LeMond III

[sniper]

Re:

In regard to blood group compatibility. A son is not always going to be compatible with his father. And repeated homologous transfusions from the same person runs the real risk of developing allergic responses to the allo-antigens found in the donated blood (even if it is an ABO/Rh match).

interesting.

some questions:
could you specify 'real risk'? Is there (enough) research on that?
Is the risk the same for healthy people/trained athletes?

 

[DamianoMachiavelli]

Re: Re:

Basically what we have here is called 2nd hand info. Sometimes even 3rd hand but in this instance I want to believe it is 2nd hand. In the legal realm they call it hearsay. Here in the clinic which is not a court of any type and dang sure is not a place where the truth and nothing but the whole truth is posted, it seems good enough to either take his word for it or to discount it. In my opinion I will go along and believe for now. I'm expecting to see a upcoming SI article and also to see Floyd over the pond for the TDF.

On top of that, you may not have to listen to P&P this July.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

In regard to blood group compatibility. A son is not always going to be compatible with his father. And repeated homologous transfusions from the same person runs the real risk of developing allergic responses to the allo-antigens found in the donated blood (even if it is an ABO/Rh match).

interesting.

some questions:
could you specify 'real risk'? Is there (enough) research on that?
Is the risk the same for healthy people/trained athletes?

Stumbled upon this:

The risk associated with receiving one unit of appropriately screened and tested RBC from a homologous transfusion is estimated to be about 1 in 200,000 for hepatitis B, and between 1 and 3 in 10,000 for hepatitis C (17). However, the risk for a serious irreversible liver disease or death from hepatitis C is probably much lower; 1 in 10,000-20,000. The risk for HIV (AIDS) infection ranges from 1 in 150,000 in the southeastern United States, to 1 in 1,000,000 in the central United States (2). The overall risk for the entire United States for HIV infection is 1 in 340,000 (2). Other risks from banked blood include major transfusion reactions from blood type incompatibility on the basis of clerical error, minor transfusion reactions including fever and body aches, transfusion-related acute lung injury, and bacterial infection (48). The overall risk that a blood recipient will contact a serious or fatal transfusion transmitted disease is about 3 in 10,000 (17,66).

Sounds like pretty low risk to me, at least once blood compatibility has been established, and provided you have half-decent medical guidance.

source: Sawka et al. 1996: "ACSM position stand: The use of blood doping as an ergogenic aid".

 

[djpbaltimore]

The big difference being that in modern blood transfusions, white blood cells are depleted. That would not be the case for repeated manual transfusions of the kind being suggested here. That increases the likelihood of developing allergy by orders of magnitude as white blood cells have more antigens than Reds. I don't know what type of medical guidance would help against those impediments. And remember that you would only have an allergic response if you saw the same type of antigen a second time (second transfusion). Almost all of that data relates to an initial transfusion response. Your immune system is sensitized the first time without symptoms (like with poison ivy).

 

[sniper]

Re:

The big difference being that in modern blood transfusions, white blood cells are depleted. That would not be the case for repeated manual transfusions of the kind being suggested here. That increases the likelihood of developing allergy by orders of magnitude as white blood cells have more antigens than Reds. I don't know what type of medical guidance would help against those impediments. And remember that you would only have an allergic response if you saw the same type of antigen a second time (second transfusion). Almost all of that data relates to an initial transfusion response. Your immune system is sensitized the first time without symptoms (like with poison ivy).

cheers, interesting, albeit well above my paygrade.
So the homologous scenario would not be a straightforward undertaking, I can see that.
I guess it brings us back to allergist David (and Kathy) Morris and their possible role in Lemond's entourage. David Morris being Lemond's medical spokesperson in some interviews in the late 80s and early 90s is interesting, but unless somebody brings something new to the table in that regard, we'd be going round in circles.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

The big difference being that in modern blood transfusions, white blood cells are depleted. That would not be the case for repeated manual transfusions of the kind being suggested here. That increases the likelihood of developing allergy by orders of magnitude as white blood cells have more antigens than Reds. I don't know what type of medical guidance would help against those impediments. And remember that you would only have an allergic response if you saw the same type of antigen a second time (second transfusion). Almost all of that data relates to an initial transfusion response. Your immune system is sensitized the first time without symptoms (like with poison ivy).

cheers, interesting, albeit well above my paygrade.
So the homologous scenario would not be a straightforward undertaking, I can see that.
I guess it brings us back to allergist David (and Kathy) Morris and their possible role in Lemond's entourage. David Morris being Lemond's medical spokesperson in some interviews in the late 80s and early 90s is interesting, but unless somebody brings something new to the table in that regard, we'd be going round in circles.

we are going round in circles........................

 

[sniper]

Re:

The big difference being that in modern blood transfusions, white blood cells are depleted. That would not be the case for repeated manual transfusions of the kind being suggested here. That increases the likelihood of developing allergy by orders of magnitude as white blood cells have more antigens than Reds. I don't know what type of medical guidance would help against those impediments. And remember that you would only have an allergic response if you saw the same type of antigen a second time (second transfusion). Almost all of that data relates to an initial transfusion response. Your immune system is sensitized the first time without symptoms (like with poison ivy).

What do you make of ADR's calf blood treatment from 1989?
This is what esafosfina (who rode for ADR in 1989) had to say about that:

Ok, this is what I know 'per se'... certain "A-squad" riders were sent to a clinic in either Austria or Switzerland... the word within the team was that it was for a 'treatment' that involved calf's-blood extract etc etc... (I may have mentioned that on here prior?) The "A-squad" also had access to Van Mol and his cronies more frequently than the rest of us. Lemond also had his own soigneur (a Mexican... read into that what you will) and was not present at as many races, thus giving him ample time to 'prepare'... We, and by that I mean the entire team, were given a product called 'Survector' which at the time was not on any banned list. By 1992 it was. There were slurs against Greg at the time, but most were, in hindsight, unfounded and probably 'sour-grapes'... If he crossed any limits, or boundaries I would honestly not like to say, because simply it's all anecdotal.

It is entirely possible that Greg was a freakishly talented and endowed athlete. It's entirely possible; I had a VO2max of 89.6 (and higher) and can assure you that I was clean.

To play Devil's advocate for a moment: it is also entire plausible that Greg was 'glowing' and no-one knew... Some of the old boys on ADR were very open and told tales of cheating dope-tests etc... some never said a word.

http://velorooms.com/index.php?topic=1904.0

That would be called heterologous blood doping, am I right? (using blood from another species)
I havent really looked for that (or for the related use of actovegin), so no idea when that started to make inroads into top sport. But from where I'm standing, now that sounds risky. Any thoughts on that?

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

That would be called heterologous blood doping, am I right? (using blood from another species)
I havent really looked for that (or for the related use of actovegin), so no idea when that started to make inroads into top sport. But from where I'm standing, now that sounds risky. Any thoughts on that?

Using a blood extract is not blood doping in the sense that the term is normally used--manipulating HT. A blood extract does not affect HT, unless there is some substance there that stimulates erythrocyte synthesis, but even if there is, it doesn't compare to the use of purified EPO.

There is some risk in using substances like these, but not comparable to homologous (another person's blood) transfusions, where the antigens on the cells may trigger a reaction if incompatible with those of the recipient. In the process of extraction, the cells are lysed, i.e., broken up (or maybe separated from the plasma before the extraction process even begins), and most of the antigens are probably degraded and/or denatured. The problem (from the point of view of the user) with using extracts like these is that no one knows exactly what is in there, and what may be beneficial and what may actually be detrimental to performance. It's purely an empirical exercise, i.e., you inject it, and if it seems to enhance performance, you keep taking it. As opposed to taking known substances which have scientifically-demonstrated mechanisms of action, like EPO.

 

[sniper]

thanks, MI, very clarifying.

I'm still confused about djpbaltimore's description of homologous transfusion as containing a 'real risk'.
If a qualified doctor takes all the necessary steps, compatibility testing, screening for any alloantibodies, etc., and both the donor and recipient are perfectly healthy people, what kind of risks are we realistically left with?

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

thanks, MI, very clarifying.

I'm still confused about djpbaltimore's description of homologous transfusion as containing a 'real risk'.
If a qualified doctor takes all the necessary steps, compatibility testing, screening for any alloantibodies, etc., and both the donor and recipient are perfectly healthy people, what kind of risks are we realistically left with?

Transfused blood is filled with all kinds of stuff, which can act as antigens (body recognizes it as foreign and it tries to get rid of it by developing an antibody). Like all kinds of external antigens (latex, pollen, peanut butter, etc) this initial exposure can create a sensitivity. Next time your body encounters it, it freaks out - formally called an allergic reaction. Having an allergy to the blood in your body is not a happy thing.

"•Individuals with severe IgA deficiency may develop antibody to IgA and, with repeated transfusion, are at high risk of allergic reaction." - http://patient.info/doctor/blood-transfusion-reactions

And that's just one of the things that can go wrong. Homologous transfusions are really risky, which is why a doctor won't give you a transfusion unless things have gone very, very wrong. They'll even give you plasma expanders as an alternative if they can.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24333079 - Here a study estimates that 1-3% of transfusions result in an acute reaction. And that's in a hospital environment.

John Swanson

 

[sniper]

cheers for that, John, very good info, and pardon my ignorance on the matter.

 

[Zypherov]

A question. Did Greg Lemond use Amineptine (Survector) while riding for the ADR Team in 1989, which I believe is now on the banned list, but wasn't in 1989 ?

 

[DamianoMachiavelli]

Re:

A question. Did Greg Lemond use Amineptine (Survector) while riding for the ADR Team in 1989, which I believe is now on the banned list, but wasn't in 1989 ?

Greg LeMond never saw any drugs while he was a pro. Despite being surrounded by teammates who were sauced to the gills, his rivals all being juiced, and the hours before a race being taken up by everyone popping pills and injecting themselves with every manner of PED, LeMond was totally unaware of what was going on. It was not until years later when another American--one who coincidentally had just matched LeMond's number of Tour wins--that Greg finally figured out there was doping in cycling. He was shocked.

So the answer is, of course, no. LeMond never used anything but water and the occasional PEZ.

 

[Digger]

I don't know if greg doped - what I do know, and I said it to kimmage in 2012, is that he said f*** all when Rough Ride came out. And him lauding pantani is laughable...so many instances to mention. And it's a good point about his business - you'd almost think lance ruined his business and he was on the breadline - the guy was a multi millionaire. And is even more rich now due to that property settlement.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

A question. Did Greg Lemond use Amineptine (Survector) while riding for the ADR Team in 1989, which I believe is now on the banned list, but wasn't in 1989 ?

Greg LeMond never saw any drugs while he was a pro. Despite being surrounded by teammates who were sauced to the gills, his rivals all being juiced, and the hours before a race being taken up by everyone popping pills and injecting themselves with every manner of PED, LeMond was totally unaware of what was going on. It was not until years later when another American--one who coincidentally had just matched LeMond's number of Tour wins--that Greg finally figured out there was doping in cycling. He was shocked.

So the answer is, of course, no. LeMond never used anything but water and the occasional PEZ.

....why of course that should go without saying...

Cheers

 

[Zypherov]

http://velorooms.com/index.php?topic=1904.0

Colin Sturgess AKA esafosfina:

Ok, this is what I know 'per se'... certain "A-squad" riders were sent to a clinic in either Austria or Switzerland... the word within the team was that it was for a 'treatment' that involved calf's-blood extract etc etc... (I may have mentioned that on here prior?) The "A-squad" also had access to Van Mol and his cronies more frequently than the rest of us. Lemond also had his own soigneur (a Mexican... read into that what you will) and was not present at as many races, thus giving him ample time to 'prepare'... We, and by that I mean the entire team, were given a product called 'Survector' which at the time was not on any banned list. By 1992 it was. There were slurs against Greg at the time, but most were, in hindsight, unfounded and probably 'sour-grapes'... If he crossed any limits, or boundaries I would honestly not like to say, because simply it's all anecdotal.

It is entirely possible that Greg was a freakishly talented and endowed athlete. It's entirely possible; I had a VO2max of 89.6 (and higher) and can assure you that I was clean.

To play Devil's advocate for a moment: it is also entire plausible that Greg was 'glowing' and no-one knew... Some of the old boys on ADR were very open and told tales of cheating dope-tests etc... some never said a word.

Colin Sturgess was a member of the ADR Team in 1989.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re:

thanks, MI, very clarifying.

I'm still confused about djpbaltimore's description of homologous transfusion as containing a 'real risk'.
If a qualified doctor takes all the necessary steps, compatibility testing, screening for any alloantibodies, etc., and both the donor and recipient are perfectly healthy people, what kind of risks are we realistically left with?

You are not understanding the immunology of transfusions. Every transfusion runs the risk of a person developing an allergy to the donor blood which it sees as 'non-self'. But it is like the example of poison ivy where the first exposure leads to sensitization, but no overt symptoms. A second exposure would potentially lead to a systemic allergic reaction. This has nothing to do with screening before the transfusion, whether the people involved are healthy, or whether a doctor was present during the transfusion. Since repeated transfusions from the same donor are not typically done for the fear of allergy, there will be no stats to determine the exact degree of risk. But speaking as an Immunologist, repeated transfusions without white blood cell depletion from a single source is foolish and dangerous. It would be much preferable to vary the source of the donor blood, or as most riders later discovered; to use their own.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

A question. Did Greg Lemond use Amineptine (Survector) while riding for the ADR Team in 1989, which I believe is now on the banned list, but wasn't in 1989 ?

Greg LeMond never saw any drugs while he was a pro. Despite being surrounded by teammates who were sauced to the gills, his rivals all being juiced, and the hours before a race being taken up by everyone popping pills and injecting themselves with every manner of PED, LeMond was totally unaware of what was going on. It was not until years later when another American--one who coincidentally had just matched LeMond's number of Tour wins--that Greg finally figured out there was doping in cycling. He was shocked.

So the answer is, of course, no. LeMond never used anything but water and the occasional PEZ.

This is my take as well. During the freewheeling amphetamine days of the 80s and blood doping ways of the early 90s Greg was fortunate to be bed very early and was so focused on his aero bars that he saw none of the doping that occurred. It wasn't until evil Michelle Ferrari who had never worked in cycling prior to 2001 started working with Lance Armstrong did LeMond become concerned.

I even checked Ferrari's wiki page and confirmed he never worked with anyone related to cycling before Lance so Lemond had no reason to call him out or any other cyclists prior.

Michelle Ferrari, (born 22 December 1983) is an Italian pornographic actress and television personality.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Ferrari

 

[sniper]

Re:

A question. Did Greg Lemond use Amineptine (Survector) while riding for the ADR Team in 1989, which I believe is now on the banned list, but wasn't in 1989 ?

why ask? previously you said this was all futile speculation:

There are no evidence that Lemond ever took performance enhancing drugs. Any effort to uncover such will prove futile. For all intends and purposes in my opinion if he did it would be out in the open by now.

As to the general question, what does Lemond (and his entourage) claim Lemond was 'on' during his carreer:
viewtopic.php?p=1919147#p1919147

 

[Zypherov]

Re: Re:

A question. Did Greg Lemond use Amineptine (Survector) while riding for the ADR Team in 1989, which I believe is now on the banned list, but wasn't in 1989 ?

why ask? previously you said this was all futile speculation:

There are no evidence that Lemond ever took performance enhancing drugs. Any effort to uncover such will prove futile. For all intends and purposes in my opinion if he did it would be out in the open by now.

As to the general question, what does Lemond (and his entourage) claim Lemond was 'on' during his carreer:
viewtopic.php?p=1919147#p1919147

It's anecdotal at best....

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

I don't know if greg doped - what I do know, and I said it to kimmage in 2012, is that he said f*** all when Rough Ride came out. And him lauding pantani is laughable...so many instances to mention. And it's a good point about his business - you'd almost think lance ruined his business and he was on the breadline - the guy was a multi millionaire. And is even more rich now due to that property settlement.

Why would he say anything though? You make your own point...he was a multi millionaire...or on his way to becoming one. Kimmage on the other hand was not.............the incentives for these two protagonists were very different....Lemond is (a successful) Kimmage...if Lemond had been unsuccessful then perhaps he would have (ghost) written a book about the doping a la Kimmage..............

 

[hrotha]

Lauding Pantani? There's plenty of people here with an antidoping stance who don't feel the need to ostracize every doper in the history of ever, and I say this with Camenzind, Vandenbroucke and Fois in my avatar.

 

[sniper]

You forget people in here have been defending the extraordinary hypothesis that Lemond is one of the few clean GT winners.
In the context of that extraordinary hypothesis it is legitimate to point out he behaves rather ordinary, i.e. no different from other dopers and keppers of omerta.

It would be silly to point this out for, say, Tinkov, Riis, or Contador.
For Lemond it's not.

An extraordinary hypothesis requires extraordinary evidence.
There is none for Lemond.

 

[hrotha]

That has nothing to do with what I said.

 

[sniper]

lauding pantani.
silly to point out for Riis or Tinkov or McQuaid.
warranted to point out for Lemond or Vaughters or anybody who's part of the peloton's alleged antidoping brigade.