• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

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

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 19, 2009
819
0
0
Square-pedaller said:
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.
Its been a while since I read the banned list and regulations but I'm fairly certain there is wording which discusses structural or functional analogs ie: so even if there are specific substances that are NOT on the banned list, but they are analogs of substances that are, then they are still banned.

Also, 131313 is correct that there is generic wording which discusses "methods" as opposed to specific practices. Altitude training for example or the use of artificial altitude is not considered illegal because the human body must still adapt to the stimulus using natural physiological mechanisms which ultimately transfer into performance enhancement. Sticking a needle in your arm and injecting a synthetic compound completely bypasses natural physiology and is therefore considered to be cheating. I think there is also wording which addresses this concept.
 
Apr 8, 2010
260
0
0
Krebs cycle said:
Its been a while since I read the banned list and regulations but I'm fairly certain there is wording which discusses structural or functional analogs ie: so even if there are specific substances that are NOT on the banned list, but they are analogs of substances that are, then they are still banned.

Also, 131313 is correct that there is generic wording which discusses "methods" as opposed to specific practices. Altitude training for example or the use of artificial altitude is not considered illegal because the human body must still adapt to the stimulus using natural physiological mechanisms which ultimately transfer into performance enhancement. Sticking a needle in your arm and injecting a synthetic compound completely bypasses natural physiology and is therefore considered to be cheating. I think there is also wording which addresses this concept.
H Krebs cycle,

I don't think we disagree. My post probably didn't help because there were rather a lot of negatives in one sentence, making the meaning a bit obscure.

What I was saying (over several posts is):
The Prohibited List (to whch I have also posted a link earlier) contains both specific substances and practices, and general specifications based on eg chemical structure or the way that something acts.
If a substance or practice is not listed in one or other of these ways on the Prohbited List, then it is not doping.
So: Something can be 'on the Prohibited List' without specifically named. It can therefore considered cheating. We agree.
 
Jul 18, 2010
934
0
0
Fester said:
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.
Pasta enhances performance. Why doesn't the entire peloton get DQed for eating linguine?
 
Jul 19, 2009
819
0
0
Square-pedaller said:
H Krebs cycle,

I don't think we disagree. My post probably didn't help because there were rather a lot of negatives in one sentence, making the meaning a bit obscure.

What I was saying (over several posts is):
The Prohibited List (to whch I have also posted a link earlier) contains both specific substances and practices, and general specifications based on eg chemical structure or the way that something acts.
If a substance or practice is not listed in one or other of these ways on the Prohbited List, then it is not doping.
So: Something can be 'on the Prohibited List' without specifically named. It can therefore considered cheating. We agree.
There is a method that is not on the banned list and is not illegal, but perhaps what the thread topic is really about is the deeper question of whether some method or other (not on the list) is or is not ethical and hence, is or is not in the spirit of fair competition.

Women who compete in strength and power events get themselves pregnant at a specific point during perparation. In the 1st trimester progesterone levels increase and combined with strength training they get stronger than they would have without being pregnant. They abort the pregnancy and then go compete.

Cheating or not??

edit. from having read the rules in the past and having a pretty decent understanding of what enhances performance, IMO the list is quite comprehensive and clearly defined. There are some grey areas but an important point for anyone to consider is that the list itself is not static. It evolves along with doping methods.
 
Jul 19, 2009
819
0
0
StyrbjornSterki said:
Pasta enhances performance. Why doesn't the entire peloton get DQed for eating linguine?
No, because eating food and training are natural physiological processes.

According to Tim Noakes, using your brain also enhances performance. Maybe you should try it one day.
 
Jul 16, 2010
370
1
0
Krebs cycle said:
No, because eating food and training are natural physiological processes.

According to Tim Noakes, using your brain also enhances performance. Maybe you should try it one day.
AAAAAA+++++++ POSTER!!!! EPIC ZING!!! WOULD READ AGAIN!!!
 
Apr 8, 2010
260
0
0
Krebs cycle said:
perhaps what the thread topic is really about is the deeper question of whether some method or other (not on the list) is or is not ethical and hence, is or is not in the spirit of fair competition.
Yes, I think you're right there. And it is a different question.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS