First EPO users in the peloton?

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

It is indeed a fair point, and the Weisel-Montgomery Securities-LeMond connection begs the question, as pmcg76 says, if they were so connected, why wasn't the entire Motorola team on EPO from day one? Why was it left to Armstrong to persuade them to do it, and only after they were getting their tails kicked by other teams who were already there? If LeMond had access to EPO in 89 and 90, maybe it was through his immunologist father-in-law, and Weisel had less direct influence than we imagine?

I don't think that the bolded makes much sense. His father in law was a renowned allergist. Doctor's specialize in different areas. An allergist would not have ready access to EPO. Being a MD does not allow you free access to all drugs. Unless there is much more evidence to connect these particular dots, I would suggest that this line of reasoning be put to rest.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

It is indeed a fair point, and the Weisel-Montgomery Securities-LeMond connection begs the question, as pmcg76 says, if they were so connected, why wasn't the entire Motorola team on EPO from day one? Why was it left to Armstrong to persuade them to do it, and only after they were getting their tails kicked by other teams who were already there? If LeMond had access to EPO in 89 and 90, maybe it was through his immunologist father-in-law, and Weisel had less direct influence than we imagine?

I don't think that the bolded makes much sense. His father in law was a renowned allergist. Doctor's specialize in different areas. An allergist would not have ready access to EPO. Being a MD does not allow you free access to all drugs. Unless there is much more evidence to connect these particular dots, I would suggest that this line of reasoning be put to rest.

FYI, here is a page about LeMond's father-in-law: Dr. David Morris. Also FYI, erythropoietin (EPO) is sometimes used in treatment of allergies. Here is the Google Scholar page on that. In addition to being board-certified in allergy, he is also board-certified in immunology. (In fact he was the first doctor in the country to be board-certified in both.) EPO is also used in immunotherapy. Here is the Google Scholar page on that.

Incidentally, his daughter, Mary, is also an M.D. and shares the practice with Doctor Morris.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Just browsing the top hits on that search and none of those links show anything to support your assertion. Just because the terms show up together in a google search does not mean that EPO is used for allergy immunotherapy. Go to their site and see what they do there.

https://lacrosseallergy.com/about-us/

Yes, their practice is in LaCrosse, not far from where I lived. Dr. Morris was a great pioneer in the field of Immunotherapy and Mary has continued the tradition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIIAnuS5QSs

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

Sniper, I reckon someone should get Lance to give you the reward for info on Lemond

Not sure if you are just being sarcastic. Also just a note or question did anyone or has anyone confirmed that a reward was truly offered? If so then well yeah sniper needs to travel to Aspin CO and knock on brah's door. Be like --DUDE BRAH I was in the neighborhood and decided to stop in for my coin. I tried all the "gentelmen's clubs" and "crawfish stands" but could not find you. So I just came to your domicile.

As sniper would say: exactamundo.

Wait a second, all this information is already in Wheelmen so surely some people must have read it before now so this is hardly new news.

I asked this of Blutto before, if Weisel were the EPO guy, why was US Postal so slow onto the EPO train in 95-96 as alluded to by Tyler Hamilton in the Secret Race. Remember how Steffen Prentice was replaced by the Spanish doctors. Likewise Subaru-Montgomery rode in Europe in 92-93 but failed to make the Tour either year.

....sorry to get back to this party late....sooooo....

....the period that you are referring to was a period of transition in the way cycling teams operated....suddenly we had overt examples of this with the appearances of team buses, use of better hotels etc etc ( things were much more primitive before... )...this was a function of bigger money coming into the sport and the rationalization of the race system ( World Cup type series )...there was also a screaming need to deal with the new drugs that were being used....here real doctors were required because these drugs had proved deadly yet teams had to embrace them to stay competitive....but team doping programs required everybody to be onboard so if you still had some old guard figure heads who emphatically said no that would make implementing team programs difficult or impossible...is it a coincidence that Bauer leaves about the time the team program is instituted, I don't think so....

....the other thing about this heightened level of ,uhhh, professionalism is that it left out the smaller teams who didn't have the money to expand the organization to include team drug programs ( which on a yearly basis are expensive...whether they come from team coffers or from rider pools...)....much talk was made in the day in magazines mapping the voyages of smaller North American teams into the wilds of Europe and a lot of ink was spilled describing how backward the North American team structures were and how they were a major impediment to winning....another thing to consider is that drug taking in North America was generally done on an individual basis ( read it was a fairly clean system until the 80's and it was the best way not to get caught..to go to team doping you not only had to have the whole team on board but literally the whole peloton and the supporting organization...see the US track and field culture as an example of this development...)...

....so to see Montgomery Subaru fail because they did not have all the pieces required to compete as an organization is entirely understandable....they were not a big moneyed team and came from a cycling culture where team doping just wasn't done....but as we know that would most definitely change...

...so to look at the past thru modern experience is fraught with the danger of producing incorrect conclusions...team doping was not the norm, and besides the money simply wasn't there to support it...

Cheers

Blutto

Very few will know that era better than myself. You mention small teams but there were lots of small teams who had the doping program, primarily the Italians. Ariostea were an average team with good captains in Argentin/Sorensen but by 92/93 they were cleaning up with any number of riders Furlan, Riis, Richard, Elli etc, etc. The budget was actually decreased from 92 to 93 which is why Argentin/Sorensen both left that season but look at how well Ariostea did in 93. When that team finished end of 93, they formed the core of the MG and Gewiss teams.

The Mecair team(pre-cursor to Gewiss) were set up in 1993 with Argentin as captain, a few decent riders and a lot of smaller names and neo-pros Berzin, Bobrik. I think there were only 12-13 guys on the team and they didn't ride the Tour that year, they were essentailly a Div 2 team but they had Ferrari. Same time when Ugrumov exploded as a GT contender in 93.

Look at Scrigno, the team of Bruno Reverberi, for years they had been a tin-pot outfit, one of the smaller Italian teams with sponsors like Selca, Italbonfica who never raced outside Italy. By 1994 they were riding in the Vuelta and winning stages and by 96 they were riding in the Tour. They never signed big-name riders.

The big change from individuals to team programs took place in 93/94. According to Willy Voet, EPO had never been used at RMO and it was only before the 93 Tour with Festina that it was first tried, too late to have an impact. It was at the end of 93 that the team program with bonuses going to the slush fund that EPO was introduced.

It was 93 when Bjarne Riis and Rolf Jarmann(both Ariostea) said they started using EPO. I think Jesper Skibby also said it was 93 when he first tried EPO. Philipe Gaumont said there was never any EPO at Castorama but plenty of other stuff, that team ended in 95. According to Gaumont, the French were the last to change with the times(exception Festina).

Regardless of size, if Weisel had access to EPO, I think his team would have had it. After all Eddie B was a DS Move from Subaru-Montgomery 92/93 to US Postal in 95/96 and they were still not on EPO according to Hamilton. Weisel was the driving force behind the push to sign Europeans and get the program in 97. Again if he access to it as far back as 89/90 why wait so long. It doesn't add up. Of course it could all be BS but the preformance of Postal in Europe in 96 would most definitely suggest they were not on EPO.

[/quote]...maybe you whizzed quickly thru my post or maybe I wasn't clear enough but the point I was trying to make is in the first bolded bit...we were talking about a very particular small North American team not having a program unlike the programs that being developed and implemented as standard operating procedure in Europe ( like the teams you describe ).... the Euros were way ahead at this point and the visitors played catchup until about 95 when they got on the bus...

...as for the second bolded part, that's a joke right ?....

Cheers

 

[djpbaltimore]

From the Amgen website about the usage of EPO (Epogen). It is not used for immunotherapy and it is not used for allergy.

Epogen is an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) indicated for:
• Treatment of anemia due to
- Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) in patients on dialysis and not on
dialysis (1.1).
- Zidovudine in HIV-infected patients (1.2).
- The effects of concomitant myelosuppressive chemotherapy, and upon
initiation, there is a minimum of two additional months of planned
chemotherapy (1.3).
• Reduction of allogeneic RBC transfusions in patients undergoing elective,
noncardiac, nonvascular surgery (1.4).

http://pi.amgen.com/united_states/epogen/epogen_pi_hcp_english.pdf

 

[aphronesis]

Yes, word was out earlier, but it fell out largely on the lines of the Cold War psyche.

Anyone questioning why Hamilton might cook events only has to look at how he's handled the last several years. A well-meaning man, but deeply conflicted--if not tortured.

 

[blutto]

Re:

From the Amgen website about the usage of EPO (Epogen). It is not used for immunotherapy and it is not used for allergy.

Epogen is an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) indicated for:
• Treatment of anemia due to
- Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) in patients on dialysis and not on
dialysis (1.1).
- Zidovudine in HIV-infected patients (1.2).
- The effects of concomitant myelosuppressive chemotherapy, and upon
initiation, there is a minimum of two additional months of planned
chemotherapy (1.3).
• Reduction of allogeneic RBC transfusions in patients undergoing elective,
noncardiac, nonvascular surgery (1.4).

http://pi.amgen.com/united_states/epogen/epogen_pi_hcp_english.pdf

...before you jump to conclusions there is a term you may want to acquaint yourself with, its called off-label, or off-label usage, and its commonly used...

Cheers

 

[djpbaltimore]

How about providing an example for its use in Allergy, or Immunotherapy, or Allergen Immunotherapy?

The irony of the situation is that EPO often comes up in google searches with allergy because some individuals who take EPO develop an allergy to the drug itself.

 

[Nick C.]

Re: Re:

From the Amgen website about the usage of EPO (Epogen). It is not used for immunotherapy and it is not used for allergy.

Epogen is an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) indicated for:
• Treatment of anemia due to
- Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) in patients on dialysis and not on
dialysis (1.1).
- Zidovudine in HIV-infected patients (1.2).
- The effects of concomitant myelosuppressive chemotherapy, and upon
initiation, there is a minimum of two additional months of planned
chemotherapy (1.3).
• Reduction of allogeneic RBC transfusions in patients undergoing elective,
noncardiac, nonvascular surgery (1.4).

http://pi.amgen.com/united_states/epogen/epogen_pi_hcp_english.pdf

...before you jump to conclusions there is a term you may want to acquaint yourself with, its called off-label, or off-label usage, and its commonly used...

Cheers

So in other words anything could mean anything one claims it does "oh that's off-[label] that's why you don't see it there". I'll have to remember that.

 

[Maxiton]

If you guys look at the literature, you will see that what I posted above is true.

 

[djpbaltimore]

The closest piece of evidence I can gather from your lit search was this one about EAE.

'Beneficial effect of erythropoietin on experimental allergic encephalomyelitis'

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ana.20274/full

However, if you follow that link, EAE is an autoimmune disease in mice intentionally induced by humans. It models Multiple Sclerosis, not allergy. I guess it is possible that a doctor would know how to get a drug through black market means, but how is that different than any one else who works in health care or knows someone who works in healthcare. As I stated earlier, this line of inquiry should be put to rest unless there is something a lot more conclusive put forward. I don't see a reason to continue to make these rather haphazard insinuations about a person like Dr. Morris.

 

[Maxiton]

Pointing out that LeMond's father-in-law is a doctor is not an insinuation. Nor is it an insinuation to say if LeMond had access to EPO - if - maybe it was through his father-in-law. Maybe. As in perhaps, possibly, conceivably. Purely hypothetical, rhetorical, non-accusatory.

No one here, to my knowledge, has asserted this as having any great likelihood. If you find someone has, though, please point it out so that the comment - and the commenter - can be corrected.

 

[djpbaltimore]

It is good to know that you find the likelihood small. It was left rather vague in your earlier response.

viewtopic.php?p=1898862#p1898862

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

It is good to know that you find the likelihood small. It was left rather vague in your earlier response.

viewtopic.php?p=1898862#p1898862

"Could have", meaning within the realm of possibility, is indeed vague, and intentionally so, because I have no idea whatsoever whether LeMond used EPO, and, if so, what its source was. I've been quite clear about this, for the simple reason that I am quite clear about it.

Furthermore, I pointed out in this post that EPO was not prohibited by the UCI in 1989 and 1990 when LeMond had his last Tour wins. I make the point that if he was using it he was well within the rules and that I, personally, would not regard it as cheating.

. . . when he won the 89 and 90 Tours, EPO was not a banned substance. Mind you, in pointing this out I'm not trying to imply that LeMond . . . used EPO; I'm merely addressing myself to the point MarkvW made earlier: that if it isn't against the rules, it isn't cheating.

It should also be pointed out that LeMond was being treated for anemia, and that EPO is sometimes used for this purpose; so, if - once again, if - he was using EPO, it was, also, medically necessary and thus medically ethical.

 

[kwikki]

Re:

Pointing out that LeMond's father-in-law is a doctor is not an insinuation. Nor is it an insinuation to say if LeMond had access to EPO - if - maybe it was through his father-in-law. Maybe. As in perhaps, possibly, conceivably. Purely hypothetical, rhetorical, non-accusatory.

No one here, to my knowledge, has asserted this as having any great likelihood. If you find someone has, though, please point it out so that the comment - and the commenter - can be corrected.

So what is the relevance to the topic of pointing out that LeMond's father-in-law was a doctor? Was it a random factoid just inserted for the lols?

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

Pointing out that LeMond's father-in-law is a doctor is not an insinuation. Nor is it an insinuation to say if LeMond had access to EPO - if - maybe it was through his father-in-law. Maybe. As in perhaps, possibly, conceivably. Purely hypothetical, rhetorical, non-accusatory.

No one here, to my knowledge, has asserted this as having any great likelihood. If you find someone has, though, please point it out so that the comment - and the commenter - can be corrected.

So what is the relevance to the topic of pointing out that LeMond's father-in-law was a doctor? Was it a random factoid just inserted for the lols?

See above. Do you know the difference between insinuation and possibility?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Pointing out that LeMond's father-in-law is a doctor is not an insinuation. Nor is it an insinuation to say if LeMond had access to EPO - if - maybe it was through his father-in-law. Maybe. As in perhaps, possibly, conceivably. Purely hypothetical, rhetorical, non-accusatory.

No one here, to my knowledge, has asserted this as having any great likelihood. If you find someone has, though, please point it out so that the comment - and the commenter - can be corrected.

So what is the relevance to the topic of pointing out that LeMond's father-in-law was a doctor? Was it a random factoid just inserted for the lols?

One potentially relevant aspect is pointed out by Hampsten in this interview from 2015:

Hampsten believes that the temptation for doping is still there in the peloton. He remembers his early days as a pro, and points out that “when you have a bunch of 20-something kids, they can make some bad decisions if the opportunities are there.” He points to “everything from bad advice from an agent, to a questionable prescription obtained from a veterinarian to a family friend in the medical profession.”

http://www.theouterline.com/andy-hampsten-looking-back-and-looking-forward/

Another relevant aspect, imo, is that it makes the view that Lemond only learned about EPO around 1993-ish less credible.

 

[kwikki]

So there we have it. An insinuation.

 

[sniper]

for the record, hampsten and i we were talking for ourselves, not for maxiton.

 

[djpbaltimore]

We've been hashing over this anemia thing for so long that we should all understand the main nuance that use of EPO was restricted to very specific conditions (i.e anemia due to failing kidneys). It is really a 0% probability that LeMond was ever given EPO for medical reasons. A falsehood has been repeated so many times that people are now associating EPO/ kidneys/ anemia/ and LeMond as if this is a valid way to connect the dots. Obviously, I disagree strongly.

 

[GuyIncognito]

Re: Re:

Damn. I'm fascinated by the topic of who were the first EPO users, and when I saw the topic bumped I really thought something new would be here....nope.

Anyway, to those talking about allergy, the two uses for which EPO was being developed in the early-mid 80s was as treatment for eczema and kidney failure. The eczema path was abandoned during clinical trials as it proved ineffective. Proved quite effective for kidney failure induced anemia though.

just like i said, laurent fignon in his book confirms my opinion. 1991-1992, some crazy but isolated things. 1993: already 20-30 riders going very fast. zero chance to win grand tours without jet fuel

Before 1991 there were several. It's just that they were isolated athletes. Mathieu Hermans talks about winning a tour stage on epo in '89 I believe.

The problem is that, because they were still experimenting with the drug, the methodology that worked wasn't yet know. Many guys took EPO and actually went slower.
Look at Rominger because we have his files from Ferrari. In 89 he wins Lombardia on a 38% HcT, his baseline.
Early 1990, smashes everyone at Tirreno (not for the first time). A great rider, riding at his best. Then he goes to the Vuelta and takes EPO for the first time. HcT 44%. He claimed he was there to 'test an allergy medication' but I think it's pretty clear what he was actually there to test.

Proceeded to have the worst 4-5 months of his career. And they were his first on EPO.

He's just an example, my point is that it's nearly impossible to know when someone first took EPO because the 'way that worked' wasn't known yet so for some it made them faster, for some it did nothing or was even counterproductive. It took a few years for the fine tuning to turn EPO into an instrument of massive power.

And from what snippets I've seen in other sports, it seems cyclists weren't the early adopters even. I'd love to know if there's truth behind cross-country skiers and some track&field guys using it at the worlds in 1987.

 

[@NL_LeMondFans]

Re: Re:

Another relevant aspect, imo, is that it makes the view that Lemond only learned about EPO around 1993-ish less credible.

Can you remind me where you saw this ? I don't think 1993 is the year Greg heard about EPO. I'm pretty sure this is when he got confirmation it was quite widespread already. I think this is when his ex-teammate Philippe Casado confirmed the news. Casado had been with Greg at Z and was in Italy at Jolly later on.

 

[GuyIncognito]

LeMond specifically says the first time he heard of EPO was when Draaijer died, February 1990

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Damn. I'm fascinated by the topic of who were the first EPO users, and when I saw the topic bumped I really thought something new would be here....nope.

Anyway, to those talking about allergy, the two uses for which EPO was being developed in the early-mid 80s was as treatment for eczema and kidney failure. The eczema path was abandoned during clinical trials as it proved ineffective. Proved quite effective for kidney failure induced anemia though.

just like i said, laurent fignon in his book confirms my opinion. 1991-1992, some crazy but isolated things. 1993: already 20-30 riders going very fast. zero chance to win grand tours without jet fuel

Before 1991 there were several. It's just that they were isolated athletes. Mathieu Hermans talks about winning a tour stage on epo in '89 I believe.

The problem is that, because they were still experimenting with the drug, the methodology that worked wasn't yet know. Many guys took EPO and actually went slower.
Look at Rominger because we have his files from Ferrari. In 89 he wins Lombardia on a 38% HcT, his baseline.
Early 1990, smashes everyone at Tirreno (not for the first time). A great rider, riding at his best. Then he goes to the Vuelta and takes EPO for the first time. HcT 44%. He claimed he was there to 'test an allergy medication' but I think it's pretty clear what he was actually there to test.

Proceeded to have the worst 4-5 months of his career. And they were his first on EPO.

He's just an example, my point is that it's nearly impossible to know when someone first took EPO because the 'way that worked' wasn't known yet so for some it made them faster, for some it did nothing or was even counterproductive. It took a few years for the fine tuning to turn EPO into an instrument of massive power.

And from what snippets I've seen in other sports, it seems cyclists weren't the early adopters even. I'd love to know if there's truth behind cross-country skiers and some track&field guys using it at the worlds in 1987.

thanks, really good stuff.

on a side, when you say "nothing new", does that mean u already knew about lemond investing in montgomery? if so, do you know when that was?

 

[sniper]

Re:

LeMond specifically says the first time he heard of EPO was when Draaijer died, February 1990

true, but theres another, earlier interview where he says 1993, iirc.
i will have to look for that though.