Does not being on the list equate to clean?

Jul 10, 2009
918
0
0
When i think about Horner's amazing result (Imagine a 41yr old winning a Tennis major??) and Froome super-human display, I am convinced that these two guys are not using a currently recognized PED drug. How do we "legally" define a PED drug? We have a list of drugs or chemicals recognized by the governing bodies that will enhance an athlete's performance beyond the "normal". What about if there is a drug that is NOT on the list that does enhance performance, is it illegal? As far as I know no it is not illegal, but it is unethical some may argue.

The statements
"My results will stand the test of time"
"I have raced cleanly"
"I have not used an illegal drug"

Is all true. If in 5 yrs Froome and Horner's drug is banned, there is no retro, so their results will not be banned. And yes, their statements about racing cleanly is legally correct. The F and H are legally speaking the truth.

And so I would like to hear the opinion of folks in this forum about if it is alright to do something legally okay but still unfair to your competitors. Lawyers, Wall street and yes even Doctors do it daily in their operations. E.g your Doctor sending you for 20 tests, 19 of which you don't really need but the excuse"I want to cover all bases" and for each test the practice gets a nice cut. legally okay, but is it ethically right?
 
S0 of the WADA is supposed to be the catch all for new stuff

"Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (e.g drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer drugs, veterinary medicines) is prohibited at all times."

Further under S2 when discussing growth factors
"and other substances with similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s)."

Other sections have similar catch alls to cover swapping a H for a -OH and having the same sort of biological activity.


It would be very hard to have a significant biological effect from something that doesn't fall under the catch all portions of the code.

Now there may not be tests for them, and proving use would be very difficult.


There are for sure grey areas.
Caffeine for one. Known to be performance enhancing in endurance sports, but not restricted due to it being everywhere. Someone who had caffeine triggered migraines, would be at a small performance disadvantage due to ist ubiquitous use.

Oxygen, in places like the NFL, is clearly performance enhancing (or at least a "recovery aid" from anaearobic efforts), but isn't banned by their doping rules. Those low pressure tents, are allowed under the rules, and arguable of minor benefit. (I think their main benefit is to provide a legitimate cover for micro-dosing).

Paracetamol and NSAIDS is a huge grey area. Not banned, but certainly using them in the way that certain riders do, runs up against the definition of clean in my book.

Good nutrition is known to help. I certainly cannot afford a retained dietician (and would love to lose 10 lbs or so). Teams can do this, and that's an advantage, but I doubt anyone would say that's not racing clean. Bigger and better teams get better nutritional support.


So personally I see a line between clean and not clean, but it is fuzzy. Somethings which are legal don't fall into my definition of clean.
 
http://list.wada-ama.org/prohibited-all-times/prohibited-substances/

S0. Non-Approved Substances
Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (e.g drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer drugs, substances approved only for veterinary use) is prohibited.
EDIT: Too slow, bah :eek:
 
Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
Benotti69 said:
In a word. Nope

.......
It's easiest to adopt the "Rules is Rules" mindset. Something is either banned or it isn't and if it isn't then it's OK to use it. Otherwise your head just disappears up your rear-end philosophising about whether Ibuprofen should be banned or if life-saving surgery as a child should disqualify you from competition. (What is more performance enhancing than being saved from death by surgery?)
 
Jul 10, 2009
918
0
0
Netserk said:
Its a general statement, which the governing bodies cannot test for. So they do not know what to look for. No one has record on any preclinical drugs, its all proprietary information which no drug company releases. Its up to the ethics of the athlete to conform? The governing bodies are helpless not sure why this statement was placed in or how it is enforced.
 
It could easily be enforced if something came up during a search or police raid for example.

Doping isn't a criminal offense in most of the world, but evidence found could be used by the anti-doping authorities to trigger a ban.
 
jilbiker said:
Its a general statement, which the governing bodies cannot test for. So they do not know what to look for. No one has record on any preclinical drugs, its all proprietary information which no drug company releases. Its up to the ethics of the athlete to conform? The governing bodies are helpless not sure why this statement was placed in or how it is enforced.
Actually the governing bodies can test for unknowns, I do it literally everyday in my research.

As an example, if I am looking for anabolic steroid A and someone has made a minor modification to it to produce anabolic steroid B they would both likely show up in the same analysis (LC-MS). Some fairly easy analysis would tell me what it was and how it was changed.

Legal highs are constantly being modified like this.


It's also fairly easy to look for complete unknowns but it is labour intensive. But for that to be even worthwhile you are talking about drug companies risking literally billions of dollars of research just to give and athlete a boost. To say it is unlikely is overstating the fact.

You will also find many preclinical drugs are reported in the literature, they are just patented so no-one else can use them to make a profit. Any preclinical drug that goes to trial will have an analytical method designed to detect it in human samples.

A great example of this is GW501516. That was a reported in the literature in 2001. Anyone could go and make it and some people did.
 
jilbiker said:
Its a general statement, which the governing bodies cannot test for. So they do not know what to look for. No one has record on any preclinical drugs, its all proprietary information which no drug company releases. Its up to the ethics of the athlete to conform? The governing bodies are helpless not sure why this statement was placed in or how it is enforced.
All the drug companies release information on their new drugs very early. In patent applications. They get published after 18 months which will usually be before the drug is even being manufactured. If you want to know what new drugs there are, just look at patents.
 
Jun 18, 2009
1,225
0
0
Wallace and Gromit said:
It's easiest to adopt the "Rules is Rules" mindset. Something is either banned or it isn't and if it isn't then it's OK to use it. Otherwise your head just disappears up your rear-end philosophising about whether Ibuprofen should be banned or if life-saving surgery as a child should disqualify you from competition. (What is more performance enhancing than being saved from death by surgery?)
Not really. The rules are very clear on prohibited categories of drugs and/or methods (existing a future). This 'ambiguity' to which you refer really isn't there.
 
Apr 3, 2011
2,301
0
0
maybe this is a good opportunity for some kind of a dedicated "New stuff" thread, from any directtly enhancing stuff up to the holy grail of gene doping (we are all Eero Mäntyranta)
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
Wallace and Gromit said:
It's easiest to adopt the "Rules is Rules" mindset. Something is either banned or it isn't and if it isn't then it's OK to use it. Otherwise your head just disappears up your rear-end philosophising about whether Ibuprofen should be banned or if life-saving surgery as a child should disqualify you from competition. (What is more performance enhancing than being saved from death by surgery?)
That a 'substance' is not banned and therefore ok for use just leads to teams, docs, DS and riders looking for a PED to use before it becomes listed.

There is a wada rule against using anything whether on a list or not that provides a enhancement to performance.

No one is discussing life saving surgery. It is a discussion about doping and performance enhancement.
 
Jul 10, 2009
918
0
0
Benotti69 said:
That a 'substance' is not banned and therefore ok for use just leads to teams, docs, DS and riders looking for a PED to use before it becomes listed.

There is a wada rule against using anything whether on a list or not that provides a enhancement to performance.

No one is discussing life saving surgery. It is a discussion about doping and performance enhancement.
"provides an enhancement to performance.". How does one define that? It is legally not provable. If I claim my normal is 6.5Kw/Kg on gradient of 5% or greater how can you dispute that? There is no Wada code that says 6.5Kw/Kg or greater is abnormal. It is an ambiguous statement that really an half-baked lawyer will get thrown out in court.

Again the only thing that can hold in court is the all famous drug list.
 
Please read the very first thing in the WADA banned list as posted by Catwhoorg:

S0 of the WADA is supposed to be the catch all for new stuff

"Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (e.g drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer drugs, veterinary medicines) is prohibited at all times."


It does not have to be performance enhancing. Any pharmacological substance that is not approved is banned, no matter what. It could make you fall asleep after 30 minutes of riding, you'd still be banned for a doping offence.
 
Apr 3, 2011
2,301
0
0
King Boonen said:
Please read the very first thing in the WADA banned list as posted by Catwhoorg:

S0 of the WADA is supposed to be the catch all for new stuff

"Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (e.g drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer drugs, veterinary medicines) is prohibited at all times."


It does not have to be performance enhancing. Any pharmacological substance that is not approved is banned, no matter what. It could make you fall asleep after 30 minutes of riding, you'd still be banned for a doping offence.
Well, what's the definition of "any pharmacological substance"? Can be in principle any kind of food or drink (not only supplements)... and in few steps we may end up with water being not explicitly allowed, therefore banned. Not saying that "everything banned by default unless explicitly allowed" is not the way to go, requiring the pro athletes to have tested/approved everything and anything they eat/drink/breathe/inject/...
 
Jul 10, 2009
918
0
0
doperhopper said:
Well, what's the definition of "any pharmacological substance"? Can be in principle any kind of food or drink (not only supplements)... and in few steps we may end up with water being not explicitly allowed, therefore banned. Not saying that "everything banned by default unless explicitly allowed" is not the way to go, requiring the pro athletes to have tested/approved everything and anything they eat/drink/breathe/inject/...
Exactly my point which makes it a very ambiguous statement that really holds little substance. You do not need the pack of super lawyers that LA has to throw it out. Even the the definition of pharmacological is debatable. The science of drugs?? Meaning developed in scientific manner or environment? The implication if it isn't approved then it is banned is implied not stated.

The drugs that I have heard about are really not in any pharmacological labs but they are developed and produced. They are not banned and no testing will find them. Which brings me to my point again. if they cannot find them because they are not aware of them meaning they are not on the list then how will they be tagged as illegal? Reminds of the age old philosophical debate, "if a branch falls off a tree and hits the ground and no body is present, is there a sound?"
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
1
0
jilbiker said:
"provides an enhancement to performance.". How does one define that? It is legally not provable. If I claim my normal is 6.5Kw/Kg on gradient of 5% or greater how can you dispute that? There is no Wada code that says 6.5Kw/Kg or greater is abnormal. It is an ambiguous statement that really an half-baked lawyer will get thrown out in court.

Again the only thing that can hold in court is the all famous drug list.
WADA said:
:D"Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (e.g drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer drugs, veterinary medicines) is prohibited at all times."
Plenty of things can hold court. A reasoned decision for example can get you a sporting life ban. ;)
 
Jul 10, 2009
918
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Plenty of things can hold court. A reasoned decision for example can get you a sporting life ban. ;)
Agreed. I have said that this may end up being the only way to get convictions. Forget the testing and the list.
 
Wallace and Gromit said:
It's easiest to adopt the "Rules is Rules" mindset. Something is either banned or it isn't and if it isn't then it's OK to use it. Otherwise your head just disappears up your rear-end philosophising about whether Ibuprofen should be banned or if life-saving surgery as a child should disqualify you from competition. (What is more performance enhancing than being saved from death by surgery?)
Mühlegg was screwed!
 
doperhopper said:
Well, what's the definition of "any pharmacological substance"? Can be in principle any kind of food or drink (not only supplements)... and in few steps we may end up with water being not explicitly allowed, therefore banned. Not saying that "everything banned by default unless explicitly allowed" is not the way to go, requiring the pro athletes to have tested/approved everything and anything they eat/drink/breathe/inject/...
This is a joke right? Not a funny one, but a joke.
 
Jul 5, 2012
2,938
1
0
doperhopper said:
Well, what's the definition of "any pharmacological substance"? ...
King Boonen said:
This is a joke right? Not a funny one, but a joke.
It did get me thinking though King Boonen. Reminded me of this:
Scale of dragon, tooth of wolf,
Witches' mummy, maw and gulf
Of the ravined salt-sea shark,
Root of hemlock digged i' th' dark,
Liver of blaspheming Jew,
Gall of goat and slips of yew
Slivered in the moon’s eclipse,
Nose of Turk and Tartar’s lips,
Finger of birth-strangled babe
Ditch-delivered by a drab,
Make the gruel thick and slab.
Add thereto a tiger’s chaudron,
For the ingredients of our cauldron
Now if you remove the bolded final line which theoretically turns all the ingredients into a pharmacological gruel, and only ingest all the natural ingredients mentioned individually, would that trigger clause S0?

Could Dawg - adament he will never ever be caught doping and his win will stand the testament of time - be eating some natural ingredients like this recipe? Sure in the knowledge it is not covered under WADA? Is Horner now eating Turks Nose and Jews Liver instead of a hamburger and fries for his longevity?
 
An interesting loophole would be "and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use".

So if it is approved, then there is a possibility.

I would wonder if a new method has been developed. Kinda like when blood doping was developed.
 
Ripper said:
An interesting loophole would be "and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use".

So if it is approved, then there is a possibility.

I would wonder if a new method has been developed. Kinda like when blood doping was developed.
This is what I was thinking.

There was some discussion in some thread a while ago about Froome's Biharzia drug therapy giving some corollary benefit to his training afterwards in terms of blood production. Which, if true*, even if you take the illness and subsequent treatments completely at face value, open up an interesting ethical discussion.

By this S0 rule, presumably using any approved medicinal drug which isn't on the banned list (ie paracetamol) can be used by riders. So if some particular medicine was found to be helpful to training, a rider could start taking it even if they didn't have the illness (or carry on taking it longer than strictly necessary) and derive a benefit. Would that be legal? Would it be ethical?

(* I have no idea if Froome was or wasn't ill, or is or isn't doping, and bring him up here purely as a hypothetical example. . .)
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
M The Clinic 34
Similar threads
Tour de Cleans?

ASK THE COMMUNITY