# Why is hi-tek doping OK?



## cycocross (Dec 11, 2011)

Blood doping is wrong . . .unless you use a hyperbaric chamber or a Cryon-X machine. Both raise the amount of oxygen in your blood, both cost crazy amounts of money and both are allowed in competitive sports. Why?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

cycocross said:


> Blood doping is wrong . . .unless you use a hyperbaric chamber or a Cryon-X machine. Both raise the amount of oxygen in your blood, both cost crazy amounts of money and both are allowed in competitive sports. Why?


Welcome to the List | Wada Prohibited List


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Should we ban training at altitude?


----------



## cycocross (Dec 11, 2011)

asgelle said:


> Welcome to the List | Wada Prohibited List


thanks


----------



## cycocross (Dec 11, 2011)

hope not. I'd have to move.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> Should we ban training at altitude?


Not remotely close to the same thing

Move to altitude, live there for a month. Your workouts will suffer, especially the high intensity stuff. In the end your Hct will increase from 40 to 41.5

Or you can take a few shots of EPO and you are at 55 in a few days. When you are in the 3rd week of the GT the average undoped riders Hct drops 13%.....or you can take a bag blood on a rest day and instead of a 13% decrease you have 10% increase. Can you "Altitude train" on a rest day? Nope


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Not remotely close to the same thing
> 
> Move to altitude, live there for a month. Your workouts will suffer, especially the high intensity stuff. In the end your Hct will increase from 40 to 41.5
> 
> Or you can take a few shots of EPO and you are at 55 in a few days. When you are in the 3rd week of the GT the average undoped riders Hct drops 13%.....or you can take a bag blood on a rest day and instead of a 13% decrease you have 10% increase. Can you "Altitude train" on a rest day? Nope


I'm not talking EPO you fool. I'm talking the difference between altitude training and hyperbaric treatment.

Are you that much a simpleton to not follow the discussion? Are you too busy hiring a hitman to follow your buddy Lance?

EPO is illegal. Why should a hyperbaric chamber be if it simulates the conditions of training at altitude?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> I'm not talking EPO you fool. I'm talking the difference between altitude training and hyperbaric treatment.
> 
> Are you that much a simpleton to not follow the discussion? Are you too busy hiring a hitman to follow your buddy Lance?
> 
> EPO is illegal. Why should a hyperbaric chamber be if it simulates the conditions of training at altitude?


Instead of the insults perhaps you can address the topic? 

Please take some time to actually read the OP. He is asking why it is OK to use methods like a Chamber, that this method has the same effect as blood doping.....which it does not. The fact is Altitude training, tents, etc. do not come close to what you can do with EPO or a bag of spun blood. 

Not sure why you want to drag Lance into this. Maybe start another thread if you want to discuss that topic again instead of hijacking this one?


----------



## zoikz (Sep 5, 2003)

There is a valid point here that's getting a bit bogged down. While the use of hematologic manipulation whether by transfusion, EPO etc... is unlikely to have the same quantitative results as high altitude they do have the same qualitative result, specifically increasing oxygen carrying capacity. Any agent whether known or unknown, that increases oxygen carrying capacity is banned.
So the OP is entirely correct to question why it is, that physical interventions such as an hypobaric tent are legal while medical interventions such as EPO are not.
I don't think there is a clear answer, but I suspect since training at altitude is and must be legal, then banning the tents is really tough. Why should an athlete with access to high altitude be provided an unfair training advantage? Perhaps the tent might actually be more fair to those who can't do that kind of training. I really don't know the answer. Rumor is that WADA was strongly considering banning the tents but gave up on the effort. I think it's nearly impossible to enforce it, and the overall effect was small enough that it was not worth the effort.
The bigger point is that doping is not as black and white as many would assume. There are many, many examples of this. Perhaps the best observation is that it's banned because they (WADA, UCI, USAC, IOC....) say it's banned. Generally what is banned makes sense, often it doesn't. It changes from year to year.


----------



## ArkRider (Jul 27, 2007)

Altitude training is using your body's natural processes, while doping alters your body's processes (in possible detriment to the long term health of the athlete).


----------



## Coolhand (Jul 28, 2002)

*Moderators Note*



robdamanii said:


> I'm not talking EPO you fool. I'm talking the difference between altitude training and hyperbaric treatment.
> 
> Are you that much a simpleton to not follow the discussion? Are you too busy hiring a hitman to follow your buddy Lance?
> 
> EPO is illegal. Why should a hyperbaric chamber be if it simulates the conditions of training at altitude?


That's an infraction for you. Knock it off please.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

zoikz said:


> There is a valid point here that's getting a bit bogged down. While the use of hematologic manipulation whether by transfusion, EPO etc... is unlikely to have the same quantitative results as high altitude they do have the same qualitative result, specifically increasing oxygen carrying capacity. Any agent whether known or unknown, that increases oxygen carrying capacity is banned.
> So the OP is entirely correct to question why it is, that physical interventions such as an hypobaric tent are legal while medical interventions such as EPO are not.
> I don't think there is a clear answer, but I suspect since training at altitude is and must be legal, then banning the tents is really tough. Why should an athlete with access to high altitude be provided an unfair training advantage? Perhaps the tent might actually be more fair to those who can't do that kind of training. I really don't know the answer. Rumor is that WADA was strongly considering banning the tents but gave up on the effort. I think it's nearly impossible to enforce it, and the overall effect was small enough that it was not worth the effort.
> The bigger point is that doping is not as black and white as many would assume. There are many, many examples of this. Perhaps the best observation is that it's banned because they (WADA, UCI, USAC, IOC....) say it's banned. Generally what is banned makes sense, often it doesn't. It changes from year to year.


The difference between a medical procedure and a training method seems rather clear. It was clear enough that WADA chose not to ban tents. 

There certainly is a grey area of methods and supplements that provide questionable and minor gains, however I would not put them on the same level as blood doping or EPO.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Instead of the insults perhaps you can address the topic?
> 
> Please take some time to actually read the OP. He is asking why it is OK to use methods like a Chamber, that this method has the same effect as blood doping.....which it does not. The fact is Altitude training, tents, etc. do not come close to what you can do with EPO or a bag of spun blood.
> 
> Not sure why you want to drag Lance into this. Maybe start another thread if you want to discuss that topic again instead of hijacking this one?



Take the time to actually think about linking the OP and my question together. Ban an altitude tent and you will have to ban altitude training by extension. Pretty simple. It has nothing at all to do with EPO, but you want to turn everything into a discussion about the evil EPO.


----------



## cycocross (Dec 11, 2011)

I should have included this link (freezer-burn-on-right-foot-from-cooling-chamber)to clarify my confusion. I assumed the safety of the the doper was one of the factors in banning, especially for the do it yourselfers out there. Of course a better question would be why does an out of work b-ball player need to fill-up? If the end result is higher BO isn't that the unfair advantage? and how you get there shouldn't matter. And to show my ignorance again, I thought high alt. training helped your body work w/out oxygen, ie; getting use to it.


----------



## zoikz (Sep 5, 2003)

I'll put this one out as to a agent that provides enormous medical gains but isn't banned.
Sildenafil (******) improves TT performance in a 6k effort....at a simulated altitude of 12,700 ft. Overall gain of 15%, individual gains up to 45%. Sure many have heard this stuff before. No benefit at sea level (WADA funded this study). Likely some benefit at high altitudes below 12,700 but these are unquantified. It is not banned. And there are a couple races that get pretty close to this altitude.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> Take the time to actually think about linking the OP and my question together. Ban an altitude tent and you will have to ban altitude training by extension. Pretty simple. It has nothing at all to do with EPO, but you want to turn everything into a discussion about the evil EPO.


Did you miss, or ignore, the part of my post where I mentioned the effects of a blood bag in the 3rd week of a GT? 

The fact remains that Altitude training, whether in a tent or the mountains, has little in common with other forms of oxygen vector doping (Epo, Transfusions)


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

zoikz said:


> I'll put this one out as to a agent that provides enormous medical gains but isn't banned.
> Sildenafil (******) improves TT performance in a 6k effort....at a simulated altitude of 12,700 ft. Overall gain of 15%, individual gains up to 45%. Sure many have heard this stuff before. No benefit at sea level (WADA funded this study). Likely some benefit at high altitudes below 12,700 but these are unquantified. It is not banned. And there are a couple races that get pretty close to this altitude.


Very good point. 

Riders are currently using Sildenafil. Some raids have turned it up. The challenge so far is the studies have had small sample sizes and show very wide ranges of effectiveness. The experts are split on if it helps or not. 

WADA addressed this in their 2010 Annex to the official list
http://idbf.org/documents/antidoping/ADP2010AnnexA-The2010ProhibitedList-1.pdf

While the studies remain ongoing as to it's effectiveness WADA has set a threshold level and indicated that anything over that level could result in a positive.....so essentially there is the possibility of a sanction for excessive use.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

cycocross said:


> I should have included this link (freezer-burn-on-right-foot-from-cooling-chamber)to clarify my confusion. I assumed the safety of the the doper was one of the factors in banning, especially for the do it yourselfers out there. Of course a better question would be why does an out of work b-ball player need to fill-up? If the end result is higher BO isn't that the unfair advantage? and how you get there shouldn't matter. And to show my ignorance again, I thought high alt. training helped your body work w/out oxygen, ie; getting use to it.


Interestingly Cooling vests and hot weather training were some of the examples WADA used when they were exploring the ban. Training methods help your body adapt and perform....this is different from the artificial enhancement that comes from transfusions or shots.

It is also interesting to note that a large portion of athletes see little value with altitude training, in fact only 40% see an increase in Hct.


----------



## spade2you (May 12, 2009)

The major reason doping tends to be illegal is that it's simply unsafe. Roids, EPO, and blood doping aren't safe. 

I suppose you could suffocate in an oxygen tent if things went wrong. It would be difficult to test for use of this type of agent without invading cyclists' homes and/or when they're using them. I'd suspect that the modest improvements would lead to minimal use/abuse.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Did you miss, or ignore, the part of my post where I mentioned the effects of a blood bag in the 3rd week of a GT?
> 
> The fact remains that Altitude training, whether in a tent or the mountains, has little in common with other forms of oxygen vector doping (Epo, Transfusions)


Blood bags have nothing to do with his question. He asked why hyperbaric chambers aren't banned. They're not banned because they rely on natural physiological systems to increase oxygen carrying capacity, not external manipulations.

Again, stop trying to drag this into EPO or blood bags or any of the other stuff you love to steer every conversation towards. It's a simple question with a simple answer.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

robdamanii said:


> Blood bags have nothing to do with his question. He asked why hyperbaric chambers aren't banned. They're not banned because they rely on natural physiological systems to increase oxygen carrying capacity, not external manipulations.
> 
> Again, stop trying to drag this into EPO or blood bags or any of the other stuff you love to steer every conversation towards. It's a simple question with a simple answer.


I suggest you actually read the thread and the posts. Blood doping (Transfusions) is clearly mentioned 



cycocross said:


> *Blood doping is wrong . . .unless you use a hyperbaric chamber or a Cryon-X machine.* Both raise the amount of oxygen in your blood, both cost crazy amounts of money and both are allowed in competitive sports. Why?


It is clear to me, and the other posters on the thread, that he is asking why hi-tek methods are not banned when blood doping (Transfusions) are? 

I am not the only person to read it this way. Every other post on the tread read it the same 



zoikz said:


> OP is entirely correct to question why it is, that physical interventions such as an hypobaric tent are legal while medical interventions such as EPO are not.


It appears you are more focused on your odd desire to attack and insult me then address the actual topic.


----------



## Don4 (Jul 29, 2010)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I suggest you actually read the thread and the posts. Blood doping (Transfusions) is clearly mentioned
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It was "mentioned", and so it would appear that you have decided to riff off that mention. It was, however, not the main question posed by the OP.

Frankly, most of what I'm getting out of your posts, Doctor Falsetti, is that you like playing the victim. Which adds nothing to the conversation, and slows down the servers.


----------



## zoikz (Sep 5, 2003)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> Very good point.
> 
> Riders are currently using Sildenafil. Some raids have turned it up. The challenge so far is the studies have had small sample sizes and show very wide ranges of effectiveness. The experts are split on if it helps or not.
> 
> ...


I can't say how many riders are using it. Likely some, but there are a lot of teams that while this may be in the letter legal, it is ethically a line they don't want to cross. There were rumors that UCI was testing for it secretly. You just don't want to be the team that lit up that screen, even if it was legal, last thing you want is the UCI thinking you're a problem child. Also it sets a very bad precedent for the riders. If they sense moral ambiguity, they will be more likely to take advantage of it. 
I can speak much more on the domestic based squads, can't tell you much on the euro teams. While it may be legal to the UCi, the cops in europe feel different. If a team is caught with it, then it is a drug charge. Not sure if this is through all the EU.
For me personally the Stanford study really cinched it when it comes to cycling. Rarely do you have a study that so readily applies to cycling. Though I have not been looking at this a lot. If there's something else to read, I'd love to see it.
One of the interesting parts of the WADA statement is that it "restores pulmonary function." That really does have some relevance. What you are treating is pulmonary hypertension brought on my the high altitude environment. So just as you'd use albuterol to treat exercise induced asthma, so too you could argue that rather than providing an advantage to the athlete you are in fact treating a medical condition brought on by the high altitude environment. The riders who had the greatest improvement are likely the ones who had the worst pulmonary HTN. Total conjecture on the last point.


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> I suggest you actually read the thread and the posts. Blood doping (Transfusions) is clearly mentioned
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Considering hyperbaric chambers are not blood doping, then blood bags and blood doping don't enter the equation, no matter how much you like to drag it into every discussion.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Don4 said:


> It was "mentioned", and so it would appear that you have decided to riff off that mention. It was, however, not the main question posed by the OP.
> 
> Frankly, most of what I'm getting out of your posts, Doctor Falsetti, is that you like playing the victim. Which adds nothing to the conversation, and slows down the servers.


Instead of insults and baiting perhaps you could try to stay on topic? The insults add nothing to the conversation and slow down the servers. 

The topic is if Blood doping is illegal then why are other blood altering methods like tents and cryo not? 

It is a valid question, one that WADA explored in depth several years ago. They sent out a survey to their 1,500 stakeholders and the response was overwhelmingly against including tents in the WADA code. They said at the time



> .the overwhelming consensus of our health, medicine and research committees – was that, at this time, it is not appropriate to do so


----------



## robdamanii (Feb 13, 2006)

Doctor Falsetti said:


> They said at the time


Then that's the end of the discussion. Go back to complaining about Lance.


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

zoikz said:


> I can't say how many riders are using it. Likely some, but there are a lot of teams that while this may be in the letter legal, it is ethically a line they don't want to cross. There were rumors that UCI was testing for it secretly. You just don't want to be the team that lit up that screen, even if it was legal, last thing you want is the UCI thinking you're a problem child. Also it sets a very bad precedent for the riders. If they sense moral ambiguity, they will be more likely to take advantage of it.
> I can speak much more on the domestic based squads, can't tell you much on the euro teams. While it may be legal to the UCi, the cops in europe feel different. If a team is caught with it, then it is a drug charge. Not sure if this is through all the EU.
> For me personally the Stanford study really cinched it when it comes to cycling. Rarely do you have a study that so readily applies to cycling. Though I have not been looking at this a lot. If there's something else to read, I'd love to see it.
> One of the interesting parts of the WADA statement is that it "restores pulmonary function." That really does have some relevance. What you are treating is pulmonary hypertension brought on my the high altitude environment. So just as you'd use albuterol to treat exercise induced asthma, so too you could argue that rather than providing an advantage to the athlete you are in fact treating a medical condition brought on by the high altitude environment. The riders who had the greatest improvement are likely the ones who had the worst pulmonary HTN. Total conjecture on the last point.


The Stanford study was impressive but it appears some of the follow up studies have been less so. It does seem that it helps those most effected by altitude. It really does appear that with the right person it could be a game changer. 

Andrea Moletta's father was busted a few years back at the Giro. He had a bunch of drugs, syringes, and a lot of ******. This was in the Dolomites right before the race was coming through.


----------



## Chris-X (Aug 4, 2011)

cycocross said:


> *Blood doping is wrong *. . .unless you use a hyperbaric chamber or a Cryon-X machine. Both raise the amount of oxygen in your blood, both cost crazy amounts of money and both are allowed in competitive sports. Why?


Yes, it's wrong.



robdamanii said:


> *Should we ban training at altitude*?


No, many people actually live at altitude all around the world. Why do you bring this up in the first place. The OP certainly didn't.



robdamanii said:


> I'm not talking EPO you fool. I'm talking the difference between altitude training and hyperbaric treatment.
> 
> Are you that much a simpleton to not follow the discussion? Are you too busy hiring a hitman to follow your buddy Lance?
> 
> EPO is illegal. Why should a hyperbaric chamber be if it simulates the conditions of training at altitude?


I really don't follow the trend of your thinking other that you seem to be very angry for some reason.

Why are you calling another poster a "fool" and a "simpleton?" I don't know if you are aware of it, but personal attacks are against forum rules and two in one post will probably result in you being banned. Just letting you know.



robdamanii said:


> Blood bags have nothing to do with his question. He asked why hyperbaric chambers aren't banned. They're not banned because they rely on natural physiological systems to increase oxygen carrying capacity, not external manipulations.
> 
> Again, stop trying to drag this into EPO or blood bags or any of the other stuff you love to steer every conversation towards. It's a simple question with a simple answer.


Actually blood doping is mentioned in the first sentence of the OP. Did you see that?



robdamanii said:


> Considering hyperbaric chambers are not blood doping, then blood bags and blood doping don't enter the equation, no matter how much you like to drag it into every discussion.


Again, why the misplaced anger? The OP asked the question about blood doping, not altitude training.





Don4 said:


> It was "mentioned", and so it would appear that you have decided to riff off that mention. It was, however, not the main question posed by the OP.
> 
> Frankly, most of what I'm getting out of your posts, Doctor Falsetti, is that you like playing the victim. Which adds nothing to the conversation, and slows down the servers.


Aren't posters supposed to address the issue and not make passive aggressive attacks on other posters. The OP led off with a statements about blood bags. You didn't see that?



robdamanii said:


> Then that's the end of the discussion. Go back to complaining about Lance.


Now that you've mentioned Lance, it's widely known that he took no chances. He tested positive for EPO six times in '99. He used blood doping extensively according to Hamilton, Hincapie, and Landis. He used an altitude tent and he also trains at altitude.

Plus I believe he also tested positive for cortisone in '99, but that would be outside of the scope of the OP.


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*plenty of athletes in SoCal*



robdamanii said:


> I'm not talking EPO you fool. I'm talking the difference between altitude training and hyperbaric treatment.
> 
> Are you that much a simpleton to not follow the discussion? Are you too busy hiring a hitman to follow your buddy Lance?
> 
> EPO is illegal. Why should a hyperbaric chamber be if it simulates the conditions of training at altitude?


have training camps in big bear only a couple hr drive


----------

