Ulrich Kicked out of Tour
 

Jan Ulrich was among dozens named in the latest doping scandal. As a matter of fact, the 2, 3, and 4th palce finishers from last year are all gonners. The teams are not being allowed to field replacements for any of the riders, so the competition field will shrink.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13559903/

Yay! How many people have to get kicked out before they just cancel the event and I can skip of a year of listening to poseur acquaintances who pretend to give a flip about cycling once a year? (I'm not saying none of the really do care, just enough of them to be really annoying.)

One thing I don't understand is why blood transfusions aren't allowed. So long as the added blood doesn't contain drugs it seems to me that it is equally accessible and physically safe. Do they ban Breath-Rite Nose Strips (or whatever they are called)?

Wow. That certainly opens the field up! That photo of Jan in the article makes it seem that he's dropped a lot of weight.

Count me among the poseurs who will be watching.

I understand barring EPO, but not simple transfusions. That article lists as the negative of transfusions:

This is only true because it is banned. If it weren't banned there'd really be no risk of infection and toxicity because they wouldn't have to try and hide it. There is the same risk with improperly stored salmon but they're still allowed to eat that if they want.

But beyond EPO, simple blood transfusions are used to artificially increase red blood cell count, sans banned chemicals. So it's still a performance enhancer.

Yes, but so is exercising a lot. If it is equally accessible and not particularly harmful I don't see why it should be prohibited. I just think the scope of what is considered doping is overly broad and obviously not particularly effective if half your top athletes are in violation.

If popping a benedryl before a race gives you more endurance then go for it. I'm surprised they don't make them sit down to identical meals before every stage. And induce comas so that everybody gets identical sleep.

I tend to agree, just pointing out their reasoning.

Yeah, I understand their reasoning and I'm sure if asked they'd come up with better reasons than does the Wikipedia article. I just found it amusing that the only physical negatives they listed for blood transfusions are a byproduct of the banning. It makes me think of someone arguing that abortion should be illegal because the risk of infection from a back-alley abortion is too high.

I found an interesting journal article that I'm reading now.

http://www.dsmb.univr.it/documenti//...gato942926.pdf

"A large infusion of RBCs may be associated with hyperviscosity syndrome, which is characterized by increased blood viscosity and decreased cardiac output and blood flow velocity and results in reduction of peripheral oxygen delivery. Additional complications may be phlebitis, septicemia, bacterial infection, and air/clot embolism. 24"