Drugs II - The Effects
Please note the research for this article was purely a very quick 'once-over' of the kind of drug taking I am aware of but wanted to know more about - PLEASE do not consider it as statement of absolute fact. I wanted a quick education on the whys and wherefores of drug taking blighting this beloved sport of ours and thought some of you might like to know a little more too.
The one I was most keen to know about and the most common drug we hear of is EPO, or Eryhtropoietin - a hormone produced by the kidney that promotes the formation of red blood cells in the bone marrow. The level of red cells in the blood is known as the 'hematocrit' level - this is the level that for years formed the only test carried out by the UCI. As red blood cells carry oxygen it is easy enough to understand that EPO is beneficial to athletes as oxygen is essential in helping muscles to fire. Over a three week long Grand Tour muscles that are given some help with this firing are likely to function better than those functioning unassisted. Enter synthetic EPO.
With synthetic EPO racers are able to control their hematocrit levels so that the UCI's magic number of 50% red blood cells is never stepped over, but is always kept as close to that 50% level as possible. This enabled riders to keep their blood levels close to 50% for the entire length of a Grand Tour despite the fact that the natural expectation for such extended periods of exercise would be a steady decline in the hematocrit number. Riders with a naturally lower hematocrit could also use greater levels of EPO to achieve the 50% number, thus further enhancing their performance. I think I'm starting to get this now...
So racer dudes who want to appear faster inject EPO (I'm talking layman's terms here). But what risks are they facing up to by doing so? At the less critical end of the spectrum it seems EPO use can lead to diarrhoea, dizziness, headache, itching, muscle aches and pains, nausea, tiredness, or vomiting. For the sake of winning I would guess most cheats would shrug these off, particularly for a Grand Tour victory.
More seriously, elevated blood pressure can lead to blood clots. Couple this risk with the high levels of activity leading to dehydration and the consequent increased viscosity of the blood and cardiac arrest and strokes become an issue. There's even links to particular types of synthetic EPO leading to a life-long dependancy on blood transfusions. Frankly, I don't need to list the pros who have lost their lives far too youngdue to these side effects of EPO.
Still wanna win that Grand Tour?
More recently we have also become aware of CERA, thanks mainly to Ricco's suspension for using it in the 2008 Tour de France, followed later the same year by Schumacher, Kohl and Piepoli, and then added to in 2009 with the scalps of Rebellin and Di Luca (as mentioned in my previous article). CERA is essentially EPO that doesn't need injecting quite so often, and can be injected in smaller doses for the same effect (again, I'm talking layman's terms here). Again, easy to see why it gets used in sport as I guess the theory follows one that if you are using less of it and injecting less often then you're less likely to get caught. Thankfully the UCI have finally adjusted their testing protocols and tests for CERA are now standard.
What else is there then? Well Floyd Landis was caught in 2006 using Steroids, and Tom Zirbel was caught in late December 2009 using DHEA - known for it's part in Steroid 'cycles'. I'm going to quote a recent forum post for this bit as it is the simplest description I have found:
"When a user is in one of the "on steroid" stages the their body adapts to the large amounts of exogenous testosterone by slowing or ceasing production of natural testosterone and increasing production of other hormones like oestrogen in an attempt to even out the users hormone levels. Once the "on" cycle is complete the users hormone levels are all out of whack because the body isn't producing any natural testosterone but it producing high levels of oestrogen. This is known as the "post cycle" where DHEA and several other drugs are useful. During the post cycle users will take a combination of drugs aimed at doing two things to balance out their hormone levels: 1) increase the bodies natural testosterone and 2) inhibit the undesirable effects of the high levels of oestrogen."
I've not looked for any specifics on the side effects of all of this behaviour in the short space of time I've been researching this post, but as much as anything that is an inordinate amount of drug taking to make yourself quick on a bike - none of that can be doing the body any good at all. This is a really bad case of messing with nature. That aside, frankly it just sounds like plain hassle!
The one that really makes my skin crawl though is blood doping. This is where red blood cells are 'harvested', either from taking some of the riders' own blood or from a compatible donor and then freezing the blood until it is needed. It is then re-injected into the rider thereby enhancing the red blood cell count. This is the basis of the Operacion Puerto investigation that was recently called to a close. The risks here? It seems there are less risks when using the riders' own blood, but proper storage of the frozen harvested blood is still a risk (potentially causing blood toxicity issues according to this page). In using a doner's blood it is obvious that there is a risk of disease transmission, but there is also a greater risk that the transfused blood will be rejected by the racers' body. It is this use of a doner's blood that had 'Vino' caught out in 2007's TdF.
Thankfully the use of Amphetamines in cycling appears to be a thing of the past (Tom Boonen's extra-curricular activities aside at least). This is the drug cited as being the cause (or at least didn't help with the heat and dehydration on the day) of Tommy Simpson's demise on Mont Ventoux in 1967.
Brief, but hopefully useful / interesting / educational. I for one am happy just making my legs hurt in the hope of some mediocre success - hopefully you're the same.
Share
Drugs.
I guess the trigger for me in writing this has come from once of the comments at the bottom of the page on that very article, which reads:
"Am I the only one who doesn't care about doping in cycling? I'm more interested in a fast race, good sprints, insane descents, crashes, leg busting climbs and awesome race routes. I don't care how they get there or how they do it."
I find that really sad, but as much as anything from the point of view that I kind of wish I could see racing in that same light. As it is my current approach to watching the pros is one of complete absorption, excitement and - for some races and stages at least - sat on the edge of my seat (usually tweeting like mad all along the way). Until it's over, at which point the questions start coming to mind and I feel myself thinking "great win, but he's not normally that good - what's he up to?" or "he's a 'nothing-man' who's just won a big stage - are we going to see him in the headlines soon?". That I don't like.
But when these exact things have happened so many times in the past, how do you avoid thinking like that? 
A mate of mine is a big fan of Alejandro Valverde, and rightly so - he's a great rider. But he's also a convicted doper, banned from racing in Italy and with the threat of a worldwide ban hanging over him*. My mate was gutted when this news appeared in the headlines, and I too thought it was a real shame. What angered me though is that AVV was allowed to continue racing, and even took the GC win in both the Dauphiné Libéré and the Vuelta a España in the 2009 season. Surely with a ban hanging over him his race licence should have been suspended? Especially with so many other worthy contenders (who are hopefully riding clean) in the peleton.
Can anyone really believe the rode and won the Vuelta clean?
I talk about cycling a hell of a lot, much to the disdain of my non-cycling friends - inevitably discussion often leads to drug use in cycling, especially when I'm speaking with people whose only interaction with cycling is hearing about a convicted doper on the news. This in itself is a really frustrating thing, but you can't help but understand how they feel the need to question an athlete's capability to ride hard, fast stages of a hundred miles or more every day for three weeks... which only logically prompts the question of "is it really possible to ride a Grand Tour clean?". I often feel down-hearted after such discussions, but I refuse to believe that doping is a majority practice.
My wake-up call was when our own Manx Missile edged across the line in front of Heinrich Haussler at the Milan-San Remo in 2009 for a classic win. Cavendish had completed an historic victory in fine style showing his true credentials in closing Haussler down at an inordinate rate over the closing meters, proving his title of 'the fastest man on two wheels'. How did I reward him? With this: "I hope he's clean". After that I tried to be a little more objective for the rest of last year's Pro season, opting to take the 'innocent until proven guilty' stance and generally having a little more faith in a clean peleton.
But then came the high profile scalps of Davide Rebellin (stripped of his 2008 Olympic silver), Thomas Dekker, Danilo di Luca (who had placed second in last year's Giro d'Italia) and Mikel Astarloza, not to mention all of the smaller names who had tried to hit the big time and got caught taking the easy way out. Oh, and of course Tyler Hamilton who's career is now completely finished as a result of an 8-year ban (a shame, I kinda liked him). It's hard to keep the faith with this going on.
Already in 2010 we are seeing signs of sponsors not renewing for future seasons (Milram, Saxo Bank), and more smaller name riders are hitting the headlines in the off season for having been naughty. That said, 2009 looks to have been one of the cleanest seasons for a while and I hope this is a trend that continues when the 2010 Pro Tour season kicks off at the Tour Down Under in a few days. Things seem to be heading in the right way, but there is still a very long journey ahead.
For what it's worth I think more manufacturers need to take heed of Shimano's decision to strip teams of Shimano kit in the event of a rider being banned - as I said before, this should be an industry-wide collaboration between all of the major players to remove supply and prevent use of their components when a single rider from any team gets caught and banned.
I can't write an article of this nature without mentioning the good work being done by Bike Pure to promote clean cycling, and it's great to see such an impressive list of names on their books. I'd love to see them begin to work with the big name manufacturers to further enhance their presence and promote their message. Hopefully they will continue to gain the support they deserve.
So, here's looking forward to the 2010 season kicking off with gusto, and let's hope for the cleanest season yet.
*Apologies if my info on AVV is out of date - I will check this following completion of this article to be sure!
Share