Racer blood transfusion?

[Stuey]

http://sports.yahoo.com/sc/news?slug...v=ap&type=lgns

I don't understand. The cyclist was found to have two types of blood, his and a donor's. Why did he have a transfusion that disqualified him? What I mean is, what advantage did it give him, or was it done to coverup performance enchancing drug use?

[Cricket]

It's called "blood doping" and it's a way to get more red blood cells into the blood stream so that more oxygen and nutrients can be carried to the rest of the cells in the body. It's a way to improve endurance and stamina. More information here.

Cricket

[Ray_S]

Here is a link to a site that tells you all about it

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/osm/s...002942,00.html

Blood doping An athlete takes a pint of his or her own blood, in the same procedure as donating it, a while before competing and then stores it. Just before a race or match, he or she has a transfusion of this blood. This provides a massive boost in their numbers of red blood cells and so helps them get more oxygen to their muscles. Transfusing extra blood into our arteries can lead to dangerous increases in blood pressure

They just used the wrong blood

Ray

[Force Flow]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_doping

[hitchface]

JTF2 does it. As well as a crap load of other stuff.

[Stuey]

Ah, makes sense now. That's kinda spooky though. "time for a race, let's add some blood to the system". It's also creepy that there are doctors or coaches who would do something that seems so risky.

[Cricket]

Today's athletes will try almost anything (legal or illegal) to gain an edge on the competition.

But it's too bad that Alexandre Vinokourov felt he had to do this to stay competitive...he made this years Tour de France a little more interesting.

Cricket

[Lespaul20]

Originally Posted by Cricket Today's athletes will try almost anything (legal or illegal) to gain an edge on the competition. Cricket

One reason I don't like Professional Sports.

[David M]

Serves him right that he got the wrong blood.

[mbossman2]

wrong blood types can be lethal....it doesn't take much to cause death.

[Cricket]

Well, there goes the Yellow Jersey. More bad news for the Tour de France. But now Team Discovery Channel's Alberto Contador is the new leader of the Tour. What next?

Cricket

[mbossman2]

I think that the Tour (and cycling, as well as other sports, in general) needs step up and clean their house. Something like 100% testing at 100% of the races and immediate and extremely painful sanctions against those caught (banning and hefty fines).

OR just throw in the towel and adopt an "anything goes" attitude. That change will have it's repercussions tho. Someone will die like Tom Simpson did in 1967.

[HAL9000]

I'm actually for the "anything goes" route... I dunno about the 100% testing 100% of the time... I can still see people paying off people to cheat. With the anything goes route, yes, people will die, but just maybe, our kids will see the consequences of cheaters.

[Lespaul20]

I don't think so. If that were true then we wouldn't see as much cheating as we do now. How many football players do you see losing weight because a few have died of heart attacks.

[HAL9000]

I see it as the lesser of two evils, people are and will cheat regardless of testing... so what's the best way to eliminate cheating? Make it fair play?

I don't see your point in football players losing weight though. My analogy is more like you see say a weightlifter, wrestler, runner whatever die or suffer in pain due to steroid use to be the best.... that alone can be a deterrant to our children, the future atheletes to stay away from the usage. Will it stop them... no, but if you turn one away because of it, that's one saved. If you show them a way to cheat to be the best without any visual consequences.. it makes it pretty attractive to cheat.

[Lespaul20]

people are and will cheat regardless of testing

I agree.

But... If performance enhancing was allowed I don't see how it would help anything. They are called enhancers for a reason, you most likely will end up wining with them and in a completive sport that is the point.

I'm not sure that 100% testing would be very efficient(would be pretty effective) but it keeps some of the honor in the sport to those who don't use the enhancers.

I would much rather see my kid(I don't really have one) see a bunch of people get kicked off the tour than to see the winner and wonder how juiced he(my kid I don't have) has to be to win.

[HAL9000]

I would rather have my kid watch somebody win and prove they weren't on drugs and they beat those who were.

[Lespaul20]

Again I totally agree. But I think a person who doesn't use performance enhancing drugs/methods defeating someone who does would be few and far between. One of the points I was trying to make above is that people use drugs in sport because it usually does give them an advantage over those who don't. The honest competitors would have a hard time competing with the dishonest.

[HAL9000]

I would think that would encourage those that want to win fair and square, to work that much harder for it... and they are out there.

[novie]

its definitely an interesting situation, especially in cases where the illegal performance enhancement wouldnt have long term deleterious effects on the racer's health if done properly (like using one's own stored blood). the whole saga of sports is to keep improving - the equipment, the training, etc. It's hard for a competitor to draw the line at the limits of their biology I suppose...

as a fan of professional cycling its just annoying to have this be the focus year after year.
maybe there ought to be a classification for 'anything goes' in the tour de france, make it the black jersey since everyone thinks doping has left a black mark on cycling.

[Strider]

I look it this way cheating is cheating and shouldn't be accepted and I don't buy the argument that it should be accepted, because it would be "difficult" to police, this would be setting a bad example to children. Just like Barry Bonds chasing the home run record, sure he's going to break Hank Aaron's record, but he cheated to in order to do it. I'll never recognize his record and in my book Hammering Hank will always be the Home Run King. There are plenty of other baseball players that cheated also, but there are honest players that don't cheat too. As for Racer blood transfusion that too me is going way overboard in cheating, but unfortunately there will always be cheaters.

[HAL9000]

That's why I say let them cheat and that way, the ones who win clean will be the TRUE heros of athletics.

[hitchface]

But the issue is that cheating is fundamentally wrong. It shouldn't be allowed to happen just for the sake of teaching a lesson. The ends won't justify the means. It is exactly like cheating to win. It is easier to let guys cheat and then bust them, but the problem is letting them cheat.

Doing the right thing isn't usually the easy way of doing things. But should that stop us?

[doubledragon5]

Heck my wife has had multiple transfusions and i haven't seen a difference in her *** drive

[doubledragon5]

Originally Posted by Strider I look it this way cheating is cheating and shouldn't be accepted and I don't buy the argument that it should be accepted, because it would be "difficult" to police, this would be setting a bad example to children. Just like Barry Bonds chasing the home run record, sure he's going to break Hank Aaron's record, but he cheated to in order to do it. I'll never recognize his record and in my book Hammering Hank will always be the Home Run King. There are plenty of other baseball players that cheated also, but there are honest players that don't cheat too. As for Racer blood transfusion that too me is going way overboard in cheating, but unfortunately there will always be cheaters.

The funny thing about bond is that hey haven't proved one way or the other that he did roids.. Even thou I believe he did...

[HAL9000]

Originally Posted by hitchface But the issue is that cheating is fundamentally wrong. It shouldn't be allowed to happen just for the sake of teaching a lesson. The ends won't justify the means. It is exactly like cheating to win. It is easier to let guys cheat and then bust them, but the problem is letting them cheat. Doing the right thing isn't usually the easy way of doing things. But should that stop us?

Right.. cheating is wrong, so if you let them cheat, and you know they are a cheater, are you going to be there showering them with glory when they win... no.. but when the one who doesn't cheat beats those that do... are you going to cheer him/her... I bet you will and I bet you will make a point out of the fact that they proved they can win without cheating.

My point is that if you let them cheat, you will see a sharp increase in death, illness and injury directly related to the cheating.. personally, I WANT my daughter to see what this kinda crap will do to you rather than people keeping it hush hush... this is where you get the coaches and trainers saying.. it's no big deal, everyone does it, it's harmless and it will make you win... next thing you know, your child is in that group cheating under that belief... but if they are seeing the devastating results, are they going to believe it's harmless.. I doubt it.

[hitchface]

I see what you are getting at, but why is it that we need to see people get killed or permanently disabled before we actively stop cheaters? It shouldn't have to go that far. You can see the same principle applied online in a game room. As soon as someone is discovered cheating, they get banned so that they don't make the game lousy for everyone trying to be honest.

On one hand I would like to see some of these guys get what is coming to them. But what could be worse than intentionally taking drugs to play a sport and then get told you can't play. Expensive drugs for nothing. Thus, on the other hand, I would agree with mbossman2 and his notion that getting caught leads to some very rough consequences. Heavy fines, banning from the sport altogether, things like that. It is incredibly dishonest, and a competitor shouldn't even have the chance to reap benefits from their bad decision.

Just had an afterthought: Can you imagine racers wearing clothes that show the names of the companies who gave them the drugs to compete? Like sponsorship, only terrible.

[Cricket]

It wouldn't bother me one bit if they completely did away with all professional sports.

Cricket

[hitchface]

Hahaha, cheers to that. Then again, I couldn't go to people's Super Bowl parties as an excuse to use their pool table if that happened.

[HAL9000]

Originally Posted by hitchface I see what you are getting at, but why is it that we need to see people get killed or permanently disabled before we actively stop cheaters? .

Simple.. because cheating is brought into place as early as our schools with things like steroids where wrestlers and football players are being told it's safe... it's not safe... Think like a kid again... if you see 1/100 people caught cheating and see a long term health affect.. your response is it's relatively safe because it's only 1%... let these professionals cheat... when kids start seeing 30%... 40%... 50%... possibly higher.. dying off before they are 40... they'll realize.. it's not safe and they wont want to pollute themselves with those kind of poisons.

My daughter has MET people that are meth addicts as well as seeing the pictures and videos... it literally scares the heck out of her to stay away from the stuff... if she sees proffessional athletes dropping dead from performance enhancing drugs, do you think she's going to want to do drugs to compete.. not likely... if she knows people are cheating and only a small percentage get caught... where's the incentive to stay clean...