Adarq.org

Performance Area => Nutrition & Supplementation => Topic started by: LBSS on September 08, 2010, 11:49:04 am

Title: doping in sport -- interesting post
Post by: LBSS on September 08, 2010, 11:49:04 am
Came across this while trying to look for a post on Lyle's forum where he and a couple other people described their cold remedy (I feel one coming on strong, strangely). I agree with pretty much every single thing he says. Too bad Sisson went all paleo and junk.

Quote from: Mark Sisson
Art,

I have followed with great interest your discussion and analysis of purported steroid use and home-run distributions. In a recent post, you asked about the incidence of false positives in sports drug-testing and you wondered how that might factor into the equation. I’ve given great deal of thought to that and related issues over the past 15 years and now feel compelled to add my two cents to your discussion – but on a much grander scale. At the risk of sounding a bit brazen, I would suggest to you and your audience that sport would be better off allowing athletes to make their own personal decisions regarding the use of so-called “banned substances” and leaving the federations and the IOC out of it entirely. (Even the term “banned substance” has a negative connotation, since most of these substances are actually drugs that were developed to enhance health in the general population). Bottom line: the whole notion of drug-testing in sports is far more complex than even the media make it out to be.

First, I should tell you that I was the Anti-doping Commissioner of the International Triathlon Union (ITU) – a relatively new sport within the Olympic Family – for nearly 13 years. I had to act as “prosecutor” on many doping cases (doping = drugs in sport). Prior to that, I helped write the first set of “anti-doping” rules for triathlon in 1988. Before that, I was an elite marathoner (2:18) and triathlete (4th Place Ironman Hawaii) in the ‘70s and ‘80s, so I have accumulated a fair amount of “inside information” regarding drugs in sport at the Olympic level. I also own a supplement company and have done extensive research on performance enhancement in pursuit of natural, legal alternatives.

There are three main points I want to make here: first, that it is impossible to fairly police and adjudicate drugs in sport; second, that the notion of a “level playing field” is a farce and, finally, that the performance requirements set by the federations at the elite level of sport almost demand access to certain “banned substances” in order to assure the health and vitality of the athlete throughout his or her career and – more importantly – into his or her life after competition.

1. Impossible to fairly police and adjudicate. Most people think that a positive test is conclusive proof of guilt, but the reality is that almost all these tests are nothing more than GC/MS (http://www.scientific.org/tutorials/articles/gcms.html for a good description) quantitative analyses that look for parts per billion of certain metabolites in the urine. They are not black and white indicators of guilt. They are wavy lines on a graph subject to interpretation by scientists with varying degrees of expertise. In many cases a “threshold level” is established below which you are “clean” but above which you are “guilty.” Test results will vary significantly from one “accredited” lab to another. You can test positive in one lab and, conceivably, have another lab exonerate you using a portion of the very same sample. I have presided over cases where an athlete tested positive for metabolites of nandrolone (a once-popular steroid) at levels of 4 or 5 parts per billion when the cut-off was 2.5 or 3. Even at such disputably low levels, athletes are presumed guilty. Some labs have proven that these metabolites can occur in the body from having consumed certain types of meat or from other foods or are even endogenously produced. In my opinion, the threshold levels have always been too low, so a handful of innocent athletes get severely penalized, while others who are dirty but are not tested get cleared to compete and keep whatever money or medal they win.

In the old days if you ate a poppyseed muffin before a race, your urine could easily show above-threshold levels of metabolites of opium and you could be disqualified. It actually happened to a triathlete who was later cleared. There are other similar “false positives” we had to be on the lookout for.

A T/E (testosterone to epitestosterone) higher than 6:1 was considered evidence of a doping violation, yet we had cases of women who scored a T/E of 20, not because testosterone was present in high amounts, but because the epitestosterone was extremely low as a result of birth control pills. In other cases, elite athletes’ normal testosterone levels were high enough to exceed the limit, but they were allowed to compete when they showed proof of genetic abnormality.

In other cases, athletes who have been diagnosed with asthma (now nearing 25% of the elite athlete population – don’t get me started) and who have properly notified the IOC and have a “therapeutic use exemption” on file can use salbutamol, salmeterol and similar “anabolic-property” drugs which are otherwise banned. But god forbid you are an athlete from a developing nation with asthma whose team physician failed to properly file your papers. Same condition, but now you can be severely penalized for the ignorance of your coaches or doctors.

There are known cases of sabotage where ex-wives have tainted supplements (or even toothpaste) to cause a positive test, and where athletes in races have consumed tainted drinks offered by unscrupulous coaches or fans of rival competitors.

Even when you do get a fairly reliable test result from the lab, a good lawyer can throw doubt on the integrity of the collection process, the chain of custody or a number of other factors, enough to get a truly guilty athlete off on a technicality. All these factors combined lead me to the conclusion that it is impossible to fairly police or adjudicate doping in sport.

2. The notion of a level playing field is a farce. The IOC and many professional leagues suggest that banning doping in sports will create a “level playing field”, meaning that all athletes should have access – or not – to the same advantages and disadvantages. Art’s exceptional analysis of home-run distribution notwithstanding, there are clearly advantages to be had from the use of certain substances specifically within certain sports. Take the use of EPO in cycling and running. EPO (Erythropoetin) is a natural hormone produced by the body. EPO stimulates the production of red blood cells, whose level in the blood is measured by hematocrit. Red blood cells contain the hemoglobin that carries oxygen to muscles where fuel can be burned. The more oxygen you deliver to the muscles, the more energy output you derive from those muscles. So having more red blood cells is a good thing and is a primary goal of many endurance athletes. Hard training raises EPO and hematocrit, but drug companies also make artificial EPO which does the same thing without training (intended medical use is for recovery from chemotherapy which destroys RBCs). Artificial EPO is banned. Now here’s the irony: research confirms that if you train at sea level and sleep at 14,000 feet, your body makes red blood cells at an impressive rate and amount. Several companies have developed expensive “altitude chambers” for home use where you can now train at sea level and then retire to your room for the night, simulating an altitude of 14,000 feet or higher. The end result is that you have, within the letter of the law, manipulated your own EPO to artificially raise hematocrit, yet using artificial EPO to do the same thing is punishable by a 2-year suspension. Talk to an endurance athlete from a developing nation with $2 to his name about THAT level playing field.

In the early days of EPO testing, the cycling federation would measure the hematocrit of every cyclist before a race. If your hematocrit was above 52%, you were not allowed to race and were presumed to have doped. However, there were instances of cyclists from high-mountain regions in South America who had normally high hematocrits (from training AND living at 14,000 feet or higher). Some were not allowed to race because they had achieved a high hematocrit naturally. Meanwhile, others who used artifical EPO to get from, say, 44% to 51% raced without penalty. Talk to those South Americans about a level playing field.

There are many other idiosyncrasies. Within the IOC, 2 cups of coffee is OK, but 8 cups is illegal. Marijuana will get you suspended by some federations, but not by others. Creatine, one of the best natural performance enhancing substances is legal in track and field, while beta-blockers, which have no effect on performance, were not. My point is that the concept of a level playing field is a nice idea, but one that has not been realized in Olympic sport.

3. The performance requirements set by the federations at the elite level of sport almost demand access to certain “banned substances” in order to assure the health and vitality of the athlete throughout his or her career and – more importantly – into his or her life after competition. As I write this, Mike Quarry has just died at 55 from “pugilistic dementia”, the same fate that took his brother Jerry at age 52. World class athletes tend to die significantly younger than you would predict from heart disease, cancer, diabetes and early-onset dementia. They also typically suffer premature joint deterioration from the years of pounding, and most endurance athletes look like hell from the years of oxidative damage that has overwhelmed their feeble antioxidant systems. Most people don’t realize it, but training at the elite level is actually the antithesis of a healthy lifestyle. The definition of peak fitness means that you are constantly at or near a state of physical breakdown. As a peak performer on a world stage, you have done more work than anyone else, but you have paid a price. It is again ironic that the professional leagues and the IOC, the ones who dangle that carrot of millions of dollars in salary or gold-medalist endorsements are the same ones who actually created this overtrained, injured and beat-up army of young people. They don’t care. These organizations then deny the athletes the very same drugs and even some natural “health-enhancing” substances that the rest of society can easily receive whenever they feel the least bit uncomfortable.

I had to disqualify and suspend a kid from competition for 90 days because he had a head cold the night before his national championships. His dad had gone to the drugstore and gotten him some Sudafed so he could breathe while he slept. His urine test was positive when he won the race the next day. He forfeited his winnings and he had to sit out the World Championships as a result. I felt terrible, but the rules required that we do it.

I had to suspend a talented and promising young Mexican triathlete because his vitamins contained a tiny amount of a little-known stimulant legal over-the-counter in Mexico. His doctor had prescribed vitamins for him because he had been chronically overtraining and yet had little or no access to decent training foods.

These days many athletes avoid taking high-potency multi-vitamins out of fear that contaminants in their supplements could destroy their careers. Yet these same athletes have nutrient requirements that exceed the RDAs by a factor of 10 or 20 in some cases. It has been said many times that world class athletes will do anything to win – even if it means risking their lives. If that’s the case, then don’t let them train so hard that they destroy their health and then deny them the very tools they need to recover!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>

I could go on, but you get my drift. I believe that with proper supervision, athletes could be healthier and have longer careers (not to mention longer and more productive post-competition lives) using many of these “banned substances.” And perhaps the biggest assumption I will make here is that the public just doesn’t care. Professional sport has become theater. All the public wants is a good show and an occasional world record.

I welcome your feedback.

Mark Sisson
Title: Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
Post by: adarqui on September 08, 2010, 04:46:24 pm
well i must say, that was very well put.. i'm very much anti-PED's in competition, but I also realize that creates the situation of "never having a level playing field", due to some people sneaking by during testing etc. His health-issues concern makes sense, but then in the same sense, if PED's were legal, athletes would still do as much (or more) harm by irresponsibly using these drugs... not all, but a high percentage would, I imagine.

very difficult issue heh.

everyone should be required to eat nothing but pop-tarts, and train using nothing but iso extremes & their sport specific event, then we could figure out who is the true #1.


Quote

In other cases, athletes who have been diagnosed with asthma (now nearing 25% of the elite athlete population

wtf?




Title: Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
Post by: LBSS on September 08, 2010, 04:54:57 pm
if PED's were legal, athletes would still do as much (or more) harm by irresponsibly using these drugs... not all, but a high percentage would, I imagine.

Cause they're not doing this now?
Title: Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
Post by: TheSituation on September 19, 2010, 12:55:19 am
(http://i44.tinypic.com/ve6r79.gif)
Title: Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
Post by: Royal on September 25, 2010, 01:08:24 am
(http://i44.tinypic.com/ve6r79.gif)

lol, where do you find this shit?

i have to agree my attention span just can't really read through that much wall of text anymore.
Title: Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
Post by: LBSS on October 18, 2012, 10:21:03 am
here's another thoughtful, even-handed piece on doping in sport and why people seem so gleeful about lance armstrong's fall from grace, from a psych professor in england.

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/10/sponsors-overboard-guest-post-on.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FcJKs+%28The+Science+of+Sport%29&utm_content=FaceBook (http://www.sportsscientists.com/2012/10/sponsors-overboard-guest-post-on.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FcJKs+%28The+Science+of+Sport%29&utm_content=FaceBook)

excerpt:

Quote
As with fairness, it may be rather simplistic to insist that doping-free sport eliminates risks. Elite sport in particular can reward all sorts of risk-taking, but opening the door to more drug use again seems to potentially worsen the problem. For this author at least it’s this issue of safety that finally leads to a parting of ways with Savulescu and Foddy. I’m not sure I can get comfortable with a sport where a legitimate route to winning is for young athletes to push the limits of pharmaceutical assistance. Should I be comfortable with sport that encourage pushing the limits in other ways? Perhaps not. But that doesn’t mean I want to open another avenue of risk. There is the possibility of improving safety with medical supervision, but a glance at the motley collection of doping medics who populate recent sport memoirs leaves me a little low on confidence that this would help.

The involvement of those dubious doctors, though, highlights a counter-argument and brings us back to the issue of illegality itself compromising safety. As with recreational drugs, if a substance is permitted there may be a greater incentive to improve its safety (rather than at present where the emphasis is on undetectability), and for people of greater integrity to become involved in its supervision. In the end the issue pivots on whether you can argue convincingly enough that, as in the case of something like heroin, prohibition actively contributes to the risks via dodgy suppliers, unsafe drugs or badly controlled administration. If someone could make this case might it change things?

and another excerpt:

Quote
Another way to look at it though is to consider the possibility that Armstrong is not quite as reprehensible as all that. It could be that we are seeing (as Tyler Hamilton and others have suggested) someone trapped inside a lie that’s too big for easy escape and driven by fear. Fear of failing, of discovery, of loss of the esteem which some still have. How would most people deal with that? How would you? Armstrong’s public stance of studied (or pretend) indifference is quite agonising to watch. It may be that that he is simply an ordinary person, albeit in extraordinary circumstances, with weaknesses and flaws like the rest of us. And this is the heart of his problem: if you’re Lance Armstrong, the journey to just being an ordinary guy is a long, long way down.
Title: Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
Post by: Mikey on October 18, 2012, 07:46:52 pm
http://www.muscleweek.com/is-usain-bolt-on-steroids
Some of the article is poorly researched/worded but you get the gist. Even though the article is referring to Bolt it applies to everybody else to.

This part of the article stood out to me.

A typical PED cycle would begin 12 weeks out from competition with the target date being the day prior to or of the competition. Along with the use of undetectable steroids and daily growth hormone injections, the athlete would also have his blood drawn on a daily basis to monitor his testosterone and rhGH ratios in an effort to keep them within Olympic World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) testing limits. Close monitoring of these ratios allow an Olympic sprinter such as Bolt to both use PEDs up to the day of competition while still comfortably submitting to multiple drug tests.
 
This isn’t evidence particular to Usain Bolt, as it could just as easily describe the protocol that every Olympic sprinter is using to pass the drug tests. However, it is mentioned simply to point out how easily Olympic athletes are able to pass an Olympic-level drug test, even with the highest levels of scrutiny. The bottom line is that if an athlete is within the permissible testosterone and rhGH ratios, he is deemed clean. The reality is that any athlete who doesn’t maximize his testosterone and rhGH levels to the maximum permissible level has no chance of breaking a world record.
 
For example, let’s assume that a talented NCAA sprinter has a testosterone ratio (testosterone: epitestosterone) of 1:1 which is considered normal, or average. The current WADA guidelines permit a ratio of up to 4:1. Given the fact that the only way for an NCAA sprinter to make any money sprinting is to win international competitions and garner endorsements, what reason could that NCAA sprinter possibly have for NOT quadrupling his testosterone ratio up to the maximum of 4:1? Using a number of undetectable steroid compounds, that same athlete would presumably see a major improvement in his sprint times without ever ‘testing positive’.
more info on test:epi ratio- http://www.rxmuscle.com/articles/chemical-enhancement/2325-understanding-the-testosterone-to-epitestosterone-ratio-drug-test.html
 
And this is the folly of drug testing: It gives ‘dirty’ athletes all the ammunition they need to proclaim themselves ‘clean’ — replete with Olympic level testing results.

The worst argument that anyone can make for Usain Bolt being a clean athlete is that he has yet to fail a steroid or other drug test, despite being subjected to rigorous drug testing protocols.
 
The reality is that most Olympic athletes have their blood levels so closely monitored that only an egregious miscalculation in the timing of a steroid injection or use of a masking agent (i.e. diuretics) to dilute the levels of a steroid within the blood would result in a positive test. This is the only reason why we rarely see positive tests for Olympic level athletes.
 
International steroid expert Anthony Roberts told Muscleweek: “With regards to fooling the Olympic drug tests, many of the same loopholes that existed ten to twenty years ago still exist today. Until those loopholes are closed, there will always be a shadow of doubt falling on the Olympics.”
 
Roberts continued, “Testosterone, hGH and most of the other highly potent anabolics are virtually undetectable — when we see a positive test and a tearfully apologetic athlete, he or she probably represents less than 1% of those who are actually using banned substances.”

Title: Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
Post by: adarqui on October 20, 2012, 11:05:00 pm
http://www.muscleweek.com/is-usain-bolt-on-steroids
Some of the article is poorly researched/worded but you get the gist. Even though the article is referring to Bolt it applies to everybody else to.

This part of the article stood out to me.

A typical PED cycle would begin 12 weeks out from competition with the target date being the day prior to or of the competition. Along with the use of undetectable steroids and daily growth hormone injections, the athlete would also have his blood drawn on a daily basis to monitor his testosterone and rhGH ratios in an effort to keep them within Olympic World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) testing limits. Close monitoring of these ratios allow an Olympic sprinter such as Bolt to both use PEDs up to the day of competition while still comfortably submitting to multiple drug tests.
 
This isn’t evidence particular to Usain Bolt, as it could just as easily describe the protocol that every Olympic sprinter is using to pass the drug tests. However, it is mentioned simply to point out how easily Olympic athletes are able to pass an Olympic-level drug test, even with the highest levels of scrutiny. The bottom line is that if an athlete is within the permissible testosterone and rhGH ratios, he is deemed clean. The reality is that any athlete who doesn’t maximize his testosterone and rhGH levels to the maximum permissible level has no chance of breaking a world record.
 
For example, let’s assume that a talented NCAA sprinter has a testosterone ratio (testosterone: epitestosterone) of 1:1 which is considered normal, or average. The current WADA guidelines permit a ratio of up to 4:1. Given the fact that the only way for an NCAA sprinter to make any money sprinting is to win international competitions and garner endorsements, what reason could that NCAA sprinter possibly have for NOT quadrupling his testosterone ratio up to the maximum of 4:1? Using a number of undetectable steroid compounds, that same athlete would presumably see a major improvement in his sprint times without ever ‘testing positive’.
more info on test:epi ratio- http://www.rxmuscle.com/articles/chemical-enhancement/2325-understanding-the-testosterone-to-epitestosterone-ratio-drug-test.html
 
And this is the folly of drug testing: It gives ‘dirty’ athletes all the ammunition they need to proclaim themselves ‘clean’ — replete with Olympic level testing results.

The worst argument that anyone can make for Usain Bolt being a clean athlete is that he has yet to fail a steroid or other drug test, despite being subjected to rigorous drug testing protocols.
 
The reality is that most Olympic athletes have their blood levels so closely monitored that only an egregious miscalculation in the timing of a steroid injection or use of a masking agent (i.e. diuretics) to dilute the levels of a steroid within the blood would result in a positive test. This is the only reason why we rarely see positive tests for Olympic level athletes.
 
International steroid expert Anthony Roberts told Muscleweek: “With regards to fooling the Olympic drug tests, many of the same loopholes that existed ten to twenty years ago still exist today. Until those loopholes are closed, there will always be a shadow of doubt falling on the Olympics.”
 
Roberts continued, “Testosterone, hGH and most of the other highly potent anabolics are virtually undetectable — when we see a positive test and a tearfully apologetic athlete, he or she probably represents less than 1% of those who are actually using banned substances.”

interesting post, thnx.

this quote from the article illustrates very well the point they are trying to make:

Quote
United States Olympic Gold Medalist Marion Jones proudly proclaimed that she passed more than 160 drug tests in her career. The fact remains that she won three gold medals at the 2000 Olympics while passing the supposedly stringent requirements of Olympic WADA testing.

And yet, despite breaking world records in the 100m and 200m sprints; despite being romantically involved with and coached by Olympic shot-putter CJ Hunter who tested positive for steroids four times leading up to the 2000 Olympics and was subsequently banned by the ITAF; despite being romantically involved with and coached by Olympic sprinter Tim Montgomery who tested positive for steroids and was subsequently banned; despite training under track coach Trevor Graham who has been banned for life from track and field; and despite her affiliation with BALCO Labs and the insistence of BALCO president Victor Conte who admitted to injecting Marion Jones with steroids, the general public and sports ‘journalists’ were still gullible enough to believe that Marion Jones was in fact, a ‘clean athlete.’


Quote
Among his clients, Mr. Heredia identified 12 athletes who had won a combined 26 Olympic medals and 21 world championships. Four of the 12 athletes, including Ms. Jones, had been named and barred from competition for illicit drug use. Eight of the 12 — notably, the sprinter Maurice Greene — have never been previously linked to performance-enhancing drugs.

Mr. Greene, a two-time Olympic gold medalist and a five-time world champion, has never failed a drug test.




WTF?

Quote
Answer: Usain Bolt hired the new incarnation of Angel Heredia to become his track ‘coach’ in 2009. Unfortunately for Mr. Heredia





armstrong never failed a drug test either.. now look at what has happened to him.. kind of tragic in a sense, the guy has done alot of good for this world/people.. now he's losing everything.. not sure how i feel about it, most of me still supports him heh.
Title: Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
Post by: adarqui on October 20, 2012, 11:06:30 pm
burn:

Quote
Amazing, indeed. Earlier today, Usain Bolt just became the first Olympic athlete to repeat winning Gold in the 100m and 200m sprints. His times of 9.63s in the 100m and 19.32 in the 200m are his best times since the 2009 World Championships and after his 200m victory, he boldly declared that he is “the greatest athlete who ever lived.”

It probably doesn’t hurt that he just happens to have “the greatest chemist who ever lived” right there in his corner.
Title: Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
Post by: Mikey on October 21, 2012, 08:07:44 am
Yeah it's actually interesting that Maurice Greene wasn't pursued but once again that's due to politics. Depending on your standing they either protect you or they hunt you.
E.g example of protection is Dennis Mitchell-
"In 1998, Mitchell was banned by IAAF for two years after a test showed high levels of testosterone. His defense of "five bottles of beer and sex with his wife at least four times . . . it was her birthday, the lady deserved a treat," was accepted by USA Track and Field but not by the IAAF.[4]"

Either way Ato Boldon doesn't have any time for Maurice Greene anymore.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/apr/20/athletics.drugsinsport
Title: Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
Post by: LBSS on October 23, 2012, 06:09:12 pm
burn:

Quote
Amazing, indeed. Earlier today, Usain Bolt just became the first Olympic athlete to repeat winning Gold in the 100m and 200m sprints. His times of 9.63s in the 100m and 19.32 in the 200m are his best times since the 2009 World Championships and after his 200m victory, he boldly declared that he is “the greatest athlete who ever lived.”

It probably doesn’t hurt that he just happens to have “the greatest chemist who ever lived” right there in his corner.

interesting. this guy is obviously not an unbiased source but 8/8 is strong words. makes you wonder.


Quote
And a small piece of the interview transcript from German publication Der Spiegel’s 2008 interview with Angel Hernandez:

    SPIEGEL: Mr. Heredia, will you watch the 100 meter final in Beijing?

    Heredia: Of course. But the winner will not be clean. Not even any of the contestants will be clean. (emphasis added)

    SPIEGEL: Of eight runners …

    Heredia: … eight will be doped.

    SPIEGEL: There is no way to prove that.

    Heredia: There is no doubt about it. The difference between 10.0 and 9.7 seconds is the drugs.
Title: Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
Post by: Coges on October 23, 2012, 08:43:28 pm
Quote
armstrong never failed a drug test either.. now look at what has happened to him.. kind of tragic in a sense, the guy has done alot of good for this world/people.. now he's losing everything.. not sure how i feel about it, most of me still supports him heh.

You know what, the part of me that feels for Lance is the part that realises that whoever won the tour during those years would have been doped to the gills so really wasn't he just competing on a level playing field?

The other part of me says screw him cause he lied, bullied and cheated his way into the hearts of people all over the world and built a multi-million dollar fortune off the back of it (and yes I realise what he's done for cancer research).
Title: Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
Post by: Coges on October 23, 2012, 08:47:36 pm
Overall I am amazed at the general public's naivety over PED use in sports in general. Ask 10 people on the street of they thought Bolt would use PEDs and you'll probably get 10 looks of  :o at how you could suggest such a thing.
Title: Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
Post by: seifullaah73 on October 24, 2012, 08:35:17 am
Of course, i wouldn't believe he was on drugs.
if he was then ... that might explain his ability to maintain speed so well; loses very little speed and has excellent endurance
PED's (i don't know which one) increase red blood cell counts and helps endurance runners.

but to say everyone at the 100m final will be on drugs lol  :headbang: that is just hard to believe, except for gatlin, he has previous history of PED usage.
but then i guess the playing field is equal now in terms of the finalist's
lol
Title: Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
Post by: Mikey on October 24, 2012, 09:39:18 am
Of course, i wouldn't believe he was on drugs.
if he was then ... that might explain his ability to maintain speed so well; loses very little speed and has excellent endurance
PED's (i don't know which one) increase red blood cell counts and helps endurance runners.

but to say everyone at the 100m final will be on drugs lol  :headbang: that is just hard to believe, except for gatlin, he has previous history of PED usage.
but then i guess the playing field is equal now in terms of the finalist's
lol

There probably still are clean athletes, especially ones that are in countries with stringent drug testing policies or less resources (without high level resources you won't be able to get away with cheating). However, in Bolt's case I don't belive it basically coz of Yohan Blake and the other Jamaicans as well as their relaxed drug testing.

Like T0ddday said- "It's totally possible that Bolt is running ridiculous times cleanly if he is the extreme value.... But if all the other Jamaicans start putting up similar ridiculous times it suggests that something else is at play....". Blake has already showed in the past that he's not immune to the temtations of drugs-  http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/8167898.stm
Plus he comes out and runs a 19.26 200m, which is ridiculous considering that only 2 other men in history have gone below 19.5 and they are track legends- Michael Johnson & Usain Bolt.

Than you've got other Jamaican athletes that train under different coaches but still end up with some eye raising results. Like Asafa Powell and Shelly Ann Fraser train together. At 17 Asafa run the 100 in 11.45 than the next year he dropped it down to 10.5. Than within 3 years he managed to chisel that down to 9.87. http://speedendurance.com/2009/10/19/asafa-powell-and-carmelita-jeter-peak-training-age/
Shelly Ann Fraser runs 11.74 in 2006, which is actually a de-gression from her 2004 PR of 11.72. Than suddenly in 2008 she's managed to get that down to 10.78. http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2630660
Steve Mullings tested positive for drugs after his times went from 10 down to 9.8 http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/aug/11/jamaican-sprinter-steve-mullings-positive
Than you've got other Jamaican sprinters like Michael Frater that from 2003 to 2007 managed to drop their time by only .1 of a second from 10.13-10.03 than suddenly from 2010 to 2011 they've managed to drop .1 second from 9.98-9.88. Isn't it supposed to be harder to drop your times once you get faster AND older- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Frater
But yeh I guess it's just bannanas and yams that's the reason Jamaicans are soo fast!

Drawing comparison to another country it used to be that Bulgarians dominated weightlifting and everybody wondered how a small European country of 6 million people could manage soo much success. Were they just naturally strong? Did they have superior training methods? Of course in hindsight it turned out that their advantage was attributed to superior 'restorative' (doping) methods.
Title: Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
Post by: seifullaah73 on October 24, 2012, 09:59:03 am
But yeh I guess it's just bannanas and yams that's the reason Jamaicans are soo fast!

I should remember to buy banana's and yam, i think i can use cassava instead of yam, it might be better alternative
thanks
Title: Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
Post by: LBSS on October 24, 2012, 10:17:29 am
But yeh I guess it's just bannanas and yams that's the reason Jamaicans are soo fast!

I should remember to buy banana's and yam, i think i can use cassawa instead of yam, it might be better alternative
thanks

lol.
Title: Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
Post by: adarqui on October 25, 2012, 01:49:08 am
injectable yams, the best kind.

asafa ran 11+ at 17? that seems unbelievable to me considering usa has h.s'rs running low 10's their senior year, then you never hear of them anymore.. maybe they go to football, i dont really follow them unless they show up in the trials/olympics.. do u have a link to his 11+ times at 17? just curious.. like is there official track meet info out there or is it something that's been passing around by other means?

pC


Title: Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
Post by: Mikey on October 25, 2012, 02:10:02 am
injectable yams, the best kind.

asafa ran 11+ at 17? that seems unbelievable to me considering usa has h.s'rs running low 10's their senior year, then you never hear of them anymore.. maybe they go to football, i dont really follow them unless they show up in the trials/olympics.. do u have a link to his 11+ times at 17? just curious.. like is there official track meet info out there or is it something that's been passing around by other means?

pC

http://www.flotrack.org/speaker/318-Asafa-Powell
In 2000, he represented his school at the ISSA High School Championships in the 100 and 200 meters. His times of 11.45 and 23.07 seconds were not enough to see him progress on from the first round but, by then, the track and field bug had bit him. The next year he competed again in the same championships and improved his times. This time around he was watched by Stephen Francis who spotted talent and offered to coach Powell.
 
http://www.jamaicanforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/17973-asafa-powell/
2000
Powell represented his school Charlemont High at the ISSA High School Championships. On April 11 he finished fourth in the Class 1 200 m, in 23.07 with a -1.7 m/s headwind. On April 13, he finished third in his heat of the Boy's Class 1 100 m, recording 11.45 with a -2.3 m/s headwind. Neither time recorded in the heats was quick enough to advance him to the next round of competition.

http://www.diamondleague.com/en/Samsung-Diamond-Race/Ambassador-Overview/Asafa-POWELL/
Asafa Powell is one of the fastest human beings on the planet. He held the 100 m World record between June 2005 and May 2008 (9.77, 9.74). He was awarded the title of Male World Athlete of the Year in 2006.
In 2000 Powell ran 11.45 and 23.07 in the 100m and 200m respectively at the ISSA High School Championships and neither of them was enough to advance him to the next round.
The following year he won the Jamaican junior title in 10.50 seconds.
During an Italian tour he showed his talent internationally in 2002 with a best of 10.12 in Rovereto.
He won his first Jamaican senior title in 2003.
He ran his first sub-10 seconds 100m in 2004 and he did it eight more times during the season.
Title: Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
Post by: AGC on October 25, 2012, 09:29:27 pm
I could maybe imagine it if he was really raw, hadn't done much sprinting before and had a few fundamental errors, could definitely take off a second...but yeah, it did raise eyebrows at the time I remember when he started running sub-10 every race.
Title: Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
Post by: Mikey on October 31, 2012, 09:16:45 am
I could maybe imagine it if he was really raw, hadn't done much sprinting before and had a few fundamental errors, could definitely take off a second...but yeah, it did raise eyebrows at the time I remember when he started running sub-10 every race.

Yeah I mean natural maturity just from growing older would increase speed + weight training+good coaching/technique and all that but I still don't believe all that improvement was PED free. It's the same with Shelly Ann Fraser she got the same coach as Asafa and she dropped her time by almost a second as well.
Edit- Actally now her PR is 1.04 seconds faster but in that 2 year period, which i posted about before her improvement was almost a second after the 2 year stagnation.
Title: Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
Post by: adarqui on January 05, 2013, 01:15:59 am
dno if true:

http://www.businessinsider.com/blackboard/lance-armstrong
Title: Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
Post by: adarqui on January 05, 2013, 01:35:55 am
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/11/21/165593480/lance-armstrong-and-the-business-of-doping
Title: Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
Post by: Raptor on January 05, 2013, 05:47:55 am
Is caffeine considered a PED?
Title: Re: doping in sport -- interesting post
Post by: LBSS on January 07, 2013, 09:35:00 am
in the ncaa, yes.

yeah but you'd need to drink the equivalent of 5+ cups of coffee in an hour to hit the limit.