US cycling scene in the 70s and 80s

[Merckx index]

Did you ever see this post?
viewtopic.php?p=1914388#p1914388
Especially the part in boldface+underscore, where he recommends further cardiorespiratory testing on adolescents with modifications along the lines of what "certain Scandinavian countries" are doing.
It's really tough not to read "blood boosting" between the lines there.
That's what the Scandinavian authors (Astrand, Ekblom) he refers to were experimenting with. The reference to German doping-guru Woldemar Gerschler there doesn't bode well either.

I looked at that post, and it doesn’t seem to me that Hagerman is implicated in possible blood doping. As you yourself admit, his study of cardiorespiratory conditioning is not by itself suspicious. You attempt to find something sinister in his work by noting he cited Ekblom, who did a transfusion study. But in the first place, the fact that he cites someone whose work includes a transfusion study does not by itself imply that Hagerman was interested in transfusing athletes; Hagerman’s reference to Ekblom does not specifically mention transfusion. In the second place, Ekblom did a lot of work on the cardiorespiratory system, and as far as I can tell, transfusion was just one tool that he found useful. E.g., he also studied the effect of CO, which obviously does not enhance performance. And much later in his career, he helped develop a blood passport type of approach to detect blood manipulation—work foreshadowed by his statement against doping in that NYT article you linked.

None of this proves that Ekblom was not interested in transfusing athletes to increase their performance, but I don’t find his work to be much in the way of evidence of that, other than that he was clearly aware of the potential. To contrast him with Ariel, the latter appeared to be keenly interested, at least at one point in his career, in the performance enhancing effects of steroids, whereas Ekblom appeared to regard performance enhancement by blood transfusion as just one approach to understanding the role of the cardiorespiratory system in optimal performance. Also, of course, Ariel was directly involved with the OTC, whereas Ekblom wasn’t.

While I’m on the subject of Ariel, I want to make a couple of points that might reduce, though certainly not eliminate, the suspicion surrounding him. First, as I noted in my previous post, he apparently stopped all his studies of steroids well before the OTC was founded. So if he was actually giving athletes these substances and determining their PE effects at this time, he wasn’t publishing the results. I suppose one could argue that given that they were banned substances, he might well be reluctant to do so. But in any case, there is no evidence I’m aware of that he was studying steroids at this time.

Second, given his deep interest in maximizing biomechanical efficiency, it’s possible he wanted to see how this was affected by steroids (I haven’t read any of his papers, so I’m just speculating here). Perhaps he was guided by the thought that steroids improved performance in part by improving the efficiency of movement (as a result of or independently of the increase in muscle size and strength), giving him some goal to shoot for in undoped athletes.

Finally, in that earlier post, you repeat the claim that Hagerman was testing the effects of steroids on adolescents. As I noted before, his only study of steroids I’m aware of appeared to focus on parameters unrelated to performance enhancement. I understand Baltimore is going to send you a copy.

 

[sniper]

...

I looked at that post, and it doesn’t seem to me that Hagerman is implicated in possible blood doping.

if he were implicated in such practices, why would he be explicit about it in his publications? Go look through the academic output of Geert Leinders for instance. Good luck finding any kind of hint in there to blood doping, or references to Ekblom/Gerschler/Astrand, or suggestions for future cardiorespiratory research on adolescents with the aim of identifying outstanding Olympic athletes.

As you yourself admit, his study of cardiorespiratory conditioning is not by itself suspicious.

'suspicious' or not, matter of taste I guess.
The whole way in which he speaks about identifying outstanding athletes among adolescents, then the references to Gerschler and the Scandinavian bunch. In an era where there is a strong politically driven campaign in American sports aimed at closing the gap with the bloc-countries. It just screams junior doping, imo.
And while it may not be suspicious to you, it's still more suspicious than anything a Geert Leinders, a Ferrari, a Testa, or a Del Moral has ever put in print to my knowledge.

You attempt to find something sinister in his work by noting he cited Ekblom, who did a transfusion study.

You're forgetting what the null hypothesis is.
The null hypothesis, i.e. the hypothesis that imposes itself even in the absence of any kind of contextual evidence, is that Lemond, Heiden and other US athletes who were successful at the time, were using the same stuff (or better) as their non-US competitors. That should be the common sense starting point of the discussion, at least to those versed in the history of doping in cycling and prosport.
All the stuff uncovered on these pages (not just by me) does nothing more, and nothing less, than showing that all the means and know-how was there. So while it would be 'nice' to find something really sinister, it's not necessary for the null hypothesis to remain (or even gain) plausibility in light of Hagerman's and Costill's publication record.
So no, it's not necessary to 'prove' that Hagerman was a blood doper.
Showing that he had the know-how and connections is enough, for now.
So no, there is no need to find photographic evidence of Hagerman sticking a needle in Lemond's arm for that hypothesis to make sense.

But in the first place, the fact that he cites someone whose work includes a transfusion study does not by itself imply that Hagerman was interested in transfusing athletes; Hagerman’s reference to Ekblom does not specifically mention transfusion. In the second place, Ekblom did a lot of work on the cardiorespiratory system, and as far as I can tell, transfusion was just one tool that he found useful. E.g., he also studied the effect of CO, which obviously does not enhance performance.

agreed on all accounts.

And much later in his career, he helped develop a blood passport type of approach to detect blood manipulation—

Yes. But you'll agree that hat doesn't exonerate him of anything. To give one (of many) examples: Freiburg's Yorck Schumacher was also part of the UCI's passport committee.

work foreshadowed by his statement against doping in that NYT article you linked.

Not really. Such statements are rife from all dopers and facilitators in all periods of time and across all sports. Such blanket statements foreshadow little, I'm afraid. In fact, I would argue that Hagerman's publication record (including altiutude research for the US Army in the 60s), and his proposals for future research, combined with him being recruited by Dardik, foreshadows a thing or two.

None of this proves that Ekblom was not interested in transfusing athletes to increase their performance, but I don’t find his work to be much in the way of evidence of that, other than that he was clearly aware of the potential.

Sure, though I personally know too little about him and his work to be able to comment on that in any detail. As I said earlier, it would be great to have a separate thread looking into the history of blood doping for athletic purposes. The main point wrt the references to Ekblom, Astrand, Saltin and Gerschler is that it shows that, already in the mid-70s, Hagerman and Costill were well aware of their works and, thus, most likely, aware of the existence (and benefits) of certain blood boosting techniques. (Hagerman's work for the US army in the 60s is further evidence of that.)

Now, Hagerman and Costill being aware of those techniques in the mid-70s is not a trivial fact. In 1984, when Ed Burke was exposed as one of the architects of the 84 BB program, he claimed he only learned about the technique in 1983 reading about it in some German journal. I think you'll agree that that was probably a lie. I think it was part of a larger white-wash, the purpose of which was to downplay the whole thing. The Van Haute case is further evidence of that.

None of this proves that Ekblom was not interested in transfusing athletes to increase their performance, but I don’t find his work to be much in the way of evidence of that, other than that he was clearly aware of the potential. To contrast him with Ariel, the latter appeared to be keenly interested, at least at one point in his career, in the performance enhancing effects of steroids, whereas Ekblom appeared to regard performance enhancement by blood transfusion as just one approach to understanding the role of the cardiorespiratory system in optimal performance. Also, of course, Ariel was directly involved with the OTC, whereas Ekblom wasn’t.

agreed. Wrt Ariel, his interest in the effects of steroids is not limited to "at one point in his carreer". Rather, in addition to his articles from 1972, he explicitly (re)stated said interest in interviews in 1977 which I've linked to earlier.

While I’m on the subject of Ariel, I want to make a couple of points that might reduce, though certainly not eliminate, the suspicion surrounding him. First, as I noted in my previous post, he apparently stopped all his studies of steroids well before the OTC was founded. So if he was actually giving athletes these substances and determining their PE effects at this time, he wasn’t publishing the results. I suppose one could argue that given that they were banned substances, he might well be reluctant to do so. But in any case, there is no evidence I’m aware of that he was studying steroids at this time.

Second, given his deep interest in maximizing biomechanical efficiency, it’s possible he wanted to see how this was affected by steroids (I haven’t read any of his papers, so I’m just speculating here). Perhaps he was guided by the thought that steroids improved performance in part by improving the efficiency of movement (as a result of or independently of the increase in muscle size and strength), giving him some goal to shoot for in undoped athletes.

I would probably agree with your formulations here. It's possible. But not likely.
And no, no evidence of him *studying* it, but the interviews from 1977 quite explicitly underline his interest in the topic.

Finally, in that earlier post, you repeat the claim that Hagerman was testing the effects of steroids on adolescents.

i said that once, was corrected by djpbaltimore, thanked him for it, and acknowledged it.
to my knowledge i never repeated it. And I went on to check it myself (through references in other literature), and learned it was on (adult) weightlifters. I posted that up, too.
His cardiorespiratory study with the references to ekblom, astrand and gerschler and the whole bunch was on adolescents. Whether the (olympic) pentathletes he interviewed in the 60s in relation to steroids included adolescents remains to be seen.

As I noted before, his only study of steroids I’m aware of appeared to focus on parameters unrelated to performance enhancement. I understand Baltimore is going to send you a copy.

Not sure, but note in any case that for weightlifters (and similar power disciplines) imo there's no clear distinction between studying performance enhancement and studying other physical/physiological effects of steroids (such as weight/bodymass increase). In such disciplines weight/bodymass increase is always going to correlate with performance.

 

[sniper]

More generally, you should not forget that these pieces from Hagerman, Costill, Ekblom, etc, were not written in some social vacuum. These guys were well aware that this was ethically inapproipriate (or at least that the public perception was that it was ethically inappropriarte). Already following the Mexico City games, there was ample ethics- and health-related discussion going on behind the scenes about doping, at IOC and USOC level. Blood doping wasn't banned yet, but the rumors were rampant and IOC was pressured from many sides to ban it. Steroids were banned in some sports, but not in others, which, again, invited discussion and eyebrowraising in medical circles. So sure, you're gonna find some disclaimers in the works of Costill and/or Hagerman, but that's merely to be expected in the context of the time.
And that said, there weren't many disclaimers in costills study on caffeine in the 70s (I think from 1976 or 78, will look for it), which earned him alot of criticism from medical colleagues, some of whom even accused costill of advocating the use of caffeine as a ped. After that, Costill republished that caffeine study, indeed, this time carefully inserting the appropriate disclaimers. (will link to this later)

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

I'm going to post this friendly warning for the last time.

Please keep your comments impersonal and courteous.

This discussion should not resort to ugly name calling, hyperbole and strawmen.

Let's keep it civil, shall we?

Cheers

I think for the most part name-calling has been absent. AC should not have accused Sniper of lying, because that implies Sniper knew the facts and intentionally misrepresented them in order to deceive. AC has no way of knowing that, and FWIW, I don't think Sniper has posted anything he knew at the time to be false, though he is IMO guilty of sometimes rushing to judgment without always carefully considering what a particular piece of information says or doesn't say.

But everything else AC has said is definitely within the bounds of proper discussion of scientific results, even the accusation that "sniper distorts facts and spreads misinformation". I know that sounds ugly and personal, and no doubt the same point could be made more tactfully, but as long as a motive like intention to deceive is not added to this point, it's certainly a fair one to make, the kind scientists frequently make when arguing among themselves. (To paraphrase Shakespeare, hell hath no fury like a scientist in full critical mode). It's not an ad hominem (other than an accusation of sloppy thinking), it's simply a description of what happened. The notion that the diuretic improved performance is misinformation; it didn't enhance performance. The notion that any study of steroids is directed at determining their ability to enhance performance is misinformation; all the studies I've seen examined only health effects. Misinformation happens. It's not necessarily a sin, just a human weakness.

Again, I don't think this is intentional. I very much agree with Blutto that the simple statement that performance times increased 8.4 seconds is ambiguous. If it were time to exhaustion, time maintaining a certain level of power, or the like, then it would indicate enhancement. Even if it were time to run a certain distance--as it turns out was the case--the statement is still suggestive of performance enhancement, simply because of the word "increase". I wouldn't blame anyone for looking at that statement out of context and jumping to the conclusion, at least anyone who was not a scientist working in that area.

It only becomes misinformation when that connection to PE is explicitly made, as Sniper apparently did do upthread ("improved their personal bests"). But it's a mistake I can understand his making if he didn't see the full abstract, only the phrase that performance times increased. He should not have jumped to that conclusion, he's wrong, and he should be called out for this. This much has to be allowed if this thread is to be meaningful.

...forgot to comment on the bolded...well said, very well said....( truth be known have spent some time in academia, history in my case, and things can get very heated...think of some of the classic food fights we have had here and then turn it up to 11 to get a sense of the intensity...but everyone in those encounters knows that is how the game is played and usually doesn't take it personally...or put another way its not unlike taking part in a hard fought debate..)...

Cheers

 

[aphronesis]

At the same time lots of (most, many) academics cook evidence, cut corners, rush conclusions and impose false parameters in order to get some work done. So the sage authoritarian belittling the amateur by way of credentials alone doesn't wash.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re:

At the same time lots of (most, many) academics cook evidence, cut corners, rush conclusions and impose false parameters in order to get some work done. So the sage authoritarian belittling the amateur by way of credentials alone doesn't wash.

And when was the bolded done in this thread? I call strawman. I don't think anybody is criticizing the research based on the fact is was done by an amateur, just the unjustified conclusions based on reading between the lines of journal articles and sloppy reporting of facts. A good rule of thumb regarding scientific (or political) debate is 'If you can't handle the heat, stay out of the kitchen'.

I also would like to see evidence showing that most academics act in the manner that you suggest. Or is that your personal opinion?

 

[aphronesis]

It may not have been this thread, but I recall a discussion about sniper "not understanding academia".

I've seen it done by friends, colleagues, mentors (students) and superstars at most of the big leagues, including the one in Bawlmer. Rarely deliberate (although cynicism can't be wholly discounted).

What evidence? Really? You want published statements and some counterfactual archives? I said "lots of" many/most was in the parenthetical.

 

[Merckx index]

if he were implicated in such practices, why would he be explicit about it in his publications? Go look through the academic output of Geert Leinders for instance. Good luck finding any kind of hint in there to blood doping, or references to Ekblom/Gerschler/Astrand, or suggestions for future cardiorespiratory research on adolescents with the aim of identifying outstanding Olympic athletes.

Sure, but you can see how weak that argument is. I could say, Andy Coggan is performing studies aimed at helping riders get maximal performance from doping. Someone else can point out that he’s never published any studies of the performance enhancing effects of banned substances or treatments, nor shown any interest in doing so, to which I could reply, of course not, he doesn’t want to call attention to what he’s doing. He does it in secret. Likewise, if I were convinced Coggan was doing doping studies, I would dismiss any public statements he made denouncing doping. Of course he would say all the right things in public.

What your argument boils down to is that because researchers don't want the public to know what they're really doing, it's very hard to find evidence of what they're really doing. That might be the case, but absence of evidence is absence of evidence. The case doesn't become stronger just because there are possible rationalizations for this absence. It might very well justify to some continuing to search for that evidence, but until it's actually found, it doesn't strengthen one's argument.

The whole way in which he speaks about identifying outstanding athletes among adolescents, then the references to Gerschler and the Scandinavian bunch. In an era where there is a strong politically driven campaign in American sports aimed at closing the gap with the bloc-countries. It just screams junior doping, imo.

What references? I've found one study of transfusions by Ekblom and Astrand, and four more by other authors, most of them in the 1980s, and not all of them reporting PE effects. Saltin apparently has published hundreds of papers, but none on transfusions that I know of. I haven't found anything by Gerschler, except that he's credited with inventing interval training.

Yes, there was an extremely strong motive to identify potential athletes and maximize their potential. Yes, there was a veritable cottage industry in research efforts designed to understand the relationship of physiology to athletic performance. Yes, it's very easy to understand how the OTC, given that motive and given that access to research, would be very strongly tempted to use those resources to set up a doping program. But the actual public record supporting that is not that strong.

You're forgetting what the null hypothesis is.
The null hypothesis, i.e. the hypothesis that imposes itself even in the absence of any kind of contextual evidence, is that Lemond, Heiden and other US athletes who were successful at the time, were using the same stuff (or better) as their non-US competitors. That should be the common sense starting point of the discussion, at least to those versed in the history of doping in cycling and prosport.

All the stuff uncovered on these pages (not just by me) does nothing more, and nothing less, than showing that all the means and know-how was there. So while it would be 'nice' to find something really sinister, it's not necessary for the null hypothesis to remain (or even gain) plausibility in light of Hagerman's and Costill's publication record.
So no, it's not necessary to 'prove' that Hagerman was a blood doper.
Showing that he had the know-how and connections is enough, for now.
So no, there is no need to find photographic evidence of Hagerman sticking a needle in Lemond's arm for that hypothesis to make sense.

No, I'm not dismissing the null hypothesis. On the contrary, I think what you're missing is how important it is to your entire case. We already know that any pro rider is suspicious, is more likely than not to have doped at some point in his career. This assumption already takes into account the strong motive that athletes have to maximize their performance. It already takes into account that if banned substances and treatments are available for PE, many if not most athletes will seek them out.

The question is, how much more can be added to that suspicion? When one goes into this assuming the level of suspicion is very high solely by virtue of being a pro rider--as you do, and as most of us in the Clinic do-- I'd say it's very difficult to increase that level very much without a smoking gun. We already knew that Lemond was highly motivated to succeed, and that blood transfusions were possible when he was still developing as a pro. Your posts have pushed that timeline back to his amateur days, and have demonstrated that he was in contact with researchers who might have made access to transfusions a little easier, and perhaps safer. I'm not dismissing any of this--I've already said I find a lot of this information very interesting--but the question remains, does it add that much to the null hypothesis?

Maybe, maybe not. You need the null hypothesis to view Greg as a someone who was willing to dope, to do whatever it took to win. If you don't view him that way, then all the research into blood transfusions, the contacts at the OTC, and so on, would not have mattered. If he was willing to dope, on the other hand, then he certainly would have done it to some extent without the encouragement of the OTC. Maybe he would not have known about transfusions without his time at the OTC, but again, if this research was being conducted in Europe, I find it hard to believe that other riders wouldn't have been aware of it. This is just a guess, but I think there was not enough evidence of major PE effects to convince most riders it was worth the effort. They were used to popping pills and taking injections, which could be done quickly and easily anywhere. Transfusions were something very different. Remember, most of the 1984 Olympic riders declined.

So what I'm saying is while I might even agree with you that there is a decent case against Lemond--I wouldn't say no way, it definitely didn't happen--I would do so not because all this research suggests it very strongly, but just because he's a rider, and we all know that most riders dope. The research makes it a little more likely that he would have transfused, and possibly gotten the major effects, but not more likely that he would have doped in some fashion.

Not sure, but note in any case that for weightlifters (and similar power disciplines) imo there's no clear distinction between studying performance enhancement and studying other physical/physiological effects of steroids (such as weight/bodymass increase). In such disciplines weight/bodymass increase is always going to correlate with performance.

The paper I'm referring to doesn't study weight or any gross physiological or anatomical feature, as far as I can gather. It appears to examine physiological or biochemical processes that are largely irrelevant to performance, though I cede to baltimore, who has actually seen the paper.

 

[sniper]

...

Sure, but you can see how weak that argument is. I could say, Andy Coggan is performing studies aimed at helping riders get maximal performance from doping. Someone else can point out that he’s never published any studies of the performance enhancing effects of banned substances or treatments, nor shown any interest in doing so, to which I could reply, of course not, he doesn’t want to call attention to what he’s doing. He does it in secret. Likewise, if I were convinced Coggan was doing doping studies, I would dismiss any public statements he made denouncing doping. Of course he would say all the right things in public.

but andycoggan wasn't working for dardik and ariel at the otc producing several record breaking endurance athletes.

Costill and Hagerman both publishing on steroids and working with/drawing on Ekblom et al. merely supports the null hypothesis. Call it 'a lucky find' if you will. I'm not sure if it's really an argument. And if it is, I don't necessarily need it to be really strong either. It can be 'weak' and still provide at least some support for the null hypothesis.
To which extent it supports the null hypothesis is open to debate, definitely. But I'm not sure if we're going to agree on that extent, as it's partially a matter of taste; I mean it may depend on the differing degree of scepticism about the period and about sport and doping you and I have.

Will reply in a bit more detail later. You make some cogent points.

 

[sniper]

I haven't found anything by Gerschler, except that he's credited with inventing interval training.

Some background on Gerschler: viewtopic.php?p=1798584#p1798584
So Gerschler had a PED record starting in the late 1930s.
Hagerman referring to him, in 1975, that doesn't bode well for Hagerman.

 

[sniper]

Here's a link that makes a plausible connection between Astrand's research into doping, his closeness to Swedish skiers, and the improvements in the results of said skiers:
https://books.google.pl/books?id=5pTwCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=Per-Olof+%C3%85strand+blood+doping&source=bl&ots=DtQPwKB5-m&sig=XYmyzMTlGCJ-GML8UQVuOEHZE4o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAWoVChMI_8Smw-q5xwIVRtgsCh0QuwjS#v=onepage&q=Per-Olof%20%C3%85strand%20blood%20doping&f=false

I particularly like how the author is being sceptical of Astrand's disclaimer that his research into blood boosting was not aimed at performance enhancement. I think similar scepticism is warranted in the cases of Hagerman and Costill. (And Costill wasn't even making such disclaimers in his earlier caffeine studies.)

 

[sniper]

btw, the same link, top of the page.
Ekblom, mid 60s, recommending blood doping to a Swedish athlete. Shocker.
(unfortunately I can't see which/what kind of athlete. Google preview. But from context it seems to have been an ice skater).

Also in that book, Ekblom doing a Vrijman Report avant-la-lettre, exonerating Swedish skiiers accused of EPO abuse somewhere in the late 90s/early 2000s.

Just saying, he may have claimed to be antidoping, but the evidence suggests otherwise.

 

[sniper]

MI:
But the actual public record supporting that is not that strong.

I'm not sure if you're gonna find many Russian or East German scientists making similarly clear statements as Dardik and Ariel about the need for testing blood doping and steroids on Olympic athletes.

MI:
No, I'm not dismissing the null hypothesis. On the contrary

But the point is: many are.
From my pov, that's what's driving the discussion.
If nobody would dismiss the null hypothesis, Lemond would just be another Cadel Evans and Hampsten another Sastre, i.e. not really worth discussing in the Clinic.

I think what you're missing is how important it is to your entire case.

Let me try to describe my case as specific as possible.

What's been driving the discussion are the following two arguments against the null hypothesis:
1. Lemond didn't dope because he was already superstrong as a youngster.
2. Lemond didn't use EPO in 89/90, because if he did then he would have to have been much stronger in 89/90 than in previous years.

Now, my case would be that these two arguments are flawed, because the young Lemond had access to (blood) doping as a youngster and had an entourage (the OTC, Eddie) with the proper know-how to apply it.
I do think the profile of Hagerman and Costill support this case.

But even in their absence, we still have Dardik, Ariel, Eddie, Burke, and even guys like Roger Young and Carl Leusencamp to drive that case home, so to say.
So I'm definitely not going to insist on Hagerman and Costill being doping facilitators.
I don't trust them, but I'll concede that there is no strong/direct evidence against them.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

I haven't found anything by Gerschler, except that he's credited with inventing interval training.

Some background on Gerschler: viewtopic.php?p=1798584#p1798584
So Gerschler had a PED record starting in the late 1930s.
Hagerman referring to him, in 1975, that doesn't bode well for Hagerman.

As far as I can tell the only connection that Gerschler had to doping was via a thesis written by Wegener.

" Wegeners thesis said: "Furthermore trainer Gerschler and sports doctor Dr. Prokop reported that team attendants arrived at the olympics with mysterious substances that they gave their athletes before the start." Gerschler and Prokop also reported that the substances did not work well for every athlete, some did not reach their usual form. Gerschler told Wegener that one of his athletes was feeling so bad after he was given such substances that he had difficulties to survive the races of his discipline. "

And all this was used by an unnamed journalist to establish a long timeline connection between the University of Freiburg and doping. http://cyclingheroes.tripod.com/cyclingheroes.english2/id617.html

I'm not sure how witnessing a mysterious substance can support your statement that Gerschler had a "PED record". Do you have other information to support your statement? Or can we dismiss it as not factual.

John Swanson

 

[sniper]

did you just literally pretend the link I provided doesn't exist?
here it is again: viewtopic.php?p=1798584#p1798584
That's quite concise, if you ask me, and i went to quite some length to translate those German quotes into English.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

Here's a link that makes a plausible connection between Astrand's research into doping, his closeness to Swedish skiers, and the improvements in the results of said skiers:
https://books.google.pl/books?id=5pTwCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq=Per-Olof+%C3%85strand+blood+doping&source=bl&ots=DtQPwKB5-m&sig=XYmyzMTlGCJ-GML8UQVuOEHZE4o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAWoVChMI_8Smw-q5xwIVRtgsCh0QuwjS#v=onepage&q=Per-Olof%20%C3%85strand%20blood%20doping&f=false

I particularly like how the author is being sceptical of Astrand's disclaimer that his research into blood boosting was not aimed at performance enhancement. I think similar scepticism is warranted in the cases of Hagerman and Costill. (And Costill wasn't even making such disclaimers in his earlier caffeine studies.)

To quote from that very link: "That Astrand and his younger colleagues, especially Saltin and Ekblom, subsequently gained fame as sworn enemies of 'blood doping' is irrelevant here".

So what you're saying is that Astrand and Ekblom, despite doing research in this field, were in no way involved in blood doping? That's an excellent primary source. Thanks.

John Swanson

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

did you just literally pretend the link I provided doesn't exist?
here it is again: viewtopic.php?p=1798584#p1798584
That's quite concise, if you ask me, and i went to quite some length to translate those German quotes into English.

From your link, there were three mentions of pervitin. All were attributed to Wegener.

Quote: "Barthels was doped with Pervitin, a substance that was used by the German army during the second world war. Pervitin overcomes fatigue and make people feel euphoric. Wegener found out that athletes doped with pervitin achieved an improvement of performance of almost 25%."

Do you have another source that I missed?

John Swanson

 

[ScienceIsCool]

This primary source - Der Taggespiel - seems to be the original source for the material you found. It seems to reinforce that it is merely Wagener reporting that Gerschler observed athletes being given a mystery substance. Perhaps pervitin. https://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.tagesspiegel.de/sport/mit-der-kraft-der-panzerschokolade/779268.html&prev=search

The article does conclude that in the late 30's Harbig had a 'suspicious' result and that Gerschler was his trainer. I think that's the extent of links between Gerschler and doping - unless you've found something?

John Swanson

 

[sniper]

there is no basis for discussion if you continue to ignore the links i provide and the info contained in it.

 

[ScienceIsCool]

Re:

there is no basis for discussion if you continue to ignore the links i provide and the info contained in it.

I followed the links. I looked at the material. I wrote about what it contained. What did I miss? I often overlook things, so a bit of help would be nice in this case.

John Swanson

 

[djpbaltimore]

The paper I'm referring to doesn't study weight or any gross physiological or anatomical feature, as far as I can gather. It appears to examine physiological or biochemical processes that are largely irrelevant to performance, though I cede to baltimore, who has actually seen the paper.

Relevant quote.

It was the purpose of this study to periodically observe specific serum enzyme levels and urine 17-ketosteroids which might indicate abnormal metabolic function during a prolonged period of anabolic steroid ingestion.

In full disclosure, there was a table where individual efforts on bench, dead lift, curl, etc before and after the study were listed. But the values increased in both the steroid and control groups. Weight training makes you better at lifting weights I guess.

I've said this about Hagerman before, but if he had this magic formula to create super-athletes, why were the results for USA rowing during his tenure so poor? Especially considering it was a sport that the USA was once considered the best in the world.

 

[sniper]

...

I've said this about Hagerman before, but if he had this magic formula to create super-athletes, why were the results for USA rowing during his tenure so poor? Especially considering it was a sport that the USA was once considered the best in the world.

that's ironic, considering you just called someone out for a strawman (which wasn't really a strawman in the first place).
oh well.

that said, you raise a valid question (and yes, you've raised it before).
I have no answer to it. But I don't think "because they went clean" is the answer, either.

 

[sniper]

Re:

This primary source - Der Taggespiel - seems to be the original source for the material you found. It seems to reinforce that it is merely Wagener reporting that Gerschler observed athletes being given a mystery substance. Perhaps pervitin. https://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.tagesspiegel.de/sport/mit-der-kraft-der-panzerschokolade/779268.html&prev=search

The article does conclude that in the late 30's Harbig had a 'suspicious' result and that Gerschler was his trainer. I think that's the extent of links between Gerschler and doping - unless you've found something?

John Swanson

This is fair enough. I'll look into it. Perhaps I have to concede your point, though I would personally say that that link, plus his statement in the interview, plus his Freiburg background, suffice to make him a dodgy enough character to steer clear from if you're antidoping.

 

[djpbaltimore]

...

I've said this about Hagerman before, but if he had this magic formula to create super-athletes, why were the results for USA rowing during his tenure so poor? Especially considering it was a sport that the USA was once considered the best in the world.

that's ironic, considering you just called someone out for a strawman (which wasn't really a strawman in the first place).
oh well.

that said, you raise a valid question (and yes, you've raised it before).
I have no answer to it. But I don't think "because they went clean" is the answer, either.

Well, in fairness, you have used the term 'miracle' athletes in this thread, so it is not that big of a stretch IMO. My larger point stands, if he had an advanced doping program (which I think Blood doping would apply) why were his athletes so poor in general? Those pieces of data do not fit.

viewtopic.php?p=1914305#p1914305

And in no way is calling someone ignorant of how academia works akin to a 'sage authoritarian belittling the amateur'. I am ignorant of how an internal combustion engine works. My mechanic telling me this would not offend me in the slightest. I am also ignorant on the Dutch language. If Sniper had told me this, I would also not be offended. We all have our individual areas of expertise.

 

[sniper]

if they did that clean, then yes, miracle athletes.