• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Baseball vs Cycling and Doping

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
jackhammer111 said:
HCG has absolutely no performance enhancing effects on it's own.
as an older male i have suffered diminishing testosterone level. it's normal, but i'm telling you guys, you don't have to endure it. my doctor had me trying several different things, one of which was HCG, none of which worked well, before settling on bi-weekly injections of good old fashion testosterone. (i no longer do competitive cycling)
30 seconds of reseach on HCG would have given you this from wikipedia.

"High levels of AASs (anabolic steroids) that mimic the body's natural testosterone trigger the hypothalamus to shut down its production of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) from the hypothalamus. Without GnRH, the pituitary gland stops releasing luteinizing hormone (LH). LH normally travels from the pituitary via the blood stream to the testes, where it triggers the production and release of testosterone. Without LH, the testes shut down their production of testosterone. In males, hCG helps restore and maintain testosterone production in the testes by mimicking LH and triggering the production and release of testosterone."

HCG simply stimulates the production of your own testosterone.

also, "If hCG is used for too long and in too high of a dose, the resulting rise in natural testosterone will eventually inhibit its own production via negative feedback on the hypothalamus and pituitary".

it's ban in sport is simply because it's only benefit in an athetete is help coming out of a steroid cycle, not because of a performance benefit. if you are caught using HGC you are caught using anabolic steroids.

if you have any information contrary this please point me to it.

i hadn't heard about lance and high HGC related to cancer but it makes sense. the cancer connection is addressed on the wikipedia page.
but, again, there's no performance advantage.
maybe the lance bashers think he gave himself cancer to cover the HGC in his blood?
some think that his advantage came from eating babies during the off season.

so anyway, that stuff you said about "Using steroids can deplete the bodies natural production of HCG" is just flat completely wrong. there is no natural production in males of HGC. that is what makes it an easy call if its' found.

Whoops, I just saw that this thread had come back to life. Yes you are correct Jack, I meant to say "testosterone" where I put in "HCG" in that last quote you made of mine. HCG is then used to restart the bodies testosterone production cycle after using steroids as it's the testorone production that is inhibited by the steroid taking.

As far as LA eating babies I have no comment - the only point as to him was that he had hugely high HCG readings as a result of his testicular cancer (as all testicular cancer victims have) and yet he didn't test positive for it in the UCI tests, which in many peoples' minds may make the accuracy of those tests suspect.
 
jackhammer111 said:
my point is that your point is crap. :)
it is not easily fixed. it is very hard to fix sports outcomes and it's rare, and you make no rational argument that pro sport should be disparaged as "just entertainment" as though it were the WWE.
i'm accusing you of making your argument based on facts not in evidence.
you claim a washington coach bet against his team using the point spread. i don't find any evidence that that is true. if you do, then trot it out.
you claim an nba official called games the way he was told. i find no credible evidence of that being true.
if your opinions are based on things that are in fact not actual, they have no value.
i made no claim that sport, or anything for that matter, is pure. even the soap box derby had a cheating scandal that i know of.
i was originally commenting on someone's blanket condemnation of sports on some kind of purity grounds.
i was making the point that such a condemnation is unjustified.
i stand by that.[/QUOTE

You wasted a lot of words trying to make a point that still has not been made. Oh well. There must be a place for you on cable faux news. By the way, in all your surfing, have you found the college football coach I was talking about or did you give up?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
elapid said:
While not the same kettle of fish, the post-TdF crits are definitely fixed. The TdF podium finishers always win and these guys are no crit riders.

i'm not clear on what you're talking about.
the races after the tour that the podium guys do for appearance money?
it couldn't be that if the crit riders were that good they wouldn't be crit riders would they?

one of the early bike races i saw in person, the tour de grandview here in columbus oh had a guy named mark mccormack that showed up 2 years running. riding for saturn one year and i think for colavita/sutter home the next but came alone without the team each times. he was the big fish in the small pond, using it as a training race, but, with no help, he won every race he was in. which was 3 races the first year and 2 the next. he was just that good.
it was fun to watch. some teams even worked against him. didn't matter, he just flat knew how to race more than they did. sometimes he'd find another guy to hook up with and, to their advantage. and zoom to the front at just the right moment.
he know how to win.
sound like your tour podium guys?

like i said.. he was that good.
great guy too. didn't mind letting me learn from him.
when the big dogs come to town they gonna win.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
Yes, I was referring to the crits that the podium placers and jersey winners are invited to for appearance money. I think they are fixed because these guys are not crit riders. I forget Armstrong's comments about the Giro crit, but it was not positive, he doesn't like racing them, and he didn't do that well despite his cycling talents. But don't get me wrong, these post-TdF criteriums are show cases, not serious races.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
BikeCentric said:
Whoops, I just saw that this thread had come back to life. Yes you are correct Jack, I meant to say "testosterone" where I put in "HCG" in that last quote you made of mine. HCG is then used to restart the bodies testosterone production cycle after using steroids as it's the testorone production that is inhibited by the steroid taking.

As far as LA eating babies I have no comment - the only point as to him was that he had hugely high HCG readings as a result of his testicular cancer (as all testicular cancer victims have) and yet he didn't test positive for it in the UCI tests, which in many peoples' minds may make the accuracy of those tests suspect.

how do you know he had high readings if they didn't test?
or are you assuming they should have been high and yet didn't get caught.
you need proof to say these things.
let's see it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
elapid said:
Yes, I was referring to the crits that the podium placers and jersey winners are invited to for appearance money. I think they are fixed because these guys are not crit riders. I forget Armstrong's comments about the Giro crit, but it was not positive, he doesn't like racing them, and he didn't do that well despite his cycling talents. But don't get me wrong, these post-TdF criteriums are show cases, not serious races.

so if they fix them everybody is happy kind of thing. everyone gets their monies worth.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
shawnrohrbach said:
jackhammer111 said:
my point is that your point is crap. :)
it is not easily fixed. it is very hard to fix sports outcomes and it's rare, and you make no rational argument that pro sport should be disparaged as "just entertainment" as though it were the WWE.
i'm accusing you of making your argument based on facts not in evidence.
you claim a washington coach bet against his team using the point spread. i don't find any evidence that that is true. if you do, then trot it out.
you claim an nba official called games the way he was told. i find no credible evidence of that being true.
if your opinions are based on things that are in fact not actual, they have no value.
i made no claim that sport, or anything for that matter, is pure. even the soap box derby had a cheating scandal that i know of.
i was originally commenting on someone's blanket condemnation of sports on some kind of purity grounds.
i was making the point that such a condemnation is unjustified.
i stand by that.[/QUOTE

You wasted a lot of words trying to make a point that still has not been made. Oh well. There must be a place for you on cable faux news. By the way, in all your surfing, have you found the college football coach I was talking about or did you give up?

listen up smart guy. i think i make my point. that y our point about it being easy to fix sport is crap.
if you think other wise bring on your evidence.
don't just go away muttering your little cutesie boy half a$$ed insult about cable faux news.
did you bother to read all my post. i mention your mention of a washington coach and said you've given no evidence that it's true.
 
Just to clarify a point, with the Steelers-Seahawks, he was referring to Superbowl XL, which had some very questionable officiating. Even has it's own Wikipedia entry it was so bad. And fan polls on ESPN fully agreed. But that's really all they were, bad calls that possibly helped determine the outcome of the game. It's never been seriously asserted that the game was actually fixed by the league or officials. I'm not sure where Shawn is getting that.

There was actually some serious allegations made that the then Baltimore Colts threw Superbowl III, which was subsequently met with staunch denials by several Colts players.

Before Superbowl XII heading into the NFL playoffs a crazy rumor spread that the Superbowl was already set by the league, and the Cowboys would play the then cinderella Broncos, and the Cowboys would win. When they did actually play each other, and former Cowboy Craig Morton, now playing for Denver, had a monumentally horrible game, and some very questionable calls went against Denver, conspiracy theorists had a field day, saying the game was fixed. Zero actual evidence was ever shown this to be anything more than an urban legend (and both teams were the best in the NFL that year, so it was a no brainer they'd meet in the SB).

As far as I remember, Rick Neuheisel admitted to gambling, but I thought it was just on basketball?

Tim Donaghy was the NBA ref that admitted to trying to throw games. He claimed that the NBA had "company men" officiate a few games and help tilt them to make series more interesting. The only game where this otherwise absurd claim seemed highly plausible was in the 2002 West Finals Game 6 (very good link, says it all).
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
jackhammer111 said:
how do you know he had high readings if they didn't test?
or are you assuming they should have been high and yet didn't get caught.
you need proof to say these things.
let's see it.

The normal reference range for hCG is < 5 mU/mL. Lance's hCG was 109,000 mU/mL (as stated on p. 91 in Lance Armstrong's "It's Not About The Bike"). He was tested multiple times by the UCI prior to this and these values would have been elevated for at least 3-6 months prior to his diagnosis. This is, firstly, convincing evidence that the "I've never tested positive" argument means nothing; and, secondly, shows that the UCI failed to protect Armstrong's health. A few other athletes have since had their testicular cancer diagnosed early through failed hCG tests. If the UCI had done their job, then Lance would probably have never been at the brink of death with metastatic lesions in his lungs and brain.
 
elapid said:
The normal reference range for hCG is < 5 mU/mL. Lance's hCG was 109,000 mU/mL (as stated on p. 91 in Lance Armstrong's "It's Not About The Bike"). He was tested multiple times by the UCI prior to this and these values would have been elevated for at least 3-6 months prior to his diagnosis. This is, firstly, convincing evidence that the "I've never tested positive" argument means nothing; and, secondly, shows that the UCI failed to protect Armstrong's health. A few other athletes have since had their testicular cancer diagnosed early through failed hCG tests. If the UCI had done their job, then Lance would probably have never been at the brink of death with metastatic lesions in his lungs and brain.

You got it thanks - I really didn't feel like looking that up either. :D
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
elapid said:
The normal reference range for hCG is < 5 mU/mL. Lance's hCG was 109,000 mU/mL (as stated on p. 91 in Lance Armstrong's "It's Not About The Bike"). He was tested multiple times by the UCI prior to this and these values would have been elevated for at least 3-6 months prior to his diagnosis. This is, firstly, convincing evidence that the "I've never tested positive" argument means nothing; and, secondly, shows that the UCI failed to protect Armstrong's health. A few other athletes have since had their testicular cancer diagnosed early through failed hCG tests. If the UCI had done their job, then Lance would probably have never been at the brink of death with metastatic lesions in his lungs and brain.

this still smacks of conspiracy theory to me. this started with someone saying "so the either the tests themselves failed or the results were kept quiet. It was a huge scandal back then - do a search on it if you want the background."
i assumed since the word scandal is linked to the name lance on this forum that was what was meant. was i wrong?

first off. in my research, i can find no reference to hcg being naturally occurring in males at all, so i don't see how it could have a reference range. it's only natural function is in female pregnancy.
and it IS NOT A PERFORMANCE ENHANCER. and if you think it was, it must have done a pretty poor job that year give his record.

if i'm wrong on that point me to evidence.
but the fact it shouldn't be present in males at all doesn't help make your argument.

this is 1996 we're talking about. at this point lance is a rider of modest talent, completely unremarkable in world class terms.
are you saying uci had some reason for covering his blood test that far back? he was a nobody. why in the world would they do that?
he was in the Olympics too. they would have tested there too right?
my involvement in cycling does't go back that far but are you sure they ever tested for it that far back?
even if so, you're making a case against drug testers, not lance.

how can you say it has any association to the "i've never failed a drug test comment"?
if the testing was/is bad it's cycling's problem and all the lance bashing in the world won't fix that.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
jackhammer111 said:
First off. in my research, i can find no reference to hcg being naturally occurring in males at all, so i don't see how it could have a reference range. it's only natural function is in female pregnancy.

if i'm wrong on that point me to evidence.
but the fact it shouldn't be present in males at all doesn't help make your argument.

True, hCG is produced by the embryo and placenta in pregnant females. However, hCG is also produced in much smaller quantities in non-pregnant females and also males. This was shown by the following researchers:
1. Braunstein and others in their paper "Widespread distribution of a chorionic gonadotropin-like substance in normal human tissues" (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 49:917-925, 1979)
2. Stenman and others in their paper "Serum levels of human chorionic gonadotropin in nonpregnant women and men are modulated by gonadotropin-releasing hormone and sex steroids." (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 64:730-736, 1987)
3. Odell and Griffin in their paper "Pulsatile secretion of human chorionic gonadotropin in normal adults." (N Engl J Med 31;317(27):1688-1691, 1987)
4. Alfthan and others in their paper "Concentrations of human choriogonadotropin, its beta-subunit, and the core fragment of the beta-subunit in serum and urine of men and nonpregnant women." (Clin Chem 38:1981-1987, 1992).

This is why there is a reference range of 0-5 mU/mL in males. This reference range is available in both Wikipedia and the following link, amongst others: http://pathcuric1.swmed.edu/PathDemo/nrrt.htm

jackhammer111 said:
and it IS NOT A PERFORMANCE ENHANCER. and if you think it was, it must have done a pretty poor job that year give his record.

It is a performance enhancer. Most of this information is actually available on websites selling perfomance enhancing drugs. There is also a good chapter (p. 89-92) in Performance-Enhancing Substances in Sport and Exercise by Bahrke and Yesalis. This chapter is available online at http://books.google.com/books?id=nPJaTdp47mcC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=do+males+produce+endogenous+hcg&source=bl&ots=HFvA9Mefvz&sig=ystw9eVbfVQw97yckzL4tFm1dPc&hl=en&ei=p9AhSobMHpO0Mbuc5bsJ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

The following is from this chapter: "hCG increases natural testosterone levels, particularly after the long-term suppression of testosterone synthesis that results from anabolic steroid abuse."

Furthermore, DeLeo and others (Effects of human chorionic gonadotropin administration on testicular testosterone secretion during prolonged exercise. Fertil Steril 73:864-866, 2000) showed that hCG increases testosterone production because it binds to receptors on Leydig cells and these cells are responsible for the synthesis and secretion of testosterone.

jackhammer111 said:
this is 1996 we're talking about. at this point lance is a rider of modest talent, completely unremarkable in world class terms.

1993 World Cycling Champion; 1995 Clasica de san Sebastian; 1996 Fleche Wallone would all argue quite convincingly that Armstrong was not a rider of modest talent or unremarkable in world class terms prior to 1996.

jackhammer111 said:
even if so, you're making a case against drug testers, not lance.

how can you say it has any association to the "i've never failed a drug test comment"?
if the testing was/is bad it's cycling's problem and all the lance bashing in the world won't fix that.

I am not bashing Lance. I think I am being quite rational. Based on Lance's hCG levels and testimony from guilty riders like Kohl (198/200 negative samples than should have tested positive), the argument "I've never failed a drug test" is meaningless. It is just as meaningless from Lance's mouth as any other rider.

And yes, as I said previously, the fact that Lance's hCG levels were not reported, or Kohl's EPO levels, is not the fault of the athlete. That blame lies fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the UCI. They failed Lance at the time of his elevated hCG levels (because he could have been diagnosed and treated earlier with much less chance of mortality), they are failing professional cyclists that want to ride and race clean, and they are failing us the fans.
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
Visit site
Yeah Ferrari F-d with Lances hCG levels to avoid a positive or ignored the high levels because he was jacking it anyway.

Ferrari' consultation then revolved around secret masking methods. Now it seems to be centered more towards other PEDS not listed on the doping list.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
BigBoat said:
Yeah Ferrari F-d with Lances hCG levels to avoid a positive or ignored the high levels because he was jacking it anyway.

Ferrari' consultation then revolved around secret masking methods. Now it seems to be centered more towards other PEDS not listed on the doping list.

what would they be?
 
Mar 19, 2009
1,311
0
0
Visit site
There's 02 carrying stuff similar to hemopure/ oxyglobin thats in experimental phases and not banned because its not widely known to exist. Gene doping too.

Sure they blood dope with their own blood as they have since 2001 when the epo test became more widespread, but thats not the whole story. HGH, insulin or IGF-1 along with Adrenocorticotropic hormone- synacthen are not the whole of it either.

A chemist can create new anabolic steroids that are undetectable simply by tinkering with the molecular chains in a very slight manner.
Remember the roid called "The clear" Tren Acetate > It was widely used and atleast out there for a long time before it was discovered. There's a new "the clear" now! A slight "tinkering" is all it takes.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
elapid said:
True, hCG is produced by the embryo and placenta in pregnant females. However, hCG is also produced in much smaller quantities in non-pregnant females and also males. This was shown by the following researchers
This is why there is a reference range of 0-5 mU/mL in males. This reference range is available in both Wikipedia and the following link, amongst others: http://pathcuric1.swmed.edu/PathDemo/nrrt.htm

thanks for pointing that out. i see i missed the normal amount in males.

elapid said:
It is a performance enhancer. Most of this information is actually available on websites selling perfomance enhancing drugs. There is also a good chapter (p. 89-92) in Performance-Enhancing Substances in Sport and Exercise by Bahrke and Yesalis. This chapter is available online at http://books.google.com/books?id=nPJaTdp47mcC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=do+males+produce+endogenous+hcg&source=bl&ots=HFvA9Mefvz&sig=ystw9eVbfVQw97yckzL4tFm1dPc&hl=en&ei=p9AhSobMHpO0Mbuc5bsJ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

The following is from this chapter: "hCG increases natural testosterone levels, particularly after the long-term suppression of testosterone synthesis that results from anabolic steroid abuse."

i believe i said in my post that this was the main value of the test. if you are caught with it in your blood you are guilty of this, not guilty of using it to make performance levels of testosterone.

elapid said:
Furthermore, DeLeo and others (Effects of human chorionic gonadotropin administration on testicular testosterone secretion during prolonged exercise. Fertil Steril 73:864-866, 2000) showed that hCG increases testosterone production because it binds to receptors on Leydig cells and these cells are responsible for the synthesis and secretion of testosterone.

we're agreed it stimulates. it's indirect. the thing that stimulates the thing, therefore not the thing that enhances performance. it can backfire if used to create performance levels of testosterone.
from wiki:
"If hCG is used for too long and in too high of a dose, the resulting rise in natural testosterone will eventually inhibit its own production via negative feedback on the hypothalamus and pituitary."


elapid said:
1993 World Cycling Champion; 1995 Clasica de san Sebastian; 1996 Fleche Wallone would all argue quite convincingly that Armstrong was not a rider of modest talent or unremarkable in world class terms prior to 1996.

93 thru 96, how many cyclist from those years could have been said to have the same or even more promise?
if you'd have said he was about to pull of the greatest achievement in the history of cycling i'm sure people would have laughed you off. that's my point.

elapid said:
I am not bashing Lance. I think I am being quite rational. Based on Lance's hCG levels and testimony from guilty riders like Kohl (198/200 negative samples than should have tested positive), the argument "I've never failed a drug test" is meaningless. It is just as meaningless from Lance's mouth as any other rider.

And yes, as I said previously, the fact that Lance's hCG levels were not reported, or Kohl's EPO levels, is not the fault of the athlete. That blame lies fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the UCI. They failed Lance at the time of his elevated hCG levels (because he could have been diagnosed and treated earlier with much less chance of mortality), they are failing professional cyclists that want to ride and race clean, and they are failing us the fans.

so what do you think the issue is? competence of testers, conspiracy to "fix" results? what?
i really really appreciate your willingness to rationally debate this with me.
i look forward to reading more from you.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Alpe d'Huez said:
As far as I remember, Rick Neuheisel admitted to gambling, but I thought it was just on basketball?

all he did was get in a high stakes ncaa basketball pool. not even a bet on a game.
to me it's an very clear example of how strict the ncaa rules are on any kind of betting by coaches.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
jackhammer111 said:
so what do you think the issue is? competence of testers, conspiracy to "fix" results? what?
i really really appreciate your willingness to rationally debate this with me.
i look forward to reading more from you.

I think the problem is the UCI. They have a conflict of interest being both the regulating body and the policer/enforcer of rules. This means that if a positive doping result may hurt the sport, or more importantly their back pockets, then they have a vested interest not to report the positive result. For similar reasons, Lance's $500,000 contribution to the UCI is judged with such suspicion.

52280805-280-75.jpg
:rolleyes:

The UCI, under the presidency of Verbruggen, was widely considered complicit in the Festina Affair in the 1998 TdF because of their alleged tolerance of doping. When you look at how prevalent doping apparently is in the peloton and the few positive tests reported each year (most cyclists seem to be caught either by someone else, such as the AFLD, or when someone is caught red-handed, such as the Festina Affair, Fuentes and Operation Puerto, and now the Austrian blood bank), it really does make you wonder either how effective are the tests and/or how committed are those that are administering the tests? Comments by McQuaid, the current UCI president, regarding Kohl's confessions are very disturbing because it shows that the UCI is not serious about doping when they will not listen to a whistleblower that seems willing to tell all. Verbruggen has previously stated that **** Pound and WADA lack objectivity, but it is the UCI that lacks the objectivity. They should continue as the administrative arm of professional cycling and leave the policing of the rules to another organization such as WADA.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
BigBoat said:
There's 02 carrying stuff similar to hemopure/ oxyglobin thats in experimental phases and not banned because its not widely known to exist.

all hush hush and on the qt eh?

BigBoat said:
Gene doping too.

no way your back ally chemist can handle that one. only high priced corporate or government or university labs have the gear to mess with that and you're talking heavy regulation and scrutiny. not to mention big bucks. not a couple of grand a pop. what do you imagine gene what therapies cost? am i wrong here? and if the answer is yes, please be specific.


BigBoat said:
Sure they blood dope with their own blood as they have since 2001 when the epo test became more widespread, but thats not the whole story. HGH, insulin or IGF-1 along with Adrenocorticotropic hormone- synacthen are not the whole of it either.

you say there's no way to detect self doping. i read there was. you'd do it to get high values right? you get kicked off of astana for having values too high. fired a rider last year for being out of range. not the only team to do so.

BigBoat said:
A chemist can create new anabolic steroids that are undetectable simply by tinkering with the molecular chains in a very slight manner.

what chemist? again.. i'd think back alley chemist not able to tinker with molecular chains. is the pharm industry in the business of the next undetectable steroid or the next epo type drugs? they helped create tests for the ones they are making.

there's no money in this for drug makers. users are using things created by big corps for medicines aren't they? i'm just not seeing a guy at pfizer tinkering for atheletes. this can't be what you mean is it. inform me. really. i want to know how this stuff happens.

BigBoat said:
Remember the roid called "The clear" Tren Acetate > It was widely used and atleast out there for a long time before it was discovered. There's a new "the clear" now! A slight "tinkering" is all it takes.

i thought the clear referred to clear testosterone gel. which is very highly ineffective btw.
sometimes i think you know what your talking about. other times i fear you know just enough to deliver very sophisticated feces of the male cow.
 
Mar 19, 2009
832
0
0
Visit site
jackhammer111 said:
i thought the clear referred to clear testosterone gel. which is very highly ineffective btw.
sometimes i think you know what your talking about. other times i fear you know just enough to deliver very sophisticated feces of the male cow.
The Clear was tetrahydrogestrinone, a so-called designer steroid. It was closely related to trenbolone.

Testosterone gel is effective for endurance athletes.
 
Good, informative posts, Elapid. Many thanks.

jackhammer111 said:
What do you imagine gene what therapies cost? am i wrong here? and if the answer is yes, please be specific.

This is a real sticky wicket. As far as I know there has only been one instance where someone was convicted of likely using Repoyxgen; German athletics coach Thomas Springstein, and Rashid Ramzi. But during the investigation no actual Repoxygen was found, and WADA stated that they have been unable to purchase it with some of their undercover investigations.

As to stem-cell gene doping, a similar situation. When talking about Pfizer, Merck, etc. you left out an entire country: China. During the Beijing Olympics there was that now infamous situation where undercover reporters posing as American swim coaches were able to find a physician willing to sell stem-cell doping at a cost. They didn't actually have the money to purchase it, thus didn't go through with the attempted sale.

No, no stem cell gene doping products were found. But we're not talking as though we're trying to prove a case to a grand jury. At least as far as I see it. We're trying to determine whether it actually exists, or not, or if and when it will.

you say there's no way to detect self doping. i read there was.

When you say "self doping" do you mean autologous blood doping? There is no test for it. The testers measure hematocrit, and young blood cells, and file the numbers under the biological passport. Where, so far, contrary to what the UCI said the would do, no action is taken.

What did you read, btw? You now have me curious, maybe I'm confused by your question?

testosterone gel. which is very highly ineffective btw.

Joe Papp, for one, who actually used it as a professional cyclist would disagree with you. Maybe he'll come on here and verify, though I'm guess at this point he'd like to avoid the whole issue.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Alpe d'Huez said:
Good, informative posts, Elapid. Many thanks.



This is a real sticky wicket. As far as I know there has only been one instance where someone was convicted of likely using Repoyxgen; German athletics coach Thomas Springstein, and Rashid Ramzi. But during the investigation no actual Repoxygen was found, and WADA stated that they have been unable to purchase it with some of their undercover investigations.

As to stem-cell gene doping, a similar situation. When talking about Pfizer, Merck, etc. you left out an entire country: China. During the Beijing Olympics there was that now infamous situation where undercover reporters posing as American swim coaches were able to find a physician willing to sell stem-cell doping at a cost. They didn't actually have the money to purchase it, thus didn't go through with the attempted sale.

No, no stem cell gene doping products were found. But we're not talking as though we're trying to prove a case to a grand jury. At least as far as I see it. We're trying to determine whether it actually exists, or not, or if and when it will.

ok.. good point.
i'd still put it in the possible but not probable category with cycling.

Alpe d'Huez said:
When you say "self doping" do you mean autologous blood doping? There is no test for it. The testers measure hematocrit, and young blood cells, and file the numbers under the biological passport. Where, so far, contrary to what the UCI said the would do, no action is taken.

What did you read, btw? You now have me curious, maybe I'm confused by your question?

yes, autologous. i'd read what you describe. like i said. i think astana and someone else fired rider for have suspiciously high values.

Alpe d'Huez said:
Joe Papp, for one, who actually used it as a professional cyclist would disagree with you. Maybe he'll come on here and verify, though I'm guess at this point he'd like to avoid the whole issue.

my experience with gel (medical reason) was that it was a time consuming mess with little payoff. my level didn't go up much... not enough... you have to smear it on and let it dry and soak in. you have to give it time to soak in.. you don't want to sweat off and if my experience is any indication you'd have to do it many times a day to get performance lever results. since it's just testosterone in a gel, why not just inject the stuff which is what my own doctor does now... am i the only guy on here being treated for andropause?
my point only being that using gel seems like a waste of time.

like trying to make sense of what they were accusing landis of. testosterone and steroids don't give much of a short term boost and it didn't make sense that it would have been the reason for his one great ride. a shot the night before didn't make that ride. i held out for a long time because i didn't think it made sense.
but, he's riding again, and not particularly well so there must have been something even if it wasn't what they caught him on that accounted for that ride.
 
May 1, 2009
149
0
0
Visit site
jackhammer111 said:
my experience with gel (medical reason) was that it was a time consuming mess with little payoff. my level didn't go up much... not enough... you have to smear it on and let it dry and soak in. you have to give it time to soak in.. you don't want to sweat off and if my experience is any indication you'd have to do it many times a day to get performance lever results. since it's just testosterone in a gel, why not just inject the stuff which is what my own doctor does now... am i the only guy on here being treated for andropause?
my point only being that using gel seems like a waste of time.

Its not used for long term steroid like gains. its used for recovery.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/may07/may20news2 said:
Pro cyclist Joe Papp, who is serving his own two-year suspension, effective last Thursday, for a positive test for testosterone during the Tour of Turkey last summer, also testified. He provided accounts of how testosterone gel aided the recovery of cyclists during stage races like the Tour.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
elapid said:
I think the problem is the UCI. They have a conflict of interest being both the regulating body and the policer/enforcer of rules. This means that if a positive doping result may hurt the sport, or more importantly their back pockets, then they have a vested interest not to report the positive result. For similar reasons, Lance's $500,000 contribution to the UCI is judged with such suspicion.

52280805-280-75.jpg
:rolleyes:

The UCI, under the presidency of Verbruggen, was widely considered complicit in the Festina Affair in the 1998 TdF because of their alleged tolerance of doping. When you look at how prevalent doping apparently is in the peloton and the few positive tests reported each year (most cyclists seem to be caught either by someone else, such as the AFLD, or when someone is caught red-handed, such as the Festina Affair, Fuentes and Operation Puerto, and now the Austrian blood bank), it really does make you wonder either how effective are the tests and/or how committed are those that are administering the tests? Comments by McQuaid, the current UCI president, regarding Kohl's confessions are very disturbing because it shows that the UCI is not serious about doping when they will not listen to a whistleblower that seems willing to tell all. Verbruggen has previously stated that **** Pound and WADA lack objectivity, but it is the UCI that lacks the objectivity. They should continue as the administrative arm of professional cycling and leave the policing of the rules to another organization such as WADA.

i just spent some time googling the $500,000 thing.
all i find is some he said she said style stuff and then find it repeated over and over again, mainly in this forum.

how does objectivity come into it? take samples, do the tests, tell us the results.
i'm curious about all the kohl stuff but a whistleblower he's not. real whistle blowers show up with proof ready to name names.
 
Mar 18, 2009
2,442
0
0
Visit site
jackhammer111 said:
i just spent some time googling the $500,000 thing.
all i find is some he said she said style stuff and then find it repeated over and over again, mainly in this forum.

how does objectivity come into it? take samples, do the tests, tell us the results.
i'm curious about all the kohl stuff but a whistleblower he's not. real whistle blowers show up with proof ready to name names.

Verbruggen reported Lance's contribution to the UCI to Eurosport. An excerpt is included below, but similar reports can be found in the April 2005 online edition of both Pezcycling (http://www.pezcyclingnews.com/?pg=fullstory&id=3088) and VeloNews (http://velonews.com/article/7914).

Lance Armstrong has always fought to defend himself against slurs on his reputation as a clean athlete but less well known is his fight against doping itself behind the scenes. UCI president Hein Verbruggen spoke to ‘Eurosport’ and divulged that the American “gave money for the research against doping, to discover new anti-doping methods," “He gave money from his private funds, cash. He didn't want this to be known but he did it". Armstrong did not make this knowledge public and when questioned about the contribution said that “If I've donated money to the UCI to combat doping, step up controls and to fund research, it is not my job to issue a press release. That's a secret thing, because it's the right thing to do.” Eurosport.com also reports that when questioned about the amounts of money involved there followed “(Laughter) It was a fair amount. It wasn't... It wasn't a small amount of money".

I will admit I do not know the actual amount and I used the figure being reported on this forum assuming this was a known fact. Regardless, it wasn't a small amount (Verbruggen's quote) and it was a donation that the UCI should have never accepted because it is a clear conflict of interest.

The UCI does lack objectivity and its mandate presents a conflict of interest. The UCI is playing the role of government (rule makers) and policeman, while allowing the national federations to act as the local courts and the CAS as the high or supreme court. The government and police force should be separate entities because if the rules are broken but it doesn't serve the best interest of the government to pursue the guilty party, then you have a coverup. Do I have direct evidence of this? No. However, I think there is plenty of indirect evidence, including the paucity of positive drug tests from the UCI (as said previously, most positive results are from independent drug testing agencies such as the AFLD or riders caught red-handed in one of the many doping scandals), positive results that should have been reported but were not (eg, Armstrong's increased hCG levels, Kohl's EPO levels, etc), and the general lack of enthusiasm from the UCI regarding drug testing (eg, an EPO test was not introduced until 2001, a full 10+ years after the professional peloton were known to be using EPO). As more direct evidence, these are quotes from Verbruggen:

Prior to the 2000 TdF, a mere 2 years after the Festina Affair: "To use a (compulsory) blood and urine test for a cycle race such as the Tour de France would be too complicated, too hard, and too expensive."

http://www.batemansbaypost.com.au/news/national/national/sport/hard-to-keep-up-with-hein/1173442.aspx
HEIN VERBRUGGEN, former Union Cycliste Internationale president, fired a broadside at the Tour de France this week in the aftermath of three doping scandals. "Cycling should ask itself if it still needs the Tour," he was quoted as saying in the Dutch newspaper AD . "It is synonymous with doping. There are idiots in the peloton who take more risks in the Tour than anywhere else. That can't continue …" Is this the same Verbruggen who, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, accused the media of beat-ups over reports about the emergence of the drug erythropoietin (EPO) and tragic deaths of some users?

We'll see what eventuates with Kohl. I believe he is telling the truth and he will name all the names he can. I am also surprised/dismayed by the reaction of both the UCI and Armstrong to Kohl's admission, both of which stink with the UCI protecting their butts and Armstrong yet again enforcing the Omerta. If the UCI were open to constructive criticism, then they could learn when and how they are doing their drug tests incorrectly rather than ignore a valuable resource in the fight against doping.

For the UCI to be effective, they need to be transparent and distance itself from any conspiracy theories. To do this, they should continue as the regulatory body of professional cycling and handover the policing of its rules to an independent body such as WADA. However, they obviously have power issues (eg, PT vs GT fight last year) which supercede the best interests of the sport and I doubt that they would ever do the right thing and allow WADA to take over drug testing. If the conspiracy theorists are correct, then the UCI would likely be very embarrassed.