This is exactly true.
- So many of the top riders were doping (and likely are doping) that for the most part this is a non-issue from a competitive standpoint. If they want to clean up the sport, then clean up the sport, don’t pretend that this is righting a wrong from the past. They all did it, but he was still better.
- EPO is not only legal, it is something our bodies produce naturally. That is why it is so difficult to figure out who is using it and at what level. They do things like test current versus past levels and try to test blood counts, but all of those things can be managed. It’s ability to up rbc counts makes it almost the perfect drug for competitive cyclists.
- Interestingly, I did some research on EPO in a former career (working at a radiation oncology department) and was published on a paper about its effects on patients receiving cancer treatments. This was early on in its adoption for that purpose and it worked splendidly.
That’s my point. If they were all doing it, then either Armstrong was doing it much better than the rest or he was just the better athlete overall, would have still been better if none including Armstrong were “doping”. That doesn’t make what Armstrong or the other cyclist did “right” but it puts it into some perspective IMO.
- EPO is not only legal, it is something our bodies produce naturally. That is why it is so difficult to figure out who is using it and at what level. They do things like test current versus past levels and try to test blood counts, but all of those things can be managed. It’s ability to up rbc counts makes it almost the perfect drug for competitive cyclists.
My understanding is that “doping” is evident as an increase of red blood cells, something that can be also achieved through diet and extreme physical training and as well as from pharmaceutically produced EPO. Is that correct?
- Interestingly, I did some research on EPO in a former career (working at a radiation oncology department) and was published on a paper about its effects on patients receiving cancer treatments. This was early on in its adoption for that purpose and it worked splendidly.
Good point. If Armstrong was taking EPO because of his cancer treatments, would that still be “illegal”?
- Interestingly, I did some research on EPO in a former career (working at a radiation oncology department) and was published on a paper about its effects on patients receiving cancer treatments. This was early on in its adoption for that purpose and it worked splendidly.”
This is one of the things that really bothers me about this. It seems they are trying to lump non-anabolic steroid type procedures and technologies in with anabolic steroids. Perhaps there are some health concerns associated with the use of anabolic steroids (personally I doubt it...but let’s stipulate that that is unhealthy).
Nobody has made the case that EPO is unhealthy. But yet they don’t want it done. Well, just why not? Why shouldn’t every cyclist do EPO?
And what if it turns out that EPO is actually a good thing to do?
What if it turns out that as you sort of note that EPO is a strong immune system stimulant, which fights off cancer?
The problem is, you can’t have that conversation in the light of day, because everyone is so obsessed about punishing those that are “doping”.
I just don’t get it...