Doping

Actually, could you guys check that link and see if you see the podcast, for some reason it's there when I look at the page in IE, but not in firefox... You are also welcome to write a letter to the editor (I'm hoping this study will promote a lot of scientific debate). I promise I'll read it (but not necessarily publish it). https://ees.elsevier.com/thelancethaematology/

sure thing, the link works and the podcast is up and working, thank you,

• edit inc. link from previous page;
  http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhae­/article/PIIS2352-3026(17)30105-9/fullte­xt
  
  

It's certainly generating a lot of controversy already (as I suspected it would). Already got an email from someone in Belgium saying the participants weren't well-trained cyclists (4 W/kg inclusion criteria, EC1 collective would not qualify).

Its being debated at the clinic

Use of amateur cyclists seems to preclude the possibility of a definitive study

I think you might struggle to recruit professional cyclists to participate.

Of course! Still an interesting result

So 6000iu of Epo raises haemaglobin by 6%, which then aids various measures (but not all) of athletic performance. The Telegraph article is ridiculous, as if all the 90s dopers only administered small doeses of Epo, and not as much as was needed to get big increases in haemaglobin.

Even if the gains available are not as dramatic as people have assumed, any performance gain in elite athletes that are trained to their physiological maximums, will have a dramatic effect on performance compared to their undoped competitors.

I haven't actually read the telegraph article (I'm a bit afraid to), but I think @gav has summed it up pretty nicely. The comment (which came in too late to be published at the same time as the paper, but will be published soon) says pretty much the same thing. Hopefully people will actually read the paper.

Edit: seems like people are actually looking at it, it's got an altmetric score of 147 already.

One of the inclusion criteria was that the participant had to make sure they were not subject to any form of doping control to take part in the study.

This is pretty much the first blinded randomised controlled trial of EPO in healthy volunteers which are pretty well trained, so it's quite interesting from that aspect of things as well.

Just to add, some forms of doping will have benefits that stop accruing as the dose increases, there will be intrinsic barriers within the athlete. Over time some forms of doping will lose it's effect.

Epo (and blood transfusions) are the perfect drug in a way, since the performance gains will be in an essentially linear relationship to haemaglobin count, up until you get heart failure/stroke/etc. And you can turn them off and on again, want a boost, infuse blood, get your performance gain. Got a test coming up, dilute the blood or venesection.

I agree.

You also need to factor in fatigue, as you race a three week long GT your red blood cell count diminishes. Taking EPO will reverse that, which probably means any decline in performance will slow.

Definitely, and finally if Epo and RBC use doesn't improve performances significantly, why are the athletic performances recorded during the Epo era so much better than the times being recorded now?

I know it's Fancy Bears again but has no-one told Mo Farah PR that the "he never failed a test" defence didn't work so well?

You've almost given enough information there for people to know what you're talking about. You are losing your touch.

#dailymail #doping #antipasti

Here's Bernard Sainz on the way to his own trial with his Movistar team suitcase.

http://www.pulse.ng/sports/tennis/bernard-sainz-french-court-seeks-prison-term-for-doping-doctor-id6942765.html

1 Attachment

My EPO paper has gotten 13 809 page views this week and is most read article on thelancet.com.

Thanks to everyone here who looked at it! (still free if you want to read it but haven't yet). Linked comment which will put it into better context will be published tomorrow evening.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhae/article/PIIS2352-3026(17)30105-9/fulltext

Classic Lance-esque defence of Mo Farah by his spokesperson
here.

“Regardless, any suggestion of misconduct is entirely false and seriously misleading. Mo Farah has been subject to many blood tests during his career and has never failed a single one. We have never been informed of any of Mo’s test results being outside of the legal parameters set by the relevant authorities, nor has Mo ever been contacted by the IAAF about any individual result. It is totally incorrect and defamatory to suggest otherwise, and we will pursue any claims to the contrary through all necessary legal routes.”

What's this relating too? Is there new evidence of him doping?

More Fancy Bears leaks - it looks like Farah was flagged up under the IAAF biological passport scheme. More here;

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/jul/05/mo-farah-suspected-cleared-doping-iaaf-expert

The PDF listing the 40 atheletes also list the number of samples held for each athlete and Mo had 70-odd samples taken; second on the list has had 24. They've been after him.

Ah. So nothing concrete on him.

But if you trip the bio passport, somethings up.

Understandably, if he's tripped the passport. But they've not got him...

One for @Doctor_Cake , although she may have seen it already;

https://drmarkburnley.wordpress.com/2017/07/07/epo-does-not-work-or-how-randomised-controlled-trials-will-fail-if-the-nuts-and-bolts-are-faulty/