Doping-Undetectable new blood boosters available says expert

[Velodude]

Think you are confusing the physiological requirements of recreational cycling with professional cycling.

Years ago I saw a French TV satirical show that lambasted its national cycling hero, Richard Virenque.

In so doing it reflected public perception of doping in cycling. No other sport could have been used in this comedy piece.

Could you visualize the outcome if a US TV broadcaster ran a similar comedy sketch on a US iconic cyclist?

Here is that humorous video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMaa9Ui8JS4&feature=player_embedded

 

[Nilsson]

Think you are confusing the physiological requirements of recreational cycling with professional cycling.

I'm not confusing anything. Athletes don't use doping because professional sport is tough. They dope to win, to be competitive, to gain status, prizes and money...

Years ago I saw a French TV satirical show that lambasted its national cycling hero, Richard Virenque.

Nice video, and, although he still is considered a hero and never officially punished, only natural since he is the face of 1998 and cyclings unfortunate exposing...

Is it from the same makers as the Contador/Nadal/Casillias/etc. videos? Guignol?

In so doing it reflected public perception of doping in cycling. No other sport could have been used in this comedy piece.

Very difficult, because it's a chicken-and-egg debate. Fact is that cycling has the image now, and a serious anti doping policy (by authorities, media and fans) that leads to hunted big guns and dopers caught, every time again, confirms the doping issue...

There have been more sports used in comedy pieces. I already referred to the Guignols videos, but also in newspapers there have appeared sketches about doping. For example this one...

It is, however, far more interesting to utterly discuss other 'problems' like fierce tackles, dismissed goals. Things that cycling, most of the time, doesn't have. With that much (media) attention (as cycling) it's only normal that the negative focus is completely fixated on doping issues, except the moments a rare polemic is started or something like 'Chain-gate' happens...

Could you visualize the outcome if a US TV broadcaster ran a similar comedy sketch on a US iconic cyclist?

I'm not sure about the outcome, because I don't know to what extent LA is seen purely as a cyclist. Also Americans are less cynic than most Europeans IMO. How are Americans reacting on the non-human urine sample? The use of hormones in baseball, American Football, etc. and lets not forget College sports? Those things are widely known in the US, and is being used many times in movies, tv-series, etc.

 

[blackcat]

I heard about 4 years back, there was a nation already pursuing a gene doping strategy. May have, or may not have, been successful in winning the right to host an upcoming Olympics.

Anthony Tan banned me from following him on Twitter cos I disputed his take on doping and GreenEdge/Evans ushering in a new era,

 

[Velodude]

I'm not confusing anything. Athletes don't use doping because professional sport is tough. They dope to win, to be competitive, to gain status, prizes and money...<snip>...

22 teams in a TdF. 198 riders. Say, only a smidgen more than 22 GC contenders.

Domestiques not GC contenders. Do not have to be winning competitive but dope. (e.g. all team members of US Postal doped to contribute to a winning team).

Domestiques need to dope because they are the most physically stressed members of the team in support of the GC leader and other classification contenders.

Suggest you read "Rough Ride" by Paul Kimmage (1990). An autobiography of a TdF domestique who begrudgingly was forced to dope to hold up his team contribution after suffering riding clean.

 

[biokemguy]

Bio similars

I would guess these undetectable versions of EPO are the result of the patent protection expiring. So called bio-similars are being produced for a number of protein therapeutics. They're being made in places like India and China where many other generic drugs are produced.

For EPO in particular, it could be made in HEK(human derived) cells rather than CHO(hamster derived) cells to better approximate the glycosylation pattern in humans.

I don't think it's made in E. coli, since it can't glycosylate mammalian proteins.

 

[Millard Baker]

Balco wasn't cutting edge stuff, either. "The Clear" was just an obscure product from the past that wasn't on any dope detecting radar.

Actually, that's incorrect. "The Clear" aka tetrahydrogestrinone aka THG was a novel designer anabolic steroid first synthesized by Patrick Arnold about a decade ago. It's use in sports was short-lived as Don Catlin developed a test for the previously-undetectable steroid shortly after BALCO athletes started using it.

 

[Velodude]

Actually, that's incorrect. "The Clear" aka tetrahydrogestrinone aka THG was a novel designer anabolic steroid first synthesized by Patrick Arnold about a decade ago. It's use in sports was short-lived as Don Catlin developed a test for the previously-undetectable steroid shortly after BALCO athletes started using it.

It was reported that BALCO and Arnold were providing athletes with a range of drugs during 1988 to 2002. We know the "Clear" was used by Marion Jones in 2000 and Barry Bonds was suspected of using the same product starting in 1999.

3+ years is a reasonable time span. Catlin only developed a test in 2003 after trace samples of the drug were delivered to him.

In 2003, U.S. sprint coach Trevor Graham delivered a syringe containing traces of THG to the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA). This helped Don Catlin, MD, the founder and then-director of the UCLA Olympic Analytical Lab, to identify and develop a test for THG, the second reported designer anabolic steroid

 

[Oldman]

You really believe athletes use doping because sport is hard? Come on...

Also the toughness of cycling is somewhat over-hyped. Apart from crashes Cycling is a pretty healthy sport with relatively easy recovery. You don't need doping to be able to run 100 meters, or to ride on a bike for three weeks. You need it to be better than your competitor. In a lot of sports, where the pure physical performance is less important, there is at least as much 'help' needed, solely to even be able to play every week (soccer, tennis, etc.) because of the injury proneness. In those sports no one cares, that's the difference. No one cares about Messi's HGH use, no one cares that it's almost impossible to get him injured. There is no soccer fan that wants him out of the sport...

Nillson-

Spoken like someone that believes what he wants; not what is real. When a domestique is told when, where and how to ride he has to perform on demand to keep his job.
All of the other sports have "time outs" or the featured athletes rest because they are too valuable. Tennis players without big endorsement deals are just as likely as cycling domestiques to use PEDs, by the way.

 

[Nilsson]

You really believe athletes use doping because sport is hard? Come on...

Also the toughness of cycling is somewhat over-hyped. Apart from crashes Cycling is a pretty healthy sport with relatively easy recovery. You don't need doping to be able to run 100 meters, or to ride on a bike for three weeks. You need it to be better than your competitor. In a lot of sports, where the pure physical performance is less important, there is at least as much 'help' needed, solely to even be able to play every week (soccer, tennis, etc.) because of the injury proneness. In those sports no one cares, that's the difference. No one cares about Messi's HGH use, no one cares that it's almost impossible to get him injured. There is no soccer fan that wants him out of the sport...

Nillson-

Spoken like someone that believes what he wants; not what is real. When a domestique is told when, where and how to ride he has to perform on demand to keep his job.
All of the other sports have "time outs" or the featured athletes rest because they are too valuable. Tennis players without big endorsement deals are just as likely as cycling domestiques to use PEDs, by the way.

Of course athletes have to perform. But it has nothing to do with the sport as such, it has to do with the level they act on. Athletes do not feel the need to dope because the sport is tough, but because they want to be competitive. To win a race yourself, to be able to contribute to a win, or just to be able to be a professional and hang on. It doesn't really matter.

It's a really weak argument to say you need to dope because the sport is really hard. You dope because you make the choice to dope, because you want to be competitive against others (who dope as well, are simply better than you, or both)...

 

[lean mean &green]

Also the toughness of cycling is somewhat over-hyped. Apart from crashes Cycling is a pretty healthy sport with relatively easy recovery.

this is silly.

 

[MarkvW]

Spoken like someone that believes what he wants; not what is real. When a domestique is told when, where and how to ride he has to perform on demand to keep his job.
All of the other sports have "time outs" or the featured athletes rest because they are too valuable. Tennis players without big endorsement deals are just as likely as cycling domestiques to use PEDs, by the way.

"The cyclist has to dope to keep his job" versus "The cyclist dopes to be competitive."

This begs the question: What is the cyclist's "job?" The answer is easy: To be competitive!

Looks like you're arguing about the meaning of words.

 

[Nilsson]

this is silly.

No it's not. Of course Cycling is one of the toughest sports in the world, no doubt about it, but cycling in itself is not super destructive for the body. It's perfectly possible to ride your bike for three weeks (also at the top level). It's 'not' possible to run a marathon or do a triathlon every day for three weeks or play a soccer match every day for three weeks. It's much more destructive for your muscles, joints and ligaments. That's what I was referring to...

 

[MarkvW]

No it's not. Of course Cycling is one of the toughest sports in the world, no doubt about it, but cycling in itself is not super destructive for the body. It's perfectly possible to ride your bike for three weeks (also at the top level). It's 'not' possible to run a marathon or do a triathlon every day for three weeks or play a soccer match every day for three weeks. It's much more destructive for your muscles, joints and ligaments. That's what I was referring to...

The "destructive" sports that you relate work their destruction in ways that doping cannot address. A traumatic muscle injury or a damaged joint or ligament are not something doping can fix. Doping aids muscle development and ordinary recovery and it aids the cardiovascular system. Such assistance helps both the cyclist and the "destructive" sport athlete. I don't see how your "destructive" argument furthers the basic point you are trying to make: that people dope to enhance their competitiveness.

 

[Nilsson]

The "destructive" sports that you relate work their destruction in ways that doping cannot address. A traumatic muscle injury or a damaged joint or ligament are not something doping can fix. Doping aids muscle development and ordinary recovery and it aids the cardiovascular system. Such assistance helps both the cyclist and the "destructive" sport athlete. I don't see how your "destructive" argument furthers the basic point you are trying to make: that people dope to enhance their competitiveness.

I made that argument because of the (also general) idea that cycling is (more) doped because of the physical (read cardiovascular and ordinary recovery) demands. The idea that it's cycling's toughness that explains the use of doping.

Doping, like you seem to state as well, isn't only something that aids the cardiovascular system or ordinary recovery (in fact, apart from blood transfusions, endurance sports pretty much had to wait for EPO to get its 'golden drug') but has many purposes. Recover from (muscle) injuries, muscle development and getting stronger, injury prevention and being able to play with an injury to name some.

In the end it all comes to the same point: athletes don't dope because their sport is hard, but because they they want to be competitive. Something we agree on, I believe..

 

[MarkvW]

I made that argument because of the (also general) idea that cycling is (more) doped because of the physical (read cardiovascular and ordinary recovery) demands. The idea that it's cycling's toughness that explains the use of doping.

Doping, like you seem to state as well, isn't only something that aids the cardiovascular system or ordinary recovery (in fact, apart from blood transfusions, endurance sports pretty much had to wait for EPO to get its 'golden drug') but has many purposes. Recover from (muscle) injuries, muscle development and getting stronger, injury prevention and being able to play with an injury to name some.

In the end it all comes to the same point: athletes don't dope because their sport is hard, but because they they want to be competitive. Something we agree on, I believe..

Yeah, I agree. The domestique is as motivated to be competitive as the team leader. That competitiveness just shows itself differently.

 

[Benotti69]

http://road.cc/content/news/55424-w...cheats-getting-away-it-due-lack-blood-testing

The president of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), John Fahey, has claimed that athletes using banned substances such as human growth hormone (HGH) are “getting away with it” due to insufficient use of blood testing. He singled out cycling as a sport that was taking serious measures to catch dopers due to the extent of testing taking place, although the inference to be drawn is that some other sports lag well behind.

Cycling had a very bad record going back ten years or so ago,” he acknowledged. “They have at least stopped denying the problem, and worked with a programme to deal with the problem.”

WADA giving too much praise to cycling! but it shows how bad the other sports are....