How's this for unrepentant?

[dbrower]

A distinction without a difference.

EPO is a naturally occurring protein hormone, so it could be argued it's not a PED as well.

Sure, blood doping isn't a PED -- it is a "prohibited method".

Synthetic EPO is a "prohibited substance",

"Prohibited substance" is WADA-speak for "PED" or "masking agent" or "thing we just don't like because"

Some prohibited substances can be allowed with a TUE. Some you will not get a TUE for if you should apply.

Some prohibited substances have thresholds, commonly those found naturally, or frequently in the environment.

Others have no thresholds, and just aren't supposed to be present at all. Their level isn't considered by the process. You might argue some inadvertant contamination, but it doesn't completely remove the liability.

Some substances have both natural and synthetic origins, and the presence of natural is OK, but the presence of synthetic is not -- this is the situation with testosterone. (Determining the presence of synthetic is tricky, and involves things that look like "thresholds" that aren't Thresholds as for Threshold Substances)

Some prohibited methods are allowed for some medical reasons -- for example, saline IV; others are plain not-allowed (blood infusion).

-dB

 

[hrotha]

Then why not just allow several days between mountain stages so everybody can get back to their natural levels?

Part of winning a GT is recovery and having the best natural ability to withstand the rigors of multiple stages. If it was just a sprint up a mountain or an idividual timetrial, at everybody's normal levels, then Cancellara and somebody like Boogard who could pull a one-off in the mountains would be the winners.

Yes but there are many allowed substances that help recovery. I'm just looking for a rational basis to draw the line. The altitude tent comparison Rupert just brought up is also relevant here.

 

[Rupert]

Altitude tents

Yes but there are many allowed substances that help recovery. I'm just looking for a rational basis to draw the line. The altitude tent comparison Rupert just brought up is also relevant here.

BTW, I think there has been discussion of banning altitude tents, but how the heck could you enforce something like that? Seems like a bucket of worms...

 

[Rupert]

Semenya?

Seems to me this is also similar to the difficulty of distinguishing between fair and unfair advantages - what's the difference between "genetically lucky" (Taylor Phinney) and "unfairly advantaged" (Castor Semenya, probably). There are gray areas and somehow there have to make rules that draw line somewhere, in as fair a way as possible.

 

[ChrisE]

Yes but there are many allowed substances that help recovery. I'm just looking for a rational basis to draw the line. The altitude tent comparison Rupert just brought up is also relevant here.

The recovery to "natural" levels varies by individual at altitude, ie altitude tents. If all the GT riders slept in an altitude tent the night after climbing the Morirolo, they all wouldn't wake up back at the levels they were before the prologue IMO. Some would be more "recovered" than others. All an altitude tent does is simulate altitude. You cannot restrict somebody from sleeping at altitude vs sleeping at a hotel in the valley.

There is no variation due to natural ability in getting back to normal levels due to injections IMO. Bam, an infusion and you're shortly there before the next stage.

 

[Rupert]

Altitude tents

I would be skeptical that there are advantages to using altitude tents during a GT - seems like they'd interfere with recovery. But using them prior to the race to get the hematocrit "naturally" pumped up going into a race would be a more likely application. Just interested in the idea that drawing a line between what should be allowed and what shouldn't isn't black and white. Bottom line is what the rules say, but that can lead in the direction of "if it can't be detected then it's ok" thinking.

 

[AussieGoddess]

Then why not just allow several days between mountain stages so everybody can get back to their natural levels?

Part of winning a GT is recovery and having the best natural ability to withstand the rigors of multiple stages. If it was just a sprint up a mountain or an idividual timetrial, at everybody's normal levels, then Cancellara and somebody like Boogard who could pull a one-off in the mountains would be the winners.

I agree

Its also about safety. If they are allowing Autologous transfusions, they really then would have to have monitors and safety regulations for the storage and transfusion of blood. Its not rocket science - but can be very dangerous if not done correctly.

Not something to be associated with elite level sport I wouldnt think

 

[stephens]

Blood transfusions should be ARE banned because they raise an athlete's hematocrit beyond what would naturally be present due to training, even at altitude. It's the natural EPO, minus a few of the chem benefits.

It's artificially providing athletes with a greater O2 carrying capacity than they would naturally have. Safe, or not, it's cheating.

But there are tons of (legal) things that athletes do that raise their performance above what it would "naturally" be. That you've chosen to put using their own blood into the "not allowed" side is arbitrary until you make a compelling distinction between it and the currently allowed substances/methodologies. It's "cheating" only because it's on the prohibited methods list, but that's not what the topic of this thread is. People here are wondering if it should be.

BTW, I think there has been discussion of banning altitude tents, but how the heck could you enforce something like that? Seems like a bucket of worms...

Well, they could use the same way they try to enforce epo or blood transfusions with the ridiculous blood passport system: by saying that if one's hematocrit doesn't drop like a rock during a stage race, then they must be doing something that's banned. But of course this is crazy since the winner of a stage race will most likely be the one whose body suffers the least over the stages and whose hematocrit remains the highest: the anti-dopers will say this is because he cheated. But it could just as easily be because he is just a better genetic specimen who naturally maintains body chemistry or has trained the best so that the efforts he has to make are not as taxing on his body chemistry as the other riders. You'd expect such an individual to win. This is why the blood passport system is fatally flawed. It makes suspects out of the most genetically gifted or most perfectly trained athletes.

 

[ChrisE]

But there are tons of (legal) things that athletes do that raise their performance above what it would "naturally" be. That you've chosen to put using their own blood into the "not allowed" side is arbitrary until you make a compelling distinction between it and the currently allowed substances/methodologies. It's "cheating" only because it's on the prohibited methods list, but that's not what the topic of this thread is. People here are wondering if it should be.
.

What is natural? By your argument drinking water and eating are the same thing as blood transfusions. If you take issue with that then you explain the difference in the POV you are making. One is allowed, and one is not. They both are essential in your view.

If you don't eat or drink then you won't be at your natural levels either. Bingo, eating/drinking = blood transfusions since they both help you maintain what is "natural". Right?

 

[Rupert]

yup

Well, they could use the same way they try to enforce epo or blood transfusions with the ridiculous blood passport system: by saying that if one's hematocrit doesn't drop like a rock during a stage race, then they must be doing something that's banned.

That's about it. And then they're into fuzzy, subjective judgements that try to catch cheaters and not penalize those that recover more easily without artificial help. Again the problem of drawing a sharp line somewhere that's fuzzy... I'm don't think the bio passport is ridiculous, but they aren't trying to use it exclusively and they shouldn't. Mainly to look for suspicious results and try and catch them with other testing, unless they feel like they have a really good case which doesn't seem to happen too often. Part of a game of cat & mouse that will probably never end. Just like how the TdF "looked" cleaner this year because the climbs weren't as blatantly fast, and now the Contador fiasco. If he was cheating, it was finely tuned to avoid detection and be less than obvious.

 

[stephens]

What is natural? By your argument drinking water and eating are the same thing as blood transfusions. If you take issue with that then you explain the difference in the POV you are making. One is allowed, and one is not. They both are essential in your view.

If you don't eat or drink then you won't be at your natural levels either. Bingo, eating/drinking = blood transfusions since they both help you maintain what is "natural". Right?

I'm not making an argument that food/water = transfusions. I'm merely saying that if one (such as yourself?) wants to claim one is natural and the other isn't, then he needs to explain why this is so. Just saying it is "wrong" because it is "banned" is not satisfying because that is not the question. We were discussing whether it should be banned and what the reasons for that are. Similarly, saying that it's not "natural" with no explanation of why it is declared so, is not a legitimate answer to the question either.

Surely the onus is on the enforcer side to explain the legitimacy of enforcing a certain rule.

 

[ChrisE]

I'm not making an argument that food/water = transfusions. I'm merely saying that if one (such as yourself?) wants to claim one is natural and the other isn't, then he needs to explain why this is so. Just saying it is "wrong" because it is "banned" is not satisfying because that is not the question. We were discussing whether it should be banned and what the reasons for that are. Have any to offer?

Surely the onus is on the enforcer side to explain the legitimacy of enforcing a certain rule.

Fair enough.

IMO transfusions are not a natural way for recovery for an otherwise healthy human being. If you feel that because somebody's natural ability to recover by typical means such as food, water, rest, etc is not a diferrentiating trait that should set them apart from other competitors in a GT then that is your prerogative.

This is really a discussion about what sport really means taking everything an athlete possesses (skill, speed, strength, intelligence, and yes "natural" recovery) into account. You seem to conclude "natural" is maintaining, by whatever means, the normal parameters present the day before the prologue. Natural to you seems to be the fresh athlete, ie being able to compete in the best possible natural condition. I don't feel the same way for reasons I have laid out in this thread, ie recovery is an important characteristic in GTs and it is natural that people differ in this ability. I feel those with that better ability should not be penalized for that trait by enabling others to have transfusions.

And, with that I don't have much else to say on the subject. Hopefully it gives you something to ponder.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

I agree

Its also about safety. If they are allowing Autologous transfusions, they really then would have to have monitors and safety regulations for the storage and transfusion of blood. Its not rocket science - but can be very dangerous if not done correctly.

Not something to be associated with elite level sport I wouldnt think

It can be dangerous even if done correctly.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/two-time-world-champion-ljungskog-retires

 

[Anonymous]

Think the institutional level of these types of guys may be a problem?

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/matschiner-reveals-blood-doping-techniques

Wow! He actually thinks he's doing a health service.

Unbelievable. These quys have quite the egos to believe that they can perform these procedures safely without the medical accreditation. No remorse. Attempting to make profit off of his so-called expertise in a tell all novel ... truly sickening.

 

[hrotha]

ChrisE, I don't think the discussion here is blood transfusions vs. food & rest, but rather blood transfusions vs. legal products and methods that help recovery or enhance your performance. That said, I'm willing to accept they're an unnecessary health risk and as such should be banned.

 

[ChrisE]

ChrisE, I don't think the discussion here is blood transfusions vs. food & rest, but rather blood transfusions vs. legal products and methods that help recovery or enhance your performance. That said, I'm willing to accept they're an unnecessary health risk and as such should be banned.

OK, define "legal" products. Things similar to lugging around an IV with centrifuged blood, with a needle in your arm? Please list what you are having difficulty setting apart from this. Thanks.

 

[stephens]

I think by "you" you must mean someone else because I have no expressed what I feel is "natural". So I don't know how you can make those assumptions about my opinion.

What I was really looking for from you was some sort of claim about how injecting blood differs from ingesting other substances that are legal. But instead you give some cryptic message about recovery: are to assume that to you as long as a substance doesn't really work, i.e. doesn't allow an athlete to recover very well, then it is "natural" and should be legal, but that if a substance does actually work to help an athlete to recover, that it is therefore "unnatural" and should be banned? Is that what you're saying?

This may be a legitimate way to make rules, but doesn't seem like a good definition of natural vs. unnatural. It sounds like it's more about effectiveness.

 

[hrotha]

OK, define "legal" products. Things similar to lugging around an IV with centrifuged blood, with a needle in your arm? Please list what you are having difficulty setting apart from this. Thanks.

What definition do you need? Legal = not in the list of banned products (or under the allowed threshold). No IV needed. Anything from sports drinks to caffeine to whatever other substance you can think of.

 

[Maxiton]

How can putting your own blood back in your own body be called doping? I'm aware of the effect this practice has on a rider but if everyone is free to do it, who cares? It's still the rider's unadulterated blood, produced by his body, and nothing but that. So what's the problem?

If drinking your own urine were shown to have a significant energizing effect on a rider, you can bet they'd all be doing it - and it would be banned. Now try testing for it. I seem to recall reading that some national federation or other had banned altitude tents, and others were planning to do so. Can you see what a stupid rule that is?

Such bans are a formula for corrupting everyone. They can't be tested for and they can't be enforced. Knowing this, the rider contravenes them and in doing so is put on a slippery slope. Once he's stepped across the threshold of law breaking (however stupid the law), the other laws he might break become only a matter of degree. If those whose job it is to care about such matters really cared, or were thoughtful, they wouldn't put riders in this position.

(You might argue, regarding the blood ban, that it can - obviously - now be tested for; but the test is really only for the bag not the rider's own blood. How hard do you think it will be to find a workaround for this? Right, not very.)

 

[simo1733]

i believe that gt riders take vitamins iv.When their body fat drops down to around 5/6per cent, they can no longer absorb fat soluble vitamins naturally.Should they ban iv or make riders compete with a vitamin deficiency?

 

[buckwheat]

i believe that gt riders take vitamins iv.When their body fat drops down to around 5/6per cent, they can no longer absorb fat soluble vitamins naturally.Should they ban iv or make riders compete with a vitamin deficiency?

IV's are banned since 2005.

 

[buckwheat]

How can putting your own blood back in your own body be called doping? I'm aware of the effect this practice has on a rider but if everyone is free to do it, who cares? It's still the rider's unadulterated blood, produced by his body, and nothing but that. So what's the problem?

If drinking your own urine were shown to have a significant energizing effect on a rider, you can bet they'd all be doing it - and it would be banned. Now try testing for it. I seem to recall reading that some national federation or other had banned altitude tents, and others were planning to do so. Can you see what a stupid rule that is?

Such bans are a formula for corrupting everyone. They can't be tested for and they can't be enforced. Knowing this, the rider contravenes them and in doing so is put on a slippery slope. Once he's stepped across the threshold of law breaking (however stupid the law), the other laws he might break become only a matter of degree. If those whose job it is to care about such matters really cared, or were thoughtful, they wouldn't put riders in this position.

(You might argue, regarding the blood ban, that it can - obviously - now be tested for; but the test is really only for the bag not the rider's own blood. How hard do you think it will be to find a workaround for this? Right, not very.)

Drink your own blood then. Are you kidding me with this bs?

 

[buckwheat]

I think by "you" you must mean someone else because I have no expressed what I feel is "natural". So I don't know how you can make those assumptions about my opinion.

What I was really looking for from you was some sort of claim about how injecting blood differs from ingesting other substances that are legal. But instead you give some cryptic message about recovery: are to assume that to you as long as a substance doesn't really work, i.e. doesn't allow an athlete to recover very well, then it is "natural" and should be legal, but that if a substance does actually work to help an athlete to recover, that it is therefore "unnatural" and should be banned? Is that what you're saying?

This may be a legitimate way to make rules, but doesn't seem like a good definition of natural vs. unnatural. It sounds like it's more about effectiveness.

No IV's are allowed. Blood doping is illegal. Do you know what a doper's mentality is? Good lord. Have a plate of pasta, some eggs, a gallon of water, a Centrum and a couple of cups of coffee. Good grief.

 

[stephens]

We know it's illegal. Duh. What we are discussing is whether it should be or not and for what reason. Get with the program!

 

[buckwheat]

I'm not making an argument that food/water = transfusions. I'm merely saying that if one (such as yourself?) wants to claim one is natural and the other isn't, then he needs to explain why this is so. Just saying it is "wrong" because it is "banned" is not satisfying because that is not the question. We were discussing whether it should be banned and what the reasons for that are. Similarly, saying that it's not "natural" with no explanation of why it is declared so, is not a legitimate answer to the question either.

Surely the onus is on the enforcer side to explain the legitimacy of enforcing a certain rule.

Read a book about sporting ethics for goodness sake. It's natural to drain your own blood, store it, spin off some RBC's , and then reinfuse them with an IV?

It's banned for cripes sake. Get over it and stop rationalizing nonsense.

Stop thinking so much.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.