If it's not illegal, is it still cheating/doping?>>XENON BAN

RichN95.

I think the one thing that has been highlighted in the last couple of weeks is the failures in WADA's decision making process.

Sure they consult experts and analyse reports. But personally I don't think they have given enough consideration to knee jerk reactions on twitter and unsubstantiated personal anecdotes. It's about time that they realise that this is what drives public opinion, not science.

ddraver

Someone has said it before but the fact that Bender Rodriguez and his ilk are reduced to trying to pick such tiny holes in Sky is the best possible indicator that cycling has cleaned up it's act remarkably

BenderRodriguez

ddraver wrote:

Someone has said it before but the fact that Bender Rodriguez and his ilk are reduced to trying to pick such tiny holes in Sky is the best possible indicator that cycling has cleaned up it's act remarkably

Perhaps things have changed. For example, back in 1999 it seems that you needed a TUE if you so much as used a dab of a topical cream that contained a corticosteroid. (Recall Armstrong's 'positive' in the Tour that year.) Now you can puff away on inhaled corticosteroids almost to your heart's content as long as you say you are asthmatic.

Froome has also admitted to using tremadol in the past, but found that it didn't work for him. Given that it too is 'permitted', I wonder if he would have stopped using it had he found that it gave him even a 'marginal gain'?

Main point is, the reason Sky have come under such scrutiny is that they have often come out with 'anti-doping' statements that they have proven they are unable to live up to. (Won't employ doctors and other staff with a doping backgroud, then hiring the likes of Leinders. 'No TUE's for our riders' etc.) Even Froome acknowledges this:

MC: This whole latest thing with Dr Peters making statements to David Walsh (that the team had a no TUE policy) as well, it puts you in a difficult position.

CF: I definitely feel that the teams stance to set out to be the cleanest team has put us under that microscope, and put us in the firing line of people who do have issues with that. I understand that, but that’s a decision the team has made and taken on. I feel as a rider I can only do so much.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-s ... 94950.html

If they cut the 'holier than thou' nonsense, I am sure much of the criticism of them would dry up.

BenderRodriguez

RichN95 wrote:

I think the one thing that has been highlighted in the last couple of weeks is the failures in WADA's decision making process.

Sure they consult experts and analyse reports. But personally I don't think they have given enough consideration to knee jerk reactions on twitter and unsubstantiated personal anecdotes. It's about time that they realise that this is what drives public opinion, not science.

Personally, I would think that when WADA say that taking 10 puffs of a Beclometasone inhaler constitutes doping, and as such requires a TUE, they have good scientific grounds for doing so.

ddraver

BenderRodriguez wrote:

If they cut the 'holier than thou' nonsense, I am sure much of the criticism of them would dry up.

Rubbish

frenchfighter

Greg lemond's thoughts:
BS: UCI President Brian Cookson was under the spotlight recently with the whole Froome TUE backlash... What are your thoughts on this?

GL: I think Brian Cookson should be given the benefit of doubt on this one. Looking at it critically, if you can take a step back you can see that there was probably legitimate reason to do it [grant the TUE]. It's kind of a good lesson for the UCI to see how this poses a potential problem in the future and so let's address it now so there's no more backlash. I'd say it was a good experience for the UCI, but one they don't want to repeat. I didn't ever think that Brian Cookson was trying to favour anybody over anybody. If anything it was probably a push from the team [Sky].

BS: But should riders who need a therapeutic use exemption be racing in the first place?

GL: It's all about defining the rules. If the rules say you can get a TUE if you go through this process then it shouldn't be controversial and there should be a process in place to ensure that the TUEs are legitimate. But doctors shouldn't be giving someone a cortisone shot for an infection. If you have a hyper-allergic reaction or a knee swelling - that's when you have good reason for a TUE. But bacterial infections - you don't treat with cortisone. I don't know what Froome had. I assumed it was an allergic reaction. But a good medical doctor can make a determination on what merits a TUE. If you are sick, you're prescribed antibiotics; if you're too sick, you just go home.

The delicate thing is this: I suffered from allergies throughout my career and I've realised, post career, that I was drastically hindered by allergies during the month of May. But you can test for that - to see which pollens bring it on; these are legitimate back up tests for a TUE. Now the medication for things like this is cortisone, but it's obviously not the best thing to do to take cortisone throughout a three-week race. There's a delicate line. There are legitimate people who take asthma medication. It's fairly common. The physical demands of cycling is that it actually lowers your immune system and you expose yourself to a tremendous amount of elements - so certain people might get a chronic overload and develop, say, bad asthma. So, what's the right way to go? If you're a professional racer and it's not bothered you for ten years, then suddenly you're hit by an allergy - that's probably when you decide to apply for a TUE.

BS: Just look at the case of Diego Ulissi, one of those exciting young riders you perhaps alluded to earlier...

GL: As an allergy sufferer, it's interesting to look at this case. Grass is a very prominent allergen. My sister-in-law is one of the top allergists in the country and it's a legitimate issue - and so in this period of May and June some of these guys are probably really suffering. Now I'd take Salbutamol myself because if you let your asthma overreact then it can get worse. So it's a very delicate issue. The question you have to ask is whether or not you take Salbutamol with a TUE. You can do fairly simple tests and get the lowdown. I don't think that if you're suffering a major asthma attack then taking Salbutamol can really be seen as a performance enhancer. The reality is that asthma affects your airways and it has a huge impact on your performance. I experience a 25% drop in power output and that's me now in the poor shape I'm in. My performances in the Giro were constantly hampered by allergies.

https://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/bl ... 33624.html

Vino'sGhost

RichN95 wrote:

I think the one thing that has been highlighted in the last couple of weeks is the failures in WADA's decision making process.

Sure they consult experts and analyse reports. But personally I don't think they have given enough consideration to knee jerk reactions on twitter and unsubstantiated personal anecdotes. It's about time that they realise that this is what drives public opinion, not science.

Theres a lot of truth in that Rich, its clearly not enough to have a good policy it must be communicated clearly and management of perception and response needs to become central to policy making. Spin is often cynical but is ignored at peril.

joelsim

Frankly guys I think we should get behind WADA, they are doing an incredibly difficult job with testing parameters as they are, against qualified doctors, riders in different locations etc etc

ddraver

Rare moment of doping sensibleness from you there Joel. I agree

plus we have to remember that they cover all sport not this tiny little one where a whole team can be financed by one fast driver

joelsim

ddraver wrote:

Rare moment of doping sensibleness from you there Joel. I agree

plus we have to remember that they cover all sport not this tiny little one where a whole team can be financed by one fast driver

My sense is that this is just the tip of the iceberg. By my calculations it is almost impossible to catch someone on anything with a short half-life, the window of opportunity can be hours.

tailwindhome

They're just taking the hand now



via @DavidLloyd

Macaloon

A dirty rounder, a no-good fraud
A ne'er-do-well of the highest accord
I've got the supermarket sympathy vote
I've got a ten year old doctor's note

'Cos I'm a Blue, Blue Badge Abuser
I'm a Blue, Blue Badge Abuser....

I used to favour Justice and Truth
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth
One day I know I'll have to face his wrath
A walk in hell for a walk-in bath

Prime586

Macaloon wrote:

A dirty rounder, a no-good fraud
A ne'er-do-well of the highest accord
I've got the supermarket sympathy vote
I've got a ten year old doctor's note

'Cos I'm a Blue, Blue Badge Abuser
I'm a Blue, Blue Badge Abuser....

I used to favour Justice and Truth
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth
One day I know I'll have to face his wrath
A walk in hell for a walk-in bath

It's a 'mother and child' space though.

tailwindhome

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-28970855


WADA has confirmed an amendment to Section S2.1 of the 2014 List of Prohibited Substances and Methods.

Hypoxia-Inducible Factor (HIF) activators Xenon and Argon will be added to the 2014 Prohibited List, after the recommendation was made and approved by WADA’s Executive Committee during its May meeting.

Pross

Even though there's no testing available for them at present. Apparently, they can ban people if they obtain evidence that they have the kit for using the stuff. Maybe bicarb of soda will be next after all!

Mad_Malx

Unless someone is caught with the cylinders it is going to be very difficult to pick up.
(Radioactive) Xenon is used diagnostically, one of the advantages being that it is cleared VERY rapidly - half life measured in single minutes following inhalation.

Comments about bicarb here & elsewhere - you do realise that cakes aren't the main source? It's converted to carbondioxide in the cakes to make them rise. We make the stuff all the time (from carbon dioxide) and plasma bicarb levels are around 20mM (about 1g/L); its also in every cell in your body. The body regulates levels of bicarb tightly and added bicarb will be restored rapidly - by breathing out carbondioxide.

joelsim

Mad_Malx wrote:

Unless someone is caught with the cylinders it is going to be very difficult to pick up.
(Radioactive) Xenon is used diagnostically, one of the advantages being that it is cleared VERY rapidly - half life measured in single minutes following inhalation.

Not much different than epo then.

RichN95.

Joelsim wrote:

Not much different than epo then.

Apart from EPO actually works. It's still uncertain as to whether xenon actual does anything.

joelsim

RichN95 wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

Not much different than epo then.

Apart from EPO actually works. It's still uncertain as to whether xenon actual does anything.

I was only talking about the ability to clear the system quickly i.e. gone by the morning.

BenderRodriguez

Mad_Malx wrote:

Comments about bicarb here & elsewhere - you do realise that cakes aren't the main source? It's converted to carbondioxide in the cakes to make them rise. We make the stuff all the time (from carbon dioxide) and plasma bicarb levels are around 20mM (about 1g/L); its also in every cell in your body. The body regulates levels of bicarb tightly and added bicarb will be restored rapidly - by breathing out carbondioxide.

But does that mean it is ethically OK to dope with bicarb to 'buffer lactate', even as a short-term measure? After all Epo is also found naturally in the body...

tailwindhome

BenderRodriguez wrote:

But does that mean it is ethically OK to dope with bicarb to 'buffer lactate', even as a short-term measure? After all Epo is also found naturally in the body...

Maybe you've covered it already, but I'm not clear why you think it would be unethical.

It breaks no rules, it's freely available to all and has no lasting ill effects on rider health.*






*Toilet runs excepted

BenderRodriguez

Deleted: Dual post. :oops:

BenderRodriguez

TailWindHome wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

But does that mean it is ethically OK to dope with bicarb to 'buffer lactate', even as a short-term measure? After all Epo is also found naturally in the body...

Maybe you've covered it already, but I'm not clear why you think it would be unethical.

It breaks no rules, it's freely available to all and has no lasting ill effects on rider health.*

*Toilet runs excepted

Because the taking of 'stuff' in unnaturally excessive amounts (in that it cannot ingested in such quantities in any vaguely normal diet or be considered to be necessary for nutritional purposes), simply because it has a performance-enhancing effect, undermines the 'sporting ethos' which holds that performance should be a reflection of 'talent' and hard work'. (Which is why doping is banned in the first place. After all, who would want to watch what was effectively a competition between doctors and pharmacists?)

In essence, doing so is 'doping', and this is is true whether a product is officially banned or not. (Just look at the way some products, such as caffeine, have gone from being allowed, to being banned to being allowed again.)

Agreed, taking 'banned' substances also contravenes additional ethical standards, such as those related to 'cheating', and 'deception' but, psychologically speaking, having a mindset that feels that 'enhanced performance comes in a pill' is pretty much the same whether or not a product is actually banned.

Also, attempting to argue that something should be permitted in any quantity purely on the grounds that it is found naturally in food products doesn't really work. For example, if this were the case one could justify adding the addition of heroin to one's 'Pot Belge' on the grounds that trace amounts of opiates are found in poppy seeds, as used in some bread and cakes!

joelsim

TailWindHome wrote:

*Toilet runs excepted

That doesn't sound great for health, the body expelling it.

tailwindhome

BenderRodriguez wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

BenderRodriguez wrote:

But does that mean it is ethically OK to dope with bicarb to 'buffer lactate', even as a short-term measure? After all Epo is also found naturally in the body...

Maybe you've covered it already, but I'm not clear why you think it would be unethical.

It breaks no rules, it's freely available to all and has no lasting ill effects on rider health.*

*Toilet runs excepted

Because the taking of 'stuff' in unnaturally excessive amounts (in that it cannot ingested in such quantities in any vaguely normal diet or be considered to be necessary for nutritional purposes), simply because it has a performance-enhancing effect, undermines the 'sporting ethos' which holds that performance should be a reflection of 'talent' and hard work'. (Which is why doping is banned in the first place. After all, who would want to watch what was effectively a competition between doctors and pharmacists?)

I know what you mean, but that is an impossibly puritanical view of sporting ethics.

It would preclude for example any advances in technology, kit or method.

BenderRodriguez

TailWindHome wrote:

I know what you mean, but that is an impossibly puritanical view of sporting ethics.

It would preclude for example any advances in technology, kit or method.

Only those related to stuffing chemicals down one's throat in the hope they will make you go faster, all of which have some sort of side-effect, even if it just giving you a serious case of the 'squits'.