What is doping?

[dziehr]

The recent resveratrol clinical trial results (published last week in Cell Metabolism) have me thinking about exactly how we draw the line between permissible supplementation and illicit performance enhancement. I don't know all that much about how a drug makes its way onto the WADA banned substance list but, philosophically, how do we determine what's okay?

The WADA rules aside, is it a personal call? A substance that exceeds our basic nutritional needs seems to be, by definition, performance-enhancing. By this logic, caffeine, a small molecule stimulant that inhibits adenosine receptors and has measurable performance benefits, should be illegal. The WADA banned substance list is peppered with small molecule stimulants.

Do we draw the line based on mechanism of action? Formulation/route of administration? Structure? Immediate effects versus long-term adaptation? Adverse side effects? Ubiquity/accessibility? History?

I realize these are big questions. If anyone knows of any thoughtful literature on the subject, I'd greatly appreciate recommendations. I thank you for your comments in advance.

DZ

[rice rocket]

Related to this topic, the documentary "Bigger, Stronger, Faster" by Chris Bell changed my opinion about doping, steroids, etc. He himself is not a steroid user, but his two brothers are, which puts him in a unique position to provide perspective on both sides. It's not entirely a balanced view, but very informative nonetheless. He visits the topics of EPO use briefly too.

Highly recommended, it's on Netflix and Amazon Prime Instant Video.

Anyways, one thing that he made quite clear was that regardless of what WADA says, professional athletes are going to be trying everything under the sun to try to gain advantages over their opponents. It's in their nature, and it's how they make their livelihood. If you one substance, they'll just find some other stimulant that hasn't made it to the ban list yet.

The other big takeaway I got from the video is that most naturally talented athletes at the top level have high levels of testosterone, in "legal" ways. No amount of training by "regular" people like you and me will ever get myself to that level that these athletes perform. So is telling a grown adult, who is aware of the consequences of doping but is not as well endowed with naturally high levels of testosterone, is not allowed to compete?

It's not like they're not training as hard as the pros, they're probably working harder.

I have always been of the opinion that "doping is bad", but watching this changed my opinion. That's not to say I'd recommend the lifting of all doping rules and having professional athletics be a freak show, but isn't that what it is already?

[rice rocket]

Also, doping in professional chess!

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,595819,00.html

[rain dogs]

The other big takeaway I got from the video is that most naturally talented athletes at the top level have high levels of testosterone, in "legal" ways. No amount of training by "regular" people like you and me will ever get myself to that level that these athletes perform. So is telling a grown adult, who is aware of the consequences of doping but is not as well endowed with naturally high levels of testosterone, is not allowed to compete?

Hmmmm.... I dunno. The point of sports is not to assume everyone is equal, but to bring the most elite in all capacities to the table.

Related: The most interesting thing I've read in a long time is a study that I have no direct reference for, but I found through the book: "The Death of Marco Pantani" by Matt Rendell

In it, he references said study (if you want to look it up like I did) where the primary conclusion was that:

Doping (in cycling at least) with EPO, testosterone, HGH etc, affects each individual person in different magnitudes. So, the most successful in the sport are often NOT the most naturally talented, OR the most doped, BUT ARE the combination of the MOST ABLE to process dope from the highest natural baseline.

It's interesting because it debunks the common counter of "Well, if everyone was doping then it's all equal" because it's not. Doping can make a thoroughbred out of a donkey it seems, but only if that person's genetic makeup processes "dope" with thoroughbred efficiency/effectiveness. Whereas another may be "doped to the gills" and see little effect (the ones finishing on 150th, and testing positive, for example)

In cycling at least, with the advent of serious full-scale scientific doping (let's say '95ish to 20???, or perhaps today?) your most elite appear to be the ones whose body could do the most with the dope they had, vs being the actual "best" naturally. Or so this study would infer.

To answer the OP question. It's mostly volunteer testing. I was part of a test that was one of many to prove the Salbutomol (a previously banned substance) actually doesn't enhance performance at all, or so very minutely. So, it was removed.... others are added in the same way.

[BumbleBeeDave]

The problem is dishonest people. I don't mean blatantly dishonest, lets-go-rob-a-bank-at-gunpoint people. I mean what seems to be a general slide in personal ethics that has happened in the past 20-30 years. There seems to be an increasing willingness from people who know damn well what the "right" thing is--don't cheat--to do it anyway as long as they can rationalize it somehow . . . everyone else is doing it, no one will ever know, etc.

What's worse is there seems to be an increasing crop of young people who honestly have never been taught what the "right" thing is. This scares me more.

The list of "banned" products is by no means a complete list of what we know to enhance performance. Caffeine is the most obvious one I can think of that's not on the list. The list is merely a reflection of the political reality of the sport and society.

BBD

[toaster]

Doesn't bodybuilding give us an example of how doping works for some but not for all?

If you look at the top level bodybuilders their extreme level of development is created mostly by anabolic drugs and testosterone. Now, not everyone who lifts weights and uses steroids will see the same results and surely the more drugs you take will not mean the bigger you grow.

The same with endurance athletes and doping. You cannot see what's going on with their physiology just by looking at them like you can with the exterior physique of a bodybuilder, their development is happening at another level, inside the cells. But like the bodybuilding freaks, some athletes get much, much more out of both the training and the drugs.

Sadly, like oh so many others who love riding bicycles I do not respond greatly to either drugs or training and remain good but not great. Even if I were to blood dope or use EPO, I still couldn't beat a lot of good non-doping Masters level cyclists.

[Gummee]

doping is...

psuedoephedrine before a ride/race.
some cold medicines
etc

I woke up with a sinus headache yesterday before my cross race and was thinking about a sudafed tablet to clear up my nose. That'd be considered doping by the powers that be. :nod

AFA the bigger question: it ain't cheating till yer caught

M

[William]

There were crits where I put a dab of peppermint oil on my upper lip to really open up my sinuses. Was I doping? Peppermint oil is not on the list of banned substances.





William

[oldpotatoe]

The recent resveratrol clinical trial results (published last week in Cell Metabolism) have me thinking about exactly how we draw the line between permissible supplementation and illicit performance enhancement. I don't know all that much about how a drug makes its way onto the WADA banned substance list but, philosophically, how do we determine what's okay?

The WADA rules aside, is it a personal call? A substance that exceeds our basic nutritional needs seems to be, by definition, performance-enhancing. By this logic, caffeine, a small molecule stimulant that inhibits adenosine receptors and has measurable performance benefits, should be illegal. The WADA banned substance list is peppered with small molecule stimulants.

Do we draw the line based on mechanism of action? Formulation/route of administration? Structure? Immediate effects versus long-term adaptation? Adverse side effects? Ubiquity/accessibility? History?

I realize these are big questions. If anyone knows of any thoughtful literature on the subject, I'd greatly appreciate recommendations. I thank you for your comments in advance.

DZ

New course record at NYC marathon yesterday and same for Boston, same guy....do they blood test these guys?

Just curious.

[Lifelover]

There were crits where I put a dab of peppermint oil on my upper lip to really open up my sinuses. Was I doping? Peppermint oil is not on the list of banned substances.





William
I good friend tried this once before a century and ended up touching his eye with some still on his finger. Almost ruined his day.

[goonster]

By this logic, caffeine, a small molecule stimulant that inhibits adenosine receptors and has measurable performance benefits, should be illegal.
It used to be on the WADA list, with a limit of 12 μg/ml in urine, before it was removed in 2004.

Supposedly it takes around eight shots of espresso to reach that level for the average human.

[wasfast]

Doping technically is when you violate the WADA list of banned substances. If it's not on the list, it's technically not doping. The discussion however, isn't generally the pragmatic view but the ethical/moral one. That side is only decided by the individual. Taking banned substances is doping whether you get caught by the powers that be or not.

There has been much discussion also about those that have extremely deep pockets and are connected to the right medical folks may have methods far past what is currently testable. While it could be true, it's still not doping if the rules don't state it.

[goonster]

Doping technically is when you violate the WADA list of banned substances.
It is important to note that doping is not limited strictly to substances, but also includes methods, such as autologous transfusions.

[William]

I good friend tried this once before a century and ended up touching his eye with some still on his finger. Almost ruined his day.


Oh man!!! (OUCH!!!) That's strong stuff.




William

[saab2000]

Eating food and drinking water improve performance. Are they doping? Is a good diet vs. a bad diet doping? The good diet will likely yield better results.

There's more gray in this question than there is black and white.

If something is not illegal, then it's legal.

[dziehr]

Doping technically is when you violate the WADA list of banned substances. If it's not on the list, it's technically not doping. The discussion however, isn't generally the pragmatic view but the ethical/moral one. That side is only decided by the individual.

I'm still not sure where to draw the line. I've read a lot of the op ed pieces BBD refers to and consider myself to be a pretty upstanding guy. My parents taught me well, I have a moral compass, and I'm training for a life or service to others' health needs. That said, even though it gives me a definite performance boost and doesn't meet my most fundamental nutritional needs, caffeine isn't going to be cut out of my pre-race routine any time soon. However, my sense is that autologous blood transfusions (and EPO, CERA, hGH etc.) are wrong. Other than a visceral reaction (informed by history, publicity, accessibility, route of administration, etc.), I don't know how to clearly draw the line between right and wrong (in such a way that it makes it okay for me to "use caffeine" (read: drink a cup of coffee)).

[rice rocket]

Athletes also use cortisone extensively...is that doping too?

[velotel]

And what about the guys, or women, who just before the race cross themselves and ask some god for his/her help to win the race. If she/he wins, is he/she cheating. Seems like there ought to be some sort of test for god assistance to weed out those cheaters too. But on the other hand at least the governing bodies were wise enough to realize that pot is not performance enhancing and therefore is not banned. Obviously they never tried it either.

[rain dogs]

If people are wondering what IS and what ISN'T prohibited:

http://www.wada-ama.org/en/News-Center/Articles/WADA-publishes-2012-Prohibited-List/

[Rueda Tropical]

The problem is dishonest people. I don't mean blatantly dishonest, lets-go-rob-a-bank-at-gunpoint people. I mean what seems to be a general slide in personal ethics that has happened in the past 20-30 years.

BBD

Did the guys with the bronze swords use stone weapons instead to make it a fair fight? Looking for an unfair advantage has been with us since the dawn of time. I don't know that personal ethics were any better in the 1930's or 1630's then today. Mankind has generally behaved generally atrociously with only brief periods of illumination, tolerance and ethics.

It's why we have laws and cops to enforce them. Sans regulations/rules things quickly sink to the lowest common denominator. Of course where the line is drawn is always a grey area and nothing ever works exactly as intended. But lets not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

[dziehr]

Athletes also use cortisone extensively...is that doping too?

It's a slippery slope, but I'd argue corticosteroids are used therapeutically and are not doping (in the sense that doping is administering an agent that elevates performance above one's abilities in good health). Likewise, I see EPO or CERA as permissible in an athlete with anemia--so long as they are used to restore the patient's hematocrit to his or her levels prior to the anemia. However, giving someone an inappropriately large (above that necessary for therapy) dose of corticosteroids will not improve performance, while an above-therapeutic dose of EPO will elevate one's crit above normal, providing a performance advantage.

(It's curious, though. I have the sense that it's less permissible to increase one's hematocrit than one's ability to use oxygen (e.g. by boosting PGC-1alpha) with drugs/supplements.)

It's becoming apparent that there might not be any hard and fast rules. It seems a lot of these decisions are based on gestalt; the drug/supplement/whatever seems okay or it doesn't, but we're not able to construct a logical and completely consistent set of rules to explain why.

(Also, with reference to the earlier comment above, prayer, divine intervention, and magical thinking are nontopical here.)