Performance Enhancing Drugs

lustig wrote:

(revyakin) wrote in message om...


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


I´ve read about the Norwegian study in 1999-2000 (by Jim
Stray-Gundersen); twenty "national-level" athletes in
various endurance sports were given EPO for six months
(during which time there were out of competition), and

They were of course banned for a period beyond the end of the test,
until no further effects of the EPO doping could be determined.

though the purpose of the test was to develop and
evaluate lab methods of testing EPO, the study brought
some results in the effects of EPO as well.

One might be able to look it up - all I remember that
the effects were so dramatic (at least on that level
of athletes) that one triathlonist who´d participated
in the test became so despondent that he quit, as he
no longer could believe that the athletes - not even
the Norwegians:-) - on the top could be assumed to be
clean or that one could make it to the top without
doping. (This was of course but one man´s reaction.)

The effects on him included an ability to "swim 200m
repeats at 50m pace" to "do run multiple repeats like
never before" and "an increase in oxygen uptake by 25%"
"without increasing his Hb above the XC level".

He returned to racing after one or two years, but you're right that he
really didn't like the effects of ending the EPO.

Since this was (AFAIK) a double blind test, he had in fact tried to fool
himself during the EPO period that the effects he noticed was only due
to himself, and not the doping. When that stopped, and he very quickly
lost that immense 'edge', he suffered badly.

Terje
--
-
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"

Very intersting analysis in french newspaper "liberation" by Antoine mayer.
Teacher in sports and former member of the Festina team (1996-1998). (yes,
1998, whern the whole team has been disqualified after forbidden stuff was
discovered at their hotel).

He's now the head of a research group in "natural" training called
"Alternativ"

To summerize, he calculates the power developped by the cyclistes, in Watts.
he claims that the error is below 5% when calculating this watt-equivalent
when going uphill.

So, when the majority of the Tour de France cyclists, after 150 km, is still
arround (a very good) 300-400 W, Armstrong has been rated at 485 during 4
minutes last year when overtaking Carlos Sastre just before arriving at La
Plagne.
485 Watts is equivalent to go at 10km/h on a 10% uphill with an extra weight
of 100 Kg !

Indurain was rated at 500 during his winning years (!!)

This year we are experiencing the fastest speed average ever on the "Tour de
france". Arround 40,65 km/h for the whole 3 weeks race.

Even better than during the 90's "EPO" years...

Good drugs are in the wild. Be prepared for some interesting performance
next winter.

http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=126354

http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=126354

Very intersting analysis in french newspaper "liberation" by Antoine mayer.
Teacher in sports and former member of the Festina team (1996-1998). (yes,
1998, whern the whole team has been disqualified after forbidden stuff was
discovered at their hotel).

He's now the head of a research group in "natural" training called
"Alternativ"

To summerize, he calculates the power developped by the cyclistes, in Watts.
he claims that the error is below 5% when calculating this watt-equivalent
when going uphill.

So, when the majority of the Tour de France cyclists, after 150 km, is still
arround (a very good) 300-400 W, Armstrong has been rated at 485 during 4
minutes last year when overtaking Carlos Sastre just before arriving at La
Plagne.
485 Watts is equivalent to go at 10km/h on a 10% uphill with an extra weight
of 100 Kg !

Indurain was rated at 500 during his winning years (!!)

This year we are experiencing the fastest speed average ever on the "Tour de
france". Arround 40,65 km/h for the whole 3 weeks race.

Even better than during the 90's "EPO" years...

Good drugs are in the wild. Be prepared for some interesting performance
next winter.

http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=126354

http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=126354

Terje Mathisen wrote in message ...


They were of course banned for a period beyond the end of the test,
until no further effects of the EPO doping could be determined.

Quite, "for a further period of six months" would've been
more like it.

A further correction is that they got shots of EPO for three
weeks (9 doses in all), and a further still that the increase
in "oxygen uptake" was "15% after four weeks".


He returned to racing after one or two years, but you're right that he
really didn't like the effects of ending the EPO.

My info on this stems entirely from one short article in a
Finnish running magazine (where the main angle of the story
was the unforeseen sports-psychological side-effects) which
in turn was based on articles in "Vårt land" and "Kondis".


Since this was (AFAIK) a double blind test, he had in fact tried to fool
himself during the EPO period that the effects he noticed was only due
to himself, and not the doping. When that stopped, and he very quickly
lost that immense 'edge', he suffered badly.

Ole Richard Holm-Olsen described the EPO boost as lasting four
weeks after the last shot, but after that training became or
seemed to become harder than before the experiment.

It can be tough to be a mere mortal:-)


Anders

"Ken Roberts" wrote in message ...
I guess such data could be found in some old
sports medicine journals, before EPO was banned.

Actually I just read about some studies in year 2000 with r-HuEPO injections
for recreational athletes, with measurements of V02max performance, how long
it to achieve, how long it lasted after the EPO doses stopped, etc.

The measured improvements seemed significantly larger than what I've heard
from altititude tents (which seems to be confirmed by that more recent study
with elite athletes in Utah).

. . . before EPO was banned.

Maybe we need to get more clear on what "banned" means. I looked on the
U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency website a few months ago, and they have like
five categories of controlled substances. In each category they list lots
of strange drug-names I never heard of. Except I did notice that _steroids_
were listed there -- like in the third category of seriousness. I didn't
see anything like EPO there at all, but I'm not a medical doctor or lawyer,
so it wouldn't be surprising if I'm just misunderstanding it.

If EPO or its derivatives is not on the DEA list, does that mean that any
doctor in the U.S. can just prescribe it for me if he wants?

If so, that could explain why they can still keep doing studies on
recreational athletes.

Ken

P.S. I just got a book yesterday called "High-Performance Cycling" edited by
Asker Jeukendrup. It has a whole chapter on EPO. They also mention four
new non-EPO methods which are not detectable by current sport-drug-testing
protocols. Although oxygen-transport-enhancers are a "problem" for sports
medicine, most of the rest of the medical community sees them as a big
benefit to society, so it looks like new and better ones are going to keep
on coming.

EPO is not an illegal drug. If I remember correctly it is used to
treat anemia. So I suppose you could get diagnosed with anemia and
have EPO prescribed to you. However, I believe such activity would be
unethical, which is what I think a real objection to doping is.
Whether it is explicitly stated or not cheating is wrong, no matter
how you justify it to yourself.
--Matt
--Matt

Matt Morency wrote
I suppose you could get diagnosed with anemia
and have EPO prescribed to you.

I am not sure that a doctor in the U.S. needs to _diagnose_ you with any
disease or problem or condition in order to legally prescribe EPO.

My own experience is with another substance, acetazolamide, which helps me
with acclimatization to altitude when I do (non-racing) mountain ski tours.
As far as I know, the medical indications for which acetazolamide was tested
for and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration do not include
that purpose.

But I had no trouble getting a doctor to prescribe it for me, without
diagnosing me with anything. Since then I've met at least one other U.S.
doctor who told me if I ever had trouble getting acetazolamide, just let him
know and he'll write me a prescription.

On the other hand, I met a U.K. doctor who told he thought taking
acetazolamide was unethical -- even for non-racing situations. For him, the
true challenge of the mountains should be confronted without "unfair" aid,
even at a personal level. He didn't persuade me. I continue to gladly and
successfully use acetazolamide in non-racing situations up in the mountains.

Ken