Doping in other sports?

[blackcat]

Thats an OK position to have here, but not one for the relevant authorities.

To deprive someone of their income, there has to be a legal process followed.

it would have to be a pretty distorted libertarian pov to make the case

that someone (Armstrong) deserves his position on the startline at the Superbowl. There are a million athletes stateside who want that position at the Superbowl. And all will sign away a degree of right(s) to play, when they put pen to the doping contract that they must pass analytical/non-analytical testing.

for every ambiguous doper, and Armstrong was the ambiguous doper, everyone knew he was doping, but prosecuting it to the threshold necessary, was politically untenable. he was like AIG and Goldman Sachs, too big to fail, too many interested parties, too many sponsors, too many vested interests and the politics of expedience meant a non-analytic case was never gonna get up against him.

 

[Andynonomous]

...for every ambiguous doper, and Armstrong was the ambiguous doper, everyone knew he was doping, but prosecuting it to the threshold necessary, was politically untenable. he was like AIG and Goldman Sachs, too big to fail, too many interested parties, to many sponsors, to many vested interests and the politics of expedience meant a non-analytic case was never gonna get up against him.

I have seen evidence of this "too big to fail" concept too many times in sports for it to be just an exception.

- Hein, and McQuaid protected Armstrong,
- Carl Lewis was protected when he failed a test,
- The Nadal's complained to the ITF about the French authorities (AFLD) doing supplemental testing during the 2009 Roland Garros. There has been no supplemental testing since.
- Andre Agassi being protected by the ATP after failing a test.

I actually suspect that this is the norm. Once a player gets big enough, they WILL protect him. We should not expect that the body that promotes the sport, will ever do a good job of catching the cheats.

 

[Franklin]

right, we aint depriving anyone liberty.

And then today Germany is pushing a law to give dope offenders jailtime

and it is just a conversation on doping.

In this case, no. I commented on Hitch's remarks about the Anti-doping system. It was not about the forum.

And in the end it's just a position of morality. There's all kinds of wrong with "guilty untill proven innocent". To wit:

Historically lower class citizens are more violent. Hence when we suspect a "plebeian" he's guilty until he/she proves himself innocent? So straight into the slammer or pay that fine! If you can clear it up afterward you get a "sorry" and a refund

Doping is never so bad that I'm not going to fight a change like that tooth and nail.

 

[blackcat]

And then today Germany is pushing a law to give dope offenders jailtime



In this case, no. I commented on Hitch's remarks about the Anti-doping system. It was not about the forum.

And in the end it's just a position of morality. There's all kinds of wrong with "guilty untill proven innocent". To wit:

Historically lower class citizens are more violent. Hence when we suspect a "plebeian" he's guilty until he/she proves himself innocent? So straight into the slammer or pay that fine! If you can clear it up afterward you get a "sorry" and a refund

Doping is never so bad that I'm not going to fight a change like that tooth and nail.

i am not for jail.

i am not even for putting millar in the slammer in biarritz to make him talk. nope, that is some french fu cked up $hit

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Swedish-kenyan marathon runner Isabellah Andersson was offered doping while training in Kenya.

In order to prepare the best possible way before the marathon has Isabellah Andersson been in Kenya for a month and practiced. On the spot, she was called by the man who offered her doping.

- He talked to me and told me how they do and who uses, I was shocked. I was disappointed, but try to forget it, says Andersson and are worried about the doping problems in Kenya.

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/gruppsida.aspx?programid=179&grupp=6592&artikel=5876814

She's been rather outspoken.

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=980852&postcount=4

 

[Hawkwood]

i am not for jail.

i am not even for putting millar in the slammer in biarritz to make him talk. nope, that is some french fu cked up $hit

As bit off the point but... A couple of years ago I was watching an episode of the French police series Spiral, it featured cops complaining that the law had been changed so that suspects were allowed to have a solicitor present while be questioned, bear in mind this was set in contemporary France. I was a bit surprised as this was the case in the UK decades ago, but when I checked it out I found it was true see: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/18/french-police-custody-rules-reformed.

 

[the sceptic]

BBC Sport ‏@BBCSport

American Justin Gatlin wins the 100m at the #DiamondLeague in Eugene, beating fellow Amercian Michael Rodgers with a time of 9.76secs

I wonder if everyone would be so certain he was doping if it was a brit doing this. Or Froome.

 

[sniper]

what makes me laugh is that german tv won't show cycling but continues to show the olympics, athletics and its football programme which has been well known for its suspicious doping.

Good point, but it doesnt mean it wasnt the right decision. Just not very consistent

 

[Benotti69]

screams doping

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/may/31/great-britain-commonwealth-games-marathon-steve-way

 

[blackcat]

screams doping

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/may/31/great-britain-commonwealth-games-marathon-steve-way

Sam Stodurs arms are growing by the day. It is like a popeye erection in her arms

 

[King Boonen]

It's not doping but FIFA are making the UCI look like a "Monkey F**** a football"...

 

[Dazed and Confused]

It's not doping but FIFA are making the UCI look like a "Monkey F**** a football"...

UCI was (is?) just as bad, just operating with a much smaller budget. Waves smaller.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

screams doping

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/may/31/great-britain-commonwealth-games-marathon-steve-way

“Part of me can’t quite believe how well I did in London because of the improvement I made,” he says. “But I also think I didn’t actually give it 100% because I recovered so quickly and my legs didn’t feel like I had put them through much.”

Pretty sure Michele Cound was saying very much the same thing about Chris Froome after his 2012 Tour.

 

[Andynonomous]

screams doping

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/may/31/great-britain-commonwealth-games-marathon-steve-way

That can't be healthy.

Not only is that high mileage bad for the joints, but you can damage your heart as well.

Add in the effects of PEDS, and he might not be extending his life by as much as he thinks.

 

[Fagniniwins]

screams doping

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/may/31/great-britain-commonwealth-games-marathon-steve-way

"Today's idiot master skinny doper?"

 

[FoxxyBrown1111]

Good point, but it doesnt mean it wasnt the right decision. Just not very consistent

If they were consistent, they´d skipped the whole program (sports, business, politics. showbiz) and give our money back we are forced to pay...

 

[Catwhoorg]

That can't be healthy.

Not only is that high mileage bad for the joints, but you can damage your heart as well.

Add in the effects of PEDS, and he might not be extending his life by as much as he thinks.

That (preliminary) study has been pretty much discredited.
Most "heart damage" form endurance sports is very transient and heals quickly, leaving the heart stronger.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

That can't be healthy.

Not only is that high mileage bad for the joints, but you can damage your heart as well.

Add in the effects of PEDS, and he might not be extending his life by as much as he thinks.

As Catwhoorg said, here's more to debunk that myth:

http://www.runnersworld.com/health/will-running-too-much-kill-you

 

[Andynonomous]

As Catwhoorg said, here's more to debunk that myth:

http://www.runnersworld.com/health/will-running-too-much-kill-you

That's NOT a scientific study. That is someone with a vested interest arguing that he doesn't believe that the studies prove that running is bad for you. He cherry picks (mostly using 20 miles per week against less than 20 miles per week, then sedentary{rather than moderate exercise} vs marathoners) to prove that running is good for you. Even he admits that "there is a limit where running too much is probably bad for you".

Here is another recently released study that backs up that "preliminary and discredited myth".

 

[More Strides than Rides]

That's NOT a scientific study. That is someone with a vested interest arguing that he doesn't believe that the studies prove that running is bad for you. He cherry picks (mostly using 20 miles per week against less than 20 miles per week, then sedentary{rather than moderate exercise} vs marathoners) to prove that running is good for you. Even he admits that "there is a limit where running too much is probably bad for you".

Here is another recently released study that backs up that "preliminary and discredited myth".

He doesn't cherry pick, he uses the original study and its parameters for measurement. He casts doubt on the assumptions made

...why were these researchers even considering the idea that runners who do more than 20 miles a week die earlier than those who do less than 20 miles a week? There are three main pieces of evidence that people cite:...

The first piece of evidence is not based on data ("I don't have much to say about the O'Keefe pieces, because there's no actual data associated with them." he quotes someone else saying "The interpretation of the data provided in the review by O'Keefe et al is misleading, particularly given the response of the authors of the original data.")

Next, the original research's citation of an ACSM study "... suffers from a serious error in statistical analysis: the failure to distinguish between confounding variables and mediating variables."

Regarding that third piece of evidence:

if you dig a little deeper, you'll find a small sub-analysis where they looked at the effects of how long and how fast the subjects ran. And sure enough, they found a U-shaped relationship, in which the best outcomes accrued to those who ran less than 2.5 hours a week at a slow pace. But there's a catch: only about 10% of the subjects were joggers, and they didn't start asking questions about quantity and pace of running until the later years of the study. Why does this matter? Well, take a look at the numbers for mortality versus jogging pace: in the group that reported their subjective jogging pace as "slow," there were 3 deaths out of 178 people; in the "medium" group, there were 12 deaths out of 704; in the "fast" group, there were 5 deaths out of 201. These are very small numbers. It may turn out that the effect was real ? but if one slow jogger had been hit by a bus sometime in the last few decades, the mortality rate for that group would have jumped by 33% and we'd be talking about the "dangers" of slow jogging!

You're right, its not a scientific study. Lets call it peer review. The original study made faulty assumptions and it effected the design and conclusions of their work, to the extent that it is not meaningful.

Looking at your study for validity is beyond my field. I will say that the runners, with larger and stronger hearts, may have more total plaque area while having a proportional area to their sedentary counterparts. Probably. Maybe. I don't know. I'm making things up.

Either way, one study is not going to convince me that running far is dangerous. It shouldn't convince anyone. That's not the way a base of knowledge is built.

 

[Almeisan]

It's a Runner's World article using a research paper as a source.

Peer review is something entirely different. Peer review is basically meaningless for these kinds of soft research anyway. Hard to peer review something by carrying out the experiment described.

There's a couple of studies out there saying something about endurance and possible heart damage. Then there's also a few about life expectancy.

If the two can be connected, the apparent temporary heart damage and the drop off of life expectancy the more you run/cycle, then you can make a case for limiting endurance exercise.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

Chael Sonnen and Wanderlei Silva, opposing coaches in "TUF: Brazil 3," got into a street brawl during filming of that TV show, ramping up interest in their upcoming coach-vs-coach fight, which is customary after every season of The Ultimate Fighter.

Except Silva proceeds to skip an OC doping control and fails to apply for his Nevada-state fighting license before the deadline. Blames it on "a big confusion" stemming from his limited command of English. So Dana "fires" him from the UFC, and replaces him on the UFC 175 card with Vitor Belfort.

But wait, there's more.

Belfort, who formerly was on TRT (and already served one suspension because of a positive drug control), was OC tested in February and his total Test was 1472, free Test >50. Definitely juiced. He claims he was experimenting with resuming TRT, and depending on the outcome, re-applying for a TUE. Except he got popped before making the application. The Nevada State Athletic Commission has yet to pronounce sentence on him, and Zuffa/UFC has stated they will abide by NSAC's decision, so he still 'technically' is on the card against Sonnen. At least for the moment.

This week Belfort's camp has released several drug test results, mostly privately administered, dating back to the February failure, with much of the non-pertinent data redacted. In the most recent test (29 May) Belfort's total Test unarguably is abnormally low, 142, so he does appear to have a legitimate medical reason for the TRT (which is a different argument from its legality within the UFC or NSAC).

But what caught my eye was that on the previous (privately administered) test (15 May), his Test still was low (165) but his Hematocrit was "Out of Range." The number was redacted but because the form has a separate column for "Out of Range" scores, you still can see it was an abnormal result. HCT was not listed on any of the other test results, but I think it was a HUGE blunder to post this information online. Instead of scratching it out with a Sharpie, the smart thing to do would be blank out the result with Photoshop. Granted, it could have been an abnormally LOW score, but I don't think he would be training very effectively if both his Test and his HCT were low. I'm thinking it HAD TO BE high. Which begs the question, has EPO made its way to MMA?

But wait, there's more.

Yesterday, the UFC announced that Chael Sonnen also had failed an OC control. He tested positive for Anastrozole and Clomiphene, neither of which is normally considered a PED, but both are anti-estrogenic. Sonnen also previously had been on TRT, and he claimed he was taking these meds to "wean" himself off the TRT. It sounds logical to take anti-estrogens to offset the loss of supplemental Test, except he confessed to have been taking Clomiphene and HCG, apparently before he saw the test results. He didn't say anything about the Anastrozole, which is used to treat breast and ovarian cancer. And AFAIK, he hasn't yet tested positive for HCG. Oops.

So Sonnen now is off the UFC 175 card, too. A fight originally set up as a face-off between the two TUF coaches now has no TUF coaches because both are ineligible for drug-related reasons. And the one fighter still scheduled for that bout has at least two positives, and other suspicious results.

Is it any wonder Dana White keeps his head shaved?

EDIT:
Now Sonnen says he will appeal. Claims there should be a distinction made between using some substances OC versus on "game day."

 

[Dear Wiggo]

What a laugh. I do wonder why Dana et al signed up to the WADA ADR. Do they want to go to the Olympics?

 

[blackcat]

What a laugh. I do wonder why Dana et al signed up to the WADA ADR. Do they want to go to the Olympics?

they need to sign up for PR and marketing.

without WADA, NYtimes, Los Angeles Times, heck even USA Today and NY Post wont have an MMA beat writer, like they do for boxing, on their sport desk.

it was pure expedience, simple.

they were never gonna get traction or coverage in media. Ok, one could talk about MLB and NBA and NHL and NFL, but they already had the coverage before WADA came on the scene a decade ago, and boxing always had the traction. And they always can point to testing in their own codes and the Nevada athletic commish.

so, it is marketing, PR, so they get the media and reporting.

 

[Amazinmets73]

Anyone with any knowledge of doping in professional baseball?