Doping during childhood/early teenage years

[bigmatt24]

Can anyone speak to the feasibility/likelihood of this scenario:

-I grow up in a country where anti-doping efforts are not well organized.
-My parents want me to become an elite athlete.
-I get into my preferred sport at an early age.
-Once it is clear in what sport I am to excel, my parents begin to supplement my diet and training with banned substances (let's say, EPO).
-Through consistent training and doping, I build up a base level of fitness/ability/physical adaptation that I would not otherwise have been able to achieve.
-When I reach a level of the sport at which drug testing is de rigueur, I discontinue doping and rely on the physical adaptations achieved by doping during my formative years.
-I never test positive, and indeed I am "clean" during the entirety of my adult career in the sport.

Feasibility: Is it possible to dope during one's formative years and achieve a lasting physiological adaptation that one could not achieve without doping? Is that adaptation (more or less) sustainable during adulthood without continuing to dope?

Likelihood: Is this sort of thing likely happening now? Can we see evidence of it in Chinese athletes today? I would ask whether we saw it in East Germany a generation ago, but they certainly doped during their adult careers as well, so they probably aren't a good example.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

In India school sports is rife with doping

http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-...e-buck-nip-it-in-the-bud/Article1-799111.aspx

Doping in school sports? Had it not been for the spate of positive cases during the National School Games, no one would have noticed it. The malady, which plagued senior athletes, has today become an issue in schools and the time has come to take stern measures. This is worse than cheating in exams.
As if the dope scandal involving the nation's top women quarter-milers wasn't enough to shame the nation, school children, our future medal hopes, too have returned positive.

Even more disturbing is that another eight children, three in weightlifting and five in boxing, tested positive on Thursday for hardcore steroids and stimulants. The National Anti-Doping Agency (NADA), for now, has tested sportspersons in just three disciplines. If the future of the nation is indulging in such unlawful activities, what can we expect in the coming years?

But, are only the children to be blamed? Perhaps not. What about the coaches? What about the system in which they train? Or do we have a system at all?

Losing ground

The School Games, like the inter-varsity Games, has lost its aura. It's badly organised and is haunted by age fudging and cheating. The only way to fix the doping menace, perhaps, is by taking exemplary action against the cheats and their coaches.

Tainted athletes should not be part of any national federation or Sports Authority of India programme, at least while they are serving the ban. Schools too must start educating students on anti-doping. If not, the malaise will spread like a virus.

The authorities, like a top School Games Federation official, might say they took the drugs inadvertently. But one cannot test positive for such advanced diuretics, such as furosemide (used in heart failure), or steroids (stanozolol and nadrolone) used for muscle building, by mistake. The players have also tested positive for methylhexaneamine, the substance country's top athletes like Ashwini Akkunji, Mandeep Kaur and others took last year.

Disturbing trend

The worrying part is the disciplines in which the athletes have tested positive — weightlifting (3 out of 20), boxing (5/30) and wrestling (3/30). These are the disciplines in which India have won Olympic medals. Out of 80 samples, 11 tested positive — 14 per cent, which is higher than the national average of four. And, not to forget the states the boys come from. While the tainted wrestlers hail from Punjab, UP and Maharashtra, the lifters belong to Punjab and Delhi and the boxers from Punjab, Manipur and Maharashtra.

THE MOTIVE

It's not difficult to understand why doping has become so rampant at the school level. Not the best participate in School Games. Most of the athletes, who do well in junior nationals, become a part of the national programme or join national camps. Until now, NADA kept itself away from the School Games. And, budding athletes kept flouting the anti-doping code to win medals and secure seats in good colleges, or even find jobs in PSUs later.

It's a gamble, which used to pay off till now. Not anymore

 

[DirtyWorks]

Can anyone speak to the feasibility/likelihood of this scenario:

-I grow up in a country where anti-doping efforts are not well organized.
-My parents want me to become an elite athlete.
-I get into my preferred sport at an early age.
-Once it is clear in what sport I am to excel, my parents begin to supplement my diet and training with banned substances (let's say, EPO).
-Through consistent training and doping, I build up a base level of fitness/ability/physical adaptation that I would not otherwise have been able to achieve.
-When I reach a level of the sport at which drug testing is de rigueur, I pay for a more sophisticated program run by someone else.
-I never test positive, and indeed I am "clean" during the entirety of my adult career in the sport.

Feasibility: Is it possible to dope during one's formative years and achieve a lasting physiological adaptation that one could not achieve without doping?

I made some minor changes.

Does the name Marion Jones ring a bell? Lance Armstrong? Wonderboy's doping goes back to his junior/development years for USAC. What you are describing is the system for some sports as it exists now.

Is that adaptation (more or less) sustainable during adulthood without continuing to dope?

Probably not. It's been said a number of times by a number of different doping doctors/dealers. The response to doping varies. The story about the Chinese doctor reinforces that some athletes just don't respond.

If you can find the magic combination, then the glory is pretty long-lived, but still ephemeral. King of the World for a few weeks, then when the effects wear off, pack filler.

 

[Fortyninefourteen]

Can anyone speak to the feasibility/likelihood of this scenario:

-I grow up in a country where anti-doping efforts are not well organized.
-My parents want me to become an elite athlete.
-I get into my preferred sport at an early age.
-Once it is clear in what sport I am to excel, my parents begin to supplement my diet and training with banned substances (let's say, EPO).
-Through consistent training and doping, I build up a base level of fitness/ability/physical adaptation that I would not otherwise have been able to achieve.
-When I reach a level of the sport at which drug testing is de rigueur, I discontinue doping and rely on the physical adaptations achieved by doping during my formative years.
-I never test positive, and indeed I am "clean" during the entirety of my adult career in the sport.

Feasibility: Is it possible to dope during one's formative years and achieve a lasting physiological adaptation that one could not achieve without doping? Is that adaptation (more or less) sustainable during adulthood without continuing to dope?

Likelihood: Is this sort of thing likely happening now? Can we see evidence of it in Chinese athletes today? I would ask whether we saw it in East Germany a generation ago, but they certainly doped during their adult careers as well, so they probably aren't a good example.

Yes, and Yes.

Genevieve Jeanson admitted to having been doped as of 16 as a jr female. Doctor administered, parents 'aware' ......disaster.

 

[D-Queued]

Can anyone speak to the feasibility/likelihood of this scenario:

...

Feasibility: Is it possible to dope during one's formative years and achieve a lasting physiological adaptation that one could not achieve without doping? Is that adaptation (more or less) sustainable during adulthood without continuing to dope?

Likelihood: Is this sort of thing likely happening now? Can we see evidence of it in Chinese athletes today? I would ask whether we saw it in East Germany a generation ago, but they certainly doped during their adult careers as well, so they probably aren't a good example.

How about in professional sports in a developed country like the US?

This is absolutely done today in high school football and basketball. There are only three US states that test student athletes for steroids, and this is described as an IQ test as most can readily adapt their cycles and/or know how to flush their systems prior to a competition/test.

Yes, many forms of doping have lasting physiological adaptations (e.g. large muscles). EPO, however, is not quite the same.

One drug that is used, and that does have lasting effects, is HGH. This has been reported as one mechanism used by student athletes to increase their height and improve their vertical jump (e.g. for basketball).

Dave.

 

[Oldman]

How about in professional sports in a developed country like the US?

This is absolutely done today in high school football and basketball. There are only three US states that test student athletes for steroids, and this is described as an IQ test as most can readily adapt their cycles and/or know how to flush their systems prior to a competition/test.

Yes, many forms of doping have lasting physiological adaptations (e.g. large muscles). EPO, however, is not quite the same.

One drug that is used, and that does have lasting effects, is HGH. This has been reported as one mechanism used by student athletes to increase their height and improve their vertical jump (e.g. for basketball).

Dave.

+1 with an exception...the improvements in height, etc where why children were given HGH to begin with. That a sustained advantage in muscle development continues afterward is questionable. Look at any former body builder that ceased lifting for an answer.

 

[blackcat]

Can anyone speak to the feasibility/likelihood of this scenario:

-I grow up in a country where anti-doping efforts are not well organized.
-My parents want me to become an elite athlete.
-I get into my preferred sport at an early age.
-Once it is clear in what sport I am to excel, my parents begin to supplement my diet and training with banned substances (let's say, EPO).
-Through consistent training and doping, I build up a base level of fitness/ability/physical adaptation that I would not otherwise have been able to achieve.
-When I reach a level of the sport at which drug testing is de rigueur, I discontinue doping and rely on the physical adaptations achieved by doping during my formative years.
-I never test positive, and indeed I am "clean" during the entirety of my adult career in the sport.

Feasibility: Is it possible to dope during one's formative years and achieve a lasting physiological adaptation that one could not achieve without doping? Is that adaptation (more or less) sustainable during adulthood without continuing to dope?

Likelihood: Is this sort of thing likely happening now? Can we see evidence of it in Chinese athletes today? I would ask whether we saw it in East Germany a generation ago, but they certainly doped during their adult careers as well, so they probably aren't a good example.

This is a Jeopardy question right?

Who is Geneviève Jeanson?

double jeopardy?

 

[D-Queued]

This is a Jeopardy question right?

Who is Geneviève Jeanson?

double jeopardy?

Definitely double jeopardy. Particularly the 2x+ part...

Dave.

 

[bigmatt24]

How about in professional sports in a developed country like the US?

This is absolutely done today in high school football and basketball. There are only three US states that test student athletes for steroids, and this is described as an IQ test as most can readily adapt their cycles and/or know how to flush their systems prior to a competition/test.

Yes, many forms of doping have lasting physiological adaptations (e.g. large muscles). EPO, however, is not quite the same.

One drug that is used, and that does have lasting effects, is HGH. This has been reported as one mechanism used by student athletes to increase their height and improve their vertical jump (e.g. for basketball).

Dave.

Let's leave steroids alone for a moment. I'd like to focus on endurance-based events in this discussion, and I don't think steroids fit very well into that rubric.

I understand that EPO use by already-mature and well-trained athletes provides a benefit only as long as they continue to take it; what I'm describing is using EPO during prepubescence and early pubescent childhood to help one grow into an aerobic engine she would not otherwise have grown into. Is this theoretically possible? I take it as given that a person who continually practices a sport as one goes through puberty essentially creates an adult body adapted, to some degree at least and limited (of course) by her genetics, to perform that sport. So, can one engineer a more aerobically efficient body by "teaching" her body, as it transitions into adulthood, to ride/run/row/whatever faster than would be naturally possible?

Perhaps HGH is the best general example, rather than EPO. Whether my sport is basketball, rowing, running, or cycling, I might benefit from the use of HGH as I grow up if it helps me produce greater explosive power or allows me to exert a repeated submaximal force more efficiently. So, if I want to be able to jump higher to play basketball, I train to play basketball and take HGH. If I want to be a better sprinter (running or cycling), I train to run/ride and take HGH. Presumably, I could dose my HGH such that I don't hinder my efforts by becoming musclebound, but I can affect my muscular development such that the muscles I need to perform my sport will be better suited to it than I ever could have made them without HGH. I then discontinue using the HGH at, say, age 16 and continue to train without it as an adult. Because I used HGH when my body was maturing, I now have a higher ceiling than I could have had without using it.

 

[bigmatt24]

This is a Jeopardy question right?

Who is Geneviève Jeanson?

double jeopardy?

No, Marion Jones, Lance Armstrong, and Genevieve Jeanson don't exemplify what I'm talking about, because they continued to dope even after they became adults and competed against others who were doping as adults. They show how freakishly athletic one can be when one dopes as an adult, but not what happens when one dopes as a child but NOT as an adult.

 

[D-Queued]

Let's leave steroids alone for a moment. I'd like to focus on endurance-based events in this discussion, and I don't think steroids fit very well into that rubric.

I understand that EPO use by already-mature and well-trained athletes provides a benefit only as long as they continue to take it; what I'm describing is using EPO during prepubescence and early pubescent childhood to help one grow into an aerobic engine she would not otherwise have grown into. Is this theoretically possible? I take it as given that a person who continually practices a sport as one goes through puberty essentially creates an adult body adapted, to some degree at least and limited (of course) by her genetics, to perform that sport. So, can one engineer a more aerobically efficient body by "teaching" her body, as it transitions into adulthood, to ride/run/row/whatever faster than would be naturally possible?

Perhaps HGH is the best general example, rather than EPO. Whether my sport is basketball, rowing, running, or cycling, I might benefit from the use of HGH as I grow up if it helps me produce greater explosive power or allows me to exert a repeated submaximal force more efficiently. So, if I want to be able to jump higher to play basketball, I train to play basketball and take HGH. If I want to be a better sprinter (running or cycling), I train to run/ride and take HGH. Presumably, I could dose my HGH such that I don't hinder my efforts by becoming musclebound, but I can affect my muscular development such that the muscles I need to perform my sport will be better suited to it than I ever could have made them without HGH. I then discontinue using the HGH at, say, age 16 and continue to train without it as an adult. Because I used HGH when my body was maturing, I now have a higher ceiling than I could have had without using it.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't think you understand the full benefits of steroids.

Anyhow, yes, taking HGH can and will produce lasting results even if you discontinue use.

It is not like your height will decrease by 8" after stopping HGH. Same with your vertical jump. You will still be able to get the soles of your feet off the floor after completing HGH 'treatment'.

Dave.

 

[bigmatt24]

+1 with an exception...the improvements in height, etc where why children were given HGH to begin with. That a sustained advantage in muscle development continues afterward is questionable. Look at any former body builder that ceased lifting for an answer.

The former bodybuilder example is not a good one. Obviously, one will lose fitness of any sort if one stops training, and that's what happens to former bodybuilders, just as it happens to former cyclists. While there may be some lasting adaptation from drug use in former bodybuilders, it is obscured by the fact that the person's body is no longer that of an elite athlete (or "performer," if you prefer, for bodybuilding).

 

[bigmatt24]

Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't think you understand the full benefits of steroids.

Anyhow, yes, taking HGH can and will produce lasting results even if you discontinue use.

It is not like your height will decrease by 8" after stopping HGH. Same with your vertical jump. You will still be able to get the soles of your feet off the floor after completing HGH 'treatment'.

Dave.

I'm quite willing to admit I don't know the full benefits of steroids. Can you say with a straight face that you do understand the FULL benefits? If so, wouldn't you please enlighten us and then explain their applicability to this specific line of discussion, i.e. how they could potentially help a kid become a world-class endurance athlete as an adult, even if he didn't use them as an adult?

 

[D-Queued]

I'm quite willing to admit I don't know the full benefits of steroids. Can you say with a straight face that you do understand the FULL benefits? If so, wouldn't you please enlighten us and then explain their applicability to this specific line of discussion, i.e. how they could potentially help a kid become a world-class endurance athlete as an adult, even if he didn't use them as an adult?

No, of course not.

But, I can state with a straight face that there are multiple juried scientific papers that demonstrate the benefit of steroids, specifically including testosterone, that benefit aerobic activities including cycling. Thus, there are more benefits to testosterone (the 'mother of steroids') than simply fast recovery from heavy exercise.

Please refer to the trustbut website where you will find a post I made that is referenced from another forum that provides links to some of these papers.

I am not an expert in the lasting effects either. But, advantages in muscle development (including fibre type) last beyond when the doping occurs.

Moreover:

1. Advancing a youth to higher levels of competition earlier will provide long lasting benefits with respect to both skill, knowledge and endurance advantages.

2. There is an aerobic capacity 'formative' age that is critical to future high levels of aerobic performance. Doping during this timeframe could logically provide longer lasting benefits.

Dave.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

Dex (dexamethasone) is given to potentially premature foetuses to speed up lung development.

It would be interesting to find a longitudinal study that tracks postnatal lung volume to see if it resulted in anything abnormal in regards to pulmonary capacity.

Start 'em young!

 

[bigmatt24]

...

I am not an expert in the lasting effects either. But, advantages in muscle development (including fibre type) last beyond when the doping occurs.

Moreover:

1. Advancing a youth to higher levels of competition earlier will provide long lasting benefits with respect to both skill, knowledge and endurance advantages.

2. There is an aerobic capacity 'formative' age that is critical to future high levels of aerobic performance. Doping during this timeframe could logically provide longer lasting benefits.

Dave.

This is the bit I am interested in. You seem to be agreeing with my proposition that one can engineer one's physique to maximize potential as an endurance athlete by doping during the formative years.

You bring up another point that I hadn't considered: being an unnaturally good cyclist (or rower, or whatever) and competing at an unnaturally high level might have the additional effect of developing advanced skills (e.g. bike-handling) beyond what a teenager would normally achieve. So, 16-year-old racers would cause fewer crashes. That's a justification for doping I can get behind.

 

[D-Queued]

This is the bit I am interested in. You seem to be agreeing with my proposition that one can engineer one's physique to maximize potential as an endurance athlete by doping during the formative years.

You bring up another point that I hadn't considered: being an unnaturally good cyclist (or rower, or whatever) and competing at an unnaturally high level might have the additional effect of developing advanced skills (e.g. bike-handling) beyond what a teenager would normally achieve. So, 16-year-old racers would cause fewer crashes. That's a justification for doping I can get behind.

Yes, this (engineering one's physique and capacity for that matter) seems both logical and to be in practice. In fact, the GDR program focused on exactly this.

As for the crashes, sorry, I cannot help other than to suggest avoiding squirrels.

Dave.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

This is the bit I am interested in. You seem to be agreeing with my proposition that one can engineer one's physique to maximize potential as an endurance athlete by doping during the formative years.

You bring up another point that I hadn't considered: being an unnaturally good cyclist (or rower, or whatever) and competing at an unnaturally high level might have the additional effect of developing advanced skills (e.g. bike-handling) beyond what a teenager would normally achieve. So, 16-year-old racers would cause fewer crashes. That's a justification for doping I can get behind.

Haha! Yup, crank 'em up so they crash less. Doping should be legal!

The young super-studs I've known actually crashed more than average. They had the power and the will to get into dicey situations, and had the adolescent b*lls to go for it (feeling invincible and all).

 

[Oldman]

The former bodybuilder example is not a good one. Obviously, one will lose fitness of any sort if one stops training, and that's what happens to former bodybuilders, just as it happens to former cyclists. While there may be some lasting adaptation from drug use in former bodybuilders, it is obscured by the fact that the person's body is no longer that of an elite athlete (or "performer," if you prefer, for bodybuilding).

My point probably wasn't clear as I was referring to residual benefits. A bodybuilder that had used HGH and attempted to restart a career without it would not regain that form. This, in the context that certain substances admininistered at youth would provide a lifelong benefit. I'm no geneticist but, aside from whatever growth in stature that a child would gain from HGH; the accompanying muscle tissue developed through extensive training would not be a given without additional HGH use in adulthood. Am I wrong?

 

[TylerDurden1]

The body would adapt and it would stop producing testosterone, growth hormones etc at a normal level....
So then when the athlete stops using, their testosterone and hormones production would Not be at a normal level because the system would be jacked by the use of PEDs.

I heard an interview a while back where Jose Canseco said that he will have to be on testosterone replacement therapy for the rest of his life; he gets shots every week.

 

[MrRoboto]

In most cases the body goes back to producing hormones and such at a normal level after a short period of time. But if you grew up on the stuff, it seems very possible that the body will react differently if you quit the stuff.