I understand what is being said about the increased damage to muscles
and tendons and what not, but wouldn't long term (say 1 year) use of a drug
such as EPO which improves the "engine" as we call it, also, indirectly
improve muscle strength and endurance over time with training. I mean, lets
say an athlete begins using EPO. At first, increased muscle damage would be
expected after hard training sessions, but shouldn't the athlete adapt to
that increase in training intensity as he would to an increased training
intensity ordinarily, without the use of drugs?
Dan (still getting stronger and faster the old fashion way - hard work, 2000)
In a message dated Tue, 17 Oct 2000 1:26:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
"Mcewen, Brian T" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
<< Here it is, in the shortest/most succinct way I can write it, without
implicating any individuals for drug use:
1) I think we all agree that a 10,000m heat, followed by 2 rest days, and
the 10,000m final at the Olympic Games is stressful (i.e. you are tired/sore
after you complete it). Most of us would agree that running any all-out
track 10k is hard on the body. Running two of them is even harder.
2) Take a guy ... say Alberto Salazar, who proved that he was capable of
27:20-30 under the best of circumstances (three times in 1982). The fatigue
he experiences after a tough PR attempt in the 10k is from lactate
accumulation, and muskulo-skeletal destruction (in the feet, legs and upper
body). There may be some slight trauma to the lungs, heart muscle,
mitochondria and vascular network, but I think it is much less of a factor
than the destructive trauma to the muscles/tendons/joints.
3) Now, put 1982 Alberto on EPO ... and conservatively his times improve to
say 27:00-flat (1 second/400m). I think that is fair, and based on science,
not speculation (improving an athletes hematocrit from 44% to 60%). This
kind of hematocrit "boost" is documented in competition, and again, not
based on speculation.
4) Now, with the help of higher O2-carrying capacity, he runs a 27:00-05
under the best of circumstances (25 second improvement over real life). In
these efforts, he experiences no lesser or greater lactate accumulation
(than when running clean 27:25's) due to the fact that his VO2max is boosted
from the dope.
Here is the rub: The EPO doesn't "boost" the body's muskulo-skeletal
strength. The 27:00 10k is inherently MORE difficult for the body cope with
than the 27:25 10k, in a muskulo-skeletal sense, even with "blood-boosting".
There has been no corresponding increase in muscular strength or resistance
to damage, and no increase in tendon/joint strength to counter the instant
boost in VO2max and Lactate Threshold you definitely get from EPO use.
The "engine" (Cardiovascular system) can push the "chassis"
(muskulo-skeletal system) harder than it could before the dope. The
"engine" is souped-up, but it is the same pre-EPO chassis. If the runner
could "adapt" to the "more intense stimulus" as you say, then there would be
very little post-race soreness at any distance or effort ... since distance
runners run 15-20 miles a day and regularly train at faster pace than the
64-66 pace the 10k now requires.
There are anti-inflammatories, corticosteroids, stimulants, DMSO and
God-knows-what-else to deal with this soreness ... but those drugs have been
available for a long, long time (before EPO).
EPO has made it possible to push your "body" (muscles and bones) harder and
faster than you could without it ... and that makes you pretty tired after
FIFTY LAPS of Hammer-and-Tongs fighting in the Olympics.
NOTE: Apologies to using Al Salazar as an example, and I am not insinuating
drug use in any way. If you read it, I am just saying: Take a runner
(27:25 guy) and add EPO = 27:00 guy. It could have been anybody.
Also, I have no proof that all distance runners in the Olympics take dope
(starting in 1988) and that all of them competed unaided before 1988.
Absolutely no proof, and I am absolutely not implicating any of them as a
group or as individuals.
What IS PROVEN is that:
EPO is a proven booster of VO2max. EPO has absolutely been available to
the general public since BEFORE 1990. EPO has been used in endurance sports
in a widespread and systematic manner (athletes have admitted this).
What I am saying is that:
There is a strong correlation between the availability of EPO ('87?, 88?,
89?) and the complete disappearance of SUCCESSFUL doubling at the major
Championships in the 5k/10k where heats are required. The attempts are much
fewer, and the successes are nearly nonexistent. In '72, '76, and '80 there
were three double golds, and several other notable double medallists, and
high-placing doublers (Viren, Yifter, Puttemans, Shorter, kedir, Maaninka,
Foster). Add the '83 WC and you have Werner Schildhauer (double silver) in
the 5k/10k.
Ask yourself: Why did it happen regularly at the European Championships,
the Olympics and eventually at the Worlds ... and then it suddenly became
nonexistent.
The only male I remember doing it ever in the last 12 years was the great
Gebrselassie in 1995 ... he wins the 10 and I think gets bronze in the 5k
.. and he is the BEST of the last 7 years.
Once in the last 12 years, with only partial success VERSUS many, many
successes in the previous 20 years ... it doesn't add up.
-Brian McEwen
On Mon, 16 October 2000, "Mcewen, Brian T" wrote:
> The ability to run faster (due to higher RBC's) breaks down the
> muskulo-skeletal system too much to attempt 2-3 rounds of a 5k after
> doing the 10k ... not to mention attempting the marathon.
Is this statement based on research, or are you simply speculating? Now, I
don't use "speculating" pejoratively; I just want to know if there's any
research supporting your claim that some threshold of human performance (in
terms of recovery) has been crossed.
And that's really the point, isn't it? After all, one would typically assume
that the body would adapt to the new, more intense stimulus, so that, for
example, a 27:30 10K would feel to a "doped" athlete like a 28:15 does to a
"non-doped" athlete. Only if you believe that there is some fundamental
limit on recovery time in relation to race pace does your argument make
sense.
So is there?
- Jay Ulfelder
----------------------------------------------
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is brought to you by
the Stanford Alumni Association and Critical Path.
>>
