Doping Life Bans

rayjay

disgruntledgoat wrote:

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.

As usual. When I submit some factual information that proves my point ..... you make a joke.

Go and do a google and you will see that I am right .....WITH FACTS

Macaloon

Rayjay: with the post-modern improvisational free-jazz approach to debate, with the odd foray up the heavy metal end of the guitar.

disgruntledgoat

rayjay wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

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.

As usual. When I submit some factual information that proves my point ..... you make a joke.

Go and do a google and you will see that I am right .....WITH FACTS

Please demonstrate another example of me making a joke. In fact, earlier in this thread I defended you against a personal attack.

At this point, I am chuckling because you have had facts put in front of you that contradict your assertions and are twisting in the wind arguing semantics. Then you say not to be fooled by Nic because he "Knows everything".

salsiccia1

rayjay

ddraver wrote:

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!

Equipoise was originally developed as a veterinary anabolic steroid. FACT

Equipoise ,,,,,,That is what I mentioned, that is what it was developed for ,,,,Animals

Richmond Racer

Macaloon wrote:

Rayjay: with the post-modern improvisational free-jazz approach to debate, with the odd foray up the heavy metal end of the guitar.

I'm sure there's a bit of freestylin' Chas n Dave thrown in too

rayjay

disgruntledgoat wrote:

rayjay wrote:

disgruntledgoat wrote:

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.

As usual. When I submit some factual information that proves my point ..... you make a joke.

Go and do a google and you will see that I am right .....WITH FACTS

Please demonstrate another example of me making a joke. In fact, earlier in this thread I defended you against a personal attack.

At this point, I am chuckling because you have had facts put in front of you that contradict your assertions and are twisting in the wind arguing semantics. Then you say not to be fooled by Nic because he "Knows everything".

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.

Hope that clears up another one of your attempts to take everything out of context.

ddraver

clouds the issue by stating real facts and speaking the truth you mean? Like the active ingredient in a marketing campaign was developed for humans you mean.

If I put water into a swanky looking wine bottle would you still say that it was developed from the fermentation of grapes?

nic_77

rayjay, you need to understand the difference between 'developed' and 'marketed' (clue: usually several hundred million dollars).

The veterinary pharmaceutical industry do develop some novel drugs but the vast majority are inherited from human pharma and then marketed as veterinary products - including the various examples you quoted.

I know far from everything, but I know a lot about this.

Pross

To be fair to rayjay every source I can find says that Boldenone was created for veterinary use. However, it was intended to just be an injectable version of another steroid (Dianabol) which was developed initially for human use and that was where all the hard development work and cost would have been spent. That's what Nic is saying, pharma companies do not splash out the huge money required for R&D to develop a veterinary medicine. However, once they have a basic product in place they will spend the much lower sums adapting it for other uses where the market potential justifies it.

dsoutar

The problem is that some people fail to realise the difference between facts and knowledge.

Generally speaking the internet imparts the former but not the latter. People who have experience in a particular area will always trump google as context is very difficult to absorb from one page of info. In addition, people who are ignorant of a subject on which there might be a variety of opinions will have difficulty knowing what the generally prevailing view is as that's something else that's difficult to glean from google; also, just because google returns more pages on one side of an argument doesn't mean it's the most widely held or respected view

ddraver

Hairy muff Pross....

salsiccia1

So then - yes or no to life bans for dopers (as I believe that's what this thread was about a long time ago)?

ddraver

Salsiccia1 wrote:

So then - yes or no to life bans for dopers (as I believe that's what this thread was about a long time ago)?

Leaglise all doping

nic_77

Pross wrote:

To be fair to rayjay every source I can find says that Boldenone was created for veterinary use. However, it was intended to just be an injectable version of another steroid (Dianabol) which was developed initially for human use and that was where all the hard development work and cost would have been spent. That's what Nic is saying, pharma companies do not splash out the huge money required for R&D to develop a veterinary medicine. However, once they have a basic product in place they will spend the much lower sums adapting it for other uses where the market potential justifies it.

Bingo - exactly the point I was making. The only other thing to note is that most veterinary pharma companies have (or did have) a human pharma parent company. As for Boldenone, I was looking into the active. I can find out more if we really need it.

Macaloon

nic, is it practical for the drug companies to include a benign marker thing with a long half-life to aid detection?

salsiccia1

ddraver wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

So then - yes or no to life bans for dopers (as I believe that's what this thread was about a long time ago)?

Leaglise all doping

Fine. Close the thread.

nic_77

Macaloon wrote:

nic, is it practical for the drug companies to include a benign marker thing with a long half-life to aid detection?

Possible - maybe, depends on the compound. But, as Rich mentioned previously, what's in for them? The impact on pro-cycling is rarely considered in the development process Now, the rise of drug counterfeiting (and the threat that this poses to safety profiles) could provide enough of a driver for the genuine drugs to have some kind of chemical security tag.

tailwindhome

ddraver wrote:

Salsiccia1 wrote:

So then - yes or no to life bans for dopers (as I believe that's what this thread was about a long time ago)?

beaglise all doping

FTFY

Richmond Racer

Macaloon wrote:

nic, is it practical for the drug companies to include a benign marker thing with a long half-life to aid detection?

WADA signed a joint memo of understanding with the major pharmas 2-3 years ago - this provides for the industry to provide advance info about their new products to the AD bodies, helping them to come up with new detection methods. They've been co-operating for a while, and re markers it led to a marker being put into CERA.

A major problem is the copycat manufacturing and the results being flogged on the internet - and the stuff that's being leaked before its got to/passed the phase of being tested on humans.

Pross

I say legalise doping but also motors so that those who don't want to risk their health can still compete in the sport. This would also mean that the people who are currently risking using untested and potentially dangerous motors initially developed for East European lawnmowers can use high quality products under the guidance of a trained mechanic.

RichN95.

nic_77 wrote:

Macaloon wrote:

nic, is it practical for the drug companies to include a benign marker thing with a long half-life to aid detection?

Possible - maybe, depends on the compound. But, as Rich mentioned previously, what's in for them? The impact on pro-cycling is rarely considered in the development process Now, the rise of drug counterfeiting (and the threat that this poses to safety profiles) could provide enough of a driver for the genuine drugs to have some kind of chemical security tag.

Adding something new to the drug would probably invalidate their licences for selling the stuff.

And people would just use a marker-free knock-off drug from China instead.

salsiccia1

Pross wrote:

I say legalise doping but also motors so that those who don't want to risk their health can still compete in the sport. This would also mean that the people who are currently risking using untested and potentially dangerous motors initially developed for East European lawnmowers can use high quality products under the guidance of a trained mechanic.

And towing. Being towed uphill is a dangerous activity if done without proper supervision, so legalise it and get expert help to oversee and ensure it's done safely.

ddraver

Towing would be good - Then we could have another aspect to Panché regarding how the riders were towed. For example did the wussy mincer hold on to the rope with his hands as opposed to the old school class of the cork between the teeth..?

Macaloon

RichN95 wrote:

nic_77 wrote:

Macaloon wrote:

nic, is it practical for the drug companies to include a benign marker thing with a long half-life to aid detection?

Possible - maybe, depends on the compound. But, as Rich mentioned previously, what's in for them? The impact on pro-cycling is rarely considered in the development process Now, the rise of drug counterfeiting (and the threat that this poses to safety profiles) could provide enough of a driver for the genuine drugs to have some kind of chemical security tag.

Adding something new to the drug would probably invalidate their licences for selling the stuff.

And people would just use a marker-free knock-off drug from China instead.

Thanks all. If it was a technology-no-brainer, then every new drug could come with its own nano-signature, alongside the NSA transmitter.

No_Ta_Doctor

Salsiccia1 wrote:

So then - yes or no to life bans for dopers (as I believe that's what this thread was about a long time ago)?

I favour life bans from BR for anyone still talking about life bans for doping.

rayjay

Nic-77
Equipoise ..that is the name of the drug I mentioned , the drug called Equipoise was originally DEVELOPED as a veterinary anabolic steroid .


Trenbolone that is the name of the drug I mentioned . 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

I named those 3 drugs as I was aware that they were used by Vets. [ no google]

If you want I could go and google other drugs developed ,DEVELOPED .for animals but I named 3 drugs that I already knew of , otherwise I would not have mentiond Stanozol as from what I knew [not googled] it has other human uses and not the best example.

You have deflected the debate away from the intial points because you know your are wrong . .

Now can you answer the questions below . which refer to our initial debate.


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.

If you answer yes to all these questions the you are agreeing with me and the points I Initially made.




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

You and other's have deliberately gone out of your way to prove me wrong but nothing I have said is wrong .

I have been very clear about the points I have made .

If any of you patronising morons want to carry on trying to prove me wrong, go ahead if it makes you feel better
but you won't be doing it with facts.

I am moving on.

nic_77

Don't get your knickers in a bunch. I merely raised a point of correction - that drugs are very rarely 'developed' for veterinary applications. They are licensed and marketed as such, but are rarely developed for that purpose. It makes little difference to me whether you accept that or not.

rayjay

nic_77 wrote:

Don't get your knickers in a bunch. I merely raised a point of correction - that drugs are very rarely 'developed' for veterinary applications. They are licensed and marketed as such, but are rarely developed for that purpose. It makes little difference to me whether you accept that or not.

So you refused to answer any of the questions above.

You will not answer the questions above , because you and everyone on this sight knows that you would answer,,, YES ,,, to all those question. That would mean that I was right and you cannot admit to that.

You have deviated the issue away from the drug names that I have mentioned to make another different point which was not what I WAS REFERING TO and was not what we were discussing in order to deflect from the fact that a few of you initial points are wrong.

It's all there for everyone to see ....now I AM MOVING ON ....

rayjay

nic_77 wrote:

Don't get your knickers in a bunch. I merely raised a point of correction - that drugs are very rarely 'developed' for veterinary applications. They are licensed and marketed as such, but are rarely developed for that purpose. It makes little difference to me whether you accept that or not.

ps IT IS NOT A POINT OF CORRECTION.

DRUGS ARE DEVELOPED FOR ANIMALS....

USING THE WORD RARELY. DOES NOT PROVE YOUR POINT IN ANYWAY. IT JUST MAKES YOU THINK YOU ARE RIGHT WHEN YOU ARE WRONG .