Masking Agents

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

Irondan

I can't speak for KB but I'll say this, it would help if you let people know what field this person is an expert in, what's their qualifications and specifically what "question(s)" did you ask them?

Just stating that "I asked an expert" does not mean that you actually asked an expert anything, as this is the clinic, people say all sorts of stuff to further their agenda.

The clinic works well with hard data and facts, not so well with he said, she said.

The lab director at uni. I asked if gummy bears were any good to mask doping. He didn't say yes or no, as I described above, but he was kind enough to answer. Maybe at some point we'll hear more of him and I will let you know.

It gets a bit comical when you start suspecting forum posters of cheating in a topic on suspicion

This is the second time you've accused me of saying something I didn't say.

I didn't accuse you of anything. If you took what I said the wrong way that's on you.

Perhaps the clinic is not your forte, you seem overly sensitive to feedback to your comments...

BTW: Some forum posters lie all the time, it's as common as tying your shoe.

 

[Scatto]

Re:

So Gummy Bears is a proven masking agent - So why aren't all cyclists eating gummy bears ?

It's not proven.

 

[Dan2016]

Re:

I asked an expert, he said:
1/ It's debatable whether gelatin is really forbidden by WADA 2017 - although some components are (glycerol).
2/ It's unsure that it would be a good masking agent.
3/ ... but it's a good question (victory!).

Nothing about IV or oral application, but the option was left open that the bears already contain modified gelatin.

Kudos to Dan2016 for the in-depth review of the product.

Thanks Scatto, I'm not sure I warrant any credit for reviewing anything though. The idea of gummy bear doping really really appealed to my sense of humour, I love the idea, so I went digging hoping upon hope that my incredulity could be proved wrong. I like being proven wrong more than being right and the most apparently bonkers ideas are usually a good test of personal assumptions and bias. Unfortunately the best I came up with was, erm...a link to sugar-free gummy bears' impact on ones love life, and a bodybuilders supplement that makes you... like...totally ripped...crazy vascularity dude...grrr...yeah awesome.
The gummy bear doping theory is dead...unless it's not, or maybe or something! R.I.P I think or maybe not...

 

[Scatto]

Re: Re:

Irondan

I can't speak for KB but I'll say this, it would help if you let people know what field this person is an expert in, what's their qualifications and specifically what "question(s)" did you ask them?

Just stating that "I asked an expert" does not mean that you actually asked an expert anything, as this is the clinic, people say all sorts of stuff to further their agenda.

The clinic works well with hard data and facts, not so well with he said, she said.

The lab director at uni. I asked if gummy bears were any good to mask doping. He didn't say yes or no, as I described above, but he was kind enough to answer. Maybe at some point we'll hear more of him and I will let you know.

It gets a bit comical when you start suspecting forum posters of cheating in a topic on suspicion

This is the second time you've accused me of saying something I didn't say.

I didn't accuse you of anything. If you took what I said the wrong way that's on you.

Perhaps the clinic is not your forte, you seem overly sensitive to feedback to your comments...

Ok, sorry if I misinterpreted "people say all sorts of stuff to further their agenda". I like feedback on my comments, though, and I've learned a lot already.

 

[Scatto]

Re: Re:

I asked an expert, he said:
1/ It's debatable whether gelatin is really forbidden by WADA 2017 - although some components are (glycerol).
2/ It's unsure that it would be a good masking agent.
3/ ... but it's a good question (victory!).

Nothing about IV or oral application, but the option was left open that the bears already contain modified gelatin.

Kudos to Dan2016 for the in-depth review of the product.

Thanks Scatto, I'm not sure I warrant any credit for reviewing anything though. The idea of gummy bear doping really really appealed to my sense of humour, I love the idea, so I went digging hoping upon hope that my incredulity could be proved wrong. I like being proven wrong more than being right and the most apparently bonkers ideas are usually a good test of personal assumptions and bias. Unfortunately the best I came up with was, erm...a link to sugar-free gummy bears' impact on ones love life, and a bodybuilders supplement that makes you... like...totally ripped...crazy vascularity dude...grrr...yeah awesome.
The gummy bear doping theory is dead...unless it's not, or maybe or something! R.I.P I think or maybe not...

We think alike

 

[carolina]

Even if gummy bears had masking effects, you would need a couple of hours to digest them, so eating them minutes before being tested would have no effect.

 

[GraftPunk]

Masking agents or gummy bear thread? I'm somewhat more interested in actual masking agents (Epitest? Probenecid? Hep?), and am curious if anyone knows if IEF is being bandied about for future testing re. gene doping since I know genetic manipulation been suggested (not sure how seriously, granted) in the case of an athlete of the Dawg's transformation.

 

[Irondan]

Re:

Masking agents or gummy bear thread? I'm somewhat more interested in actual masking agents (Epitest? Probenecid? Hep?), and am curious if anyone knows if IEF is being bandied about for future testing re. gene doping since I know genetic manipulation been suggested (not sure how seriously, granted) in the case of an athlete of the Dawg's transformation.

This is the Masking Agent thread.

 

[Dan2016]

Re: Re:

Cut for brevity:

This problem has cropped up before in the clinic. People twist a foreign language link or use snippets to try and reinforce a point that the link does not reinforce. It's particularly obvious in this case as the WADA list is freely available to anyone and everyone.

(Ignore me, nothing further to add) Just acknowledging your reply Boonen, cheers. Didn't know some posters were known to deliberately twist foreign links to reinforce their point, I'm not here enough. I must admit, rather than being bad, that sounds like a good bit of comical mischief to me. I'm probably in the minority though.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Yet more Haibo doping! These people know no shame!

Jacopo Guarnieri‏
@jacopoguarnieri

That moment you realize you left home ALL your Haribo and still have a full week of racing. @dauphine

5:30 pm - 6 Jun 2017

 

[fmk_RoI]

Yet more evidence of widespread Haribo doping in the pro peloton, Sky's Luke Rowe and Orica's Matthew Hayman "tucking in" mid-race

When will Cookson act to stamp out this sort of thing?!?

 

[fmk_RoI]

This Haribo doping, it's everywhere!

 

[fmk_RoI]

Changes to the prohibited list for 2018 include allowing Haribo doping

DIURETICS AND MASKING AGENTS
• In consideration of the information published in scientific articles since 2012 that particularly addresses the ability of glycerol to influence the athlete‘s plasma volume and parameters of the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP), the magnitude of glycerol-derived effects is regarded as minimal. Therefore, glycerol has been removed from the Prohibited List.

 

[Cookster15]

Re:

Changes to the prohibited list for 2018 include allowing Haribo doping

DIURETICS AND MASKING AGENTS
• In consideration of the information published in scientific articles since 2012 that particularly addresses the ability of glycerol to influence the athlete‘s plasma volume and parameters of the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP), the magnitude of glycerol-derived effects is regarded as minimal. Therefore, glycerol has been removed from the Prohibited List.

the magnitude of glycerol-derived effects is regarded as minimal

So what's the big deal?