When did someone else's BLOOD become a DRUG?

This is part of the double standard of WADA/USADA.

It is ok to take infusions of saline, iron and B vitamins (all man-made substances), but when you infuse a NATURAL substance, namely blood, it becomes the same as snorting cocaine, illegal.

...is the notion that if you inject your OWN BLOOD, that YOU MADE, you are in violation of anti-doping rules. I will never for the life of me understand this. How about any type of surgical procedure that could aid you? Possible liposuction to take off that little bit of weight that you can't seem to get off no matter how much you train? How about a life-saving procedure that you recover from fully, then go onto compete at a high level? I in no way advocate the use of synthetic chemicals to increase results, but what about the day when you will be able to replace used up body parts with new ones, i.e. organs, bones or even whole limbs? Will this be performance enhancing since it wasn't a natural course that got you to the next level of performance? Just some things I think about sometimes?

heres a few points to help you understand.Blood doping first came to the attention of a wider public following the 1972 Munich Olympics, when a double gold medallist reported he had used the procedure prior to the games. The ergogenic effects of blood doping were to increase maximal oxygen uptake during endurance activities, by increasing the amount of circulating haemoglobin.

Ekblom (1972) described the procedure explicitly. 1-4 units of an athlete's blood are removed over a 3-8 week period and stored in a freezer. These stored blood cells are then re-infused to the athlete (autologous transfusion) 1-7 days before the event. This procedure produces an increase of up to 20% in red blood cells and haemoglobin, which remains elevated for about two weeks. The increased haemoglobin level produces an increase in the oxygen carrying capability of the athlete's circulatory system.

More recently, some endurance athletes have taken to intravenous injection of recombinant erythropoietin (EPO) to get similar effects to the blood doping method mentioned above. Human erythropoietin is produced naturally by the kidneys. The kidneys release an enzyme - erythrogenin - that transforms plasma globulin to erythropoietin, under conditions of hypoxia (for this reason exposure to altitude has a similar physiological effect). Erythropoietin is a glycoprotein which stimulates erythropoiesis in bone marrow and raises the level of circulating haemoglobin. This has been shown to increase aerobic power (Ekblom and Berglund, 1991) and thus endurance performance. Casoni et al (1993) also demonstrated an increase in the levels of circulating red blood cells and haematocrit.

this help?

bravo junior, however that might be alittle advanced for someone who doesnt understand how blood doping is wrong.

Not surprisingly, this thread immediately went off on a different track than I intended.

My point was simply that the headline on the front page is factually incorrect. Tyler Hamilton has not tested positive for taking drugs. He has tested positive (only on the "A" sample so far) for injecting someone else's blood in his body. I am not saying that this method of performance enhancement shouldn't be illegal, just that the Brojos should change the headline.

USADA/ WADA prohibit not only certain SUBSTANCES, but also certain METHODS. Something like HGH is a prohibited substance, something like a transfusion is a prohibited method.

It's not hypocritical because the governing bodies lay all this out in their literature, so the athletes have access to it if they have any questions.

If the blood comes from a surgical procedure (and very few require a blood transfusion), then it would be a legitimate medical reason and there would be violation (at least that is my understanding).

You are jumping way ahead on the organ replacement. It is not as simple as you make it out to be.

OK really people. It is time to stop! Stop accusing the Saratoga girls of being on drugs, without any proof. Nicole Blood and the rest of them, are just nice girls who work hard.

Read my post again. Did I say it was hypocritical? No. How hard is it to understand a simple criticism of the word selection in the headline on the front page?

I'd have to say the BroJos are correct on this one. When you take anything that has a biochemical effect on you, it is a drug. It is very, very dangerous to blood dope, not to mention put some one else's blood in you if it is not properly tested. The volume of blood that your body is circulating while blood doping is much greater than what it normally does, and any defect in your heart or vasculature can be amplified and serious health problems can occur. Not to mention that you're a lowlife if you blood dope in sport and should be banned for life.

We haven't heard from fatitfals (thinittru ... whatever) yet. How about it, slimitgenuin? What's your take?

this help?[/quote]

Hey Stupid F***,

The point of my post was not that I needed a history or a summary of how it works. I know how to do it and I know it works-that has been discussed to death on this board, the question is how is fault generated by governing bodies from using something that I made, i.e. my property, for the benefit of my performance against others. Some of you simpletons can't seem to get this idea through your thick skulls. In your mind, a rule is a rule, and we "better not question the rule." So my point lies more in the realm of "I made it I own it, why can't I use it." If I make it and it never leaves my body, what is the difference? Are you seriously telling me that that is the line of distiction? Storage and re-introduction? In a court of law, I don't know if you could argue that point. There have been other posts about living at altitude, and altitude tents, what's the difference-once again storage and re-introduction? Some of you have a real problem thinking outside the old proverbial box. Yes, I realize the "oooh scary danger" involved, but isn't that a personal choice? People speed everyday and put themselves in harms way, once again, a personal choice. For some reason when it comes to subjects of directly dealing with health and the body, people want to take the individuals right to choose away. Why is this? The body may be one big bio-chemical factory, but the products and by products it produces are mine and I should be able to use them in any way I see fit.

As far as replacement parts, once again, thinking way, way, in the future. If I can rebuild myself with newer parts, is it cheating? Remember, once again, my genetic material, for my use and my benefit.

Hey 'tard,

The point is that people like you can't tell people WHY it is wrong, you just follow the next person. That makes you a lemming. Just get in line and follow the next person in front of you, don't look around, and don't question anything.

Speaking for the simpletons, the difference between blood doping and making your own blood is that it is physiologically impossible to produce the amount of red blood cells on your own as you can produce by surgically removing blood and then re-introducing it. So, you see, you haven't made this blood cell count on your own--you've used science to boost it ... the same way EPO helps you to "make your own" blood cell count much higher.

Along the same lines, you wouldn't be allowed to harvest your own testosterone over a period of months, then reintroduce it all at once in order to boost your testosterone levels above the levels allowed by WADA.

As for using what your body produces any way you see fit--you're welcome to do it. But if you want to participate in a sport with rules, you'll have to amend that freedom of use. Your insistence that the rules of sport shouldn't apply to those who "think outside the box" doesn't make much sense to me. Because you're free to exercise your "personal choice" and not participate. But that doesn't mean that everyone else in the sport has to go along with you; demanding that the rules be altered just because you don't like them is just, well, childish.

are you as stupid as your reply would lead one to suggest? iF you donate blood, can you search the medical records find out where it went and take it back because its yours??? Its not a case of one better not question a rule, what it is however is respect for the governing body of our sport who are acting with the athletes best interest in mind. you highlighted yourself that there is a degree of danger associated with blood doping.Speeding is hardly a great example as it is illegal, sure people do it, but they get caught and must suffer the consequences. You say you understand what blood doping entails, obviously not and if you DID you would understand what makes it cheating. Approximately six weeks before competition an athlete withdraws one to four units of his/her blood (1 unit = 450 ml of blood). The blood is centrifuged and the athlete then immediately reinfuses the plasma components.

The remaining red blood cells are placed in cold storage.This is where your "LINE OF DISTINCTION" is made.

"If I make it and it never leaves my body, what is the difference? Are you seriously telling me that that is the line of distiction? Storage and re-introduction?"

Yes i am seriously telling you there is a line of distinction. The six week time frame before re introduction is important. Why? This is how long it takes an individual to RESTORE THE LOST BLOOD...In short the body replaces the blood you extracted, naturally.(see the problem when you then add the extracted blood)

Between 1 to 7 days before the event, the athlete reinfuses the red blood cells placed in storage. When this process is performed accurately, an athlete can increase his/her hemoglobin level and red blood cell count by up to 20%. This provides the body with an increased oxygen level to greater improve athletic performance and increase the body's potential.

The effects of blood doping are boosted when the athlete trains at a high altitude. At high altitudes, the athlete's body, which is used to an hypoxic state, will compensate by increasing red blood cell production. When the athlete moves down to a low altitude, their body is engulfed with oxygen rich red blood cells, helping their performance. The athlete then further boosts their body's oxygen level by infusing the stored red blood cells

Your argument of its mine and thats that doesnt suffice, its raw and wouldnt stand up in primary school never mind a court. I do however see your point, calling people bad names and simpletons is hardly a good way to persuade them. Laws are passed and implemented for the best interests of the athletes. Yes we can question them, but when you read the background work you will understand that they are in place for a reason.

You are a complete IDIOT...

When people speed they not only put themselves in harms way they put others around them in harms way too and thus that is why it is illegal. Now if you own a huge thing of property you can speed on it all you want. Just as you can blood dope all you want, but if you do it within the boundaries of sport (like speeding on public roads) it is against the law. The way speeding can harm others around you, by you blood doping you could be "injuring" others.

And thats only the beginning

Even more insane.... makes a good argument.

BUT... rules is rules. If you don't like 'em, don't play. When the human body is capable of rebuilding itself with newer p-arts, that will be banned, too.

junior wrote:

heres a few points to help you understand.Blood doping first came to the attention of a wider public following the 1972 Munich Olympics, when a double gold medallist reported he had used the procedure prior to the games. The ergogenic effects of blood doping were to increase maximal oxygen uptake during endurance activities, by increasing the amount of circulating haemoglobin.

While the post was an excellent description of the procedure when did the double gold medalist admit to using the procedure?

A number of EPO users have dropped dead. Should an honest person have to take that risk just to be competitive?