The Grey Area doping thread

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Oh and most importantly :cool:

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) have published the 2018 list of prohibited substances, with a number of minor changes being announced.

Approved by the WADA Executive Committee at their meeting in Paris last Sunday (September 24), the list designates what substances and methods are prohibited both in and out-of-competition.

Alcohol has been removed from the prohibited list, with the substance having previously been banned in four sports.
 
Re: Re:

King Boonen said:
Benotti69 said:
Merckx index said:
thehog said:
Cycle Telmisartan with Astaxanthin which is also legal. Astaxanthin is a PPAR-gamma antagonist (and PPAR-alpha agonist) you can get close to the effects of GW. Both here are boarding on gene doping. Well to be honest it is gene doping, as molecular structure is being changed in the human body. 5 days on, 2 days off with he best part being the huge gains are when you cycle off Telmisartan, thus never needing to declare it on your doping form.
No, it's not gene doping. These substances are simply ligands, like other drugs, that bind to and activate specific kinds of receptors. You have to keep taking them. Gene doping is forever.

That said, very interesting stuff, hog. I guess anything that's legal can be classified as a marginal gain, with the margins quite extensive in this case.
I think WADA and UCI's code covers so called grey area PEDs, ie illegal. Taking anything to enhance performance is illegal. Just because UCI doesn't police the sport doesn't make it legal.
Actually, the WADA code doesn’t state that. If that were the case you could argue employing a dietician is doping.
Benotti is correct. Class S0 is basically WADAs catch all class.There are no grey area substances really.

S0 Non-Approved Substances
Any pharmacological substance which is not
addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the
List and with no current approval by any governmental
regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use
(e.g. drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development
or discontinued, designer drugs, substances approved
only for veterinary use) is prohibited at all times.
 
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
King Boonen said:
Benotti69 said:
Merckx index said:
thehog said:
Cycle Telmisartan with Astaxanthin which is also legal. Astaxanthin is a PPAR-gamma antagonist (and PPAR-alpha agonist) you can get close to the effects of GW. Both here are boarding on gene doping. Well to be honest it is gene doping, as molecular structure is being changed in the human body. 5 days on, 2 days off with he best part being the huge gains are when you cycle off Telmisartan, thus never needing to declare it on your doping form.
No, it's not gene doping. These substances are simply ligands, like other drugs, that bind to and activate specific kinds of receptors. You have to keep taking them. Gene doping is forever.

That said, very interesting stuff, hog. I guess anything that's legal can be classified as a marginal gain, with the margins quite extensive in this case.
I think WADA and UCI's code covers so called grey area PEDs, ie illegal. Taking anything to enhance performance is illegal. Just because UCI doesn't police the sport doesn't make it legal.
Actually, the WADA code doesn’t state that. If that were the case you could argue employing a dietician is doping.
Benotti is correct. Class S0 is basically WADAs catch all class.There are no grey area substances really.

S0 Non-Approved Substances
Any pharmacological substance which is not
addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the
List and with no current approval by any governmental
regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use
(e.g. drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development
or discontinued, designer drugs, substances approved
only for veterinary use) is prohibited at all times.
That's possibly the most clueless thing I've seen posted while actually quoting the WADA code/prohibited list. I mean, it literally says non-approved substances and then defines them.
 
Re: Re:

samhocking said:
Benotti is correct. Class S0 is basically WADAs catch all class.There are no grey area substances really.

S0 Non-Approved Substances
Any pharmacological substance which is not
addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the
List and with no current approval by any governmental
regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use
(e.g. drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development
or discontinued, designer drugs, substances approved
only for veterinary use)
is prohibited at all times.
I'm a bit slow today Sam, so could you explain the bolded part in simple English and whether that includes Tramadol? TIA.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
Tramadol is approved and not prohibited so it isn't a Class S0 Substance.
As for the bolded part, it's simply listing all types of non-approved substances as prohibited at all times.
(And I thought I had my slow head on today...)

So Tramadol is not so called 'grey area doping' then, is that correct?

Ditto OOC use of corticos?

Basically, you and Benny are of the view that doping is only what's declared as doping by the List, with the List having a catch all category that covers everything not otherwise covered?

(That's such a head wreck I'm maybe actually glad to have my slow head on, otherwise that logic loop might shortcircuit me.)

Why do new substances have to be added to the List? Surely each review should now be only about unbanning things banned?

(Maybe everyone in WADA also has their slow head on and so can't see how wrong they are. Or, maybe they realise their error but are just digging a deeper hole, hoping people will then stop asking silly questions.)
 
That's not how anti-doping works. If only lol!

You're confusing the grey area of rules and ethics with black and white area of substance classes. The two are not related. Doping is a legal matter, not only what is in your body.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
That's not how anti-doping works. If only lol!

You're confusing the grey area of rules with substances. The two are not related. Doping is a legal matter, not what is in your body.
I was answering a specific point from Benotti. You jumped in with some strawman discussion about non-approved substances which were never mentioned by Benotti. I really don’t see why this is so difficult... anyone would think it is purposeful...
 
Benottie clearly states "I think WADA and UCI's code covers so called grey area PEDs, ie illegal. Taking anything to enhance performance is illegal."

The part of the code that covers the grey area is S0. Taking anything that's classed black and white by WADA is considered performance enhancing and illegal like Benotti says (within Classes S1-S5). Tramadol is not a grey area substance because WADA haven't placed Tramadol within any class yet have they, they are monitoring its use. Doping is a legal matter. Ethically, perhaps it should be classed yesterday, but ethics don't decide what is illegal or what is doping and rules decide where the grey area is not the substance.
 
S0 covers anything not in S1-S5. It's simple to understand. Tramadol is not within any class, it's not a grey area until it's placed within a class and then the rules surrounding its permitted use can make it a grey area.
 
Re:

samhocking said:
S0 covers anything not in S1-S5. It's simple to understand. Tramadol is not within any class, it's not a grey area until it's placed within a class and then the rules surrounding its permitted use can make it a grey area.
Sam enough already. S0 covers drugs in development or other drugs not authorised for human use. It has nothing to do with what you are claiming it means.
 
It's not silly, it's crystal clear. Tramadol in terms of anti-doping is not a grey area. It is not placed within S0-S5 all times. It is monitored just like Codeine & Hydrocodone are and would end up in S7 in compeition if prohibited.

The only grey area in anti-doping is within the WADA rules allowing prohibited substances to be used and within S0 class because substances in S0 are not necessarily detectable.
 
Do I take that Tramadol isn't a grey doping area then compared to say faking an ankle injury for TUE Corticosteroids otherwise banned or using a banned substance in S0 you know WADA do not know about and can't detect so you are legally protected just like the TUE protects you legally?
 
Re:

samhocking said:
The only grey area in anti-doping is within the WADA rules allowing prohibited substances to be used and within S0 class because substances in S0 are not necessarily detectable.
This point is interesting, because NFL player Julian Edelman just got sanctioned, and his defense is that the NFL doesn't even know what the substance he was caught with is. They can't identify it. What they presumably can do, though, is claim it's non-approved.

Don't want to sidetrack the, ahem, discussion about tramadol, but thought this ought to be pointed out.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY