SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home EPO And Lance Armstrong: What's The Risk?

THE STUDY MAY 23, 2011

EPO And Lance Armstrong: What's The Risk?

On Sunday, “60 Minutes” aired an interview with Lance Armstrong’s teammate Tyler Hamilton, in which Hamilton accused Armstrong of using the banned drug EPO for blood doping. Athletes can “blood dope” by taking drugs such as EPO to unnaturally increase their red blood cell count, hoping to increase oxygen flow and boost energy and endurance. Among other claims, Hamilton told “60 Minutes” that Armstrong convinced a Swiss anti-doping lab to keep silent about his test results. Armstrong is currently under federal investigation, and he strongly denies all charges. The consequences of EPO use, though, are not merely legal.

Cyclists who use EPO might be interested to know that in 2009, Nuno Piloto and Helena M. Teixeira of the Institute of Pharmacology & Experimental Therapeutics at Coimbra University tested the effects of EPO on lab rats. How did it go? Not very well. In Week 8, one of the rats dropped dead. Piloto and Teixera found that chronic EPO doping increased the viscosity of blood, leading to heart failure and sudden death. Erythrocytosis, or the excess of red blood cells, can also cause seizures, heart attacks and pulmonary embolisms. Counter-intuitively, Piloto and Helena suspect that EPO side effects could cause sudden death even during periods of inactivity. Along with other scientists, they believe that EPO could have been responsible for the deaths of about 20 cyclists, though scientists did not have the knowledge to prove it at the time. “Athletes who abuse rhEPO seem to consider only the benefit to performance and ignore the short and long-term side-effects,” Piloto and Teixeira wrote. It seems athletes who illegally practice blood doping have more than the authorities to worry about.

 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 2 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

2 comments

What is the point of winning a sports competition? I mean, it might be fun to race against a friend just for fun. Aerobic exercise is a good thing and helps one live longer; racing against a friend or friends might be motivating to do better. Doing better would presumably make one feel better and make one's heart last longer. However, winning an ordeal such as the Tour de France would probably be so strenuous as to harm one even without taking harmful drugs. Is it to prove one is "better" than the other racers? Better at what? Taking drugs? Why not just require everyone to list whatever drugs he or she took and divide the competitors into groups...those racing without drugs; those racing with drugs; those surviving longest after racing, and so on.

- skahn

May 23, 2011 at 8:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This issue was well known among cyclists at the time after several died in their sleep. From what I've read, it was standard practice to set one's alarm to go off in the middle of the night and do some brief exercise (push-ups, etc), to get one's blood flowing enough to avoid death, as recounted, for example, here: http://www.sportsscientists.com/2009/02/cyclist-dies-in-sleep.html

- hairdan

May 24, 2011 at 2:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close