Study: EPO Effective, long-lasting- where's J.R.?

So let me make sure I understand. EPO/other blood doping is powerful enough that it rendered an entire decade of cycling results worthless. It allowed Marco Pantani to ride l'Alpe D'Huez in 37:35, or several MINUTES faster than guys like Hinault or Lemond (supposedly a once in a generation physical specimen) were ever able to achieve. It transformed Lance Armstrong from a good one-day racer who could barely finish the 3 week Tour and floundered in the mountains, to a guy who crushed his opponents and gained minutes in the mountains on the top climbers in the world. Its use was endemic in other endurance sports such as XC skiing. It turned good runners like Cathal Lombard into national record holders (as far as I know, mid 28's to 27:30's). It allowed Eddy Helleybuck a late-career resurgence in which he ran better than he had as a young man. It helped Mohammad Mourhit to a couple of world XC championships. And so on....

But somehow, for some mysterious and ever-so-subtle physiological reason, it doesn't provide any noteworthy benefit to the really really top of the heap elite runners?

When you use the less-than sign, the board interprets it as code, just as if you used brackets.Those 2:07 -2:10 guys were not clean either. They just used transfusions instead of epo. Same effect, and it was legal. The banning of blood doping starting in 1986 was followed by a crash in performances in every event from 800 to marathon.Using EPO to boost HCT even higher than transfusions could would have little effect, other than death.

EPO cheats out wrote:

[quote]26mi235 wrote:

EPO turns the 2:07-10 guys from the 1970s/80s into 2:03-05 guys (possibly taking EPO) of today.

Not to quibble, but this should be the Quote of the Day, or Week, or maybe Year. Oh, and it's "Hellebuyck" and I would know because I spelled it just like you did here for many years.

trollism wrote:

J.R. wrote:

I already pointed out that all the so called studies are self serving psuedo science, totally wrong, intentionally misleading, and worthless at best.

Could there ever be a study or situation where you could accept that EPO did improve performances or are you standing by that viewpoint no matter how much evidence contradicts it?

The point is that epo and any other psuedo science are not important ways to improve, and because they are opposites, have to be used in opposition to healthy conditions. The promoting and taking of drugs is the opposite of good health, and there is no better means than being healthy to achieving one's best. The question is how can you achieve this optimum health. The answer is certainly not found in drugs, test tubes, or bogus big pharma advertisements, including the drug testing agencies, which are nothing more than walking billboards for the drugs, and likewise any other delusional drug believers that spew out their nonsense.

deanouk wrote:

What benefits, if any, would long distance guys in the 70s & 80's perceive steroids use would bring them?

Seriously? You can run significantly more mileage. You can train at a significantly higher level of intensity. You can regain lost speed much more quickly. You lose speed much less during a "base" period. You recover from races much more quickly. You recover from injuries much more quickly. Your hematocrit goes up--not to the same extent as with EPO or blood doping, but it can go up to over 50% on anabolics alone. Nutrients are preferentially shunted to muscle and away from fat, resulting in a leaner athlete. If you need to diet, you retain much more muscle and lose more fat.

And so on.

Moronic wrote:

J.R. wrote:

I already pointed out that all the so called studies are self serving psuedo science, totally wrong, intentionally misleading, and worthless at best.

Many thanks for that, I was starting to believe these idiots who keep posting studies by other idiots saying the opposite, but with one sentence you've totally and irrefutably discredited the lot of them.

You're quite welcome.

EPO cheats out wrote:

J.R. wrote:

I already pointed out that all the so called studies are self serving psuedo science, totally wrong, intentionally misleading, and worthless at best.

Rather than 'name calling', do you have anything to back up your stance?

It's worked well for you, so far.

lol lol lol lol wrote:

deanouk wrote:

What benefits, if any, would long distance guys in the 70s & 80's perceive steroids use would bring them?

Seriously? You can run significantly more mileage. You can train at a significantly higher level of intensity. You can regain lost speed much more quickly. You lose speed much less during a "base" period. You recover from races much more quickly. You recover from injuries much more quickly. Your hematocrit goes up--not to the same extent as with EPO or blood doping, but it can go up to over 50% on anabolics alone. Nutrients are preferentially shunted to muscle and away from fat, resulting in a leaner athlete. If you need to diet, you retain much more muscle and lose more fat.

And so on.

Ok, thanks. So why were almost all those caught for steroids use in the 70s & 80s sprinters or power field eventers?

There was testing for steroids during this period, and the only one I can remember being tested for steroids was the Finn (name escapes me at moment) at the LA Olympics, who was also blood doping.

What evidence is there that blood doping was widespread? To me it seemed to be a specifically cultural/national thing. A couple of Italians and finns were caught, that does not imply others, e.g Lopes or Jones were using as well.

High Wire wrote:

O2 transport is still THE determining factor for fast times in the marathon, as it allows relaxed pace and conservation of fuel throughout. AEROBIC means "with oxygen", and the marathon is almost entirely aerobic. If one runner runs it 1% anaerobically and the other has to run 2% anaerobically at the same pace, the former will win.

This is total BS.

J.R. wrote:

I already pointed out that all the so called studies are self serving psuedo science, totally wrong, intentionally misleading, and worthless at best.

This.

der der der der der wrote:

You fail to recognize the basic fact that even at submaximal paces, the heart would not have to work as hard with EPO enhancement, since more OXYGEN is being delivered each stroke. Thus, it makes sense bicyclists not working close to their VO2max would greatly benefit as well.

Who says? Do you not realize that all those extra red blood cells increase blood viscosity and reduce heart rate?

You have all the oxygen transport you will ever need from increased heart rate, increased stroke volume and variable plasma volume? Think about it, I mean actually think instead of just accepting this very old dogma about oxygen transport.

Who the heck was busted for steroids in the 70/80s? Pretty much no one. Not the soviet and east german distance runners. Not the american sprinters. There wasn't even out of competition testing til the late 80s. And there were zero test for blood doping. The finn that was caught in 84 was caught because he doped back in blood from the time he was using steroids.But lets say it is cultural. here is a list of cultures that have been linked to drug use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_athletics .

Please, enough of the 'steroids help you train harder' BS,

The more good training you do, the fitter you get, the fitter you get, the more good training you can do etc etc etc.

Don't you think that good mental and physical health are required for good recovery. How can exogenous steroids give you that better than endogenous steroids?

Don't be naive. Anavar (oxandrolone) was popular among dist. guys both in the US and abroad in the 70s. Winstrol (nandrolone) has always been a favorite because it doesn't lead to muscle hypertrophy and has a nice safety profile...drawback is that is stays in your system for a longer time, ask Dieter Baumann about that one.

Shut up idiot, winstrol isn't nandrolone.

J.R. you seem knowledgeable. Are you an MD or a chemist?

Correction to case Martti Vainio. It is a common missunderstanding, that Vainio got steroids via blood transfusion. He admitted it in his book, that he used injections of primobolan. He bought them fron Italy.

He used that substance whole summer(1984). Vainio was so stupid and thought, that primobolan is testosterone.

Of course he very likely used also blood doping, but that had nothing to do with the steroids.