- The drugs don't work…
In the first study of its kind,
Rubbish, there have been several tests on athletes, really good ones, you know the sort of athletes capable of going flat out after over 100km and with over 350W non doped. The results were pretty conclusive, The Festina (procès de Lille protocol which included EPO) was worth about 15% more power.Posted 8 months agoatlazMember
The impact of EPO is also not over a single ride, it’s about the collective impact of training, racing and recovering and is more pronounced on a stage race. David Millar reckons he could stick with people on a one-day race but as soon as they got to stage races, he’d get further and further off the pace (until he doped of course).Posted 8 months agochakapingSubscriber
The scientists behind the trial, which is published in the Lancet, say athletes are “naive”
Whereas many readers will be saying that the scientists and Telegraph journalists are the naive ones.
Test should have been riding up Ventoux every day for three weeks, with the odd day off for a bit more EPO.Posted 8 months agoghostlymachineMember
the researchers selected the fittest and most experience amateur riders they could find
That’s a laugh. Anyone *actually* fit and experienced (and amateur) is probably likely to be at significant risk of being tested, and wouldn’t get involved. Or already doping.
What they really found is some vaguely competent riders and gave them a badly planned (weekly injections, wtf?) program and then did a completely unrepresentative test.
Not surprised they didn’t find anything.
Least they got their research money. 🙄Posted 8 months agoDezBSubscriber
As well as EPO, Armstrong admitted to using testosterone, human growth hormone and the steroid cortisode during his seven back-to-back Tour victories from 1999 to 2005.
But Mr Cohen said: “Quite possibly all the stuff he was taking was useless.
“Even less is known about many of it than EPO.”
I wonder who financed this research.. that was published in the LANCEt..?Posted 8 months agofootflapsSubscriber
I think it’s quite interesting, it does suggest that EPO isn’t quite the miracle drug it’s made out to be or that the effects are a bit more subtle.
As for why they didn’t run the experiment using a full peleton of Elite riders, riding three weeks back to back, I think you’ll find cost might have been a consideration.Posted 8 months agoglobaltiMember
This is nonsense.
1 – EPO doesn’t confer the same advantage on every rider. If you already have a high haematocrit level you won’t benefit as much as a rider who has a low level.
2 – You don’t just inject EPO and go; it takes weeks of building up with other closely supervised ancillary treatments to extract the most benefit from EPO.Posted 8 months agoslowsterMember
What utter garbage. The average Del Boy market trader has more integrity than the ‘scientists’ who undertook that study.
The use of EPO in professional cycling was/is inextricably linked with the italian scientists and doctors, in particular Conconi and Ferrari, who developed protocols to maximise the benefit of EPO. Conconi actually got the italian olypmic committee to fund his research under the pretext of developing a test to detect EPO use.
It looks like the video is no longer on Youtube, but if you want to see the difference that EPO can make, you only need to watch the 1994 Fleche Wallone where three Gewiss riders drop the rest of the peloton on a climb where it looked as if they were just out on a recovery ride. Ferrari was the Gewiss team doctor.Posted 8 months agochakapingSubscriber
think it’s quite interesting, it does suggest that EPO isn’t quite the miracle drug it’s made out to be
The chief benefit of EPO is apparently it’s ability to boost recovery, allowing harder training before stage races and “freshening up” during them.
So can you see why we think the experiment as outlined in that piece was a waste of time?Posted 8 months agomartinhutchSubscriber
Lancet should know better than to run with that. In terms of efficacy in an elite sport setting, giving 24 fit but amateur athletes aged between 18 and 55 a short course at clinically-recommended (ie relatively low) levels is an entirely pointless exercise. We already know it’s safe to treat punters with EPO, that’s why it exists. There is plenty to suggest that dopers didn’t stick to the established ‘safe’ dosages.
There comes a point at which the quantity of anecdote about the significant benefits of EPO to elite riders is reliable enough to outweigh whatever trial can be cobbled together with a completely different group of subjects.
Just because it will always be completely impossible to organise a proper test using professionals in real stage race conditions, doesn’t mean that this is a decent substitute.Posted 8 months ago
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.