D-Queued said:Anybody point out that Hemassist was on Manzano's list of substances?
Dave.
As far as I know, Hemassist wasn't on Manzano's list.
However, we do have a "Hemoce" and, as has been mentioned above, "Hemopure".
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
D-Queued said:Anybody point out that Hemassist was on Manzano's list of substances?
Dave.
Mambo95 said:It wasn't used to treat cancer patients. It was used on people who had suffered massive blood loss (e.g victims of shootings, stabbings, industrial accidents etc).
Elagabalus said:There's a slight snag in all this. The '99 samples were positive for EPO. So Armstrong was taking EPO AND Hemassist? (in addition to everything else!)
L'arriviste said:As far as I know, Hemassist wasn't on Manzano's list.
However, we do have a "Hemoce" and, as has been mentioned above, "Hemopure".
altark123 said:With experts coming out and saying it would provide any advantage or that they flat don't believe it was used?
NashbarShorts said:The "experts" have simply said it was deemed ineffective for its INTENDED USE (as a blood substitue for trauma victims who are about to bleed out).
There is/was no study done to test its efficacy as a blood-booster for elite endurance athletes! If you can find any such study or evidence thereof, please please post for all of us to read.
As for the "expert" saying, he doesn't believed it was ever used for doping -- he is just covering his *** legally. He was a labcoat research employee of the company developing the product. If he come out and says, "yeah I know for a fact that procyclists got their hands on it and were using it", don't you think he'd soon be getting some phonecalls from Baxter's legal counsel??
Again, these denials are not denials at all. All you have to do is read b/w the lines. It doesn't take a lot of skill.
MR_Sarcastic said:"All you have to do is read b/w the lines. It doesn't take a lot of skill."
When you read between the lines, you're just making things up.
One person can read it and say that it means that he's clear, while another person can read it and say that this Proves that maybe, he possibly might have used it.
bianchigirl said:An article repeating information from elsewhere that rubbishes the efficacity of Hemassist is not quite the same as an article that says 'Lance Armstrong could not have got his hands on Hemassist under any circumstance'
FDA won't give a sh*t whether Hemassist was useless but they will care how he got his hands on it - until I see that information categorically rubbished then I won't be shutting up
NashbarShorts said:The "experts" have simply said it was deemed ineffective for its INTENDED USE (as a blood substitue for trauma victims who are about to bleed out).
There is/was no study done to test its efficacy as a blood-booster for elite endurance athletes! If you can find any such study or evidence thereof, please please post for all of us to read.
As for the "expert" saying, he doesn't believed it was ever used for doping -- he is just covering his *** legally. He was a labcoat research employee of the company developing the product. If he come out and says, "yeah I know for a fact that procyclists got their hands on it and were using it", don't you think he'd soon be getting some phonecalls from Baxter's legal counsel??
Again, these denials are not denials at all. All you have to do is read b/w the lines. It doesn't take a lot of skill.
Doctor Blood said:I think these two qoutes are fairly on target.
If the SI story is true, the FDA will be very interested in how Armstrong obtained the compound. Currently, you have to tighly account for all investigational drugs. While the regulations have tightened lately and enforced more firmly than before, I suspect that getting ahold of this outside of a trial was a big no no then and also potetnialy puts the company at risk of investigation.
With regards to the efficacy in sports, I am skeptical given the potential side effect profile. However, I don't discount the possibility of a small benefit and have not seen the phase I data.
bianchigirl said:An article repeating information from elsewhere that rubbishes the efficacity of Hemassist is not quite the same as an article that says 'Lance Armstrong could not have got his hands on Hemassist under any circumstance'
FDA won't give a sh*t whether Hemassist was useless but they will care how he got his hands on it - until I see that information categorically rubbished then I won't be shutting up
Lurker said:Been Lurking here for a while. This has been one of the best places to learn about the seedy side of cycling. Thanks for all the info that has been shared.
I’m posting because I found an interesting read on HemAssist in the medical literature. It’s a literature review of three types of artificial blood. It explains the history of HemAssist and why it was pulled from the trials (about 4-5x as many trauma patients died as the control group that was given saline).
“A review of blood substitutes: examining the history, clinical trial results, and ethics of hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers” by Jiin-Yu Chen; Michelle Scerbo; George Kramer
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1807-59322009000800016&script=sci_arttext
A couple of important points to note that relate to doping:
1. “Baxter evaluated recombinant hemoglobin formulations for a several more years and eventually terminated its HBOC program.” So the phase III testing program was terminated in 1998, but Baxter would have had this stuff around for several more years. This puts the lie to Fabiani’s claim that after 1998 it was unavailable because the studies had been cancelled.
2. “It also exhibits a long shelf life when stored in a freezer.” So, it could have been around for many years after the clinical trials ended.
3. “The cause for the increased mortality could not be established from that data. However, researchers speculated that it was a result of the known vasopressor effects of hemoglobin solutions.” Meaning that it caused the constriction of blood vessels. I’m curious how much constriction would occur if someone took ¼ or ½ a unit? Would it matter for a cyclist just looking to get an extra 2-3%?
Here are my thoughts. I am not convinced by a couple of people speculating and by a vo2 max study of a different artificial blood, that this stuff would not benefit a cyclist. Interestingly, the study of Hemopure caused a decrease in heart rate of 10 bpm. So I’m assuming that while VO2 Max was not improved the same way the it would have with an infusion of red blood cells, it did improve some aspect of cycling performance. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17024639 I need to see something more substantive that this drug would not improve O2 transfer to the muscles.
I’m thinking that it’s possible that someone could use EPO, and this stuff in conjunction. Use the EPO to get hematocrit up to the low 50s. Then use a small dose of the HemAssist because it does not thicken the blood, but still provides oxygen carrying capacity. It’s a wild guess, but what do you think?
Lurker said:I’m thinking that it’s possible that someone could use EPO, and this stuff in conjunction. Use the EPO to get hematocrit up to the low 50s. Then use a small dose of the HemAssist because it does not thicken the blood, but still provides oxygen carrying capacity. It’s a wild guess, but what do you think?
Lurker said:...
I’m posting because I found an interesting read on HemAssist in the medical literature. It’s a literature review of three types of artificial blood. It explains the history of HemAssist and why it was pulled from the trials (about 4-5x as many trauma patients died as the control group that was given saline).
“A review of blood substitutes: examining the history, clinical trial results, and ethics of hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers” by Jiin-Yu Chen; Michelle Scerbo; George Kramer
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1807-59322009000800016&script=sci_arttext
...
Here are my thoughts. I am not convinced by a couple of people speculating and by a vo2 max study of a different artificial blood, that this stuff would not benefit a cyclist. Interestingly, the study of Hemopure caused a decrease in heart rate of 10 bpm. So I’m assuming that while VO2 Max was not improved the same way the it would have with an infusion of red blood cells, it did improve some aspect of cycling performance. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17024639 I need to see something more substantive that this drug would not improve O2 transfer to the muscles.
I’m thinking that it’s possible that someone could use EPO, and this stuff in conjunction. Use the EPO to get hematocrit up to the low 50s. Then use a small dose of the HemAssist because it does not thicken the blood, but still provides oxygen carrying capacity. It’s a wild guess, but what do you think?