# When is blood doping not blood doping?



## smutchin (22 Jul 2013)

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/cas...&ns_source=cyclingnews&ns_linkname=0&ns_fee=0

I don't know how I feel about this. Technically, it wasn't illegal at the time but even so...

Hmmm.

I suppose it shouldn't come as any surprise that even vocally anti-doping riders are indulging in practices that test the definition of what is and isn't legal.


----------



## Crackle (22 Jul 2013)

How did this get around the IV rules?

I don't have any doubts: Kittel is a hypocrite. I've just crossed him off my xmas card list.


----------



## User169 (22 Jul 2013)

Intruiged by one of the posts below the line..


"If it is not listed on the banned list it is legal, just like all the _alledged high blood pressure meds people say Sky is taking_, they are not on a banned listed"

Hadn't seen anything specific mentioned about Sky before - what are these blood pressure thingys?


----------



## Milzy (22 Jul 2013)

Delftse Post said:


> Intruiged by one of the posts below the line..
> 
> 
> "If it is not listed on the banned list it is legal, just like all the _alledged high blood pressure meds people say Sky is taking_, they are not on a banned listed"
> ...


 
My guess is that if your BP is higher then the flow of Oxygen will travel around the body much quicker. I suppose a fit circulatory system can take very high BP safely for a good few hours. Wouldn't be wise for some Doner kebab eating, overweight middle aged Cyclechat lurker to take though.


----------



## thom (22 Jul 2013)

Delftse Post said:


> Hadn't seen anything specific mentioned about Sky before - what are these blood pressure thingys?


Coffee beans ?


----------



## User169 (22 Jul 2013)

Milzy said:


> My guess is that if your BP is higher then the flow of Oxygen will travel around the body much quicker. I suppose a fit circulatory system can take very high BP safely for a good few hours. Wouldn't be wise for some Doner kebab eating, overweight middle aged Cyclechat lurker to take though.


 
Google comes up with Telmisartan, although it's a vasodilator so would bring BP down. Not on the WADA list apparently and seems to act on the same receptor as AICAR.


----------



## rich p (22 Jul 2013)

I fairness to Kittel, when this first came out he explained that he was naïve and only 18. It wasn't illegal then and he has been vehemently and vocally anti-doping ever since. I will, therefore, cut him some slack and send him a Christmas card.


----------



## Crackle (22 Jul 2013)

rich p said:


> I fairness to Kittel, when this first came out he explained that he was naïve and only 18. It wasn't illegal then and he has been vehemently and vocally anti-doping ever since. I will, therefore, cut him some slack and send him a Christmas card.


I didn't know that. OK, back on the list then. I do vaguely remember something about it now but didn't remember it was Kittel


----------



## Crackle (22 Jul 2013)

Delftse Post said:


> Intruiged by one of the posts below the line..
> 
> 
> "If it is not listed on the banned list it is legal, just like all the _alledged high blood pressure meds people say Sky is taking_, they are not on a banned listed"
> ...


I think the key word is alleged, especially if it's in the comments section. Stuff like that we would hope that Walsh picks up on.


----------



## gavintc (22 Jul 2013)

So Kittel moves into the category of doper with a nice little question mark The fact he was prepared to consider 'legal doping' means that he is now a suspect in my opinion.


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Jul 2013)

This will always be an ethical dilemma

If two athletes of similar ability compete and one has enhanced their performance - is it an honest win?

An example is the low pressure oxygen tent - used to increase the capacity and number of red blood cells. Undeniably enhances the athletes performance, and effectively the same result as taking EPO. in 2006 there was even a discussion by the WADA as to whether these tents should be banned on the grounds that they "enhanced performance, and violated the "spirit" of sport"

Arguably the synthetic EPO is able to achieve greater levels of enhancement than the tent, which theoretically only allows a natural maximum, but in both cases the athlete is choosing to enhance their performance.

If the WADA do at any time review this and ban these tents then the list of athletes who will have "cheated" is staggering

f course you then have the further quandary where if the use of the tents is banned and an athlete then trains at altitude to achieve the same effect is this still cheating, or is it simply the oxygen tent?


----------



## smutchin (22 Jul 2013)

Delftse Post said:


> Google comes up with Telmisartan, although it's a vasodilator so would bring BP down. Not on the WADA list apparently and seems to act on the same receptor as AICAR.



"Seems to" being the operative words. AIUI, the performance-enhancing claims of Telmisartan are far from proven. But this is precisely the kind of thing some people are referring to when they talk about Sky using methods that "aren't banned yet". I understand why people think that, and it seems highly likely that a number of riders are using Telmisartan. I don't want to come across as a blinkered Brailsford fanboy but I'd like to think Sky are investing their money more wisely, in scientifically proven methods.

AICAR is different to Telmisartan because it isn't licensed for human use.


----------



## smutchin (22 Jul 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> in 2006 there was even a discussion by the WADA as to whether these tents should be banned on the grounds that they "enhanced performance, and violated the "spirit" of sport"



2006? That was seven years ago. The fact that they still haven't banned them should tell you all you need to know.


----------



## rich p (22 Jul 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> This will always be an ethical dilemma
> 
> If two athletes of similar ability compete and one has enhanced their performance - is it an honest win?
> 
> ...


Welcome back to the Pro-racing section. Great tour wasn't it?


----------



## smutchin (22 Jul 2013)

rich p said:


> I fairness to Kittel, when this first came out he explained that he was naïve and only 18. It wasn't illegal then and he has been vehemently and vocally anti-doping ever since. I will, therefore, cut him some slack and send him a Christmas card.



I will cut him some slack but I'm still a little disappointed.


----------



## rich p (22 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> "
> 
> AICAR is different to Telmisartan because it isn't licensed for human use.


...and it's on the banned list!



Crackle said:


> I think the key word is alleged, especially if it's in the comments section. Stuff like that we would hope that Walsh picks up on.


 ...the key word is 'alledged' which makes me even more sceptical


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Jul 2013)

rich p said:


> Welcome back to the Pro-racing section. Great tour wasn't it?


 
I note you are avoiding answering the points raised again... but that is nothing new!


----------



## rich p (22 Jul 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> I note you are avoiding answering the points raised again... but that is nothing new!


I'm not avoiding them, I don't actually read your stuff.
Still, great tour, eh?
p.s. Froomedawg won it!


----------



## smutchin (22 Jul 2013)

Crackle said:


> I didn't know that. OK, back on the list then. I do vaguely remember something about it now but didn't remember it was Kittel



I vaguely remember the story from when it first came out but don't recall Kittel's name being involved. To his credit, at least he hasn't tried to deny it at any stage and accepts that it was a bit dodgy. 

The "science" behind the technique all sounds a bit Tomorrow's World, tbh.


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Jul 2013)

rich p said:


> I'm not avoiding them, I don't actually read your stuff.
> Still, great tour, eh?
> p.s. Froomedawg won it!


 
Scared it will make you actually think?

You will need to broaden your mind at some point


----------



## rich p (22 Jul 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Scared it will make you actually think?
> 
> You will need to broaden your mind at some point


I think we've been down this road before, ad nauseam, where I prove that I post on all pro-race topics whereas you just troll on one topic, but I have too much respect for @smutchin to derail his thread any further.


----------



## User169 (22 Jul 2013)

Delftse Post said:


> Google comes up with Telmisartan, although it's a vasodilator so would bring BP down. Not on the WADA list apparently and seems to act on the same receptor as AICAR.



This wasn't quite right. Telmisartan is an agonist of the same receptor as GW1516 (Endurobol). GW1516 can act synergistically with AICAR.


----------



## Crackle (22 Jul 2013)

Delftse Post said:


> This wasn't quite right. Telmisartan is an agonist of the same receptor as GW1516 (Endurobol). GW1516 can act synergistically with AICAR.


Have you any idea how much Googling you've just given me?


----------



## rich p (22 Jul 2013)

Delftse Post said:


> This wasn't quite right. Telmisartan is an agonist of the same receptor as GW1516 (Endurobol). GW1516 can act synergistically with AICAR.


When you said earlier that
"Google comes up with Telmisartan, although it's a vasodilator so would bring BP down"
did you have something linking to Telmisartan to Sky?


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> 2006? That was seven years ago. The fact that they still haven't banned them should tell you all you need to know.


 
It took 5 years to ban the UV light therapy


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Jul 2013)

rich p said:


> I think we've been down this road before, ad nauseam, where I prove that I post on all pro-race topics whereas you just troll on one topic, but I have too much respect for @smutchin to derail his thread any further.


 
As I thought unwilling to actually deal with the points raised.. avoidance and cynical allegations are about your normal standard.

At least Smutchin answers the facts as opposed to your weird drivel about having to "qualify" before posting.


----------



## Crackle (22 Jul 2013)

rich p said:


> When you said earlier that
> "Google comes up with Telmisartan, although it's a vasodilator so would bring BP down"
> did you have something linking to Telmisartan to Sky?


 
Only the comment wasn't it. Found this

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/11395/Doping-AICAR-Telmisartan-and-the-need-for-vigilance.aspx

Which I may have read before actually but it takes a few times to go in.


----------



## User169 (22 Jul 2013)

rich p said:


> When you said earlier that
> "Google comes up with Telmisartan, although it's a vasodilator so would bring BP down"
> did you have something linking to Telmisartan to Sky?


 
Not in the sense of anything at all reliable! 

I was interested by the comment under the article Smutchin linked to and the first google result was this...

http://www.theroar.com.au/2013/07/09/inconsistency-and-secrecy-taints-team-skys-success-at-tour/

The "Expert" writer of the article specifically mentions Telmisartan in a further comment below the line, although it's all weasel words, frankly. I'd like to think that Smutchin is right and that Brailsford is relying on something other than wacky experimental drugs.


----------



## rich p (22 Jul 2013)

Delftse Post said:


> Not in the sense of anything at all reliable!
> 
> I was interested by the comment under the article Smutchin linked to and the first google result was this...
> 
> ...


I'm pretty sure they're 'clean' in the wider sense of the term and that whatever they're doing won't bite them on the bum in 20 years time- copyright paraphrase Chris Froome - so apart from the vitriol and innuendo in The Clinic and from Mr Haematocrit there is still no, zilch, nada, rien, niente evidence that Sky are on the juice?


----------



## Crackle (22 Jul 2013)

I just read out to MrsC what Telmisartan does in Mice and she reckons she should get some prescribed!


----------



## smutchin (22 Jul 2013)

Why? Do you have a problem with overweight mice?


----------



## rich p (22 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> Why? Do you have a problem with overweight mice?


Love your mycyclinglog rank!


----------



## Crackle (22 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> Why? Do you have a problem with overweight mice?


Do you mind if I don't answer that in case she reads it


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (22 Jul 2013)

Crackle said:


> I just read out to MrsC what Telmisartan does in Mice and she reckons she should get some prescribed!


I think @Mice has some explaining to do!


----------



## smutchin (22 Jul 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> It took 5 years to ban the UV light therapy



Well, it's not really UV light therapy per se that's banned, is it? The 2011 rule change seems to have been to clarify the position on any procedure that involves autologous transfusion. 

It seems questionable whether the therapy was really in the spirit of the rules in the first place, because of the transfusion aspect of it, but slipped through the net only because its performance-enhancing credentials were questionable. 

Oxygen tents are a non-invasive, non-medicinal procedure, so hardly in the same category.


----------



## smutchin (22 Jul 2013)

rich p said:


> Love your mycyclinglog rank!



Eh? What? Oh... I should probably update my sig now I don't use mcl any more. 

I should also get out and ride more and spend less time on here discussing yet another bloody doping story, but that's another matter.


----------



## rich p (22 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> Eh? What? Oh... I should probably update my sig now I don't use mcl any more.
> 
> I should also get out and ride more and spend less time on here discussing yet another bloody doping story, but that's another matter.


nevertheless 302nd out of 231 is no mean achievement!


----------



## smutchin (22 Jul 2013)

rich p said:


> nevertheless 302nd out of 231 is no mean achievement!



Sounds a bit fishy to me. If I didn't know me better I'd say it was grounds for Reasonable Suspicion that I'm up to no good. Let me just put those numbers through my Highly Scientific Spreadsheet and get back to you...


----------



## 400bhp (22 Jul 2013)

rich p said:


> I fairness to Kittel, when this first came out he explained that he was naïve and only 18. It wasn't illegal then and he has been vehemently and vocally anti-doping ever since. I will, therefore, cut him some slack and send him a Christmas card.


 

If that's true then I think it's fair enough.

We all make mistakes - it's how we deal with the mistakes that define us.


----------



## zizou (22 Jul 2013)

rich p said:


> I fairness to Kittel, when this first came out he explained that he was naïve and only 18. It wasn't illegal then and he has been vehemently and vocally anti-doping ever since. I will, therefore, cut him some slack and send him a Christmas card.


 
Agree with that.

He had a really good interview after the news broke last year and came across very well in it and seemed very genuine too. Perhaps that it just me being naive but some riders (Kittel in this case but also the likes of Cavendish and his missed test) deserve the benefit of the doubt over what are isolated mistakes.


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> Well, it's not really UV light therapy per se that's banned, is it? The 2011 rule change seems to have been to clarify the position on any procedure that involves autologous transfusion.
> 
> It seems questionable whether the therapy was really in the spirit of the rules in the first place, because of the transfusion aspect of it, but slipped through the net only because its performance-enhancing credentials were questionable.
> 
> Oxygen tents are a non-invasive, non-medicinal procedure, so hardly in the same category.


 
It is interesting that CAS have previously stated that a case of UV blood treatment constituted doping and this was 10 years before the present declaration. In 2002 this was their decision [url=http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/sites/CaseLaw/Shared Documents/389-393.pdf]Link[/url]




> In the present case, the UV Blood Transfusions were administered in a private place
> by a coach with no medical support and without supervision of, or disclosure to, the
> team doctor, the IOC Medical Commission or the team management. The UV Blood
> Transfusions were not even documented by proper records. _*Consequently, the test for*_
> _*legitimate medical treatment was not met and the blood transfusion must be considered as blood doping.*_


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> Oxygen tents are a non-invasive, non-medicinal procedure, so hardly in the same category.


 
They were chosen to present an "ethical dilemma" it is on record as being an enhancement and against the spirit of sport.

The bloods capacity to carry oxygen is deliberately enhanced by an intervention.............. is it a morally valid choice?


----------



## BJH (22 Jul 2013)

medication or drugs to enhance performance, including removal of blood for treatment then re infusing it, is nothing like the use of oxygen tents or training at altitude in any way shape or form. 

The firstexa,ples are deliberate cheating. Given comments on here around Kittels age and subsequent comments, I would be happy to give him te benefitif the doubt. But, you cannotvsaybthat a missed test by Cavendish is the same. Completely different, both may be potentially youth and stupidity but only the blood treatment is a straight case of trying to cheat.

Just ban needles in any way shape or form from the sport.


----------



## smutchin (22 Jul 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> It is interesting that CAS have previously stated that a case of UV blood treatment constituted doping and this was 10 years before the present declaration.



Well, the key words in that statement are "legitimate medical treatment". 

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with it as an excuse but in Kittel's case the procedure was ostensibly used as treatment for a cold and was administered by a proper doctor. But I presume the appeal against the Kittel ruling is questioning the legitimacy of the treatment on the same grounds as that earlier case.


----------



## smutchin (22 Jul 2013)

BJH said:


> Just ban needles in any way shape or form from the sport.



I think that's what the 2011 rule change did.


----------



## smutchin (22 Jul 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> They were chosen to present an "ethical dilemma" it is on record as being an enhancement and against the spirit of sport.



And yet the decision was not to ban them?

Something doesn't add up there.


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> And yet the decision was not to ban them?
> 
> Something doesn't add up there.


 
The WADA Ethics Committee found against them, but the overall decision was to await further research into side effects such as altitude-sickness, sleep disturbance and a possibly adverse effect of the immune system...presumably looking at the third of the "big three" to fall into place.

Oxygen Tents fall foul of the "Potential to enhance sporting performance", and also have been judged (as above) to be "Contrary to the spirit of sport"

A health risk would have meant that the third of the criteria for the banned list would have closed the deal.

Perhaps the failure to revisit is a lack of conclusive proof of harm, and the continued inability to match all three criteria


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Jul 2013)

smutchin said:


> Well, the key words in that statement are "legitimate medical treatment".
> 
> I'm not saying I necessarily agree with it as an excuse but in Kittel's case the procedure was ostensibly used as treatment for a cold and was administered by a proper doctor. But I presume the appeal against the Kittel ruling is questioning the legitimacy of the treatment on the same grounds as that earlier case.


 
Which opens up another question as to whether he could have claimed a TUE if he was being treated for an illness with a legitimate treatment even if on the banned or monitored list?


----------



## Pedrosanchezo (22 Jul 2013)

Just me or does it not appear that the riders and/or teams will do whatever it LEGALLY takes to win.

Is it still ethical to use any legal means to enhance performance if not everyone has the technology or science?
Of course it is unless somewhere down the line it becomes an illegal practise. One would not frown upon a driver not wearing a seatbelt before 1983 would they?

IMO this an area that resembles a mixture of both black and white.
​


----------



## smutchin (23 Jul 2013)

Cunobelin said:


> Perhaps the failure to revisit is a lack of conclusive proof of harm, and the continued inability to match all three criteria



QED


----------

