"Dope" vs "medicine" vs natural methods

[Ray]

All of the talk of Lance's possible doping problems brings me back to a question that's frequently puzzled me in the several years I've been watching cycle racing. EPO can bring an athlete's hematocrit up to 50+. As Lance said on Larry King the other night, so can altitude, real or simulated. Is there a real ethical difference here? All of these guys are training their butts off, so it's not like one is the "easy" way to do it and, thus, cheating. They are just different ways of boosting red blood cells with the same end result.

Similarly, some of the accusations against Postal/Discovery are that syringes have been found in their garbage. Various staff folks openly admitted that syringes are used all the time in various recovery formulas. Pro cyclists are using the most powerful stuff (presumably legal) they can find to help them recover. How different is "recovery enhancement" than "performance enhancement"? Both help your ride farther and faster.

Aside from drugs that are easily detectable and clearly dangerous (speed, steroids perhaps - what else?), I just can't see many clear lines in any of this. I'm beginning to think they ought to just let athletes take what they're going to take, allow a level playing field, and don't bother trying to regulate stuff that they obviously cannot regulate very well.

Am I missing something here?

-Ray

[Johny]

Dr. Ferrari said drinking too much orange juice is more dangerous than EPO. He is right, isn't he?

A lot more male Americans are taking anabolic-androgenic steroids for non-therapeutic purposes these days - isn't feeling stronger like a 18 years old (sexually and physically...) worth the risk of getting liver damage, cardiovascular and other diseases?

Lung cancer is highly correlated with smoking - people (including medical doctors) still smoke, don't they?

[Too Tall]

Yes.

[Dekonick]

Imagine gene therapy -

Soon EPO (which is relatively harmless) will be a minor issue. How about creating more fast twitch fibers via genetic enhancements...more ATP synthesis...etc

I like watching the sport- I may not like the fact that drugs are used, but honestly I don't care. I like to watch it regardless.

My only concern is team management forcing riders to dope. I don't care if a cyclist does it on their own - that is their choice (as long as it is an informed choice)

just let em ride - you can't regulate everything.

[Ken Lehner]

All of the talk of Lance's possible doping problems brings me back to a question that's frequently puzzled me in the several years I've been watching cycle racing. EPO can bring an athlete's hematocrit up to 50+. As Lance said on Larry King the other night, so can altitude, real or simulated. Is there a real ethical difference here? All of these guys are training their butts off, so it's not like one is the "easy" way to do it and, thus, cheating. They are just different ways of boosting red blood cells with the same end result.
-Ray

The use of altitude training, tents, etc. puts a stress on your body, causing it to react and become stronger, more efficient, or whatever through training. The use of drugs does not.

[Fixed]

What you do as a young man can come back to haunt you in middle and old age. When a pro career is over and you have young kids the things you did in youth can keep you from seeing them grow up.Is it worth it? Cheers

[flydhest]

The use of altitude training, tents, etc. puts a stress on your body, causing it to react and become stronger, more efficient, or whatever through training. The use of drugs does not.

Ken, so if you were to take a drug that stresses your system and through that mechanism causes some improvement, does that mean that the drugs would be an acceptable choice?

Moreover, there have been discussions and comments made by WADA and others about potentially banning hypobaric chambers.

[oldguy00]

isn't feeling stronger like a 18 years old (sexually and physically...) worth the risk of getting liver damage, cardiovascular and other diseases?



Not to suggest that people -should- use steroids, but your post is a good example of the lack of understanding by the general public about steroids. What diseases are related to Steroid use? Please don't tell me brain tumors....Alzeido's (sp?) own doctors even admitted that was impossible. But the media grabs ahold of stories....

Steroids can be used safely without the fear of cardiovascular or other disease, they are used by millions of patients every day without causing disease, cancer, etc.
Whether or not they -should- be used by people for recreational muscle enhancement, well thats another topic. But hate to see misinformation being posted.

[oldguy00]

If a rider decides to use blood doping as a performance enhancer......why would they ever choose to use -someone elses- blood instead of using their own? As seems to be the case with Tyler.

I assume there is no way to test to see if someone has used their own blood to increase RBC count (withdrawn the blood, stored for several weeks while the body regenerates to natural levels, then re-introduce the stored blood). I'm assuming many pros use this method.

[bostondrunk]

. I'm beginning to think they ought to just let athletes take what they're going to take, allow a level playing field, and don't bother trying to regulate stuff that they obviously cannot regulate very well.

Am I missing something here?

-Ray

I agree. Until they can find a way to keep the athletes all clean, just stop bothering them. Hell, any of the guys in the top level of the sport didn't get there because of drugs anyway.

[Ken Lehner]

If a rider decides to use blood doping as a performance enhancer......why would they ever choose to use -someone elses- blood instead of using their own? As seems to be the case with Tyler.

Removing one's own blood has an immediate impact on training (several weeks to regain those blood cells).

[Ray]

The use of altitude training, tents, etc. puts a stress on your body, causing it to react and become stronger, more efficient, or whatever through training. The use of drugs does not.
I'm clearly no chemist, so I don't claim to fully understand this, but it seems that both EPO and sleeping at altitude (or simulated altitude) both cause the body to create more red blood cells. In both cases, intensive training is needed to fully take advantage of the increased number of red blood cells and maximize performance. If both methods will get you to about 50% hematocrit and the rider's intensive training is needed to realize the full potential of that higher hematocrit, I still fail to see the difference. I don't doubt that there is one - I'd just like to better understand what it is and why one is cheating and the other isn't.

-Ray

[bostondrunk]

I'm clearly no chemist, so I don't claim to fully understand this, but it seems that both EPO and sleeping at altitude (or simulated altitude) both cause the body to create more red blood cells. In both cases, intensive training is needed to fully take advantage of the increased number of red blood cells and maximize performance. If both methods will get you to about 50% hematocrit and the rider's intensive training is needed to realize the full potential of that higher hematocrit, I still fail to see the difference. I don't doubt that there is one - I'd just like to better understand what it is and why one is cheating and the other isn't.

-Ray

Well.....one requires the rider to train, the other doesn't. "Intensive training" isn';t requred for EPO to work. It just works, increases hematocrit.

[Ray]

Well.....one requires the rider to train, the other doesn't. "Intensive training" isn';t requred for EPO to work. It just works, increases hematocrit.
Is that right? That would certainly be all the explanation I'd need, but that wasn't my understanding. When I've vacationed at altitude for a week or two, my riding has been (or at least seemed) notably stronger for the first several rides when I got back to sea level, whether I'd ridden at altitude or not. Was this placebo? I sure wouldn't put it past myself :rolleyes:

-Ray

[bostondrunk]

Is that right? That would certainly be all the explanation I'd need, but that wasn't my understanding. When I've vacationed at altitude for a week or two, my riding has been (or at least seemed) notably stronger for the first several rides when I got back to sea level, whether I'd ridden at altitude or not. Was this placebo? I sure wouldn't put it past myself :rolleyes:

-Ray


OK, let me correct myself....

One requires you to make the effort to get yurself to altitude. The other allows you to sit in a hotel room wherever/whenever and increase it by doing an injection. No need to plan a trip to altitude, which is kinda hard to fit into a pro's schedule during the racing season....
EPO also allows them to do the increase in a more controlled fasion. Take your doses, spin the blood in a centrifuge, take your measurements, increase/decrease EPO dose as needed.....etc.

[Tom]

And to further BD's point, some people react to altitude more than others just as some people react to training more than others. The activity is not directly related to cycling but it's a lot more directly related than altering your body chemistry by way of a needle.

I liked the letters to L'Equipe on the Armstrong business. Somewhere I have to see the full text but you have one guy (these are Frenchmen, mind you) saying that we'll never see Voeckler so exposed because he's French and another guy who claims to have done some riding saying EPO is his licorice. I'm not kidding, licorice. He must be taking a shot at E-Richie, though how that got started I'll never be able to guess.

[Ray]

OK, let me correct myself....

One requires you to make the effort to get yurself to altitude. The other allows you to sit in a hotel room wherever/whenever and increase it by doing an injection. No need to plan a trip to altitude, which is kinda hard to fit into a pro's schedule during the racing season....
EPO also allows them to do the increase in a more controlled fasion. Take your doses, spin the blood in a centrifuge, take your measurements, increase/decrease EPO dose as needed.....etc.
Right, but sleeping in an hypobaric (sp?) chamber/tent seems to be pretty easy to arrange for anyone with a decent budget. Lance has indicated he's used one pretty extensively. I'd like to hear from someone who really knows how this works. It seems to me that being at altitude alone would force your body to adapt to the reduced oxygen by creating more red blood cells to take advantage of whatever oxygen there is. But perhaps by putting more stress on your body (through training), you actually force it to create MORE cells. Whereas EPO just creates them regardless of how hard you work? Which may be a significant difference between the two. Can anyone shed more light here?

Just thinking out loud here,

-Ray

[Dr. Doofus]

also, using a hyperbolic chamber can help mask EPO use -- when using a hyperbolic chamber, for some reason your body doesn't produce the tell tale hepatocytes that were used, at least by one EPO test, to detect EPO use (Decanio has more to say about this)

for 2001-2003, pretty simple: use an altitude chamber in concert with your EPO course a few weeks before a Tour, and you will never fail a dope control

a nasty grey area...guy like vaughters who squeeks when he walks, no malicicious intent in using an altitude chamber...some other gyus...well...they shoot horses....

[Fixed]

Is that right? That would certainly be all the explanation I'd need, but that wasn't my understanding. When I've vacationed at altitude for a week or two, my riding has been (or at least seemed) notably stronger for the first several rides when I got back to sea level, whether I'd ridden at altitude or not. Was this placebo? I sure wouldn't put it past myself :rolleyes:

-Ray
rest?

[lnomalley]

i doped this year. last year i barely had any results, this year i finished in the top ten in over a third of every race i entered (more so if you cancel out flats, mechanicals, and crash stuff).. i doped, and i think you should too. it's poor man's dope! go to the gym three days a week in the off season, do squats, dead lifts, core work, plyometrics for months on end while riding base. its good sh*t, its undedectable, and it works for everyone.

[Dr. Doofus]

i doped this year. last year i barely had any results, this year i finished in the top ten in over a third of every race i entered (more so if you cancel out flats, mechanicals, and crash stuff).. i doped, and i think you should too. it's poor man's dope! go to the gym three days a week in the off season, do squats, dead lifts, core work, plyometrics for months on end while riding base. its good sh*t, its undedectable, and it works for everyone.

be warned

doof did this too

he's been dropped four times this year in crits

your results may vary

[flydhest]

doof,

I think you're exaggerating when you talk about hyperbolic chambers.

[ClutchCargo]

. . . As Lance said on Larry King the other night, so can altitude, real or simulated. Is there a real ethical difference here? All of these guys are training their butts off, so it's not like one is the "easy" way to do it and, thus, cheating. They are just different ways of boosting red blood cells with the same end result. . . .
-Ray

a cardiologist friend who is an avid cyclist has made exactly that point, at least as regards failing to see a real difference between taking EPO and using the altitude tent.

by the way, the altitude tent is rumored to have contributed to ending Lance's marriage. his ex used to sleep in the tent with him, but she was always telling him she had a headache . . . [ rimshot! ] :D

[JohnS]

Correct me if I'm wrong. I"m not a doctor and haven't played one since I was a little kid. :) I have read that EPO can turn your blood to "sludge" if used too much since it will produce too many red cells. I would think that to produce that much naturally, you would have to be at so high an altitude that life would be impossible.

[Dr. Doofus]

doof,

I think you're exaggerating when you talk about hyperbolic chambers.

fly - doof is going off what he's been told by a couple of folks who have rubbed elbows in anger with dopers...it may be a pro's old wives tale, or it may be true...food has confidence in those who passed it on, so take that as you will...but the word was an altitude tent could help mask EPO use....

[flydhest]

ah, mister literary-dood, you missed my joke.

Lance uses a hypobaric (lower pressure) chamber. You said hyperbolic, as in, of or pertaining to hyperbole. Hence my comment about your exaggeration.

[vaxn8r]

ah, mister literary-dood, you missed my joke.

Lance uses a hypobaric (lower pressure) chamber. You said hyperbolic, as in, of or pertaining to hyperbole. Hence my comment about your exaggeration.
I think it would actually be a hyperbaric chamber. Unless you want your eyeballs sucked out. The idea being to get a huge concentration of oxygen into the damaged tissue. Burn patients are often treated this way. I assume they are extrapolating it's use to muscle damage from intensive training.

[Too Tall]

American swimmers use the hypoxic tents as well. If that's what it takes to place in races I pay $25 to enter for plastic and ribbons...well :rolleyes:

On the other hand, nobody should have a problem with that technology....same as I don't have a problem with a local racer who has a natural hematocrit of 50-51.

[flydhest]

I think it would actually be a hyperbaric chamber. Unless you want your eyeballs sucked out. The idea being to get a huge concentration of oxygen into the damaged tissue. Burn patients are often treated this way. I assume they are extrapolating it's use to muscle damage from intensive training.

Vax,

Nope, it's hypo. It is a replacement for altitude training. The idea is to deprive the body of oxygen--the exact opposite of the tissue treatment you allude to--so that you produce extra oxygen-carrying potential and more red blood cells.

http://www.etcaircrewtraining.com/ats_altitude.htm

[Dr. Doofus]

doof,

I think you're exaggerating when you talk about hyperbolic chambers.


duh

no food gets it

caveman just is he

[lnomalley]

hypo means under.. hyper means above.

[flydhest]

hypo means under.. hyper means above.

I don't think this was a point of confusion.

[Johny]

Not to suggest that people -should- use steroids, but your post is a good example of the lack of understanding by the general public about steroids. What diseases are related to Steroid use? Please don't tell me brain tumors....Alzeido's (sp?) own doctors even admitted that was impossible. But the media grabs ahold of stories....

Steroids can be used safely without the fear of cardiovascular or other disease, they are used by millions of patients every day without causing disease, cancer, etc.
Whether or not they -should- be used by people for recreational muscle enhancement, well thats another topic. But hate to see misinformation being posted.

Check Current Opinion in Pharmacology
Volume 4, Issue 6 , December 2004, Pages 614-6. Note that I said "anabolic-androgenic steroids for non-therapeutic purposes ".

Some paragraghs from the above review paper:

"...Although the role of anabolic-androgenic steroids (AASs) in the etiology of various diseases in both animals and humans is still uncertain, steroid use in clinical trials and in laboratory studies is associated with numerous acute deleterious changes in risk factors for cardiovascular disease, liver tumors and infertility, and in the physiology of various sundry organs and body systems, suggesting potential for subsequent health problems (see also Update) 1., 7., 9. and 15.. The best-documented effects are those on the liver, serum lipids and reproductive system. Other areas of concern include the psyche and behavior, cardiomyopathy, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular accidents, prostatic changes and immune function [9].
AAS use has been related to cardiovascular risk factors. The most important are changes in lipoprotein fraction, increased triglyceride levels, increased concentrations of several clotting factors, changes in the myocardium such as increased left ventricular mass and dilated cardiomyopathy [16•], and hyperinsulinism and diminished glucose tolerance 6., 7., 9., 17., 18. and 19.. Although these effects vary significantly between different types and doses of AAS, and between individuals and situations [1], all of the effects (except postulated changes in the myocardium) are fully reversible within several months after cessation of AAS use 6., 7. and 9..
Acute thrombotic risk has been linked to AAS use in case reports of non-fatal myocardial infarction and stroke in several athletes who were using AASs [19]. Although there is no direct evidence that AAS are thrombogenic in humans [20], the clinical circumstances of these reports suggest a possible causal relationship. These reports further suggest that if a causal relationship exists AASs could have serious short-term effects.
Liver structure and function are also altered by administration of AASs; these changes include cholestatic jaundice, peliosis hepatis, hepatocellular hyperplasia and hepatocellular adenomas 9., 21. and 22.. It has not been demonstrated convincingly that AAS can cause, at least with therapeutic doses, development of hepatocellular carcinomas. Virtually all histological changes in the liver are associated with use of 17 ?-alkylated (oral) AASs 1., 7., 9. and 10., and the cause-and-effect relationship between oral AASs and these conditions is strengthened by the return of normal blood values and excretory function, the regression of tumors, general recovery and a return towards normal liver function following cessation of AAS use [9].
The effects of AASs on the male reproductive system include reductions in the levels of endogenous testosterone, gonadotrophic hormones and sex hormone-binding globulin; reductions in testicle size, sperm count and sperm motility; and alterations in sperm morphology 7. and 9.. When AAS use is stopped, the testes resume sperm production. In women, AASs are associated with several adverse effects, some of which are not reversible upon discontinuation of AAS use [23]. These adverse effects include menstrual abnormalities, deepening of the voice, shrinkage of the breasts, male-pattern baldness and an increase in sex drive, acne, body hair and ****oris size. Premature halting of growth in younger users has not been systematically studied, although such effects have been described in case reports for decades [24].
A positive association between endogenous testosterone levels and aggressive behavior in males has increasingly been established [25]. Although studies using moderate doses of exogenous testosterone for contraceptive and clinical purposes reveal few adverse effects on male sexual and aggressive behavior, other investigations and case reports of athletes using substantially higher doses suggest the possibility of affective and psychotic syndromes (some of violent proportions), psychological dependence and withdrawal symptoms [25]. Whereas several recently published reports support a pattern of association between the use of AASs by athletes and increased levels of irritability, aggression, personality disturbance and psychiatric diagnoses, others do not 5. and 26.. Only a few prospective, blinded studies documenting aggression and adverse overt behavior resulting from AAS use have been reported 27., 28., 29. and 30.. Although prevalence of AAS dependency is difficult to determine, and there might be as many as 300 000 AAS users yearly in the US [31], it appears that only a small percentage of users experience psychological dependence requiring clinical treatment."

[vaxn8r]

Vax,

Nope, it's hypo. It is a replacement for altitude training. The idea is to deprive the body of oxygen--the exact opposite of the tissue treatment you allude to--so that you produce extra oxygen-carrying potential and more red blood cells.

http://www.etcaircrewtraining.com/ats_altitude.htm
Thanks. And for the link too.

Seems counter productive to training/recovery. I can see it with pilots, who have no issues with muscle recovery/rebuilding. It would seem like you couldn't effectively do both training and spend any significant time in the chamber. But I have a much simpler solution and cheaper than any chamber. Ride a 50 lb bike uphill. You'll go into plenty of oxygen debt. In swimming we did it with pull buoys and innertubes. In cycling you can do it with tandems.

Hey, in all seriousness this "chamber" seems to fly in the face of UCI regulations designed to even the playing field. Why is it not OK to ride a bike less than 15 lbs? Because it favors an elite few teams who have unlimited resources. Why isn't it the same when you talk about chambers that have to cost inordinate amounts of money and in no way are generally available to even most Pro cyclists, let alone the rest of us mortals?

Doping is doping whether it's EPO or chambers. If LA can't see the difference, or worse yet, does it because it isn't illegal yet, I have little faith in anything else he says.

Training is training. Everyone can do it. When an elite few can afford the wonder drugs (by wonder I mean the ones they can't catch you on routine screening) or the special super bike, or the hypobaric chamber, then the field is uneven. If it isn't generally available to everyone it's cheating. IMHO of course.

[William]

Hey,
I just live in my Chalet on the top of Mt. Washington and suck down shots of espresso every morning before I come down to ride with the flatlanders. Do I have an unfair advantage? Does this mean I have to move now? Or does this mean that BD better lay off the Thunderbird and Roy better stop staying up all night watching UFC vids if they want to keep up?

William ;)

[flydhest]

vax (this might sound like a salvo of questions, but you bring up some points I'm interested in, so bear with me),

The point of the chamber is to replicate altitude training without going up to altitude.

I'm curious, then, if you think that altitude training is doping like these chambers? It's more costly. One could imagine flying the athlete back and forth daily (now THAT would be costly) if these chambers were deemed illegal (which, as I pointed out somewhere, there has been discussion. You are not alone in your view).

Is it doping to take chemicals intravenously to promote recovery after a ride?

Are vitamins and minerals--if taken as pills--doping? What about if you concentrate some vegetables/herbs to get whatever "natural" stuff they gots in them. How much refining does it take for it to be a "drug" versus an "herbal supplement"?

Not everyone can do the same kind of training. Consistent training with power meters and such can promote a faster rider. The research into that can be costly. A club sponsored by an LBS can't necessarily afford that. Is there some level of money such that something is "fair" and something else isn't?

I didn't know that the weight limit was a cost thing, I thought it was supposed to be some sort of safety thing. Given the current level of technology, any D-1 team can afford to breach the limit.

While I think there are a lot of people who see doping as black and white like you do, I find it far more problematic. My question about intravenous chemical injections stems from the use of saline IVs to ward off dehydration. That is an "unnatural" way of recovering. Powdered protein supplements to aid recovery seem fine to most people. Take some "food" and refine it down to what you want, protein. I can imagine a form of EPO being blood (food in many if not most cultures, just not American for reasons that I fail to understand. . . . mmmm, boudin noir) refined to proteins or whatever that initiate the production of hemoglobin or whatever it is that EPO does. Soybeans are fine, soy protein concentrate (a derivative of soy) is fine, blood is fine, derivatives from blood . . . not fine? Black and white? Clear and non-arbitrary?

I don't have any good answers for what sport should be or how it should be policed. I just think the question is not a clear one.

[JohnS]

I can answer one of your questions. Back when the weight limit was first imposed, bikes approaching the limit were superexpensive and rare. With the everyday lighter wheels and components available today, it's no big deal.

[davep]

It seems the big practical difference between altitude tents and EPO is that no one has ever died by using an altitude tent.

[Too Tall]

Hypoxic tent usage and EPO usage safety concerns are not comparable. Your argument steers sports ethical concern(s) twords relative safety of using a foreign substance to directly alter the bodys production of blood components vs a non-invasive method to influence the bodys production of blood components. It is not comparable. How this is accomplished is salient to the argument and ethics of sports.

FWIIW If you can afford EPO it is probable you've got the chops for a good doc.

HEY! anyone have links to the Italian "sports clinics" where they serve the good stuff? Somebody posted info. on these joints last yr. where Joe Citizen WannabeRacer can duck in and get fixed up. (cough) I mean "trained" like the big boys. Yeah, there IS something wrong with it :cool:

[weiwentg]

Dr. Ferrari said drinking too much orange juice is more dangerous than EPO. He is right, isn't he?

A lot more male Americans are taking anabolic-androgenic steroids for non-therapeutic purposes these days - isn't feeling stronger like a 18 years old (sexually and physically...) worth the risk of getting liver damage, cardiovascular and other diseases?

Lung cancer is highly correlated with smoking - people (including medical doctors) still smoke, don't they?

Jean-Michel Rouet: Speaking of EPO, do your riders use it?

Dr Michele Ferrari: I don't prescribe this stuff. But one can buy EPO in Switzerland for example without a prescription, and if a rider does, that doesn't scandalize me. EPO doesn't fundamentally change the performance of a racer.

J-MR: In any case, (EPO) is dangerous! Ten Dutch riders have died in the last few years.

Dr MF: EPO is not dangerous, it's the abuse that is. It's also dangerous to drink 10 liters of orange juice.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/riders/2003/interviews/?id=ferrari03b

[MartyE]

Wanna bet that Lance took more EPO during his Chemo treatments
than any doped cyclist takes for training?

so, since we are immersed in the grey areas, what about
Ginseng? is it doping? what about herbal infusions? doping.
Does a team that has better nutritionists have an unfair advantage
over a team that cannot afford one and only brings a chef or two
to the party?
Is Diana Moon Glampers part of WADA? UCI?

troubling questions.

Marty

[Ray]

Hypoxic tent usage and EPO usage safety concerns are not comparable. Your argument steers sports ethical concern(s) twords relative safety of using a foreign substance to directly alter the bodys production of blood components vs a non-invasive method to influence the bodys production of blood components. It is not comparable. How this is accomplished is salient to the argument and ethics of sports.
If they essentially do the same thing, though, it seems that the primary difference may be that you can overdose on EPO and probably not overdose on limited oxygen (although if you go deep enough, it can clearly kill you too). In both cases, you change your body's chemistry by either adding someting (EPO) or subtracting something (oxygen). The point at which hematocrit becomes dangerous seems like the salient issue, not how you got to that level. So maybe the old method of just kicking out riders with a hematocrit of more than 50% (or whatever number is determined "safe") really was the best way to go.

I'm not sure your point about invasive vs non-invasive really works either. Again, teams openly admit to administering legal recovery drugs/supplements through syringe. How much more invasive can you get? I gotta agree with Fly that there's a lot more grey here than black and white, which is why I asked the question in the first place. There may be some black and white out at the edges (amphetimines perhaps, is there any grey there?), but I don't think there is a clear ethical case for or against a lot of this stuff.

-Ray

[keno]

1. RULES. If no rule covers it, the substance or other performance enhancing methodology is legal. That it later becomes illegal is irrelevant to an earlier performance. Our legal system is based on that logic; a person should be able to determine before the fact that certain behavior is illegal. You may have guessed that I also expect that a high standard of proof should be required in applying the rule. Conjecture isn't proof.

2. OTHER PROFESSIONS. Many professional musicians and performing artists take beta blockers in order to lessen the physical manifestations of anxiety, not to mention those who may be higher than the NASDAQ in 2001 on a variety of other substances, both legal and illegal. Who of you would want his money back after a knockout performance by any of them?

When it comes to biking or other professional sports, I would like to see all substances and methodologies be legal, since the eradication of all possible rule infractions is impossible, science marching on as it does. If some, many or all of those athletes want to risk their futures, let them. The fact is that many do anyway, and those who do not probably would not even if the rules allowed them to.

keno

[Dr. Doofus]

2. OTHER PROFESSIONS. Many professional musicians and performing artists take beta blockers in order to lessen the physical manifestations of anxiety, not to mention those who may be higher than the NASDAQ in 2001 on a variety of other substances, both legal and illegal. Who of you would want his money back after a knockout performance by any of them?


keno

yeah

don't make jerk, munson, or drunk

pee in bottle to post

drug testing --

ruined forum

[William]

Picture fades in....

n the early 00's, an organization was founded by William in Rhode Island and Too Tall in Maryland with a goal to promote drug tested competitive cycling events to the individuals that chose a drug-free training regimen over the performance enhancing short-cut. The organization flourished and grew throughout the North East and into some western states. This North American Natural Cycling Federation became the leader in the drug free movement.
The purpose of the NANCF is to provide drug tested competitive cycling events which will allow the drug free athlete to be confident they are competing against their peers. All competitors to be eligible to compete and be members of NANCF must be drug free for a minimum of five years. The eligibility requirement is upheld through urinalysis, blood testing and polygraph. NANCF prides itself in well run world class events events where the promoters actually perform the required testing.


NANCF is growing by leaps and bounds. It's exciting to be part of such a dynamic organization where the competitors can compete with confidence and where the organization is run by competitive national cyclists. NANCF is the largest drug free organization in the nation and seeks to expand further into other areas of North America and Europe. The ideal would be to unite all the ethical drug free organizations with the same goals together instead of seeing various smaller organizations throughout the U.S. Having these groups united will provide strength and most importantly a legitimate nationwide arena where drug free athletes can compete. With this, national events would truly be a National. We seek your support as we strive for this ideal.

????? :confused:

Let the Pro level do what ever the heck they want, & develop a class for "Natural" cyclist. Pipe dream?


William

[Too Tall]

Good point Ray.
Hi my name is Josh, I'm a dope(er).
Don't cry for me Argentina.

Yes, for now the best method is to protect riders by monitoring Hematocrit for safe competition.

So, could you say that these guys sleeping in Hypoxic rig-a-ma-jigs are "intense"? Ba dump bump.

[Fixed]

1. RULES. If no rule covers it, the substance or other performance enhancing methodology is legal. That it later becomes illegal is irrelevant to an earlier performance. Our legal system is based on that logic; a person should be able to determine before the fact that certain behavior is illegal. You may have guessed that I also expect that a high standard of proof should be required in applying the rule. Conjecture isn't proof.

2. OTHER PROFESSIONS. Many professional musicians and performing artists take beta blockers in order to lessen the physical manifestations of anxiety, not to mention those who may be higher than the NASDAQ in 2001 on a variety of other substances, both legal and illegal. Who of you would want his money back after a knockout performance by any of them?

When it comes to biking or other professional sports, I would like to see all substances and methodologies be legal, since the eradication of all possible rule infractions is impossible, science marching on as it does. If some, many or all of those athletes want to risk their futures, let them. The fact is that many do anyway, and those who do not probably would not even if the rules allowed them to.

keno
good point Bro.Jazz might not be.spirits must soar. :beer: Cheers

[JohnS]

Picture fades in....

n the early 00's, an organization was founded by William in Rhode Island and Too Tall in Maryland with a goal to promote drug tested competitive cycling events to the individuals that chose a drug-free training regimen over the performance enhancing short-cut. The organization flourished and grew throughout the North East and into some western states. This North American Natural Cycling Federation became the leader in the drug free movement.
The purpose of the NANCF is to provide drug tested competitive cycling events which will allow the drug free athlete to be confident they are competing against their peers. All competitors to be eligible to compete and be members of NANCF must be drug free for a minimum of five years. The eligibility requirement is upheld through urinalysis, blood testing and polygraph. NANCF prides itself in well run world class events events where the promoters actually perform the required testing.


NANCF is growing by leaps and bounds. It's exciting to be part of such a dynamic organization where the competitors can compete with confidence and where the organization is run by competitive national cyclists. NANCF is the largest drug free organization in the nation and seeks to expand further into other areas of North America and Europe. The ideal would be to unite all the ethical drug free organizations with the same goals together instead of seeing various smaller organizations throughout the U.S. Having these groups united will provide strength and most importantly a legitimate nationwide arena where drug free athletes can compete. With this, national events would truly be a National. We seek your support as we strive for this ideal.

????? :confused:

Let the Pro level do what ever the heck they want, & develop a class for "Natural" cyclist. Pipe dream?


William
With visions like that, I think that William should be the first one to submit to a drug test. :D

[keno]

I think that you said it all in writing "competing against their peers."

keno

[William]

With visions like that, I think that William should be the first one to submit to a drug test.

Well, it was either that one or the one where I'm in Kansas wearing rubie slippers with my Assos bibs and frilly pirate shirt. ;)


I think that you said it all in writing "competing against their peers."

Juicers vs. Juicers,
Nats vs. nats,
Peers all the way around.....not to be confused with pears which are not round. :rolleyes:

William

[flydhest]

William,

How do you go about ensuring that the natural athletes aren't using? I mean, the TdF is for natural athletes. They test them and then throw out the ones shown to be using.

[keno]

you are more serious than I realized. Please read the following aloud a few times: "competing against their peers". I know what you meant. Do you know what I mean?

keno

[vaxn8r]

Who is LA's peer?

Seriously.

[flydhest]

vax,

It used to be me, not it's your turn.

I'm out, you're in.

[William]

William,

How do you go about ensuring that the natural athletes aren't using? I mean, the TdF is for natural athletes. They test them and then throw out the ones shown to be using.
You can't. Short making severe penalties for positive testing (and even then it's not foolproof) like lifelong expulsion as a detuerent...

It's an uphill battle no matter how you cut it. Look at "Natural" vs. Pro bodybuilding. :rolleyes:

Keno, I guess I missed you point...or did I?? ;)

William

[ClutchCargo]

I can answer one of your questions. Back when the weight limit was first imposed, bikes approaching the limit were superexpensive and rare. With the everyday lighter wheels and components available today, it's no big deal.

is a safety thing. given that racers routinely are descending at speed and stressing the bikes in sprint situations, they don't want bike mfr.s pushing the envelope to the point where the bikes are in danger of breaking under normal usage.

[vaxn8r]

Once gene doping is available, and that day is coming soon, what will be the point of even watching sports? Might as well watch robots.

[vaxn8r]

is a safety thing. given that racers routinely are descending at speed and stressing the bikes in sprint situations, they don't want bike mfr.s pushing the envelope to the point where the bikes are in danger of breaking under normal usage.
Nope, it was a money issue. The UCI didn't want some teams unfairly disadvantaged. They were trying to take the money out of the winning equation. Like that's been successful. Ahem....LA's TT bike.

[Fixed]

is a safety thing. given that racers routinely are descending at speed and stressing the bikes in sprint situations, they don't want bike mfr.s pushing the envelope to the point where the bikes are in danger of breaking under normal usage.
Bro.they do break.Cheers