- Oct 17, 2012
- 385
- 0
- 0
I started a thread "spiked" questioning how easy it would be for malicious spectators to spike drinks or food to give riders a positive dope test.
The "tin tack" tour incident proves that malicious spectators are willing to destroy riders and a race.
I started a thread called "spiked" in the clinic on that basis - which was closed on the basis of being "ridiculous" I am not so sure it is.
This is not about Frank Scheck specifically, but that case is instructive of just how low the thresholds now are on prohibitive substances, and that makes the threat of spiking more real.
His blood concentration of xipamide was 100picograms per ml.
Do people understand how small that is?
A clinical dose of xipamide (indeed the typical amount of active ingredient in many typical pharma pills) is say 40 milligrams.
There are a BILLION picograms in every milligram.
So on the basis of 100 pg/ml - for ease of calculation an ENTIRE 10L blood stream would in total contain just ONE single microgramme.
That microgramme is just 1/40000 of a clinical dose.
So the entire content of Schecks blood was less than even the smallest drip from a dose dissolved in a L
Now for sure, not all that you take enters the blood stream, and the body metabolises all drugs, so concentrations are far lower than calculated by dissolving the dose in blood streams and then decrease with time. But it illustrates just how small a "positive" now is for some prohibited substances.
When riders tip a bottle over their heads, or take a sip, what is the chance of a few drips ending ingested? Or picking it up from a contaminated hand when eating?
I am not a clinical specialist, but it sounds possible to me because of the tiny concentrations.
So the thread in my view is not ridiculous and founded on two issues.
1/ Should we be testing for concentrations so low?
2/ If we are testing at that level, then there are a lot of ways it could be done maliciously - so how can they be prevented?
3/ Is it fair to enforce strict liability on riders to explain where it came from when concentrations are so low?
So should the thread have been closed?
What do others think?
Now for sure it attracted facetious replies - but that does not make the thread ridiculous. It makes the facetious replies ridiculous.
I PM d the mod concerned, no response as yet.
This is not the place to discuss the subject, only whether the subject is too ridiculous to warrant discussion.
Any views?
The "tin tack" tour incident proves that malicious spectators are willing to destroy riders and a race.
I started a thread called "spiked" in the clinic on that basis - which was closed on the basis of being "ridiculous" I am not so sure it is.
This is not about Frank Scheck specifically, but that case is instructive of just how low the thresholds now are on prohibitive substances, and that makes the threat of spiking more real.
His blood concentration of xipamide was 100picograms per ml.
Do people understand how small that is?
A clinical dose of xipamide (indeed the typical amount of active ingredient in many typical pharma pills) is say 40 milligrams.
There are a BILLION picograms in every milligram.
So on the basis of 100 pg/ml - for ease of calculation an ENTIRE 10L blood stream would in total contain just ONE single microgramme.
That microgramme is just 1/40000 of a clinical dose.
So the entire content of Schecks blood was less than even the smallest drip from a dose dissolved in a L
Now for sure, not all that you take enters the blood stream, and the body metabolises all drugs, so concentrations are far lower than calculated by dissolving the dose in blood streams and then decrease with time. But it illustrates just how small a "positive" now is for some prohibited substances.
When riders tip a bottle over their heads, or take a sip, what is the chance of a few drips ending ingested? Or picking it up from a contaminated hand when eating?
I am not a clinical specialist, but it sounds possible to me because of the tiny concentrations.
So the thread in my view is not ridiculous and founded on two issues.
1/ Should we be testing for concentrations so low?
2/ If we are testing at that level, then there are a lot of ways it could be done maliciously - so how can they be prevented?
3/ Is it fair to enforce strict liability on riders to explain where it came from when concentrations are so low?
So should the thread have been closed?
What do others think?
Now for sure it attracted facetious replies - but that does not make the thread ridiculous. It makes the facetious replies ridiculous.
I PM d the mod concerned, no response as yet.
This is not the place to discuss the subject, only whether the subject is too ridiculous to warrant discussion.
Any views?