Performance Enhancing Drugs

For an article I'm writing, I'd be very interested in learning about
any first hand experiences with performance enhancing drugs. I'm
interested in both EPO type drugs as well as possible combinations of
steroids/testosterone, etc. that anyone might have used or have
knowledge of others using. Of particular interest are possible
combinations which increase strength without adding dramatic gains in
total mass.

Full confidentially given, of course.

Thanks very much.

Stuart wrote:
For an article I'm writing, I'd be very interested in learning about
any first hand experiences with performance enhancing drugs. I'm
interested in both EPO type drugs as well as possible combinations of
steroids/testosterone, etc. that anyone might have used or have
knowledge of others using. Of particular interest are possible
combinations which increase strength without adding dramatic gains in
total mass.

Full confidentially given, of course.

Thanks very much.

I had a completely legal experience with EPO, so I don't mind sharing it
in public. I was a paid subject in a drug study a few years back
testing a new freeze-dried formulation of EPO to see if the body handled
it any differently than the existing form of the drug. I was given some
regular dose of the drug (don't recall the amount) in one formulation
and for the next 2 days had 20 or so blood samples taken. Two or three
weeks later, I was given the other formulation of the drug, with the
same blood draw protocol.

As those in the Seattle area familiar with my race results can attest,
my spirit is willing but my flesh is usually too busy gasping for air
for me to wind up on the podium anytime soon :-).

I got each dose on a Saturday morning, and it took a few days to notice
any effects, which lasted 7-10 days each dose. A local group I train
with has a weekly Wednesday night off-season workout of running up a
local mountain - between 3 and 3.5 miles and roughly 2400 feet of
elevation gain from bottom to top. From an aerobic standpoint this is
about the toughest workout I ever do. While I felt the effects of the
drug, it was either noticably easier (lower heart rate, less labored
breathing, etc.) to go at my accustomed pace of 48-52 minutes to the top
or I was able to go significantly faster for the same level of exertion.
That was enough to explain the appeal of such drugs though.

Chris

While I felt the effects of the
drug, it was either noticably easier (lower heart rate, less labored
breathing, etc.) to go at my accustomed pace of 48-52 minutes to the top
or I was able to go significantly faster for the same level of exertion.
That was enough to explain the appeal of such drugs though.


I am sure if you were a paid subject, you (or the research group) must
have more specific data desribing your perfomance, not just
"significantly faster for the same level of exertion".

this topic is exactly what I was joking about recently with my running
buddies. Suppose you went to a citizen race of a level significantly
high to provide good prizes/public_recognition_if_you_care_about_that,
but significantly low not to inlvolve EPO testing. What increase in
perfomance can you expect with EPO? I normally run a 5K in 17 min...
so would I run it 14 min on EPO and appear in a local "greenbow news"
paper as a newborn phenomenon?

The way I read it, the research was testing differences in blood
chemistry response between two forms of a drug, not athletic performance.
He could probably give you his different blood values (Hg, iron, etc), but
it sounds like they were not interested in anything other than the clinical
medical benefits for treating anemia.

-Nathan
http://nsavage.com

"revyakin" wrote in message
om...
While I felt the effects of the
drug, it was either noticably easier (lower heart rate, less labored
breathing, etc.) to go at my accustomed pace of 48-52 minutes to the top
or I was able to go significantly faster for the same level of exertion.
That was enough to explain the appeal of such drugs though.


I am sure if you were a paid subject, you (or the research group) must
have more specific data desribing your perfomance, not just
"significantly faster for the same level of exertion".

this topic is exactly what I was joking about recently with my running
buddies. Suppose you went to a citizen race of a level significantly
high to provide good prizes/public_recognition_if_you_care_about_that,
but significantly low not to inlvolve EPO testing. What increase in
perfomance can you expect with EPO? I normally run a 5K in 17 min...
so would I run it 14 min on EPO and appear in a local "greenbow news"
paper as a newborn phenomenon?

That's correct. The analysis of the 20 blood draws was what the drug study
folks cared about in each of the 2 dosing sessions. The folks I was training
with were somewhat more interested it's athletic effects, but since the runs
were not under controlled conditions, the best I could give them were mostly
subjective impressions about perceived effort and small amounts of
quantitative data about decreases in heart rate and improved times.

Chris
--
"Nathan Schultz" wrote in message
news:GFqRa.79985$ye4.60292@sccrnsc01...
The way I read it, the research was testing differences in blood
chemistry response between two forms of a drug, not athletic performance.
He could probably give you his different blood values (Hg, iron, etc), but
it sounds like they were not interested in anything other than the
clinical
medical benefits for treating anemia.

-Nathan
http://nsavage.com

"revyakin" wrote in message
om...
While I felt the effects of the
drug, it was either noticably easier (lower heart rate, less labored
breathing, etc.) to go at my accustomed pace of 48-52 minutes to the
top
or I was able to go significantly faster for the same level of
exertion.
That was enough to explain the appeal of such drugs though.


I am sure if you were a paid subject, you (or the research group) must
have more specific data desribing your perfomance, not just
"significantly faster for the same level of exertion".

this topic is exactly what I was joking about recently with my running
buddies. Suppose you went to a citizen race of a level significantly
high to provide good prizes/public_recognition_if_you_care_about_that,
but significantly low not to inlvolve EPO testing. What increase in
perfomance can you expect with EPO? I normally run a 5K in 17 min...
so would I run it 14 min on EPO and appear in a local "greenbow news"
paper as a newborn phenomenon?

The way I read it, the research was testing differences in blood
chemistry response between two forms of a drug, not athletic performance.
He could probably give you his different blood values (Hg, iron, etc), but
it sounds like they were not interested in anything other than the clinical
medical benefits for treating anemia.

-Nathan
http://nsavage.com

"revyakin" wrote in message
om...
While I felt the effects of the
drug, it was either noticably easier (lower heart rate, less labored
breathing, etc.) to go at my accustomed pace of 48-52 minutes to the top
or I was able to go significantly faster for the same level of exertion.
That was enough to explain the appeal of such drugs though.


I am sure if you were a paid subject, you (or the research group) must
have more specific data desribing your perfomance, not just
"significantly faster for the same level of exertion".

this topic is exactly what I was joking about recently with my running
buddies. Suppose you went to a citizen race of a level significantly
high to provide good prizes/public_recognition_if_you_care_about_that,
but significantly low not to inlvolve EPO testing. What increase in
perfomance can you expect with EPO? I normally run a 5K in 17 min...
so would I run it 14 min on EPO and appear in a local "greenbow news"
paper as a newborn phenomenon?

That's correc. The analysis of the 20 blood draws was what the drug study
folks cared about in each of the 2 dosing sessions. The folks I was training
with were somewhat more interested it's athletic effects, but since the runs
were not under controlled conditions, the best I could give them were mostly
subjective impressions about perceived effort and small amounts of
quantitative data about decreases in heart rate and improved times.

Chris

Allright, nevermind then. I guess such data could be found in some old
sports medicine journals, before EPO was banned.

(revyakin) wrote in message om...
That's correc. The analysis of the 20 blood draws was what the drug study
folks cared about in each of the 2 dosing sessions. The folks I was training
with were somewhat more interested it's athletic effects, but since the runs
were not under controlled conditions, the best I could give them were mostly
subjective impressions about perceived effort and small amounts of
quantitative data about decreases in heart rate and improved times.

Chris

Allright, nevermind then. I guess such data could be found in some old
sports medicine journals, before EPO was banned.


Speaking of performance enhancing drugs, anyone else following the
Tour de France? After today's race, which I caught the tail end, they
were interviewing a certain German racer and my mother said that he
looks a little too red like that German who skied for Spain during the
Olympics. Which brings up a thought of mine, some people say that
catching dopers is financially detrimental to a sport. However, I
think turning a blind eye to the doping is even worse for the sport,
because the truth will come out and the financial consequences will be
far worse. As an analogy I will use the Salomon Brothers (no relation
to Salomon, a division of Adidas) bidding scandal in 1991. This in a
nutshell, involved illegal purchases of U.S. Treasury Bonds by one of
its traders. When the scandal was uncovered Salomon Brothers had to
pay $200,000,000 in fines, $100,000,000 in lawsuits, and lost
$1,500,000,000 in market value. The cost to Salomon Brothers if it
checked its traders as it was obligated to do by law and stopped the
trader as it should have would have only been a fraction of one
percent of the actual cost. (Source: p 20, Fundamentals of Corporate
Finance, Third Edition, by Brealey, Myers, and Marcus.) I think that
if international governing bodies of sports are turning a blind eye to
the doping problems in their sport because of fears of related
financial losses, they are inviting potential financial catastrophe.
Of course, I believe that the reputation of the sports will also be
similarly damaged.
--Matt

"Matt Morency" wrote in message
my mother said that he
looks a little too red like that
German who skied for Spain during the
Olympics.

This is idiotic. I'm not saying that Ullrich or any pro bike racer is
not on drugs, nor that's it's unreasonable to suspect them, but to go
by "redness" is just silly.

JT

--
*******************************************
NB: reply-to address is munged

Visit http://www.jt10000.com
*******************************************

wrote in message ...
If your mother will work for, say, $20 an hour, Matt, then all of WADA's
financial problems (e.g. not getting its fair contribution from U.S.)
would be solved. She could just use her TV redness test to decide who
gets banned and who's clean.

Best, Peter

My mom's comments only made me think about doping issues. I cannot
nor can anyone else here prove who is doping and who is not in a
sport. My main point is whether sports federation are turning a blind
eye to the problem because of fears of adverse financial consequences
if they catch someone.
--Matt