Athletes and Performance-Enhancing Drugs

"These athletes, quite simply, have moved off the natural bell-shaped curve of normal human performance."

As the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens was coming to an end, a writer in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) was asking a question. "Is it possible for ‘natural’ athletes to achieve record-breaking performance in sports requiring strength, power, speed, or endurance?" The answer is "No," says Dr. Timothy Noakes of the NEJM editorial staff. Instead, he maintains, widespread use of performance-enhancing drugs "has fundamentally distorted the upper range of human athletic performance."

The article "Tainted Glory—Doping and Athletic Performance" appeared in the August 26, 2004, issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.
http://www.healthinschools.org/ejournal/2004/sept4.htm


For, when used by fully trained,
elite athletes, these drugs can improve performance
to a much greater extent than any combination of
the most intensive, sophisticated, and costly nonpharmaceutical
interventions known to modern
sports science.
1-4
Scientifically based training regimens,
special diets, and complex physiological
and biomechanical measurements during exercise
and recovery cannot match the enhancing effects
of drugs. The attraction of performance-enhancing
drugs is simply that they permit the fulfillment
of the mythical promise of boundless athletic
performance
1,4
— the hubristic “faster, higher,
stronger” motto of the Olympic Games. An ethically
based medical science cannot compete. Thus,
drug use in a subgroup of athletes who — even in
the absence of drugs — are able to compete at an
elite level causes their separation into a distinct
athletic population, distanced from “natural” humans
by a margin determined by the potency of the
drug combinations that are used. These athletes,
quite simply, have moved off the natural bell-shaped
curve of normal human performance.

Tainted Glory — Doping and Athletic Performance
http://fig.cox.miami.edu/~cmallery/113/blo...oping.spitz.pdf


In athletes, EPO may improve speed, endurance, and performance beyond what is "natural" or "normal," according to Timothy D. Noakes, M.D., D.Sc., of the Sports Science Institute in Cape Town, South Africa.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/PrimaryCare/Ex...Fitness/tb/1607


Steroids boost performance in just weeks
Even a low dose of testosterone can give athletes a big performance boost - and in a fraction of the time thought necessary, a study initiated by New Scientist has found.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6265


"Doping is part of the business of cycling," Swiss rider Alex Zulle told reporters after he confessed to taking epo and other banned drugs.
Secret weapon

Cycling isn't the only sport sullied by allegations of epo use. At the Australian Open tennis championships a year ago, the player Jim Courier told reporters that he suspects epo use is rampant in the game. "I can't play 35 weeks a year and God knows how many matches and keep going. I just can't do it and I don't think anybody else can, either. But they are." Courier says epo makes such superhuman performance possible. Athletes in cross-country skiing, football and track and field athletics are also rumoured to use the drug. "The fact is, we only reward winners, and drugs work," says Charles Yesalis, an epidemiologist at Pennsylvania State University who has interviewed more than a thousand athletes who have admitted to taking banned drugs. With epo rumoured to make athletes run up to 20 per cent faster, the drug's allure is hard for many to resist, he says.
http://www.archway.ac.uk/Activities/Depart...genecheats.html


Vaughters said that "these oxygen vector drugs" like EPO and blood doping offer such a huge advantage that their use can also be seen on the road. He said agents like human growth hormone and testosterone offer comparatively "minute" improvements. "The users can have their balls shrivel up and their foreheads grow larger and whatever and good luck to them, but it's the oxygen vector drugs that are really powerful."
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=fea.../vaughters_1999


A study from the 1980s, before synthetic EPO, showed that bike racers' blood averaged a cellular content of 43 percent, so the UCI decreed that anybody with a level above 50 percent would be disqualified for taking EPO.
http://whyfiles.org/090doping_sport/3.html


"The studies that have attempted to estimate EPO's importance say it's worth about a three-, four-, or five-per-cent advantage, which is huge," Catlin says. EPO also has the advantage of being a copy of a naturally occurring substance, so it's very hard to tell if someone has been injecting it. (A cynic would say that this had something to do with the spate of remarkable times in endurance races during that period.)
http://www.gladwell.com/2001/2001_08_10_a_drug.htm



"WHOEVER WENT BACK to the Tour after 1998 had to decide whether it was the same drug-filled race it had been the previous year, or a lesser drug-filled race," Walsh recalls. "If you didn't ask that, you were just being willfully dishonest." He says his approach to the race was to tell himself, "Never again; I'm not going to believe it's changed unless I have reason to believe." What he saw in 1999, he says, didn't give him reason for hope.

Walsh recalls that he grew suspicious of the peloton's pace, which simply seemed too fast. At an average speed of 25.03 miles per hour, 1999 was the fastest Tour to date, 0.19 miles per hour faster than the record set at the controversial '98 Tour. "How can clean racers ride faster than those known to be on dope?" Walsh remembers thinking.
http://outside.away.com/outside/features/2...rmstrong-4.html


To get to the top level, the team leaders were convinced that only doping would allow the team to obtain good results. From there, I understood that the whole mentality was changing."
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=new...ul04/jul26news2


I'm a health professional; my priority is to cure my patients because I think that the sport at high level is not healthy. I'm accused of crime against public health, but they should sanction those who play at being doctors." So instead of boosting the rider's performances, Fuentes considered that he only "supplemented and adjusted" those bodily functions of the riders which showed a deficit.


Fuentes, who added that his treatments also concerned other sports than cycling (football, tennis, athletics), said that it was possible to ride the Tour de France without "medical" help, but not at that speed. "You just can't ride four of these mountain stages successively at that speed, it's very harmful," he said, adding that in his opinion it was more dangerous for a cyclist to start the Tour de France with a hematocrit level of 31 percent, than one of 51 percent - even though this meant that the rider would be excluded from competition.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=new...ul06/jul06news4

I don't know anything about other forms of doping, but because of Landis I have read quite a bit of the available literature concerning testosterone doping (which is related to other anabolic steroids). Until the mid 90's the popular conception was that exogenous testosterone helped athletes, but the scientific community didn't agree - i.e. it hadn't been demonstrated in well controlled experiments. In the late 90's the evidence began to accumulate that exogenous testosterone helped athletes, but almost all studies were done on athletes in sports which required sheer strength and power, not endurance. Testoserone certainly does help for sheer strength and power.

But in 2004 this study was published which reviewed all the available studies done to date, and found that no benefit had been found for endurance athletes doping with testosterone. You can read my fuller summary of it here. (I don't know how to go to right post #, it's # 88.)

In 2006 another study was done by the WADA lab in Switzerland which studied the benefit of testosterone doping for one month on a group of highly trained endurance athletes. It found no benefit on controlled endurance tests. My fuller summary of it is here. (#137)

Many people scoff at these conclusions. "It obviously helps no matter what the science has been able to show." But after reading the available science, it doesn't look to me like testosterone doping helps ultra-endurance athletes. But, of course, people have to draw their own conclusions.

In any case, every type of doping is different. Clearly some types help for some sports, but not all types help for all sports.

Peace

If you read the PDR, Physicians Desk Reference, on testosterone, you will see in clear letters that it aids erythropoiesis. In addition, those who take it FEEL tremendously better.

Yes, you can put people in the lab like rats and try to measure performance, but the testimony of the many people who have taken it speak otherwise.

To really study it, you would have to take two or three teams in a GT and let two teams have it and two teams not and then measure their SRM, HR, recovery and other data to see how it works in the real world. The study will never happen. Besides placebo effect, why is it a blockbuster drug worldwide?

It works, pure and simple. IMHO.

Interesting that the term "endurance" sport is used, and the test methodology was a treadmill. I would submit that while being an endurance sport as well, cyclists use a tremendous amount more strength, and rely on power outputs not seen in "endurance" sports like running or even triathalon. It is very different to train for and ride a road race than a do a tri, as anyone who has done both can attest. At the protour level, well it's even more dramatic, and comparing it to running on a treadmill I'm afraid is not a good indicator for the power outputs required for cycling

From the abstract:

Running performance was assessed before and after the intervention phase by means of a standardized treadmill test.

I'd like to see a test which involved some of the demands pro cycling puts on riders rather than treadmill tests.

I agree with your last comment, but maybe I'd apply it differently if I understand you correctly.

Pro cyclists have doctors that do studies to find out what works and what doesn't work. They believe testosterone doping is beneficial for cyclists.
info on testosterone
http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/ind...pic=850&hl=
http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/ind...pic=857&hl=

relate to Landis
http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/ind...pic=853&hl=
http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/ind...pic=839&hl=

With regards to testosterone analogues/precursor and other anabolic (as opposed to oxygen vector) based doping programs and their benefits to cycling.

While none of the 'anabolic' programs may impact VO2 max, power at OBLA and other predictors of aerobic performance they still increase muscle mass and therefore could increase power during peak activity (e.g. sprinting, getting into breaks etc.).

However, I suspect the main benefit of these 'anabolic' programs is to speed up recovery from intense work outs as well as to prevent the loss of muscle mass that accompanies all high intensity training. This is significant b/c it allows athletes to endure much higher work loads without as many of the ill effects that this intensity of training would otherwise have (i.e. could theoretically increase overtraining threshold)

'anabolic' programs using substances that are undectable by modern doping methods (HGH, 'designer' steroids) could be invaluable during a three week tour where one of the major factors causing a decrease in performance is the loss of muscle mass.

Those that think steroids etc. have no benefit to endurance athletes are deluded. Although they might not the same effects on athletic parameters as 'oxygen vector' doping products they still allow athletes to train harder and recover faster, and also provide the potential to counteract one of the largest stresses placed on GT racers.

Jaksche's doctor: drug use common
German doctor Kurt Moosburger, who has looked after Jörg Jaksche (among others) for the past two years, has told dpa that he believes that performance enhancing drugs are "indispensable" for high level cycling

In a frank interview, Moosburger pointed to the average speeds of modern professional races, especially hard tours. "The average in last year's Tour was 41 kilometres per hour - that is incredible. You can do a hard Alpine stage without doping. But after that, the muscles are exhausted. You need - depending on your training conditions - up to three days in order to regenerate."

To help recover, testosterone and human growth hormone can be used. "Both are made by the body and are therefore natural substances," he said. "They help to build muscle as well as in muscle recovery."

Dr Moosburger explained how it was done. "You put a standard testosterone patch that is used for male hormone replacement therapy on your scrotum and leave it there for about six hours. The small dose is not sufficient to produce a positive urine result in the doping test, but the body actually recovers faster."

Dr Moosburger went onto explain that, "The supply of oxygen to the blood decides what the body is capable of in terms of fat- and carbohydrate metabolism. This capacity is mostly genetically determined.The muscles of athletes who are able to reach the top level of sport can carry about 60 millilitres per kilo per minute in an untrained condition. That of an average person is only about 40 millilitres per kilo. In order to be able to keep up with the world's best, it must be 85 to 90 millilitres.

EPO helps oxygen carrying capacity, and has long been the performance enhancing drug of choice in endurance sports. "It enables you to hold the haematocrit of the blood in the upper level of what's allowed for the whole season. Before the EPO test, for example, athletes injected 4000 units three times per week. Now they inject a small dose almost daily."

Finally, in the opinion of Dr Moosburger, blood doping via transfusion would give an athlete a five percent boost for two to three weeks. "And therefore can last for a grand tour."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=new...ul06/jul07news3

Noticias - thank you - fantastic collection of links.

As for authoritative studies showing testosterone isn't of advantage to endurance athletes -

OK, right.

I'm glad somebody wrote that. A lot of the research touted by experts is really junk science.

Good information.

Ok for that study which you have mentioned regarding Testosterone benefiting endurance athletes is misleading in a way. What I mean or am trying to say is that sure if you give me testosterone I would not expect to see any difference on a treadmill for speed results, but the real benefit would show up over time. For example if I was able to train year around with my schedule which I am hitting 2 or 3 months prior to a marathon then I would be a much better marathoner over time. Understand what I am saying?

I do not mean to say your study is wrong. I just think you can not measure the benefit by strictly doing a treadmill or speed test after a few weeks/months of steroid regime.

Yes, the applicability of any of these studies about the benefits of testosterone to ultra-endurance performance is limited. It is nearly impossible to get a good size set of athletes and test them for extended period of time under the conditions at which professional cyclists, for example, train and compete.

I think the value of the studies I cite is to show that the question of testosterone benefit specifically to ultra-endurance athletes is very complex - not at all the "slam dunk, duh" most people take it to be.

Perhaps the best evidence I can give of how complicated this is is something I can say in two words: Pam Reed. She is the two-time reigning champion of Badwater, the 135-mile race from California’s Death Valley to Mount Whitney that is considered the world’s toughest running event, and the first person – male or female – to run 300 miles straight without sleep. I don't know her testosterone level, but I would be willing to guess it is lower than most professional cyclists.

My point is that at the level of ultra-endurance events the physiology involved in excellence is very different than most other physical activity.

I am not claiming proof that testosterone doesn't help professional cyclists. It certainly would help sprinters. I just think it is less clear than most assume when it comes to whether it helps in training or performance for a three week stage race.

You are forgetting that women are naturally better at recovery during ultra long distance events, especially swimming. Cycling is not an ultra long distance even. Running 10+ marathons in a row is completely different than cycling 9 hours a day for 3 weeks.

It is hack to think that steroids don't help. The testosterone level drops after repeated hard workouts and that makes the immune system more vulnerable. If for nothing else, cyclist would benefit using steroids to avoid sickness.

You are comparing ultra-marathoning to professional cycling. I feel it's invalid. UM is a "one and done" event. You don't get up and do another one the next day. It also requires very little power relative to an event like cycling on the Pro Tour circuit. What that means is that the two ways in which testosterone is going to help a cyclist, recovery and power, simply do not apply very well, though there is a recovery aspect in training for an ultra-marathon.

I'd love to see a study of stage racers and the results of testosterone or other steriod use, but that's not going to happen. The real world lab seems to indicate it works really well, as the use of these drugs has been going on since the seventies.




I don't know that there's anything wrong with the science here, but the conclusions that are following the studies I would certainly question.

I dont' think it's "junk science" just because it isn't answering the questions we'd like answered; these studies answer the questions they posed. As ZKDK notes, the conclusions sometimes exceed the scope of the data, but that usually indicates the questions weren't considered carefully enough.

The problem, of course, is to figure out who is going to be willing to fund studies that tell us what we'd like to know. My best guess would be military for investigation into use by troops involved in combat. They are often involved in highly exerting situations with inadequate recovery. If exogenous-T helped recovery, either as part of a program or in short-tem doses, then it could improve combat effectiveness, both of front line and support troops.

Note that military doctors have been handing out "go pills" for a very long time.

-dB

I agree about recovery being a main issue, but I don't know about power. Maybe I just don't understand the physiology of what is required to win a grand tour, but obviously the guys with the most power do not win the TdeF. Eric Zabel probably has peak power, what maybe 500 watts?, over Floyd Landis. Power requires a very large number of muscle fibers which add weight, which doesn't help the GC contenders. (I once heard Lance say he couldn't build a stone wall on his property because he couldn't risk developing muscle in his arms he didn't need.) One of those studies I cited earlier says that testosterone builds more muscle in the upper body (especially the torso, rather than the limbs), and works more on fast twitch than slow twitch fibers. I am not sure the GC guys would be happy with that kind of impact. I don't think we yet have testosterone that could work only on the slow twitch fibers of your legs. I

Recovery is a real issue, and I think it is clear testosterone does help recovery in some way. But what is the practical impact of that? That was the main focus of the 2006 study I cited above. Even though the testosterone helped the guys recover faster from each workout, at the end of a month, they didn't show any more improvement than the control group on the treadmill test (the improvement was based on oxygen uptake and time to exhaustion, not speed, by the way - the testosterone group did show slightly better improvement in max speed after one month). Obviously a treadmill is not a bike, but at least it is also a lower body focused test.

As for the argument from the peloton: yes, lots of guys have doped with testosterone. But unless you somehow got everyone to answer honestly, you would never know how much it helped. The guy who won seven in a row never tested positive, and I imagine lots of guys finishing two hours back have used it. Just because they use it doesn't mean it works.

And let me repeat it: I'm not saying anyone can prove it doesn't help. I'm just saying it is much more complicated and questionable than people assume.

I agree it's complicated and no one can really answer your question.

But power is a major factor in cycling, particularly in relation to running. No, the TDF winner does not have the max power of any cyclist (yes, sprinters can generate more max power), but they do have a tremendous amount of power. Also, doing slow cadence workouts to build fast-twitch muscle fiber is a very common drill for increasing climbing power. I personally have found it effective. If you believe what people report about their training plans, building fast-twich muscle is integral to the GC rider's development plan, so I flat-out disagree with you on that.

One needs to have a great deal of available fast-twitch muscle to produce enough power to launch attacks.

Good information. I didn't know that. If the weight trade off is worth it, that might undermine most of my points. Certainly the climbs are where the most time is gained or lost in a grand tour.

So why can't Robbie McEwen climb? I've never really understood that.

Some climbers were measured with 500 watts on a minute !It's not a great performance when they are able to produce a 470-480W power average on a passe.



It's more difficult for oldest athletes to recover. T level decreases with age. Can we link the 2?

Although fast twitch muscles are useful for many aspects of cycling, they are not particularly important in climbing high altidude MOUNTAINS (mur de huy, muurs of the ronde yes. Alpe d'Huez, no). I suspect that most of the low cadence drills aid in the recruitment of muscle rather than the developement of fast twitch (FT) muscle (although they will do a bit of that), and appear to help you b/c you do not routinely climb 5km+ climbs.

One must understand the nature of muscle types and muscle recruitment to really answer the McEwen question. Generally the recruitment of muscle types is directly related to the amount of force required. At low force outputs only ST muscles are recruited and are generally fatigue resistant. As force requirement increases more of the FT muscles are recruited, but they fatigue very quickly.

The force requirements for 500w of power are actually very small in the greater scheme of things, therefore most of the force is supplied by ST or aerobically adapted FT muscles. e.g. even top pursuiters who do 500+W get something like 98% of that power aerobically.

Generally speaking sprinters have more FT than ST, therefore at peak force requirements they are great athletes. FT muscles can also be trained (FT type a) for endurance performances which is what happens with road sprinters. However, these FT type a muscles are still les resistant to fatigue than ST muscles. Therefore although McEwen has VO2max of 70+ and aerobic wattage of ~ 6 watts/kg (hypothetically) he will not be able to climb as fast a climber with ST muscles b/c his legs will fatigue over the first two HC cols (or even sooner) and he will have nothing left for the thrid.

The KEY to winning a GT is NOT the ability to produce 440-500+ Watts for an hour. the key is the ability to do it every day for 21 days (an exaggeration). Therefore FATIGUE and the ability to not succumb to it is a critical factor in determing success in the GC of a GT. Within this context 'anabolic' based doping programs are absolutely invaluable. Most doping cyclists probably dont need steroids or T, per se, but instead use powerful recovery products (that are produce endogenously to help aid in recovery) such as HGH, insulin and IGF to prevent fatigue over long races.

That sounds about right except for the last. It's all personal training at the end of the day. If you have primarily slow twitch muscles, you may want to spend some time working on your fast twitch (your weakness) to aid in your explosiveness, whether you're riding short, punchy climbs or high mountains. For many GT riders who regularly climb 5+k mountains, explosiveness is a limitor, and keeps them from winning stages/races. For some, particularly those going for GC, that may not be a huge factor. For others, those aiming at stages, it can be. It can be a limitor for either type of rider. The importance of developing developing fast-twich muscles is individual, and depends on your goals and strengths/weaknesses.

It certainly can be (and is reputed to be) an integral part of the stage racer's program, even for mountain training. Or so I've read. I certainly feel the addition of this kind of training adds to my overall climbing power and explosiveness, and I ride 5-12k climbs every week.

Tommorrow there will be a spot on a Danish sports show (LPS on tv2.dk), where they follow an ordinary average sportsperson who set himself out to "test doping" voluntarily and be filmed while doing it - kind of a "SuperSize Me"-like documentary (whether it started out that way seems doubtful, but that is what it has been turned into).

Over a 10 week period, he takes a treatment consisting of anabolic steroids and hormones + dieting.

According to the preview, the man increased his muscle mass during that period by 15kg, and at the same time lost 10kg of fat (reducing his fat index from 21 to 11 %).

Peachy.

Of course, before the treatment, the man had a well-functioning liver and gall bladder. After the treatment, his organs resembled (in the words of the doctor) the liver and gall bladder of someone who has been an alcoholic for 70 years.

he can do that on nutrasystem as well.


these sorts of spots do more harm than good I think, as they demonstrate how little the public really knows about high end training and the use of supplements, diet and PEDs to increase performance in high end athletes. the difference is like trying to get your Jetta above 125 KPH and trying to get an extra 1HP out of a race car.

If athletes themselves comment that 1% is all the difference between victory and a top-20 result (which is often said), does it really matter?

And if the public know too little (which is the case), isn't it good to educate them a bit? Doping is not primarily a problem because a number of sportspeople feel like making their lifes shorter, but rather because millions of people copy them without understanding what they are doing.

this isn't education, but sensationalism. whatever is proven or not proven by this has no relevance to the actual issues.

I guess that depends on what you consider to be the "issues", but nevertheless an impressive conclusion, given the amount of knowledge we have of the spot.

That aside, the spot clearly isn't out to "prove or not prove" anything, given its format; rather, it would appear to show what can happen to a person who misuses doping. Given that this serves as a warning against doping, what exactly is your problem with it? Is it better that people remain ignorant of the possible consequences of doping?

Was looking forward to seeing what the spot contained, but unfortunately it appears to have been dropped as the "subject", Nikolaj Jørgensen has retracted approval for his documentary to be shown for reasons unnamed.

Perhaps after the numbers were released, he was offered a ride with a team (Relax, Tinkoff, LPR ?). Wouldnt want to spoil the chance.

Don't think he is a cyclist (at least there was no indication of this in the preview material), so I doubt it. The announcement seems to hint that the decision was taken because the spot contained other, potentially personally damaging elements - but that's just my impression.

"You can't ride several stages without using drugs. After 3 days you are empty. The soigneur comes with vitamins and iron. Not via tablets but via injections. That is the start of doping.
He said: "I had 61 urine tests and never tested positive.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/1999/may99/may20.shtml


The UCI's 50% haematocrit ceiling ‘for health reasons' merely meant that every team knew its riders must be at 49% to remain competitive.
http://www.abcc.co.uk/Reviews/prisoner_dope.html


‘Give us what they're taking and we'll get the results too,' said Thierry Marie. Not that they were unfamiliar with medicaments – they already took dozens of legal drugs in order to ‘prepare' themselves: dosing and injecting yourself was already rooted. Gaumont's first illicit drug was Kenacort, a corticoid. ‘These are all very well,' one of his team-mates told their doctor, Armand Mégret, ‘but we need EPO if we're going to stay competitive in the big races. Fix us up.'


‘All cyclists insist they're not cheating, because everyone's doing it … but despite all our rituals intended to forge a sacred bond of lies and omérta , there is no solidarity in the world of cycling'.
http://www.abcc.co.uk/Reviews/prisoner_dope.html


Doping makes it easier for an athlete to reach a high level of fitness and maintain it for a longer period of time. Basically, doping functions by drastically reducing the time and effort required for the organism to recover, though sometimes it also acts by directly improving performance. Doping involves non-permitted chemical substances, which increase performance and/or speed up recovery and the organism's adaptation to effort. So, athletes who resort to doping have fallen into the temptation to give themselves an unfair advantage over others who do not use it.
http://www.blues.uab.es/olympic.studies/doping/perez.htm


''As a rider, you feel tied into the system,'' Zulle, one of the six riders for Festina who confessed to EPO use during the 1998 Tour de France, told reporters last year. ''It's like being on the highway. The law says there's a speed limit of 65, but everyone is driving 70 or faster. Why should I be the one who obeys the speed limit?''



Not surprisingly, Voet, who remains under investigation by the French authorities, is not optimistic about a cleaner future for the sport. ''The thieves have left the scene of the crime; they already have shifted to something else,'' he said, saying that EPO and other standard cheating drugs were being improved upon. ''Now, it's synthetic hemoglobin or interleukin or products which augment the oxygen level in muscles without raising the red blood cell count.''
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...mp;pagewanted=2

PEZ Interviews: Paul Sherwen on Doping
Pez: Did you ever buy-in the ‘two-speed’ peloton we heard about in the 90’s?

Paul: No, I didn’t, but I was probably wrong. When I was in charge of PR at Motorola I used to hear the riders saying; ‘Did you see those Italians climb - they weren’t even breathing hard.’ I used to say; ‘you’re all soft, you need to train harder,’ or; ‘you’re not taking care of yourself,’ But when I look back it was the start of the EPO culture, so there probably were two different levels within the peloton. The fact is that you only know what’s happening in your team, each team is like a clan that travels around Europe – an insular little world.’
http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=4252



"History will show cycling at two speeds" says Madiot

"Several times, I thought of asking my riders to start a stage five minutes behind the peloton. History will show cycling at two speeds. But it is complicated: the stakes are so high... "
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=new...ug05/aug30news2


Donati concludes by deploring a situation in which use of drugs ssuch as EPO has meant riders "arriving to climb the cols of the Giro or the Tour de France at high speed and using gear ratios suitable for the plains. All this becausemost of the riders are crammed with EPO, ACTH or testosterone."
http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/archive...n97/doping.html

I find this 10 yo reference to ACTH and Testosterone interesting...in light of the 2006 ongoing FL case.

The 'Too Good To Be True' Fleche: 1994
Monday, April 23, 2007 9:44:02 PM PT

by Edmond Hood
It's Fleche-Wallonne, three guys, all from the same team, break-away on the second ascent of the Mur de Huy, ride a team time trial over 70 kilometres to the finish and fill the first three places at the top of the aforementioned 'wall'.If this sounds like an unlikely set of circumstances or perhaps a Hollywood film script then read-on.


Catch the race live on Cycling.TV in North America.

It's 1994 and one team is above all others in professional cycling - Italian gruppo, Gewiss-Ballan. Treviso man, Giorgio Furlan has already won Tirreno-Adriatico, Milan - San Remo plus the Criterium International and Russian pursuiter turned road-star, Evgeni Berzin has won Liege-Bastogne-Liege. The real icing on the cake is still to come, however.

The course for the Fleche was similar to the current parcours with the focal point the murderous Mur de Huy, which had to be breasted three times during the 205 kilometres. The field contained all the strong-men of the day - Lance, Davide Rebellin (yeah, the same one), Claudio Chiappucchi, Franco Ballerini, Davide Cassani and Gerard Rue to name but half-a-dozen, so it wasn't going to be a case of a soft win from a weak field.

A break of ten went early in the race and rode to a maximum of six minutes lead, but by the time the race encountered the Mur for the second time only three survived.
On the climb, Gewiss had four at the front - Furlan, Berzin, Bruno Cenghialta (Italy) and Venetian, Ardennes classic legend, Moreno Argentin. At this stage of his career, Argentin had a world title, four Liege-Bastogne-Lieges, two Fleche-Wallonnes plus the Tours of Flanders and Lombardy to his credit.

Over the top of the climb, Cenghialta had let a gap open but his three team mates had snapped-up the three breakaway survivors and were clear. Furlan recalls saying to his team leader, Argentin; "we're alone, what will we do?"

Argentin replied simply, "let's go!"

Over the third and final loop, the three rode a team time trial which only finished when Argentin raised his arms at the top of the Mur for the third time to make it seven wins in the Ardennes classics, with Furlan just behind and Berzin slipping-back a little on the climb to finish third at 14 seconds after having given his all in the move.

It was 1-14 before double world road champion; Gianni Bugno (Italy & Polti) took the sprint for fourth place. Lance, back then a very square-shouldered world champion, said; "they just demoralised everyone"

Even naïve Scottish cyclists watching this rout in southern Belgium on Eurosport were thinking: "this is too good to be true."

Sure-enough, the headlines weren't long in coming; 'Gewiss sideline Ferrari', the sound-bite from the good doctor - who was retained by Gewiss - that did it, was; "EPO is not dangerous, and that with regard to doping, anything that is not outlawed is consequently permitted."

Argentin's long and illustrious career ended that year. Berzin went on to win the 1994 Giro, but cycling history bible, 'Gotha' sums-up his career best; 'Disappeared as fast from the international scene as he appeared on it' - quite.

For Furlan, 1994 was brilliant, but it was as good as it got for Giorgio, the 'Gotha' view is; 'he became the talk of the town due to the doping affair surrounding the Italian doctor Ferrari.' But what happened to Ferrari? Professor Conconi was appointed to investigate organised EPO use - but only until the cops knocked on his door too!

The recent T-Mobile and Gerolsteiner one-twos at Wevelgem and Amstel have been cool, but please - no 1-2-3's at Fleche this year, that would be just too good to be true.
http://pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=4869

The Gewiss Ballan Affair, aka, Quickstep in 2005-6.

Drug Test - A Cautionary Tale
Everybody knows that many athletes cheat by using performance-enhancing drugs like steroids, testosterone, and EPO. But what is it like to take these banned substances? Do they really help you win? To find out, Outside Magazine sent an amateur cyclist into the back rooms of sports medicine, where he just said yes to the most controversial chemicals in sports.

Nice article.

Thanks for this very good and enlightening article.

On the recovery benefits of EPO. I know a competitive cyclist who was part of the EPO testing prior to the 2000 Olympics. The participants were not administered EPO to prove that a physiological benefit was derived but to check whether the anti doping test on trial made the detection or wrongly made the detection (false positive). So it was not a super dose of EPO.

He became aware he was not in the placebo control group by his performances. He competed in races with the consent of race organisers after disclosing his position and that he would not claim a prize. He just rode away from the bunch each time.

He reckoned that he could have doubled his training volume as he felt no fatiguing effects from his normal training outing.

VF, should have used him as a leadout man from 48 crit' (sic) laps out of a 50 lapper.

What happened to Furlan?

He had to leave cycling early due to severe thrombosis in his leg.

Wonder how he got that?

This is why it is important to continue the fight against doping. This was a long and interesting article, yet there was no mention of the known physical consequences that EPO use in the Geweiss team had. Is Furlan the only one who suffered health problems? Even if the orange juice quote was taken out of context as Ferrari claims, doping maims and kills.

Noticias - thank you again for the superb collection of articles.

The above perfectly expalins how the doping culture thrives. Why is there no solidarity? Is it the competition? The low pay? Is this instilled as a way to perpetuate the doping culture? It is sort of like abuse in a domestic situation - keeping the status quo become top priority, so everyone closes their eyes and keeps on going like everything is fine and normal even though there is a huge monster in the middle of the room that no one admits to seeing.

Further testimony concerning the use of amphetamines in cycling was presented by the former Irish pro, Paul Kimmage. Kimmage told that he was resolved to avoid doping when he turned pro, "You enter the professional game and you are going to do as much as you can on your own steam, and if that’s not good enough, then that’s not good enough." Kimmage rode the Tour for RMO in 1986, and was close to dropping out because of fatigue.

There WILL be improvements in performance, without the use of drugs, contrary to anti doping doctors nonsense.



1) Natural selection - cycling gets more popular every year as the world population increases which accounts for ever greater talent getting introduced to cycling.



2) Trial and error - cycling is about mental focus and physical conditioning. Who says there is nothing new to be learned about technique and discipline in the sport?



3) Equipment - Subtle improvements - Maybe the guy who excels at stage races handles the wear and tear of the long miles on the road better? In hindsight equipment improvements have affected technique.



4) Genetics - Adaptation has resulted in increased size and brain capacity. Human perfection wasn't capped with Michaelangelo's David.



5) Hunger - Athlete's performance improves when the contract is running out.

Wow thanks for all the links. That Stuart Stevens Outside piece remains a classic. Something I read years ago but makes much more sense now.

http://www.iaaf.org/antidoping/news/Kind=2/newsId=23876.html

Just because it's been printed doesn't make it word. I don't need to back up common knowledge.



Opening sentence: "Everybody knows that many athletes cheat by using performance-enhancing drugs like steroids, testosterone, and EPO."

Enough said?



Same paragraph: "To find out,Outside Magazine sent an amateur cyclist into the back rooms of sports medicine, where he just said yes to the most controversial chemicals in sports."

It's so easy for an amatuer to get trial worthy evidence, but is this truth or fictional?

Erythropoietin and Blood Doping

Erythropoietin (EPO)...
In athletics, this agent is now used as an alternative to blood doping. Blood doping refers to the intravenous infusion of blood to increase oxygen-carrying capacity and thus to improve endurance performance. Typically, athletes draw and freeze the RBCs from 2 units of their own blood several weeks before a competition. This period allows the body to replace the RBC deficiency. The stored RBCs are then infused back into the body 1 week prior to competition. Controlled studies of this technique have suggested a 5% to 30% improvement in measures of endurance.[13]

The use of EPO offers an alternative method to increase the concentration of circulating RBCs. EPO has advantages over blood doping in that it eliminates infusion risks (eg, infection) and the need for refrigerated RBC storage. Limited experimental data suggest EPO efficacy to be similar to that obtained with blood doping.[14]




One potential advantage of blood doping over EPO is that the "dose" of RBCs is known. The level of RBC production obtained with EPO is dose dependent but highly variable, and may continue for several days after the last administration. As a result, the hematocrit can be elevated to dangerous levels. It has been suggested that misuse of EPO may have led to a series of mysterious deaths in competitive cyclists between 1987 and 1990, in which 19 athletes died.[17] It seems clear that athletes are aware of the adverse effects of EPO related to clotting and are trying to stay ahead of the game. A raid of a cycling team at the 1998 Tour de France revealed not only EPO, but anticoagulant drugs as well.[18]

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/408596_4

Blood doping
The higher the red cell count, the higher the blood's capacity to carry oxygen -- an advantage in aerobic sports like cross-country skiing and long-distance running.

"Fifty per cent of medal winners and 33 per cent of those finishing fourth to 10th place had 'highly abnormal' hematologic profiles," said the report, which was published in the Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine. "In contrast, only 3 per cent of skiers finishing from 41st to 50th place had highly abnormal values."




Though the study has concrete statistics showing the widespread use of doping,
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/story/2003/05/13/...yski030513.html

``that you couldn't be among the world's best 50 riders if you didn't take EPO, and it's been that way for quite a while''


``Frankly, I can't imagine a rider belonging to the top 100 and not taking EPO, growth hormones or another product,'' he told L'Equipe.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/results/archive...n97/doping.html




Whether the issue of drug-taking has been tackled at source or simply sent underground once again is another matter for debate. The claim by Giorgio Squinzi, head of the Mapei team, that "without doping it's impossible to be anywhere in the top five in the Tour" will be officially viewed as sour grapes from a team which has drastically underperformed and, unofficially, with a certain degree of resignation. The organisers lost its race to introduce a urine-based EPO test in time for the start of this Tour, but samples have been taken from prominent riders and frozen for analysis later in the season when the radical new test has been fully validated.

Rumours of a "two-speed" Tour, so rampant in 1999, have refused to disappear, though the widespread innuendo which dogged a proper acknowledgement of Armstrong's achievement last year was largely absent this year. Average stage speeds have stayed resolutely high and the fact that 70 per cent of the peloton were in danger of being timed out at the end of the stage over the Col de Galibier will be taken in some quarters as proof that if the systematic drug culture of the past has been eradicated, some riders are still working to different rules.

The EPO test can only detect the presence of EPO, which enhances the development of oxygen-carrying red blood cells in the body, in a rider at any given moment, not over an extended period of time. For a definitive guide to performance enhancement the controllers will have to rely on detailed charting of riders' haematocrit levels over a whole career and on the more efficientenforcement of random out-ofseason testing. The further unsettling factor is that EPO is no longer considered the chic drug of choice; artificial haemoglobins, developed for genuine medical use, are already being widely adapted for sporting purposes in Italy, according to Sandro Donati, a well-respected Italian coach and official.

http://sport.independent.co.uk/general/article269171.ece

McGee's team doctor rings doping alarm bell

The team doctor of Australian riders Brad McGee and Baden Cooke has hinted that he believes this year's Tour de France is being contested between riders who are competing on different levels because of their use - or otherwise - of drugs.

"There's two Tours de France being raced at the moment. We're not in the same race as those who are at the front, that's for sure," Francaise des Jeux doctor Gerard Guillaume said in French daily L'Humanite on Friday.

"Our best rider for the general classification, Sandy Casar, is already 15 minutes behind."

Guillaume made his comments as speeds on this year's race continued to be punishingly high.

Although that can partly be explained by the fact the peloton benefited from favourable wind conditions as they raced from west to east in the first 10 days, speeds on the race left many otherwise good climbers, including McGee, struggling to hang on in the tough Alpine cols.

"At the Dauphine Libere I had no problems in following the best climbers. At the Tour, I just can't," Frenchman David Moncoutie, who won the 12th stage on Thursday, said.

"It's like that every year, but all I can say is 'too bad'."

Cycling bosses have made much of their crackdowns on drug use since the tainted 1998 Tour, with better controls to crack down on the use of endurance-booster EPO.

EPO benefits athletes' by boosting the red blood cells, thus allowing more oxygen to be pumped into the muscles. The result is that riders can last for much longer and, more importantly on the Tour, recuperate quicker.

Since 1998 cycling's world governing body, the UCI, has introduced a blood test to check riders' haematocrit (red blood cell) levels.

But despite the progress in catching cheats, there are widespread suspicions that new, improved methods are being used to elude the drugs controllers.

EPO was once detectable for up to six days, but now it is suspected that athletes are using micro doses of the drug which allow them to slip through any drug controls.

"Detecting EPO used to be much easier - there was a five or six day window in which to act. But I think now because of different methods and micro-dosing the window of detection is only 24 hours," said Guillaume, who also suggested that growth hormones - a test for which is supposedly being used on the Tour this year - could also be widespread.

"The cheats now have got more chance of not getting caught than getting caught."

The first controversy of the race came a few days ago when Russian Yevgeny Petrov, of the Lampre team, was thrown off the race after his red blood cell count was over the permitted threshold of 50.

On Tuesday Fassa Bortolo rider Dario Frigo, who had been sacked by his team for doping in the past, was also thrown out.

His expulsion became automatic when he was questioned and held by police after his wife Susanna was caught by customs officers with banned substances in her car, believed to be vials of EPO.

French veteran Didier Rous has in the past admitted to using banned substances when he was with Festina. He suggested on Wednesday that cheating on the Tour was evident - and called for it to stop.

"There has to come a time when you say, 'right that's enough'," said Rous, a former national champion who raced with Festina when they were thrown off the Tour in 1998.

"One minute we're able to keep up with the best, then all of a sudden we're not. I can't hold my hands up and say what's going on at other teams. I've got no proof."

http://www.abc.net.au/sport/content/200507/s1415546.htm

A race at two speeds? Doping continues to haunt Tour

By Justin Davis
Agence France Presse
This report filed July 15, 2005

Following the expulsion of one rider and the arrest of another, talk of doping at the Tour de France has re-emerged as the doctor of one of France's top teams said the race is still being "contested on two levels."

For Gerard Guillaume, the doctor of the Francaise des Jeux team of Bradley McGee and Baden Cooke, his riders simply can't keep up with a peloton whose speeds have amazed everyone in the first 12 days of the race.

The Tour, which American Lance Armstrong is bidding to win for a seventh consecutive time, has so far been raced at a punishing pace, leaving some complaining they are not all racing on the same level...

http://www.velonews.com/tour2005/news/articles/8503.0.html

"Can steroids really enhance athletic performance?"

According to Charles Yesalis, Penn State professor of exercise and sports science, the short answer is yes. "Considering available scientific evidence and overwhelmingly consistent anecdotal reports of athletes, we can conclude anabolic steroids are associated with increase in strength," writes Yesalis in the book Anabolic Steroids in Sport and Exercise.

Anabolic steroids, explains Yesalis, are synthetic versions of the natural hormone testosterone, which drives the development of secondary male sex characteristics. When boys hit puberty, testosterone levels shoot up, causing hair to grow, sex organs to mature, muscles to enlarge and the voice to deepen. The process continues until testosterone levels begin to drop off at age 40.

"Essentially, anabolic steroids induce a second adolescence," says Yesalis. "Many of the same things happen as would in puberty. As testosterone levels elevate, the user experiences increased strength and muscle mass. In a sport like baseball, that strength makes it easier to hit a home run, with stronger forearms to power through the ball and powerful hips to rotate your body quickly." While steroids have a definite impact, Yesalis is quick to remind that they are no replacement for talent. Says Yesalis, "You can't make chicken soup out of chicken feathers."

To boost their strength is not the sole reason athletes turn to steroids, Yesalis adds. "They have been taken for at least 45 years by endurance athletes to recover from workouts rapidly. With steroids, a marathon runner can run longer, a swimmer can do more laps and a cyclist can spend more time pedaling." In sports where endurance is everything, the ability to last longer during workouts and competitions confers a definite advantage.

http://www.physorg.com/news71508517.html

Science plays catch-up to sports-doping advances


"It's been a cat and mouse game from the get-go," says Charles Yesalis,


Others are not so sure. Penn State's Dr. Yesalis notes, for example, that you can only test for the steroid derivatives you know about. Unless someone comes forward with samples of a new variation, athletes can use it without getting caught.



Experts are eyeing a suspicious new entrant called IGF-1, a gene that carries the blueprint for a growth hormone. The IGF-1 compound is currently available for a limited number of serious, muscle-related problems, according to Gary Wadler, a physician and clinical associate professor of medicine at the New York University School of Medicine. Four years ago, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania published the results of experiments that introduced the gene into mouse muscles. The result was a "super mouse," which grew large muscles that showed very little deterioration with age.

After the university published its results, Dr. Wadler says, it was inundated with requests from coaches interested in using it on their athletes.

As a result of the publicity, Wadler says, "more people know about IGF-1 and doping than know about its therapeutic potential" for the elderly or people diagnosed with diseases such as muscular dystrophy. There is currently no doping test for IGF-1, he adds.

Despite the rise in testing labs and research efforts, anti-doping testing remains an underfunded, patchwork effort. Athletic authorities often rely on researchers who focus on a range of other topics as well, says Dr. Stray-Gundersen.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0804/p02s01-usgn.html



IGF-1: The latest craze

In their search for clarity in the ongoing doping saga in Belgian cycling, Flemish newspaper HNB went looking for information on the IGF-1 substance.

'Spectacular, undetectable and perilous' is how this product is described by experts. Since EPO is detectable, IGF-1 is the ideal doping product, according to Dr. Chris Goossens, doping expert for the Flemish Community. It strengthens the muscles, improves recuperation and above all, cannot be detected. The fact that the user might be taking serious risks with his life doesn't seem to matter much, as according to the public prosecutor's office of Turnhout, the insulin-like growth hormone was one of the products found during their raid.

Growth hormone, and more specifically IGF-1, triggers the production of growth hormone in the body. Growth hormone makes us grow, but not only in length - feet, hands and muscles too. Growth hormone itself still is used as a doping product but might be detectable in the near future, via blood tests. However, IGF-1 can't be.

Explained Dr. Goossens, "The product strengthens the muscles and improves recuperation which allows you to train more, it transforms fat into muscle and it's not traceable. Not even with the special kits that will be used to detect the different types of growth hormone [natural or artificially produced]. The American Food and Drug Administration only approved of the medicine for patients with IGF-deficit last year."

Sold as Increlex, there are some salient points to be made against the use, or rather abuse of the product. "There have no studies been released about the side effects," said Dr. Goossens. "If you take IGF-1, you're on thin ice. Disturb your own hormone production isn't healthy at all to start with."

In fact, you're playing with your life if you decide to abuse the product for doping purposes, warns Dr. Goossens. "It's endangering life. Growth hormone and IGF will cause an unbridled growth among other muscles, but the heart is also a muscle. The blood vessels don't follow that growth pattern, which will unavoidably cause heart attacks. The uncontrolled growth of cells has caused growth hormone tumours before."
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=new...mar06/mar26news



Jan Ullrich: “The codename ‘Jan’ appears four times in a document where a list of coded product names appears to relate to blood stored, human growth hormone, IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor) and testosterone patches.”


Joseba Beloki: “Document 28 makes reference to Joseba Beloki with the annotations for Human Growth Hormone-Lepori, IGF-1, testosterone patches, human growth hormones, EPO and anabolic steroids, coordinated with a blood transfusion programme.”
http://www.procycling.com/news.aspx?ID=2219

http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/ind...pic=850&hl=



He also believes that drug use is still widespread, although more sophisticated - a combination of IGF1 (Human growth hormone precursor), EPO, and other products to ensure that riders make it through events like the Tour de France. "Can a normal person ride for 20 days in three weeks, with the equivalent of a marathon each day," he asks. The same story.

http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/ind...pic=839&hl=


Manzano's list

IgF1 (insulin growth factor 1)

http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/ind...ic=4900&hl=



It has been reported that some athletes use IGF-1 in an attempt to increase muscle bulk, reduce muscle cell breakdown and reduce body fat.

There is no evidence to support the belief that IGF-1 produces performance-enhancing effects in athletes. Even if it did, it would require very large doses to achieve any potential gain. Such doses would carry the risk of significant adverse effects, including hypoglycemia.

IGF-1 is also very expensive and is produced in strictly limited quantities.

http://www.asada.gov.au/substances/facts/igf1.htm