Poor old Kohl
One really does have to feel sorry for Bernie Kohl.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/oct08/oct27news
I didn't realise 'how much blood' he lost in the Dauphine Crash. I undertsand why he would've resorted to taking EPO. His career was at stake.
It takes guts to risk everything - including the very sport itself - to ensure one has a job for another year. How many riders are willing to put it all on the line? That is how much he must love cycling.
And he is right - the drug companies and WADA have a loit of explaining to do. My favourite quote:
"Everything is blamed on us. If the [drug] companies would cooperate with the World Anti-Doping Agency from the beginning and put markers in the medication, then nobody would be so stupid as to use such a medication. In some cases it is practically an advertisement for the pharmaceutical companies."
So why don't we cut the poor young boy some slack? He has been punished enough already. Let him back in the pro-ranks I say.
BTW - if you don't know what the phrase 'tongue-in-cheek means', the above is a pretty good example.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/oct08/oct27news
I didn't realise 'how much blood' he lost in the Dauphine Crash. I undertsand why he would've resorted to taking EPO. His career was at stake.
It takes guts to risk everything - including the very sport itself - to ensure one has a job for another year. How many riders are willing to put it all on the line? That is how much he must love cycling.
And he is right - the drug companies and WADA have a loit of explaining to do. My favourite quote:
"Everything is blamed on us. If the [drug] companies would cooperate with the World Anti-Doping Agency from the beginning and put markers in the medication, then nobody would be so stupid as to use such a medication. In some cases it is practically an advertisement for the pharmaceutical companies."
So why don't we cut the poor young boy some slack? He has been punished enough already. Let him back in the pro-ranks I say.
BTW - if you don't know what the phrase 'tongue-in-cheek means', the above is a pretty good example.
0
Comments
-
I do agree with him on one point - why don't the pharmaceutical companies put markers in their products so that they are identifiable? I know that the majority of use is medical, and legitimate, so markers are unnecessary, but how much would it really cost to do it? Certainly would put the cat amongst the pigeons in sports doping.Take care,
Steve.0 -
He must have ask David Millar what to say,
" Hey Dave how do I come back from this?" asks Kohl
"Look Bernie when your interviewed don't blame yourself blame the girlfriend or the team or the pressure say you knew it was wrong but you had to win or loose your job everyone will go aaahhh & you 'll be back within a couple of years" answers Dave
"Oh yeh Dave great" says Kohl
"Just don't say sorry or that its really about i getting a big fat salary & the fame & wanting to be team leader & getting lucrative sponsorship deals, just don't even mention those things I didn't & I think I got away with it." Dave smiles & exits stage left counting the cash0 -
Life in Bernie Kohl's world:
His blaming WADA and the drug companies could almost be compared to me causing a fatal car crash through speeding and then blaming the car manufacturer for designing a car that allows me to speed, and the police because they weren't patrolling the roads just before I crashed.
I think Bernie must have been a fan of The Simpson's. I wonder if he ever saw the 'I didn't do it' episode?0 -
Drug companies are in the business of making money... I'm sure if WADA were to pay the cost of introducing markers into drugs that get used illicitly for doping, then the drug companies wouldn't mind, but there is no reason that they should pay for it just because some doctors prescribe the drug illegally...0
-
Having read bad blood, and followed the sport for years, I dont believe or trust anyone! I really dont. Unfortunately I think cyclings biggest problem is its faux honesty. It seems everyone knows its going on but no-one admits it and then the sport is the first to tut tut when someone gets caught. Then carries on regardless.
Then in football (US or Euro), tennis, athletics, swimming are just as bad etc etc etc
Why dont the drug companies mask it?? LOL as the guy above says coz it sells for major $$$$$$$$$0 -
bipedal wrote:Drug companies are in the business of making money... I'm sure if WADA were to pay the cost of introducing markers into drugs that get used illicitly for doping, then the drug companies wouldn't mind, but there is no reason that they should pay for it just because some doctors prescribe the drug illegally...
See, thats the common argument we get (although I've never read of anybody from a drug manufacturer use it), but the fact is that adding markers would cost very little (most of the cost in any drug is in the development and testing, not the manufacture). However, if they did put the markers in they would lose a lucrative market, albeit a black market to which they (probably) don't sell directly. I suppose I've answered my own question now which I should re-phrase to read "why don't governments insist on the drugs companies putting markers into their drugs?" Of course that's because the pharmaceutical industry is the real force that pulls the strings, even at governmental level, and they don't want to lose any "outlets" for their wares, no matter what the moral line may be.Take care,
Steve.0 -
You lot are really dim at times.
Why don't drug companies put markers onto their products?
Well, what markers would you like?
They could radio-label them.
Fancy having a nice gamma-emittor injected to help treat your renal failure?
They could stick another identifiable ligand on.
The human body detects this, identifies the drug as an undesirable and potential harmful alien protein andproduces antibodies to it, thereby rendering it ineffective.
The whole idea of these pharmaceutical products is to render them indistinguishable from the naturally produced molecules, thus producing an effective treatment and persistant one that doesn't cause harm to the patients it's given to.
The numbers of potential illicit users are tiny compared to the potential number of patients.
In the UK, we've around 20,000 patients on haemodialysis, some thousands more on peritoneal dialysis and a few thousand pre-dialysis patients who may be on RhEPO of one form or another.
Say 30,000 in total and that's the UK only, where we under-dialyse compared to other European countries.
Add in the rest of Europe, add in the Americas, add Australasia add the rest of the world rich enough to be dialysed and buy RhEPO.
Add in the other medical uses like Oncology & Haematology and you'll have hundreds of thousands of patients.
That's just RhEPO, what about Growth Hormones, Insulin etc, etc, all from reputable sources.
Say there is a world-wide legislative process to make all manufacturers of drugs with the potential to be used as "Dope" put markers in them.
Each and every product would need to go through the licencing process again, to prove their safety & efficacy, taking hundreds of patients for each drug, maybe 2-3 years for each trial.
At what cost would that be? And who'd pay it?
Pharmaceutical companies find the illicit use of their products to be at best an annoyance, at worst it can delay their launch on the commercial market.
Say this did all happen, a "magic marker" is found that is both easily detectable and doesn't produce any adverse effects on the medical uses and patients it's given to.
The test for it is rolled out with a great fanfare by WADA etc.
Out of China pops a little company, that knocks out a copy of the original, unlabelled product.
Back to square one, aren't we?Remember that you are an Englishman and thus have won first prize in the lottery of life.0 -
Ignoring operations like Balco, which produced drugs explicitly for sports doping, the major drugs players like Merck, GSK, Roche, etc produce drugs for legitimate pharmaceutical purposes - to treat people for leukaemia, arthritis, etc.
Why should they put markers in for sports authorities to detect when these drugs are abused by sportsmen for purposes which they're not designed, not licenced and not field-trialled ?
And as production switches across from European & North American companies to emerging economy pharmaceutical companies in places like China, India & Russia, I can see even less motivation for them to do it.0 -
OffTheBackAdam wrote:You lot are really dim at times.
Why don't drug companies put markers onto their products?
Well, what markers would you like?
They could radio-label them.
Fancy having a nice gamma-emittor injected to help treat your renal failure?
They could stick another identifiable ligand on.
The human body detects this, identifies the drug as an undesirable and potential harmful alien protein andproduces antibodies to it, thereby rendering it ineffective.
The whole idea of these pharmaceutical products is to render them indistinguishable from the naturally produced molecules, thus producing an effective treatment and persistant one that doesn't cause harm to the patients it's given to.
The numbers of potential illicit users are tiny compared to the potential number of patients.
In the UK, we've around 20,000 patients on haemodialysis, some thousands more on peritoneal dialysis and a few thousand pre-dialysis patients who may be on RhEPO of one form or another.
Say 30,000 in total and that's the UK only, where we under-dialyse compared to other European countries.
Add in the rest of Europe, add in the Americas, add Australasia add the rest of the world rich enough to be dialysed and buy RhEPO.
Add in the other medical uses like Oncology & Haematology and you'll have hundreds of thousands of patients.
That's just RhEPO, what about Growth Hormones, Insulin etc, etc, all from reputable sources.
Say there is a world-wide legislative process to make all manufacturers of drugs with the potential to be used as "Dope" put markers in them.
Each and every product would need to go through the licencing process again, to prove their safety & efficacy, taking hundreds of patients for each drug, maybe 2-3 years for each trial.
At what cost would that be? And who'd pay it?
Pharmaceutical companies find the illicit use of their products to be at best an annoyance, at worst it can delay their launch on the commercial market.
Say this did all happen, a "magic marker" is found that is both easily detectable and doesn't produce any adverse effects on the medical uses and patients it's given to.
The test for it is rolled out with a great fanfare by WADA etc.
Out of China pops a little company, that knocks out a copy of the original, unlabelled product.
Back to square one, aren't we?
Great response.0 -
Pharmaceutical patents last 20 years.
Up to ten of those can be spent getting the drug through the clinical trial and licensing process.
If you then changed the molecular structure, you would have to go back to square one, thereby delaying the launch of the product, denying legitimate patients the latest drug advance and costing the pharma company thousands in lost sales.
All to stop a few dope cheats?
Never going to happen.0 -
I don't think they mean to change the structure of the drug, as that would invariably change the proprties of the drug such that it probably wouldn't work as well. This is what medicinal chemists do when trying to make a drug that works, and the process is akin to throwing a tennis ball through the open window of a car as it zooms past at 40 mph, or one of those hand-held games you had as a kid where you had to get 9 steel balls into 9 holes and every time you got one in (e.g. potency) another one popped out (drug solubility, for example.....)
Er, anyway. It might be possible to slip an inactive but detectable compound into the forumulation as a surrogate marker. But again, the cost of doing this, compared with the reward of catching out a few sporting cheats, means its unlikely to happen.
Better to do it the Mircera way and have the company work with the anti-doping agencies from day 1 to develop a test, and unleash it upon an unsuspecting world...Le Blaireau (1)0 -
Well I'd better rest then in the face of overwhelming arguments against my puny case! :shock:Take care,
Steve.0 -
slojo wrote:Pharmaceutical patents last 20 years.
Up to ten of those can be spent getting the drug through the clinical trial and licensing process.
If you then changed the molecular structure, you would have to go back to square one, thereby delaying the launch of the product, denying legitimate patients the latest drug advance and costing the pharma company thousands in lost sales.
All to stop a few dope cheats?
Never going to happen.
For drug patents you can get a 'supplementary protection certificate' which adds extra years on to the standard 20 years to compensate for the years lost in trials.
I agree with the rest of your point though.Twitter: @RichN950 -
Many riders are using knock off copies of these wonder drugs made in illicit labs in China and Eastern Europe. I believe Manolo Saiz was caught in the Puerto affair trying to buy these counterfeit drugs from Fuentes.
Kohl is just whingeing. It's not the fault of the pharma companies. He had an accident and then decided to set in place a long chain of events that involved researching the product, ordering it, paying for it, handing it, injecting it and more. It wasn't as if he slipped on the floor and landed on a syringe.
0 -
Very fair and no doubt true comments regards masking. Its nice to have some insight like that, I know nothing of medicines and their production other than what I read in sports and daily press.
With so much insite, whats the solution? Coz China etc wont give a hoot who buys the stuff me thinks and I then imagine there will be some serious heart attack cases going on...0 -
very wise of Kohl to blame the drug "dealers". Way to go @$$hole!0
-
What's the solution?
There is none.
Some athletes always have and always will be prepared to take something that gives them that little edge.
They might ,like Kohl & others before him, "justify" it for "medical reasons".
The big area to worry about, is genetic therapy, find that "Merckx Gene", copy it and insert it into the DNA of a youngster.
Has this already happened? Probably not.
Will this happen? If it's proved to work, then certainly yes.
The expense will be great, but if you look back at the doping programmes of the former Communist Block countries, using their athletes as part of the Cold War and the Festina Affair, if the rewards are perceived to be great enough to outweigh the risks, then it will be done.Remember that you are an Englishman and thus have won first prize in the lottery of life.0 -
Thats scarey and probable.
I do think removing the 50% rule would be a start. there is a reasonable doubt to be applied then. Such as in-explicable peaks and troughs etc - A rider starting a race at 49% must be expected to finsih a way lower not still 49%0 -
OffTheBackAdam wrote:What's the solution?
There is none.
Some athletes always have and always will be prepared to take something that gives them that little edge.
They might ,like Kohl & others before him, "justify" it for "medical reasons".
The big area to worry about, is genetic therapy, find that "Merckx Gene", copy it and insert it into the DNA of a youngster.
Has this already happened? Probably not.
Will this happen? If it's proved to work, then certainly yes.
The expense will be great, but if you look back at the doping programmes of the former Communist Block countries, using their athletes as part of the Cold War and the Festina Affair, if the rewards are perceived to be great enough to outweigh the risks, then it will be done.
Your last sentence is right on the money. It applies to everyone. We all take "drugs"
for all kinds of things and there is a risk with all of them. Even simple aspirin carries
a risk, but what it does for us is better than that risk(in most cases). Very few people
don't search out some remedy for a nagging cold or cough. I doubt that there are any
competitive athletes out there that don't search for things to give them an edge, whether
it's supplements, gels, bars, drink mixes, and the like. Even this carries a risk in that ingesting all that sugary goo can't be the best of ideas no matter what the claims. Here in
the states someone is selling a supplement called EP-NO, of all things. Apparently it sells
well enough to have been around for a few years. People will try anything sometimes
and Pro racers are no different from the rest of us except for a legality issue. Hell, when I've been sick for a week or so I'm ready to try just about anything to get well, legal or not.
Dennis Noward0 -
Offthebackadam.
best response yet. great perspective. thank you.
There is a far less expensive solution to pharm companies putting markers in, etc. How 'bout only patients use them, rather than professional athletes?! Novel idea. really.0
