NYT article on EPO and morals - Essential!

iainf72

Check it out

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/2 ... kill-them/

LangerDan

But the evidence is piling up that even when the drug is taken as directed at reasonable doses, it may be dangerous

Fact is, there is no "direction" or "reasonable dose" data for performance-enhancement use of EPO. The FDA advisory tells doctors to stop administering EPO aonce the patients haemoglobin levels rise to a value that is still below those of any healthy adult.

Kléber

EPO is only prescribed for the very sick because it promotes tumour growth.

Doctors only like it when a patient is faced with, say kidney collapse, or their bone marrow has ceased to produce red blood cells, for example if the patient is undergoing chemotherapy because with the patient knocking on death's door, EPO can help. But as LangerDan says, it comes with a "black box" warning from the FDA, just like a cigarette packet warning, to ensure all medics are aware.

Above all, the clinical tests show the nasty side effects come about after moderate doses. The amounts of EPO needed to thicken your blood to get a real advantage in sports are way in excess of this, so presumably the chance of nasty side effects goes up.

I wonder how if the likes of Dr Ferrari warned cyclists, runners and skiiers of these risks?

iainf72

Even if Dr F did, the article indicates athletes wouldn't care at all.

Kléber

That's true, but it ain't orange juice either.

But if some will do anything to win, others know they can't win. Some riders might have behaved differently, a rider passing up water bottles and busting to stay on a team for a €20,000 salary might change. Many would not but like I say, I wonder how many riders knew the risks.

intothe12

I think like in all walks of life, people under estimate the risks.

If some tells a rider that there is say 35% chance that he might need a kidney transplant if he loads up on EPO, then, some athletes would say (a) I have a 65% change of being ok, or (b) the 35% statistic is probably conservative, so on balance I should be ok.

I would presume in general that there is a huge amount of ignorance out there of the facts, not least of all given that most cyclists have not higher levels of education which may play a role in deciding that they have a finite amount of time to earn money etc...

skavanagh.bikeradar

It [the acceptance of a death for glory bargain] raises questions about both the physical and mental well being of elite athletes. The second of these being something the anti-doping effort should probably consider addressing as much as any other aspect.

dennisn

iainf72 wrote:

Even if Dr F did, the article indicates athletes wouldn't care at all.

I agree. Lots of young people are pretty good at convincing themselves that risk, pretty much any risk, doesn't apply to them. The can't die, they are invulnerable. Sadly, more than a few find out otherwise.

sward29

Kléber wrote:

EPO is only prescribed for the very sick because it promotes tumour growth.

Above all, the clinical tests show the nasty side effects come about after moderate doses. The amounts of EPO needed to thicken your blood to get a real advantage in sports are way in excess of this, so presumably the chance of nasty side effects goes up.

Not strictly true. Patients with chemotherapy induced anaemia do need high doses of EPO to overcome the effect of both the chemotherapy and poor bone marrow function, and would be prescribed anwhere from 40,000-60,000 IU per week of first generation EPO's, or around 150mcg of Aranesp. By far and away the majority of patients on EPO are receiving it for kidney disease where they are EPO deficient. As a result the doses required are much smaller and around 50IU per KG three times per week of first generation EPOs. So a 70kg patient would be on around 10,500 IU during the initial stages of treatment


If I recall correctly from the doping diaries exposed through Operacion Puerto and the CONI investigation riders were prescribed 2000 units every 3 to 4 days, and even then, only for a couple of weeks during the build up to major competitions.

With that in mind I think doping doctors would have easily persuaded riders of the safety of EPO in such doses.

DaveyL

Well, this whole toxicity thing.... Even back in the 1500s old Paracelsus had it figured out:

"All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dose permits something not to be poisonous."

iainf72

DaveyL wrote:

"All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dose permits something not to be poisonous."

Or the modern version

"EPO is not dangerous, it's the abuse that is. It's also dangerous to drink ten liters of orange juice."

Dr M Ferrari

LangerDan

iainf72 wrote:

DaveyL wrote:

"All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dose permits something not to be poisonous."

Or the modern version

"EPO is not dangerous, it's the abuse that is. It's also dangerous to drink ten liters of orange juice."

Dr M Ferrari

Or the even more modern version
"Too much of anything can make you sick
Even the good can be a curse "

Professor C. Cole,
University of Newcastle

Homer J

I guess we will find out one day if there are any 60-70+ year old ex-pros from the epo era?

RichN95.

LangerDan wrote:

Or the even more modern version
"Too much of anything can make you sick
Even the good can be a curse "

Professor C. Cole,
University of Newcastle

Having google that saying to confirm my suspicions - Oh Good God

Still at least it's a better source than the obscure Marxists that Biking Bernie favours.