AntiDoping Seminar - April 3 on Loma Linda University Campus (Redlands)

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Parrulo said:
stopped listening when you listed wiggins as a role model
Funny, before i opened this video i had justr seen this post
Galic Ho said:
Wanna bet he's got a sockpuppet account? Take a look around. Most of the Sky fans do.
Then click the video and

“I am a cyclist, I was a professional cyclist,
(skip forward )
“I am a certified cycling coach, I i have degree in exercise physiology"
(skip forward)
“I have a doctorate in phyisiology, training in pharmacolog, I am a parent”

ps. I'm not doubting this posters achievements. Unlike the other one he has not shown reason for us to doubt their validity.
 
Mar 21, 2013
15
0
0
That's your call. The message for the entire talk is right up front. Think first before putting something in your body. Science will not fix the problem. We need positive role models and people who are willing to educate to move forward.

The more closed minded we are the slower things will progress. I agree that the messenger is important too. Maybe Wiggins isn't the best role model. I even state, I HOPE that he is a positive role model. Be constructive as opposed to negative; Recommend someone else to use on my next version of the talk.

Sean
 
xestospongin said:
That's your call. The message for the entire talk is right up front. Think first before putting something in your body. Science will not fix the problem. We need positive role models and people who are willing to educate to move forward.

The more closed minded we are the slower things will progress. I agree that the messenger is important too. Maybe Wiggins isn't the best role model. I even state, I HOPE that he is a positive role model. Be constructive as opposed to negative; Recommend someone else to use on my next version of the talk.

Sean
bassons. Moncoutie. Pinotti (who spoke out against Armstrong in 2009) - unlike wiggins who defended him to the end.

BTw you say "the reality is 6% of our youth will use steroids and 35% will use muscle enhancers".
2 points about that.
first of all, from a delivery pov, it might be worth giving a source for that.
second of all, you then extrapolate that onto a cycling team and say 9 will use steroids and 50 will use muscle enhancers.

But a cycling team is totally different. Youth actively involved in sport are more likely to use peds then the rest of the population. And steroids and muscle enhancers are not the main performance enhancers in cycling (though youth may not have access to others). So the % of a youth cycling team taking peds is likely to be very different to gen pop.

Just an observation.
 
Aug 12, 2009
3,639
0
0
It's really long. I will listen to it later. Got 10 minutes in. Don't have time ATM. But I'll listen to it later.

BTW Hitch...I'm not suggesting this guys account is a sock puppet one. But I get your point and reason for quoting me.
 
xestospongin said:
That's your call. The message for the entire talk is right up front. Think first before putting something in your body. Science will not fix the problem. We need positive role models and people who are willing to educate to move forward.

The more closed minded we are the slower things will progress. I agree that the messenger is important too. Maybe Wiggins isn't the best role model. I even state, I HOPE that he is a positive role model. Be constructive as opposed to negative; Recommend someone else to use on my next version of the talk.

Sean
Wiggins could truly be clean.

However, in the context of the peloton post-EPO introduction , NOBODY with significant palmares since then is a good role model. Period.

For more 'research', please take a look at the Wikipedia page on erythropoietin. You will note that Cycling has its very own special section.

Dave.
 
D-Queued said:
Wiggins could truly be clean.

However, in the context of the peloton post-EPO introduction , NOBODY with significant palmares since then is a good role model. Period.

For more 'research', please take a look at the Wikipedia page on erythropoietin. You will note that Cycling has its very own special section.

Dave.
That's because other sports don't test for it.
 
The Hitch said:
That's because other sports don't test for it.
While that isn't true, let's go with your claim.

In that case, neither does cycling.

At least not when the UCI is in charge. No BP test for EPO. And, no EPO tests when the UCI conducts testing for the Tour, including for those with high rankings on the BP suspicion index.

Your point was?

Perhaps you can you name one other sport that has signed the Code, but still controls dope testing.

Dave.
 
D-Queued said:
Perhaps you can you name one other sport that has signed the Code, but still controls dope testing.
My reading suggests all IOC sports using the bio-passport control testing exactly like the UCI. Maybe I'm wrong. It happens and it's a part of learning, so don't hesitate to correct me.
 
Mar 21, 2013
15
0
0
The Hitch said:
bassons. Moncoutie. Pinotti (who spoke out against Armstrong in 2009) - unlike wiggins who defended him to the end.

BTw you say "the reality is 6% of our youth will use steroids and 35% will use muscle enhancers".
2 points about that.
first of all, from a delivery pov, it might be worth giving a source for that.
second of all, you then extrapolate that onto a cycling team and say 9 will use steroids and 50 will use muscle enhancers.

But a cycling team is totally different. Youth actively involved in sport are more likely to use peds then the rest of the population. And steroids and muscle enhancers are not the main performance enhancers in cycling (though youth may not have access to others). So the % of a youth cycling team taking peds is likely to be very different to gen pop.

Just an observation.
Thanks for taking the time to provide useful feedback!!! I will swap out the wiggins photo for one of the others mentioned above. The specific addition of role models on that slide was last minute.

The source on drug use is at the bottom of the slide. A bit of a oversight, Just didn't state it. I will make sure to do so next time. It was a recent epidemiology study (listed through WADA information I think). I am also trying to exacerbate the fear factor a bit & the reality is that it actually works! I mostly had parents and grandparents at the seminar and a few body-building types. Still ended up with over a half hour of Q/A and one-on-one afterwards.

It is highly unfortunate, but the reality is that it does not matter what sports the kids are involved with, they will still be exposed to PEDs as well as street drugs. Inga Thompson pointed out to me in a personal message (re-posted with the video) out that her op-ed piece actually did not tell the whole story in that 2 kids in her sons high school football team were caught using steroids (and duly reprimanded). She is a small rural community. Her son is safe because she is stepping up as a parent to be involved. Heck my son came home yesterday and said two girls got arrested in middle school for smoking pot in the bathroom! Bottom line...No one is immune. As a parent you have to be on your toes and be heavily involved in the process. My wife and I constantly communicate with our kids about this stuff, but still we are concerned given how much they are exposed to. Point of reference is that the so-cal issues listed in another thread regarding MRI are heavily impacting my kids team & the other juniors in the region.
 
Mar 21, 2013
15
0
0
Tinman said:
I totally support "education" on the broader topic of doping to the masses, and to provide a perspective on the health risks. But to sell the message that education is the (or even "one of the primary") solution to reducing/stopping doping by pro-athletes (as UCI is suggesting) is a total joke and reeks of further feeding the pockets of the administrators running these educational programs. As well as diverting critical attention away from diligent sports administration, eg doping control and penalties.

I ask you please, as an "authority" on anti-doping education, make this essential distinction to your audiences. Hope the seminar goes well.
hmmm....from a historical perspective getting rid of doping in cycling is about as easy as eradicating street drug use. It is unlikely to happen. My opinion, as I indicate in the lecture, education is one component to this, having a strong police force is certainly another (WADA), but this must be coupled with positive role models and a management/administrative structure that is firmly committed to the process. If one of those elements (especially the last one) does not buy-in to the idea of clean sport the problem will persist. My role, at least the way I see it, is in the education arena. Do I think I will change the world, doubtful. My hope is simply to get the athletes and their support group (parents, managers, coaches & the public) to think about what they eat and drink.

The philosophical question is how do you induce lasting change? As an academic I believe that knowledge is key, and the only way to get knowledge is through education. Hence, even though this is a problem in the peloton and ultimately they have to clean it out themselves we can provide them the information and knowledge they need to expedite the process. ---More opinion than I wanted to state---
 
DirtyWorks said:
My reading suggests all IOC sports using the bio-passport control testing exactly like the UCI. Maybe I'm wrong. It happens and it's a part of learning, so don't hesitate to correct me.
Allow me to correct myself.

Checked into doping control for Wimbledon. The insights were fascinating, and also topic (cycling) specific and instructive.

Tennis has a Steroid Problem

Doping Control: Wimbledon 2008 (Men)
If UKAD needed any rationale to support a request to conduct supplementary testing an Wimbledon this year, they need only point to the ITF's 2009 anti-doping statistics. For example, the testing at Wimbledon in 2009. And if they wanted to make their case stronger, they need only point to the ITF's 2008 anti-doping statistics.

There are no surprises here: loser-targeted testing as usual. As a result, Roger Federer (runner-up) and Rafael Nadal (champion) were tested only once for the entire fortnight. The test occurred after the championship match. Imagine if the Tour de France only tested the winner after the completion of the final stage? The cycling media would cry foul. Most of the tennis media, however, considers this "strict," "rigorous," "invasive," and "intrusive."
...

(List of tested athletes... all Losers except for the Winning finalists.)


Fascinating.

But, the funny part was that as we know with Wonder-Boy, there is being tested and then there is being tested. The stage winner may be chaperoned, but the chaperone could be a PED dealer or the result of the test could be made to disappear.

What the ITF could learn from the UCI is how to test without having to worry about the result.

Dave.
 
Jul 19, 2009
1,064
0
0
xestospongin said:
hmmm....from a historical perspective getting rid of doping in cycling is about as easy as eradicating street drug use. It is unlikely to happen. My opinion, as I indicate in the lecture, education is one component to this, having a strong police force is certainly another (WADA), but this must be coupled with positive role models and a management/administrative structure that is firmly committed to the process. If one of those elements (especially the last one) does not buy-in to the idea of clean sport the problem will persist. My role, at least the way I see it, is in the education arena. Do I think I will change the world, doubtful. My hope is simply to get the athletes and their support group (parents, managers, coaches & the public) to think about what they eat and drink.

The philosophical question is how do you induce lasting change? As an academic I believe that knowledge is key, and the only way to get knowledge is through education. Hence, even though this is a problem in the peloton and ultimately they have to clean it out themselves we can provide them the information and knowledge they need to expedite the process. ---More opinion than I wanted to state---
Hi Sean, thanks for posting your webinar and making a well informed contribution to the forum on an important topic (ie: education). I certainly believe that education is important and one of the best quotes I've read about whether or not cycling is becoming cleaner is from Paul Scott in this article....

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/former-usada-opponent-provided-key-information-in-lance-armstrong-case

It's clear he (and many others) have ceased talking about tackling the doping problem solely from a biological testing perspective. As you stated in your webinar, and Scott implies in his quotes, we cannot completely eradicate doping. Therefore the goal must be to discourage it as best we can. Doping control tests are just one method, education and culture change is another. At some point when a critical mass is reached ie: pro cycling teams begin to believe that other teams are not doping or are doping less, then they may start saying, well we don't need to dope anymore in order to win. Many posters in this forum will simply turn around and say that anyone who is winning could easily be taking advantage of that culture change and thus they are getting an unfair advantage over teams who decided to stop doping, but that is a paradox because then it destroys the critical mass argument and the doping arms race just continues as it did before. For example if Team Sky are doped to the eyeballs, then why would all the other teams dope less and let them have a clear advantage? They wouldn't of course and so everyone would continue to dope completely unhindered as previously. (*Nb: some posters in this forum will then turn around and claim that some teams are protected by the UCI whereas others are not).

Either way, this scenario does not fit with the facts. It is clear that something has changed wrt to performance levels. Your graph of estimated power outputs on climbs (which looks strangely familiar I might add, yet unreferenced?) stops at 2008, however many experts in the field, including Paul Scott in the above article, have noted that climbing speeds and power outputs in the last 2yrs in particular (and everything so far this year), are down by about 7-10% from the mid 90s all the way up to 2010 or thereabouts. So did the world's best cyclists just suddenly get a bad batch of genetics and training, or has doping become less effective?

My belief is the latter. Doping has become less effective and that has occurred due to the combined efforts of many anti-doping organisations which form part of a larger and gradually becoming more powerful, worldwide anti-doping movement. If the biopassport is a complete failure, then maybe something else, such as increased surveillance by police and customs has been effective instead.

Lastly, but not least, as a scientist you know the importance of giving proper credit where it is due. The original idea which later grew into the forerunner of the biological passport system ie: using indirect measures of the effect of using PEDs to look for a doping "footprint", belongs to Robin Parisotto. He came up with this idea around 1997-1998 which is about 8 or 9yrs before 2006 in which you discuss Don Caitlin's role. Michael Ashenden then became the driving force behind the move from EPO on/off model to biological passport.

KUTGW :)
 
Mar 21, 2013
15
0
0
Thanks for all of the thoughtful insights and time taken to provide this level of feedback. Very helpful!

As an academic, development of these materials is actually a distraction from my research so I don't have time to dredge through all of the popular literature. The talk originally started as a lecture for pharmacy students in a drugs of abuse class in '05/'06 [many slides are cut from this version] and then grew and morphed to include all of the ethics & newer material. Hence, the feedback and pointers to other details is very helpful.

I've read about whether or not cycling is becoming cleaner is from Paul Scott in this article....

http://www.cyclingnews.com/features/...armstrong-case

It's clear he (and many others) have ceased talking about tackling the doping problem solely from a biological testing perspective. As you stated in your webinar, and Scott implies in his quotes, we cannot completely eradicate doping.
Thanks for this additional article and reference material. I will read and incorporate. Your other details imply the "nuclear arms race phenomenon". My opinion is the need for transparency coupled with a strong police force (WADA & all of its affiliates, eg USADA) that oversees testing to ensure compliance. --Just an opinion--

Your graph of estimated power outputs on climbs (which looks strangely familiar I might add, yet unreferenced?) stops at 2008,
I don't always state the references (my bad), but it is on the slide. [I should note that I do not use written text for these talks. Although I rehearse the material it is never spoken exactly the same twice.] Generally when I do these live I take more time with the laserpointer to go through the axes & sources. The webinar media is still a bit 'wierd' as there is not a live audience to perform to. I digress. I don't have the exact URL in front of me, but it is from sportscientists.com. Other materials from their site show up elsewhere in this version of the talk too I think.

Lastly, but not least, as a scientist you know the importance of giving proper credit where it is due. The original idea which later grew into the forerunner of the biological passport system ie: using indirect measures of the effect of using PEDs to look for a doping "footprint", belongs to Robin Parisotto. He came up with this idea around 1997-1998 which is about 8 or 9yrs before 2006 in which you discuss Don Caitlin's role. Michael Ashenden then became the driving force behind the move from EPO on/off model to biological passport.
Thank you for the pointers on this portion. I knew that I wasn't outlining the history of the development of the biological passport & apologize if it came across that way. The main point of the Catlin slide was that the biological passport was needed because it is nearly an insurmountable task due to the time and money to isolate each metabolite from the PEDs and develop tests for them. The THG story is the one I had in hand from my original lectures from 2006, and simply outlined it as a huge problem. I had to do an 11th hour stripping of about 5-10 slides detailing the entire BALCO scandal to keep the time down as it took another 5-10 minutes to critically outline drugs in MLB and then all of the backroom backstabbing in track and field ending with the syringe in the Catlin lab & then going forward to Victor Conte still being in business. Cycling was a minor player in that entire process.

Lastly, In reference to several posts regarding the prevalence of drugs in sports. Usage is pervasive throughout all sport. You need only go to the WADA statistics to see that. All of the testing procedures are not cycling specific, from an analytical standpoint. The test for EPO was [largely] designed based on the knowledge of use is cycling, but the drug was certainly in use in other sports too. It seems that anytime there is glory or money you will find PEDs. It does not matter whether it is a high school, collegiate, or professional athletics. The reality is that I could take my talk go find a few test cases from any other sport & it would still say the same basic story. To quote Mr. Mackey "Drugs are Bad, M'Kay".
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY