Doping Life Bans

rayjay

Paulie W wrote:

rayjay wrote:

Nic-77

First off I never mentioned mythical drugs. show me where I said that. Stop putting words into my mouth AGAIN.

Your post does nothing but only confirm what I said .

Athletes are always looking for new ways to cheat.

Your post is actually patronising and maybe it boosts you ego . But nothing I said was not fact.


Paulie W
"you're not suggesting that Rayjay has no idea what he's talking about and is just throwing out a series of lame unsupportable statements!"

Like what exactly.... BACK THAT UP OR KEEP QUIET

EVERY SINGLE STATEMENT THAT NIC RESPONDED TO!

ARE YOU REALLY AS STUPID AS YOU ARE MAKING OUT?!

THIS IS WHAT I SAID

Most of the drugs athletes use to cheat are not made for purpose

Athletes take risk with drugs not tried and tested for purpose.

Body builders have taken this to the extreme and have used drugs developed for Animals.

The banned doping list gets bigger. Because athletes find new drugs that are risky and are not tested for purpose


SHOW ME WHAT I SAID IS NOT A FACT ...COME ON SHOW ME .
ALL Nic DID WAS STATE A FEW POINTS BUT NOTHING HE SAID WAS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT I WAS SAYING

APART FROM HIM TRYING TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH ....

CAN YOU READ

ddraver

rayjay

ddraver wrote:

Still waiting for you to clarify your jumbled up point ....you don't seem to able to do that do you.

You also ignored a previous post because you tied yourself in knots

have an extra one

Richmond Racer

ddraver wrote:

Oh you are awful

Paulie W

rayjay wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

rayjay wrote:

Nic-77

First off I never mentioned mythical drugs. show me where I said that. Stop putting words into my mouth AGAIN.

Your post does nothing but only confirm what I said .

Athletes are always looking for new ways to cheat.

Your post is actually patronising and maybe it boosts you ego . But nothing I said was not fact.


Paulie W
"you're not suggesting that Rayjay has no idea what he's talking about and is just throwing out a series of lame unsupportable statements!"

Like what exactly.... BACK THAT UP OR KEEP QUIET

EVERY SINGLE STATEMENT THAT NIC RESPONDED TO!

ARE YOU REALLY AS STUPID AS YOU ARE MAKING OUT?!

THIS IS WHAT I SAID

Most of the drugs athletes use to cheat are not made for purpose

Athletes take risk with drugs not tried and tested for purpose.

Body builders have taken this to the extreme and have used drugs developed for Animals.

The banned doping list gets bigger. Because athletes find new drugs that are risky and are not tested for purpose


SHOW ME WHAT I SAID IS NOT A FACT ...COME ON SHOW ME .
ALL Nic DID WAS STATE A FEW POINTS BUT NOTHING HE SAID WAS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT I WAS SAYING

APART FROM HIM TRYING TO PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH ....

CAN YOU READ

Nic's point is that the drugs you refer to ARE tried and tested for the purpose athlete's are using them - they are being used in a different context and sure there is risk involved but essentially a doper knows why he/she is using a particular drug. You are trying to present a pictire of doping as some kind of free for all where no-one has any clue what is happening or what anyone is using but this doesnt fit with the evidence. People new about EPO and its effects from very early on; they also knew its risks. What they didnt know is the extent to which it might impact on performance and how to detect it.

salsiccia1

Richmond Racer

Salsiccia1 wrote:

Well I am, I'm very worried about his blood pressure

Yellow Peril

Odds on for threadlock by Count Ugo Rick Van Nutter before the sun rises again...

nic_77

rayjay wrote:

SHOW ME WHAT I SAID IS NOT A FACT ...COME ON SHOW ME .

I'll have a go, but to be honest I don't hold out much hope of my message getting through.

rayjay wrote:

Most of the drugs athletes use to cheat are not made for purpose

FALSE. The majority of these drugs are made for purpose. Dopers attempt to leverage that purpose to gain performance benefits.

rayjay wrote:

Athletes take risk with drugs not tried and tested for purpose.

FALSE. The majority of these drugs are marketed products which have undergone stringent testing and licensing to support their purpose.

rayjay wrote:

Body builders have taken this to the extreme and have used drugs developed for Animals.

FALSE. Well the bit about developing drugs for animals anyway.

rayjay wrote:

The banned doping list gets bigger. Because athletes find new drugs that are risky and are not tested for purpose

FALSE. See above.

Not sure what more I can say.

salsiccia1

Yellow Peril wrote:

Odds on for threadlock by Count Ugo Rick Van Nutter before the sun rises again...

5/2 on.

ddraver

rayjay wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Still waiting for you to clarify your jumbled up point ....you don't seem to able to do that do you.

You also ignored a previous post because you tied yourself in knots

have an extra one

How

did

you

get

"The peloton is clean" (which is what you said)

From

"Legalising drugs would result in levels of doping far in excess of the 90's" (which is what I said)

rayjay

nic_77 wrote:

rayjay wrote:

SHOW ME WHAT I SAID IS NOT A FACT ...COME ON SHOW ME .

I'll have a go, but to be honest I don't hold out much hope of my message getting through.

rayjay wrote:

Most of the drugs athletes use to cheat are not made for purpose

FALSE. The majority of these drugs are made for purpose. Dopers attempt to leverage that purpose to gain performance benefits.

rayjay wrote:

Athletes take risk with drugs not tried and tested for purpose.

FALSE. The majority of these drugs are marketed products which have undergone stringent testing and licensing to support their purpose.

rayjay wrote:

Body builders have taken this to the extreme and have used drugs developed for Animals.

FALSE. Well the bit about developing drugs for animals anyway.

rayjay wrote:

The banned doping list gets bigger. Because athletes find new drugs that are risky and are not tested for purpose

FALSE. See above.

Not sure what more I can say.

Most drugs athletes use are developed for health issues, not for the purpose of a cyclist to go faster.

Steroids were not meant to be used by Bodybuilders athletes,

They were not developed for the purpose of athletes.

The early work in EPO was used to try and help things like anemia.

They were not used for the purpose of athletes. THAT IS WHAT I SAID .


Steroids have been tested but they are not tested on body builders to see how big they grow they are tested to cure or help the ailment they have been developed for .

That's why there are side effects and athletes risk these side effects because they are not made for the purpose of athletes.

Athletes looking to gain an advantage look for new ways to use drugs.


Steroid have been developed for cattle to make them bigger and leaner.
Body builders have been known to use such steroids





Many of the drugs you hear about are originally made for vet use. Winstrol, equipoise and trenbolone to name a few. Most vet roids are made with less standards of product care, because they are meant to be administered on animals


check the section where it states new illicit drugs are developed all the time
http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/drugs-and-sport


I think you misunderstood my use of the word purpose.

But the fact is drugs are developed for animals and end up being used by athletes.

I think I have answered everything, enjoy

RideOnTime

Lovely

thread

structure.

rayjay

ddraver wrote:

rayjay wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Still waiting for you to clarify your jumbled up point ....you don't seem to able to do that do you.

You also ignored a previous post because you tied yourself in knots

have an extra one

How

did

you

get

"The peloton is clean" (which is what you said)

From

"Legalising drugs would result in levels of doping far in excess of the 90's" (which is what I said)

I Think this is what you are referring to ,,, as you can see I implied that was something you were insinuating and you never responded to my point.[ See our posts previous to this] You just cannot take a few words out of context and make them fit into anything you want them to mean.

"So what your saying is that right now the peloton is clean and no one is doping because if they were other riders would have to dope to beat them,,,,, Whoa there horsey,,,,, We are still getting riders busted for doping.
So using your logic above that would mean riders would have to be doping to win. So the peloton is still doping and the clean riders let the dopers win all the time."

tailwindhome

rayjay wrote:

I implied that was something you were insinuating

That's what he's asking you

How could you imply

rayjay wrote:

The peloton is clean"

From

DD wrote:

Legalising drugs would result in levels of doping far in excess of the 90's

?

nic_77

Obviously most of our dispute is over the use of the word purpose. The drugs are absolutely being used to achieve their intended purpose (i.e. to increase red cell production, to dilate airways, to promote cell growth) it just so happens that these effects are not being sought in a typical medical scenario.

That part of the debate is futile, although my interpretation of the word 'purpose' is better than yours


Leaving that aside, and moving onto my other point of contention...

rayjay wrote:

Many of the drugs you hear about are originally made for vet use. Winstrol, equipoise and trenbolone to name a few. Most vet roids are made with less standards of product care, because they are meant to be administered on animals

For your information:

- Winstrol was originally patented by Sterling Drug (a human pharma company). It was initially licensed for human use.
- Equipoise has an active ingredient called Boldenone. The manufacture of this was originally developed by a chemical company Olin Mathieson. The first medicinal use was in humans.
- Trenbolone was original developed by American Home Products - a human health company which later become Wyeth).

So, as evidenced by your own examples many products that are licensed only for veterinary use begin life as human medicinal products. QED drugs are rarely developed exclusively for the veterinary market.

Also, drug safety in the veterinary sector is surprising similar to the human sector.


EDIT: Apologies for this dull post.

Macaloon

If the kiddies would pipe down for a wee while, I'd like to ask The Pharmacist about the provenance of 'new undetectable variants of EPO' (or whatever). Do they exist? Assuming Amgen wouldn't produce something undetectable, where do they come from?

RichN95.

Macaloon wrote:

If the kiddies would pipe down for a wee while, I'd like to ask The Pharmacist about the provenance of 'new undetectable variants of EPO' (or whatever). Do they exist? Assuming Amgen wouldn't produce something undetectable, where do they come from?

There's certainly different versions of it - largely differing by their method of synthesis. They're made by the big pharmaceutical companies, including Amgen. None of them are going to care whether it is detectable or not - that's not a relevant matter for their market.
It is a relevant point for the black market, but who knows if their telling the truth - they're crooks. Of course they're going to say it's undetectable. Their customers are generally people are tested very little, at all anyway - World Tour cyclists is only a market of 500 if everyone dopes - small fry.
Even if there's no specific test for it, the Bio Passport still restricts how much it can be used.

Anonymous

Rich, you seem to have a grasp on this stuff, I have a question. Is there a situation where a persons natural hemocrit could naturally spike (on a bio-passport type situation) to levels that would be seen whilst a rider was "hot" from EPO use?

Does anyone know?


It's sad since I became a cycling fan I swear I have learned more about red blood counts et al, than actual cycling.

RichN95.

sjmclean wrote:

Rich, you seem to have a grasp on this stuff, I have a question. Is there a situation where a persons natural hemocrit could naturally spike (on a bio-passport type situation) to levels that would be seen whilst a rider was "hot" from EPO use?

No idea, I have no medical knowledge. There's probably medical conditions that would cause it, but more likely ones that would make it drop drastically (which could also be indicative of blood being taken out).

(My somewhat meagre knowledge of EPO variants comes from patents - the original Amgen EPO patent was at the centre of the most important patent case in UK law in the last 20 years)

nic_77

RichN95 wrote:

sjmclean wrote:

Rich, you seem to have a grasp on this stuff, I have a question. Is there a situation where a persons natural hemocrit could naturally spike (on a bio-passport type situation) to levels that would be seen whilst a rider was "hot" from EPO use?

No idea, I have no medical knowledge. There's probably medical conditions that would cause it, but more likely ones that would make it drop drastically (which could also be indicative of blood being taken out).

(My somewhat meagre knowledge of EPO variants comes from patents - the original Amgen EPO patent was at the centre of the most important patent case in UK law in the last 20 years)

Not my field really either, but...

Pretty wide variation can be expected in normal individuals - this article states 15% (although that would reflect a seasonal variation):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12656642/

Hydration level is also pretty significant (hence why a doper can use fluid intact to reduce the result).

That said, the passport approach is not based solely on haematocrit, other factors like reticulocyte counts are used to help identify where artificial or suspicious variations may have occured. Also I imagine the passport signal detection software and analysts are looking for trends that appear at odds with a given racer's program.

In general the passport is likely to be pretty effective at identifying traditional EPO usage. The theory behind microdosing of course would be to counteract any unusual variation caused by infusions etc. effectively masking their use.

It's all interesting stuff.

slimreaper

RichN95 wrote:

sjmclean wrote:

Rich, you seem to have a grasp on this stuff, I have a question. Is there a situation where a persons natural hemocrit could naturally spike (on a bio-passport type situation) to levels that would be seen whilst a rider was "hot" from EPO use?

A spike in Hct in someone that is otherwise healthy, would likely be due to severe dehydration (Diarrhoea, large burns etc) As a cyclist, Diarrhoea is obviously possible, but the spike in Hct would be fairly short lived once your fluid homeostasis was regained (fluid replacement/diarrhoea stopped). There is always the possibility of undiagnosed illnesses affecting the Hct, but most that I am familiar with would affect the cyclists performance enought to get checked out (Polycythaemia Vera, but this would be a chronic elevation anyway).

iainf72

HCT is a blunt instrument and not that important in the passport by itself.

It's part of it but there are other blood parameters combined with it. As well as information about what the rider was doing (racing / training at altitude / ill etc)

rayjay

nic_77 wrote:

Obviously most of our dispute is over the use of the word purpose. The drugs are absolutely being used to achieve their intended purpose (i.e. to increase red cell production, to dilate airways, to promote cell growth) it just so happens that these effects are not being sought in a typical medical scenario.

That part of the debate is futile, although my interpretation of the word 'purpose' is better than yours


Leaving that aside, and moving onto my other point of contention...

rayjay wrote:

Many of the drugs you hear about are originally made for vet use. Winstrol, equipoise and trenbolone to name a few. Most vet roids are made with less standards of product care, because they are meant to be administered on animals

For your information:

- Winstrol was originally patented by Sterling Drug (a human pharma company). It was initially licensed for human use.
- Equipoise has an active ingredient called Boldenone. The manufacture of this was originally developed by a chemical company Olin Mathieson. The first medicinal use was in humans.
- Trenbolone was original developed by American Home Products - a human health company which later become Wyeth).

So, as evidenced by your own examples many products that are licensed only for veterinary use begin life as human medicinal products. QED drugs are rarely developed exclusively for the veterinary market.

Also, drug safety in the veterinary sector is surprising similar to the human sector.


EDIT: Apologies for this dull post.

Do you agree ,that drugs are developed for animals ? yes or no .....

Do you agree there is a list of drugs that sportsmen/women are not allowed to take as they have been banned from use in sports? yes or no

Do you agree that sometimes a new drug get's added to the list? yes or know

Do you agree that some athletes look for new ways to gain an advantage ? yes or no

Do you agree that sometimes athletes will use drugs in a way that they were not originally intended for? yes or no.


I think my use of the word purpose was quite clear i.e. we were talking about the use of drugs in cycling and sport.

If you were not sure , you could have asked for clarity.

moving on

Richmond Racer

nic_77 wrote:

Obviously most of our dispute is over the use of the word purpose. The drugs are absolutely being used to achieve their intended purpose (i.e. to increase red cell production, to dilate airways, to promote cell growth) it just so happens that these effects are not being sought in a typical medical scenario.

That part of the debate is futile, although my interpretation of the word 'purpose' is better than yours


Leaving that aside, and moving onto my other point of contention...

rayjay wrote:

Many of the drugs you hear about are originally made for vet use. Winstrol, equipoise and trenbolone to name a few. Most vet roids are made with less standards of product care, because they are meant to be administered on animals

For your information:

- Winstrol was originally patented by Sterling Drug (a human pharma company). It was initially licensed for human use.
- Equipoise has an active ingredient called Boldenone. The manufacture of this was originally developed by a chemical company Olin Mathieson. The first medicinal use was in humans.
- Trenbolone was original developed by American Home Products - a human health company which later become Wyeth).

So, as evidenced by your own examples many products that are licensed only for veterinary use begin life as human medicinal products. QED drugs are rarely developed exclusively for the veterinary market.

Also, drug safety in the veterinary sector is surprising similar to the human sector.


EDIT: Apologies for this dull post.

Not at all dull, nic. Thanks for the clarity and knowledge

ddraver

+1 good stuff nic - reminds us all of what proper knowledge is!

rayjay

Richmond Racer wrote:

nic_77 wrote:

Obviously most of our dispute is over the use of the word purpose. The drugs are absolutely being used to achieve their intended purpose (i.e. to increase red cell production, to dilate airways, to promote cell growth) it just so happens that these effects are not being sought in a typical medical scenario.

That part of the debate is futile, although my interpretation of the word 'purpose' is better than yours


Leaving that aside, and moving onto my other point of contention...

rayjay wrote:

Many of the drugs you hear about are originally made for vet use. Winstrol, equipoise and trenbolone to name a few. Most vet roids are made with less standards of product care, because they are meant to be administered on animals

For your information:

- Winstrol was originally patented by Sterling Drug (a human pharma company). It was initially licensed for human use.
- Equipoise has an active ingredient called Boldenone. The manufacture of this was originally developed by a chemical company Olin Mathieson. The first medicinal use was in humans.
- Trenbolone was original developed by American Home Products - a human health company which later become Wyeth).

So, as evidenced by your own examples many products that are licensed only for veterinary use begin life as human medicinal products. QED drugs are rarely developed exclusively for the veterinary market.

Also, drug safety in the veterinary sector is surprising similar to the human sector.


EDIT: Apologies for this dull post.

Not at all dull, nic. Thanks for the clarity and knowledge

HAVE SOME FACTS

Equipoise was originally developed as a veterinary anabolic steroid, Equipoise (also known as Ganabol, Boldenone, and Ultragan

Trenbolone was developed largely for the purpose of beefing up livestock


Stanozol was approved for human use by the FDA

Stanozolol has been used in both animal and human patients for a number of conditions

Nic-77 knows is stuff but he clouds the issues and sways you from the facts of the debate because he knows everything I have said is fact and he has been wrong on a number of points as stated.

disgruntledgoat

Nic-77 knows is stuff but he clouds the issues and sways you from the facts of the debate because he knows everything

You can prove anything with facts.

ddraver

RichN95 wrote:

sjmclean wrote:

Rich, you seem to have a grasp on this stuff, I have a question. Is there a situation where a persons natural hemocrit could naturally spike (on a bio-passport type situation) to levels that would be seen whilst a rider was "hot" from EPO use?

No idea, I have no medical knowledge. There's probably medical conditions that would cause it, but more likely ones that would make it drop drastically (which could also be indicative of blood being taken out).

(My somewhat meagre knowledge of EPO variants comes from patents - the original Amgen EPO patent was at the centre of the most important patent case in UK law in the last 20 years)

A small addition is that to be detectable essentially the drug needs to cause a side effect (elevated this, reduced that etc) unless the drug is a chemical that can be detected directly. Drug companies obviously can sell their product based on how little impact it will have on a patient's life and so will do everything they can to minimise side effects, thereby making the drug harder to "detect"

ddraver

rayjay wrote:

Equipoise was originally developed as a veterinary anabolic steroid, Equipoise (also known as Ganabol, Boldenone, and Ultragan

It's amazing how easy it is to fail with facts isnt it.

What you mean is that Boldenone was repackaged, had a shiny label put on it with a cute Picture of a healthy looking horse and called equipose for veternary use

However the stuff that does the work - Boldenone - was developed for human use as nic says

You re aware that the Parecetemol in the cheap cardboard box and the Paracetamol in Anadin is the same thing are nt you? Or have i just blown your mind...

Fact!