Amgen's unethical practices - Page 9 - CyclingNews Forum

Go Back   CyclingNews Forum > Road > The Clinic

The Clinic The Clinic is the only place on Cyclingnews where you can discuss doping-related issues. Ask questions, discuss positives or improvements to procedures.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old 11-08-12, 18:33
Dear Wiggo's Avatar
Dear Wiggo Dear Wiggo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sunny Australia
Posts: 5,436
Default

BUMP - any response, mastersracer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mastersracer View Post
In the case of PEDs and Armstrong, the associations are weak - in previous posts I have cited what I believe to be the single paper on this subject - the underlying mechanisms are poorly understood, there is no prior information on how to model interaction effects among the PEDs Armstrong took, etc. Besides, causal inference is typically made at a population level, and it is fallacious to infer causation at the individual level from that. A journal would flat out reject the proposed study you suggest for these reasons (and simply for lack of statistical power even if the other limitations were not present).
I have no PhD - just a smattering of stats and programming - but isn't the bolded exactly what Ed Coyle did with his Armstrong study? Or worse, not even find causation at the population level and apply it to an individual, but study only n=1 for 7 years, generating 6 data points and extrapolate wildly?

It was published (just in the SCA nick of time).

The Aussies (scientists with PhDs) disagreed, not that that made one wit of difference.

The study is not only published, but cited and used as a source for further study, according to our esteemed resident expert.

Just askin'.
__________________
Letters to and from the pro peloton. twitter | blog
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 11-08-12, 20:30
mastersracer mastersracer is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 929
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dear Wiggo View Post
BUMP - any response, mastersracer?



I have no PhD - just a smattering of stats and programming - but isn't the bolded exactly what Ed Coyle did with his Armstrong study? Or worse, not even find causation at the population level and apply it to an individual, but study only n=1 for 7 years, generating 6 data points and extrapolate wildly?

It was published (just in the SCA nick of time).

The Aussies (scientists with PhDs) disagreed, not that that made one wit of difference.

The study is not only published, but cited and used as a source for further study, according to our esteemed resident expert.

Just askin'.
sorry, didn't see that first time around. The fallacy I was referring to is known as the ecological fallacy, which involves making an inference about an individual based on aggregate data for a group. Coyle didn't make that mistake - I didn't follow the case closely, but it may have been one of the few mistakes he wasn't accused of making :-)
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 11-08-12, 21:58
Maxiton's Avatar
Maxiton Maxiton is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Northern California
Posts: 3,154
Default

I'm pretty sure the rules are written so as to take into account substances that aren't specifically listed but which might confer undue advantage. It's tautological to argue, as mountainrman does, that some riders are advantaged by where they live and that because of this EPO is not inherently unfair. Some riders, by virtue of this or that circumstance, are advantaged by superior aerobic and anaerobic systems, too, but that doesn't make concealing a small motor in your bike any less unfair.
__________________
The UCI doping Helpline if calling from Great Britain: 00 800 8884 8884.
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 11-09-12, 00:19
Dear Wiggo's Avatar
Dear Wiggo Dear Wiggo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sunny Australia
Posts: 5,436
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mastersracer View Post
sorry, didn't see that first time around. The fallacy I was referring to is known as the ecological fallacy, which involves making an inference about an individual based on aggregate data for a group. Coyle didn't make that mistake - I didn't follow the case closely, but it may have been one of the few mistakes he wasn't accused of making :-)
You were claiming that you couldn't publish same study (with ecological fallacy).

Yet Coyle published a study with a sample size of n=1.

Other studies are based on his study, or citie it as "evidence" to support their protocols or conclusions.
__________________
Letters to and from the pro peloton. twitter | blog
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 11-09-12, 00:51
Tinman's Avatar
Tinman Tinman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,100
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mastersracer View Post
If you want to draw conclusions from your Eddy B cohort, the place to start would be to find out the outcome of the Greg Strock lawsuit. The last I heard of it (based on a Velonews article) was the defense contesting causality.

(http://velonews.competitor.com/2006/...-to-court_9763

It's not clear to me that there is in fact a raised incidence of any specific disease/disorder in the Eddie B cohort - there's testicular cancer, autoimmune disorders, heart conditions (most apparently congenital). It seems initially plausible that it is simply a coincidence that they at one time rode for the same team. Besides, they belong to a larger cohort (90's PED using professional cyclists), which should be the group to study.

Getting back to Armstrong, I don’t believe there’s a single peer-reviewed article showing any linkage between PED use and testicular cancer, even among strength athletes and steroid abuse (links are between steroids and liver and kidney cancers). This reflects the broader limitations in terms of epidemiology of testicular cancer in the general population, where causation is extremely poorly understood.

As I said before, the single review I have seen on this is Tentori, L., & Graziani, G. (2007). Doping with growth hormone/IGF-1, anabolic steroids or erythropoietin: is there a cancer risk? Pharmacological research, 55(5), 359–69. You can see there the tentative conclusions (or lack of such) reflecting the relatively current state of knowledge.

Finally, I think it is a mistake to base the argument against PED usage on their potential health risks. First, this makes their prohibition dependent on contingent results of science (what if a PED isn’t associated with a health risk?) and ignores the fact that young people are relatively insensitive to future consequences (high temporal discounting and risk insensitivity). The argument should be based on violating norms of fairness (there are separate arguments for why this also more likely to reduce their use).
Thanks for reply. Appreciate the thinking.

What would be the advantage studying the larger cohort if you are going to introduce more noise to the sample? Getting people to confess PED use in that larger cohort is a nightmare, in addition, the amount (duration and cocktail) will be even harder to get a read out on. At least with Eddy B's cohort you have a better idea. It's a relatively homogeneous cohort although you may not get a clear read out on exactly what/how/when it was taken, you know there was serious **** going down. And all of the health outcomes in that cohort are well described in PED toxicology. Occam's razor says obvious.

Your post conclusion for me mixes various elements, and I struggle with that.
Mostly the fact we can't "prove" adverse outcome (yet). This is not rationale for not banning use in sport for health risk reasons. Toxicology, coupled with not having control over dose, co-medication, etc in an out of medical indication environment is sufficient reason for banning in sport, not to mention the legal headache of the prescribed medicines controlled environment. Future consequence insensitivity is a social science construct, and as such not relevant to the "harm" discussion, although I agree it is there. I also do agree with your fairness point with regard to "drug", we have to draw the line somewhere. But its a challenging one as one can argue genetic (VO2Max, etc) and economic (money to buy altitude tent) fairness points aplenty.
__________________

“Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.”


Last edited by Tinman; 11-09-12 at 00:54.
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 11-09-12, 09:08
Tinman's Avatar
Tinman Tinman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,100
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blutto View Post
for instance for most of my cycling career I suffered from severe asthma and seasonal hayfever...until recently I refused to take the approved drugs...and it finally got so bad that I was faced with a decision..take the drugs or stop racing.....so I took the drugs and man it was amazing, I felt like superman....being able to breathe properly while racing all out was really unbelievable...sound familiar?
Surely a medical clearance would have cleared you for using these drugs in competition (or indeed daily life)?

Many athletes on asthma meds, at least B2 agonists (Ventolins etc). Not sure of inhaled steroids, ie. whether sports approved.
__________________

“Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 11-09-12, 12:53
Tinman's Avatar
Tinman Tinman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,100
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blutto View Post
...sorry but I may not have made myself clear....the meds I was taking were all quite "legal" ( though I did have to get TUE's )...the problem was that I couldn't shake the notion that it seemed that I owed my new found success to some prescriptions...and I really wasn't happy with that so I quit the drugs and the racing...

Cheers

blutto
the drugs you took had no performance enhancing effect to "normal" athletes. So perfectly state of mind for you to take...
__________________

“Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 11-09-12, 14:58
zigmeister zigmeister is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 722
Default

I'll post what I've said in any other thread about the subject of any drug legal/illegal.

There should be not exceptions for any medication, that includes things that don't need TUEs, like albuterol. Which, I posted a link in another thread about a study that showed albuterol can help the performance of cyclist.

Yet, you don't need to tell anybody you are taking it.

Does this make sense?

If you want a clean sport, everything is banned. You race what you were born with, end of story.

If you have asthma, well, sad to say it, too bad. When we start making inclusions of drugs and others banned, you already blurred the line of a so-call level playing field.

If USADA and any other organization was really serious and wasn't on the LA witch hunt to land the big game animal, that would be the stance. Yet, they say one thing, and turn around and do something entirely different hypocritically.

No race result losses for CVV, Danielson, Big George etc? why? Because they testified on behalf to get Lance. All admitted EPO dopers amongst other banned substances.

Anyway, rant over. Ban everything, test for everything, if caught, lifetime ban...loss of all results, earnings, etc...

Amgen isn't the problem here. That is how the drug company business works. You fund research, go through lengthy approval processes with the FDA, spends $$$$ of dollars. Then get approval hopefully to market/sell the drug to get a return on profit. That is the free market.
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 11-09-12, 15:27
D-Queued D-Queued is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4,323
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zigmeister View Post
...

If you want a clean sport, everything is banned. You race what you were born with, end of story.

If you have asthma, well, sad to say it, too bad. When we start making inclusions of drugs and others banned, you already blurred the line of a so-call level playing field.

...
If only the world were so simple.

Asthma rates have been surging around the globe over the past three decades... by 2004 Sweden’s asthma cases had increased to 10 percent, according to one international study, while the number of cases in the U.K. had soared to 20 percent.

Sorry, I wasn't born with it.

But, just wait, you could be the next cyclist diagnosed with it. The chances of you getting it get better and better.

If we want to make it a level playing field, then all those cyclists that don't have asthma need to breath through a straw.

For asthma sufferers, asthma medication at best returns you to what you were born with. No more. In my case, my asthma medication also has a beneficial effect with allowing me to exhale better - though not to a 'normal' functioning level. I cannot blow out birthday candles otherwise. Think about that the next time someone like me kicks your **** up a hill.

Now, are there guys in the peloton cheating with Salbutamol? Yes.

Dave.
__________________

Lance says he will cooperate with Landis Investigation


"I've done too many good things for too many people"

Last edited by D-Queued; 11-09-12 at 15:30.
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 11-09-12, 16:05
Cloxxki Cloxxki is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,923
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blutto View Post
..."no performance enhancing effect" ?....dude I was there when this happened and my performance, to my eyes at least, was greatly enhanced....though I guess that depends on how you define the term "normal" which it seems your point is pivoting on....

Cheers

blutto
One inhale of salbutamol can boost my VO2max from ~150W to ~500W. If my allergy reaction is as bad as to restrict that much. the ~500W would be the same or less than on a perfect winter day without allergens. Even with a TUE, if it would take me 10W higher than that ~500W figure, I'd feel like a cheater. Even on a 2'37 dirt road climb, the asthma would get me down to 3'05, taking all reserves from my blood, muscles, and what have you. All-out effort, world of agony. After one inhale and another 3/4hr of riding, I'd do the 2'37.
In the end, I never did manage to get the TUE (stupid house doc, and not very motivated myself to persue it futher), so I quit racing until the cap was installed, and I would always dose 4x less than allowed maximum.

I do sometimes think that insulin use can help a diabetic athlete beyond natural capacity. Not sure what to think about the ethics of that, tough one.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:11.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.