Drugs in other sports and the media.

RichN95.

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Why Sky have dealings with Zorzoli?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/zorzoli-to-leave-uci/

Every team had dealings with him. He was the head medical officer at the UCI. If you needed a TUE he's the person you had to go to. There was no other option.

Richmond Racer 2

But...but... WHY?



Edit: soz, it's Friday, I'm only 90 mins away from an end-week g&t

above_the_cows

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

So let's compile a list of cyclists and other sportspeople with known medical conditions. It can be known as the 'Untermensch With Uberstrength List'.

1. Beryl Burton - ventricular tachycardia.
2. Jack Bobridge - rheumatoid arthritis.
3. Greg Lemond - ADHD.
4. Steve Redgrave - diabetes and crohns disease.

5. Franco Bitossi has a pretty serious case of cardiac arrhythmia... it costed him the worlds in 1972... if only he was allowed to inhale something...

PED use prevented my father having a pro career. PED use however is not the same as Verapamil. Funnily enough many cyclists have ventricualr tachycardia. Why? Because it lowers your resting heartrate and is generally thought to help sufferers regulate their heartrate and so is encouraged by cardiac specialists. But according to your logic people shouldn't be allowed to take these medications which prevent attacks if they also want to be professional sports people. No they should suffer the attacks and have to continually seek medical intervention (stopping and starting the heart, or would that be allowed because it often involves drugs to stop the heart if regular rhythm cannot be achieved with shocks alone) or just run the increased risk of death.

ugo.santalucia

Above The Cows wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

So let's compile a list of cyclists and other sportspeople with known medical conditions. It can be known as the 'Untermensch With Uberstrength List'.

1. Beryl Burton - ventricular tachycardia.
2. Jack Bobridge - rheumatoid arthritis.
3. Greg Lemond - ADHD.
4. Steve Redgrave - diabetes and crohns disease.

5. Franco Bitossi has a pretty serious case of cardiac arrhythmia... it costed him the worlds in 1972... if only he was allowed to inhale something...

PED use prevented my father having a pro career. PED use however is not the same as Verapamil. Funnily enough many cyclists have ventricualr tachycardia. Why? Because it lowers your resting heartrate and is generally thought to help sufferers regulate their heartrate and so is encouraged by cardiac specialists. But according to your logic people shouldn't be allowed to take these medications which prevent attacks if they also want to be professional sports people. No they should suffer the attacks and have to continually seek medical intervention (stopping and starting the heart, or would that be allowed because it often involves drugs to stop the heart if regular rhythm cannot be achieved with shocks alone) or just run the increased risk of death.

My point is somewhat different and related to whether those 70% of swimmers and 40% of cyclists REALLY need medications... of which I am very skeptical... if they do, then we are all doomed and they should take the prescriptions they need... if they don't then the sport needs a clean up

above_the_cows

Rick Chasey wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Jeez, what's with the shouting

So much anger

If only this was directed at blood dopers, EPO merchants and clen ingesters

Yeah but they were exciting racers. Sure some of them died but, you know, entertainment!

What's your take on technical/fast/difficult descents with respect to the danger they pose to riders?

What does this have to do with the PEDs being rightly banned because they not only enhance performance but also endanger life? Are you suggesting that because cycling can be considered dangerous PEDs should also be allowed because well cycling endangers life so why not go the whole hog? I'm failing to see your point if I'm honest? Risks are not absolute, they are context specific and subjective.

rick_chasey

Above The Cows wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Jeez, what's with the shouting

So much anger

If only this was directed at blood dopers, EPO merchants and clen ingesters

Yeah but they were exciting racers. Sure some of them died but, you know, entertainment!

What's your take on technical/fast/difficult descents with respect to the danger they pose to riders?

What does this have to do with the PEDs being rightly banned because they not only enhance performance but also endanger life? Are you suggesting that because cycling can be considered dangerous PEDs should also be allowed because well cycling endangers life so why not go the whole hog? I'm failing to see your point if I'm honest? Risks are not absolute, they are context specific and subjective.

It's more I find the 'safety' argument around PEDs or TUEs from fans a little hypocritical, or a least inconsistent.

It gets brought out when it suits a certain agenda.

Fans ought to be more honest around what they want from the sport.

They want excitement without the feeling of guilt afterwards, and they want enough belief in the system to be able to enjoy what they see.

That's basically it.

feltkuota

Rick Chasey wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Jeez, what's with the shouting

So much anger

If only this was directed at blood dopers, EPO merchants and clen ingesters

Yeah but they were exciting racers. Sure some of them died but, you know, entertainment!

What's your take on technical/fast/difficult descents with respect to the danger they pose to riders?

What does this have to do with the PEDs being rightly banned because they not only enhance performance but also endanger life? Are you suggesting that because cycling can be considered dangerous PEDs should also be allowed because well cycling endangers life so why not go the whole hog? I'm failing to see your point if I'm honest? Risks are not absolute, they are context specific and subjective.

It's more I find the 'safety' argument around PEDs or TUEs from fans a little hypocritical, or a least inconsistent.

It gets brought out when it suits a certain agenda.

Fans ought to be more honest around what they want from the sport.

They want excitement without the feeling of guilt afterwards, and they want enough belief in the system to be able to enjoy what they see.

That's basically it.

Is it though? The wrestling thing, can't remember what it's now called, has a mass audience (not mine). That's pretty much scripted "entertainment".

RichN95.

The question is though - Does cycling actually have a TUE problem?

There are about 1200 cyclists in the UCI's Registered Testing Pool. They can only obtain a TUE from the UCI. In 2015 the UCI issued only 13.

So that's 13 TUEs issued for 1200 cyclists. Even when you add in the cyclists who will have long term TUEs for uncureable conditions, that's a very small number. It doesn't look like a problem to me.

rick_chasey

Yeah wrestling is pretty popular.

Depends on your tolerance level for belief suspense.

Most people's is fairly low, but not so low that mass doping stops them watching it (I'm looking at you baseball).

I just find the 'outrage' around the health of riders with respect to PEDs odd when the regular occurances of broken bones barely raises an eyebrow.

You practically need to kill them by pushing riders odd with a motor bike to get the same response from fans.

It's curious.

RichN95.

So now they've leaked a third batch of hacks, which reveals that Laura Trott has asthma, a fact mentioned in every single article about her. Sadly there was no mention of who her boyfriend is so that will remain a mystery.

iainf72

The asthma thing is interesting. I remember reading an article, in 1989 or 1990 in Bicycling Magazine which talked about the prevalence of the condition among elite cyclists.

And as it happens in other sports it would be interesting to see a study to see if there is a link between suffering from it and athletic ability.

TheBigBean

iainf72 wrote:

The asthma thing is interesting. I remember reading an article, in 1989 or 1990 in Bicycling Magazine which talked about the prevalence of the condition among elite cyclists.

And as it happens in other sports it would be interesting to see a study to see if there is a link between suffering from it and athletic ability.

Yes, it would be interesting. There is the alternative hypothesis that asthma doesn't present until you are pushing your body to the limits i.e. I may be asthmatic, but I have never trained hard enough to find out. Either way, it would be a lot more interesting that some random TUEs.

joelsim

RichN95 wrote:

The question is though - Does cycling actually have a TUE problem?

There are about 1200 cyclists in the UCI's Registered Testing Pool. They can only obtain a TUE from the UCI. In 2015 the UCI issued only 13.

So that's 13 TUEs issued for 1200 cyclists. Even when you add in the cyclists who will have long term TUEs for uncureable conditions, that's a very small number. It doesn't look like a problem to me.

To be fair it would've been far more but Orica kept forgetting to ask for one.

RichN95.

Joelsim wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

The question is though - Does cycling actually have a TUE problem?

There are about 1200 cyclists in the UCI's Registered Testing Pool. They can only obtain a TUE from the UCI. In 2015 the UCI issued only 13.

So that's 13 TUEs issued for 1200 cyclists. Even when you add in the cyclists who will have long term TUEs for uncureable conditions, that's a very small number. It doesn't look like a problem to me.

To be fair it would've been far more but Orica kept forgetting to ask for one.

Is Vegemite on the banned list?

pinno

RichN95 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

The question is though - Does cycling actually have a TUE problem?

There are about 1200 cyclists in the UCI's Registered Testing Pool. They can only obtain a TUE from the UCI. In 2015 the UCI issued only 13.

So that's 13 TUEs issued for 1200 cyclists. Even when you add in the cyclists who will have long term TUEs for uncureable conditions, that's a very small number. It doesn't look like a problem to me.

To be fair it would've been far more but Orica kept forgetting to ask for one.

Is Vegemite on the banned list?

If it isn't, it bloody well should be.

pinno

FWIW, TUE use on Newsnight, BBC2.

RichN95.

Pinno wrote:

FWIW, TUE use on Newsnight, BBC2.

I thought the guest was quite sensible. Probably not what they were hoping for. Ross Tucker's agent must be on holiday.

pinno

RichN95 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

FWIW, TUE use on Newsnight, BBC2.

I thought the guest was quite sensible. Probably not what they were hoping for. Ross Tucker's agent must be on holiday.

Perhaps she could come on here and stick her two pence worth in.

Vegemite is yeast based. I had a GF with acute asthma, she had to avoid it and some breads, pizza bases etc.

I have no idea where i'm going with this.

kingstongraham

feltkuota wrote:

Is it though? The wrestling thing, can't remember what it's now called, has a mass audience (not mine). That's pretty much scripted "entertainment".

So does the Hunger Games - that's got about the same relevance to a discussion on sport.

Pross

ugo.santalucia wrote:

YorkshireRaw wrote:

Ugo - do you have a credible source for your '50%' figure that you keep positing - if so please can you link to it.

There was article on cycling weekly that quoted 40% of GB olympic cyclists.

Just under the picture of Froome

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/com ... ing-223300

This one points at 70% for the olympic swimmers, against an 8-10% in the general population

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/ ... y-swimmers

This one also mentiones 1/3 of team Sky cyclists

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... yclist-eid

So Sky are relatively 'clean' on this issue compared to other sports teams? I bet that stat gets ignored elsewhere

sherer

This whole Fancy Bears hack doesnt seem to have actually revealed very much so far.

joe2008

sherer wrote:

This whole Fancy Bears hack doesnt seem to have actually revealed very much so far.

Well, I guess it's revealed that some of Wiggins' autobiography is fiction.

RichN95.

sherer wrote:

This whole Fancy Bears hack doesnt seem to have actually revealed very much so far.

It wasn't supposed to. It's a diversion. The purpose is to take attention away from Russia institutionalised doping. A bit like in a heist movie where the burglars throw a steak to the guard dog. It's worked a treat.

(It's also to downplay their doping to the Russian public - 'look at these hypocrits, we're not so bad'. It's the same tactic used by old dopers like Rasmussen)

carbonclem

The bulk of the celebration/outrage over Wiggins' TUE seems to revolve around the fact that the substance could be abused for performance gains.

I 'guessed' thats why you get a TUE for limited use over a limited time, and thus you can't and don't abuse it.

Pah, it seemed so simple at first!

joelsim

CarbonClem wrote:

The bulk of the celebration/outrage over Wiggins' TUE seems to revolve around the fact that the substance could be abused for performance gains.

I 'guessed' thats why you get a TUE for limited use over a limited time, and thus you can't and don't abuse it.

Pah, it seemed so simple at first!

You can easily abuse it, there's nothing to stop people taking it OOC.

ugo.santalucia

Pross wrote:

So Sky are relatively 'clean' on this issue compared to other sports teams? I bet that stat gets ignored elsewhere

Stats over small numbers don't mean a lot... the consistently high number of asthmatic athletes over different teams and sports is a more reliable indicator... of something, not sure what that something is though. I still think drugs are used instead of rest because rest is an expensive commodity in a highly pressurized world, while drugs are a cheap shortcut

Richmond Racer 2

^tbf I think there is an element of that. I think that comes with the territory. Not just sport, though - it's the same approach across all walks of life. Drugs are a shortcut to health again (in theory). Feeling like you're coming down with a bad cold? Most people take codeine/ibuprofen, decongestants whatever. They don't just lie in bed for days on end. Well, I certainly don't.

ugo.santalucia

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

^tbf I think there is an element of that. I think that comes with the territory. Not just sport, though - it's the same approach across all walks of life. Drugs are a shortcut to health again (in theory). Feeling like you're coming down with a bad cold? Most people take codeine/ibuprofen, decongestants whatever. They don't just lie in bed for days on end. Well, I certainly don't.

I haven't taken any pill in years... the only exception, I was prescribed a course of antibiotics after a small surgery, which I did follow a couple of years ago... they even gave me a bag of pain killers, which I didn't take as I don't mind pain too much... if I get a cold I don't take anything, if it's really bad I call in sick at work, generally one day is plenty, that might happen once or maybe twice every year at worst... I haven't caught a flu in about ten years, if i did, I'd probably just stay in bed and read a book... I can't say that the absence of medications is impacting my life to be honest. I did try the odd paracetamol and ibuprofene in the past for hangovers, but they didn't seem to be miracle cures, bacon and eggs seem to be a better pain killer so I didn't bother anymore

I think most drugs are largely useless

Richmond Racer 2

Well, that's your view & you're entitled to it

Personally I will carry on taking ibuprofen if I have a bad headache, or a decongestant if my chest feels bunged up

ugo.santalucia

Richmond Racer 2 wrote:

Well, that's your view & you're entitled to it

Personally I will carry on taking ibuprofen if I have a bad headache, or a decongestant if my chest feels bunged up

It's not just my view... overmedication is being widely recognised in the medical community as being a massive problem. There is very good program on the BBC at the moment, "the doctor who gave up drugs". The key point is that GPs prescribe drugs as they are a quick (and safe) way to get rid of patients, given they only have 10 minutes to visit them and make a diagnosis.