Is blood doping ok with the anti-steroid folks?

This isn't blood doping. Besides, its done on the up and up.

Sounds a lot like autologous blood doping to me. Having a prescription makes everything cool?

How is this blood doping?

Blood doping is used to give an user an enhance performance during competition. This is used to speed up recovery. Its certainly isn't going to help Billingsley throw a faster baseball.

Edit: Also, doing this is a lot less intensive than a normal Tommy John surgery. If this becomes more popular, it'll put Dr. James Andrews out of business.

Autologous blood doping isn't without risks, either. The WPA is trying to research a dependable test for it.

This is used to speed up recovery.

isn't the point of steroids to speed up recovery from working out?

But this isn't a workout. They're using this to treat a legitimate injury.

How is this blood doping?

That's like asking why roast beef between two slice of bread is a sandwich. This is the primary definition of blood doping and the WADA is trying to find a dependable test to stop autologous blood doping period.

But this isn't a workout. They're using this to treat a legitimate injury.

Muscle fatigue is an injury as well.

Muscle fatigue is an injury as well.


Which can be managed and prevented easier than preventing a hamstring pull.

Sorry Dan, I just don't think these two things are similar. The Dodgers and Billingsley aren't trying to get an advantage using this new technique.

Which can be managed and prevented easier than preventing a hamstring pull.

What does that have to do with it? It's still an injury. There's no reason for a line to be drawn and there are short-term health risks to the process as well. It's not just a healing technique; it increases an athlete's aerobic capacity past the normal limits for the person, which has effects on a player's stamina and endurance.

You can also manage and prevent a hamstring pull much better than you can manage pancreatic cancer, but that doesn't make treating cancer more "legitimate" than treating a hamstring pull.

There are too many games that can be played with this, which is why it's going to be banned in international play as soon as there's a viable test. MLB can't test players for this right now, but they can certainly tell teams no, which they should do unless they like the idea of 30 teams having free rein to artificially enhance the blood of their players (and with no way to ensure that they're no EPO involved).

Not every injury is created equal. And why should anyone care about international play when its legal in MLB, and Everyone being public about it?

edit:

You can also manage and prevent a hamstring pull much better than you can manage pancreatic cancer, but that doesn't make treating cancer more "legitimate" than treating a hamstring pull.

And the situation with pancreatic cancer matters why? What does treating cancer matter with treating injuries for athletic purposes? You went off the pole for that one.

And the situation with pancreatic cancer matters why? What does treating cancer matter with treating injuries for athletic purposes? You went off the pole for that one.

You're the one who wanted to arbitrarily draw a line. There's no more reason for a line between hamstrings and cancer than there is between muscle fatigue and hamstrings.

Here's a basic primer on what blood doping is and how it works.

And why should anyone care about international play when its legal in MLB, and Everyone being public about it?

MLB doesn't have to negotiate with teams to ban something, just the players. There's no reason to even shrug about steroids if "All-you-can-Pump" blood doping is granted carte blanche to teams. When there's testing for analogous blood doping, MLB would be smart to negotiate testing with the MLBPA as the potential benefits of blood doping and later on, gene games, can make the benefits of steroids look like sugar pills by comparison.

I'm not saying Billingsley should be reprimanded in any way, but MLB would be smart to nip this in the bud if they're going to continue to worry about artificial performance-enhancing.

Tripon, do you consider Petitte's PED-usage less egregious because he was recovering from an injury? No snark, just curious.

What? This procedure does not increase aerobic capacity! It separates the platelets and re-injects only the platelets. True blood doping separates the red blood cells and re-introduces them to increase O₂ capacity. In fact, WADA's rules are not clear on this procedure. They are concerned with the use of insulin growth factor, which is present in platelets, but it is not clear what their position is on autologous re-introduction. Everyone understands what true blood doping is, and why it's banned.

You're the one who wanted to arbitrarily draw a line. There's no more reason for a line between hamstrings and cancer than there is between muscle fatigue and hamstrings.


Dan, you seem to be taking the opposite approach and declaring the slightest remote relation is automatically connected to the issue of recovery/PED use. Okay, but I personally don't see how treatment for cancer is the same as treatment for an ligament injury. Is the line arbitrary? Sure, but what the heck isn't? And for now, this is legal, and I can't see it becoming illegal in the foreseeable future, especially if it helps to replace Tommy John surgery as the most effective way to treat torn ligaments.


Tripon, do you consider Petitte's PED-usage less egregious because he was recovering from an injury? No snark, just curious.


I was rolling my eyes on his claim that he only used once, then twice, then it was revealed that he got regular shipments. I do think there is a difference between what the Dodgers and Billingsley/Saito/Claudio Vargas did with this platelets treatment because they're doing it in public, and performed by doctors over Petitte and others self administrating their own HGH/steroid usage.

Am I supposed to say that a hospital running a methadone clinic is the same as some junkie buying coke in the alley?

What? This procedure does not increase aerobic capacity! It separates the platelets and re-injects only the platelets. True blood doping separates the red blood cells and re-introduces them to increase O₂ capacity.

I should have RTFA - I assumed that they were doing something more from #3.

Am I supposed to say that a hospital running a methadone clinic is the same as some junkie buying coke in the alley?

If we have hospitals dealing coke, then yes.

Given the prevalence of illegal performance-enhancing drugs on teams for 50 years now, I think we can rule out teams as impartial, detached authorities.

The Dodgers and Billingsley aren't trying to get an advantage using this new technique.

Then what fathomable motivation would they have for using it?

That's like asking why roast beef between two slice of bread is a sandwich. This is the primary definition of blood doping and the WADA is trying to find a dependable test to stop autologous blood doping period.

No, the definition of blood doping is enhancing the amount of oxygen-carrying red blood cells in the blood, not enhancing the amount of wound-healing platelets in the connective tissue.

You're the one who wanted to arbitrarily draw a line. There's no more reason for a line between hamstrings and cancer than there is between muscle fatigue and hamstrings.

Here's a basic primer on what blood doping is and how it works.

So, according to that primer, what blood doping is is something that's nothing like what Billingsley is doing. Comity!

Crispix, I admitted a few posts ago I misunderstood because of not RTFA.

i'm still trying to figure out how one is wrong, and the other is okay, since both are used to speed recovery from something that inhibits performance -- hamstring injury in one, muscle fatigue in another.

and reading about the treatment doesn't help me to see what's legitimate about it. they drew his blood, spun it to concentrate his platelets then reinjected it into the site of the injury. this is okay why? i'm not saying i don't think its okay, but now i don't get what's wrong with steroids in comparison.

Am I supposed to say that a hospital running a methadone clinic is the same as some junkie buying coke in the alley?

is this the key? unsupervised medication? are juicers automatically abusing just because they don't have a prescription? what if a steroid user is quietly getting direct, top of the line medical advice from an MD who doesn't want the publicity?

i'm not being snarky, and sorry if this is creating another steroid thread.

Crispix, I admitted a few posts ago I misunderstood because of not RTFA.

OK, sorry.

Dan, you seem to be taking the opposite approach and declaring the slightest remote relation is automatically connected to the issue of recovery/PED use. Okay, but I personally don't see how treatment for cancer is the same as treatment for an ligament injury. Is the line arbitrary? Sure, but what the heck isn't? And for now, this is legal, and I can't see it becoming illegal in the foreseeable future, especially if it helps to replace Tommy John surgery as the most effective way to treat torn ligaments.

No, you see, because whatever this procedure is has something to do with recovery from injury, and HGH is also used to recover quickly from injury, therefore if you think this is okay, which obviously everyone should, then HGH should also be okay, and therefore steroids are okay, unless you were happier in the days before Tommy John surgery and ACL surgery when it was God, rather than doctors, who decided when an athlete's career was to end.

what if a steroid user is quietly getting direct, top of the line medical advice from an MD who doesn't want the publicity?

If a player gets a valid prescription for legitimate therapeutic use, it's perfectly acceptable under the rules, and no one would ever have to know the name of the doctor (well, leaks notwithstanding). Still, if you're a person who has a legitimate medical necessity for muscle-building steroids, you're probably not a professional athlete.

The Dodgers and Billingsley aren't trying to get an advantage using this new technique.

Is it not an advantage for him to be back earlier than he otherwise would?

I'm not against this kind of treatment at all. But it's hard to see a logical reason why this would be OK but use of HGH/steroids to recover from injury is wrong. Take Troy Glaus. He's 6'5 with a large frame. He's obviously naturally strong. He's not taking PEDs to hit the ball farther, he's just trying to get back on the field.

Weight lifting tears down the muscles, steroids help recover from that damage faster. That's bad?

well it sure got quiet here all of a sudden.

I'm surprised the Dodgers bus ticket didn't at least get a snark.

29--me too, but this site has virtually no Dodger fans, nor even many people who care enough to snark on the Dodgers....