Stade 2 controlled doping experiment

Stade 2 sponsored a controlled doping experiment, 8 athletes from different sports were micro-doped for 29 days and their results measured. A report will be shown on today's show at 17:25 (Sunday May 3)

A cycling time trial showed a 5% performance improvement, equivalent to the 22nd placed rider in the world championships moving into 1st place.

In the 3,000m run, the times improved by up to 31 seconds.

A marathon runner said he felt he could run twice the distance after doping.

http://www.lequipe.fr/Medias/Actualites/Huit-sportifs-se-dopent-pour-stade-2/555179
 
Tyler Hamilton cited 10%, from 400W to 440W without or with EPO on a climb. Nothing new, except that a major/national TV discusses doping instead of looking the other way. Or so it seems. I don't think the masses will make much of it, and France Television, while posing as "journalists with integrity" (trademark The Hitch), keeps Jalabert on their payroll...
 
Thought so. On very, very limited data, which really needs to be done more of to draw conclusions, micro dosing has half the effect of really going for it. Of course different people respond differently. Really need to test many more to get a real idea of what happens.

Perhaps if a reasonable bottom response level is found then the UCI could make every cyclist micro-dose in December and test them. Those who don't respond must have been already doping. Not really a suggestion that could be implemented and not sure it would work.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Re:

mrhender said:
I take it this is the same as the other thread "passport compromised"...

Is it over.. I get some rugby now?

Right channel?

http://pluzz.francetv.fr/france2

You need to change country to france (if you are not there) via hola for example...
indeed, maybe mods can merge this with the existing thread on the same topic.
 

Irondan

Administrator
Moderator
Re:

TheGreenMonkey said:
Thought so. On very, very limited data, which really needs to be done more of to draw conclusions, micro dosing has half the effect of really going for it. Of course different people respond differently. Really need to test many more to get a real idea of what happens.

Perhaps if a reasonable bottom response level is found then the UCI could make every cyclist micro-dose in December and test them. Those who don't respond must have been already doping. Not really a suggestion that could be implemented and not sure it would work.
I agree. With people responding differently to PED's, it's hard to really put any stock into a story that revolves around 8 people. It's silly to call this an experiment anyway... It's more like a confirmation of the fact that the media is clueless about doping in sport or just doesn't care. Maybe both?
 
Re: Re:

irondan said:
TheGreenMonkey said:
Thought so. On very, very limited data, which really needs to be done more of to draw conclusions, micro dosing has half the effect of really going for it. Of course different people respond differently. Really need to test many more to get a real idea of what happens.

Perhaps if a reasonable bottom response level is found then the UCI could make every cyclist micro-dose in December and test them. Those who don't respond must have been already doping. Not really a suggestion that could be implemented and not sure it would work.
I agree. With people responding differently to PED's, it's hard to really put any stock into a story that revolves around 8 people. It's silly to call this an experiment anyway... It's more like a confirmation of the fact that the media is clueless about doping in sport or just doesn't care. Maybe both?
Interesting, I came to pretty much the exact opposite conclusion.

I found this a very interesting and enlightening experience. Of course different athletes respond differently, and this came out clearly in the report. After all, measuring different responses was one of the objectives of the study!

The sample was limited, but this doesn't mean the project had no value.

I would rather have the media take this serious approach than simply repeating the same old comments.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
well, someone needs to bring out the elephant in the room.

doesn't this pretty much prove it's impossible to win GTs clean? 5% is way too much for any clean rider to overcome.
 
And if they did overcome it, I very much doubt it would be by dominating the final tt which is how all the recent champions have continued to do it, considering the dopers biggest advantage is going to be in the final week.
 
Re:

the sceptic said:
well, someone needs to bring out the elephant in the room.

doesn't this pretty much prove it's impossible to win GTs clean? 5% is way too much for any clean rider to overcome.
The elephant in the room is their elephant in the booth: Jalabert. They will turn around and cover races as if nothing happened.

Even 3% would be insurmountable. Only better tests and retroactive testing can fight micro-dosing. And wait: genetic manipulation is just around the corner.

That was my Benotti69 impersonation :D
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Re: Re:

frenchfry said:
irondan said:
TheGreenMonkey said:
Thought so. On very, very limited data, which really needs to be done more of to draw conclusions, micro dosing has half the effect of really going for it. Of course different people respond differently. Really need to test many more to get a real idea of what happens.

Perhaps if a reasonable bottom response level is found then the UCI could make every cyclist micro-dose in December and test them. Those who don't respond must have been already doping. Not really a suggestion that could be implemented and not sure it would work.
I agree. With people responding differently to PED's, it's hard to really put any stock into a story that revolves around 8 people. It's silly to call this an experiment anyway... It's more like a confirmation of the fact that the media is clueless about doping in sport or just doesn't care. Maybe both?
Interesting, I came to pretty much the exact opposite conclusion.

I found this a very interesting and enlightening experience. Of course different athletes respond differently, and this came out clearly in the report. After all, measuring different responses was one of the objectives of the study!

The sample was limited, but this doesn't mean the project had no value.

I would rather have the media take this serious approach than simply repeating the same old comments.
according to neineinei the experiment also showed the ABP of the athletes remained stable in spite of (or thanks to) the microdosing.
now let's assume irondan is right, and those guys who ran the experiment were indeed clueless about doping. imagine what the more experienced cycling docs will be capable of achieving within the limits of the passport.
 
Re: Re:

sniper said:
according to neineinei the experiment also showed the ABP of the athletes remained stable in spite of (or thanks to) the microdosing.
now let's assume irondan is right, and those guys who ran the experiment were indeed clueless about doping. imagine what the more experienced cycling docs will be capable of achieving within the limits of the passport.
Indeed, full blown doping over a longer period - imagine the results! Other important point, especially as far as cycling and other aerobic sports go, is that they didn't use any Aicar type products. Only the classics: EPO, HGH, corticoids and a blood transfusion. At one point in the report they explained the difference in volume of products taken in the study compared to what they assume would be a full program. The difference was staggering.

The first report presented on Stade 2 was the rugby European cup won by Toulon. Those guys are all incredibly huge, yet incredibly agile. Cycling is far from the only sport ravaged by doping.
 
Re: Re:

Tonton said:
the sceptic said:
well, someone needs to bring out the elephant in the room.

doesn't this pretty much prove it's impossible to win GTs clean? 5% is way too much for any clean rider to overcome.
The elephant in the room is their elephant in the booth: Jalabert. They will turn around and cover races as if nothing happened.

Even 3% would be insurmountable. Only better tests and retroactive testing can fight micro-dosing. And wait: genetic manipulation is just around the corner.

That was my Benotti69 impersonation :D
As much as I really like Jalabert as a commentator, I have to agree with you on this.

As a minimum he should clearly admit to his doping, then he would come across as less hypocritical.
 
Let's not forget that this is only the effect of modern blood doping. When you consider the newer weight-loss PEDs, 5% + X% might well lead to boosts similar to what people were getting pre-Puerto.
 
Re:

hrotha said:
Let's not forget that this is only the effect of modern blood doping. When you consider the newer weight-loss PEDs, 5% + X% might well lead to boosts similar to what people were getting pre-Puerto.
Yep, you have the blood microdosing during the season, Aicar/Clen (and whatever else) to shed the weight and keep the power, plus some still doing the full program during off-season training in Colombia, Tenerife or wherever when the big gains in power can be made. It probably adds up to more than a 10% advantage - the difference between winning a GT and being an average domestic pro. No different to pre-Puerto.
 
Apr 3, 2011
2,301
0
0
... and this time, surprisingly WADA and UCI responds to the report (means they are worried, previous studies were probably less convincing) - but obviously the only thing they can do is to reject it en bloc due to some formal issues, blablabla...

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/wada-and-uci-respond-to-french-biological-passport-report

But this is quite nice, why are they even mentioning it, certainly not to encourage further studies - maybe they should think about banning any research that should reveal their testing is inefficient, what a nice brave new era would it be:

[WADA]“does not ever recommend athletes take part as ‘human guinea pigs’ in a study in which they would be subjected to taking performance enhancing drugs.”
 
Feb 22, 2011
465
0
0
Re:

[WADA]“does not ever recommend athletes take part as ‘human guinea pigs’ in a study in which they would be subjected to taking performance enhancing drugs.” We have Sky for that.
There, fixed it.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 11
B The Clinic 2
D The Clinic 10

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS