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
  #41  
Old 12-06-12, 19:38
Aleajactaest Aleajactaest is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 212
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by noddy69 View Post
But there is proof. The study is flawed and should be viewed as such and thus gingerly thrown in the bin as rubbish and a waste of time and very little effort.

I suggest you send a mail and find out how they draw up the list. They will be more than happy to reply.
I'm not commenting now, nor have I ever on this specific study quoted. I do believe it would have been nearly impossible for the WADA to actually test the degree of advantage the items on the list provide an advantage. I think the list is near 200 give or take. Each of the drugs is reputed to provide advantages in numerous ways. Testing each drug for each advantage would be prohibitively expensive. So, I doubt they did so. I suspect they used other research and based on that banned them.

BTW, I spend some time trying to find out how they compiled the list but have not yet found it.

Some of the drugs are silly. Why alcohol or pot. What advantage do you get?
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 12-06-12, 19:45
Cycle Chic's Avatar
Cycle Chic Cycle Chic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,142
Default Unknown Side Effects of EPO

Unknown Side Effects ??

The side burns are pretty obvious....oops I meant side effects !

Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 12-06-12, 19:56
Dear Wiggo's Avatar
Dear Wiggo Dear Wiggo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sunny Australia
Posts: 4,022
Default

If people who clearly do not love Lance come out in support of this uh study, I might give them some time, but the pro-"EPO has no effect" posters have post history that is decidedly pro-Lance.

I understand the power of placebo, but you only need to read Tyler's book to realise the different effects practically preclude that phenomenon.

If blood transfusions increase performance, it is through increased Hgb. EPO increases Hgb. Therefore EPO increases performance.
__________________
Letters to and from the pro peloton. twitter | blog
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 12-06-12, 20:00
Dear Wiggo's Avatar
Dear Wiggo Dear Wiggo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sunny Australia
Posts: 4,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleajactaest View Post
Some of the drugs are silly. Why alcohol or pot. What advantage do you get?
1. Safety:
I almost never drink alcohol, never to excess. I've never smoked pot. In both cases, I have seen / interacted with people who do / are doing so. Have you?

Riders and other athletes move at very high speed, making split-second decisions.

Now imagine the same person doing that affected by pot or alcohol.

2. Benefit:
fear is a natural response of the body, and prevents you from doing things that are potentially harmful. Pot mellows people out, relaxing them. The fear is potentially markedly reduced, meaning they are prepared to do things not normally undertaken in a clear-headed state. Alcohol has also been shown to impair judgement. Please see 1 above.
__________________
Letters to and from the pro peloton. twitter | blog

Last edited by Dear Wiggo; 12-06-12 at 20:07.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 12-06-12, 20:03
martinvickers's Avatar
martinvickers martinvickers is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Ireland
Posts: 2,721
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dear Wiggo View Post
1. Safety:
I've never smoked pot, but seen people who do. Have you? Riders and other athletes move at very high speed, making split-second decisions.

Now imagine the same person doing that affected by pot.

2. Benefit:
fear is a natural response of the body, and prevents you from doing things that are potentially harmful. Pot mellows people out, relaxing them. The fear is potentially markedly reduced, meaning they are prepared to do things not normally undertaken in a clear-headed state. Please see 1 above.
Wiggo, couldI add that drug control is not just about protecting athletes who might take drugs, but also protecting athletes FROM athletes who take drugs.

A 'high' athlete would almost certainly be a clear danger to fellow athletes whether in the peleton, or on dangerous parts of races.

useful page :

Last edited by martinvickers; 12-06-12 at 20:07.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 12-06-12, 20:05
noddy69 noddy69 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aleajactaest View Post
I'm not commenting now, nor have I ever on this specific study quoted. I do believe it would have been nearly impossible for the WADA to actually test the degree of advantage the items on the list provide an advantage. I think the list is near 200 give or take. Each of the drugs is reputed to provide advantages in numerous ways. Testing each drug for each advantage would be prohibitively expensive. So, I doubt they did so. I suspect they used other research and based on that banned them.

BTW, I spend some time trying to find out how they compiled the list but have not yet found it.

Some of the drugs are silly. Why alcohol or pot. What advantage do you get?
As I suggested and to save you looking why not email them and ask the question directly. You will get an answer therefore saving time.

Alcohol impairs judgement therefore dangerous and it is illegal in many countries to cycle drunk or with alcohol ....I can keep going.

Pot is illegal..again I can keep going but there really is no need.

Many of the drugs can be found in small doses in everyday products ,however there are reasons (email)they are on the list and reasons that exemptions can be sought. You know all this. What exactly are you arguing. That some drugs should not be on the list ? or how they get there ?
Does it matter how they got there when someone gets caught ?
Answer = only if there is no benefit.otherwise it really doesnt matter other than for curiosity. What you can be sure of is that they are there for a reason.Which you will find out when you get your response.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 12-06-12, 20:07
noddy69 noddy69 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dear Wiggo View Post
If people who clearly do not love Lance come out in support of this uh study, I might give them some time, but the pro-"EPO has no effect" posters have post history that is decidedly pro-Lance.

I understand the power of placebo, but you only need to read Tyler's book to realise the different effects practically preclude that phenomenon.

If blood transfusions increase performance, it is through increased Hgb. EPO increases Hgb. Therefore EPO increases performance.
What they all fail to mention is that the placebo effect does not mirror real effects 100% or close which would decidedly affect their argument.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 12-06-12, 20:37
peterst6906 peterst6906 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 667
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dear Wiggo View Post
Therefore EPO increases performance.
Oh my hallelujah!

A long way from this earlier statement:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dear Wiggo View Post
EPO itself - I believe - is not performance enhancing at all.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 12-06-12, 20:40
zapata's Avatar
zapata zapata is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: norway
Posts: 1,728
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainrman View Post
One issue which is really important in this is the proven power of placebo.
The mind is a complex machine. The belief of benefit of a drug can indeed sometimes simulate the benefit believed

That is why "anecdotal" evidence is largely useless.

The only thing that proves efficacy is double blind trial which is why it forms the basis of all drug regulatory systems.

This is not a comment on EPO per se, only the reliability of statements based on limited numbers of people who knew or thought they were taking it at the time.
The study that maltiv is talking about was double blind. and it was not only kaggestad and rasch that were taking part, obviously.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 12-06-12, 20:46
ulrichw ulrichw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 32
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by beowulf View Post
I do not know if this has been posted already.

Taken from this article: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/...206-2awx3.html
IMO, this thread is triggered by a typical misinterpretation of a scientific study.

As a previous post already mentioned, the conclusion of this study is very different from the title of this thread. It says "There is no scientific evidence that EPO enhances cycling performance in elite athletes", which is not at all saying that EPO doesn't enhance cycling performance in elite athletes, nor even saying that there is no non-scientific evidence that cycling performance is increased in these athletes.

The full text of the study is available here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1.../bcp.12034/pdf

Quoting directly from the study, you get the much more reasonable conclusion: "A more scientific approach needed: Summarizing, the available literature lacks the appropriate information, validity and robustness to conclude that rHuEPO enhances world-class cycling performance. To be able to make such statements, more thorough research needs to be conducted looking at the effects of rHuEPO on submaximal performance parameters and the cycling economy, preferably in a population with cycling performance abilities as close as possible to those of professional cyclists and under conditions closely resembling racing conditions and the required performance duration. It can be argued that putting the treatment on the prohibited list falsely implies a proven beneficial effect on performance in professional cycling and unintentionally stimulates its abuse[144], although it should also be recognized that there is no convincing evidence that any drug works in this context."

It should also be added that the study does appear to be written by people with a less-than-expert understanding of the dynamics of cycle racing. A large part of the thesis is based on the argument that only a small part of the race is spent at maximal performance, therefore a drug which has only been shown to affect maximal performance can not be said to enhance overall performance.

I believe this argument to be misleading: While only a small amount of time in a race is spent at maximal performance, the time spent at this level is usual the decisive point of the race. Just because I might have a chance of hanging with a high quality pack in a flat race doesn't mean that I have any chance of winning a race.

Note that the other main point made in the study seems more valid to me: That is that many of the existing studies are performed on non-elite cycling populations, and that other studies have shown significant physiological differences between elite and non-elite athletes.

Last edited by ulrichw; 12-06-12 at 20:52. Reason: clarity
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 16:38.


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.