In Blood Stepped: The History Of Blood Doping In Sport

[fmk_RoI]

Three years ago Cycling News published a brief series of articles I wrote on what was then known about the use of blood transfusions in cycling.

Part 1 - Nencini and Anquetil to Zoetemelk
Part 2 - Moser and LA 84 to Roger de Vlaeminck
Part 3 - PDM to Riis

They have been referenced time to time in other threads where proper discussion of them is not always possible without going off topic.

If anybody wants to correct any errors that appear in those articles, feel free to do so here. They were written and published in an attempt to put some shape on the existing knowledge. They should not contribute further errors to the subject.

If anybody wants to add new research, stories that have appeared since those articles were published or stories that didn't make the cut when those articles were written, feel free to do so here. There is only so much that can be said in three relatively brief articles.

If anybody wants to go into greater detail on any of the issues touched on in those articles, feel free to do so here. This is particularly true of the research into the manipulation of blood and identifying its proper starting point.

Perhaps collectively we can present a clearer picture of when transfusions came into use, how when and where they were in use at the height of their popularity, and when they came back into favour after being overtaken by EPO and related drugs. We might also bust a few myths along the way.

 

[doperhopper]

Thanks for the links, I must have missed the series back then. These 1930s allegations are pretty amazing, but some medical/military research in this area would not be surprising... certainly enough potentially interested parties, Brits, French, Germans, Russians, US, or even Japanese (not to mention crazy nazis doing experiments on humans). A bit "superhuman" soldier is always handy, especially in "commandos" applications.

 

[Tienus]

In part one you seem to have used Friebe as the source for the Zoetemelk story.
According to Dutch sources the story differs slightly:
During the 76 tour Zoetemelk mentions in an interview with a newspaper that he is proud that he won two consecutive stages. He did not manage to do this in previous editions due to aenemia (not mentioned that its caused by a crash). He received blood before the start and on the first rest day. Later in another newspaper there's an article which mentions him taking a third transfusion after the second rest day.
source:
https://books.google.nl/books?id=Jb...=onepage&q=Zoetemelk bloedlichaampjes&f=false
After this Zoetemelk story the writer continuous with a story of a couple ofjournalist who walk into the room of Gimondi on the eve of the 1973 world championships. Gimondi was on the bed with a big bottle of blood and an iv while a doctor was present. Gimondi won the rainbow jersey.


In 1977 Zoetemelk is being interviewed and tells this story:
I had a severe inflamation in my seat area. A doctor told me it would disappear within two days if I insert new blood.
http://leiden.courant.nu/issue/LLC/1977-07-25/edition/0/page/11?query=Werk%20Groep%20Buurthuis&sort=relevance

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

In part one you seem to have used Friebe as the source for the Zoetemelk story.
According to Dutch sources the story differs slightly:
During the 76 tour Zoetemelk mentions in an interview with a newspaper that he is proud that he won two consecutive stages. He did not manage to do this in previous editions due to aenemia (not mentioned that its caused by a crash). He received blood before the start and on the first rest day. Later in another newspaper there's an article which mentions him taking a third transfusion after the second rest day.
source:
https://books.google.nl/books?id=Jb...=onepage&q=Zoetemelk bloedlichaampjes&f=false
After this Zoetemelk story the writer continuous with a story of a couple ofjournalist who walk into the room of Gimondi on the eve of the 1973 world championships. Gimondi was on the bed with a big bottle of blood and an iv while a doctor was present. Gimondi won the rainbow jersey.


In 1977 Zoetemelk is being interviewed and tells this story:
I had a severe inflamation in my seat area. A doctor told me it would disappear within two days if I insert new blood.
http://leiden.courant.nu/issue/LLC/1977-07-25/edition/0/page/11?query=Werk%20Groep%20Buurthuis&sort=relevance

I used several sources.

That Gimondi story sounds remarkably like the Nencini myth.

 

[sniper]

Those are three excellent pieces you wrote there.
Yes, some omissions and generally I'm not a fan of your implicit suggestion (found also in some your clinic posts) that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Which of course is not the case.
For instance, "That, more or less, is the story of blood doping in the 1970s."
Well, no, it clearly is not.
But none of that takes anything away from the quality of those three pieces. You plan to update them?


Good stuff Tienus. Aragon had two good posts on Zoetemelk, too, in the Lemond thread.
Gimondi is a nice find.
Other omissions for the 70s are (from top of head):
- Danny Van Haute (and the US junior team) 1974 (see Lemond thread and US cycling scene thread)
- Dardik advocating for blood doping whilst fundraising for the OTC in 76 and 77 (see Lemond thread and US cycling scene thread)
- The Finnish doctor referring to elite cyclists blood doping (credit to Aragon in the Lemond thread). As the article Aragon referred to is from 81, the doc's reference would likely have applied (also) to the (late) 70s.
- other minor stuff relating to mainly Scandinavian docs and blood doping (e.g. the skier who claimed to have been offered a transfusion by Ekblom in 1976-ish) that has been discussed and linked in the US cycling scene thread.


A more general question: what about the Russians and East Germany? You don't mention them once in part one. (haven't checked for the other parts). Are you seriously suggesting they weren't on top of blood doping in the 70s? In the US cycling scene thread I linked to one Spiegel article (from 1977 I believe) where blood doping is mentioned in relation to Cologne. (Cologne, btw, is where Dardik did an internship; Ariel also went to Germany a few times in the 70s). German swimming coaches were spotted in the US already in the mid-70s, allegedly to transfer their knowledge of lactate testing as a revolutionary new technique, but I guess if you dig a little you're bound to find blood boosting was in the mix, too.


As for the 80s,
mainly I'm surprised you take the stories surrounding 1984 at face value.
To state as fact that "The US blood doping programme began life in 1983" is, as you yourself would probably put it, painfully naive.
Burke, Hagerman, and Costill were all perfectly well acquainted with the literature and research on blood doping coming from Scandinavia well - WELL - prior to 1983. For instance, Costill did an internship in Scandinavia in the 70s (credits to Aragon), Dardik was talking about the need for blood doping already in 1976, and Burke has a paper coauthored with Ekblom from 1982 (again, see discussion in the US cycling scene thread and recently the Lemond thread). No, this doesn't *prove* that the US blood doping program pre-dates 1983; but it does make it a decent possibility. To present 1983 as starting point is you taking USOC's whitewashing (as Les Earnest called it) of the 'incident' at face value.
And at the very least it makes a mockery of Burke's claim that he learned about blood doping through Gledhill's 1983 paper.

(sorry for lack of links to threads, but that's difficult being on my mobile phone. If you have trouble finding anything let me know)

 

[Tienus]

That Gimondi story sounds remarkably like the Nencini myth.

The source of the story is from one of the journalist who stepped into his room, Frans Van Schoonderwalt. He also explains why he didn't question Gimondi about what he had seen.

 

[vedrafjord]

Re:

A more general question: what about the Russians and East Germany? You don't mention them once in part one.

It's right there in part one:

So what happened at the 1976 Games to make people ask questions about blood doping? Well first of all there were the Soviets and their allied states, who were racking up points on the medal table like they were playing pinball. The Olympics were just an extension of the Cold War, and East and West went at it to prove the superiority of each system. Back then every Soviet success was questioned and attributed to doping, and the Soviets were always assumed to have the latest and the greatest weapons in the doping armoury. Blood transfusions being the flavour of the hour, that was naturally assumed to be the secret of their success in 1976.

Sometimes the speculation about the secret of Soviet successes was well placed, sometimes they were ahead of the game with products. But other times they were just better at the game than others. For instance, Soviet athletes avoided positives by being tested ahead of competition and pulled if they were likely to get caught. But sometimes the Soviets really were ahead of the game with products. Creatine, for instance, was in use in the Soviet bloc a good decade and more ahead of the West. And complementing the use of creatine in anaerobic sports the Soviets were on top of the use of transfusions in aerobic competitions. Evidence discovered by Michael Kalinski in State-Sponsored Research on Creatine Supplements and Blood Doping in Elite Soviet Sport showed that blood transfusions were a major weapon in the Soviet's doping armoury at the Montreal Games.

 

[sniper]

thanks vedrafjord!
my bad for overlooking that.

very interesting, I didn't know that went back to the montreal games from 1976.
that's the year Dardik starts speaking of the need for blood doping in his quest to lift the OTC off the ground.

so what about East Germany in that period? Anything concrete?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

A more general question: what about the Russians and East Germany? You don't mention them once in part one. (haven't checked for the other parts). Are you seriously suggesting they weren't on top of blood doping in the 70s?

Are you seriously suggesting that absence of evidence (a direct mention) is evidence of absence?

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

Burke, Hagerman, and Costill were all perfectly well acquainted with the literature and research on blood doping coming from Scandinavia well - WELL - prior to 1983. For instance, Costill did an internship in Scandinavia in the 70s (credits to Aragon), Dardik was talking about the need for blood doping already in 1976, and Burke has a paper coauthored with Ekblom from 1982 (again, see discussion in the US cycling scene thread and recently the Lemond thread). No, this doesn't *prove* that the US blood doping program pre-dates 1983; but it does make it a decent possibility. To present 1983 as starting point is you taking USOC's whitewashing (as Les Earnest called it) of the 'incident' at face value.

For you, that a man once shook hands with a man who read a paper by Ekblom on the migration preferences of wild geese is proof for you that that man's next door neighbour was blood doping from the age of twelve through to retirement. I - for my sins - have a slightly higher threshold of proof. Hence this thread, asking for proof. And corrections. Cause, again unlike you, I'm open to that kind of thing. So, do you think we could drop your join-the-dots quackery and deal with some facts for a change? Please?

 

[sniper]

stop whining fmk.
you wrote three excellent pieces, as I said.
sorry for stepping on your toes by pointing out some naivity contained in it.
yes, facts please. 1983 as starting point clearly isn't a fact, although you present it that way.
that's how history gets rewritten.

 

[Nellyspania]

Great read; I googled 'Sadro Donati' and found this article too http://www.chrisharrisonwriting.com/journalism/36

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

yes, facts please. 1983 as starting point clearly isn't a fact, although you present it that way.

I wrote (and I'll add some emphasis here, to help you):

"The US blood doping programme began life in 1983"

That individuals may have had knowledge of the subject pre-dating that does not prove that the programme (again, with the added emphasis) pre-dates 1983.

There were articles on the subject dating back to the 1960s. Clearly there was much (a relative term) debate on the subject in the 1970s, just look at the (relative) volume of articles published. But knowledge does not prove action, if it did we would be saying that the Irish team at the Games in the 1970s and 1980s was blood doping and - specifically with regard to the 1980s - I think Paul Kimmage might have thought to mention that in A Rough Ride if it really was happening.

Of course, with the Americans, it's not just reading articles. Eddie Borysewicz claims to have first learned of blood manipulation not through a medical journal but at a social engagement with Jean Stablinski in the early 1970s, when they were joined by Jacques Anquetil and Maître Jacques, when queried on the topic, talked of having his blood flushed twice a year (the sort of quackery we would today call detoxing and which Anquetil had talked about in newspapers in the 1960s). This only adds to Borysewicz being the perfect stage villain here: he's called Eddie ("What's for dinner? Meatlof!"); he has a surname so unpronounceable it's abbreviated to its initial letter; he comes from a then Communist country; and he was an assistant to that country's 1976 Olympic team and we all know what a doping Colossus Poland was in the 1970s (they were joint first with Bulgaria and the USA for the number of positives at the 1976 Games). But ... well, where's the stories of the blood transfusions used by the Polish cyclists who won bronze in the road race (men's, women didn't race bikes at the Olys in the 1970s) and silver in the TTT? We can join the dots all day and all night, paint pictures of Mickey Mouse in the stars above us. But without actual evidence, without properly sourced stories, what have we got? So. For Borysewicz to be the father of American blood doping, let's see the stories from the Polish team where he learned all about it.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

fmk_rol:
That individuals may have had knowledge of the subject pre-dating that does not prove that the programme ... pre-dates 1983.

nice strawman. I didn't say it did. In fact I just said explicitly "this doesn't prove". Not sure what part of that you didn't understand. Youre so eager to put the words proof in my mouth you sound like tdf96winner.

My point was there is no hard evidence (let alone proof) that it started in 1983. In fact there are good reasons to suspect it started earlier. Yet there you are stating it as fact (whilst lecturing others about proof and facts ). But don't get me wrong. All I'd dare recommend you in case you update that paragraph is to add an "allegedly" or an "according to".

On a related note, and merely out of curiosity, what's your take on heiden 1980? (Trusting you'll ignore the question if it's below your payroll)

The rest of your post really is very interesting.

 

[buckle]

My understanding is that the Finns understood blood doping in at least the late 60's following research into a mutant biathlete who together with his family possessed a blood disorder. This might explain the resurgence of their middle distance runners in the 1970's.

Blood doping had been around in horse racing for decades before that.

 

[Aragon]

Re:

- The Finnish doctor referring to elite cyclists blood doping (credit to Aragon in the Lemond thread). As the article Aragon referred to is from 81, the doc's reference would likely have applied (also) to the (late) 70s.
- other minor stuff relating to mainly Scandinavian docs and blood doping (e.g. the skier who claimed to have been offered a transfusion by Ekblom in 1976-ish) that has been discussed and linked in the US cycling scene thread.

(On the Finnish "doc" incident, it should be mentioned that Jouko Elevaara was actually a coach)

That having been written, the Swedish-connection is very interesting, as most of the blood doping researh originated from there.

"Blood doping practices in sports have been around for at least half a century and will likely remain for several years to come", states a 2012 research paper on blood detection, coauthored by the famous Swedish exercise physiologist Bengt Saltin, who was a colleague of the most famous blood doping researchers at the Gymnastik och Idrottshögskolan (GIH) in Sweden from 1960s onwards.

Is the timeframe mentioned in the research paper only a wild guess or did late Saltin have some inside knowledge? And was that particular sentence even authored by him?

From the start, Swedish exercise physiologist who focused on the autotransfusion studies were publicly very critical of the use of the method on actual field. Dr. Björn Ekblom has stated as early as 1971 that blood doping is "pure doping" and should be banned and detection methods developed, a view he stated repeatedly during following decades. Still he has denied that Swedes used the method, informing - for instance - Swiss doping researcher Hans Howald in late-1970s that according to his knowledge, Scandinavian sportspeople haven't used blood doping.

But there has been at least gossip about the use of the practice in Sweden for a long time. When the issue emerged in 1971, a Swedish journalist recalled hearing about the use of the method already in 1967 naming even an athlete involved, a claim that the athlete and Ekblom vehemently denied. At the same time, future olympic champion steeplechaser Anders Gärderud told publicly that he was interested in testing how the method worked.

In 1973, Swedish wrestler Pelle Svensson wrote an anti-hormone book "Öppet Brev till Sveriges Idrottspampar" about his own experiences with testosterone. He mentions briefly that gold medallist swimmer Gunnar Larsson was a guinea pig on blood doping experiments (not particarly claiming that the experience occurred during a competition). Svensson makes the claim in passing in the introduction, and as usual, Per-Olof Åstrand denied the claim in an open letter on a Swedish daily newspaper.

Swedish world class weightlifter Ingemar Lyshag also claimed in an article in the Swedish daily Aftonbladet that the method was used by his countrymen: "Last year experimented Swedish top runners with blood replacement 'that made it extra easy to run'. Doctors warned about the experiments".(Aftonbladet, 3/4/1973)

While some of this sounds damning, it is still mostly unsubstantiated gossip that circulates from time-to-time. The GIH appears still in a very suspicious light because Swedish skater Jonny Nilsson told quite recently that that he was offered blood doping in 1966, mentioning even in one instance that the doctor who made the offer was specifically none other than Björn Ekblom.

While sounding really ethically questionable, the incident could still be a part of the science on exercise physiology, as blood doping was researched from mid-1960s onwards.

Having read up to a thousand pages of exercise physiology written by Ekblom and Åstrand - both whom I really admire - I must admit that the more suspicious option is also possible.

(UPDATE: Added word "ethically" to the second last pararaph to clarify the meaning)

 

[GuyIncognito]

Thank you, fmk_rol and everyone else. this is wonderful research.
Very intriguing to read.

 

[Tienus]

The USSR was doing their own research in the sixties at the same time as Ericson in Sweden according to old Soviet studies on blood transfusions in USSR team.
https://twitter.com/iljukov/status/546814155173662720

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

That Gimondi story sounds remarkably like the Nencini myth.

The source of the story is from one of the journalist who stepped into his room, Frans Van Schoonderwalt. He also explains why he didn't question Gimondi about what he had seen.

Yes, but the Nencini myth allegedly originated with Pierre Dumas but actually it was a writer (no one is ever sure which one) probably misinterpreting it that set it going. I'll look into this, obviously, hopefully find something by Van Schoonderwalt himself, not just claiming to quote him. (Not being familiar with the works of Herman Chevrolet I've no idea whether he's as unreliable as, say, Chris Sidwells, is a Les Woodland/Pierre Chany type chancer who adds to all the stories he tells, or whether he actually is reliable.)

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

- The Finnish doctor referring to elite cyclists blood doping (credit to Aragon in the Lemond thread). As the article Aragon referred to is from 81, the doc's reference would likely have applied (also) to the (late) 70s.
- other minor stuff relating to mainly Scandinavian docs and blood doping (e.g. the skier who claimed to have been offered a transfusion by Ekblom in 1976-ish) that has been discussed and linked in the US cycling scene thread.

(On the Finnish "doc" incident, it should be mentioned that Jouko Elevaara was actually a coach)

That having been written, the Swedish-connection is very interesting, as most of the blood doping researh originated from there.

"Blood doping practices in sports have been around for at least half a century and will likely remain for several years to come", states a 2012 research paper on blood detection, coauthored by the famous Swedish exercise physiologist Bengt Saltin, who was a colleague of the most famous blood doping researchers at the Gymnastik och Idrottshögskolan (GIH) in Sweden from 1960s onwards.

Is the timeframe mentioned in the research paper only a wild guess or did late Saltin have some inside knowledge? And was that particular sentence even authored by him?

From the start, Swedish exercise physiologist who focused on the autotransfusion studies were publicly very critical of the use of the method on actual field. Dr. Björn Ekblom has stated as early as 1971 that blood doping is "pure doping" and should be banned and detection methods developed, a view he stated repeatedly during following decades. Still he has denied that Swedes used the method, informing - for instance - Swiss doping researcher Hans Howald in late-1970s that according to his knowledge, Scandinavian sportspeople haven't used blood doping.

But there has been at least gossip about the use of the practice in Sweden for a long time. When the issue emerged in 1971, a Swedish journalist recalled hearing about the use of the method already in 1967 naming even an athlete involved, a claim that the athlete and Ekblom vehemently denied. At the same time, future olympic champion steeplechaser Anders Gärderud told publicly that he was interested in testing how the method worked.

In 1973, Swedish wrestler Pelle Svensson wrote an anti-hormone book "Öppet Brev till Sveriges Idrottspampar" about his own experiences with testosterone. He mentions briefly that gold medallist swimmer Gunnar Larsson was a guinea pig on blood doping experiments (not particarly claiming that the experience occurred during a competition). Svensson makes the claim in passing in the introduction, and as usual, Per-Olof Åstrand denied the claim in an open letter on a Swedish daily newspaper.

Swedish world class weightlifter Ingemar Lyshag also claimed in an article in the Swedish daily Aftonbladet that the method was used by his countrymen: "Last year experimented Swedish top runners with blood replacement 'that made it extra easy to run'. Doctors warned about the experiments".(Aftonbladet, 3/4/1973)

While some of this sounds damning, it is still mostly unsubstantiated gossip that circulates from time-to-time. The GIH appears still in a very suspicious light because Swedish skater Jonny Nilsson told quite recently that that he was offered blood doping in 1966, mentioning even in one instance that the doctor who made the offer was specifically none other than Björn Ekblom.

While sounding really questionable, the incident could still be a part of the science on exercise physiology, as blood doping was researched from mid-1960s onwards.

Having read up to a thousand pages of exercise physiology written by Ekblom and Åstrand - both whom I really admire - I must admit that the more suspicious option is also possible.

great post.

I do not share your sentiments that some of it is just "unsubstantiated gossip that circulates from time-to-time".
If you think about motives, I can't think of any motive to just make up a story about being offered a blood bag anno 1966. Sure, theoretically the skater may have made it up, but it's more likely that it simply happened.
Iow, it doesn't sound "really questionable" to me; it sounds quite plausible.

Btw, the 1966 anecdote must be the same anecdote I referred to above, mistakenly putting it in the year 1976.

Another interesting thing from your post is Astrand's denial, anno 1973.
It suggests (together with other evidence from the time) that these researchers and physiologists, in that early period, were already well aware that the practice of blood boosting was (at least in the long run) going to be looked upon as cheating.
By extension, it suggests that, as much as we think we know about the period, we're still just *scratching the surface*. Much is likely to have happened behind closed doors and, with exceptional exceptions such as Zoetemelk and Irving Dardik, most docs, coaches and elite athletes involved in blood boosting would have been well aware of the need to keep it to themselves, even though it wasn't officially banned yet.

On a side, two likely candidates for blood boosting in that period imo are Bjorn Borg and Eric Heiden.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re:

The USSR was doing their own research in the sixties at the same time as Ericson in Sweden according to old Soviet studies on blood transfusions in USSR team.
https://twitter.com/iljukov/status/546814155173662720

What is the photo from? I've seen that Tweet before but never been able to get an answer to that question. Is it a book or a thesis?

 

[sniper]

Re:

The USSR was doing their own research in the sixties at the same time as Ericson in Sweden according to old Soviet studies on blood transfusions in USSR team.
https://twitter.com/iljukov/status/546814155173662720

According to Danny Van Haute's father, Danny and other US juniors were introduced to blood boosting during the junior worlds in Poland, 1974.
So yes, it definitely looks like it was more than just the Scandinavians looking into blood doping in that early period.

 

[acoggan]

Three years ago Cycling News published a brief series of articles I wrote on what was then known about the use of blood transfusions in cycling.

Part 1 - Nencini and Anquetil to Zoetemelk
Part 2 - Moser and LA 84 to Roger de Vlaeminck
Part 3 - PDM to Riis

They have been referenced time to time in other threads where proper discussion of them is not always possible without going off topic.

If anybody wants to correct any errors that appear in those articles, feel free to do so here. They were written and published in an attempt to put some shape on the existing knowledge. They should not contribute further errors to the subject.

If anybody wants to add new research, stories that have appeared since those articles were published or stories that didn't make the cut when those articles were written, feel free to do so here. There is only so much that can be said in three relatively brief articles.

If anybody wants to go into greater detail on any of the issues touched on in those articles, feel free to do so here. This is particularly true of the research into the manipulation of blood and identifying its proper starting point.

Perhaps collectively we can present a clearer picture of when transfusions came into use, how when and where they were in use at the height of their popularity, and when they came back into favour after being overtaken by EPO and related drugs. We might also bust a few myths along the way.

What is striking about those articles is the lack of any mention whatsoever of any American or Canadian academics.*

*I am explicitly excluding Ed Burke, since he made his living almost entirely outside of that environment.

 

[Tienus]

What is the photo from? I've seen that Tweet before but never been able to get an answer to that question. Is it a book or a thesis?

I did not link correctly
https://twitter.com/iljukov/status/546812063889506304
Bioenergetics of Sports Activities, by Nikolay Volkov. Very limited edition. 2010. That was a secret PhD until 1991. Defended 67.

 

[fmk_RoI]

What is striking about those articles is the lack of any mention whatsoever of any American or Canadian academics.

What is striking about that?