# Blood Doping



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

I am curious as to the thoughts of the forum about riders transfusing their own blood.

Do you think it should be illegal if it is only their own blood (i.e. no doping products, others blood or tampered with blood)?

I was reading an article about transfusions and I am starting to question whether this should be illegal if monitored properly.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Most of the time it is their own blood. In the old days, they'd transfuse about a pint of whole blood and have to take Lasix to avoid pulmonary edema, although there was still a risk for clots. I can't remember when it began, but most guys will donate a pint of their own blood and spin everything off but the RBCs, aka packed red blood cells/PRBCs. 

However, it's cheating and not safe practice for healthy individuals with adequate blood counts to be transfused.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Perico said:


> I am curious as to the thoughts of the forum about riders transfusing their own blood.
> 
> Do you think it should be illegal if it is only their own blood (i.e. no doping products, others blood or tampered with blood)?
> 
> I was reading an article about transfusions and I am starting to question whether this should be illegal if monitored properly.




The practice is obviously, cheating, fraudulent, unethical. Please explain how it would be otherwise.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

blackjack- It's only cheating, fraudulent and unethical if the rules say so. In other words you really did not respond to my question. 

By the way, you have no need for a comma after the word "obviously" and after the word "fraudulent" but you should have an "and" in that spot.

Now on to the actual question:

spade2you: I understand this and that is why I said "if monitored properly."


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Perico said:


> spade2you: I understand this and that is why I said "if monitored properly."


If they were being "monitored properly", we'd most likely see that their H&H was normal and thus should not be transfused.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Perico said:


> blackjack- It's only cheating, fraudulent and unethical if the rules say so. In other words you really did not respond to my question.
> 
> By the way, you have no need for a comma after the word "obviously" and after the word "fraudulent" but you should have an "and" in that spot.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the grammar lesson. Now back to substantive issues.

You're confusing your there, their, and they're, on other threads btw..




Perico said:


> I am curious as to the thoughts of the forum about riders transfusing their own blood.


Cheating Fraudulent Unethical.



Perico said:


> Do you think it should be illegal if it is only their own blood (i.e. no doping products, others blood or tampered with blood)?


It should be illegal under all circumstances except the legitimate medical reasons for which transfusions were used. Under those circumstances most people rely on homologous transfusions. Why would any normal person bank their own blood.



Perico said:


> I was reading an article about transfusions and I am starting to question whether this should be illegal if monitored properly..


Please explain the confusion. To my thinking there should be no confusion at all.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

spade2you- Touche!

blacjack- Interesting how you say "Thanks for the grammar lesson. Now back to substantive issues." and then try to give your own grammar lesson. You sure seem to spend a lot of time telling people not to do things that you do. By the way you are wrong, but thanks for trying. Back to the topic, you have typed a lot of words, but simply repeated yourself for most of it and the part that isn't simply a repeat doesn't say much at all. Nice try, but another case of excessive failure on your part.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Perico said:


> spade2you- Touche!
> 
> blacjack- Interesting how you say "Thanks for the grammar lesson. Now back to substantive issues." and then try to give your own grammar lesson. You sure seem to spend a lot of time telling people not to do things that you do. *By the way you are wrong, but thanks for trying. * Back to the topic, you have typed a lot of words, but simply repeated yourself for most of it and the part that isn't simply a repeat doesn't say much at all. Nice try, but another case of excessive failure on your part.


What I've said has been factually correct and on point and I've repeatedly asked you to please point out where I haven't been factually correct.

You write that I'm wrong, and have done so repeatedly, but you never get around to pointing out what I'm wrong about.

You posts, otoh, are almost completely devoid of substance.

Thanks for pointing out my grammar and spelling mistakes. You've made yours too which I've reciprocally pointed out. 

Is there a spell check on here? I'm unaware of it if it exists.

Am I correct in stating that grammar and spelling aren't the main issues being discussed here?


----------



## jlandry (Jan 12, 2007)

I like the smell of my own farts.


----------



## pigpen (Sep 28, 2005)

jlandry said:


> I like the smell of my own farts.


And I thought I was the only one.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

pigpen said:


> And I thought I was the only one.



What that kind of observation leads to is metaphysics.

It's been noted that there's "57 channels but nothing on" before.

Even a widely acknowledged masterpiece such as _War and Peace_ often leads to an unsatisfying ending.

Johnny Cougar told us that "nothing matters and what if it did?"


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Care to pass along a link to the article? Could make for interesting reading.

As for transfusions, they should be illegal when used to create an advantage in sports. Athletes should not be putting their health at risk to gain an advantage in cycling.

I question the monitoring that would be done by doctors who would willingly engage in such practices. First, they are engaging in practices for which there is no medical need, as spade2you pointed out. Also, there is the question of pushing the limits. Would the team be paying the doctor's salary? At what point do they go beyond a somewhat safe hematocrit level to get an advantage and secure a better paycheck for themselves.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

While there's the moral/ethical aspect of doping, I suspect that a big part of the ban on most doping is that most are simply unsafe for the riders. If riders could safely use roids, amphetamines, blood products, etc, perhaps they wouldn't be verboten!


----------



## Eyorerox (Feb 19, 2008)

Is training at high altitude doping ?


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

Eyorerox said:


> Is training at high altitude doping ?


No but sleeping is a low O2 tent may be.


----------



## clipz (Aug 28, 2008)

Coolhand said:


> No but sleeping is a low O2 tent may be.


didn't landis have one?


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

spade2you said:


> If they were being "monitored properly", we'd most likely see that their H&H was normal and thus should not be transfused.


Exactly. 

Blood doping, transfusing your own stored blood, to raise your O2 carrying capacity above your normal physiologically attainable levels, is dangerous.

Your blood is a slurry of cells, mostly red blood cells, floating in a fluid of water salts and proteins called plasma. Your hematocrit is the ratio of blood cells to fluid. Doping adds more cells to the mix and increases the hematocrit. More cells makes the blood thicker and clot more readily, risking stroke, myocardial infarction and pulmonary embolism.

So if you legalized doping you'd have to make sure the "crit" did not get too high to risk injury. So to monitor legal doping you'd have to measure H&H and set an abitrary "safe" level. But it turns out that evolution has been setting this level pretty well for us over the centuries. Normal is good, and raising our hematocrits a few % above the normal has pretty high risk.

So I agree with Spade, the safest blood doping would maintain a normal crit, meaning *no doping*.

Thus I also agree with Jack, a doctor, coach or trainer recomending doping is *unethical*. And based on rules that exist for safety and fairplay, it is fraudulent and cheating.


----------



## mymilkexpired (Apr 21, 2004)

pigpen said:


> And I thought I was the only one.


I bank mine for later use. You know, when I lack the digestive performance to produce. I transfuse...


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

clipz said:


> didn't landis have one?


Not sure, but the boy in your avatar did.

http://www.active.com/fitness/Artic..._tents_be_allowed_for_endurance_athletes_.htm

Shaun Wallace, a former British Olympic cyclist who is a Hypoxico vice president, estimates that 400 or more top athletes are using such tents. Besides Radcliffe, the converts include three-time Tour de France winner *Lance Armstrong*, American world-record swimmer Ed Moses, and Michellie Jones, the Australian triathlete who won a silver medal at the Sydney Olympics.


----------



## parity (Feb 28, 2006)

clipz said:


> didn't landis have one?


Yes, as seen in the movie 'Bigger, Stronger, Faster. You can see it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUYok77mMCk


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

This thread is hilarious. You guys are brilliant!


----------



## chase196126 (Jan 4, 2008)

Perico said:


> I am curious as to the thoughts of the forum about riders transfusing their own blood.
> 
> Do you think it should be illegal if it is only their own blood (i.e. no doping products, others blood or tampered with blood)?
> 
> I was reading an article about transfusions and I am starting to question whether this should be illegal if monitored properly.


No, transfusing your own blood, or anyone else’s for that matter, for performance enhancement should never be legal in any sport. EVER. 

It is dangerous to do under the best circumstances and deadly beyond that. If the practice was made legal how many young amateurs would end up killing themselves trying to attempt a "do it yourself" blood transfusion at home? 

Beyond the health risks blood doping will not make the playing field more level, as this type of doping does not give an even increase in performance for every rider. It is very individual in its effectiveness, as is EPO. 

Once again, making blood transfusions legal in sport should NEVER even be considered
.


----------



## worst_shot_ever (Jul 27, 2009)

OP -- Isn't the ethics and morality question answered by the fact that it is a medical intervention aimed at circumventing the competitive selection that is supposed to occur in an aerobic endurance sporting event such as a stage race? The point of the game is to endure the selection process ahead of all others; autologous transfusing undermines that core precept of the game, and is therefore cheating and unethical, even without considering the policy objections to the obvious health dangers associated with the practice.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

A few responses:

1) How many things do athletes use that are not illegal but give them an advantage?

2) Isn't cycling training in itself dangerous? Riding on roads with cars, descending from mountains at high speed, using various training techniques such as intervals.

3) Talking about kids is a bit misleading since it doesn't matter what is legal, they are going to try anything they hear might make them better. You could tell an aspiring racer that peeing on your feet would make you faster and most would try it.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Coolhand said:


> No but sleeping is a low O2 tent may be.





jlandry said:


> I like the smell of my own farts.



Wait a second, we may be on to something. What about enjoying the smell of one's own farts in an O2 tent?


----------



## worst_shot_ever (Jul 27, 2009)

Thanks Perico. Here's my thought. The problem with those notes, I think, is that #1 is inapplicable when we are talking about an invasive medical treatment, not other types of training regimens or weight reduction/aero improvement efforts, and therefore transfusions are easy to distinguish from the many other things legal things cyclists do to improve performance; and that #2 is inapplicable becase those dangers are part of the core elements of the sport of riding the bike, while the health risks of transfusing blood are not. The futility argument in #3 is an entirely valid observation, but in the end I believe rulemakers cannot simply turn out the light, shrug their shoulders, and abrogate their rulemaking responsibilities because some will violate the rules.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Perico said:


> A few responses:
> 
> 1) How many things do athletes use that are not illegal but give them an advantage?
> 
> ...


Per #1, I'm not really sure what you mean by this.

On #2, sure, bike racing on its own is dangerous. That is unavoidable. You cannot have bike racing without certain dangers (crashing, random heart failure) as there is no way to remove them from the sport.

It's not logical to go from that point to the idea that since some dangers are there, that we should introduce new dangers. Why not have a downhill TT on bikes with no brakes?


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

SilasCL said:


> Per #1, I'm not really sure what you mean by this.
> 
> On #2, sure, bike racing on its own is dangerous. That is unavoidable. You cannot have bike racing without certain dangers (crashing, random heart failure) as there is no way to remove them from the sport.
> 
> It's not logical to go from that point to the idea that since some dangers are there, that we should introduce new dangers. Why not have a downhill TT on bikes with no brakes?


1) People are saying blood doping would give riders an advantage and I am pointing out that they use various items now that give riders an advantage. Sports nutrition products, recovery products, etc.

2) But we already have a history of riders blood doping under supervision without problem. We also are not forcing anyone to do it, just like we don't force anyone to forgo braking on mountain descents.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Perico said:


> 1) People are saying blood doping would give riders an advantage and I am pointing out that they use various items now that give riders an advantage. Sports nutrition products, recovery products, etc.
> 
> 2) But we already have a history of riders blood doping under supervision without problem. We also are not forcing anyone to do it, just like we don't force anyone to forgo braking on mountain descents.


1) We are talking about seasoned Pro's who are riding the best equipment available. Can you name one nutrition product or wheel set that will give a Pro a 13% increase in output? 

2) Google Jesus Manzano.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> 1) We are talking about seasoned Pro's who are riding the best equipment available. Can you name one nutrition product or wheel set that will give a Pro a 13% increase in output?
> 
> 2) Google Jesus Manzano.


1) I don't remember anyone discussing specific percentages. I do remember people talking about things that give a rider an advantage.

2) Google Fabio Casartelli. Now you have no argument to not eliminate descending mountains. Se how asinine that line of logic is? You can find a few negative examples of anything.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Perico said:


> 1) I don't remember anyone discussing specific percentages. I do remember people talking about things that give a rider an advantage.
> 
> 2) Google Fabio Casartelli. Now you have no argument to not eliminate descending mountains. Se how asinine that line of logic is? You can find a few negative examples of anything.


1) you equated doping with equipment and nutritional compliments when in fact they are quite different. 

2) My response was to your claim that blood doping had been used without problem. This is clearly incorrect.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Perico said:


> 1) I don't remember anyone discussing specific percentages. I do remember people talking about things that give a rider an advantage.
> 
> 2) Google Fabio Casartelli. Now you have no argument to not eliminate descending mountains. *Se how asinine that line of logic is?* You can find a few negative examples of anything.



The man makes great points and what do you do? Insult him.:thumbsup:


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Perico said:


> 1) People are saying blood doping would give riders an advantage and I am pointing out that they use various items now that give riders an advantage. Sports nutrition products, recovery products, etc.
> 
> 2) But we already have a history of riders blood doping under supervision without problem. We also are not forcing anyone to do it, just like we don't force anyone to forgo braking on mountain descents.


Sure, riders are free to pursue lots of avenues to improvement, provided they aren't illegal. The reason that certain things are made illegal is pretty varying. For doping, the rationale is that it would endanger the riders health.

I can't provide any conclusive evidence that guys who were blood doping had negative health consequences because of it. Manzano was mentioned as a guy who did become really ill from a bad transfusion. Lots of cyclists have died prematurely due to heart problems, no direct evidence but it's getting suspicious.

Riders wouldn't be forced to do it...but they would be if they wanted to compete at the top level. So you're facing 23 year old guys with the choice of blood packing, whatever the consequences, and not making it to the big time. I don't want to watch a sport where that is condoned.

I think of the 50% hematocrit limit that's been in place for a decade as analogous to the minimum bike weight limit. The UCI realized there could be serious consequences at a certain level of blood packing, and said here's the line you cannot cross. It's to protect the riders health. They don't want a peloton at 60% where a podium contender drops dead every year. They also don't want guys on 8lb bikes that may fall apart on a descent or when they hit a pothole. Whether this is noble or not is questionable, maybe they just know that a sport with those kind of negatives would be less marketable.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> 1) you equated doping with equipment and nutritional compliments when in fact they are quite different.
> 
> 2) My response was to your claim that blood doping had been used without problem. This is clearly incorrect.


1) No, I simply showed that things that give riders an advantage are used all the time.

2) And they have been used without problem. Many riders and runners, xc skiers, etc. have done it without problems. I am sorry you misunderstood me.

Blackjack- Actually I didn't insult him, unlike you I can discuss how poor someones logic is without having to resort to cursing, insults and personal attacks...unlike you.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Perico said:


> 1) No, I simply showed that things that give riders an advantage are used all the time.


Using a motor is an advantage as well. 



Perico said:


> 2) And they have been used without problem. Many riders and runners, xc skiers, etc. have done it without problems. I am sorry you misunderstood me.


There have been problems. 

Jesus Manzano. No problems, he is just taking a little nap.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Perico said:


> 1) No, I simply showed that things that give riders an advantage are used all the time.
> 
> 2) And they have been used without problem. Many riders and runners, xc skiers, etc. have done it without problems. I am sorry you misunderstood me.
> 
> *Blackjack- Actually I didn't insult him, unlike you I can discuss how poor someones logic is without having to resort to cursing, insults and personal attacks...unlike you*.






Perico said:


> 1) I don't remember anyone discussing specific percentages. I do remember people talking about things that give a rider an advantage.
> 
> 2) Google Fabio Casartelli. Now you have no argument to not eliminate descending mountains. *Se how asinine that line of logic is? *You can find a few negative examples of anything..


ut: :nonod: :sad: :sad: ut: :incazzato: :yikes:


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderators Note*

Back on point please gentlemen.


----------



## clipz (Aug 28, 2008)

blackjack said:


> Not sure, but the boy in your avatar did.
> 
> http://www.active.com/fitness/Artic..._tents_be_allowed_for_endurance_athletes_.htm
> 
> Shaun Wallace, a former British Olympic cyclist who is a Hypoxico vice president, estimates that 400 or more top athletes are using such tents. Besides Radcliffe, the converts include three-time Tour de France winner *Lance Armstrong*, American world-record swimmer Ed Moses, and Michellie Jones, the Australian triathlete who won a silver medal at the Sydney Olympics.



im not so sure lance had one but i know for a fact landis did. i remember seeing the movie


----------



## Alaska Mike (Sep 28, 2008)

Lance has/had one:
_Every Second Counts_, Page 81


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti-

Apparently you are trying to misunderstand what I said, so no point in discussing it further.

blackjack- Are you really so insecure that you can't even tell when someone is insulting someone and when they are simply saying their logic is flawed? Oh, wait you are a hypocrite and this does not wrk in your favor...so of course you don't. Seek help.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Perico said:


> Doctor Falsetti-
> 
> Apparently you are trying to misunderstand what I said, so no point in discussing it further.
> .


Apparently you are trying to backtrack from your claim. There is no misunderstanding



Perico said:


> we already have a history of riders blood doping under supervision without problem.


I have shown that that was not the case. Manzano is hardly the only rider to have an issue with a bad transfusion. Manuel Beltran had a similar issue that led to him crashing out of the 2005 Tour. He was severely "Dehydrated" after only 30 miles of mostly downhill riding. 

Most fans would prefer the equipment enhancements look like this









Not like this


----------



## mmoose (Apr 2, 2004)

Perico,
Interested in the forum's thoughts on this? ok, here are mine
1) plenty of ancedotal evidence that packed blood is very bad. No specific scientific studies that I am aware of. I personally would not volunteer for one to see what happens if you pack your blood over 60%. I'm not a doc, but I've read enough on this over the last decade to stay alive.
2) lots of riders manipulate the blood thru various means. Blood packing via transfusion for performance enhancement has been around for a long time (at least early 80s). EPO is more recent. Is there some level that's "safe"? probably. But until real docs study this the right way, we have to stick with perfectly clean. UCI limit of 50% was entirely arbitrary. But some humans may be naturally over (Cuengo I think). But even at 50%, other riders have had clotting/health issues. 
3) Trusting a doc to draw the line at some unethical levels, when there is money involved, is very troublesome
4) when docs don't do it, the riders themselves are. There are stories of botched medical procedures by non-medical personel in the peloton. (yes, that can be a backward arguement that "legalizing" makes things safer...)
5) I don't think that marijuana is 'evil'. So I don't think I'm prejudiced against some "open" cycling class of rider who could do whatever drugs they want. But I am interesting in the natural competition, not the PED version. (and I don't get too excited by any of the riders of the last generation. Hope mini-Phinney is clean)
6) kids. Any level of acceptance of banned substances or methods will force any aspiring pro into cheating also. If "everything is legalized", then how will the younger generation compete? they don't have the $$$ to spend themselves. (Well, they could get materials, but the doc to administer and monitor would be $)

I haven't been surprised by "all pros dope", because it's where every fan ends up if they follow the sport closely for a number of years. The "is it cheating if everyone does it" or "legalize everything" have many problems with each. I would like to see a clean sport. Until then, I laugh at the UCI's coverups. When someone does get obviously caught, they are thrown to the wolves. But the UCI isn't interested in punishing the cheaters, they only punish the cheaters who get caught and can't provide an excuse, pathetic or otherwise.

And don't get me started about OP and the spanish futbol team...(cheaters, coverup)


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Perico, don't take this the wrong way, but there's not much about the blood doping process that's what I'd consider safe. Perhaps the easiest concept is that the body has evolved to be able to lose some blood, but isn't natural to receive more. 

Most blood doping is autologous since an error in blood type/cross can be fatal. This error does not happen very often, but when it does, it's catastrophic. 

The principal of banking one's own blood requires preservatives. It's not uncommon for people to develop some form of allergy to these preservatives, which is why most inpatient hospital transfusions are premedicated to help avoid a possible allergic reaction. 

Drinking lots of fluid is no biggie, however, an extra pint of fluid in the blood stream is not natural and very unsafe. Under massive blood loss, the replacing the fluids is less traumatic, althoguh generally they're already a trauma patient of sorts. Extra fluid for a healthy individual puts them at risk for pulmonary edema and anything associated with hypertensive crisis, including a pulmonary embolism. This is why Lasix is required to keep the fluid status a little more under control, but taking Lasix often excretes potassium and possibly sodium, which is another problem for another day. 

Packed red blood cells reduces the amount of fluid infused, but still poses some risk for fluid overload and various clots. 

EPO basically removes all of the infusion related side effects, but the increase in H&H can lead to thrombus and high hematocrit can result in seizures for some reason. Once you're above a normal H&H, these liklihood of these increases, especially as hard as many were hitting the EPO. 

Perhaps microdosing of EPO isn't too dangerous, but given the minimal increase in H&H, I'd probably argue that there would be minimal gains in the first place.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

spade2you said:


> *Perico, don't take this the wrong way*, but there's not much about the blood doping process that's what I'd consider safe. Perhaps the easiest concept is that the body has evolved to be able to lose some blood, but isn't natural to receive more.
> 
> Most blood doping is autologous since an error in blood type/cross can be fatal. This error does not happen very often, but when it does, it's catastrophic.
> 
> ...


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

spade2you and mmoose, thank you for your thoughts. I can completely see where you guys are coming from, but I do think you are ignoring the part about it being monitored by doctors. To use another PED to clarify what I am saying, steroids can be used with minimal danger if supervise by a knowledgeable physician, but can be terrible if used without that knowledge and supervision. As I said I am merely on the cusp of thinking it should be allowed if properly supervised and am not 100% in favor of it like some people have claimed.

blackjack- You are the epitome of the pot calling the kettle black, but it does fit your persona.

doctor falsetti- You keep quoting me then claiming I said that there were no problems with everyone who ever blood doped. Can you please show me where I said that nobody ever had any problems. I ask for this because I am trying to decide if you are simply trying to have an argument or if you have issues with reading comprehension. Thanks.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

Roids are relatively safe at low levels, but much like microdoping, probably not much benefit at the low levels. It's pretty safe to say that most who abused steroids were not using those low amounts. Perhaps not the same risks as blood doping, but far from risk free.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Perico said:


> spade2you and mmoose, thank you for your thoughts. I can completely see where you guys are coming from, but I do think you are ignoring the part about it being monitored by doctors. To use another PED to clarify what I am saying, steroids can be used with minimal danger if supervise by a knowledgeable physician, but can be terrible if used without that knowledge and supervision. As I said I am merely on the cusp of thinking it should be allowed if properly supervised and am not 100% in favor of it like some people have claimed.
> 
> blackjack- You are the epitome of the pot calling the kettle black, but it does fit your persona.
> 
> doctor falsetti- You keep quoting me then claiming I said that there were no problems with everyone who ever blood doped. Can you please show me where I said that nobody ever had any problems. I ask for this because I am trying to decide if you are simply trying to have an argument or if you have issues with reading comprehension. Thanks.


How does a Neo-Pro making $30,000 per year afford a doctor administered blood doping program? 

So when you wrote


Perico said:


> But we already have a history of riders blood doping under supervision without problem.


you didn't really mean it. Got it. You can see that I am far from the only person who perceived your post this way. 

Fact is there are many risks, some of which Spade covered already. Add to them the fact that increasing the number of RBCs in the blood stream makes blood thicker, which can also make it clot more readily.This increases the chances of heart attack, stroke, and pulmonary embolism, 

Blood contamination during preparation or storage is another issue. This can lead to sepsis or an infection that affects the whole body.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

spade2you said:


> Roids are relatively safe at low levels, but much like microdoping, probably not much benefit at the low levels. It's pretty safe to say that most who abused steroids were not using those low amounts. Perhaps not the same risks as blood doping, but far from risk free.


EPO microdosing is normally used as part of a blood doping program and is not necessarily performance enhancing. When you transfuse blood your body stops making new cells, this would make your off score go nuts and cause a positive. The EPO microdosing insures new RBC production and a stable off score.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> How does a Neo-Pro making $30,000 per year afford a doctor administered blood doping program?


Since it would be doctor supervised, it would be team run.



Doctor Falsetti said:


> So when you wrote
> 
> 
> you didn't really mean it. Got it. You can see that I am far from the only person who perceived your post this way.
> ...


1) Yes I did mean it, but you have chosen to invent your own meaning, which is proven by the fact that when I asked you to provide evidence that I said that "nobody ever had any problems" you respond by saying I didn't mean it and then making a false assertion (where are all these other people posting as if I meant there were never problems with anyone?) 

2) Can you show me where I said there were no risks?

What this comes to is the fact that you have made a couple of false assumptions and then choose to be too stubborn to admit you were wrong. This case is clearly closed. Thanks for playing. (though I do expect you to need to get in a final word)


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Perico said:


> spade2you and mmoose, thank you for your thoughts. I can completely see where you guys are coming from, but I do think you are ignoring the part about it being monitored by doctors. To use another PED to clarify what I am saying, steroids can be used with minimal danger if supervise by a knowledgeable physician, but can be terrible if used without that knowledge and supervision. As I said I am merely on the cusp of thinking it should be allowed if properly supervised and am not 100% in favor of it like some people have claimed.
> 
> blackjack- You are the epitome of the pot calling the kettle black, but it does fit your persona.
> 
> doctor falsetti- You keep quoting me then claiming I said that there were no problems with everyone who ever blood doped. Can you please show me where I said that nobody ever had any problems. I ask for this because I am trying to decide if you are simply trying to have an argument or if you have issues with reading comprehension. Thanks.


Doctors monitor execution by lethal injection as well. Doctors are not moral beacons any more than accountants are. Some are more concerned with who is paying the bill than who is the patient.

I don't have the faith that you do that they would have the best interests of the riders at heart. If they did, they wouldn't be giving them unnecessary blood transfusions to begin with.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Perico said:


> Since it would be doctor supervised, it would be team run.


And that means it is free? Any additional costs means less money to the riders. 




Perico said:


> I asked you to provide evidence that I said that "nobody ever had any problems"


At this point you are really just embarrassing yourself



Perico said:


> we already have a history of riders blood doping under supervision without problem. .


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> And that means it is free? Any additional costs means less money to the riders.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think Perico is saying that we already have a history of (some, but not all) riders blood doping under supervision without problem (and also some who had problems).

His statement is logically correct, but by omitting the fact that some riders have had problems through blood doping, his statement is unclear in its meaning.

We also have a history of people jumping off bridges and surviving, but that doesn't imply that it is safe.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

SilasCL said:


> I think Perico is saying that we already have a history of (some, but not all) riders blood doping under supervision without problem (and also some who had problems).
> 
> His statement is logically correct, but by omitting the fact that some riders have had problems through blood doping,* his statement is unclear in its meaning.*
> 
> We also have a history of people jumping off bridges and surviving, but that doesn't imply that it is safe.


It certainly is, especially when his claim was used as a justification for use of the procedure.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

SilasCL said:


> I think Perico is saying that we already have a history of (some, but not all) riders blood doping under supervision without problem (and also some who had problems).
> 
> His statement is logically correct, but by omitting the fact that some riders have had problems through blood doping, his statement is unclear in its meaning.
> 
> We also have a history of people jumping off bridges and surviving, but that doesn't imply that it is safe.


Agree with most of your posts except for the one where we were talking about Contador's next moves.

Would you agree that there is a collective insanity when it seems almost reasonable to have this type of medical preparation for something like a foot race, or bicycle race?

We're really wacked when we make icons out of bike riders or guys who hit a rock with a stick into a hole at a park, or guys punching each others lights out, or most other competitions for that matter.


----------



## SilasCL (Jun 14, 2004)

blackjack said:


> Agree with most of your posts except for the one where we were talking about Contador's next moves.
> 
> Would you agree that there is a collective insanity when it seems almost reasonable to have this type of medical preparation for something like a foot race, or bicycle race?
> 
> We're really wacked when we make icons out of bike riders or guys who hit a rock with a stick into a hole at a park, or guys punching each others lights out, or most other competitions for that matter.


Yes and no. 10% of Americans are on antidepressants. It's a wild and crazy world out there.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

SilasCL said:


> Yes and no. 10% of Americans are on antidepressants. It's a wild and crazy world out there.



And depressed people are said to be more "realistic" than those who aren't depressed.

Oops, didn't see the link. I'll read it.


----------



## 32and3cross (Feb 28, 2005)

Perico said:


> 2) But we already have a history of riders blood doping under supervision without problem. We also are not forcing anyone to do it, just like we don't force anyone to forgo braking on mountain descents.



Sorry thats a bullshit argument, by allowing it you are in effect putting it in as part of the game if one wants to be a pro - so you are forcing people to transfuse to be compedative. If Im talented but can't affor a doctor I guess I should just transfuse myself? You can argue that well thats just becomes part of the risk of being in the "the game" but if you don't draw the line some place what this is off limits? Can I now push you over the edge of the road or is that off limits because its cheating that we can see - can I have a motor in my bike?


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

SilasCL said:


> Yes and no. 10% of Americans are on antidepressants. It's a wild and crazy world out there.



Read that one. This one was on the same page.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/painter/2010-04-26-yourhealth26_ST_N.htm?csp=obinsite

Jeez, even if everybody got government assistance to spend a couple grand on a bike, we'd probably be financially better off, in addition to all the other benefits.


----------



## St.Zu (Jun 30, 2010)

32and3cross said:


> Sorry thats a bullshit argument, by allowing it you are in effect putting it in as part of the game if one wants to be a pro - so you are forcing people to transfuse to be compedative. If Im talented but can't affor a doctor I guess I should just transfuse myself? You can argue that well thats just becomes part of the risk of being in the "the game" but if you don't draw the line some place what this is off limits? Can I now push you over the edge of the road or is that off limits because its cheating that we can see - can I have a motor in my bike?


I think what he was trying to say is if you want to be competitive in the peleton in this day and age you must use something as a boost. To compete today you cannot do it clean or you will lose. Since everyone is doing it, why not make it as safe as possible.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

St.Zu said:


> I think what he was trying to say is if you want to be competitive in the peleton in this day and age you must use something as a boost. To compete today you cannot do it clean or you will lose. Since everyone is doing it, why not make it as safe as possible.


Because we as a society have made a decision about what is acceptable and what is not, and as of right now, that line suggested by the OP, is not crossed.

Most here agree that it should never be crossed. That may change. I hope not.


----------



## St.Zu (Jun 30, 2010)

blackjack said:


> Most here agree that it should never be crossed. That may change. I hope not.


I agree that it should not be crossed, but I live in the real world and it is everyday, at every level of competition in every sport. There are clean athletes out there but as more money is involved there are less clean athletes.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

St.Zu said:


> Since everyone is doing it, why not make it as safe as possible.


No doubt there seems to be a huge list of "mostly Spanish riders" coming up, but we shall see who all gets popped. 

I don't know if we'll ever get an idea of the full extent of doping, but I'd like to think that not everyone is doping. I'll never be a pro, but I'd be paranoid as hell of doping since I'd most likely get caught. So, perhaps a given number of riders aren't based on an appropriate fear of consequences.


----------



## jspharmd (May 24, 2006)

To the OP, I'm not sure if this was mentioned as I didn't read all responses (mostly because many were side notes).

If blood doping were allowed and monitored, ALL competitors would have the SAME Hematocrit! This would be because the arbitrarily set "safe limit" hematocrit would be the goal of all athletes. This would make them pretty much equal in O2 carrying capacity, and it would be dependent on how they process the O2 that was delivered.

So, it isn't really realistic to think it would do anything.


----------



## 55x11 (Apr 24, 2006)

worst_shot_ever said:


> OP -- Isn't the ethics and morality question answered by the fact that it is a medical intervention aimed at circumventing the competitive selection that is supposed to occur in an aerobic endurance sporting event such as a stage race? The point of the game is to endure the selection process ahead of all others; autologous transfusing undermines that core precept of the game, and is therefore cheating and unethical, even without considering the policy objections to the obvious health dangers associated with the practice.


this is a good post. 

I would also add that better nutrition is different from injecting yourself via medical syringe a blood (even your own) that you store for months in carefully refrigerated conditions.
Similarly, even though effects may be the same, but training at altitude is different from sleeping in a vacuumed or reduced-oxygen content chamber, or injecting yourself with hormones.

It's a blurry line between "natural' and "unnatural", but like pornorgraphy, we know it when we see it.


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

SilasCL said:


> Doctors monitor execution by lethal injection as well. Doctors are not moral beacons any more than accountants are. Some are more concerned with who is paying the bill than who is the patient.
> 
> I don't have the faith that you do that they would have the best interests of the riders at heart. If they did, they wouldn't be giving them unnecessary blood transfusions to begin with.


Woah, woah, WOAHHH! Hold on a sec, cowboy!

As an actual physician :aureola: and recreational cyclist I'm going to ask that if we are going to use *broad disparaging generalities and sterotypes* in this forum that we keep the directed solely at professional cyclists.  

Let me get us back on topic:

Professional cyclists? They're all a bunch or cheats! I hate those guys! :thumbsup:


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Brad the Bold said:


> Woah, woah, WOAHHH! Hold on a sec, cowboy!
> 
> As an actual physician :aureola: and recreational cyclist I'm going to ask that if we are going to use *broad disparaging generalities and sterotypes* in this forum that we keep the directed solely at professional cyclists.
> 
> ...



The title of the thread is "Blood doping." One of the major problem in this is that the logisics require expertise which doctors have.

Professional cyclists: a lot of them cheat.

I hate those guys: nah, but they do cheat and the drugs make the sport irrelevant.

You may be joking about the hate part, but when idols like Armstrong are revealed as frauds, the fanboys believe that the messengers for some reason have the same level of emotional involvement with the recipient of fanboy love.


----------



## loudog (Jul 22, 2008)

St.Zu said:


> I think what he was trying to say is if you want to be competitive in the peleton in this day and age you must use something as a boost. To compete today you cannot do it clean or you will lose. Since everyone is doing it, why not make it as safe as possible.


never happen. just not human nature. if a little bit is good then more is better. the dopers arent satisfied that they are already elite athletes at the pinnacle of their sport


----------



## aptivaboy (Nov 21, 2009)

I'm a Red Cross platelet donor, and my family has had a number of experiences with cancer, leukemia, and the like. In my family, it isn't a question of _if_ you're going to get cancer, but _when_. There are ethical and quite proper reasons to try to "dope" one's blood. Trying to raise the number of red and white cells because you're trying to restore or improve your immune system and save your life is clearly one of them. Trying to help your marrow produce red cells due to anemia from cancer or leukemia is also one of them. Trying to win a sporting event is not. 

Look at it like this. If you have to blood dope to win an event, let alone dope at all, then you weren't really capable of winning it in the first place. Therefore, if you win your victory was fraudulent, a sham, false... I couldn't imagine waking up every morning, looking myself in the mirror, and knowing that I was a fraud. Some people can, but that's their personal moral compass. 



Robert


----------



## ultimobici (Jul 16, 2005)

Perico said:


> I am curious as to the thoughts of the forum about riders transfusing their own blood.
> 
> Do you think it should be illegal if it is only their own blood (i.e. no doping products, others blood or tampered with blood)?
> 
> I was reading an article about transfusions and I am starting to question whether this should be illegal if monitored properly.


Where do you draw the line? If you allow blood doping I feel that it would the effect of steepening the slippery slope that athletes are already on.

It's one thing to supplement vitamins & minerals, but when you start tinkering with the blood's capacity to carry oxygen I think that is a step too far.

I can't remember where, but a while back I recall reading an interview with a doctor involved in cycling who advocated allowing restoration of the body's hormone levels to "normal" levels. But even that doesn't sit right with me.

This is all before one considers the risks associated with any medical procedure. Many teams will have properly qualified staff administering it, but the problems will likely show up on small teams especially when money is tight.

I used to work with an ex-pro who told me of teams in Eastern Europe where the riders paid to ride on a pro team. Can you imagine how these riders would fare?


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

ultimobici said:


> Where do you draw the line?





perico said:


> I was reading an article about transfusions and* I am starting to question* whether this should be illegal if monitored properly.


He doesn't draw the line.

He's considered it.

Too far gone to reason with.


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

blackjack said:


> The title of the thread is "Blood doping." One of the major problem in this is that the logisics require expertise which doctors have.
> 
> Professional cyclists: a lot of them cheat.
> 
> ...


I'm totally joking in this post. I found it ironic that in a forum where I frequently make generalizations that my first internal reaction to a post disparaging my profession was to bristle defensively. Ironic and hypocritical, no?

So I went public with that introspective irony in a short jokey reply.

As I have posted elsewhere in this thread and others I have no respect for dopers and less for their doctor partners in crime.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Brad the Bold said:


> I'm totally joking in this post. I found it ironic that in a forum where I frequently make generalizations that my *first internal reaction to a post disparaging my profession was to bristle defensively. Ironic and hypocritical, no?*
> 
> So I went public with that introspective irony in a short jokey reply.
> 
> As I have posted elsewhere in this thread and others I have no respect for dopers and *less for their doctor partners in crime*.


I understand what you're saying and you were probably projecting your professionalism onto the whole medical community as an initial reaction.

It just amazes me that there are doctors who have so little perspective on issues regarding sport.

I would like to believe most docs have the perspective of a Roger Bannister or Moonlight Graham.


----------



## Brad the Bold (Jun 8, 2010)

aptivaboy said:


> I'm a Red Cross platelet donor, and my family has had a number of experiences with cancer, leukemia, and the like. In my family, it isn't a question of _if_ you're going to get cancer, but _when_. There are ethical and quite proper reasons to try to "dope" one's blood. Trying to raise the number of red and white cells because you're trying to restore or improve your immune system and save your life is clearly one of them. Trying to help your marrow produce red cells due to anemia from cancer or leukemia is also one of them. Trying to win a sporting event is not.
> 
> Look at it like this. If you have to blood dope to win an event, let alone dope at all, then you weren't really capable of winning it in the first place. Therefore, if you win your victory was fraudulent, a sham, false... I couldn't imagine waking up every morning, looking myself in the mirror, and knowing that I was a fraud. Some people can, but that's their personal moral compass.
> 
> ...


+1

"Doping" to beat cancer = win

Doping to beat the peloton = fail


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

blackjack said:


> He doesn't draw the line.
> 
> He's considered it.
> 
> Too far gone to reason with.


Trying to insinuate something?


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Perico said:


> Trying to insinuate something?


NO, I think my post is clear. Besides, I'm an internet toughguy!

Even though my post is clear. I'll make it more clear.

Your thread here shows it's pointless to try to reason with you.


----------



## Perico (Mar 15, 2010)

blackjack said:


> NO, I think my post is clear. Besides, I'm an internet toughguy!
> 
> Even though my post is clear. I'll make it more clear.
> 
> Your thread here shows it's pointless to try to reason with you.


You saying it's pointless to reason with someone else?!?!?!?!:lol: That is the funniest thing I have ever heard, especially coming from the guy that refuses to hear anything that does not agree with his agenda, to the point of insulting and attacking people at the first chance.

You really need to get a clue.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

Perico said:


> You saying it's pointless to reason with someone else?!?!?!?!:lol: That is the funniest thing I have ever heard, especially coming from the guy that refuses to hear anything that does not agree with his agenda, to the point of insulting and attacking people at the first chance.
> 
> You really need to get a clue.


You're moving the goalposts! I think some blood doping is indicated. Get a TUE from your doctor. Show him your nonsense. He'll intervene quickly.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

worst_shot_ever said:


> OP -- Isn't the ethics and morality question answered by the fact that it is a medical intervention aimed at circumventing the competitive selection that is supposed to occur in an aerobic endurance sporting event such as a stage race? The point of the game is to endure the selection process ahead of all others; autologous transfusing undermines that core precept of the game, and is therefore cheating and unethical, even without considering the policy objections to the obvious health dangers associated with the practice.


And this post should have put an end to the thread.

The following is a satirical embellishment by blackjack.



Perico said:


> BTW, why are you moving the goalposts? Asinine etc. so on and so forth.. lies spinning misunderstood blah


----------



## rubbersoul (Mar 1, 2010)

Perico said:


> Trying to insinuate something?



LOL, perico is funny.


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderators Note*



blackjack said:


> You're moving the goalposts! I think some blood doping is indicated. Get a TUE from your doctor. Show him your nonsense. He'll intervene quickly.


Even by the eased standards of the forum, _that's beyond the pale_. Having ignored your warning PM, sent attacking PMs to others and generated countless reported posts; the RBR Moderator/Admin team has had our hand forced. "Blackjack" was allowed back as an exception, yes he had been banned before. While we do not have any problem with his beliefs or him posting them here, the behaviors, fights and every interesting thread having to be locked is at an end. 

There were 4-5 other posters holding the same beliefs and positions who posted just as much as him, yet got in no fights, got no threads locked, and still advocated their position fiercely. Yes, there were 3-4 posters who seemed to always be involved in the dust ups with him, but they didn't get in fights with other posters holding the same positions as "blackjack". 

I wanted this to work, bent over backwards trying to make it work. But it hasn't. And that kind of makes me sad. To everyone who PM'ed me about this situation, thanks. If you have concerns, questions or want to talk about the decision of the Admin team, shoot me a PM.


----------

