that affected by pot or alcohol.

2. Benefit:
fear is a natural response of the body, and prevents you from doing things that are potentially harmful. Pot mellows people out, relaxing them. The fear is potentially markedly reduced, meaning they are prepared to do things not normally undertaken in a clear-headed state. Alcohol has also been shown to impair judgement. Please see 1 above.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
1. Safety:
I've never smoked pot, but seen people who do. Have you? Riders and other athletes move at very high speed, making split-second decisions.

Now imagine the same person doing that affected by pot.

2. Benefit:
fear is a natural response of the body, and prevents you from doing things that are potentially harmful. Pot mellows people out, relaxing them. The fear is potentially markedly reduced, meaning they are prepared to do things not normally undertaken in a clear-headed state. Please see 1 above.

Wiggo, couldI add that drug control is not just about protecting athletes who might take drugs, but also protecting athletes FROM athletes who take drugs.

A 'high' athlete would almost certainly be a clear danger to fellow athletes whether in the peleton, or on dangerous parts of races.

useful page :
 
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
Aleajactaest said:
I'm not commenting now, nor have I ever on this specific study quoted. I do believe it would have been nearly impossible for the WADA to actually test the degree of advantage the items on the list provide an advantage. I think the list is near 200 give or take. Each of the drugs is reputed to provide advantages in numerous ways. Testing each drug for each advantage would be prohibitively expensive. So, I doubt they did so. I suspect they used other research and based on that banned them.

BTW, I spend some time trying to find out how they compiled the list but have not yet found it.

Some of the drugs are silly. Why alcohol or pot. What advantage do you get?

As I suggested and to save you looking why not email them and ask the question directly. You will get an answer therefore saving time.

Alcohol impairs judgement therefore dangerous and it is illegal in many countries to cycle drunk or with alcohol ....I can keep going.

Pot is illegal..again I can keep going but there really is no need.

Many of the drugs can be found in small doses in everyday products ,however there are reasons (email)they are on the list and reasons that exemptions can be sought. You know all this. What exactly are you arguing. That some drugs should not be on the list ? or how they get there ?
Does it matter how they got there when someone gets caught ?
Answer = only if there is no benefit.otherwise it really doesnt matter other than for curiosity. What you can be sure of is that they are there for a reason.Which you will find out when you get your response.
 
Oct 4, 2011
905
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
If people who clearly do not love Lance come out in support of this uh study, I might give them some time, but the pro-"EPO has no effect" posters have post history that is decidedly pro-Lance.

I understand the power of placebo, but you only need to read Tyler's book to realise the different effects practically preclude that phenomenon.

If blood transfusions increase performance, it is through increased Hgb. EPO increases Hgb. Therefore EPO increases performance.

What they all fail to mention is that the placebo effect does not mirror real effects 100% or close which would decidedly affect their argument.
 
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.

The study that maltiv is talking about was double blind. and it was not only kaggestad and rasch that were taking part, obviously.
 
Jul 26, 2009
42
0
0
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

IMO, this thread is triggered by a typical misinterpretation of a scientific study.

As a previous post already mentioned, the conclusion of this study is very different from the title of this thread. It says "There is no scientific evidence that EPO enhances cycling performance in elite athletes", which is not at all saying that EPO doesn't enhance cycling performance in elite athletes, nor even saying that there is no non-scientific evidence that cycling performance is increased in these athletes.

The full text of the study is available here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bcp.12034/pdf

Quoting directly from the study, you get the much more reasonable conclusion: "A more scientific approach needed: Summarizing, the available literature lacks the appropriate information, validity and robustness to conclude that rHuEPO enhances world-class cycling performance. To be able to make such statements, more thorough research needs to be conducted looking at the effects of rHuEPO on submaximal performance parameters and the cycling economy, preferably in a population with cycling performance abilities as close as possible to those of professional cyclists and under conditions closely resembling racing conditions and the required performance duration. It can be argued that putting the treatment on the prohibited list falsely implies a proven beneficial effect on performance in professional cycling and unintentionally stimulates its abuse[144], although it should also be recognized that there is no convincing evidence that any drug works in this context."

It should also be added that the study does appear to be written by people with a less-than-expert understanding of the dynamics of cycle racing. A large part of the thesis is based on the argument that only a small part of the race is spent at maximal performance, therefore a drug which has only been shown to affect maximal performance can not be said to enhance overall performance.

I believe this argument to be misleading: While only a small amount of time in a race is spent at maximal performance, the time spent at this level is usual the decisive point of the race. Just because I might have a chance of hanging with a high quality pack in a flat race doesn't mean that I have any chance of winning a race.

Note that the other main point made in the study seems more valid to me: That is that many of the existing studies are performed on non-elite cycling populations, and that other studies have shown significant physiological differences between elite and non-elite athletes.