Academic study claims no evidence that EPO boosts performance of elite cyclists

pedalpowerDC wrote:

NEWS FLASH: New Study says that being fit won't guarantee that you'll marry a British prince.

This made me laugh. Sounds like a headline from the Daily Mash

Simmo72 wrote:

Yes if an EPO juiced tour winning rider was on a 12" kids trike, infected with the ebola virus, had lead weights in his shoes and his tadger tied to the spokes then clearly he would not beat a clean 3rd cat rider up a mountain......but that really does not require a scientific study.

You're right, it doesn't require a scientific study, but I would love to see it carried out!

Now if I can just secure the funding....

theclaw wrote:

Let's get one thing straight, there is nothing marginal about the gain derived by a full-time athlete taking EPO. This report is a load of bullsh*t, made up by some bullsh*t pseudo-scientist who thinks that testing 100 fat tea-ladies half of whom are on the juice and half of whom aren't, is relevant to people who are all at the extreme edge of what is physically possible. Probably if one of the tea-ladies or fat kids he tested had had 1 less Big Mac meal on the morning of the test it would have made more difference to their ability, true. But that does not make the results applicable to sportsmen and women. Do you know how many illness' and conditions we have managed to cure in rats and mice and yet how few of the results are applicable to humans? Same thing. Why are we even giving this jockey the time of day.

I'm not sure I totally agree, but you did make me laugh.

The bit about fat tea ladies is particularly good.

theclaw wrote:

Let's get one thing straight, there is nothing marginal about the gain derived by a full-time athlete taking EPO. This report is a load of bullsh*t, made up by some bullsh*t pseudo-scientist who thinks that testing 100 fat tea-ladies half of whom are on the juice and half of whom aren't, is relevant to people who are all at the extreme edge of what is physically possible. Probably if one of the tea-ladies or fat kids he tested had had 1 less Big Mac meal on the morning of the test it would have made more difference to their ability, true. But that does not make the results applicable to sportsmen and women. Do you know how many illness' and conditions we have managed to cure in rats and mice and yet how few of the results are applicable to humans? Same thing. Why are we even giving this jockey the time of day.

I'd like to defend the scientist involved in this study from the point of view of someone who currently works in research

For starters I'd go easy on the pseudo scientist part theclaw, Adam Cohen is a professor at pretty influential research institute in holland and the report is published in the British Journal of Pharmacology which is peer reviewed by other scientists.

Whats at fault here isn't so much the science being done (its pretty common to do a meta study where you combine data from several large studies) but rather the media interpretation of something said in the report.

He's entirely fair to say that EPO alone cant win you a tour and to think that would be naive (I think everybody would agree on that). He's also entirely fair to say that there is currently no evidence that proves EPO boosts performance in elite athletes (as several people have pointed out, the studies are done mostly done on individuals who are not elite athletes). If you read either the report or the bloomberg article, you'll notice that he actually calls for more research on the effects of EPO on elite athletes.

Whats happening here is a fairly typical example of a researcher setting up the background for his next line of research. Do a study, show that the research you want to do needs doing, and then try and sell that to a funding body. Having this data published should, in theory, make it easier for him to get the grant money. You can object all you want to this but its how evidence based research works, you actually cant go round saying something is true if there isn't any properly controlled lab based research to back it up, no matter how much anecdotal evidence there is.

To be fair, as there isn't much published showing the effects on elite athletes, he is actually right to question it, and by doing a proper trial you could measure the physiological effects and benefits of EPO usage, gaining valuable data to make the biological passport testing more secure.

Anyway, sorry to rant but, but genuine science getting jumped on and sensationalised by the media really hacks me off.

Oh and if anybody wants to actually read the report in context without all the media bollocks layered on top the feel free to get the summary here.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bcp.12034/abstract

robdaykin wrote:

From reading the USADA evidence and a few other things, then here is a postulate ( )

Given a max haemocrit of 50% (doping control limit), which can be reached naturally, then the use of synthetic EPO by a rider with a high hameocrit would be pointless. However if the haemocrit drops then EPO can help to boost it again, thereby allowing a rider to peak more often and for longer during a season. Assuming haemocrit is a valid measure of the effect of EPO and a valid indicator of blood oxygen transport capability, and assuming blood oxygen transport capability is a good indicator of a rider's physical fitness.

If all of that is true then the difference between a doping rider and a rider who uses legal boosting methods such as hyperbaric chambers and the like, as well as being monitored by his team and prepared optimally for specific races is unlikely to be very much at all on a given day. In fact a rider who relies on EPO may be worse. Over a grand tour however use of testosterone. EPO, HGH, transfusions etc seem to aid recovery and may well provide an edge, not on headline performance but on ability to maintain a higher level than otherwise possible.
Look at say Vino's stage win when he was busted for blood doping in the Tour. Hands up anyone who saw Kloeden pulling him up the previous stage and didn't wonder. Same with Floyd Landis, one bad day followed by perfect performance the next.

Anyone know if there's any data on clean riders being good in Classics, especially when they don't race all of them? Could be interesting to see if the Classics are a better target for a clean rider historically which would support the above hypothesising.

What may be interesting is to find the top riders VAM figures for a Tour climb, when climbed 'stand alone'. It's clear that these figures have dropped dramatically in the GT's since the heyday of EPO.
Having said that, if you look outside cycling at athletics, you'll see a whole cluster of WR/close to WR times in the distance events from that era. Those are 'one day' performances, so you'd have to think that the conclusions of this study are erroneous (and that cycling gets a bad rap when it comes to doping).