1984, not illegal to blood dope, leave Cova alone

I think it is unethical to take drugs to enhance ones performance. Be it caffeine or creatine. Where's the line between a healthy diet (say vitamin suplements) and doping? Good question. I don't know.

I agree it's more constructive to talk about how doping in distance running doesn't work.... it reminds me of how universities in the US have started to to tell students that drinking on college campuses in the US isn't as widespread as they think -- but i think both claims also happen to be false.

Finally, I think we shouldn't take the mentality that doping is ok because it won't help. The real point is it doesn't MATTER if it helps because its antithetical to the ideals of athletics, and dangerous to the athlete.

observation wrote: but don't come back here 30 years later and try to tell us all how "everyone knew" that it was cheating. bull.

I guarantee you every elite athlete outside of the Communist bloc knew this was cheating as early as the 70's. Plain and simple.

You hit the problem. EPO was created for helping people that needed dialysis, and used during surgical intervents for supporting the lack of blood. Studies with pathologysts demonstrated that, in this way, you could increase of 30% your capacity in transporting blood.

So, if you give EPO to a sedentary, he can improve very much his endurance and can recover in shorter time every type of effort.

More you go on with hard training, less EPO can help you.

THEREFORE, ARE AMATEURS AND NOT VERY STRONG ATHLETES THAT TAKE ADVANTAGES THRU EPO, NOT TOP RUNNERS.

More you work, more you become strong, and less some external aid can be useful.

I want to do an example.

If you, or me, use an electro-stimulator, we can increase our strenght, also without training, till a better level.

But, after some period, we reach a level that is not possible to increase without training : ONLY TRAINING CAN PERMIT TO IMPROVE AGAIN.

Do you think that an athlete abel lifting 250-300 kg of half squat can have some advantage using electrostimulators ?

Do you think that an athlete running 250 km per week, among which 100 of high intensity and 20 of max. intensity, can have some advantage using EPO ?

This is my idea : with EPO you can arrive earlier to good results with not very much training, but for reaching your best, nothing can replace good and hard training.

So, EPO is a short cut for middle results, but not the main road for top results.

"People must be convinced that the most part of drugs are useless. Believe me, this is the best road..."

No, the best road is truth and once you abandon it you're lost. Truth, not lies, will set you free.

No one suggests that top performances come without hard work and great talent. But, when the winning margin over others who work hard and have great talent is found in the virtue of performance enhancing substances it's cheating.

For example, a man who runs 7:53 for the steeplechase is highly talented and has worked very hard. But it does not preclude that he may have used illegal substances to help him just that bit more that allowed him to defeat others who competed fairly.

I agree wrote:I guarantee you every elite athlete outside of the Communist bloc knew this was cheating as early as the 70's. Plain and simple.

(you GUARANTEE us? why do people always say that? what does that mean? nothing)

try to clear your thoughts. you cannot "know" something that is a matter of opinion. because opinions are not facts. get it? blood doping was not declared illegal until after the 70s. so nobody could "know" it was cheating back then. because it wasn't cheating. because it wasn't against the rules.

nobody can "know" that altitude tents are cheating now. because they are not cheating. because they are not against the rules

thank you, just one person get's it, wow I thought I was alone.

You're getting lost between the defintion of "morally wrong" and "legally wrong".

Only the latter will get you disqualified.

I believe Renato is trying to say (and apologies if he is not) that you/we all believe EPO can work, because you think that if a maximally-trained runner takes EPO, then ALL ELSE REMAINING EQUAL his performance must improve (purely and simply because EPO raises hematocrit).

However, Renato appears to be saying that if you take EPO all else WILL NOT remain equal. So EPO will have much less, or even zero, positive effect on your performance. This is not unlike Heisenberg with his uncertainty principle, which states that you cannot observe something without changing it. Taking EPO will/must have a knock-on effect on other performance parameters which will negate the potentially positive effects (e.g: blood becomes too viscous for maximal flow).

Whether this is true or not, is something that may be extremely difficult to prove. But it is rational and certainly not impossible.

Well, the guy who ran 7:53 for steeple seemed to benefit from blood enhancing.

Lazutina was stripped of the gold she won at the Games in the women's 30K cross country skiing event after testing positive for darbepoetin, a drug that boosts production of oxygen-carrying red blood cells. Same fate came to Spanish skier Johann Muehlegg.

These athletes are at the top of the world in their events, and tested positive for blood enhancing, and you want us to think what?

Have you never seen someone who has been hypnotized? Not only do they sit and watch as the pin being stuck in their hand does hurt (due to hypnotic suggestion) but they also manage to not bleed because they are told that they will not do so.

Since there is such a thing as the placebo effect, it seems a given that the power of the mind is a powerful thing. If I gave you a drug and convinced you that you could race faster, do you think there's a chance you would?

Can you say how much the improvement was the responsibility of the drug, and how much was the responsibility of your increased confidence?

Can anyone?

Yeah, it's done all the time when using a placebo.

This is an interesting ethical discussion. Clearly, by '84, blood doping (or packing) was seen as an unethical process. Whether it was specifically illegal, I'm not sure. There are some "general" rules and restrictions that may well have prohibited it in a non-specific fashion. Regardless of whether a test exists to determine use of an unethical procedure, the procedure remains unethical.

An additional question that was raised was "Where should the line be drawn?" It seems clear to me that using drugs of any type, whether orally or injected, should always be regarded as illegal. But what is a drug? Are vitamins drugs? It could likely be argued with some success that they are. Taking this argument to its logical (or illogical)conclusion, does that mean eating bread made from enriched flour should be a rules violation?

Meantime, should oxygen tents be illegal? I think not. My reasoning is that living at altitude is a natural phenomenon. Should a person living at sea level, because of a need to support themselves or their family, be prevented from gaining the benefits that can be legally obtained by living at altitude? This is a natural response of the body to living in an oxygen reduced environment. Should there be a limit to how much oxygen reduction is permissible? Probably not. By going to the Himalayas, it is possible to live at altitudes high enough that cellular necrosis occurs (hence climbers requiring oxygen to climb / live at altitude). Clearly reducing oxygen concentrations to those types of levels with a tent would be counterproductive.

Should Cova be punished? My instinct says yes, but how can you punish one athlete when there are likely dozens of others who are just as dirty, some of whom may benefit if medals are stripped and re-awarded. I think there must be an effective statute of limitations. A clear statute would also let athletes come forward and talk about how they cheated, thus potentially helping the anti-doping authorities to do a more effective job.

Wayne

Dennis wrote:

If wearing spikes is found to be illegal tomorrow, should we take Geb's medals?

And give them to ...?

I have followed a lot of what Renato has said on this board.

I think he has been tremendously insightful I do not agree, however, that blood doping does not work for the distance runners. I was in a controlled study in 1983 for a PhD dissertation of a friend of mine. Out of 6 handpicked good regional citizen runners, ( non elite) All improved dramatically over 10,000m at 6000ft. Offer was made to one elite miler to join the study prior to 84 Trials. He declined on basis of ethics. (not legality) He was also a med student at the time, and is now a practicing MD. You can read about this study and the results in JAMA,May 22/29 1987, Volume 257, No. 20> Trust me, blood doping works like a charm.

I have to agree with Bob Pratte that blood doping does work. It is essentially a mechanical function doing the same thing that EPO does (increasing red cell count). Both of these processes will increase the number of red blood cells, and by extension, the amount of oxygen that can be carried in the blood. This will increase performance.

As was made very clear in the Outside magazine article, a significant risk of increased clotting and the possibility of death due to very high levels of red blood cells does exist [though I'm unsure at what levels these side effects do occur, and whether they come both from conventional blood doping (reinfusion of your own blood)and EPO blood cell enhancement].

Of course, if doping does not work in a given athlete, they simply do not make the podium, and are likely spared discovery due to less likelihood of testing. Thus, while in a limited test (6 of 6 - in the study you cited), it may appear to always work, in real situations, with doctors who may care less about athlete's health than potential results, the likelihood of side effects or failure may well be greater.

Wayne, I agree, the larger number of subjects in the study, the better chance some might not see much improvement. We did a follow up study in the Spring of 84, at 1500 meters to compare the improvement between that and the 10,000m distance. Eight were in that study, I was the only holdover. Damn if it didn't continue to work This was all a double blind study, overseen by the MD that directed United Blood Services here. We had inquiries from a world class woman 400 meter type who wanted in the study. She was coached by an infamous guy on the West Coast and was a 7 time National Champ. Claimed to have blood doped before worlds in Helsinki in 83 and ran PR. Unfortunately, she still got smoked by the Eastern European women. ( Who knows what they were doing) She did participate, over the objection of the MD, who thought she would not bring anything to the study. Unfortunately, she had some internal hemorrahaging issues before the trials, and didn't make the team. We thought it interesting the a world class type was all over this opportunity. Interesting times those....

bryant?

Renato has been around a long time. He's seen a lot, and I'll wager he's not telling 1/10th. of what he knows.