Canova was right! EPO does not work on trained athletes

Interested Cyclist wrote:

This stuff has been available online for years now.

Why did you order some online several years ago? 😉

kh wrote:

I am glad this article came out.

The pharma kings have been pushing EPO as a performance enhancer to make billions, but it's all placebo. Thankfully it's being challenged, as Canova has stated - EPO does not make a 12:37 guy a 12:20 guy. Just not possible.

I think everyone forgets that Armstrong, Hamilton, etc., were taking a cocktail of drugs, including testosterone and HGH.. both proven to work (and kill).

Plain BS 👎.T & HGH aren’t proven to increase aerobic capicity - just present one study that it does...I'll be waiting.

Secondly, Armstrong admits that low-octane doping was involved when he won the Worlds in 93, but explains he was getting his "ass kicked" the following year by high-octane dopers. That's why he consulted with Ferrari for a high-octane doping program, and obviously he became a high-responder. Do you really think he would have become a freaking 7-time Tour Champ and one of the best climbers in the history of cycling without O2-vector doping??? FFS, the man has the 4th & 6th fastest all-time ascents up Alpe d'Huez!

Watch his presentation last year at the Univ.of Colorado where he explains the details of high-octane doping. He says rocket fuel gave him a "10%" increase in performance, which is on par with what other top GC contenders have reported. And now you've got a top mountain domestique for Alberto Contador and top 20 GC guy (Cardoso) testing positive for rocket fuel, and people think it doesn't really work..way too funny. High-octane doping is a game changer in the professional cycling....who could have imagined.

High-Octane Doping wrote:

FFS, the man has the 4th & 6th fastest all-time ascents up Alpe d'Huez!

Watch his presentation last year at the Univ.of Colorado where he explains the details of high-octane doping. He says rocket fuel gave him a "10%" increase in performance, which is on par with what other top GC contenders have reported. And now you've got a top mountain domestique for Alberto Contador and top 20 GC guy (Cardoso) testing positive for rocket fuel, and people think it doesn't really work..way too funny. High-octane doping is a game changer in the professional cycling....who could have imagined.

https://youtu.be/fshoz6cnKPY

10% increase in power would be expected from an approximate 30% increase in hemoglobin mass. Hemoglobin of 14 going up to 18+, or hematocrit of about 42 going up to 55+. That is not at all what took place in the study, nor could it for ethical reasons.

This study is like someone running 30-40 miles a week for 8 weeks and then proclaiming "high mileage doesn't work."

Dr. Michele Ferrari is playing you ,

using spin and the media and lies to muddy the waters on whole subject

using fake science etc to achieve these ends.

whatever these agenda's , like original article ,

they are deliberate actions and he will continue to help dope athletes

with epo etc because it works and works real good .

1.

exact same tactics's of the original epo doesnt work apoligist conova..............

all the more epo and peds for me to use on my athletes in east africa.

this whole B.S i am sure can be traced back to wada/iaaf .............

they are a bunch of satanic ,vile, deceivers and liars and want to control

narrative in the sport totally , only these athletes will do this in this event etc .

so many agendas , not to mention the transgender one in womens 800m

no coincidence at this stage , absolutely carefully engineered from top

2.

they are achieving this narrative in sport by now controling how doping

is conducted , not testing for certain peds and trying to control there availability , ie the speed peptide

also leaving loopholes open so only athletes at top can dope properly

either if chosen ones or have connections to big players

ie . no isotope testosterone test or test for many many other forms of epo etc

3.

the other card of controlling doping is , freedom to dope, or manipulating testing procedure . certains area's where wont test or previously did'nt

and again as they have total control , you have to take their word for it

which is worthless.

using their insider managers /coaches to conduct doping camps /training

camps for longer distance usually in east africa but can be anywhere like oregon or for sprinters in london with certain coach.

a certain african 800m has regained some form now gone to oregon

or a young japanese chosen sprinter moving all way to london to train.

If I have found a handful of shortcomings and limitations on the inquiry even before it was published, I find it difficult to jump fully into the bandwagon of the enthusiasts after it is published even when every second publication has headline such as "EPO doesn't work, study proves".

I naturally find the Mt. Ventoux part of the study most interesting, but having written the following almost exactly a year ago, I find even this finding somewhat troubling:

In any case, it is not clear how applicable this research is to other sports, even if the findings were true as there exists blood reinfusion data from placebo-controlled and double blinded time trial type inquiries where athletes with aerobic capabilities similar to these subjects (~60 ml/kg/min) have performed remarkably well after artificial elevation of hemoglobin concentration. It is interesting that some of the authors of the Dutch project criticized the existing literature in 2013 on using recreational athletes and went as far to claim that "[t]his highlights a very problematic aspect, which is that the studies do not use well-trained cyclists, still less elite or world-class cyclists, who would be expected to have Vo2MAX values above 70 ml kg−1 min−1 (5 l min−1) and power outputs above 5 W kg−1".

I do agree with Heuberger and Cohen that people are really bad in connecting cause and effect and evaluating many aspects of their performance not to mention the ever-present placebo effect. When one subject of the first (un-controlled) Swedish blood doping inquiry from early 1970s described his feeling that he was "boiling with energy", I find it curious that 62 % of this rEPO group had the impression that they were riding on "Eau claire".

Armstrong's borderline meaningless reference to "10 %" falls into the same subjective category and and he is either wrong or lying if he claims that his competitors of 1993 were not using rEPO. There is evidence from team Telekom that the Oslo bronze medalist Olaf Ludwig prepared for the 1993 road race WC with rEPO and I find unlikely that he was alone in doing so.

Endurance Sport Doping wrote:

EPO may becoming obsolete with the emerging HIFs (oral EPO). One type, FG4592, showed no profound alterations to the ABP. Only the ABPS reached, but did not exceed the the upper limit of the parameters. Interesting read:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26808067

This is concerning. Good news for Morocco.

beg to differ, pharma companies don't care about athletic market......

why is there a trent of their research drugs being used on athletes

even when still in trials and even if not ever approved .

1.

HgH used by carl lewis way before hit market ,

his source came straight from the company .

>>This sadly is likely to be true, HGH appears still to be difficult to detect. The rumour for many years was that the California sprint scene was rife with this drug in the 1980s. And FloJo took far too much of a bad batch acquired off the black market, hence she is dead.

2.

micera was another example used by select few big names ,bekele etc

from 2002 till summer 2008 all while still in trial .

this is lances by far best epo to ever hit scene.

>>This is very true but elite's, apart from Ramzi, stopped using it c.2006. Notice the drop off in men's annual bests post-2006.

3.

Gw501516 , endurance drug that hit scene 2009 - banned winter 2013

only went through the basic drug trials then stopped ,

nasty stuff but worked amazingly well in certain events rudisha being one

many athletes that used it never quite at same level after use.

>>Incorrect, Cardarine was detectable from 2009. It was used by elites c.2001-2007. If it was rife one would suspect that retesting stored samples would result in an avalanche of positives, unless WADA/IAAF/IOC/UCI are actually not re-testing samples and are lying to us or they have a weak test (to my knowledge this is not the case as GlaxoSmithKline help build the test). Nonetheless, this drug is everywhere in pro-Rugby, Rugby League has had numerous scandals in Australia and NFL would be another step up in saturation levels again.

>>Rudisha, I don't know, maybe.

4.

IGF-1 lr3 the king of peds , the speed peptide

is only a research drug but has revolutionised sport .

hit scene with liu xiang and then jamicans and now south africans

and know the rest .

needs to be pharma grade and quite hard to get hands on it

>>>Isn't this expensive? Plain old insulin maybe used instead. Not well detected, but is dangerous.

Aragon wrote:

Armstrong's borderline meaningless reference to "10 %" falls into the same subjective category and and he is either wrong or lying if he claims that his competitors of 1993 were not using rEPO. There is evidence from team Telekom that the Oslo bronze medalist Olaf Ludwig prepared for the 1993 road race WC with rEPO and I find unlikely that he was alone in doing so.

LA doesn't claim that his competitors at the 93 Worlds (Olso) weren't using rHuEPO. In that CU presentation, he states that he didn't use EPO, and that "low-octane " doping was only involved with his victory, which I take it to be T, steriods, cortisone, etc. How many of the other competitors in that race were using EPO? I don't think any us know with any degree of certainty. Was Team Motorola involved with EPO back then? Again, does anyone know?

LA said he didn't start using rHuEPO until the spring of 95 after consulting with Ferrari. Recall from the CU presentation, he said he was tired of getting his "ass kicked" by the EPO users after won the Worlds. And in both of his first 2 Tours (93 & 94) he drops out after the first high mt stage. In 95, after starting EPO, he finishes 36th (1h 28' down), which isn't bad for his first completed Tour with a just a small build-up period of a few months on EPO. The following year he drops out again, but at that point he's already ill with metastatic cancer.

Post-cancer, back on rHuEPO, and after restructuring his training, he becomes one of the best climbers in cycling history. 4th & 5th all-time fastest ascents up Alpe d'Huez, going nuclear & winning mt. top finishes at Ventoux, Luz Ardiden, Alpe d'Huez...and dropping world-class climbers like they're amateurs! 😄. If LA isn't a high-responder to oxygen-vector doping, then I don’t who is.

And this is where you're incredulous of the high-responder concept of 02-vector doping. We debated the cases with Ramzi & Mourhit, which are comical with both of their rapid improvement in times, and particularly Ramzi going nuclear at Helsinki (double gold) with those astronomically high off-scores...who would have thought.

Interested Cyclist wrote:

10% increase in power would be expected from an approximate 30% increase in hemoglobin mass. Hemoglobin of 14 going up to 18+, or hematocrit of about 42 going up to 55+. That is not at all what took place in the study, nor could it for ethical reasons.

Another rider who said he got a 10%+ increase in power from doping was 2007 Giro winner Danilo Di Luca: "Doping improves your performance between 5 and 7 percent, and maybe 10 to 12 percent when you are in a peak shape. If I had never doped, I wouldn’t have ever won.”

He doesn't mention his baseline crit nor the levels he boosted to. He's had 3 positives both pre-ABP & during the passport era (one for CERA), and he's a lifer (imagine that). 07 Giro winner & several Classic victories.

An Extra Litre of Blood wrote:

Endurance Sport Doping wrote:

EPO may becoming obsolete with the emerging HIFs (oral EPO). One type, FG4592, showed no profound alterations to the ABP. Only the ABPS reached, but did not exceed the the upper limit of the parameters. Interesting read:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26808067

This is concerning. Good news for Morocco.

No...I would say Russia. They have a big problem staying within the boundaries of the ABP - they're the world leaders in passport sanctions.😄

As I've pointed out in the other thread, it isn't that clear whether LA means that he himself was "EPO free" or that the competition of the 1993 Road Race Championship was. In the light that he made the following claim about the era in a CN interview in 2013, I think he might be referring to the latter:

LA: Again I don’t know what others did or didn’t do, and I don’t want to get into the details, but at some point cycling switched from low-octane to high-octane. I don’t know who had made that switch to high-octane first. In Motorola, we had not in 1993. It’s well documented that we did make that switch in 1995, but in the years before, we were low-octane [Armstrong later defined "low-octane" as meaning "Cortisone, etc"– ed.] That worked okay in 1993 but it did not work okay in 1994. In that winter between '93 and '94, there was a tectonic shift.

As your quotation about Di Luca clearly states, he isn't referring to "power" but to the ever-present "performance" which is never defined.

In case that there are any new readers interested in this specific subject, I'll advice them to read the thread where LA was discussed as there is zero new information here:

Aduck, every time you write something, you are able to better your own WR of idiocy. I don't have any word for describing how mental sick you are.

Sorry for people living around you.

Renato Canova wrote:

Aduck, every time you write something, you are able to better your own WR of idiocy. I don't have any word for describing how mental sick you are.

Sorry for people living around you.

Renato, I hope you write a memoir. Too much is in your head to let it all vanish into nothing when you leave for good.

Coming back to the research, probably I can surprise somebody if I say that this research can't demonstrate anything.

If we want really to see if, how and when EPO works, we need to have a LONGITUDINAL research (this means comparing data pre, during and after EPO assumption for the same cyclist or runner), and not TRASVERSAL.

Put in your mind that the individual situation, and reactions to the same type of pharma (maybe doping or not) are very, very much different, so every time some researcher writes about "average", automatically this research loses any scientific value.

In LR, it seems there are a lot of people very expert of doping : many speak about strange names and number of medicines, many speak about their effect, BUT NOBODY OF THEM IS REALLY EXPERT OF TRAINING.

Also, somebody starts a thread with the title "Canova was right ! EPO does not work on trained athletes", but this is not what I always said :

1) EPO works (in lower percentage than what people think) with all athletes and cyclists trained in traditional way

2) EPO works (in very little percentage) also with athletes and cyclists training at 90% of their potential, also using some training in altitude

3) EPO DOESN'T WORK for the athletes at the top of the world (who already have different qualities than the best in the world, but not at the top) born, living and training ALWAYS in high altitude.

This means that the category of athletes with whom EPO doesn't have any effect is formed by very few people : who already have some different physiological quality, giving them a special gift under the aerobic point of view (and for that reason they are, or were, able to run WR and times out of the possibility of the other athletes).

We can't compare cyclists and runners, too many differences between the two specialisms. And we can't compare a runner of 800 or 1500m like Ramzi with marathon runners : also in this case, the physiological demand is completely different.

If we go to analyze a competition of bike, we see fundamental differences with the activity of a runner :

a) The duration (from 4 to 8 hours, comparing with durations of 3' - 2 hr)

b) The type of effort (bikers have continue variation of the level of intensity, and have the ability to produce level of lactate very high, while for runners the intensity is always at the same level for all the duration of the race, if long, or is continuously growing till the end of the competition, if short)

c) The percentage of Threshold athletes use, very different inside the various athletic distances, but well identified, so everybody can chose the right distance (for him) and the right duration, while for cyclists there is one option only, since everybody has to run the same distance of the others and can't chose to avoid the specialism where is not talented (also sprinters have to climb 5 mountains in the same stage of TdF, if they want to have the final classification)

d) The different level of muscle strength they need for improving their performances : a cyclist can run faster because able to improve the frequency of the action, but, using a mechanical mean, can also improve becoming able to push a gear with one tooth more, and this means to use more strength. For any athlete of long distances, this never happens, because the improvement comes from the ability to reduce the decrease of the speed, and is connected with enzymatic and metabolic situations.

e) The fact that the most important competition for cyclists are organized with 20 continuous stages (Tour de France, Giro d'Italia and Vuelta de Espana), so the ability to recover for the next day is the most important factor for winning these races. In athletics, the recovery day by day is not so important : is not true that 3 hard session per week are better than 2, or than 1 every 5 days, if the session has very high intensity.

f) Runners can modulate their recovery looking at the level of tireness they have : if too tired, they can open the recovery using an easy day more, or a free day too. Cyclists can't decide about their recovery, because they are not alone, but depend on the situations of the race, that the most part of time is out of their control

There are still a lot of other differences, but what I wrote above is already enough for explaining the impossibility to compare cyclists and runners as kind of effort. The two sports are very far one from another, and the physiological requests are completely different.

We can continue with other elements of discussion, after some other intervention about what I wrote.

I see already I became a metropolitan legend.

I NEVER SAID STEROIDS DON'T WORK FOR AFRICAN, INSTEAD I SAID STEROIDS IS THE 95% OF THE DOPING OF AFRICAN.

I don't pretend everybody has read what I wrote in the past, but people can't continue to put in my mouth something I NEVER SAID.

Renato Canova wrote:

1) EPO works (in lower percentage than what people think) with all athletes [ when not fully trained ];

2) EPO works (in very little percentage) also with athletes [ not fully trained];

3) EPO DOESN'T WORK for the athletes [ fully trained, & best conditions ].

This is like saying that drinking orange juice works like magic (but not as much as people think) if you're dehydrated and starving, but otherwise doesn't help. So the question with "helps" is, in comparison to what? The answer is, only in comparison to being deficient.

Therefore, orange juice is not magic!!!! To the contrary, simply to be normally not deficient, and orange juice does nothing. To this I agree, thus synthetic Epo supplementation is not magic either. The drug issues are entirely smoke and mirrors and not helpful at all.

I wouldn't be surprised in the least that Armstrong, De Luca and others have been PAID big time by big pharma companies to say that they won by using drug cocktails, which in fact had nothing to do with their training or victories.

Very clear what is going on here with wada / iaaf and their agents ..................

The complete control of doping within the sport .

And very nearly their , will control the peds , the coaches ,the testing ...

who wins and any agenda's ,countries etc want to push .

that is the very purpose of wada , to control the narrative ,

money involved helps too.

1.

Wada ban stuff like meldonium and unlease massive media campaign

then release similar chemical that they wont test and give to select few athletes

are you going to hear about it as same moneymen have near total control

of media .

similar with the speed peptide , wont mention nor test it but it is there

this is the future of doping ..................... pure deception .

the media and these elite want to control everything and just serial liars

many times just lying for sake of it

2.

and many fools will believe that is legit with more and more propagandist

articles like this and agent coaches like ferrari and certain drug pusher above

traitor to his country and cant get a straight answer, liar ,agent, deceiver

one who calls himself a legend says alot .

just like now say have testosterone problem in womens athletics , no way .

a problem they deliberately created themselves ,so could push this transgender social engineering rubbish that comes from top few elite.

you are been played , conned hence goes his name .

Renato Canova wrote:

3) EPO DOESN'T WORK for the athletes at the top of the world (who already have different qualities than the best in the world, but not at the top) born, living and training ALWAYS in high altitude.

Well, since this claim can never be tested, it's an utterly meaningless statement. Why are you wasting everybody's time with this?