Study - Dopers could benefit 'for decades'

Mar 25, 2013
5,389
0
0
Convicted dope cheats such as sprinter Justin Gatlin could still be benefiting from having taken banned substances long after their bans have expired.
Research by University of Oslo (external) scientists has established that muscles can retain the advantages given by anabolic steroids decades after the point at which they were taken.
Kristian Gundersen, Professor of Physiology at the University of Oslo, told BBC Sport: "I think it is likely that effects could be lifelong or at least lasting decades in humans.
"Our data indicates the exclusion time of two years is far too short. Even four years is too short."
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/athletics/29510575
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
ralphbert said:
I asked JV about this specifically on Twitter a while ago he said that he was worse after coming off epo than what he was before going on. But this was after the garmin illuminati received their 6 month bans so i consumed this opinion with a beach of salt granules.
But consider the effect of being on EPO: your body stops production. Come off EPO - your body takes some time before it ramps up production again as your Hct slowly lowers back to "normal".

Of course you feel worse off.
 
Nov 14, 2013
527
0
0
Dear Wiggo said:
But consider the effect of being on EPO: your body stops production. Come off EPO - your body takes some time before it ramps up production again as your Hct slowly lowers back to "normal".

Of course you feel worse off.
Temporary worse or permanently worse?

I couched the question as if you train a heightened level for 10 years then got cleans would you be faster than training at a normal level for 10 years. JV said no studies done but his opinion was slower not faster. Not what I was expecting. But like I said this was after a bunch of 6 month bans so maybe I was asking the wrong person.
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
ralphbert said:
Temporary worse or permanently worse?

I couched the question as if you train a heightened level for 10 years then got cleans would you be faster than training at a normal level for 10 years. JV said no studies done but his opinion was slower not faster. Not what I was expecting. But like I said this was after a bunch of 6 month bans so maybe I was asking the wrong person.
Yeah funny that there are no studies done, and now never can be, given everyone stopped doping in 2006.

1. JV's going to say anything that paints the current climate in a good light.
2. JV also says it did sweet FA for him as he already had a high Hct - so I am not sure how much worse off he thinks he felt / was.
 
Dec 7, 2010
5,507
0
0
ralphbert said:
I asked JV about this specifically on Twitter a while ago he said that he was worse after coming off epo...



This study is dealing strictly with the effects of steroids. Different beast entirely.



Also, I believe the linked study has already been discussed here. I'll try to find...


[edit]
Could've been this one from last year:
Long term muscle memory response to steroids
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
:D I was thinking the same thing - should have posted a stop sign also.

And steroids are used for recovery in cycling - so it's relevant to the discussion.
 
The biggest impact to chronic performance is how it distorts opportunity.

Dopers make teams, get contracts, resources, support and continue to gain valuable exposure and experience with the sport at a higher level, which in and of itself confers a massive long term performance benefit, compared with those who miss out.

Length of sanctions isn't the issue really, it's catching (or preventing) dopers to begin with.
 
Nov 14, 2013
527
0
0
Granville57 said:



This study is dealing strictly with the effects of steroids. Different beast entirely.
Your no fun. I am trying to lob a grenade in to the 6 month garmin illuminate bans.
 
Anabolic Steroids (and HGH and other growth factors) certainly are a different beast to EPO in terms of the long term effects.


4 years as a standard ban is surely a whole lot better than 2 years. So thats some progress at least.
Life bans are just not feasible as a standard punishment and should be reserved for the very worst cases.


Of course I wonder what the NFL makes of this....
 
Well, I think the study is missing something, Gaitlin is still doping is the answer. Not the effects last years. The guy has been popped over and over, he won't change his ways until the lifetime ban hits.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Dear Wiggo said:
But consider the effect of being on EPO: your body stops production. Come off EPO - your body takes some time before it ramps up production again as your Hct slowly lowers back to "normal".

Of course you feel worse off.
But of course JV did not tell us how he felt coming off HgH or steroids etc.....
 
Jul 9, 2009
517
0
0
Yes, there are probably cases where athletes can still benefit (both directly and 'indirectly' by having been able to train harder) years after being clean (from AAS) but it's not always the case because potential benefits can also be overshadowed by negative effects.

Gatlin, who I really dislike, is most certainly still using so he is not a 'good' example. You don't get busted several times and then come back and perform at the same level or better without drug assistance.
 
Alex Simmons/RST said:
The biggest impact to chronic performance is how it distorts opportunity.

Dopers make teams, get contracts, resources, support and continue to gain valuable exposure and experience with the sport at a higher level, which in and of itself confers a massive long term performance benefit, compared with those who miss out.

Length of sanctions isn't the issue really, it's catching (or preventing) dopers to begin with.
This idea is hugely important. One good performance can get you in the door, and give you access to (clean) things you never had before. Dope for a year as an amateur, get a minor contract, and now you have a team riding for you in races. Dope as a Continental rider, get a more lucrative contract, and now you can buy fresh veggies instead of frozen. Or maybe you spend a few nights in a hotel instead of sleeping on a friends couch while traveling. Drop off the dope, and you're still better than you were, now with more resources to continue to ride in a clean way. (Pulling an Andy Schleck) (Unfortunately, marginal gains is an anachronism for contemporary doping, but some things that do make you better aren't always accessible until you "make it".)
 
Jul 25, 2014
305
0
0
Roids I havent taken in over 16 years but if I start hitting the weights again, especially my legs they still grow back pretty fast if I eat enough. Muscle memory even after all those years I believe is true, I gain very fast naturally.

I am already over proportioned as it is with my lower body with huge calves & thighs but spaghetti arms in comparison so I don't even so much as look at a squat bar, leg press or extensions any more. Bit of weights for upper body, cardio with cycling and stairmaster for the lower..

For cycling? Sprinters maybe, but gc types use corticoids which have pretty much the opposite effect to anabolic steroids in your system. That's why some are like a bag of bones above the waist and use Edgar and bb's for their performance enhancement.
 
Nov 2, 2013
121
0
0
More Strides than Rides said:
This idea is hugely important. One good performance can get you in the door, and give you access to (clean) things you never had before. Dope for a year as an amateur, get a minor contract, and now you have a team riding for you in races. Dope as a Continental rider, get a more lucrative contract, and now you can buy fresh veggies instead of frozen. Or maybe you spend a few nights in a hotel instead of sleeping on a friends couch while traveling. Drop off the dope, and you're still better than you were, now with more resources to continue to ride in a clean way. (Pulling an Andy Schleck) (Unfortunately, marginal gains is an anachronism for contemporary doping, but some things that do make you better aren't always accessible until you "make it".)
Is this not how Slipstream also took the jump up a level as a team? In 2008 they made some significant roster changes and took on 5 now confirmed former(?) dopers. Even if they were former dopers these guys had experience and known names that helped to attract sponsors, race invites etc that gave the Slipstream/Chipotle Team a chance at the bigger time in pro cycling.

I fully agree that a doping past can give an athlete a leg up in their careers over fully clean competitors. And taken a step further a team that hires ex dopers also gains advantage from past doping and takes a short cut to success. Can it then be considered a "clean team"?

Cycling being an individual sport practiced by team should a win by a clean rider who was supported by an advantaged (doped or former doped) teammate still be considered a win for clean sport?
 
Mar 16, 2013
98
0
0
Alex Simmons/RST said:
The biggest impact to chronic performance is how it distorts opportunity.

Dopers make teams, get contracts, resources, support and continue to gain valuable exposure and experience with the sport at a higher level, which in and of itself confers a massive long term performance benefit, compared with those who miss out.

Length of sanctions isn't the issue really, it's catching (or preventing) dopers to begin with.
This is the real issue. Opportunity.

Personally, I think a study showing mice on steroids were still stronger several weeks later has nothing to do with humans being stronger for decades after. Maybe the latter is true, but that can't be concluded from the former.
 
May 19, 2010
1,899
0
0
zigmeister said:
Well, I think the study is missing something, Gaitlin is still doping is the answer. Not the effects last years. The guy has been popped over and over, he won't change his ways until the lifetime ban hits.
They were studing mice, not Justin Gatlin.

http://jp.physoc.org/content/591/24/6221

• Training studio folklore suggests that previous strength training, with or without the use of anabolic steroids facilitates re-acquisition of muscle mass even after long intervening periods of inactivity. This ‘muscle memory' has previously been attributed to motor learning, but our data suggest the existence of a cellular memory residing in the muscle fibres themselves.

• Muscle fibres have multiple nuclei, and the number of nuclei increases when muscle mass increases.

• When mice were briefly treated with steroids the muscle mass and number of nuclei increased. The drug was subsequently withdrawn for 3 months and the muscle mass returned to normal, but the excess cell nuclei persisted. When such muscles were subjected to overload they grew by 30% over 6 days while controls grew insignificantly.

• Our data suggest that previous strength training might be beneficial later in life, and that a brief exposure to anabolic steroids might have long lasting performance-enhancing effects.
 
Gavandope said:
Roids I havent taken in over 16 years but if I start hitting the weights again, especially my legs they still grow back pretty fast if I eat enough. Muscle memory even after all those years I believe is true, I gain very fast naturally.

I am already over proportioned as it is with my lower body with huge calves & thighs but spaghetti arms in comparison so I don't even so much as look at a squat bar, leg press or extensions any more. Bit of weights for upper body, cardio with cycling and stairmaster for the lower..

For cycling? Sprinters maybe, but gc types use corticoids which have pretty much the opposite effect to anabolic steroids in your system. That's why some are like a bag of bones above the waist and use Edgar and bb's for their performance enhancement.

This has nothing to do with steroids. It has been studied that athletes, or even regular people, that have weight trained earlier, causes a muscle memory/acclerated response after a time of laying off. Or detraining.

There are plenty of articles going back to the 80s researching this behavior.

So, you first make gains, and it takes you 6 months lets say. You lay off for 3-4 months, lose gains and muscles atrophy. Then once you train again the same muscles, they respond faster and will return back to the state previously, quicker. It is a type of muscle memory/adaptation and response to resistance training.

Google it. Looks at how old some of these articles are. I studied and did some research on resistance training in athletes for a course in college in the 80s. Harder to find that info then compared to today. Internet makes thinks much easier.
 
Mar 10, 2009
1,296
0
0
So just get every kid on steroids before they take up a pro sport. Get all that muscle development done before they get into a sport with testing. Then they will have every advantage without having to dope once they start in the system. Wasn't this part of the East German objectives or reported part of their program?
 
^Nah...that was just all part of Hitler's nationalistic program in general with all sorts of research and development of drugs. Roids and other PEDs were just one portion of that.
 
May 15, 2012
75
0
0
zigmeister said:
This has nothing to do with steroids..
Wrong.

Hit your natural muscle size peak, go on AAS and get bigger.

Stop training for years, shrink back down, go back to training clean and you will reach a size larger than your original natural peak.

Also if you choose to go back on AAS you will find you need less than previously to reach a certain size.

That has been well discussed amongst bodybuilders. You are talking 'little' people who most likely aren't even near their genetic peak naturally. Once you juice and get bigger over your natural limit, it raises your 'natural limit'.

But that is specifically muscle tissue. EPO doesn't have any long term 'natural' boost above your standard levels.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY