# The Hemocrit Question



## Death Bredon (Mar 28, 2006)

A modest proposal for cleaning up cycling's drug image:

First, when a rider first goes pro, the governing bodies should test and publish the riders hemocrit levels to establish a personalized, natural baseline.

Second, all tests results -- both in and out of season -- should be made fully public. Thus sudden hemocrit count spikes would be obvious to all, and the court of public opinion would do the rest. Indeed, nobody really cares if someone wins 7 Tours with an average hemo count of 48 (even if 48 is a technically legal count) when his pre-success numbers were only about 35.

For instance, contrast Tom Bonen and Tyler Hamilton. 

The current WC usually clocks 35 on his hemo counts -- quite normal. He has revealed his numbers and, thereby, has established his credibility as a natural talent. If suddenly his counts jumped to 48 and he started winning three-week stage races, everbody would know that he had turned to dope. Tom won't turn to doping, he won't boost his hemo count toward 50, and he won't win miraculously transform himself overnight into a one-day rider to stages races. But, with the current system he could, and nobody but the UCI would know what had happened though with clever doping they couldn't catch him.

In contrast, Velonew's latest article on the Hamilton affiar reports that Tyler's pre-bust hemo counts had started to repreatedly border 50. The authorities warned him but his count remained high, and he was busted under the modern blood-doping test. Whether the test used to bust him is prefectly valid or not is irrelevant. The point is that Tyler was clocking ungodly hemo numbers. Under my proposal, Tyler's hemo-counts over the entire span of his career would be open to public scrutiny and we would have a much better idea whether he is a doper or a victim of a false positive.

* * * * 

Indeed, the current lack of transparency reagarding rider's hemoctrit counts is what is fueling the cat-and-mouse doping-control game. Few persons on the planet can naturally train themselves to a hemo count of 50, though with a decent "doctor," many can micro-dose EPO or other undetecable substances to zoom like a Ferrari to the magic UCI threshold of 50 (thereby staying just low enough to avoid sudden heart failure but still supercharging the old cardio system). Instead of only busting riders proven to go over 50 or to boost closer to 50 unnaturally, just open the riders round-the-year, full-career test results. The public will recognize suspicious and unnatural numbers, hence beyond-a-reasonable-doubt testing to prove that a sudden spike from 34 to 49 was unnatural is not needed (just as it is not possible -- some cheats will always find away to beat controls and boost counts to 48 or 49).

Finally, one wonders just how close Lance's hemo counts were to 50 during his post-cancer domination. I would wager that, before cancer, his count was about 35 and hence he could not compete with the Tour leaders though could score one-day successes. But, after-cancer, I bet his typical hemo count mysteriously improved to the high 40s. Thus, combined with cancer-related weight loss and new vigour in the blood . . . . the magic 7. In any case, given that Lance ludicrously wrapped himself in the flag by claiming that the retro-testing of his 1999 samples were an anti-American French conspiracy (yeah, right, since when could the French successfully orchestrate anything other than the Tour itself?), I severely doubt he'll ever be forth coming with his pre- and post- cancer hemo-count averages, (*though surely an innocent man would*.)

* * * *

The bottom line is that, in the sports-entertainment industry, the court of public opinion makes the final adjudications, and the burden of proof falls on the athlete to prove he is clean when legitimate suspicions arise. This is why the cycling needs to open the rider's testing results to the public -- to pro-actively establish the integrity of the sport. It's the only way.


----------



## FTF (Aug 5, 2003)

Death Bredon said:


> The current WC usually clocks 35 on his hemo counts -- quite normal. He has revealed his numbers and, thereby, has established his credibility as a natural talent



Ok, so only people who have hemocrits of 35 aren't doping? My hemocrit is 48, so what about me then? If I was dehydrated, my hemocrit could easily hit 50, easily.


----------



## Death Bredon (Mar 28, 2006)

35 is normal and 48 is a possible natural count. Though, the UCI would ban you if you even if you had a natural 50 -- they claim that can only be acheived by doping. I don't know the science, but logic has nothing to to do with specific numbers.

Rather, my point is that, if you are 35 most of life and racing career, then suddenly spike to 48, you have a Barry Bonds/Mark McGuire situation. Everyone knows something is not right.

But, if you start with a natural base-line of 48 and keep it there, then fine.

That is why I propose that neo-pros be tested for an early base-line and that every test be made public thereafter. Both in season and out of season. That way, if you are 35 on March 1 but 48 at the start of Milan-SanRemo, then you are exposed. Or, if start the Vuelta with a 35 but pop 48 when you hit the make-or-break mountain stages, again you are exposed. Sudden spikes like that ain't natural.

Sure, an athele is entitle to start his or her career at 35 and gradually train it up, but not go 35 for 5 years of pro racing than jump up to 48 in the next season.


----------



## FTF (Aug 5, 2003)

Death Bredon said:


> 35 is normal and 48 is a possible natural count. Though, the UCI would ban you if you even if you had a natural 50 -- they claim that can only be acheived by doping. I don't know the science, but logic has nothing to to do with specific numbers.
> 
> Rather, my point is that, if you are 35 most of life and racing career, then suddenly spike to 48, you have a Barry Bonds/Mark McGuire situation. Everyone knows something is not right.
> 
> ...


Ok, what about Jonathan Vaughters, natural well documented hemocrit of 54? Don't think it can't happen people.


----------



## Death Bredon (Mar 28, 2006)

So what?

My point is the hemo counts need to be made public throughout a rider's career both in and out of season and reamain relatively constant or at least absent of sudden spikes.

Right now, all the UCI tells us is that all riders are under 50 (unless they get an exception). But, this limited info allows riders to play a lot of games that the light of day would put a stop to. In short, the UCI is now harboring dopers, not exposing them.


----------



## FTF (Aug 5, 2003)

Death Bredon said:


> So what?
> 
> My point is the hemo counts need to be made public throughout a rider's career both in and out of season and reamain relatively constant or at least absent of sudden spikes.
> 
> Right now, all the UCI tells us is that all riders are under 50 (unless they get an exception). But, this limited info allows riders to play a lot of games that the light of day would put a stop to. In short, the UCI is now harboring dopers, not exposing them.



There are tons of ways to incrase you hemocrit, living at Alt. for example, if someone came from sea level up to 6K above, their hemocrit would rise. There's a reason they have a hemocrit of 50 as the limit, it's not becuase they are harboring dopers, if that were true, they wouldn't have staked up TH on a cross.


----------



## Death Bredon (Mar 28, 2006)

Look, if a guy trains at altitude in the southern hemisphere all winter (or their summer) and he raises his hemo count, the out of season testing would show this. But, he'd have a good defense in the court of public opinion -- "I trained at Altitude all winter!"

And, of course the UCI is not _intentionally_ harbouring dopers, but by keeping the hemo count tests secret, it has that effect. The guy in the Netherlands (negative altitude) who mysteriously raises his count from 35 to 49 in one winter is allowed to race (he is under 50) and his huge, sudden hemo-count spike increase is held confidential by UCI!!

I think I have made my point as clearly as I can.


----------



## FTF (Aug 5, 2003)

Death Bredon said:


> Look, if a guy trains at altitude in the southern hemisphere all winter (or their summer) and he raises his hemo count, the out of season testing would show this. But, he'd have a good defense in the court of public opinion -- "I trained at Altitude all winter!"
> 
> And, of course the UCI is not _intentionally_ harbouring dopers, but by keeping the hemo count tests secret, it has that effect. The guy in the Netherlands (negative altitude) who mysteriously raises his count from 35 to 49 in one winter is allowed to race (he is under 50) and his huge, sudden hemo-count spike increase is held confidential by UCI!!
> 
> I think I have made my point as clearly as I can.


It's held confidential by the UCI becuase you have no biz knowing everything about a riders life, medical things are always confidential in any sport. Heck, we can't even get a medical record for a president, unless they choose to disclose it.


----------



## Trek_envy (Jun 15, 2004)

*I work in a Point of Care blood testing company....*

..... and the range of Hematocrit that our device reports is 10-75%. This is a hospital device, not a device for testing athletes for doping. I realize that hospitals need some safety room, but.... 75%.

We have test donors (multiple) in our facility that we use for testing naturally high HCT values. We have guys here, and I can assure you that they arent doping - or even training for that matter, whose HCT hits 58% sometimes, varying as much as 4-5% from day to day, depending on hydration levels.

Every time I give blood for testing, I have my HCT tested. I'm no racer, but my level varies from 41-43% in the winter, and 43-47% in the summer. Now, that isn't even blood that is taken after several hours in the saddle. I imagine that after a tough ride my HCT could easily crack 50%.

I will always maintain that HCT is a good marker, but not the basis for a suspension, as it varies WAY too much. Granted, large variations are likely due to some sort of manipulation. Let's face it, red blood cells move oxygen. People who are elite endurance athletes, are going to be predisposed to high HCT levels. 

I sincerely doubt that any top level pro cyclist has a HCT of 35%. Unless you can show me a document that shows this, I won't believe it.


----------



## Red Sox Junkie (Sep 15, 2005)

Just because you test someone when they turn pro doesn't mean they aren't using before they turn pro. Getting a ligit "base" is next to impossible. If this system were put into place, people would dope before they turn pro so that the HCT count will be artificially inflated to allow them to dope.


----------



## Death Bredon (Mar 28, 2006)

Yep, Red Sox. That is a possible loop hole. But I wonder if top teams or however pays the doping doctors like Ferrari would be willing to spend the moeny dosing amatuers in hopes that they might make it as a pros.

I don't know, butmy suspicion is that a rider has to show promise of being more than a domestique before he is approached, or he approaches, someone about complicated EPO micro-dosing, etc.


----------



## Death Bredon (Mar 28, 2006)

Sure FTF, medical records are confidential.

But, UCI could condition pro-licensing upon waiver. No one has a right to be a pro rider and dope and dupe the public.

In the present era of widespread doping, if you win big races and I don't know what your hemocrit counts have been and are now, I am just not going to credit you much.

That's why Boonen is a legit star to me, and I couldn't care less about Armstrong's "acheivements."

Were cycling to go public, then dopers would stop for fear of exposure, and the sport would regain credibility -- which right now hovers just above the level of "professional wrestling."


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Red Sox Junkie said:


> Just because you test someone when they turn pro doesn't mean they aren't using before they turn pro. Getting a ligit "base" is next to impossible. If this system were put into place, people would dope before they turn pro so that the HCT count will be artificially inflated to allow them to dope.


There have been a number of busts in the amateur ranks the last few years too and there is quite a bit of evidence that age of first use is no different from the steroid scene in US jr high schools. For Cunego to get his exemption he had to not only produce historical records for himself but also his relatives. Several of them were over 50% as well (I think father and grandfather both were). I believe his certificate allows him to be up to 52% so it's not a blank check either.

35% may be [low] normal for a woman but in most labs would be below normal for a male even with increased plasma volume from training. The Medicare cutoff for EPO in dialysis patients was 33% last I saw.

Lance was reported to be in the 42-43 range in post 1999 pre tour tests from what I recall, but he may well have been 37 before starting EPO for other than medical reasons..


----------



## Death Bredon (Mar 28, 2006)

Those numbers for Lance don't sound suspicious at all. I think he ought to release any records that show has stayed between 37-43 during his whole career, (assuming he did) -- it could go along way toward quelling doping claims.


----------



## niterider (Feb 22, 2005)

*Why do you care?*

Do you really feel the sport needs to establish integrity? To whom? If every rider had a low and consistent Hematocrit level, would that mean the sport had integrity? 

Secondly - 
Your banter about lance is outdated and smells of someone that lives their life as a victim.


----------



## Mr. Scary (Dec 7, 2005)

Trek_envy said:


> ..... and the range of Hematocrit that our device reports is 10-75%. This is a hospital device, not a device for testing athletes for doping. I realize that hospitals need some safety room, but.... 75%.
> 
> We have test donors (multiple) in our facility that we use for testing naturally high HCT values. We have guys here, and I can assure you that they arent doping - or even training for that matter, whose HCT hits 58% sometimes, varying as much as 4-5% from day to day, depending on hydration levels.
> 
> ...


Thanks for pointing out to the two MD's that were debating this that they are dicussing hematocrit levels, and not hemocrit levels...
Do a little research before you discuss things next time!


----------



## Death Bredon (Mar 28, 2006)

Well niterider, 

I care because I love cycling, good cyclisst, and despise cheaters! When I cheer for a cycling star, I would like to have reasonable assurances that his perfomance is real athletics, not syringe induced. 

Also, if the sport is clean and has integrity, I believe it will grow in US popularity -- spread the joy, I say.

Finally, thanks for the pyscho-analysis on the Lance banter!!


----------



## Mr. Scary (Dec 7, 2005)

Death Bredon said:


> Well niterider,
> 
> I care because I love cycling, good cyclisst, and despise cheaters! When I cheer for a cycling star, I would like to have reasonable assurances that his perfomance is real athletics, not syringe induced.
> 
> ...


Yep, football/baseball/basketball athletes are all clean (snicker). While coke is the drug of choice in that arena, the use has done little to quell the popularity of those sports...


----------



## Death Bredon (Mar 28, 2006)

Actually, Mr. Scary, the two most popular spectator sports in North America are autoracing and horse racing. Only the latter seems to have a drugs problem. (Those damn smack-addicted horses can't seem to kick!)

And, Baseball and Basketball respectively have declined in popularity. As for Football, the NFL did get pretty serious with 'roid testing in the 80s with the result that vitamin-S phonies like Brain Bosworth had to stop dosing and quickly bounced right out of the league. I think the NFL shows that testing can make some headway.

Don't doubt it -- Lance (and thereby American cycling popularity) took a serious hit over his 1999 positives. And no matter how many true-believer defenders he has, you won't see Lance on many adverts anymore. Likewise, the momentum level that his 7 in a row could have created but for the scandal is lost forever.


----------



## niterider (Feb 22, 2005)

"When I cheer for a cycling star, I would like to have reasonable assurances that his perfomance is real athletics, not syringe induced."

I think it is important to consider that breadth of variables that go into winning a cycling event. Training, eating, adaptation to training, recovery, genetics, mental toughness, strategy and let's not forget luck play a role in ultimately determining if you win or lose. To selectively pick out dope and hold it up as THE determining factor is quite frankly a losers perspective. 

If it was possible to remove the dope element from cycling while holding all other elements the same - I think you'd see the same people winning - They win because they trained hard, adapted to the training better, had better strategy, better genetics and often times just got lucky. 

I'm sorry if this is the first time your hearing this but, you can't syringe yourself a win. You'll have to earn it


----------



## Death Bredon (Mar 28, 2006)

Niterider,

I agree to point. Obviously, I wouldn't be able to dope myself past the most humble, clean domestique in the pro peloton. And, Boonen (who by all accounts is clean as a whistle) routinely crushes others that seem to be beating the dope controls.

But, among evenly matched talents, dope can make the difference. For example, Pedro Delgado's one-off Tour victory is widely acknowledge was almost certainly dope induced. He was among the elite climbers before that Tour and would have been a contender without dope. But, with that little extra edge, he simply toyed with his competition in the mountains. 

I recall watching Delgado that summer as he effortless sprinted away from a select group of about dozen of the world's top climbers as if he were out for a Monday recovery ride. I immediately suspected something was up, and sure enough he was bust for a masking agent that had inadvertantly been left of the contolled substance list. Once the error was corrected, Delgado had to adjust. He never flunked a test again, but he also never rode to that super-elit level again. The difference was obviously doping.

If doping didn't make a difference at least in a significant number of circumstance, then UCI wouldn't test for it all. But it can and does make that marginal among the already talented elites. Or among that group of near-elite riders who just need a little extra help to break into the inner circle of race favorites.

Thankfully, at least in one-day classics, I don't think the test-beating doping helps that much. Indeed, a clean Boonen will smash most every dirty rider any how. It's the Grand Tours where EPO and IGF bother me the most.


----------



## niterider (Feb 22, 2005)

It is funny that you use Delgado as an example considering that your original thread was most concerned with hematocrit levels. During Delgado's era blood doping was limited to transfusions and not hematocrit busting agents such as EPO. Delgado was probably using some type of narcotic/stimulant which was not unusual for the time. 

In 1988 Delgado won with a 7 minute plus margin, but only 1 stage win - I hardly say he toyed with anyone, especially at that time when climbers could not TT to save their life. Delgado had the ability to TT with the best and not lose much if any in the mountains and if Ii remember correctly he made time on Roocks on the flat stages as well. He also was known to be quite the partier which could have contributed to his one time victory. 

Theoretically dope would make a difference if two individuals trained the same, ate the same, recovered the same, adapted to the training the same, used the same race strategies, and received the same luck, everything the same with the exception of one doped while the other didn't - Then I'd concede dope was the determining factor. How likely do you think this would happen. More likely the winner (doper or not) would have won regardless.

I'm also interested in how sure you are that Boonen isn't doping - is it because he hasn't tested positive? If so, last I recall Lance hasn't tested positive either.


----------



## Death Bredon (Mar 28, 2006)

Niterider,

The Delagado example is on point -- doping does make a difference. He was busted for a steriodal masking agent, if memory serves. So, he was porbably using something in that cetagory. And he DID toy with the field -- I remember it well. He could have won the Tour by 30 minutes easy, but I am sure that would have been too suspicious.

Any one else think doping doesn't make a difference?

* * * *

BTW, Boonen makes his low hemo counts public, and Lance HAS tested positive. From the Europeans I have talked to recently, even those Euros like Lance and still support him acknowledge the obvious. The evidence is so clear and convincing that only Lance his gingoistic French-conspiracy nutters remain deniers.


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

Also the most ardent dopers, who are basically looking for a shortcut, are likely to be the ones without the mental discipline to train to their maximum potential so in a number of cases they are likely struggling to dope back up to where they could have been naturally.

Delgado's Probenicid was a masking agent, but the drugs it masks have never been proven to have a performance benefit in endurance sports. His victory was likely due mostly to the lack of competition and to phenomenal form (which drugs can't produce, they can increase the level you are at when you peak but do nothing to create peak fitness).


----------



## atpjunkie (Mar 23, 2002)

*actually best way to increase it legally*

is to train at sea level and sleep at altitude. (or faux altitude-hypoxic chambers/tents)
and riders can boost a # of points in their hematocrit count. Doing it this way also avoids the sometimes 'shutting down' of the natural system because artificial methods are being used. (similar to how lifters,from having artificial testoserone, lose the ability to produce it naturally I think the same happens to heavy EPO users)


----------



## Death Bredon (Mar 28, 2006)

Don't get me wrong -- Pedro was an elite cyclist in his day and he worked as hard as anyone else. 

But, it seems to be an amazing coincidence that his "phenomenal form," which made the elite of the elites, lasted only three weeks and exactly three weeks out his entire career. The remaining time, he was just one among a dozen or more.

It seems that the UCI (and the dopers) are wasting a lot time and energy if doping really has no effect on performance. Any other doper apologist besides niterider and terzo?


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

Death Bredon said:


> But, it seems to be an amazing coincidence that his "phenomenal form," which made the elite of the elites, lasted only three weeks and exactly three weeks out his entire career.


I don't know if you are intentionally setting up a strawman argument or whether you are just ignorant, but describing Delgado's career as only being worth something for three weeks in 1988 is just wrong. 

He won the Vuelta twice, placed second once, and third twice. 

His record in the Tour was:
1983 15th
1984 DNF due to a crash
1985 6th
1986 DNF when his mother died during the race
1987 2nd
1988 1st
1989 3rd
1990 4th

Compare Delagado's record of steady progression to Armstrong, who never had a single exploit in the high mountains and never proved himself capable of time trialing at the top of the sport until he showed up in 1999, doped with EPO to the gills, and suddenly was the best climber and time trialist in the world.


----------



## Death Bredon (Mar 28, 2006)

Crooked Sky, I never said his career was "just" three weeks of success.

Rather, what I did say was that Delago was an elite cyclist before and after the '88 Tour. But in the '88 Tour he was the elite of the elite and could have won by much more than he did (my strong impression at the time was that 7 minutes was sound enough thumping, no need to show off). 

Indeed, in '88, the year he tested positive for a masking substance, he was simply in the stratosphere in the Tour! Nobody could touch him, and he won for fun. But, after the masking agent was put on the banned list, and Pedro obviously couldn't use it or whatever he was masking, he came back down to his normal high level -- a perenial Tour contender but not a reincarnation of Merckx. 

But for the oversight on the controlled substance list, Pedro would have been DQ in 88.

Perhaps Crooked, you shouldn't flame OTHERS with words like "ignorant" and "strawman."


----------



## Under ACrookedSky (Nov 8, 2005)

Death Bredon said:


> Rather, what I did say was that Delago was an elite cyclist before and after the '88 Tour. But in the '88 Tour he was the elite of the elite and could have won by much more than he did (my strong impression at the time was that 7 minutes was sound enough thumping, no need to show off).


Delgado was hardly the elite of the elites in 1988. The '88 Tour had a weak field. Steven Bauer took fourth for gods sake. Hinault had retired. Lemond and Roche were injured. Fignon pulled out of the race. Hampsten was fried from his Giro victory. Delgado was left to look "elite" against the likes of Steven Rooks and Fabio Parra. Incidently, the second place man, Rooks, admitted a few years ago to using amphetamines and testosterone.

You are creating a strawman.


----------



## Death Bredon (Mar 28, 2006)

Visa versa again Crooked.

The only two players missing from the '88 race were Roche (another one-super season wonder) and Lemond. Admittedly, Greg may have given even a juiced Delgado a run for his money. But otherwise, in 88, Delgado beat the elites (minus one or two at most) LIKE A DRUM. Its not like he barely eeked out a win over a bunch of dogs. (Bauer was good dammit!

I could make excuses for the losers and list the no-shows in any every year and claim that every Tour winner beat a "weak" field. For example, Lance beat a weak field last year because Ullrich was over weight and didn't get into peak shap in time; Basso was blown by the Giro; Cunego didn't ride, etc.) 

But the truth of the matter is, every year the Tour is tough and to win by an easy seven minutes is an elite performance. Delgado never matched that again.

The point is, you give me any of the top ten finishers from last year and left them have a free dope-control pass against a clean peloton, and they will wipe the field every time.


----------



## niterider (Feb 22, 2005)

*"doper apologist"*

I have never stated my opinion of the ethics of doping in professional cycling. I have stated that dope will not be THE determining factor in a win. 

IMHO if we want to remove dope from the sport we must first acknowledge the true impact of dope. People that over hype the benefits of dope and point their fingers at winners and call them dopers for no other reason then the seem to be able to "toy" with the peloton are in fact insuring the usage of dope. Focusing on the hard work that goes into success reduces the appeal to believe that you can "syringe a win".

If you had the opportunity to influence a young cyclist what would you rather say - 

"No matter how hard you work and how well you prepare you will lose to a doper".
or
"Work harder and prepare better then your competition and you will be successful."

I choice to focus on hard work and feel that hard work can always overcome dope.

When I see a cyclist win - I appreciate the hard work and luck that went into that win. If they dope - that is between them and the UCI - I'm confident that the win was legit

I end my correspondence by asking you to watch the 15th stage of the 2003 TdF. Dope or no dope - the right man won and also shows why he won 7


----------



## steel515 (Sep 6, 2004)

niterider doesn't understand why we need to cleanup the sport. The UCI
(and major league baseball and elite track and field,etc) can't police it themselves.
Death Brendon's idea is great. I like to watch natural talent. In pro cycling the winners consistently include admitted dopers, not to mention those who keep it to themselves.
When Armstrong was around I heard from many riders about the "code of silence", who were told "why don't you "shut up," in my readings. It doesn't look good, does it? This from a 7 time "champion" who (implied) "works hard"? Maybe he forgot to work on his attitude.
And he has a "doctor," in italy, (is it) just to fix bad colds? Every cyclist "works hard", even the weekend rider.


----------



## steel515 (Sep 6, 2004)

Death, did you read the post called "checcini and ferrari"? This shows exactly what you discussed, riders under doping had completely different results before and after doping (with ferrari). average 38% with, and over 50% after, as he helped lower the numbers


----------



## filtersweep (Feb 4, 2004)

I would rather modify the current system- anything goes as long as it remains under 50 or some other such arbitrary number. Allow EPO or whatever to control the level to exactly 50 at some time period relative to the race. It is like inspecting restrictor plates on race cars...


----------



## Veloflash (Apr 21, 2002)

atpjunkie said:


> is to train at sea level and sleep at altitude. (or faux altitude-hypoxic chambers/tents)
> and riders can boost a # of points in their hematocrit count. Doing it this way also avoids the sometimes 'shutting down' of the natural system because artificial methods are being used. (similar to how lifters,from having artificial testoserone, lose the ability to produce it naturally I think the same happens to heavy EPO users)


All the recent research supports a view that all forms of altitude training over brief periods (weeks) do not increase hct levels.

In earlier research papers researchers mistakenly speculated that performance improvements may have arisen from increased hct levels. More recent research has shown that any improvement related to cellular changes rather than changes to blood values. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11428690&query_hl=17

<I>Hypoxia does increase serum erthyropoietin levels but the next step in the erythropoietic cascade is not clearly established; there is only weak evidence of an increase in young red blood cells (reticulocytes). </I>

Manufacturers of hypoxia equipment (altitude tents, intermittent hypoxia machines, etc) are now placing a rider on advertising their products about increased hct. They would have problems under consumer laws if they misrepresented the benefits of their product.

Of interest is this National Geographic article where studies were made of three large indigenous populations on three continents who have traditionally lived at high altitude for centuries. Only one group recorded high hct levels to adjust to hypoxic conditions.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/02/0224_040225_evolution.html

Any athlete who claims his elevated hct levels are from altitude training is covering up the real cause for the increase.


----------



## Veloflash (Apr 21, 2002)

terzo rene said:


> .....[snip]...Lance was reported to be in the 42-43 range in post 1999 pre tour tests from what I recall, but he may well have been 37 before starting EPO for other than medical reasons..


Wasn't it reported on CyclingNews after the damning <i>L'Equipe</i> exposure that a former soigneur of Postal came forward and related the concern at Postal that all riders were dangerously close to the 50% limit in 1999?

<I>Ron Jongen, a former soigneur with the US Postal team until 2000, has expressed further allegations concerning the 1999 Tour de France, and possible doping practices within the American squad. Armstrong's masseur told Dutch newspaper Limburgs Dagblad that he was present when team director Johan Bruyneel made comments about the riders' hematocrit levels before the 1999 Tour de France prologue. 

At the last team meeting before the race, the 42-year old Dutchman from Kerkrade recalled, "Bruyneel said: they're just under 50 [Jonathan Vaughters noted this too - ed.]. When he saw that I heard what he said, he put his finger on his lips immediately: I wasn't supposed to say anything about it." While Jongen said that he was still on good terms with Armstrong (having e-mail contact as recently as at the 2005 Tour de France), the former masseur also talked about "strange, very strange things that went on in France that summer."</I>

And corroborated by Jonathon Vaughters:

<I>Still, it was Vaughters himself who received a fright at the pre-Tour medical tests, as his hematocrit posted a 51 percent reading, above the UCI's limit of 50 percent, but still under his special dispensation of 52 percent. (Frequent testing had shown that Vaughters - like many good climbers - have naturally high hematocrit levels and they are granted dispensation from doctors.)

"I'd never tested (at a race) above 50 percent, except before the start of the '99 Tour," he said. "I told the team doctor 'don't worry, I've got a certificate, I've got a hall-pass for this'," he recalled. "But the doctor said it wasn't me they were worried about, it was that the whole team was very close (to the 50 percent limit)."</I>

If all Postal riders were close to the 50% would not that include the team leader with a normal hct level of 42%?


----------



## WampaOne (May 28, 2004)

I think the article cited above is a very interestign read. However, by simply pasting lines from the abstract people reading dont really gain any understanding of the research. Unfrotunatly as a review article you dont get much info on the experimental methods, but you could always check out the original research. If you can get the article you shoudl read it as it does offer soem interesting conclusions.

A few of the good points are:
1. "Despite methodological differences, there is evidence
that RCV is significantly greater in high altitude
natives than in sea level residents. The magnitude
of the difference is altitude-dependent. For
long term inhabitants of altitudes above 4300m,
RCVappears to be elevated by >50%.[165,166]Amuch
smaller elevation (~10%) has been reported for natives
of 3100m, while the mean RCVofmen living
at 1600m was not significantly different from that
of sea level counterparts.[152]" There differences could deffinatly be due to genetic adaptation within these high altitude populations, so making a correlation to the general population is probably not the best idea.
2. "recent LHTL studies from 3 independent
laboratories have consistently found small
improvements (~1%) in events lasting approximately
45 seconds to 14 minutes." In short events 1% could deffinalty mean the difference between winning and losing. Of course it isnt enough to make your average ride into a champion.
3. All the methods to measure RCV have variations between measurments of 2.5-5%, this would make it easy for small changes to be lost

The data the authors reviewed showed, for the most part, no bennefits from sleeping at altitude. There were a few studies that showed some changes. I would think to know for sure it would be necessary to look as the sample size and techniques used. Also there is the possibility that certain individuals may the proper genotype to see real benetifts from living at altitude.


----------



## Veloflash (Apr 21, 2002)

WampaOne said:


> ..[snip]....
> The data the authors reviewed showed, for the most part, no bennefits from sleeping at altitude. There were a few studies that showed some changes. I would think to know for sure it would be necessary to look as the sample size and techniques used. Also there is the possibility that certain individuals may the proper genotype to see real benetifts from living at altitude.


Here are some more research studies:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11282321&query_hl=17

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10751105&query_hl=17

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10502083&query_hl=17

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=10502082&query_hl=17

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...d&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=9783517&query_hl=17

All neatly summarised, together with other findings, By Dr Allison McConnell in 2004:


http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/altitude-training-effects.html


----------



## terzo rene (Mar 23, 2002)

WampaOne said:


> I think the article cited above is a very interestign read. However, by simply pasting lines from the abstract people reading dont really gain any understanding of the research. Unfrotunatly as a review article you dont get much info on the experimental methods, but you could always check out the original research. If you can get the article you shoudl read it as it does offer soem interesting conclusions.
> 
> A few of the good points are:
> 1. "Despite methodological differences, there is evidence
> ...


Excellent points, the debate is really over how high and how long you must go to increase red cells, and figuring out a way to maintain the gains despite exposure to lower altitude.

The fact that the performance increases from tents are largely from cellular changes is an argument for the superiority of the tents since EPO makes none of those other changes. It's a great drug medically because it's a rifle and not a shotgun, but for doping purposes a shotgun that targets a number of the variables that increase performance (like a tent) would be better.

Of course best of all would be EPO and a tent, which is obviously what all the seven time tour winners were doing. ;-)


----------



## Buck Satan (Nov 21, 2005)

At my last physical a couple of months ago I had my 'crit checked because I was interested to know. Turns out it was 50.8%. And no, I wasn't dehydrated and I don't use any type of supplements. I've been riding for 20% years, most of them "competitvely". So maybe that counts for something. But the 50% cutoff has certainly taken on new significance for me, because if I can break it - who knows?


----------

