Some Doping news from Germany...

andrewjoseph

amaferanga wrote:

andrewjoseph wrote:

Putting a few cc under a black light for a short period of time will (in my untrained view), a. do absolutely nothing. b cook some red blood cells.

UV is pretty effective for treating skin conditions such as psoriasis. I don't know whether or not it will have any effect on blood used in this way, but I don't think your pond filter analogy provides anything useful.

I was pointing out that for UV to kill infection, whether in water systems or blood, it needs prolonged exposure to the whole body of liquid. Treating even 90% of my pond water would leave a reservoir of pathogens that would quickly multiply and re-contaminate the treated 90%.

UV is dangerous to living cells in high doses, you need a high dose to kill infection, to kill infections in blood you would also kill blood cells.

yes, it works great on some skin conditions, including ulcers and open wounds. Here it was used to allegedly treat blood infections. There are much better ways to treat blood infections, if you have a blood infection, you would probably need hospitalisation.

andrewjoseph

iainf72 wrote:

Cycling is full of hippy nonsense, so this is probably something like some cyclists relying on homeopathic remedies or accupuncture.

If it was a ploy to mask something else, it's a pretty woeful one.

What concerns me about this is that it's an Olympic Committee and German sports approved doctor that is using 'hippy' treatments.

ddraver

andrewjoseph wrote:

amaferanga wrote:

andrewjoseph wrote:

Putting a few cc under a black light for a short period of time will (in my untrained view), a. do absolutely nothing. b cook some red blood cells.

UV is pretty effective for treating skin conditions such as psoriasis. I don't know whether or not it will have any effect on blood used in this way, but I don't think your pond filter analogy provides anything useful.

I was pointing out that for UV to kill infection, whether in water systems or blood, it needs prolonged exposure to the whole body of liquid. Treating even 90% of my pond water would leave a reservoir of pathogens that would quickly multiply and re-contaminate the treated 90%.

Put it another way - You re thirsty and you stop by a stinking, stagnant, fetid pond with several dead sheep/cows etc in it. You take a bottle of water out of said pond, irradiate it with UV light and then return the bottle of water to the pond.

Is the rest of the pond now safe to drink?

iainf72

andrewjoseph wrote:

What concerns me about this is that it's an Olympic Committee and German sports approved doctor that is using 'hippy' treatments.

I'm pretty sure it happens in most places. People look for any kind of edge and if that involves doing things of little actual value, they probably will.

andrewjoseph

ddraver wrote:

....
Put it another way - You re thirsty and you stop by a stinking, stagnant, fetid pond with several dead sheep/cows etc in it. You take a bottle of water out of said pond, irradiate it with UV light and then return the bottle of water to the pond.

Is the rest of the pond now safe to drink?

That is exactly my point. you are treating less than 1% of the total when to be sure you need to treat 100%.

andrewjoseph

iainf72 wrote:

...
I'm pretty sure it happens in most places. People look for any kind of edge and if that involves doing things of little actual value, they probably will.

From my reading of the WADA code seen in the links above, even before the 'treating blood' addendum was put in, the code about transfusing blood would apply. Even if not treated in any way, blood taken out of the body, then put back in, is a transfusion. So this would have been illegal even in 2007.

is that correct?

rick_chasey

Would it be used in conjunction with something else?

avoidingmyphd

the team statement is unusually frank, but it's not as amazing as some of you are giving it credit for. it's far from clear that this treatment (for which, incidentally, there is no evidence of effectiveness for anything) was only outlawed by the 2011 amendments to the WADA code. the statement is a ploy in that argument, not a straightforward presentation of the facts. that will be decided in court (if at all), not in a tendentious press release.

also, this does all highlight a willingness to try nonsense medicalised treatments on the part of these athletes, and an unusual level of comfort with having blood taken out and then put back in. that is a sad sign.

iainf72

WADA confirmed yesterday that that treatment wouldn't have been banned before 2011.

RichN95.

iainf72 wrote:

WADA confirmed yesterday that that treatment wouldn't have been banned before 2011.

Case closed then. Good.

rick_chasey

RichN95 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

WADA confirmed yesterday that that treatment wouldn't have been banned before 2011.

Case closed then. Good.

Why is it banned now?

andrewjoseph

Rick Chasey wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

iainf72 wrote:

WADA confirmed yesterday that that treatment wouldn't have been banned before 2011.

Case closed then. Good.

Why is it banned now?

To stop idiots mucking about with black light and micro transfusions i suspect.

As has been said, too many sports people are prepared to have blood withdrawn for dubious reasons.

No_Ta_Doctor

Given we're talking about cycling here I wouldn't be surprised to hear there were cyclists tying their transfusion bags with powerbands just to make sure they got all bases covered....