CIRC report

above_the_cows

Where do you drawn the line at 'perform'? Where is the line between need drugs to function as a normal human being and taking drugs to enhance your performance? I for example have regular cortisone and lidocaine injections, I would hope that if I was a professional athlete I would get a TUE for this. I don't think it is fair that someone's career would be over because they have carpal tunnel which has nothing to do with say being able to run a marathon and everything to do with being able to sleep without pain in your hand, hold a pen, pick up a glass etc.

I'm afraid I can't agree with Nys, 'naturally a good athlete'? What does that even mean? Define 'natural'? I wonder what he thinks of Jack Bobridge who has rheumatoid arthritis, the causes of which are unknown, with some claiming genes. Would Nys wish for a world where only a genetically perfect human can be an athlete? I wouldn't, that sounds horribly of a by gone era and who decides what a genetically perfect human is anyway? How do you factor out for those who are 'not perfect' through nature and those that are 'not perfect' through environment?

It's a stupid argument if you give it any thought. Drugs are natural, everything on this planet is natural. He sounds like one of those people who don't vaccinate their kids because it isn't 'natural'. Performance enhancement isn't about what is natural or not its about a sport setting normative socially constructed limits as rules.

Now if Sven wants to advocate for a social construction based on 'natural' human beings then there's a eugenics club waiting for his membership.

joelsim

Rick Chasey wrote:

Some interesting chat from Sven Nys on an hour long cycling chat prog.

There's the usual chat about when he rode P-R with Rabo in 2001 with Geer, but that's all boring.

What was interesting, was his chat about weight and anorexia in the peloton.

His theory is as follows:

You have a period where most riders are taking EPO, testosterone, HgH. With those additional 'benefits' it's much easier to run exceptionally lean and still put out very punchy power without straining your body to the point of breaking.

Without those drugs, riders are still trying to get as thin, but without the doping crutch, it puts too much strain on the body. They need a shade more fat and generally a more balanced diet to get the best power/weight combo without doping... He sees quite a few riders getting very thin and struggling as a result.

Have no interest in any conspiracy theorising on it (i'm looking at you Joelsim) but thought it was interesting.

I'd rather you didn't look at me. I find it disconcerting.

No_Ta_Doctor

Joelsim wrote:

I'd rather you didn't look at me. I find it disconcerting.

We're all looking at you, Joelsim. Some of us are also pointing and making under the breath tutting noises.

tailwindhome

No tA Doctor wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

I'd rather you didn't look at me. I find it disconcerting.

We're all looking at you, Joelsim. Some of us are also pointing and making under the breath tutting noises.

I can't even look at him anymore.

No_Ta_Doctor

TailWindHome wrote:

No tA Doctor wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

I'd rather you didn't look at me. I find it disconcerting.

We're all looking at you, Joelsim. Some of us are also pointing and making under the breath tutting noises.

I can't even look at him anymore.

I know what you mean. But when it gets bad, I just pop over to the secret thread that he doesn't know about on the secret part of the board he can't see, where we make jokes at his expense.

joelsim

Phew! For a moment there I was worried.

Macaloon

Joelsim wrote:

I'd rather you didn't look at me. I find it disconcerting.

He's unlikely to be looking down on you.

joelsim

Macaloon wrote:

Joelsim wrote:

I'd rather you didn't look at me. I find it disconcerting.

He's unlikely to be looking down on you.

Titchie Ricky?

mm1

The Nys comments are interesting and make sense of the Sky focus on hygene and managing / reducing stress and diet (hypoallergenic bedding, cleaning hotel rooms etc). Not naive, but I think that the cynical dismissal of the BC / Team Sky approach is wilfully idiotic.

ddraver

Above The Cows wrote:

Where do you drawn the line at 'perform'? Where is the line between need drugs to function as a normal human being and taking drugs to enhance your performance? I for example have regular cortisone and lidocaine injections, I would hope that if I was a professional athlete I would get a TUE for this. I don't think it is fair that someone's career would be over because they have carpal tunnel which has nothing to do with say being able to run a marathon and everything to do with being able to sleep without pain in your hand, hold a pen, pick up a glass etc.

I'm afraid I can't agree with Nys, 'naturally a good athlete'? What does that even mean? Define 'natural'? I wonder what he thinks of Jack Bobridge who has rheumatoid arthritis, the causes of which are unknown, with some claiming genes. Would Nys wish for a world where only a genetically perfect human can be an athlete? I wouldn't, that sounds horribly of a by gone era and who decides what a genetically perfect human is anyway? How do you factor out for those who are 'not perfect' through nature and those that are 'not perfect' through environment?

It's a stupid argument if you give it any thought. Drugs are natural, everything on this planet is natural. He sounds like one of those people who don't vaccinate their kids because it isn't 'natural'. Performance enhancement isn't about what is natural or not its about a sport setting normative socially constructed limits as rules.

Now if Sven wants to advocate for a social construction based on 'natural' human beings then there's a eugenics club waiting for his membership.

I'm not sure that's his point is it? His argument is the sort of argument that means that Ski Jumpers or Jockeys have a minimum weight limit.

No_Ta_Doctor

ddraver wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Where do you drawn the line at 'perform'? Where is the line between need drugs to function as a normal human being and taking drugs to enhance your performance? I for example have regular cortisone and lidocaine injections, I would hope that if I was a professional athlete I would get a TUE for this. I don't think it is fair that someone's career would be over because they have carpal tunnel which has nothing to do with say being able to run a marathon and everything to do with being able to sleep without pain in your hand, hold a pen, pick up a glass etc.

I'm afraid I can't agree with Nys, 'naturally a good athlete'? What does that even mean? Define 'natural'? I wonder what he thinks of Jack Bobridge who has rheumatoid arthritis, the causes of which are unknown, with some claiming genes. Would Nys wish for a world where only a genetically perfect human can be an athlete? I wouldn't, that sounds horribly of a by gone era and who decides what a genetically perfect human is anyway? How do you factor out for those who are 'not perfect' through nature and those that are 'not perfect' through environment?

It's a stupid argument if you give it any thought. Drugs are natural, everything on this planet is natural. He sounds like one of those people who don't vaccinate their kids because it isn't 'natural'. Performance enhancement isn't about what is natural or not its about a sport setting normative socially constructed limits as rules.

Now if Sven wants to advocate for a social construction based on 'natural' human beings then there's a eugenics club waiting for his membership.

I'm not sure that's his point is it? His argument is the sort of argument that means that Ski Jumpers or Jockeys have a minimum weight limit.

I don't think he's really arguing from a point of athlete health, is he?

The_Boy

disgruntledgoat wrote:

He also said he wanted a total ban on TUEs as cortisone is dangerous in the long term and also, more controversially, if you have asthma you've no business being an athlete anyway

I was going to suggest this at some point, just to make mischief but figured a discussion involveing Froome and a TUE didn't really need any innocent mischief making. After all, what's the difference between an asthmatic and a fat lad like me who is sorely lacking in the genes to make a pro cyclist? *whistles innocently*

I have actually have a bit of sympathy with Nys' attitude, but can't say I agree with it.

The_Boy

Above The Cows wrote:

Now if Sven wants to advocate for a social construction based on 'natural' human beings then there's a eugenics club waiting for his membership.

You ruined a very good post with this sentence.

RichN95.

The_Boy wrote:

I was going to suggest this at some point, just to make mischief but figured a discussion involveing Froome and a TUE didn't really need any innocent mischief making. After all, what's the difference between an asthmatic and a fat lad like me who is sorely lacking in the genes to make a pro cyclist? *whistles innocently*

An asthma inhaler doesn't improve a person's natural level. There is no enhancement. It just stops them declining criticialy from their normal level.

Which is why I mentioned contact lenses - which definitely does improve what a person has naturally. Across all sports and all levels it is the biggest medical performance enhancer in history. But no-one will ever consider it as 'doping' as it is not a drug. But to my mind it's no different to a legitimately used, harmless and legal drug.

(And yes, I do wear contacts)

curium

RichN95 wrote:

The_Boy wrote:

I was going to suggest this at some point, just to make mischief but figured a discussion involveing Froome and a TUE didn't really need any innocent mischief making. After all, what's the difference between an asthmatic and a fat lad like me who is sorely lacking in the genes to make a pro cyclist? *whistles innocently*

An asthma inhaler doesn't improve a person's natural level. There is no enhancement. It just stops them declining criticialy from their normal level.

Which is why I mentioned contact lenses - which definitely does improve what a person has naturally. Across all sports and all levels it is the biggest medical performance enhancer in history. But no-one will ever consider it as 'doping' as it is not a drug. But to my mind it's no different to a legitimately used, harmless and legal drug.

(And yes, I do wear contacts)

Interesting point about the contacts which momentarily threw me. On consideration though I think how about defining a PED as something which enhances everyones' performance?

So if you have 20/20 vision, contact lens have no benefit to you. If you're not asthmatic would an inhaler benefit you? Caffeine, I think, is acknowledged to benefit everyone.

above_the_cows

The_Boy wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Now if Sven wants to advocate for a social construction based on 'natural' human beings then there's a eugenics club waiting for his membership.

You ruined a very good post with this sentence.

Why? That's where you logically end up with a position like Nys'.

Personally I hope a Parlympian punches him in the nose.

rick_chasey

RichN95 wrote:

The_Boy wrote:

I was going to suggest this at some point, just to make mischief but figured a discussion involveing Froome and a TUE didn't really need any innocent mischief making. After all, what's the difference between an asthmatic and a fat lad like me who is sorely lacking in the genes to make a pro cyclist? *whistles innocently*

An asthma inhaler doesn't improve a person's natural level. There is no enhancement. It just stops them declining criticialy from their normal level.

Which is why I mentioned contact lenses - which definitely does improve what a person has naturally. Across all sports and all levels it is the biggest medical performance enhancer in history. But no-one will ever consider it as 'doping' as it is not a drug. But to my mind it's no different to a legitimately used, harmless and legal drug.

(And yes, I do wear contacts)

He takes the view if you require a drug to perform, you shouldn't be performing.

So the difference between the contact lenses and your asthma inhaler is one isn't a drug and the other is.

I don't think Nys is adverse to using better kit to be a better rider.

But when it's drugs and illnesses, he thinks, if you need the drugs because of the illness or disease, you shouldn't do it, because you're ill/diseased.

Makes sense. If you have asmtha, without the drugs required ,you're not as good an athlete.

If you're going to draw a line and say what you're seeing is not drug enhanced, might as well be consistent.

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

So the difference between the contact lenses and your asthma inhaler is one isn't a drug and the other is.

I don't think Nys is adverse to using better kit to be a better rider.

But when it's drugs and illnesses, he thinks, if you need the drugs because of the illness or disease, you shouldn't do it, because you're ill/diseased.

Makes sense. If you have asmtha, without the drugs required ,you're not as good an athlete.

If you're going to draw a line and say what you're seeing is not drug enhanced, might as well be consistent.

But contacts are correcting a medical condition - just as asthma drugs. He's just reacting to the concept of drugs rather than what they are actually doing. He basically wants to deny athletes basic heathcare that is common to non-athletes. It's ill thought out and bordering on hysterical. And he's not the only one.

Shall we stop asthmatic children from taking part in competitive sports? And if not, at what stage towards becoming a pro does he become a cheat?

rick_chasey

RichN95 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

So the difference between the contact lenses and your asthma inhaler is one isn't a drug and the other is.

I don't think Nys is adverse to using better kit to be a better rider.

But when it's drugs and illnesses, he thinks, if you need the drugs because of the illness or disease, you shouldn't do it, because you're ill/diseased.

Makes sense. If you have asmtha, without the drugs required ,you're not as good an athlete.

If you're going to draw a line and say what you're seeing is not drug enhanced, might as well be consistent.

But contacts are correcting a medical condition - just as asthma drugs. He's just reacting to the concept of drugs rather than what they are actually doing. He basically wants to deny athletes basic heathcare that is common to non-athletes. It's ill thought out and bordering on hysterical. And he's not the only one.

He thinks you shouldn't compete if you require drugs to compete.

He's not denying them healthcare. He's denying people with medical conditions that affect performance racing, which is quite a big difference.

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

He thinks you shouldn't compete if you require drugs to compete.

He's not denying them healthcare. He's denying people with medical conditions that affect performance racing, which is quite a big difference.

And that is why he is an idiot. At what level of competitive sports does it become unacceptable? School sports day? Sunday league football? Cat 1 races? Or is it just at his level.

The_Boy

Above The Cows wrote:

The_Boy wrote:

Above The Cows wrote:

Now if Sven wants to advocate for a social construction based on 'natural' human beings then there's a eugenics club waiting for his membership.

You ruined a very good post with this sentence.

Why? That's where you logically end up with a position like Nys'.

Personally I hope a Parlympian punches him in the nose.

It really isn't though, is it?

All he's doing is engaging in the process of "... a sport setting normative socially constructed limits as rules." And to repeat: I don't agree with his position. I do however take issue with misrepresentation of his views - it detracts from the arguments against his stated position imo. Of which you put forward several.

The_Boy

RichN95 wrote:

The_Boy wrote:

I was going to suggest this at some point, just to make mischief but figured a discussion involveing Froome and a TUE didn't really need any innocent mischief making. After all, what's the difference between an asthmatic and a fat lad like me who is sorely lacking in the genes to make a pro cyclist? *whistles innocently*

(And yes, I do wear contacts)

Zero FF panache points

disgruntledgoat

RichN95 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

He thinks you shouldn't compete if you require drugs to compete.

He's not denying them healthcare. He's denying people with medical conditions that affect performance racing, which is quite a big difference.

And that is why he is an idiot. At what level of competitive sports does it become unacceptable? School sports day? Sunday league football? Cat 1 races? Or is it just at his level.

I think his argument was more that if you're having cortisone injections to manage an injury you should be forced to sit out 3 weeks to protect your health as well as the arguments above. He seems to have come to a pretty fundamentalist position though

RichN95.

disgruntledgoat wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

He thinks you shouldn't compete if you require drugs to compete.

He's not denying them healthcare. He's denying people with medical conditions that affect performance racing, which is quite a big difference.

And that is why he is an idiot. At what level of competitive sports does it become unacceptable? School sports day? Sunday league football? Cat 1 races? Or is it just at his level.

I think his argument was more that if you're having cortisone injections to manage an injury you should be forced to sit out 3 weeks to protect your health as well as the arguments above. He seems to have come to a pretty fundamentalist position though

It wasn't that bit that I was having a go at, it was the bit about asthma medicine - an everyday medicine used by millions. (admittedly I've only got Rick's summary to go on)

Ashbeck

RichN95 wrote:

The_Boy wrote:

I was going to suggest this at some point, just to make mischief but figured a discussion involveing Froome and a TUE didn't really need any innocent mischief making. After all, what's the difference between an asthmatic and a fat lad like me who is sorely lacking in the genes to make a pro cyclist? *whistles innocently*

An asthma inhaler doesn't improve a person's natural level. There is no enhancement. It just stops them declining criticialy from their normal level.

Which is why I mentioned contact lenses - which definitely does improve what a person has naturally. Across all sports and all levels it is the biggest medical performance enhancer in history. But no-one will ever consider it as 'doping' as it is not a drug. But to my mind it's no different to a legitimately used, harmless and legal drug.

(And yes, I do wear contacts)

I understand the point you are making.

Do you think the same applies to hearing aids?

rick_chasey

He said the same of asthma.

Makes sense if you think about it. If you can't compete without taking ventolin or sabutamol then why should you be competing? I don't have asmtha so I can't use it, so how is that fair?

Sure, it's a fundamentalist position, but I can't see much wrong with his logic. It seems a natural conclusion of the rather more modern ideal of the 'natural' athlete. Either you can do it without drugs or you can.

Ashbeck

Rick Chasey wrote:

He said the same of asthma.

Makes sense if you think about it. If you can't compete without taking ventolin or sabutamol then why should you be competing? I don't have asmtha so I can't use it, so how is that fair?

Sure, it's a fundamentalist position, but I can't see much wrong with his logic. It seems a natural conclusion of the rather more modern ideal of the 'natural' athlete. Either you can do it without drugs or you can.

I understand the whole debate about this, but im just curious where would we place things like Deep Heat...or paracetomol...or even say, the humble bandage?
Say for example you suffer with migraines on a regular basis and need meds for that because altitude climbing sets it off, or you need regular knee sprays of Deep Heat due to tendonitis...or the bandages on your ankles for support because they are a bit weak. At what point do you draw the line?

Could, in theory, a regular massage after every stage be classified as an enhancer?

Its an interesting topic.

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

He said the same of asthma.

Makes sense if you think about it. If you can't compete without taking ventolin or sabutamol then why should you be competing? I don't have asmtha so I can't use it, so how is that fair?

Sure, it's a fundamentalist position, but I can't see much wrong with his logic. It seems a natural conclusion of the rather more modern ideal of the 'natural' athlete. Either you can do it without drugs or you can.

Maybe he might like to actually talk to an asthmatic. They can compete just fine without it most of the time.
But there is a risk that once in a while they will have an attack which can be very damaging to them. The inhaler just prevents that happening. It's precautionary, it doesn't make them better. It just means that the athlete doesn't have to play russian roulette every time the go out to play.

In no other sport would anyone consider an asthma inhaler in any way cheating. They would laugh at the idea. Cycling has become hysterical and lost perspective.

The_Boy

Ashbeck wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

He said the same of asthma.

Makes sense if you think about it. If you can't compete without taking ventolin or sabutamol then why should you be competing? I don't have asmtha so I can't use it, so how is that fair?

Sure, it's a fundamentalist position, but I can't see much wrong with his logic. It seems a natural conclusion of the rather more modern ideal of the 'natural' athlete. Either you can do it without drugs or you can.

I understand the whole debate about this, but im just curious where would we place things like Deep Heat...or paracetomol...or even say, the humble bandage?
Say for example you suffer with migraines on a regular basis and need meds for that because altitude climbing sets it off, or you need regular knee sprays of Deep Heat due to tendonitis...or the bandages on your ankles for support because they are a bit weak. At what point do you draw the line?

Could, in theory, a regular massage after every stage be classified as an enhancer?

Its an interesting topic.

I imagine everyone thought the Hungarian teams of the 1950s were cheating by, y'know, training and stuff.

rob churchill

The whole idea that drugs should be banned because they're somehow not natural is absurd and unsustainable.

There are only two sensible grounds on which to ban a performance enhancing substance, technique, or technology: First and most important, because it is potentially injurious to the health of the athlete. It's well established that EPO and anabolic steroids are harmful, so if you were to allow their use, you would force all athletes to take a risk with their health if they want to compete at the highest level.

The second reason is if it is detrimental to the competition. This could be because it's not available to all competitors, either because access is restricted by the manufacturer or perhaps because it's prohibitively expensive, and those who have access to it have an unfair advantage. Allow use of such a substance and the competition suffers. This is rare with pharmaceuticals, but common with other technologies.

If you ban asthma medications, then you force a substantial minority of professional athletes with exercise-induced asthma to choose between their livelihood and their wellbeing, and most will choose their livelihood.

Which means your policy would have the exact opposite effect of what a rational doping policy should be aiming for: you'd be exposing athletes to unnecessary risk instead of protecting them from it. You would be forcing a subset of athletes to take a risk with their health if they want to compete at the highest level.