Doping...2010 Style!

Hi All,


I guess the good news is that we've made it all the way until January 24th without me needing to write a post about doping. But now I do have some good news, some bad news, and some could-be-bad-could-be-good news. So keep reading...


Okay - let's start with the good news. According to one recent article, the steps taken by pro cycling (mainly the suspensions and the biological passport) are the reason that more companies are jumping into lucrative sponsorships. Team Sky, Radio Shack, HTC-Columbia, and Team Garmin (now Garmin-Transitions) all have attracted new sponsors for 2010. 


Not at all related to doping: I find it interesting that all 4 of these teams are UK or US-based. However, 2 more ProTour teams are already having sponsorship issues. Both Team Milram and Team SaxoBank face serious financial issues and may be looking for major sponsors or potentially be disbanded. These teams are German and Danish-based teams, right in the heartland of cycling. So why are they having problems? Is it purely financial due to the problems in the global economy? Or is it because sponsors are tired of hearing their names associated with doping? Ok, maybe this was related to doping a bit...


(Side note: if Milram folds - there will be zero German pro cycling teams. Somewhere, Jan Ullrich is shaking his head...)


Ok, that's the good news. The sorta-good-sorta-bad news starts with Lance Armstrong. He decided to stop his personal and independent doping testing for 2010, which he has been posting on his personal website since his return. His rationale is that the UCI's biological passport along with the testing done by the various cycling federations make the independent testing redundant. Personally, any time Lance generates any type of doping headlines it's probably not a good thing. But after all these years, I guess Lance doesn't really care anymore. He is more concerned that posting his results online causes more problems than it solves since all it takes is one knucklehead to blog about his values online and that can snowball, even if there is little to no validity. I guess I can't argue with that...


We've all known for years that steroids are bad. Yes, they make you stronger, help you recover, make you beat Carl Lewis in the Seoul Olympics, etc, but they can also kill you. Liver damage, roid rage, hormonal imbalances, sterility, acne, etc, the list goes on and on. People know that steroids are bad. But how about EPO? EPO, which has been the cyclists doping drug of choice for many years, was initially developed as a therapeutic agent to help treat anemia (in patients with cancer or kidney disease). So it must be safe? Not so, according to a recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine. The researchers studied 4000 patients who were given EPO or placebo, and studied their rates of heart attack, stroke, as well as their quality of life. The researchers were surprised to find out that more patients taking EPO had heart attacks, almost twice as many strokes, and scored essentially the same on quality of life. Hmmm, maybe going a wee bit faster on a bike isn't worth it? 


If you want to read more on this topic - read this NY Times article. It's very interesting that finally athletes seem to be less likely to take performace-enhancing drugs. For years, the Goldman Dilemma asked elite athletes if they would be willing to take a drug that would win them a gold medal but kill them within 5 years. For years, this test showed about half the athletes would be willing to make this trade. Today, the researchers expect that 10-20 percent of athletes would still take the drugs. Interestingly, less than 1% of the general population would make the same deal. Are we making progress? At least it appears that more people are A) aware of the dangers and B) think less highly of doping and dopers. 


I guess this "Doping and Cheating Aren't Cool" movement hasn't reached China yet. Over 30 runners who finished in the top 100 in a recent Chinese marathon were disqualified for various cheating actions - jumping into vehicles, giving their chips to faster runners, having imposters run for them, etc. The Chinese university system actually gives credit to students with fast marathon times, so for many students, attempting to shave time off might help their career plans. 


One last thing - Canada's least favorite sprinter Ben Johnson is publishing his autobiography next month, where he claims that he has proof that his drink was spiked with stanozolol after winning the 100m at the Seoul Olympics, and that it was a colleague of Carl Lewis who did it. Ben also allegedly admits that he only took furazobol (a different steroid) and that the IAAF knew of several positive drug tests leading up to the 1988 fiasco. It might be an interesting read - but I can't find any sign of it online. I'll keep you posted...