Long term effects of doping

[Krebs cycle]

Thanks KrebsCycle, you have been most informative. I am still not fully convinced, but time will tell I guess . Thanks.

@Wiggo. I'm not sure.

Me neither, even though Lundby is a world renowned expert, it's still too big a call to say "the only performance enhancing mechanism resulting from EPO use is increased O2 transport" because who knows what science will discover in the future?

He says "there is no evidence" though, but nobody has done a study in pro level cyclists on the long term effects (like years of use) of EPO use.

What I think is that by far the dominant performance effect is O2 transport, and without a doubt, that goes back to normal within a month or two no matter how long you were doping (you explained exactly why this happens in your above posts). The structural changes such as capillarisation and mitochondrial density might take several months to go back to normal. Maybe there are some other changes that remain for years, but without the most important physiological changes lost, then anything else is going to be barely noticeable from a performance perspective.

 

[hiero2]

. . . It's purpose was also just to show that there are still effects that these drugs have, that we don't know of yet, whose to say there aren't more, and therefore should guys be allowed back after a two year ban if these drugs, and the increased training it allows for, could still have a residual effect?

Cardiac myocytes for the most part don't undergo death and regeneration, such as skin cells, and are classically thought of as a terminally differentiated organ. Only recently has it been shown that regeneration is possible following organ injury. This is the same with skeletal muscle cells and the change in size is largely due to changes in cell size and not number. An increase in death of these cells is usually pathologic, and under normal circumstances shouldn't occur in a healthy young adult.
. . .

My understanding, of cell life, is that there is constant regeneration of almost all cells in the body - but at different rates. E.g. muscle cells have a 15 year "lifespan". With the exception of sections of the brain. Also, realize I am no more than an intelligent and educated layman with a decent ability to use my intelligence rationally. So, if you can correct my understanding, in plain English (helps to reduce translation times ), then please do so.

Me neither, even though Lundby is a world renowned expert, it's still too big a call to say "the only performance enhancing mechanism resulting from EPO use is increased O2 transport" because who knows what science will discover in the future?

He says "there is no evidence" though, but nobody has done a study in pro level cyclists on the long term effects (like years of use) of EPO use.

What I think is that by far the dominant performance effect is O2 transport, and without a doubt, that goes back to normal within a month or two no matter how long you were doping (you explained exactly why this happens in your above posts). The structural changes such as capillarisation and mitochondrial density might take several months to go back to normal. Maybe there are some other changes that remain for years, but without the most important physiological changes lost, then anything else is going to be barely noticeable from a performance perspective.

Among other things, krebs says above - 1. that most of the dopage effect is gone in a short time after quitting the doping, and 2. that any long term changes noted are minor. Previously, I had thought even longer term impact wasn't "long-term" - i.e. not even months. Krebs says maybe months. L M & G says maybe years, for steroid changes. But that idea of years is based on subjective experience (i.e. "common knowledge" amongst body builders, combined with personal real-life experience). Now, I am all for listening to real-life experience, but it has rather well noted limitations.

So, I'm still thinking that there isn't really any long-term impact. But, I am more open to the possibility that there might be, albeit extremely small. Now, I also realize that a tiny difference is all it takes to be in 1st place instead of 2nd. Sometimes that difference is thousandths of a second - the width of a wheel is more than enough.

So, the real question is: lifetime bans? Or, two years? - Man, if we could just get to the point where we could agree that we had a VALID testing environment, I would seriously take that question on. Until then, that question is still merely rhetorical, imo. However, today, I would still vote for 2 years. Insufficient evidence of real long-term advantage.

 

[V3R1T4S]

4 year ban

I would think a 4 year ban would be appropriate for any blood manipulation stuff. Regardless of the supposed or not long-term effects, 4 years is long enough to scare the **** out of riders but is not as draconian as lifetime bans in encouraging cover-ups and corruption on a wide scale.

 

[MarkvW]

I would think a 4 year ban would be appropriate for any blood manipulation stuff. Regardless of the supposed or not long-term effects, 4 years is long enough to scare the **** out of riders but is not as draconian as lifetime bans in encouraging cover-ups and corruption on a wide scale.

A team ban would work, but the UCI is too corrupt to implement such a thing.

 

[V3R1T4S]

A team ban would work, but the UCI is too corrupt to implement such a thing.

Ah, moral hazard. Definitely that would work. But sadly I agree the UCI would never do this.

 

[hiero2]

I mentioned the quoted studies in the "Physiology" thread, and Frank Day (who is, after all, a heart doc) had some interesting responses.

I guess I don't find it too surprising that EPO might, under certain circumstances, be shown to have some effects beyond simple RBC enhancement. The question really is are these other effects occurring at doses seen by athletes and, if so, is there any clinical effect from the change. These studies, IMHO, are not very supportive of such an effect. Of course, this thread is discussing all PED's many of which I do accept might have long-term effects. But, we are in this thread, so far, limiting ourselves to EPO and it's effects on VO2max. Here is an excerpt from the above article

The above-mentioned data raise the question as to whether extraerythropoietic effects of erythropoietin are relevant in patients treated with recombinant erythropoietins for the correction of anaemia. However, it is important to emphasize that, so far, extraerythropoietic effects have usually been demonstrated only with concentrations of erythropoietin that are much higher than those usually achieved during anaemia management with erythropoietin.

As noted above, the fact that an extraerythropoietic effect has been demonstrated is not evidence it is of any real consideration in the real world. Especially since dosing for athletic enhancement is, I believe, lower than that used for treatment of anemia. While interesting, I guess, I simply do not understand the clinical significance of this finding as it regards athletic performance. Matching convective O2 transport to Erythorocyte mass does not address the diffusion issue, which in my opinion, is the limiting element in oxygen delivery to the tissues. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1114253/ And, of course, beyond that, it doesn't address the issue that there is zero evidence that the heart ever becomes hypoxic in the normal athlete, even at VO2max.
I personally have little interest in discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or, in other words, why and in how many ways use of PED's is bad. My interest is in trying to understand normal physiology that might allow improved performance through legal manipulations. But, as PED's relate to VO2max I presume they belong in this particular thread.

 

[hiero2]

I realize the linked discussion is hearsay, but I thought it still informative. These guys also know something of the body-building world, and the consensus in the linked thread is that any testosterone gains in building quickly revert to what you can naturally maintain without the extra.

https://www.sealswcc.com/forums/showthread.php?2018-Testosterone-pills

Which means - you get to keep the damage - but the good side goes away!

 

[sideshadow]

From Twitter:

@cdcanning: Wow. Last year @lancearmstrong won Hawaii 70.3 in 3:50. 15 minutes faster than crowies winning time this year.

@Reid_Rothschild: @cdcanning @lancearmstrong hmm? No questions go thru your mind about that "performance" Chris?

‏@lancearmstrong: @Reid_Rothschild @cdcanning that performance was 100% clean. Like it or not.

If you believe Lance, does he mean that he was clean on the day or clean during the lead up and training as well. Can it even remotely be considered a clean performance, him having been doped up and training at a level that much higher for almost 20 years? What's your guys' opinion on this?

 

[blackcat]

A team ban would work, but the UCI is too corrupt to implement such a thing.

nah. just ship them to siberia.

 

[blackcat]

@cdcanning: Wow. Last year @lancearmstrong won Hawaii 70.3 in 3:50. 15 minutes faster than crowies winning time this year.

@Reid_Rothschild: @cdcanning @lancearmstrong hmm? No questions go thru your mind about that "performance" Chris?

‏@lancearmstrong: @Reid_Rothschild @cdcanning that performance was 100% clean. Like it or not.

If you believe Lance, does he mean that he was clean on the day or clean during the lead up and training as well. Can it even remotely be considered a clean performance, him having been doped up and training at a level that much higher for almost 20 years? What's your guys' opinion on this?

the truth means nothing to lance.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

@cdcanning: Wow. Last year @lancearmstrong won Hawaii 70.3 in 3:50. 15 minutes faster than crowies winning time this year.

@Reid_Rothschild: @cdcanning @lancearmstrong hmm? No questions go thru your mind about that "performance" Chris?

‏@lancearmstrong: @Reid_Rothschild @cdcanning that performance was 100% clean. Like it or not.

If you believe Lance, does he mean that he was clean on the day or clean during the lead up and training as well. Can it even remotely be considered a clean performance, him having been doped up and training at a level that much higher for almost 20 years? What's your guys' opinion on this?

Come on.

The course was tailor made for Lance - it had around 90km of TTing in it ffs.

And the competition!?

Weak as p*ss.

Training for 6hrs/ day and then racing for 4 is much more believable than racing for 4km a few times over a couple of days then dominating for 3000km in 21 days.

 

[mikehammer67]

in distance running
i'd assume lagat and gebreselassie were both on epo years back

they're still near the very top at the ages of 39 and 40-45(gebs exact age is unknown)

whats the story with geb then? has he been on epo for 20 yrs?

 

[Nick777]

From Twitter:

@cdcanning: Wow. Last year @lancearmstrong won Hawaii 70.3 in 3:50. 15 minutes faster than crowies winning time this year.

@Reid_Rothschild: @cdcanning @lancearmstrong hmm? No questions go thru your mind about that "performance" Chris?

‏@lancearmstrong: @Reid_Rothschild @cdcanning that performance was 100% clean. Like it or not.

If you believe Lance, does he mean that he was clean on the day or clean during the lead up and training as well. Can it even remotely be considered a clean performance, him having been doped up and training at a level that much higher for almost 20 years? What's your guys' opinion on this?

The conditions this year were horrendous compared to last year. However... no way was Armstrong clean in his triathlon wins last year. It was his running times that gave it away.