Doping in other sports?

[Tyler'sTwin]

Are you seriously telling me that you don't think that track and field has a drug problem?

And by the way, the marathon world record has gone down by more than 8 minutes since 1964.

No, what gave you that idea? I am seriously trying to tell you that I do not think that the study showing a 54% increase in TTE at 80% of VO2 max in trained joes is very relevant.

Yes, and the white guy WR has dropped by little more than 2% since 1967.

Not sure why people just didn't grab some stats to settle the matter.
All stats from 2009.

UCI. Cycling- OOC 9080, In Competition 6042. Total = 15122.
FINA Swimming- OOC 1196, In Competition 889. Total = 2085.
ITF, Tennis - OOC 154, In Competition 1972. Total = 2126.

One word of caution with the cycling stats is that it includes samples that only go towards the Biological Passport.

But getting back to the point of which sports are better/worse?
It is almost impossible to say - Cycling has used various products throughout its history, most to numb the pain.
But it wasn't until the 80's that sports started to be properly examined by physiologists who studied the sports and tailored training, this was quickly followed by the scientists. Ultimately all sports can benefit from PEDs so all will have their doping.

I believe the FINA and ITF numbers are samples collected while the UCI numbers are tests carried out. They are still way behind though.

 

[Zinoviev Letter]

No, what gave you that idea? I am seriously trying to tell you that I do not think that the study showing a 54% increase in TTE at 80% of VO2 max in trained joes is very relevant.

So your argument is that EPO does not in fact give dramatic performance gains?

Nobody is suggesting that the top athletes in the world get a 54% increase in endurance. With every effective substance that we know of, the advantage diminishes as you move up through different quality levels of athletes. What the statistic does tell us, beyond any doubt, is that the gains available are dramatic and are on a complete different plane to the gains available with primitive doping techniques.

Unfortunately, and for obvious reasons, nobody is ever going to be able to openly run a scientific study on a sample of the world's finest endurance athletes (although I'm willing to bet that a very large amount of data covering individual athletes is available to the doping scientists and doctors on the other side of the fence).

Note also that the study was for fit athletes who were given a simple four week course of EPO. A modern, tailored, scientifically designed doping programme is vastly more sophisticated than that and involves a quite bizarre cocktail of different substances.

If you seriously doubt that drastic endurance gains are possible with the use of EPO, I can only ask if you've ever actually watched the sport of cycling? You know, the sport this forum is based around discussing?

Yes, and the white guy WR has dropped by little more than 2% since 1967.

I have no idea why you think "the white guy" record is at all relevant. It's an attempt to find one particular record to cherrypick. If you look hard enough you can probably find that there's been little improvement in the 10,000 meters record for athletes of betwen 6 foot 1 and 6 foot 3. Or in the Finnish national shotput record.

By the way, the marathon record was held by an Ethiopian in 1964.

They are still way behind though.

154 out of competition tests.

 

[D-Queued]

Not sure why people just didn't grab some stats to settle the matter.
All stats from 2009.

UCI. Cycling- OOC 9080, In Competition 6042. Total = 15122.
...One word of caution with the cycling stats is that it includes samples that only go towards the Biological Passport.

But getting back to the point of which sports are better/worse?
It is almost impossible to say - Cycling has used various products throughout its history, most to numb the pain.
But it wasn't until the 80's that sports started to be properly examined by physiologists who studied the sports and tailored training, this was quickly followed by the scientists. Ultimately all sports can benefit from PEDs so all will have their doping.

Answering my own question:

UCI Tests 2006/2007 vs 2008/2009 (Passport announced in 2007, initiated in 2008)

Total Tests
2006: 5,570
2007: 6,968

2008: 12,758
2009: 15,699

This suggests that roughly half of the UCI tests are related to the Blood Passport. And, most of the passport tests are blood tests - meaning that the potentially most useful tests are not that useful.

And here is the report on the Passport:

The original UCI goal/plan was for 10 blood tests and 4 urine tests for a total of 804 ProTeam, Contenintal and Peloton riders in 2008 and 848 in 2009. Thus, this would be 11,872 Passport planned tests in 2008. The actual number of (Passport) tests conducted - according to the UCI - was 8404. Thus, non-passport tests would have actually decreased by one-third from 2007 to 2008.

Notably: the UCI was both UCI is the Testing and Result Management Authority for 48.6% of the in-competition and pre-competition tests (wonder why nobody got caught - they are still in charge of the testing). The UCI's involvement in the OOC tests is much smaller.

Based upon the actual number of tests conducted, either the UCI missed its goal considerably or they reduced the actual doping tests considerably - or both. Either way, based upon the number of positives that have been detected and the dopers that have been detected with CERA, Clen, etc., tests, the Passport is looking ever the more like a veil.

Finally, with only '51' in competition blood tests and '4' out of competition blood tests in 2006, it looks like the UCI was not getting much value out of that donation from Lance for blood test equipment. Apparently that equipment was gathering dust. Unless, of course, it is being used for other purposes. The equipment that is.

In terms of which team was tested the most... doesn't look like it was RadioShack or Astana:

Rabobank releases details of 2009 doping controlsThe total of 484 tests included 304 urine tests and 180 blood tests

Most (all?) of these were for Passport.

Dave.

 

[Maxiton]

This is so amazingly relevant that the white guy marathon world record from the 60's has only been improved by a measly 2%.

No, what gave you that idea? I am seriously trying to tell you that I do not think that the study showing a 54% increase in TTE at 80% of VO2 max in trained joes is very relevant.

Yes, and the white guy WR has dropped by little more than 2% since 1967.



I believe the FINA and ITF numbers are samples collected while the UCI numbers are tests carried out. They are still way behind though.

I've been following this thread with interest. I was stopped dead in my reading, however, by the repeated references to "white guy marathon" and "white guy world record." WTF? I don't get it. Please explain.

 

[Maxiton]

The drug culture in the early adopter sports - of which cycling was a very notable example - started earlier and became widespread at an earlier point. Weightlifting, track and field, cycling, nordic skiing, these are the kinds of sports which served as breeding grounds for serious, organised doping. And for fairly obvious reasons: They are all sports centrally about pure ability in particular athletic feats.

These kind of sports are where the techniques were developed and where the infrastucture of modern doping was first built. But these sports are not hermetically sealed. And in particular, as the effectiveness of doping radically improved, its attractiveness in sports where feats of strength, speed, endurance or recovery are mediated by factors like skill, coordination etc, also improved.

The kind of improvements which a handful of amphetamines could give a cyclist simply were not that important or useful to a footballer. The kind of improvements which a modern, medically-crafted, doping programme can give on the other hand (or even just a course of EPO administered yourself) are an altogether different matter. There is almost no major sport where an athlete on a modern, carefully administered, doping programme isn't going to be at an enormous advantage*. Tennis, boxing, football, NFL, etc etc. And that's where the two issues some of us have been talking about since the start of this thread kick in: Potential rewards versus the chance of being caught.

There is a mistake being made in this discussion by some people, centrally a confusion between the order in which doping became prevalent in different sports and the current prevalence of doping in particular sports. It is absolutely correct to say that a number of early adopters sports got there first. But the modern doping programme, the doping doctor, the wonderdrugs, are those sports' gift to the wider sporting world. And in my view, pretty much all major sports were very eager to unwrap the present and play with the shiny new toy within.

This isn't just speculation. We actually know that the very same magic doctors who developed their trade in cycling, perhaps alongside track and field or swimming or some other early adopter sport, rapidly went on to work with athletes and teams in other sports. And why wouldn't they? That's where the real money is, and the risk of some ingrate getting caught and fingering you is close to zero in most sports.

We also know that the clinics filled up with athletes from across the world of sports and that major teams in the big money sports took ex-cycling doctors on as team doctors just as cycling teams had before them. And again, why wouldn't they? Doping demonstrably works. The rewards for success are astronomically higher than in niche sports like cycling or weightlifting. The chances of being caught are nearly infinitessimal.

Why are the chances of being caught so small? That's also a product of history. Some of the early adopter sports got caught up in scandals and this forced the hand of their governing bodies. They couldn't getting away with simply ignoring the problem or declaring that it didn't exist. They didn't increase the effectiveness of their testing programmes out of moral courage or a shining devotion to pure competition. Commercial factors forced their hand and they don't like it one little bit.

But those same commercial factors operate in the other direction in sports where there has been no huge scandals as of yet. The no less self-interested governing bodies of other sports took a lesson from the commercial calamities which befell cycling and to a slightly lesser extent track and field and it was that major scandals must be avoided at all costs. There is pretty much nothing worse that could happen to a major sport from a commercial point of view than catching a swathe of its biggest stars doping. So they don't catch a swathe of their big stars doping.

Some people might think that's because athletes and federations are basically more moral in other sports, and that teams in big money sports would eschew a nearly risk free path to a huge competitive edge out of the goodness of their hearts. The rest of us are more likely to think that its because every effort is made to avoid catching that fatal batch of stars. That the odd unlucky or stupid athlete still manages to get caught in those sports is the more surprising thing from my perspective.

*This point cannot be emphasised enough. A modern doping programme will give an almost unbelievable performance advantage to a footballer, or a tennis player or a boxer. A single four week course of EPO alone will increase the time for which a fit person can sustain 80% of maximum effort by 54%! That is a transformative change. The old line that doping isn't a major problem in sport X because no amount of dope will make a clogger into a player of majestic skill wasn't always a stupid position to take. In fact, it was mostly accurate at a certain stage. Doping does have a longer history in sports where pure athleticism is relatively more important than particular skill. But it is a stupid position to take now, in the face of the transformative effects of modern doping.
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007/11/effect-of-epo-on-performance-who.html

Bravo. As clear and convincing an explication as any I've seen. This really is some seminal stuff about doping in sport. And you'll notice no one's even tried to address or refute it.

 

[AnythingButKestrel]

triathlon without a doubt. Particularly in the Ironman length events.

Particularly in any event *everywhere*. "Hormone replacement" is huge in Tri. Even the sandlot races are doped to the gills - all in the name of Monday morning water-cooler bragging rights.

There's two classes of athletes these days: dopers and chumps.

 

[D-Queued]

Bravo. As clear and convincing an explication as any I've seen. This really is some seminal stuff about doping in sport. And you'll notice no one's even tried to address or refute it.

Is it imperative that an argument be made? Why?

Please note that the most powerful part of Zinoviev's post is a quotes from a source that I was ridiculed for by the three-headed-beast.

First of all half if not more of the quotations you post deal with the past.

...

Me, Maxiton and Zvinoviev letter have presented the case why we believe the contrary to be true. Time for you to step up and make your case.

But, if it is imperative that someone argue with Z (and you and Hatch), I don't mind taking on the Sisyphean.

...

The kind of improvements which a handful of amphetamines could give a cyclist simply were not that important or useful to a footballer. ....

.... But the modern doping programme, the doping doctor, the wonderdrugs, are those sports' gift to the wider sporting world. And in my view, pretty much all major sports were very eager to unwrap the present and play with the shiny new toy within.
...

To suggest that:
1. Amphetamines only provide pain-killer effect
2. Amphetamines would not be useful for a footballer

Is, well, is naive.

At best a half-measure. It is simple rhetoric that conveniently packages a half-truth to support an argument while avoiding a deep understanding and appreciation of the whole truth.

Perchance, of course, that footballers never get fatigued, and would not seek out any benefit?

From Dying to win:

Use (of amphetamines) was especially high among football players who, in the 1970s had replaced cyclists as the groups of athletes giving greatest cause for concern..."

Ok, cyclists get an asterisk for using amphetamines before football - that that should shatter the argument that footballers simply were waiting for EPO. And, as we shall see, cycling was not the first adopter of amphetamines.

Now, what about the pain killer argument? Aren't pain-killers downers while amphetamines are uppers?

From 1981 (i.e. before the miracle of modern drugs)The amphetamine margin in sports
The amphetamines can enhance athletic performance. That much seems clear from the literature, some of which is reviewed here. Increases in endurance have been demonstrated in both humans and rats. Smith and Beecher, 20 years ago, showed improvement of running, swimming, and weight throwing in highly trained athletes...since a fraction of a percent improvement can make the difference between fame and oblivion, the margin conferred by these drugs can be quite important

And, were other sports - like baseball and football - really sitting back and waiting for the miracle of EPO? Were these sports really not using amphetamines broadly?

Central nervous system stimulants
Major sports abusing amphetamine are cycling, American football, ice-hockey and baseball

For decades, amphetamines — "speed" on the street — have helped baseball players face the rigors of their sport...
Greenies, a nickname coined by ballplayers because of the color of the pills, were introduced to the game in the 1940s

Hmm. The 1940s?

Perhaps it was baseball that taught cycling then, and not the reverse? When did cycling start using amphetamines? 1950s wasn't it?

I agree with you M, along with H & Z. Other sports learn from cycling. And cycling appears generally a first adopter.

But, I disagree that sports like baseball and football are not also early adopters. History suggests otherwise.

And, there have been plenty of scandals over the years. With baseball and football it is hard sometimes to delineate whether it is coverup from the league or whether the fans just don't care.

Apparently the fanboy wasn't invented by cycling either.

Dave.

 

[Hawkwood]

I've posted this before, so sorry for repeating it. I was at a sports college from 1979 to 1981. One of my mates played rugby for the college team, he told me that he took amphetamines before every game to increase his agression. I've got no idea whether this was widespread or not, but it suggests another reason for the taking of amphetamines in certain sports.

 

[D-Queued]

I've posted this before, so sorry for repeating it. I was at a sports college from 1979 to 1981. One of my mates played rugby for the college team, he told me that he took amphetamines before every game to increase his agression. I've got no idea whether this was widespread or not, but it suggests another reason for the taking of amphetamines in certain sports.

Along those lines: In the NFL apparently they were mitering the dose depending on the position played. Receivers receives less, linesmen received more.

On speed: the many lives of amphetamine

Older players generally took higher doses... players were taking the drug for three distinct purposes... Quarterbacks, wide receivers and defensive backs were taking a low 5-10 mg dose... alertness and decisiveness... At the other extreme, defensive ends and defensive tackles ... were taking 50-200 mg ... the quantity a hardened speed freak would take... Offensive backs and linesemen... 15-45 mg...

Brand NFL: making and selling America's favorite sport

"Drugs fueled players and kept them on the field. "Pep pills" had been around for decades. Johnny Blood, the NFL's wild man of the 1930s, claimed to have been the first to use them, in 1935. But drugs in sport did not become a scandal until 1969, through a three-part investigative series by Bil Gilbert in Sports Illustrated...

Dave.

 

[TubularBills]

Along those lines: In the NFL apparently they were mitering the dose depending on the position played. Receivers receives less, linesmen received more.

On speed: the many lives of amphetamine

Brand NFL: making and selling America's favorite sport

"But drugs in sport did not become a scandal until 1969, through a three-part investigative series by Bil Gilbert in Sports Illustrated..."

Dave.

Bil Gilbert On Doping 3 Part Expose from SI 1969:

July 07, 1969
High Time To Make Some Rules

"Drugs can kill sport. That, one assumes, reflecting upon the filled ball parks, the jammed arenas and the sorry-no-standing-room reports from events such as the Masters, ought to be an exaggeration. But it is far from excessive to conclude that the increasing use of drugs by athletes poses a significant menace to sport, one that the athletic Establishment is assiduously trying to ignore."

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1082583/index.htm#ixzz17LKEYdoW

June 30, 1969
Something Extra On The Ball

"Athletic pharmaceutical practices are, so to speak, interdisciplinary, and perhaps the only orderly way to survey athletic drug usage and the effects of drugs on sport is to examine half a dozen or so drug families now popular."

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1082575/index.htm#ixzz17LRnvubb

June 23, 1969
Problems In A Turned-on World

"Drug usage, even more than speculation about bribery, college recruiting, spit-balls or TV commercials, raises such sticky questions about the fundamentals of sport that one can understand the instinctive reaction of the athletic Establishments: when it comes to drugs, they ignore, dismiss, deny."

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1082543/index.htm#ixzz17LKcU6nc

 

[flicker]

Is it imperative that an argument be made? Why?

Please note that the most powerful part of Zinoviev's post is a quotes from a source that I was ridiculed for by the three-headed-beast.



But, if it is imperative that someone argue with Z (and you and Hatch), I don't mind taking on the Sisyphean.




To suggest that:
1. Amphetamines only provide pain-killer effect
2. Amphetamines would not be useful for a footballer

Is, well, is naive.

At best a half-measure. It is simple rhetoric that conveniently packages a half-truth to support an argument while avoiding a deep understanding and appreciation of the whole truth.

Perchance, of course, that footballers never get fatigued, and would not seek out any benefit?

From Dying to win:


Ok, cyclists get an asterisk for using amphetamines before football - that that should shatter the argument that footballers simply were waiting for EPO. And, as we shall see, cycling was not the first adopter of amphetamines.

Now, what about the pain killer argument? Aren't pain-killers downers while amphetamines are uppers?



And, were other sports - like baseball and football - really sitting back and waiting for the miracle of EPO? Were these sports really not using amphetamines broadly?





Hmm. The 1940s?

Perhaps it was baseball that taught cycling then, and not the reverse? When did cycling start using amphetamines? 1950s wasn't it?

I agree with you M, along with H & Z. Other sports learn from cycling. And cycling appears generally a first adopter.

But, I disagree that sports like baseball and football are not also early adopters. History suggests otherwise.

And, there have been plenty of scandals over the years. With baseball and football it is hard sometimes to delineate whether it is coverup from the league or whether the fans just don't care.

Apparently the fanboy wasn't invented by cycling either.

Dave.

American six-day racer I knew used Benzedrine during the 1930s in the US six day bike races. I also think Major Taylor doped.

 

[Hawkwood]

American six-day racer I knew used Benzedrine during the 1930s in the US six day bike races. I also think Major Taylor doped.

I can't think how anyone could ride the original six day races without doping. The rules were that one member of the team had to be circling the track 24 hours for the six days. Hence the photos of them cycling round reading newspapers etc. I suspect the drugs were mainly to keep them awake.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

American six-day racer I knew used Benzedrine during the 1930s in the US six day bike races. I also think Major Taylor doped.

I think the major was a fan of bourbon and strychnine. There's a lovely cocktail...

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

I'm not American, and have never followed American sports. Thanks to the posters for educating me.

My wife's Canadian, and her whole family is hockey nuts. I've been watching a bit, and with those lugs playing such a long season and taking such a pummeling, it should be up on the list as well, no? And those guys GET PAID!

I just dragged myself through the entire thread (I could have used some EPO for that marathon), and there was no mention of NHL hockey. I recal hearing that when the IOC wanted to include the NHL pros in the Olympics there was a bit of an issue - apparently the NHL would not sign up for normal IOC testing protocols. I think they did JUST prior to the games starting (I think it was in Japan?).

I have NEVER heard of an NHL player getting popped. Never!

The money, the nature of the sport, the length of the season. NEVER!

I can't see that as even being possible.

Any North Americans have some info to help me out?

 

[workingclasshero]

re: ice hockey,,, an outsider like myself would say they're only on the ice for a minute or two at a time, then get a 10 minute break, most of them carry a bit of flab, they're not very good athletes.

however i don't doubt they're on something, but at a guess i'd say hgh and testosterone are their preferred drugs (besides recreational stuff of course)

 

[D-Queued]

I'm not American, and have never followed American sports. Thanks to the posters for educating me.

My wife's Canadian, and her whole family is hockey nuts. I've been watching a bit, and with those lugs playing such a long season and taking such a pummeling, it should be up on the list as well, no? And those guys GET PAID!

I just dragged myself through the entire thread (I could have used some EPO for that marathon), and there was no mention of NHL hockey. I recal hearing that when the IOC wanted to include the NHL pros in the Olympics there was a bit of an issue - apparently the NHL would not sign up for normal IOC testing protocols. I think they did JUST prior to the games starting (I think it was in Japan?).

I have NEVER heard of an NHL player getting popped. Never!

The money, the nature of the sport, the length of the season. NEVER!

I can't see that as even being possible.

Any North Americans have some info to help me out?

Canadians don't dope. Just ask Ben Johnson or Guy Greavette (1st international doping scandal when busted at 1983 Pan Ams - fortunately I was at the '79 games instead).

Yes, there is doping in Hockey.

Wrt amphetamines, these are believed to have contributed to hockey fighting in the 70s. Not that fighting is new, but there was even more of a goonishness during the period. Steroids are also often associated or rumored, and some recent bad guys are seen as poster children for 'roid rage. But, you are right, there is very little in the way of positives or major doping scandals.

There have been two positives for NHL players that resulted in a ban - Bryan Berard and Sean Hill.

Team-controlled/enabled doping was almost certainly present during the 40s and 50s.

The Hockey Federation almost pulled out of the Turin Olympics due to the sports doping laws in Italy that would have jailed high profile NHL players. 'An understanding was reached with IOC & Host Country.'

While most cycling forums regard Richard Pound as singly focused on the career of Lance Armstrong, Pound has been a sharp critic of NHL hockey. And his office is located in the sport's capital of Montreal (Sorry Toronto, but the Leafs actually need a realistic likelihood of ever winning the cup again in the next century or two for Toronto to be the sport capital).

Dave.

 

[Nick777]

I've been wondering in the recent year what conclusions we can draw from what we know about doping in cycling and especially about avoiding testing positive.

We know that the current tests for EPO and other substances are not close to 100% reliable since we know that riders that confessed to cheating for years at the same time tested negative many many times.

So, what does this mean for other sports? The impression I have is that a lot of other sports are no where close to as invested in anti-doping as cycling still is (despite all faults that still exist) and that there are a lot fewer tests being done but with the same methods that have proven ineffective in cycling. Are other sports just as bad or even worse than cycling except that they have a cleaner image because their athletes have an even easier time getting away with it? If so, what sports do you think are the worst?

I shudder to think of how much EPO has been used in triathlon over the past 15 years - particularly at half ironman & ironman distance. I know that a lot of pros think the same thing in private, not so much in public.

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

WADA files appeal in table tennis clenbuterol case

LAUSANNE, Switzerland – The World Anti-Doping Agency is challenging a decision that cleared Olympic table tennis medalist Dimitrij Ovtcharov of doping despite his positive test for clenbuterol....

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

So your argument is that EPO does not in fact give dramatic performance gains?

Nobody is suggesting that the top athletes in the world get a 54% increase in endurance. With every effective substance that we know of, the advantage diminishes as you move up through different quality levels of athletes. What the statistic does tell us, beyond any doubt, is that the gains available are dramatic and are on a complete different plane to the gains available with primitive doping techniques.

Unfortunately, and for obvious reasons, nobody is ever going to be able to openly run a scientific study on a sample of the world's finest endurance athletes (although I'm willing to bet that a very large amount of data covering individual athletes is available to the doping scientists and doctors on the other side of the fence).

Note also that the study was for fit athletes who were given a simple four week course of EPO. A modern, tailored, scientifically designed doping programme is vastly more sophisticated than that and involves a quite bizarre cocktail of different substances.

If you seriously doubt that drastic endurance gains are possible with the use of EPO, I can only ask if you've ever actually watched the sport of cycling? You know, the sport this forum is based around discussing?

My argument is that a study showing a 54% increase in TTE in amateurs obviously isn't a very good indicator of performance gains in elite pros, which was a response to the following quote:

A modern doping programme will give an almost unbelievable performance advantage to a footballer, or a tennis player or a boxer. A single four week course of EPO alone will increase the time for which a fit person can sustain 80% of maximum effort by 54%! That is a transformative change

...

I have no idea why you think "the white guy" record is at all relevant. It's an attempt to find one particular record to cherrypick. If you look hard enough you can probably find that there's been little improvement in the 10,000 meters record for athletes of betwen 6 foot 1 and 6 foot 3. Or in the Finnish national shotput record.

By the way, the marathon record was held by an Ethiopian in 1964.

It's not a cherrypicked record at all. It's very much a relevant distinction to make because africans have superior running economy* (this has been proven in numerous scientific studies) so you would expect them to outperform whites.
And it's not like white runners is a particularly small or clean group, is it?

I picked the marathon because that is clearly where an improvement in TTE would have the greatest effect on performance.

* Well, eastern africans anyway. Perhaps the northeners are not more efficient runners. The best performance by a northern african is about 3% better than the WR from the 60's.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

I'm not American, and have never followed American sports. Thanks to the posters for educating me.

My wife's Canadian, and her whole family is hockey nuts. I've been watching a bit, and with those lugs playing such a long season and taking such a pummeling, it should be up on the list as well, no? And those guys GET PAID!

I just dragged myself through the entire thread (I could have used some EPO for that marathon), and there was no mention of NHL hockey. I recal hearing that when the IOC wanted to include the NHL pros in the Olympics there was a bit of an issue - apparently the NHL would not sign up for normal IOC testing protocols. I think they did JUST prior to the games starting (I think it was in Japan?).

I have NEVER heard of an NHL player getting popped. Never!

The money, the nature of the sport, the length of the season. NEVER!

I can't see that as even being possible.

Any North Americans have some info to help me out?

The NHL stops testing during the play-offs and off-season.

The NBA is possibly even worse:

Under the NBA policy, NBA players face no random testing at all once they complete their rookie year. They are only tested once each year, during their one-month training camp.

The policy also fails to cover a vast number of drugs. There are literally dozens of steroids and stimulants that are outlawed in Olympic competition that are still legal for use in the NBA. The policy fails to cover performance enhancers such as human growth hormone or EPO. And it fails to cover designer steroids.

And the NBA penalties are not strong enough to provide a significant deterrent. Penalties call for only a five-game suspension for a first violation, and only ten games for a second violation. Even for a fourth or fifth violation, players are only subject to a twenty-five game violation.

These penalties stand in stark contrast to the NBA penalties for street drugs, which call for a two-year ban for a first offense for a veteran player. Since use of steroids is both illegal and cheating, this disparity in penalties makes little sense.

http://oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2258&Itemid=2

 

[D-Queued]

If it is any consolation (or for further insight), in his book 'Inside the Postal Bus' Michael Barry reports that out of competition/off-season 'Health Tests' were scheduled (!) quarterly.

The good old days when the UCI were in charge. You could probably self-administer the tests at home and mail in your own results.

OMG, your parameters are a little off here. You might want to check in with a doctor to make sure you are healthy for race season.

Dave.

 

[JMBeaushrimp]

If it is any consolation (or for further insight), in his book 'Inside the Postal Bus' Michael Barry reports that out of competition/off-season 'Health Tests' were scheduled (!) quarterly.

The good old days when the UCI were in charge. You could probably self-administer the tests at home and mail in your own results.

OMG, your parameters are a little off here. You might want to check in with a doctor to make sure you are healthy for race season.

Dave.

Is that pro or con 'the program'?

I don't want to 'p*ss on my shoes' with this one, but what do folks think about Ryder? I'd love to believe the idiot ignorance of Canadian fans, that being that 'he'd never do that, he's Canadian', but cummon... Really?

What about past teammates?

It's sort of like arguing with the rabid Aussie fans about Cadel. Once again, really? Cummon...

 

[Paco_P]

It's true that those sports depend less on physical fitness and more on skill compared to cycling, so the boost their players get from PEDs is most likely smaller than the boost cyclists get, but...

Ronaldinho.

Also: Ronaldo (the fat one).

Football depends plenty on physical fitness.

Also players will do just about anything to recover from a career-threatening injury. That's where a lot of serious drug use - doping enters. Just look compare lots of players to themselves pre and post surgery.

 

[The Hitch]

Also: Ronaldo (the fat one).

Football depends plenty on physical fitness.

Also players will do just about anything to recover from a career-threatening injury. That's where a lot of serious drug use - doping enters. Just look compare lots of players to themselves pre and post surgery.

Reading the Hogs posts on the pain felt in the legs after cycling was quite touching. So i think to myself if cyclists are taking cortisone which is illegal to fight that, how much of it must footballers, where it is legal be taking, when a simple kick to the leg or challenge can be pretty painful, and loads of them in one match + running + training every day will take its toll on the legs at least Probably more than riding 200km on a bike.

 

[D-Queued]

Reading the Hogs posts on the pain felt in the legs after cycling was quite touching. So i think to myself if cyclists are taking cortisone which is illegal to fight that, how much of it must footballers, where it is legal be taking, when a simple kick to the leg or challenge can be pretty painful, and loads of them in one match + running + training every day will take its toll on the legs at least Probably more than riding 200km on a bike.

Cortisone can be used legally (and I am not refering to his Lanceness here).

OUAT, I had to receive cortisone injections in my back (couldn't walk, let alone compete). This was pre-TUE, but I checked this out ahead of time to determine whether this would constitute a violation. The specific local injection was ok. It would still be ok today, but would require a TUE.

Note that early use of Cortisone in sport included patellar tendon injections in (NA) football. Cortisone actually weakens tissue, and this practice got the athlete back in the game but ran a considerable risk of a ruptured tendon.

From the FIFA (the other football) site:

All glucocorticosteroids are prohibited in competition whether administered orally, rectally, intravenously or intramuscularly. Their use requires a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) approval. For non-systemic application (e.g. injections into the joints or inhalation in asthma therapy) an abbreviated Therapeutic Use Exemption, which is more a notification at the time of application, is required. Topical preparations for skin (e.g. ointments and creams), ear, nose, buccal cavity and eye disorders are not prohibited and do not require any form of Therapeutic Use Exemption.

Dave.