The Evidence

Page 12 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
KayLow said:
From pages 77-80 of David Walsh's book From Lance to Landis:

Comparable to anabolic steroids, beta-hCG stimulates muscle growth, increases training capacity, stimulates levels of aggression, and pushes back the fatigue threshold. The abused of beta-hCG was identified in 1983 and has been detectable through urine analysis since 1987. Its use was prohibited by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the International Cycling Union (UCI) in 1988. That year, a report produced by Professor Raymond Brooks revealed hCG was being used by top British sports people. Though it was then on the list of banned products, it was not systematically tested for because no official threshold was established for a positive result. It was also the case that beta-hCG was not looked for unless it was known the testosterone level was already elevated.


“I would like to know what my level was at the time of the control,” he said in a reference to his drug test after the Grand Prix Suisse in August, six weeks before his cancer was detected “It it’s true the UCI keeps all the results, it should be possible to know where my cancer was at that time.” Asked by the American journalist James Startt about the failure of the doping controls to identify his elevated beta-hCG levels, Armstrong regretted this had happened. But there was not public explanation, either from the rider or the authorities, as to why the system had failed.


The only official reaction from UCI to the apparent contradiction of hCG not showing up in drug tests came from Anne-Laure Masson in an interview with Le Monde. Masson was then medical coordinator of the world governing body. “I’m perplexed because if the level of hCG was also high, Lance Armstrong should have tested positive, in principle. For now, it is inexplicable.”

You are not focusing on what is important regarding HCG and performance. That is in regards to how HCG actually functions in the male body when introduced and its purpose.

This statement in particular "Comparable to anabolic steroids, beta-hCG stimulates muscle growth, increases training capacity, stimulates levels of aggression, and pushes back the fatigue threshold."

That is an incorrect and ridiculous statement.

HCG does one thing, it simulates LH which signals your testicles to convert other hormones to testosterone. It acts nothing like steroids and is not a steroid. It is a replacement for your natural production of Luteinizing Hormone.

Once you take HCG, your HPTA negative loop will shut down/supress your natural LH production levels as it takes over the duties of signalling your testicles to make testosterone.

There might be a very short term increase above your natural levels of testosterone, but after a very short time, you will be relying on the HCG to provide the LH signal to your testicles, and the total testosterone levels will go back down to an equilibrium state that it can produce naturally.

If your natural levels of LH are low, this will typical indicate your natural testosterone levels will be low also. Therefore, HCG can be helpful to increase the natural method of producing testosterone via your testicles.

HCG in an of itself has absolutely ZERO ability to "stimulate muscle growth, increase training capacity, stimulate levels of aggression (laughable assersion..roid rage!!!) etc..." and taken from that above quote. It simiulates LH (Leutinizing Hormone), LH has no anabolic properties.

It is simply taking over the role/function of your natural LH production from your HPTA.

Taking more and more HCG does absolutely nothing. There is a desensitivity issue with taking more and more HCG. Above 250-500ius of HCG 2-3 times per week will provide no additional benefit. Your testicles and your body's natural ability to then produce testosterone are the limiting factor. Thus, taking HCG isn't a guarantee that your testosterone will increase that much at all. There is no evidence/studies to support exactly what the maximum level is, but general consensus is that it will get you to around the normal levels you could potentially have if your body worked normally in the natural production of LH. You won't reach super-natural levels busting over the top of the total testosterone assay like you can with massive amounts of synthetic test/steroids.

You will shortly hit a ceiling and limit to what your testicles can produce by LH stimulation. That is simple. It is why HCG isn't used as a method of reaching higher levels of testosterone to improve anabolic effect. Synthetic testosterone and other steroids are used for that.

Whatever the benefits are from such is no more than what a body natural does. It isn't going to make you superman. All it will do is restore levels of Test your body is capable of producing and what the effects of normal testosterone in a male can do in and of itself. It is no magic bullet as those ridiculous statements make in that quote.

So HCG can be useful in the fact it can raise your levels of testosterone if you were secondary hypogondic and your natural LH levels were low. This is true.

HCG really just helps to keep your "balls" working and not shrinking up while on a cycle. You take the risk of permanent secondary hypogonadism by taking HCG as well as any extraneous steroid.

Very few people, if any, can sustain a regimen long term of HCG use only for HRT. The desensitivity issue always arises, and only short term use is found to be effective.

Using HCG for cycling, in short burst, could possibly give an initial boost for a week or two and raise testosterone levels somewhat above natural levels. But, once the feedback loop kicks in of the HPTA, the levels will drop right back down lower. So if LA did use HCG, it would only make sense for short amounts of time to attempt to get your testicles to produce more testosterone and increase the levels somewhat. This could lead to some minor improvements in physical conditioning, as any increase in testosterone levels would do. Except it is very subtle and never at the same high levels taking synthetic steroids can produce.

So if LA was using HCG, it would have only been useful in short burst of use. Whether it would give any real benefit of performance is dependent entirely on what his natural hormone levels were and reaction to HCG at the time. Who knows. If anybody says as a statement of fact they know how LA would respond to taking HCG, it is a complete lie and there is no way to back this statement up with facts. It might have been a complete waste of time/money and risk for him to take HCG.

Men also use HCG as a supplement to testosterone therapy to help with the shrunken ball (psychological affect) and produce some extra testosterone, but it won't help produce that much more that what they are already taking via injections/creams.
 
Feb 16, 2011
1,456
5
0
Ok, so Lance didn't dope, but even if he did it didn't make any difference.

Ok, gotcha.

zigmeister said:
You are not focusing on what is important regarding HCG and performance. That is in regards to how HCG actually functions in the male body when introduced and its purpose.

This statement in particular "Comparable to anabolic steroids, beta-hCG stimulates muscle growth, increases training capacity, stimulates levels of aggression, and pushes back the fatigue threshold."

That is an incorrect and ridiculous statement.

HCG does one thing, it simulates LH which signals your testicles to convert other hormones to testosterone. It acts nothing like steroids and is not a steroid. It is a replacement for your natural production of Luteinizing Hormone.

Once you take HCG, your HPTA negative loop will shut down/supress your natural LH production levels as it takes over the duties of signalling your testicles to make testosterone.

There might be a very short term increase above your natural levels of testosterone, but after a very short time, you will be relying on the HCG to provide the LH signal to your testicles, and the total testosterone levels will go back down to an equilibrium state that it can produce naturally.

If your natural levels of LH are low, this will typical indicate your natural testosterone levels will be low also. Therefore, HCG can be helpful to increase the natural method of producing testosterone via your testicles.

HCG in an of itself has absolutely ZERO ability to "stimulate muscle growth, increase training capacity, stimulate levels of aggression (laughable assersion..roid rage!!!) etc..." and taken from that above quote. It simiulates LH (Leutinizing Hormone), LH has no anabolic properties.

It is simply taking over the role/function of your natural LH production from your HPTA.

Taking more and more HCG does absolutely nothing. There is a desensitivity issue with taking more and more HCG. Above 250-500ius of HCG 2-3 times per week will provide no additional benefit. Your testicles and your body's natural ability to then produce testosterone are the limiting factor. Thus, taking HCG isn't a guarantee that your testosterone will increase that much at all. There is no evidence/studies to support exactly what the maximum level is, but general consensus is that it will get you to around the normal levels you could potentially have if your body worked normally in the natural production of LH. You won't reach super-natural levels busting over the top of the total testosterone assay like you can with massive amounts of synthetic test/steroids.

You will shortly hit a ceiling and limit to what your testicles can produce by LH stimulation. That is simple. It is why HCG isn't used as a method of reaching higher levels of testosterone to improve anabolic effect. Synthetic testosterone and other steroids are used for that.

Whatever the benefits are from such is no more than what a body natural does. It isn't going to make you superman. All it will do is restore levels of Test your body is capable of producing and what the effects of normal testosterone in a male can do in and of itself. It is no magic bullet as those ridiculous statements make in that quote.

So HCG can be useful in the fact it can raise your levels of testosterone if you were secondary hypogondic and your natural LH levels were low. This is true.

HCG really just helps to keep your "balls" working and not shrinking up while on a cycle. You take the risk of permanent secondary hypogonadism by taking HCG as well as any extraneous steroid.

Very few people, if any, can sustain a regimen long term of HCG use only for HRT. The desensitivity issue always arises, and only short term use is found to be effective.

Using HCG for cycling, in short burst, could possibly give an initial boost for a week or two and raise testosterone levels somewhat above natural levels. But, once the feedback loop kicks in of the HPTA, the levels will drop right back down lower. So if LA did use HCG, it would only make sense for short amounts of time to attempt to get your testicles to produce more testosterone and increase the levels somewhat. This could lead to some minor improvements in physical conditioning, as any increase in testosterone levels would do. Except it is very subtle and never at the same high levels taking synthetic steroids can produce.

So if LA was using HCG, it would have only been useful in short burst of use. Whether it would give any real benefit of performance is dependent entirely on what his natural hormone levels were and reaction to HCG at the time. Who knows. If anybody says as a statement of fact they know how LA would respond to taking HCG, it is a complete lie and there is no way to back this statement up with facts. It might have been a complete waste of time/money and risk for him to take HCG.

Men also use HCG as a supplement to testosterone therapy to help with the shrunken ball (psychological affect) and produce some extra testosterone, but it won't help produce that much more that what they are already taking via injections/creams.
 
Jul 30, 2012
79
0
0
The argument is not that Lance was taking hCG. The argument is that the testing program in cycling around 1996 was so poor or corrupt that a guy who had extremely high levels of hCG due to testicular cancer never had a positive test result for high hCG levels. Whatever the source of this possible testing failure was, it would, if true, demonstrate that the testing of Lance Armstrong's urine is not nearly as infallible a guide to his use of PEDs as he would have us believe.
 
Stingray34 said:
Ok, so Lance didn't dope, but even if he did it didn't make any difference.

Ok, gotcha.

Wow, you couldn't deal with the facts that a so-called "expert" is wrong and can't provide basic medical evidence based of my information?

Nicely done.

You should read much of what I've written. I continually have said Lance likely has doped. Does that change anything for you?

But, if you are going to make posts with idiotic and plainly false information regarding what a drug can/can't do and respond with the above post, then there really is no hope for you and many.

My point again, what is the point of all of the banter of HCG testing and validity. It has been around for years and years and is reliable.

The question was making statements of how HCG is some magical anabolic enhacing chemical that can do all the things I quoted the person as stating it can. Which is wrong.

HCG is NOT an anabolic agent or chemical. It simply acts as LH to signal your testicles (in Lance's case, testicle) to produce testosterone via the normal methods and hormonal channels.

If you have something to state as evidence as contrary to what I made with studies/facts, please indulge me.

Otherwise, you can now continue to go back to your "Lance doped!!!" one liners in the other threads.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
2
0
Race Radio said:
Never tested positive?

Nope. 2004 and 2005

these couldn't be analytical positives, could they? USADA would have mentioned them previously wouldn't they?
 
May 26, 2010
28,143
5
0
Race Radio said:
Wouldn't it be funny if Hincapie wasn't the best witness USADA had? Yeah, that would be REALLY funny

Who could be better than Hincapie?

Never followed the USPS/Disco team closely since it was obv they were juicing.
 
Oct 8, 2010
43
0
0
Race Radio said:
Wouldn't it be funny if Hincapie wasn't the best witness USADA had? Yeah, that would be REALLY funny

I guess there is no rider who is a better witness than GH. So it would be something like Saugy or someone else who is trustworthy saying "yes we covered up those tests":eek:
 
Sep 25, 2009
7,527
1
0
there are several candidates for a more devastating witness than george george...

the supreme deep throat would be doctor zorzolli - a multi-rear head and insider of the uci medical and anti-doping kitchen - extremely unlikely, though

the second best would anne gripper - she left the uci under less than clear circumstances. also unlikely.

the more likely would be a double-crossing of some insider like the charged doctors or a trainer. in fact, part of the reason the usada charged them was to obtain killer-confessions. but unfortunately, without the help of the police and anti-crime authorities of the countries the perpetrator are citizens of, this too must remain a pipe dream.