More questions

Once again a doping issue, this time involving Stephen Roche (left), is beset by things other than the facts. The Late Late Show of two weeks ago did not clarify anything about the Roche controversy other than what we already knew - that Roche's name is on a list in the files of a now discredited doctor called Conconi. The list indicates that Roche may have been administered the banned substance Erythropoietin or EPO which boosts red blood cells (RBC). He denies it and Conconi has become the hardest man in Italy to find.

Some minor issues arose from Pat Kenny's show. It was said that EPO was not available until 1988. According to the Lancet, volume 352, number 9142, Nov 1998, ". . .the introduction of EPO in 1987 made an increase in RBC mass possible without autologous infusion of RBCs." In other words EPO replaced Blood Doping in 1987.

It was also stated on the Late Late that if you took a random sample of people, between 0.8 per cent and three per cent would have haemocrit levels of above 50 per cent, the legal limit for cyclists. The Lancet, volume 32 number 9126, August 1998, supports this claim citing a study where 46 people were tested over 16 months. Six measurements exceeded the 50 per cent mark with the study concluding that some athletes could be banned because they have haemocrit levels at the upper limit of a normal distribution.

However, a paper in the November edition of the Lancet written by Wim Saris, Joan Senden and Fred Bouns from the Department of Human Biology, Maastrict rubbishes this theory. They studied 34 professional cyclists between 1980 and 1986 - before EPO became available. Their findings "did not support the criticism that the UCI (International Cycling Federation) cut of 0.5 (50 per cent) leads to an unacceptable high number of false positives" and "that it is very difficult to reach a high RBC mass without artificial help".

Summary: Both Roche and Conconi still have some explaining to do.