Talk:Blood doping

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): JVO1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

References Missing & Single Citation

When viewed today I found just 1 in-line citation without a References section. I added ref, cite web tags and References section. Given the highly technical subject matter IMO a refimprove tag is appropriate. Conrad T. Pino 03:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Added citation and removed tag BitQuirky 15:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ill-effects and contraindications

Interesting article, but IMO it would benefit from a more detailed examination of the possible side-effects of doping etc. Anchoress 04:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate information (but funny none the less)

I was thoroughly convinced that the page had been vandalized when I saw that the President of the World Anti-Doping Agency's name is "Dick Pounder". After going to the WADA's official website I discovered that his name is actually "Dick Pound". T3hZ10n (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Dick Pound is a former President of WADA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3hZ10n (talk • contribs) 12:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight on negative aspects

This article is written as if trying to discourage the reader from doing blood doping. The "methods" section is fifty percent talk of the risks involved, despite there being a "negative effects" section later on anyway. Also, the "detection" section is much too long compared to the rest of the article.

The athletic effects granted by blood doping is at least as relevant as the side-effects, and much more so than the methods of detection and prevention. How much does it effect aerobic capacity and endurance? Surely scientific studies have been made to extensively document this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.143.141 (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2010

Note: because blood doping has risk of thrombotic events, such an experiment would be unethical. To do such a study, you would have to find a group of naturally occurring high RBC individuals, pair them with matched individuals without the condition, and look at performance differences. Since the expected life span of those with naturally high RBC and HCT is 6-18 months, you'd have to do the experiment quickly Radumas (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hagen–Poiseuille equation inaccuracy

The 16-fold claim incorrect. Hagen–Poiseuille says flow rate is proportional to 1/viscosity and radius^4. It would be correct to say the radius affects flow four-fold more, on a log-scale, but I'm not sure how to write this in a way that is accessible. Maybe it's sufficient to just say four-fold rather than 16-fold.

If radius is reduced by a factor of 2 you get a reduction in flow by a factor of 16. Increasing viscosity by a factor of 2 reduces flow by a factor of 2. I suppose that's where the 16 comes from. However for small changes of the same size we get approximately 4-fold more effect from proportionally equivalent changes to radius vs viscosity. 140.247.243.218 (talk) 02:26, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

applicability of the Hagen–Poiseuille equation

I question the applicability of this equation to the question of the medical impact of increasing rbc and hct through the addition of red blood cells. In effect, blood doping is simulating polycythemia, a very dangerous condition of excess red blood cells. In that condition, the viscosity increase is the cause of stroke and heart attacks that give a short life expectancy if the condition is untreated. If this equation were applicable, then the viscosity increase along with the high mortality would not be empirically observed, and hemotologists would not be so concerned when they see the condition spontaneously occur. there should be a reference to polycythemia so the reader can better understand the risks involved.

Secondly, when the athlete withdraws blood to be reintroduced later, his body will replace the depleted red cells, as expected. Repeated withdrawal of blood can stimulate a faster rate of platelet creation, resulting in high platelet count - thrombocytosis - which increases the likelihood of blood clots, stroke, etc.

I think this equation, which seems to have assumptions about the nature of the fluid constant diameter of the pipe, etc, might not be applicable to the situation of blood, which contains cell units of different sizes that pass through "pipes" that are not linear and have diameters that range all the way down to barely larger than the cells being transported. Blood is a 'sol', a type of colloid, that will differ in properties from a pure liquid when the ratio of suspended particles is increased. I suggest looking more to the empirically observed adverse outcomes of inducing polycythemia. Delete reference to the inapplicable physics formula.

Discussion of risks should make clear that blood doping is dangerous. Repeated use of this technique is playing Russian roulette. It does not just give performance enhancement, but also risks the life of the athlete. Radumas (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

March 2013 complete re-write

To anyone who hasn't noticed between March 26 and 27 User:Chm333bloodoping completely re-wrote the entire article making over 75 unique edits: Before [1]. After: [2]. Changes: [3]. Whilst these changes are in good faith, this user has completely removed all the original online references without explanation. The article's intro paragraph has also been completely removed, which is a serious concern. I haven't had the time to review all the changes, I just want to bring this to the attention of other editors so these changes do not go by without peer review. Freikorp (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

All those many changes by this one-topic WP member, User:Chm333bloodoping, and there was no discussion at all? Surprised, Wordreader (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Perfluorocarbons

Why is this even here? Every bit of this is about theoretical use. The references are between 7 and 17 years old. The only mention of clinical trials is 16 years ago. I would think that if it got out of Trials it would show up in a Google search. I can't find anything current about it. It evidently never made it out of Trials was not approved for any human use doesn't have a manufacturer anywhere in the world and nobody has ever been accused or caught using it in sports. This Wikipedia page should be about actual blood doping not every Theory that's come along that might somehow maybe someday be used. Based on what I read of the chemistry of it, it would be easily detectable. Its uses are Industrial.

I feel the same way about the section on HBOCs. There's not a shred of evidence that anyone's ever use them for sporting advantage. It shouldn't be put up on other editors to prove that they haven't been used as blood doping products, it should be put upon the writers of sections such as these to prove there's some connection 2 sport. If people just wanted to quote every bit of research that's been done on things that theoretically could create a sporting advantage this would be an endless page with no point. It's practically that already.

Next I'll be looking into the section on Cobalt Chloride Administration. Where it says, Recent experimental evidence has proved the efficacy of cobalt chloride in blood doping. First off to study does no such thing. It's only talked about as a possibility.It points out extreme heart dangers and "liver, kidney, and heart accumulates cobalt to a greater extent, causing hepatotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, organ damage and dysfunction", it's clearly a toxic substance that win the study was done, 7 years ago not only had nobody been accused or caught using it it wasn't even listed as a banned substance. Again what is the point here? Jackhammer111 (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is watching this page? I'm hoping to start a reasonable dialogue about what does and does not belong on the page about blood doping. Considering my objections and the General Wikipedia Credo about not being afraid to make changes as long as they're done properly I could just delete these entire sections explain why I've done so. I'm pretty sure that would get a reaction but I'd rather have the discussion here before I resorted to that considering the volatile nature of discussions on cycling doping in general.Jackhammer111 (talk) 19:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I have tried to get discussion about these topics and nobody responds. I usually try to get a consensus before making wholesale changes to a page but given the lack of response I'm assuming my view that these things do not belong on a page about doping is correct and I'm going to delete them and just reference the lack of opposition on the talk page as the reason.

Doping in sport is a serious debate but it is not appropriate for everything that could be theoretically used to dope blood to be on a page about it's actual use. This isn't supposed to be about hypotheticals if it's going to be used by the public as a source for relevant information on real world doping. This is not supposed to be like cyclingnews dot com that post something doping related every single day for clickbait and this isn't a tabloid where rumor is taken as fact. Wiki pages related to cycling are full to overflowing with overkill on the topic of doping and I know the gangs from places like the forum on cyclingnews are responsible for resisting any change to what they have put on the pages. I could cite examples of how I've been ganged up on for deleting something about a particular rider in a BLP where the only source for a damaging claim was a speculation from a former rider who'd been sanctioned for doping and later convicted of actually selling doping products around the world. Convicted, yet the crusaders still like to use him as a source.

Most all of my edits are simply corrections of things I come across on Wikipedia that I know are not true or factual or even belong her according to Wikipedia's own rules. I'm not well schooled in how to appeal for help from administrators when I get resistance from editors who have the process down pat. So often I just give up. Maybe it's time to put this cycling related page to a test. It will now be the job of editors to justify why theses sections belong here as I have explained why they do not and waited months for people to make a counter argument.

I know someone put a lot of effort into he sections on HBOCs, PFCs,and Cobalt Chloride Administration. They are well written in regards to each item. I don't take that lightly and that's why I didn't just delete them in the first place. I did what I thought I was supposed to do if I thought there might be controversy. I brought the topic here. But absent any proof anyone has ever used them to dope they don't belong on a page about doping. Maybe there is some other page where the information is relevant but it's not here. I found it interesting to read about the science but that does not mean they belong on a page about actual cheating in sports.

I'll give it one more day. Jackhammer111 (talk) 01:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

History has No History

The History section contains no history at all. Is this just an incorrect header? There is some history content under 'Military use' and 'Notable blood doping cases' but those are nowhere near the section actually labeled as 'History'. Lucidigm (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)