Absolutely scandalous for a 'scientist' to make such an authoratative statement based on one study looking at a couple of dozen amateurs climbing one mountain. As if that one study comes anywhere near replicating the dosages used, training schedules, recovery schedules, interaction with other drugs, and general physiological responses of pro racers.“It’s just tragic to lose your career for something that doesn’t work, to lose seven yellow jerseys for a drug that has no effect,” said Jules Heuberger, who led the research at the Centre for Human Drug Research in The Netherlands.
And there is no reason to believe EPO would ever slow someone down. This smells like a confounding factor, maybe those that got EPO did not prepare as well.MatParker117 said:The study actually showed that while EPO is a benefit when used in shorter events such as the 4 or 800 meters after a 130km plus bike ride the riders that received EPO were on average seventeen seconds slower than those who didn't.Escarabajo said:Here we go again!!!
It was essentially a Blind trial no cyclist involved knew if they got EPO or the placebo.LaFlorecita said:And there is no reason to believe EPO would ever slow someone down. This smells like a confounding factor, maybe those that got EPO did not prepare as well.MatParker117 said:The study actually showed that while EPO is a benefit when used in shorter events such as the 4 or 800 meters after a 130km plus bike ride the riders that received EPO were on average seventeen seconds slower than those who didn't.Escarabajo said:Here we go again!!!
There is a new article, it's in the most recent edition of the Lancet Haematology:Merckx index said:Yes, I made some criticisms of the study in the last post in that thread. They were based on the following article, which is still the only one by these authors that I can find:StryderHells said:This has already been discussed in The Clinic when the studies first results came out last year http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=31030&hilit=epo maybe we could merge the thread?
I do have to ask that if EPO has no effect then why were the climbing times EPO era so much faster?
The latest article is described as a study of two dozen cyclists on EPO vs. two dozen controls. They were not pro cyclists, ironic because one of the main criticisms made by researchers who believe EPO has no PE is that no studies have been done on pros. Beyond that, demonstrating that there was no difference in climbing times between the two groups prior to EPO would be critical, but how this was assured is not mentioned in the media reports. I assume all the riders climbed ADH before any EPO administration, and then were divided into two groups such that the average climbing time of each group was the same. But if that was the case, there could still be individual differences in response to EPO that would be significant even if the overall average was unchanged. This kind of effect, e.g., was reported in some of the studies with beetroot juice. Some riders experienced a highly significant decrease in time in a standard time trial, while others did not improve at all.
Also, I recall seeing some studies indicating that some individuals get more of a physiological enhancement from EPO than others, so it would be quite possible for major differences in performance enhancement to exist as well. Perhaps the authors did look at effects on individual riders, but without seeing the actual study, I can't comment on that.
Also note that another Dutch group has been trying to support a revisionist line on EPO:
This was discussed in the Clinic before, too.
The latter three riders were likely using motorized bikes (and possibly the first rider, too) at various points in their carreer, so unfortunately they are not the best examples for measuring/analyzing the impact of EPO.Escarabajo said:...
Pantani, Riis, Armstrong, Virenque. All of them were wrong!!!
Why is this irrelevant and being ignored by the new authors who claim to have completed the first study of its kind?RESULTS: Significant changes in reticulocytes, hemoglobin (Hb) concentration, hematocrit (Hct), sTfr, and sTfr/serum proteins were observed during and after rHuEpo treatment. The maximal heart rate of 177 beats x min(-1) at the beginning of the study was significantly higher than the value of 168 beats x min(-1) after 26 d of rHuEpo administration. Compared with the values measured at baseline, the VT measured after rHuEpo administration occurred at a statistically significant high level of oxygen uptake.
CONCLUSIONS: When oxygen uptake measured at the VT was expressed as a percentage of V02 max, the values obtained were also significantly higher. The increased values of Tfr and sTfr/serum proteins, respectively, above 10 microg x mL(-1) and 153, indicated the probable intake of rHuEpo.
Good God. What a serious, knowledgeable, objective statement by a clearly unbiased scientist.DFA123 said:
Results of other studies17–19found remarkable increases in reported submaximal tests, namely constant-load time-to-exhaustion tests, of 22–70%. These trials used short (between 3 min and 20 min) tests that, similar to the maximal exercise test, lead to exhaustion and therefore are less representative of real-life cycling. Our submaximal test was designed to closely mimic a road time trial of 45 min and in line with that was not intended to lead to exhaustion.
In claiming that their tests more closely mimic actual race conditions, the authors are assuming the riders pace themselves up climbs, aiming to ride at the maximum possible power short of exhaustion. As the authors themselves put it, the submaximal test (carried out in the laboratory prior to the climb, and used to support the latter results) was designed to mimic a time trial: “Participants were instructed to produce the highest mean power output during a 45-min period, attempting to mimic competitive cycling time trials.”The goal of using rHuEPO in professional sports is to improve performance during road races, not in maximal exercise tests. Participants therefore took part in a race designed to mimic a professional road race at Mont Ventoux about 12 days after the last dose of the treatment period, which also tested the validity of our laboratory exercise tests as biomarkers of real cycling performance. The two treatment groups did not differ in race time or mean power output, thereby raising doubt about the predictive value of the increase in maximal
exercise test parameters by rHuEPO for performance in a road race. This outcome is further supported by the fact that rHuEPO treatment did not show an appreciable effect on a submaximal exercise test in the laboratory.
6 weeks huh? That's a pretty normal time period for regular aerobic training impacts to really start to show up in your performance data and for maximal aerobic/HIT work to begin to show a performance plateau and eventual decline. Perhaps there is a training bias?Merckx index said:3) A curious thing about Table 2 is that in virtually every case, the highest value is at day 39, not at day 53. If this were just for the EPO group, one might conclude that EPO’s maximum effects were achieved at six weeks, and after that there was actually a slight decline, perhaps due to endogenous feedback mechanisms. But the control group also exhibits peak values at day 39. So there was some systematic bias in the measurements at this time.
:lol: :lol: I wonder if he's on Wonderboys payroll? We all know he'll try to use this(as ALL cyclists going forward will as well), to try to get his lifetime ban lifted.MikeS369 said:I'm fairly certain this has been discussed here before. However, if anyone believes EPO is worthless, I own a bridge in Brooklyn I will sell you for $5.
“Participants were instructed to maintain their usual training programme throughout the study.”Alex Simmons/RST said:6 weeks huh? That's a pretty normal time period for regular aerobic training impacts to really start to show up in your performance data and for maximal aerobic/HIT work to begin to show a performance plateau and eventual decline. Perhaps there is a training bias?
Though I think it's way over the top to conclude that EPO has no effect, if this study plants doubt in the minds of some riders who are tempted, that could be beneficial. A rider is already facing the possibility of testing positive and being suspended, and thus must weigh the potential PE vs. the risk. Any study that claims there is no enhancement, I suppose, will increase the likelihood that fear of risk will carry the day.I've not read it, don't think I need to since (i) it's clearly just plain silly and (ii) it's of no value to me as an ethical coach.