Log in:  

Register

Doping in XC skiing

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

Moderators: Irondan, Eshnar, Red Rick, Valv.Piti, Pricey_sky, Tonton, King Boonen

Re: Re:

25 Aug 2017 17:58

ToreBear wrote:
Libertine Seguros wrote:"No amount of factual information seems to penetrate and be internalized" - perfect description of the Betonkopf, no?

Anyway, how are you getting on with your list of nations who are using the "common practice" of using asthma treatment for non-asthmatics in the same fashion as Norway? Since last time your assertion that this was common practice in several nations was questioned, you could only name Maurice Manificat as an example. As you've gone back to the assertion that it is done by several nations and trump up your scientific mindset, I can only presume that you have unearthed further evidence that backs up your assertion, as restating an unsatisfactory conclusion would surely be a no-no?

bla bla bla....

The problem here is that there are legitimate uses for asthma medications for conditions other than Asthma. For example the Swedes in there guidelines used a term Bronchial hyperactivity in addition to Asthma. In any case the athletes in the headline had other issues which were legitimately treated with asthma medications. They were not healthy and they did not have asthma. So the main problem with the headline is that the term healthy is misleading. So this starts a media scrum, with especially Swedish media riling up their readers.

In the end, the argument came down to the use of nebulizers, with the swedes having the moral high ground, which turned out to be very lonely as pointed out in the previous links. This asthma thing was silly from the start, and says more about the media environment for XC skiing than the use/misuse of asthma medications.

ToreBear, still going strong before hibernation. :) You are really one of a kind (outside the nation of yours of course) when you keep repeating arguments or opinions that have been properly debunked a long time ago. For you, and a bunch of fellow countrymen, the earth is still flat.

You said: the Swedes in there guidelines used a term Bronchial hyperactivity in addition to Asthma
Source? What about the Norwegians?

Firstly, when the "asthma report" went public, the Swedish team doctor Per Andersson was upset in a way you very seldom see from Swedish officials. He said following:
Nebulizers do not belong in sports, other in emergency cases.

He also said that the Swedes never would treat anyone with asthma medication in a preventive purpose:
There's no research that claims it's the right thing to do, and as a medic you should work accordingly to science and experience.

I think your argumentation is dishonest. And remember, your cycling star Kristoff said when he heard about the Norwegian XC skiing national team and asthma medication:
I was surprised when I heard about the doses they are inhaling. I was told to take five puffs a day, and they are talking about 50 doses. I would have dropped my chin if I was told to take 50 doses every day.
http://www.vg.no/sport/langrenn/kristoff-om-skilandslagets-medisinbruk-overrasket-over-dosene-jeg-hoerte-de-tok/a/23780297/
Discgear
Member
 
Posts: 355
Joined: 04 Mar 2013 09:34

Re: Doping in XC skiing

25 Aug 2017 18:51

Interesting comment from Norwegian cycling president Harald Tiedemann Hansen in this article from Dagbladet looking at antidoping routines in other sports in Norway https://www.dagbladet.no/sport/slik-er-antidopingrutinene-innen-norsk-idrett---ansvaret-ligger-alltid-hos-utoveren/68616046

Tidemann Hansen doesn't wish to evaluate the Skiforbundets antidoping work, but talks openly about the Sykkelforbundets routines.

"First and foremost you must have completed the 'clean athlete' program to cycle for the national team. In addition we have an ethical policy that we follow up, but that's about more than antidoping. Also there is a much tougher test regime for our athletes than what i'm reading has been the case in other sports (branches)"

Now which other branch of Norwegian sport could he be referring to? :rolleyes:
Blaaswix
Junior Member
 
Posts: 144
Joined: 03 Jan 2016 10:06

Re: Re:

25 Aug 2017 19:21

ToreBear wrote:
1) I don't see a reason why he might not be right regarding Eggen. I have no idea either way. Before 1989 IIRC Norwegian sport was much more fragmented, so it's not unreasonable that some groups could be anti doping while other groups felt otherwise. Also the line between doping/not doping and whether it was cheating was not as clear as it is today. With the establishment of the Olympiatoppen, standards were set regarding anti doping. I think I read somewhere that they did discuss the use of doping, but that the argument that not using a doping shortcut would be more beneficial in the long run, as well as doping being ethically questionable/wrong, won out. Likely pressure from above also helped sway the argument.

Not directly related to XC skiing obviously, but somewhat relevant to the bolded part perhaps.

Eddy Merckx thought EPO was OK, but he was not an exception. I remember a discussion we had in November 1995 [...] when we began talking about the new drug EPO, Merckx and De Cauwer shouted in unison: "But EPO is not doping!"

from 'Hans Vandeweghe: Wie gelooft die renners nog?'
kingjr
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,478
Joined: 09 Sep 2012 18:53
Location: Germany

Re: Re:

26 Aug 2017 09:25

rEPO is interesting also because some people considered it actually a good thing because it would replace the nasty transfusions. I can't recall his name, but one famous American exercise physiologist cheered the rEPO in late 1980s exactly because it would make the "vampiristic" blood transfusions obsolete. He later admitted that his take was slightly naïve even when his intentions were good.

It reminds me the episode when runner Alberto Cova and the Italian blood doping program was briefly discussed in the Finnish media in 1984. Cross-country ski oriented exercise physiologist Heikki Rusko was at least publicly against the use of the method on ethical grounds:
In Italy, there is a very sophisticated system for blood transfusion. It is possible to separate young and old red blood cells and infuse the subject only with young ones. There have been published a lot of research about blood doping in foreign countries that point to the direction that it enhances performances. By how much is difficult to say because it hasn't been researched with athletes. Here in Finland we have a different moral standards than in other countries. There people do think that everything that isn't specifically banned is allowed.

Then when you go forward four years to 1988, when everyone is scared about the future of sports because this recombinant EPO would turn endurance athletes into supermen, this same man wrote the following in a book he coauthored with his colleague:
It is only a matter of time, when sports doctors have access to effective medications to treat all diseases, to remove the fatigue of athletes, to enhance recovery, to develop muscular strength etc. A few pharmaceutical companies have managed to develop the method to manufacture synthetic erythropoietin. It is exactly the same thing as the natural hormone produced by human body, and in the future fine tuning the dosage it would be possible to micromanage the hematological values of an athlete to the desired level.

I don't know whether that is just stating the facts or thumbs up, but many commentators read the sentence that the authors saw rEPO as a good thing. It wasn't banned when the book was published and there was no clear consensus view on the substance, so there was room for dissenting opinions.

In the end, Rusko has a good reputation among his peers and he isn't tainted by the doping revelations, and he would later become one of the foremost specialist of the hypoxia training.
User avatar Aragon
Junior Member
 
Posts: 159
Joined: 29 Aug 2016 17:44
Location: Finland

Re: Re:

26 Aug 2017 09:59

Aragon wrote:rEPO is interesting also because some people considered it actually a good thing because it would replace the nasty transfusions. I can't recall his name, but one famous American exercise physiologist cheered the rEPO in late 1980s exactly because it would make the "vampiristic" blood transfusions obsolete. He later admitted that his take was slightly naïve even when his intentions were good.

It reminds me the episode when runner Alberto Cova and the Italian blood doping program was briefly discussed in the Finnish media in 1984. Cross-country ski oriented exercise physiologist Heikki Rusko was at least publicly against the use of the method on ethical grounds:
In Italy, there is a very sophisticated system for blood transfusion. It is possible to separate young and old red blood cells and infuse the subject only with young ones. There have been published a lot of research about blood doping in foreign countries that point to the direction that it enhances performances. By how much is difficult to say because it hasn't been researched with athletes. Here in Finland we have a different moral standards than in other countries. There people do think that everything that isn't specifically banned is allowed.

Then when you go forward four years to 1988, when everyone is scared about the future of sports because this recombinant EPO would turn endurance athletes into supermen, this same man wrote the following in a book he coauthored with his colleague:
It is only a matter of time, when sports doctors have access to effective medications to treat all diseases, to remove the fatigue of athletes, to enhance recovery, to develop muscular strength etc. A few pharmaceutical companies have managed to develop the method to manufacture synthetic erythropoietin. It is exactly the same thing as the natural hormone produced by human body, and in the future fine tuning the dosage it would be possible to micromanage the hematological values of an athlete to the desired level.

I don't know whether that is just stating the facts or thumbs up, but many commentators read the sentence that the authors saw rEPO as a good thing. It wasn't banned when the book was published and there was no clear consensus view on the substance, so there was room for dissenting opinions.

In the end, Rusko has a good reputation among his peers and he isn't tainted by the doping revelations, and he would later become one of the foremost specialist of the hypoxia training.

.... in the future fine tuning the dosage it would be possible to micromanage....
....Here in [nation of chocie] we have a different moral standards than in other countries....
Heikki Rusko, Nostrodamus of Sports. Good post and interesting read.
Discgear
Member
 
Posts: 355
Joined: 04 Mar 2013 09:34

Re: Re:

26 Aug 2017 13:45

After some mental gymnastics on where I'd seen the reference, I finally managed to find the "famous American exercise physiologist" and his take on rEPO from David Walsh's 2007 book:
From Lance to Landis, pp. 42-43 wrote:In 1989, Les Earnest, a director of the United States Cycling Federation (USFC), wrote that r-EPO had the potential to help athletic performance and to bring an end to potentially hazardous blood transfusions. Before suggesting r-EPO should be used by sportsmen, Earnest wrote to Jerry Lace, USCF executive director, asking that a study be done to determine if the drug could be used safely. Earnest was reassured such a study was under way, which it was not. Earnest was not an advocate of doping and had been critical of the blood doping program undertaken by members of the U.S. cycling team at the 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Games...
Earnest would later admit his first reaction to r-EPO was naïve, but even to the morally scrupulous the drug was tempting. It wasn't banned; it didn't involve the drawing, storage, treatment, and reinfusion of blood - allt it did was replicate the effects of altitude training.
User avatar Aragon
Junior Member
 
Posts: 159
Joined: 29 Aug 2016 17:44
Location: Finland

Re: Re:

27 Aug 2017 19:27

ToreBear wrote:
Libertine Seguros wrote:"No amount of factual information seems to penetrate and be internalized" - perfect description of the Betonkopf, no?

Anyway, how are you getting on with your list of nations who are using the "common practice" of using asthma treatment for non-asthmatics in the same fashion as Norway? Since last time your assertion that this was common practice in several nations was questioned, you could only name Maurice Manificat as an example. As you've gone back to the assertion that it is done by several nations and trump up your scientific mindset, I can only presume that you have unearthed further evidence that backs up your assertion, as restating an unsatisfactory conclusion would surely be a no-no?

bla bla bla....

I cant adress all your points, due to time constraints/lack of patience/lazyness etc. But I can give you some possible asnvers to the asthma drama:

I'll try to explain how this ashtma drugs to healthy athletes started:
Ernst A. Lersveen, a reporter for TV2 asked Norwegian athletes if they had used Asthma medications. They confirmed they had, and they also comfirmed they did not have the diagnosis Asthma.

Headline: "Ski federation gives asthma medication through nebulizers to healthy athletes"

The problem here is that there are legitimate uses for asthma medications for conditions other than Asthma. For example the Swedes in there guidelines used a term Bronchial hyperactivity in addition to Asthma. In any case the athletes in the headline had other issues which were legitimately treated with asthma medications. They were not healthy and they did not have asthma. So the main problem with the headline is that the term healthy is misleading. So this starts a media scrum, with especially Swedish media riling up their readers.

In the end, the argument came down to the use of nebulizers, with the swedes having the moral high ground, which turned out to be very lonely as pointed out in the previous links. This asthma thing was silly from the start, and says more about the media environment for XC skiing than the use/misuse of asthma medications.

From your response you indicated you had not watched the video since you kept going on about failing to notice the marker. If you can miss a guy in a freaking gorilla suit you can miss a red marker. It's just how we humans function.

I'm not going to give you anymore evidence since that would be to much work for me. If the German government has any guidelines for the usage of medications, you can look there and see that asthma drugs are used for other things than asthma.

And likewise, you failed to notice anybody other than Manificat who uses asthma medication without asthma and doesn't compete for Norway, but it didn't stop you returning to your point that everybody does it except Sweden.

And quite simply, just because when specifically asked to focus on another task the human brain can miss something, does not erase the basic tenet of strict liability. And quite simply, Johaug cannot be innocent even if we accept that the substance taken was not with the intention of enhancing performance. She cannot delegate the fullness of her responsibility to the doctor under the current code, because that removes any responsibility from the athlete for their own actions and reduces them to automatons in the eyes of the lawmakers. Now, she can delegate part of the responsibility, i.e. claim that she took less care because of the trusted position of the doctor. But she cannot be absolved of all responsibility for her own actions without setting a very dangerous precedent, and it is not only understandable but wholly correct that CAS does not want to go down that road and therefore has to be seen to hold Therese responsible at least in part and act accordingly. The fact that they gave her the 18 months and not the full 4 years shows that there is some acceptance that responsibility is diminished somewhat, but a full exoneration is neither reasonable nor desirable.
User avatar Libertine Seguros
Veteran
 
Posts: 18,916
Joined: 20 Feb 2010 11:54
Location: Land of Saíz

07 Sep 2017 18:20

The cas just
essentially acquitted legkov and belov and allowed them into a completion starting 1 November. The Mc laren report was criticized as presenting insufficient evidence.

So we got 2 innocent top skiers punished essentially b/c an 'independent' canadian lawyer wrote a politically charged report... :rolleyes:

I am traveling...the link later...
Last edited by python on 07 Sep 2017 18:21, edited 1 time in total.
DJPbaltimore:'John Kerry is an honorable person and would not call out the Russians if there was not evidence', 'the 2 of you are russia stooges'
in foreign policy there are no eternal friendships or eternal enemies, only eternal interests
User avatar python
Veteran
 
Posts: 6,423
Joined: 25 Sep 2009 01:01

07 Sep 2017 18:21

Rider
New Member
 
Posts: 34
Joined: 03 Jan 2016 00:21

Re: Doping in XC skiing

08 Sep 2017 00:09

Not so fast on the clearing of Russian skiers. The Oswald commission (I believe this one was set up by the IOC) has to go through the testing of samples to give the final go ahead. There is another commission doing similar work. The Russians are hoping that one of them (can't remember which one) will give them the benefit, so I wouldn't quite say they are cleared to race just yet. They very well could be on their way, but I won't believe it until I see it.
BullsFan22
Senior Member
 
Posts: 2,800
Joined: 22 Jun 2010 21:19

Previous

Return to The Clinic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: B_Ugli, Benotti69, Bing [Bot], MatParker117, wansteadimp and 13 guests

Back to top