If its not on the banned list, is it doping?

[fatterboy]

Lots of writing about first EPO user but if it was being used as early as some people are saying and if it wasn't band was it cheating?

 

[Fester]

Technically it's still cheating. They have blanket terms, referring to any substance or method which enhances performance. And of course things that are not yet invented are banned; they have preemptive banning of thing like gene doping.

 

[fatterboy]

Technically it's still cheating. They have blanket terms, referring to any substance or method which enhances performance. And of course things that are not yet invented are banned; they have preemptive banning of thing like gene doping.

So what are they using and doing now to bet the tests?
There must be loads of stuff out there that is being used.
I know some young guys personly who have signed for Radio shack and they are clean and I hope will never cheat so is the sport cleaning up?Because a lot of young riders seem to be clean and want to stay that way.
No don't start on the Lance thing he and his generation should just go and leave the sport ,lets just leave that there.

 

[simo1733]

Creatine

Technically it's still cheating. They have blanket terms, referring to any substance or method which enhances performance. And of course things that are not yet invented are banned; they have preemptive banning of thing like gene doping.

Creatine is a performance enhancing substance but is not banned because it is considered to be a foodstuff.

 

[mercycle]

On the "band list"? No, it just means you have a poor taste in music. Not on the Banned list on the other hand, no it's not doping.

Blanket terms or phrases such as "...any substance or method which enhances performance" are overbroad and likely hard to enforce. Food is a substance that enhances performance, no? Sleep is a method that enhances performance, yes? So anyone who eats a loaf of bread and takes a nap is cheating, aren't they?

Compare the banned substance list to the aero rules in car racing. There are things obviously against the rules (on the banned list), then there are a whole bunch of things that are in a gray area. That gray area may not be illegal, but may be unethical, but if it gives you a 0.1% advantage, you take it. The rules (banned list) evolves over time, things that were in the gray last year (but allowed) are not this year.

 

[Square-pedaller]

Technically it's still cheating. They have blanket terms, referring to any substance or method which enhances performance.

There are generalised exceptions, but nothing as general as "any substance or method which enhances performance". For example, the group of compounds to which something belongs (eg steroids), or the mode of action, are specified.

 

[galaxy1]

I think any sort of blood manipulation can be considered to be doping. Some of it may even have been 'legal' once, depending on the exact wording of the rules - but I think 'doping' describes it pretty well.

 

[mercycle]

I think any sort of blood manipulation can be considered to be doping. Some of it may even have been 'legal' once, depending on the exact wording of the rules - but I think 'doping' describes it pretty well.

Including methods that promote the bodies natural responses, things like altitude? That's part of the problem with general and overbroad statements.

 

[Anonymous]

If it's not on the banned list then it's not illegal, period. People will take every advantage they can but if that advantage gets put on the list the next year then obviously they should stop using it.

But if it's not on the banned list then it's NOT doping.

 

[galaxy1]

'doping' doesn't actually mean illegal.
going to altitude is not manipulation, or doping.

there will always be grey areas, of course - but the spirit of the rules is reasonably clear.

 

[Square-pedaller]

if it's not on the banned list then it's NOT doping.

And here's the WADA Prohibited List, as used by the UCI:
http://http://www.uci.ch/Modules/BUILTIN/getObject.asp?MenuId=MTkzNg&ObjTypeCode=FILE&type=FILE&id=34172&LangId=1

 

[131313]

Lots of writing about first EPO user but if it was being used as early as some people are saying and if it wasn't band was it cheating?

EPO was banned in 1990. The clinical trial data was published some time in the late 80's and it was approved in '89, so there wasn't a long period where it wasn't expressly banned.

I don't know how the anti-doping rules were written then, but they way they're written now they clearly state that it's against the rules to dope with yet undefined substances. The best example is the rule against gene-altering pharmaceuticals:

"The following, with the potential to enhance athletic performance, are prohibited:
1- The transfer of cells or genetic elements (e.g. DNA, RNA);
2- The use of pharmacological or biological agents that alter gene expression."

The comment that "if it's not on the banned list, it's not doping" is categorically false.

You can read all about it for yourself if you'd like.

 

[Square-pedaller]

"The following, with the potential to enhance athletic performance, are prohibited:
1- The transfer of cells or genetic elements (e.g. DNA, RNA);
2- The use of pharmacological or biological agents that alter gene expression."

The comment that "if it's not on the banned list, it's not doping" is categorically false.

You can read all about it for yourself if you'd like.

Hi 131313,

I presume that our posts crossed, as we've linked to the same article.

I disagree with your comment that "The comment that "if it's not on the [prohibited] list, it's not doping" is categorically false". Your quote about DNA/RNA technologies is from the Prohibited list - so these procedures - which are not specifically listed - are doping. Anything with is not on the Prohibited list - either specifically listed or generally specified - is not doping.

 

[forty four]

Creatine is a performance enhancing substance but is not banned because it is considered to be a foodstuff.

and also because it will not kill you like epo. creatine is an amino acid. things like creatine and other aminos etc.. certainly help a bit for some more than others but i feel things like this are not bad for health if anything some are beneficial to health and do not give huge gains like epo blood doping etc.. so i dont think they should be banned plus there found in food so would be difficult to ban anyways.

 

[forty four]

i feel anything which benefits performance but also promotes good health or at least has no health consequences should be legal for all. anything that has negative health consequences should be banned simple as that. like with caffeine i believe its legal but not if you take more than 600milligrams at one time which is a reasonable limit 6oomillgrams is a decent amount of caffeine over half a gram.

 

[131313]

Hi 131313,

I presume that our posts crossed, as we've linked to the same article.

I disagree with your comment that "The comment that "if it's not on the [prohibited] list, it's not doping" is categorically false". Your quote about DNA/RNA technologies is from the Prohibited list - so these procedures - which are not specifically listed - are doping. Anything with is not on the Prohibited list - either specifically listed or generally specified - is not doping.

Yep, they did.

I guess it becomes a matter of semantics regarding the "general" part of the equation. You're correct, if it's not generally specified, it's not banned. However, a substance can still be against the rules even if it's not expressly banned by name. That's what I'm getting at. The "substances with similar chemical structures or biological effects" clause basically covers unspecified drugs.

While some people may think this is overly broad, the reality is that no one is accidentally cheating. The best example of enforcement of this would be sildenafil. Technically, it could be considered "doping", but the exergonic reaction is questionable and a lot of people are using it--so WADA expressly stated that it wasn't banned (yet). I imagine that it will be by 2011, and that masters racers everywhere will be in search of TUE's.....

 

[md2020]

How do you enforce a ban on a substance you cannot test for?

 

[DirtyWorks]

So what are they using and doing now to bet the tests?
There must be loads of stuff out there that is being used.
I know some young guys personly who have signed for Radio shack and they are clean

What are they using now? The ones that know certainly aren't going to tell.

What are they doing now? The general opinion of doping 2010 in this forum is the norm is non-lethal doses of PED. No more Tammy Thomas and Lance Armstrong.

The guys you claim to know probably wouldn't tell you the truth before/during or until very well after they left the sport. If USAC was allowing Carmichael and Wenzel to dope children, what are the chances Weisel's search for the next Armstrong is any cleaner?

It is worth repeating that the UCI's role in doping is as problematic as a rider like Lance Armstrong's doping. The anonymous positives from the Bio Passport is a real example. Critics of the Bio Passport could go much further than my statement.

My point being focusing on the riders alone is not beneficial to getting an proximal understanding of doping.

The semantical gymnastics of "Is it cheating if it's not banned?" is an endless debate with no universally satisfying conclusion.

 

[dbrower]

How do you enforce a ban on a substance you cannot test for?

Moral Imperitive, a/k/a Wishful Thinking.

In the optimistic sense, you hope you will develop a test later you can apply to samples retroactively. In the best case, you can do this in a way consistent with the limitations and ajudication process. In the messy case, you end up with Armstrong, EPO, and 1999 samples tested later.

-dB

 

[131313]

How do you enforce a ban on a substance you cannot test for?

The most likely scenario would probably be if a rider were found in possession of substances yet to be banned.

 

[python]

Moral Imperitive, a/k/a Wishful Thinking.

In the optimistic sense, you hope you will develop a test later you can apply to samples retroactively. In the best case, you can do this in a way consistent with the limitations and ajudication process. In the messy case, you end up with Armstrong, EPO, and 1999 samples tested later.

-dB

you forgot to list the most obvious one that's smack in the heart of the wada code - illegal possession - found either by the nada garbage diggers or the police.

 

[Realist]

Creatine is a performance enhancing substance but is not banned because it is considered to be a foodstuff.

Food is a performance enhancing substance but it is not banned because it is considered to be a foodstuff. Creatine is not performance enhancing for endurance cyclists.

 

[brianf7]

If Pantani had had his ears cliped back to make him more aero would that be ilegal also.
One day someone will create a hormone that grows brain cells in WADA exec but untill then we must suffer.

 

[131313]

If Pantani had had his ears cliped back to make him more aero would that be ilegal also.
One day someone will create a hormone that grows brain cells in WADA exec but untill then we must suffer.

What are you talking about? Have you actually read the WADA code and prohibit list? It's very clear, concise and well-written. Sure, there are some areas for interpretation but they are limited and necessary. It's absolutely nothing like ridiculous documents which emanate from the UCI.

What specifically do you find objectionable?

 

[Escarabajo]

How do you enforce a ban on a substance you cannot test for?

In case there is a police raid and they find the substance in the rider's possession.