Forum home Road cycling forum Pro race

Drugs in other sports and the media.

1193194196198199203

Posts

  • gweedsgweeds Posts: 2,370
    Well I am shocked at that, shocked I tell you. He seemed SO legit.
    Napoleon, don't be jealous that I've been chatting online with babes all day. Besides, we both know that I'm training to be a cage fighter.
  • johnboy183johnboy183 Posts: 816
    Evening. Don’t think this has been mentioned anywhere else. Mention of British Cycling and others. No direct mention of Sky/Ineos but weren’t they using key tones at some point from Oxford at some time?

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-8513525/British-2012-Olympians-guinea-pigs-Special-Forces-wonder-drug.html
  • orraloonorraloon Posts: 8,850
    Bzzzt. Daily Heil. Sanitise. Mind.
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 25,467

    Evening. Don’t think this has been mentioned anywhere else. Mention of British Cycling and others. No direct mention of Sky/Ineos but weren’t they using key tones at some point from Oxford at some time?

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-8513525/British-2012-Olympians-guinea-pigs-Special-Forces-wonder-drug.html


    Sky/Ineos have said they haven’t used them. I remember someone said they considered it but their Nutritionist thought there was no independent studies confirming the benefits and plenty of negative stories so they shouldn’t. That would seem to tally with the problems with the UK trials.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • blazing_saddlesblazing_saddles Posts: 18,078

    Evening. Don’t think this has been mentioned anywhere else. Mention of British Cycling and others. No direct mention of Sky/Ineos but weren’t they using key tones at some point from Oxford at some time?

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-8513525/British-2012-Olympians-guinea-pigs-Special-Forces-wonder-drug.html


    Lotto Jumbo.
    Tom Dumoulin, is a big fan.

    https://pezcyclingnews.com/toolbox/exogenous-ketones-in-pro-cycling-the-future-of-elite-endurance-sport/
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • bobmcstuffbobmcstuff Posts: 10,189
    Aren't ketones essentially a nutritional supplement rather than a drug?

    I haven't read the Mail article because it's on the Mail website.
  • ddraverddraver Posts: 23,051
    Yes, but a synthesised, really really expensive supplement.

    There is a bit of a level playing field issue at work
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • johnboy183johnboy183 Posts: 816
    I seem to remember that Sky said it was very expensive but can’t remember whether they said they were using/continuing too
  • gsk82gsk82 Posts: 3,032
    The only story here is that yet again UK sport appear to be years ahead of the rest.
    "Unfortunately these days a lot of people don’t understand the real quality of a bike" Ernesto Colnago
  • johnboy183johnboy183 Posts: 816
    And now the official response from UK Sport

    https://www.uksport.gov.uk/news/2020/07/12/uk-sport-statement
  • No_Ta_DoctorNo_Ta_Doctor Posts: 11,161
    With ketone esters being billed as "food" (see uksport statement), is there an actual, natural dietary source of them? My understanding was that ketones are a metabolic product produced in the body from metabolizing fatty acids, not something that is available from diet.
    “Road racing was over and the UCI had banned my riding positions on the track, so it was like ‘Jings, crivvens, help ma Boab, what do I do now? I know, I’ll go away and be depressed for 10 years’.”

    @DrHeadgear

    The Vikings are coming!
  • amrushtonamrushton Posts: 1,040
    That's right.it's to do with glucose and burning fat. But someone at Oxford developed some way of producing them. Expensive to buy.It's a 'drink' but not like lucozade
  • ProssPross Posts: 29,168
    edited July 2020
    Is it legal or not? If it is why are the Mail making such a fuss about it?
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 25,467
    edited July 2020
    Pross said:

    Is it legal or not? If it is why are the Mail making such a fuss about it?

    It's 100% legal

    My guess is that at the back end of last year, the Mail on Sunday commissioned some journalists to find a scandal for a delivery before the Olympics. Even the Olympics have been moved they still have to deliver, but don't have anything. So they just use their best tabloid techniques to manufacture a scandal out of a supplement or they don't get paid.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 25,467
    edited July 2020
    Double post

    Twitter: @RichN95
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 56,835 Lives Here
    Does seem odd that it isn't banned though, doesn't it?

    I know very little about this, but if it's not something you actually eat but a synthetic form of something your liver generates, how is it different to any number of banned substances?
  • paul_swpaul_sw Posts: 19

    Does seem odd that it isn't banned though, doesn't it?

    I know very little about this, but if it's not something you actually eat but a synthetic form of something your liver generates, how is it different to any number of banned substances?

    ...was thinking the same, a synthetic form of something naturally produced in the body, and it enhances performance, EPO springs to mind....
  • No_Ta_DoctorNo_Ta_Doctor Posts: 11,161

    Does seem odd that it isn't banned though, doesn't it?

    I know very little about this, but if it's not something you actually eat but a synthetic form of something your liver generates, how is it different to any number of banned substances?

    Yeah, doesn't really hang together, does it? I'd hazard a guess that it's not banned because they'd never be able to test for it anyway.
    “Road racing was over and the UCI had banned my riding positions on the track, so it was like ‘Jings, crivvens, help ma Boab, what do I do now? I know, I’ll go away and be depressed for 10 years’.”

    @DrHeadgear

    The Vikings are coming!
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 56,835 Lives Here

    Does seem odd that it isn't banned though, doesn't it?

    I know very little about this, but if it's not something you actually eat but a synthetic form of something your liver generates, how is it different to any number of banned substances?

    Yeah, doesn't really hang together, does it? I'd hazard a guess that it's not banned because they'd never be able to test for it anyway.
    Presumably that's it, and it's not damaging to health (AFAIK?)
  • blazing_saddlesblazing_saddles Posts: 18,078
    paul_sw said:

    Does seem odd that it isn't banned though, doesn't it?

    I know very little about this, but if it's not something you actually eat but a synthetic form of something your liver generates, how is it different to any number of banned substances?

    ...was thinking the same, a synthetic form of something naturally produced in the body, and it enhances performance, EPO springs to mind....
    You can't create human EPO simply from a food supplement though.

    Ketones are produced naturally (endogenously) during fasting. If they are consumed exogenously then they would be in synthetic form.

    But, of course, this is how the Daily Mail describes ketones:

    "Ketones, a synthetic form of the energy source produced during fasting"

    No wonder they are no longer a trusted source for information.
    "Science is a tool for cheaters". An anonymous French PE teacher.
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 25,467
    edited July 2020
    WADA aren't interested how something is made or whether it is 'natural'. Nor should they be.

    Drug administrations have designated it as a supplement and they know more than me.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 56,835 Lives Here
    edited July 2020
    RichN95. said:

    WADA aren't interested how something is made or whether it is 'natural'. Nor should they be.

    Drug administrations have designated it as a supplement and they know more than me.

    They are a bit.

    Dutch anti doping say it's a 'grey area' which is probably more accurate.
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 25,467


    Dutch anti doping say it's a 'grey area' which is probably more accurate.

    Well they would say that, wouldn't they. An NADA is not going to publicly give it's blessing to anything with a vague whiff of controversy.

    As for grey areas, they are just an invention of people who want a doping scandal but can't find any doping. Sport is just a contest according some arbitrary rules. Either it's within the rules or it's not.
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • ProssPross Posts: 29,168

    RichN95. said:

    WADA aren't interested how something is made or whether it is 'natural'. Nor should they be.

    Drug administrations have designated it as a supplement and they know more than me.

    They are a bit.

    Dutch anti doping say it's a 'grey area' which is probably more accurate.
    People talking about grey areas is part of the problem though and the reason why anti-doping has to be black and white. I'm not suggesting all the rules make sense but they have to be clear and enforceable. If it isn't naturally occurring, enhances performance and / or impacts adversely on an athletes health and can be conclusively detected in testing then ban it but until that happens then no-one should be insinuating that anyone using it is cheating.
  • TheBigBeanTheBigBean Posts: 13,779
    Pross said:

    RichN95. said:

    WADA aren't interested how something is made or whether it is 'natural'. Nor should they be.

    Drug administrations have designated it as a supplement and they know more than me.

    They are a bit.

    Dutch anti doping say it's a 'grey area' which is probably more accurate.
    People talking about grey areas is part of the problem though and the reason why anti-doping has to be black and white. I'm not suggesting all the rules make sense but they have to be clear and enforceable. If it isn't naturally occurring, enhances performance and / or impacts adversely on an athletes health and can be conclusively detected in testing then ban it but until that happens then no-one should be insinuating that anyone using it is cheating.
    The problem the FCA used to have was as soon as they created some rules and some limits, someone would come up with a new loophole product that got around them all. They were therefore always playing catch up. Now they essentially have no rules, but judge everyone on some ethical standards. I'm sure a debate can be had as to whether sport needs to move in that direction too.
  • No_Ta_DoctorNo_Ta_Doctor Posts: 11,161
    RichN95. said:


    Dutch anti doping say it's a 'grey area' which is probably more accurate.

    Well they would say that, wouldn't they. An NADA is not going to publicly give it's blessing to anything with a vague whiff of controversy.

    As for grey areas, they are just an invention of people who want a doping scandal but can't find any doping. Sport is just a contest according some arbitrary rules. Either it's within the rules or it's not.
    That's a fairly jaundiced view of sport. The rules are arbitrary, but don't exist outside of context.

    Besides which, when someone says it's a "grey area" they may not be referring to any morality, but to the logic of how the existing rules are constructed. If there is legitimate debate about how a substance should be classified then it's a grey area, regardless of morality.
    “Road racing was over and the UCI had banned my riding positions on the track, so it was like ‘Jings, crivvens, help ma Boab, what do I do now? I know, I’ll go away and be depressed for 10 years’.”

    @DrHeadgear

    The Vikings are coming!
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 25,467
    edited July 2020



    Besides which, when someone says it's a "grey area" they may not be referring to any morality, but to the logic of how the existing rules are constructed. If there is legitimate debate about how a substance should be classified then it's a grey area, regardless of morality.

    Rules don't come out of some sort of collective consensus. There's a process. And in this case ketones, which have been around for nearly 20 years, have been deemed legal. There is no grey area. The grey area is constructed by people outside the rule making process to create a fuss.

    I used to be Club Secretary of my hockey club. If we weren't sure of a league rule we e-mail them to ask if what we wanted to do was allowed. This is what UK sport did and what anyone who gets a TUE does. Grey areas come when what the rules are don't match what someone wants them to be (usually for their own purposes).
    Twitter: @RichN95
  • bobmcstuffbobmcstuff Posts: 10,189

    Pross said:

    RichN95. said:

    WADA aren't interested how something is made or whether it is 'natural'. Nor should they be.

    Drug administrations have designated it as a supplement and they know more than me.

    They are a bit.

    Dutch anti doping say it's a 'grey area' which is probably more accurate.
    People talking about grey areas is part of the problem though and the reason why anti-doping has to be black and white. I'm not suggesting all the rules make sense but they have to be clear and enforceable. If it isn't naturally occurring, enhances performance and / or impacts adversely on an athletes health and can be conclusively detected in testing then ban it but until that happens then no-one should be insinuating that anyone using it is cheating.
    The problem the FCA used to have was as soon as they created some rules and some limits, someone would come up with a new loophole product that got around them all. They were therefore always playing catch up. Now they essentially have no rules, but judge everyone on some ethical standards. I'm sure a debate can be had as to whether sport needs to move in that direction too.
    Same for HSE regulation, especially for major accidents.

    Pre-Piper Alpha it was purely prescriptive, you had to do a bunch of prescriptive stuff that the Department of Energy (who also looked after safety, in a clear conflict of interest*) told you to do and so long as you did that it was all fine. Means all the onus and responsibility for safety is on the regulator. Now we have a goals-based approach where you have to show that you have things under control in line with various principles, which puts the onus on the operator to show why what they're doing is a good idea. Onshore it had already changed in a slightly similar way a bit earlier after the Flixborough disaster. The basis for all of it philosophically goes back to a court case in 1949 with the coal board, so we've a long history of waiting for people to get killed then sorting the regulation out afterwards. Guess that's similar to doping...

    There's a general philosophy in UK regulation setting that most regulations should be moving towards goal setting, so it applies quite widely now. There's some principle about it, I can't remember what it is called now.

    What we have ended up with though in HSE though is a hybrid approach, as there is a large amount of "good practice" and codes/standards which you essentially have to follow anyway.



    *We currently have the Department of Energy (now part of BEIS) also looking after climate change which strikes me as another conflict of interest - the same body responsible for getting tax revenue out of oil companies and supporting heavy industry also responsible for reducing climate change... It's like when people complain about governments or national federations also being involved in anti-doping.
  • rick_chaseyrick_chasey Posts: 56,835 Lives Here
    RichN95. said:



    Besides which, when someone says it's a "grey area" they may not be referring to any morality, but to the logic of how the existing rules are constructed. If there is legitimate debate about how a substance should be classified then it's a grey area, regardless of morality.

    Rules don't come out of some sort of collective consensus. There's a process. And in this case ketones, which have been around for nearly 20 years, have been deemed legal. There is no grey area. The grey area is constructed by people outside the rule making process to create a fuss.

    I used to be Club Secretary of my hockey club. If we weren't sure of a league rule we e-mail them to ask if what we wanted to do was allowed. This is what UK sport did and what anyone who gets a TUE does. Grey areas come when what the rules are don't match what someone wants them to be (usually for their own purposes).
    Oh relax I don't think many people here are criticising UK sport. If it's allowed it's allowed, we all get that.

    It just feels a bit odd, for reasons explained above, that's all.

    The jury is still out if it even helps.
  • RichN95.RichN95. Posts: 25,467
    edited July 2020



    Oh relax I don't think many people here are criticising UK sport. If it's allowed it's allowed, we all get that.

    It just feels a bit odd, for reasons explained above, that's all.

    The jury is still out if it even helps.


    My criticism of this situation, as it frequently is, is directed at the British tabloid media and their constant passing off of standard behaviour as something suspicious
    Twitter: @RichN95
Sign In or Register to comment.