Fri with DDD: drugs and lifetime bans

DonDaddyD

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/d ... year-28710

I read the article above and I got to thinking,

I hover around the 15 - 16 stone area, have done since I was in my early 20s. When I was a teenager I weighed around 13st (early teens) 14st (mid teens) and 15st (late teens).

Knowing this, if I took weight and fat reducing, muscle building drugs when I was a teen I would have built up a physical prowess to a level I probably wouldn't have done without the drugs. If I keep training with or without the drugs I would be able to maintain near to that drug fuelled level.

So, I become a successful athlete get caught (for doping), do my time and come back to the sport. I still prove myself to be competitive and successful in the given sport. Thing is without the drugs all those years ago I probably wouldn't have the physical abilities post ban so in a way I'm still benefitting from the drugs.

So with that in mind, and please discuss the accuracy of the above, should we hand lifetime bans for drugs cheats based on the principle that they would never have been that good even after they stopped taking the drugs?

dhope

DonDaddyD wrote:

If I keep training with or without the drugs I would be able to maintain near to that drug fuelled level.

Really? My assumption would be that without the drugs you'll return to your natural physique, consistent with the level of training. Wouldn't have thought that a brief course of performance enhancing drugs can raise the bar for the rest of your life.

rjsterry

Not got anything to back this up, but my feeling would be that drug use at a level that might go undetected gives incremental benefits that are comparable with shaving a few grams off your bottle cage or similar. They enhance what is already there, rather than fundamentally transforming your physique. These differences are significant at the top level of sport, but not at 'SCR' level.

I'd also go along with dhope's point about the effects not being permanent to any significant degree.

spen666

DDD - are you so vain that you HAVE to include your name in the title of anythread you start?

rjsterry

spen666 wrote:

DDD - are you so vain that you HAVE to include your name in the title of anythread you start?

Is that a rhetorical question?

Clever Pun

spen666 wrote:

DDD - are you so vain that you HAVE to include your name in the title of anythread you start?

maybe he's mental and refers to himself in the 3rd person?

I've already mentioned this.. and unless he's taken drugs it's a stupid title

jonginge

I have mentally replaced the first i in the title with a y.

It's the burning issue of the day

rolf_f

If this worked, you could do all your drug taking before becoming a professional athlete and reap the rewards secure in the knowledge that nobody could catch you (in more ways than one). In reality, the benefits can't be gained for that long.

DDD - you can get to the physical prowess you'd achieve post drug taking by traditional means. It would just take effort!

Keith47

As a competitive natural bodybuilder for 30 years I personally have a deep seated hatred of drug cheats so my opinion is almost certainly biased but FWIW her's my take on things. It is a well known phenomenon that even if it takes you, for example, 5 years to gain 30 pounds of muscle, if you then stop training for a year or two, and revert to your previous weight, upon returning to high intensity training it is possible to regain that 30 pounds of muscle in a staggeringly short time. One famous case, a guy named Casey Viator, did just that, and without looking it up, if my memory serves me correctly it was 6 weeks! OK he was on 'roids on both occasions but this "muscle memory" as it is erroneously called would certainly still have an effect even if drugs were not used second time around. I have no idea if the same effects would manifest themselves in a predominantly endurance sport like cycling, but my gut feeling is that some benefits are quite likely.You will not be surprised that i think druggies should be banned for life. :evil:

EKE_38BPM

Ban all drugs cheats for life I say.

But...what is a drug?
Caffiene was banned but is now OK.
Testosterone is natural, we all have it in greater or lesser levels. How much is too much?
Some medications are necessary, but are banned. Who can remember Bill Werbonick (sp?) he was on Beta Blockers for a heart condition but that was banned as it steadies your hands (so I've been told).

And just to carry on stirring the pot, what about gender and recreational drugs?
Should Caster Semenya run in men's races, women's races or in a race with other of 'indeterminate gender'?
Why should a stoner be banned? Michael Phelps getting stoned with his mates is hardly performance enhancing!

DonDaddyD

OK here is another example:

Dwain Chambers has admitted to using any number of drugs THG, EPO and things I can't pronouce or spell.

Dwain started off as a large guy. Now he is massive. He is likely to always be massive. Without drugs he may have only ever been large.

Had he not have taken drugs he might never have had the physique, muscles and 'muscle memory' (thank you Keith) that he has now. If he didn't take drugs he would never have been able to do training that has increased his stamina, potential for speed, incrased lung capacity to the levels it is now (even without said drugs). The drugs have allowed him (IMO) to maintain a level of fittness higher than if he had never taken them in the first place.

Arguably there is still some benefit he is getting from the training and muscles developed while taking drugs that he gets now that he is clean. (Unless of course scientifically I am completely wrong).

With that in mind should we ban all drug cheats for life?

DonDaddyD

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Should Caster Semenya run in men's races, women's races or in a race with other of 'indeterminate gender'

You see when you look at Caster, certain angles, you just don't know...



I think (in my ignorance) I might side with the Daily Mail on this one: 'pull the pants down and if you can tap it straight and true then she's female'. Where I reside if she has the tools to make a baby physically and genetic (eggs) then she has to be female. Right?

spen666

DonDaddyD wrote:

OK here is another example:

Dwain Chambers has admitted to using any number of drugs THG, EPO and things I can't pronouce or spell.

Dwain started off as a large guy. Now he is massive. He is likely to always be massive. Without drugs he may have only ever been large.

Had he not have taken drugs he might never have had the physique, muscles and 'muscle memory' (thank you Keith) that he has now. If he didn't take drugs he would never have been able to do training that has increased his stamina, potential for speed, incrased lung capacity to the levels it is now (even without said drugs). The drugs have allowed him (IMO) to maintain a level of fittness higher than if he had never taken them in the first place.

Arguably there is still some benefit he is getting from the training and muscles developed while taking drugs that he gets now that he is clean. (Unless of course scientifically I am completely wrong).

With that in mind should we ban all drug cheats for life?

all of your postings on this subject are making the assumption, without any evidence I am aware of to support it, that taking drugs in the past will affect your physique in the long term future.

EKE_38BPM

Yes, especially drugs cheats that nearly SMIDSY me off the road (Dwain).

DonDaddyD

spen666 wrote:

all of your postings on this subject are making the assumption, without any evidence to support it, that taking drugs in the past will affect your physique in the long term future.

Yeah they do because that is my understanding of it. If as a teenager I take drugs that alllow me to train harder than I ever could without them then that is going to have an effect on my physique.

Couple that with taking drugs that increase my muscle mass, improve or increase the amount of oxygen being carried in my blood, stamina etc then when I stop taking the drugs then my fitness level and physique might level out higher than had I trained to an intensity according to my normal undrugged fitness.

Equally after a course of performance enhancing drugs I'd still be able to train to a higher level of intensity because I'm fitter because of the drugs.

If I'm wrong explain?

jonginge

Oldie but a goodie:
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2008/02 ... heats.html

DonDaddyD

Not sure that is getting to the crux of my point.

OK here goes: I'm 16st. I take EPO or something. Because of the drug I can train harder for longer. I now weigh 12st. I take some slow muscle building drugs. I develop muscles I never really had. I beat Jon Ginge, Prince and Matt hammond to GC in the Tour De France. I'm caught and promptly banned for two years.

I stop taking drugs enter the Tour again and while my performance is down, I'm still much fitter and stronger than I would have been had I trained without taking drugs in the first place. I win again.

Should I have been banned for life on that principle?

spen666

DonDaddyD wrote:

spen666 wrote:

all of your postings on this subject are making the assumption, without any evidence to support it, that taking drugs in the past will affect your physique in the long term future.

Yeah they do because that is my understanding of it. If as a teenager I take drugs that alllow me to train harder than I ever could without them then that is going to have an effect on my physique.

Couple that with taking drugs that increase my muscle mass, improve or increase the amount of oxygen being carried in my blood, stamina etc then when I stop taking the drugs then my fitness level and physique might level out higher than had I trained to an intensity according to my normal undrugged fitness.

Equally after a course of performance enhancing drugs I'd still be able to train to a higher level of intensity because I'm fitter because of the drugs.

If I'm wrong explain?

Unless you keep taking the drugs, the boost it gives you will fade off.

Why do you think the effect of these drugs is permanent? You know that if you take painkillers, the effect of them wears off after say 4 hours- so why do you think the effect of these drugs is permanent

iPete

spen666 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

spen666 wrote:

all of your postings on this subject are making the assumption, without any evidence to support it, that taking drugs in the past will affect your physique in the long term future.

Yeah they do because that is my understanding of it. If as a teenager I take drugs that alllow me to train harder than I ever could without them then that is going to have an effect on my physique.

Couple that with taking drugs that increase my muscle mass, improve or increase the amount of oxygen being carried in my blood, stamina etc then when I stop taking the drugs then my fitness level and physique might level out higher than had I trained to an intensity according to my normal undrugged fitness.

Equally after a course of performance enhancing drugs I'd still be able to train to a higher level of intensity because I'm fitter because of the drugs.

If I'm wrong explain?

Unless you keep taking the drugs, the boost it gives you will fade off.

Why do you think the effect of these drugs is permanent? You know that if you take painkillers, the effect of them wears off after say 4 hours- so why do you think the effect of these drugs is permanent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_memory ?

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

spen666 wrote:

all of your postings on this subject are making the assumption, without any evidence to support it, that taking drugs in the past will affect your physique in the long term future.

Yeah they do because that is my understanding of it. If as a teenager I take drugs that alllow me to train harder than I ever could without them then that is going to have an effect on my physique.

Couple that with taking drugs that increase my muscle mass, improve or increase the amount of oxygen being carried in my blood, stamina etc then when I stop taking the drugs then my fitness level and physique might level out higher than had I trained to an intensity according to my normal undrugged fitness.

Equally after a course of performance enhancing drugs I'd still be able to train to a higher level of intensity because I'm fitter because of the drugs.

If I'm wrong explain?

I think you are looking at it in much too general a way. Each drug has a specific effect (and side effects). They don't make you fitter in the general sense, but they might boost one particular measure of fitness. which may in turn improve one aspect of sporting performance. Throw in the fact that some aspects of fitness are the result of what you're born with, rather than how hard you train, and that different sports test different aspects of fitness in very different ways, and it all really depends on the exact circumstances as to whether there would be any permanent benefit from 'pre-career' drug use.

For example if you want to be a GC contender in the TdF, you probably actually want to reduce muscle mass.

DonDaddyD

spen666 wrote:

Unless you keep taking the drugs, the boost it gives you will fade off.

Why do you think the effect of these drugs is permanent? You know that if you take painkillers, the effect of them wears off after say 4 hours- so why do you think the effect of these drugs is permanent

If you've taken a drug that builds or adds to (i.e. muscle mass) and you've used it to build muscle mass you wouldn't normally have had had you never taken the drug. Then you've gained a near permanent benefit from the drugs.

That's why I used Dwain Chambers. Some arguments I've heard/read are that he would never have been that muscular had he never had taken the drugs. Those now drugless muscles are hardly not doing anything for him are they?

spen666

DonDaddyD wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Unless you keep taking the drugs, the boost it gives you will fade off.

Why do you think the effect of these drugs is permanent? You know that if you take painkillers, the effect of them wears off after say 4 hours- so why do you think the effect of these drugs is permanent

If you've taken a drug that builds or adds to (i.e. muscle mass) and you've used it to build muscle mass you wouldn't normally have had had you never taken the drug. Then you've gained a near permanent benefit from the drugs. ...

All you have done is repeatyour original assumption that taking a performance enhancing drug gives a permanent enhancement


No one doubts taking a drug can boost performance for a relatively short period.

There is nothing to say this is permanent. in fact everything I have read, including the reference to the very unreliable wikipedia suggests the effect is not permanent

DonDaddyD

OK, well if it isn't permanent then I don't see a reason for a lifetime ban.

SimonAH

Or why not just say screw it and allow atheletes to use anything and everything they wish to use?

Should make for exiting sports watching - until Manchester United fields a goalkeeper who is nothing except a twelve foot by seven foot wall of flesh.

tarquin_foxglove

SimonAH wrote:

Or why not just say screw it and allow athletes to use anything and everything they wish to use?

First it would be the pro's, then the amateurs, then the kids (will no one think of the children?! )

Seriously though, I've been around kids football & if some of the parents thought their kid couldn't make the team as other pushy parents were doping their kids, they'd dope theirs.

Now they just think the coach is knocking off the mothers.

dhope

DonDaddyD wrote:

OK, well if it isn't permanent then I don't see a reason for a lifetime ban.

The ban isn't only to prevent unfair competition, it's a deterrent.
Caught = finished is a pretty strong deterrent. Whether it's too strong a deterrent I don't know [/care]

dhope

SimonAH wrote:

Or why not just say screw it and allow atheletes to use anything and everything they wish to use?

Should make for exiting sports watching - until Manchester United fields a goalkeeper who is nothing except a twelve foot by seven foot wall of flesh.

Think NZ already did that with Jonah Lomu, except they got the wall of flesh to cover 100m in 11 seconds too

tarquin_foxglove

DonDaddyD wrote:

OK, well if it isn't permanent then I don't see a reason for a lifetime ban.

FWIW Dwain Chambers was faster at 31 than he was at 23 but not faster than he was while he doped.

I'd guess at experience rather than 'muscle memory' built up while doping, but who knows.

iPete

So if I took steroids down the gym for years, built myself up much quicker than clean then stopped and maintained my size without cheating, that wouldn't warrant a lifetime ban?

DonDaddyD

iPete wrote:

So if I took steroids down the gym for years, built myself up much quicker than clean then stopped and maintained my size without cheating, that wouldn't warrant a lifetime ban?

Yeah but that's what I've been saying and people have been shooting down with an uzi.

I would argue that you would be much bigger anyway because of the steriods. And even after stopping you'd still be bigger than you should have been had you trained completely clean.

if there is a long term benefit (after effect - increased strength, muscle mass, increased Vo2 etc) then yes life time ban.

If not then no.

EKE_38BPM

I hate doing this, but in Dwain's defence, some people perform better at a later age than others. Linford Christie was a grand dad when he won the Olympic 100m title at age 32 (the oldest man ever).