Doping with EPO (Erythropoietin) seems to have begun in the 1980’s with competitive endurance athletes and The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) placed it on its list of banned substances in 1990. A reliable and valid detection test developed by French scientists was adopted and implemented in time for the 2000 Olympic Games. This performance enhancing substance has been linked to sudden deaths of athletes and many doping scandals over the years.
Erythropoietin is a naturally occurring hormone, which is produced by the kidneys. It stimulates the bone marrow to produce more red blood cells (RBC’s). This therefore increases the heamatocrit (non-liquid element of blood) and heamoglobin (oxygen carrying chemical) levels of blood. It was first developed as a drug to treat anemia, kidney failure and post-surgery blood loss. It can also be used to assist recovery from chemotherapy and deal with complications of HIV/Aids.
By raising the amount of red blood cells in the blood, the potential to transport oxygen around the body is increased. This improves energy production, especially through the aerobic/endurance energy system, which decreases the use of the anaerobic/short-term energy system, levels of lactate and fatigue. The marker for physical fitness / aerobic capacity, VO2 max, is then increased. Studies have shown time to fatigue/exhaustion (exercise tolerance) can be extended by up to 17% while taking EPO!
But it’s not all good. The increased heamatocrit/RBC levels causes hyperviscosity of the blood (excess density). Some side effects can include raised blood pressure, dehydration, nausea, lethargy, fever and seizures. This thicker blood can increase chance of heart attacks and stroke, as the cardiovascular system is overloaded. Often, once the drug is abused, the amount of RBC production that will actually take place becomes hard to predict, adding to the risks involved. In recent years, in addition to more extensive and accurate testing, some sporting codes have set up safety cut off levels of heamatocrit (50%), although this has been seen as unsuitable, as ‘normal’ levels of heamatocrit vary greatly from person to person.
The most well-known incident of EPO use in sport occurred around the 1998 Tour de France, when the Festina cycle team was found with large quantities of EPO and other banned substances during the 17th stage. Other high profile cases of EPO doping include two cross-country skiers at the 2002 Winter Olympics, an female Ironman World Champs silver medallist and a double cross-country world champion. Along with the laboratory manufactured versions of EPO, newer advanced bone marrow stimulating chemicals/drugs are being developed, such as CERA (Continuous Erythropoiesis Receptor Activator). This modern option for doping has a unique action on bone marrow that differs slightly to EPO and it’s effects can last longer inside the body. A test for CERA was a surprise addition to the 2008 Tour de France and later two-time stage winner Stefan Schumacher was found guilty of doping. In 2009 the International Olympic Committee (IOC) declared that it was to re-test blood and urine samples from the Beijing Summer Olympics for CERA and in November of last year, the Olympic 1500m champion Rashid Ramzi was stripped of his gold medal after testing positive.
Here’s a few links that you might find interesting:
WADA – http://www.wada-ama.org/en/
Doping Cases - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_sport
Jed
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
so here's thing...
ReplyDeleteobviously in most professional sports across the spectrum, some form of substance is taken in order to increase performance (or even recovery time). from EPO to the simple protein shake. my question is the ethics surrounding this entire scene.
in essence how can the best sportsman win when at the level of professionalism,it all boils down to whats happening in the blood system, right? i mean natural talent and ability is not as emphahsised as it once was (like maybe several centuries ago)
here's a scenario: the best athlete within a field, naturally that is, with God's gift and abilities, trains every day and practices and enhances all he can as much as he can with a normal healthy diet and healthy life style. then you get someone who is definitely competitive in terms of natural ability and talent, but is certainly and fairly the least better of the athletes. if athlete number 2 were to use a protein replacement recovery substance (nothing as extensive as that of EPO or steroids), there is no doubt in my mind that athlete 2 would begin to surpass athlete 1, and eventually win the event.
in essence, at a level of competition where seconds (or less) seperate the best from the rest, the athlete with the means of supplying their body with substances is always going to win?...like i said little emphasis is put on natural ability anymore, because this can only take us so far, in order to push those extra seconds or miles, something performance enhancing is needed?
(another slightly related question, sorry for the long post comment):
if a simple protein shake aids in recovery, makes meals and protein assimilation convenient, then surely they are too considered performance enhancers? because as the name descibes, it is enhancing one's ability to perform is it not?
what do you think?
"it all boils down to whats happening in the blood system, right?" - I understand what you're saying there but don't forget about the psychological factors, flexibility, etc and the technical side of things too (tactics, coaching, doing your homework). The biochemistry in the body is really just a part of it.
ReplyDeleteYou commented on natural talent; interesting article coming up which kind of flips that concept on it's head, stay tuned. In terms of athlete no.2 being better, i don't think so. Lets look at it like this; athlete 1 is working hard training, sorting their nutrition out and leading a good/optimal lifestyle, while athlete 2 is just utilizing a single factor/option. Yes perhaps less emphasis is placed on natural ability these days, you're right, but lets say as a coach, I'd take young, inexperienced, enthusiastic, natural and appropriate talent over an athlete that needs/wants to use performance enhancing substances... I also think those extra seconds or miles can be found using optimal training, new exercise/training techniques, sport psychology, teams of personnel/coaches/professionals for particular athletes, etc
Using protein shakes as an example; defining something as a performance enhancing substance might not necessarily mean that it is banned/unethical. I would say one needs to ask the question:; is the substance natural? Is it something the athlete could understand and control themselves? Does it have any serious side-effects?
Interesting stuff, we're starting to delve into sports ethics here...
Jed