HGH is bull and other Reasoned Decision spinoffs

[Zinoviev Letter]

I know that it's not a good idea to start extra threads about Armstrong and related matters. However, it occurred to me that there's a lot of stuff about doping in the USADA reasoned decision and the accompanying documentation that tells us interesting things about doping in general (rather than doping in the USPS team) which would otherwise probably be overlooked.

This is a thread to discuss those issues. This is not a thread to discuss Armstrong, Bruyneel, etc.

To start the ball rolling, Tom Danielson's affidavit tells us of a brief dalliance with Human Growth Hormone. However, when he mentioned it to Dr. Ferrari, Ferrari told him that it was "bull****".

Now, if there's one thing that following cycling has taught me it's that, Ferrari and some others out of the same stable seem to have an unusually scientific approach to performance enhancement. Certainly as compared to some of the other clowns in the sport's black market. I'd go so far as to say that Ferrari's advice to a client seems to me to be a pretty good starting point for discussion of the effects of a substance. But I have to admit that I don't really know much about the utility of non-O2 vector doping. What are the odds that Ferrari was right about this and that human growth hormone really isn't of much use?

(Feel free to ignore that question and raise other spin off issues instead).

 

[Berzin]

To get the answer you're looking for, you would have to ask a professional rider who has used it extensively.

The majority of us only know or are ourselves amateurs/weekend warriors. So we cannot compare/contrast/evaluate any doping products and their affects within the context of 500 mile-a-week training schedules.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Ferrari was not the original doping doctor. He was an assistant to the grandfather of doping, Francesco Conconi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesco_Conconi

Conconi is said to have made a technique to balance EPO, Blood Thinner and Human Growth Hormone in a mixture that Athletes could take safely and pass doping tests without testing positive. With this ability to safely take EPO, Donati estimated that 60 to 70% of the peloton used EPO in the mid 1990s

It's possible HgH was not useful, and by the sounds of the quote above, it was used more to mask EPO than to actually help the athletes directly.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Sure, I fully understand that most here have not used HGH nor been top level athletes, nor qualified as sports scientists or pharmacists. However, there are some here with more specialised knowledge. For instance, there's a scientific literature of sorts about oxygen vector doping. Is there one about HGH?

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

Ferrari was not the original doping doctor. He was an assistant to the grandfather of doping, Francesco Conconi.

Hence "and others from the same stable".

It's possible HgH was not useful, and by the sounds of the quote above, it was used more to mask EPO than to actually help the athletes directly.

It's not entirely clear to me that HGH was being used as a masking agent according to that quote.

 

[shalgo]

At paragraph 53 of his affidavit, Hincapie says that Lance stopped using HGH after his cancer.

 

[Sarcastic Wet Trout]

One experience using HgH:

http://www.outsideonline.com/fitness/Drug-Test.html?page=all

 

[hfer07]

At paragraph 53 of his affidavit, Hincapie says that Lance stopped using HGH after his cancer.

Elevated HGH levels promotes Cancerous tumors growth & Cancer Reappearance

http://www.preventcancer.com/patients/med_avoid/hgh.htm

 

[hrotha]

At the same time, Vande Velde was mostly using HGH and testosterone, with EPO playing a secondary role. It's a bit confusing. I thought HGH was a staple of modern doping, and now I find they weren't even sure of how effective it was.

 

[sniper]

In the Bertagnolli affidevit (discussed in a separate thread), there is indeed no mention of HGH at all. Perhaps indeed Ferrari didn't see it as performance enhancing.

 

[Von Mises]

Now, if there's one thing that following cycling has taught me it's that, Ferrari and some others out of the same stable seem to have an unusually scientific approach to performance enhancement. Certainly as compared to some of the other clowns in the sport's black market. I'd go so far as to say that Ferrari's advice to a client seems to me to be a pretty good starting point for discussion of the effects of a substance.

But one thing what for me came as suprise, was that Ferrari was not just the best doping doctor, but he also had very close eye for general training plans, made these plans, discussed even small detalis (should Armstrong´s saddle be 2 mm higher or lower for example). Maybe this integrated approch training+doping+all other details were the reason for his success.

 

[Franklin]

But one thing what for me came as suprise, was that Ferrari was not just the best doping doctor, but he also had very close eye for general training plans, made these plans, discussed even small detalis (should Armstrong´s saddle be 2 mm higher or lower for example). Maybe this integrated approch training+doping+all other details were the reason for his success.

This is a "DUHHHH" moment...

Thinking up a dope regimen isn't hard, enough people who can do that (check Cutting edge). It's the combination with training that clinches it.

Conconi, Ferrari and Sasso certainly weren't just quacks... they had a complete approach.

 

[Slava101]

Had a quick look on PubMed for academic papers that discuss HGH and athletic performance, and it seems that there is firstly a lot less research into HGH in relation to athletic performance than say into EPO or Blood Doping. And secondly a number of relevantly recent papers say more research needs to be done into how effective HGH actually is as a performance enhancer. But it seems an area where much more research could and should be undertaken. Though I did find a couple of studies that were quite positive about HGH as tool for endurance athletes.

 

[Cramps]

I've been reading "Run, Swim, Throw, Cheat" by Chris Cooper (a sports scientist at Essex I think), which is a little bit like intro to undergrad sports physiology and a review of doping techniques, what they do and to what extent they are effective. He has a brief section on HGH, and his conclusion seems to agree with Ferrari actually:

"However HGH on its own cannot increase muscle protein synthesis or strength. Any weight gain appears to be mostly due to fluid retention. It is also not without other side effects include joint stiffness, muscle pain, and high blood pressure. So why do people keep taking it? I surmise two possibilities. The first relates to the fact that anything that can cost up to $20,000 a year on the black market has to be good for you; the athlete's version of shopper's therapy. The second is that we are in the same place scientifically as we were with testosterone in the 1980s. Maybe just like then the doping coaches and athletes were right and HGH really works; we scientists have just not been clever enough to devise the proper ethical experiment to show the effect. My suspicion is that in this case the scientists are right and the dopers are wasting their money -- though it has to be said I would not be completely surprised to be proved wrong."

 

[Tinman]

Apply Occam's razor for now. HGH a mostly academic side show relative to 1. EPO 2. testosterone/steroids. Other more interesting stuff for me quite frankly.

Eg. the impact of the USADA report on UCI. Will they survive? What questions should they be held accountable for? How's the Kimmage trial prep going?

And then: how is the public reacting to the news? Will this impact UCI's decision to take this to CAS? Will IOC interfere and if so what would trigger them to do so.

And lastly, what can I do to assist at this critical juncture. Write to my cycling fed or olympic rep. Write to journo's you may know. Post to local newspaper columns/websites in support of USADA report. Etc. Now is the time to step up as a fan of the sport and reclaim cycling from the ****'s running it.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Victor Conte: “HGH is not effective unless it is used in conjunction with testosterone or other anabolic steroids,” Conte says. “It's important to understand that HGH is not an anabolic agent. It is an anti-catabolic agent. It basically helps to reduce muscle degradation and enables a player to maintain the gains they’ve made using steroids for a longer period of time. By itself, HGH has been shown to have no significant performance-enhancing effects.”

 

[KayLow]

Victor Conte: “HGH is not effective unless it is used in conjunction with testosterone or other anabolic steroids,” Conte says. “It's important to understand that HGH is not an anabolic agent. It is an anti-catabolic agent. It basically helps to reduce muscle degradation and enables a player to maintain the gains they’ve made using steroids for a longer period of time. By itself, HGH has been shown to have no significant performance-enhancing effects.”

Listen to Victor Conte. The research tends to show that HGH decreases fat mass without also decreasing lean mass. In the small studies of elderly people that pass for research on this subject, this is not regarded as a performance-enhancing effect. In the world of professional cycling where a guy's unbelievable transformation is attributed to weight loss, one might have a different take.