I haven’t been able to
blog for a while, in part due to work constraints, but also due to working on
my next book (Blood: A Very Short
Introduction). Still the book will be finished by the end of this month and
I should have more time to write soon.
Still I couldn’t resist
commenting on the latest BBC documentary about doping - Mark Daly’s Catch Me If You Can. I was actually
invited to talk about it last week on BBC2s Newsnight;
I couldn’t make it as I was busy talking about my artificial blood research
at a blood transfusion conference in Scotland (for the latest info see www.haemO2.com).
What I would like to do
here is explore some of the science behind the allegations. First up, the least
interesting part of the piece – the reporter taking EPO himself to see if he
could fool the anti doping biological passport. I am growing to hate this
aspect of science TV documentaries [1]. They
all do it now (I blame Michael Mosley!) and, although I understand it is used
to engage the viewer, it rarely adds anything to the science. In this case we
know that microdosing is an issue with the biological passport. We also know
that EPO can theoretically improve VO2 max and performance. Actually what we
don’t know is whether in this particular case the EPO enhanced the performance.
The reporter clearly expected the drug to work He also admitted feeling very
different as soon as he took the EPO. One would expect a large placebo effect
under these conditions and, as a non-elite athlete, there was a large room for
improvement. Did the drug really work or was the effect all in the mind? What
the documentary should really have done of course was a double blind crossover
study with a placebo. In fact as a watching scientist I wanted the Swiss expert
Carsten Lundby’s view, not on the passport data, but on whether he thought the EPO-induced
haematocrit change was enough to trigger the measured VO2 max increase. Lundby
is a world authority on the performance link between blood oxygen content and performance
and it would have been really interesting to hear his opinion about this.
That said the journalistic
scoops were really interesting. For me personally the most concerning were the
allegations about Alan Wells, one of my childhood heroes. High dose anabolic
steroids can clearly increase muscle mass and I would be genuinely saddened if
his victories were in part due to steroid use.
But, of course, the
most concerns have been raised about the Galen Rupp and Alberto Salazar
allegations (hotly denied). Leaving aside the truth or otherwise of the stories
what about the science? Well, unlike sprinting, anabolic steroids such as
testosterone are not game changers in long distance running (especially in men).
They have turned up occasionally, the “steroid in my toothpaste” excuse from
Dieter Baumann being perhaps the most famous occasion. The most likely benefit
is in training where they might aid recovery and allow for longer, more intense,
sessions (although even that is not based on mostly anecdotal data). Likewise
asthma therapies like oral corticosteroids. They can stimulate activity, but in
some cases could actually be detrimental to performance. Similarly pre race IV
drips should not be required for a healthy athlete.
My conclusion, albeit
on a one off viewing of a one-hour TV program, is that what was exposed, even if
true, was not what led to Galen Rupp’s strong performances. If he got his
medals by cheating there was most likely something else going on. What the
documentary did expose was a culture that might not have been averse to using a
scientific approach to doping methods (and detection prevention) that really could
make a significant difference in long distance running events. These include EPO
and blood transfusions. That’s what Mo Farah needs to find out when he returns
to America to meet with Salazar.
[1] Hypocrite alert – I
have just taken part in a Channel 4 documentary where this is done. However, at
least this means I can talk with authority about its limitations!
