Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
The thing about doping in cycling is that it's impact is small but significant at the top...perhaps a 3-5% increase in power which over the course of a long race or long climb does make a big difference. The point being that doping can't turn an average rider into a great rider, you already have to be elite. During Lance's reign at the TDF it was probably impossible to win unless you were doping.
|
That's not correct. Blood manipulation via synthetic EPO and autologous transfusions can make a much greater increase in performance. Up to and beyond 10%. It all depends on the blood values that nature gave you.
The UCI set a 50% hematacrit (HCT) standard as the limit for competition. People with a HCT level of 48% don't even need to engage in blood manipulation. In fact, they really can't due to the risk of busting the 50% threshold, which would cause them to have to wirhdraw from an event and stay out of ompetition until their levels dropped below 50%. However, if your HCT level is 42%, you can get a much bigger boost in performance by adding a few red blood cells. You can take synthetic EPO to stimulate their growth, or you can re-infuse a pint of your own blood that's been in cold storage. The more red blood cells you have, the higher your oxygen uptake. More oxygen transported to the cells increases performance endurance and short term power.
BTW, that 50% threshold didn't exist in the Armstrong era, so Lance could theoretically raise his HCT levels to 60% via transfusions and EPO. He could use EPO with impunity during his first 3 wins because the test for that wasn't used in cycling until about 2001-2002. And it's only been in the last 3-4 years that they've developed ways to detect doping via transfusions.
Just to give you a reference, on my last blood test, I was borderline anemic. My red blood cell (RBC), hemoglobin (HGB) and hematacrit (HCT) levels were all below normal range. HCT was 39%.
Threaded Mode