Todays idiot masters fattie doper

[proffate]

I have asthma that crops up in competition during allergy season. I don't think I should be able to take Advair as a gateway to competition.

you sit out races rather than taking a treatment that's medically indicated and doesn't even require a TUE

In fact, this is still a bad analogy, because you could and would use Advair outside of competition if you needed to, but TRT is banned even OOC. You're basically asking a certain class of person to either give up racing or their health; the honest ones would be likely to give up the latter. The dishonest ones cheat and give up neither.

 

[Oldman]

you sit out races rather than taking a treatment that's medically indicated and doesn't even require a TUE

In fact, this is still a bad analogy, because you could and would use Advair outside of competition if you needed to, but TRT is banned even OOC. You're basically asking a certain class of person to either give up racing or their health; the honest ones would be likely to give up the latter. The dishonest ones cheat and give up neither.

I appreciate your dramatic spin but the reality of "asthma" in athletes is: most aren't affected unless they are a)in an environment rich with contributing elements (pollen) b)exerting at a level that triggers the asthma response.
I don't sit out races. I avoid races where minor league aids like Advair do little but prolong the inevitable.
I wouldn't ask anyone to give up their health but realistically, if your health depends on banned substances for survival you probably shouldn't be racing.
99% of the racers I know that have medication for allergy or asthma seek and get only minimal relief. They can ride, train, enjoy their life and be in a race-different than driving a race. They all honestly admit that there probably isn't an answer to that affliction and that's where the cheaters come in to play.
I contest that not a single rider gets a benefit solely from a TUE legal aid that has been busted for it. They may get minor relief, that's all.

 

[BroDeal]

Check out the icon next to Baker's name.

http://www.crossresults.com/racer/39911

 

[proffate]

I appreciate your dramatic spin but the reality of "asthma" in athletes is: most aren't affected unless they are a)in an environment rich with contributing elements (pollen) b)exerting at a level that triggers the asthma response.
I don't sit out races. I avoid races where minor league aids like Advair do little but prolong the inevitable.
I wouldn't ask anyone to give up their health but realistically, if your health depends on banned substances for survival you probably shouldn't be racing.
99% of the racers I know that have medication for allergy or asthma seek and get only minimal relief. They can ride, train, enjoy their life and be in a race-different than driving a race. They all honestly admit that there probably isn't an answer to that affliction and that's where the cheaters come in to play.
I contest that not a single rider gets a benefit solely from a TUE legal aid that has been busted for it. They may get minor relief, that's all.

The guy who was most recently busted (as reported in this thread) was only "in" races, not making races, if you look at his results. And like you, by using exogenous testosterone, he was able to ride, train, and enjoy his life --- but technically not allowed to be "in" races. I doubt his health depended on banned substances for survival (there you go with the exaggeration once again), but in forgoing his medication he'd risk serious detriments to cardiovascular and bone health. You've still failed to provide an argument why his medication should be banned while yours is allowed, aside from the fact that it is currently banned, which is begging the question.

 

[Oldman]

The guy who was most recently busted (as reported in this thread) was only "in" races, not making races, if you look at his results. And like you, by using exogenous testosterone, he was able to ride, train, and enjoy his life --- but technically not allowed to be "in" races. I doubt his health depended on banned substances for survival (there you go with the exaggeration once again), but in forgoing his medication he'd risk serious detriments to cardiovascular and bone health. You've still failed to provide an argument why his medication should be banned while yours is allowed, aside from the fact that it is currently banned, which is begging the question.

I apologize for not noting that I don't take Advair or other aids. The same doctor that wrote the initial prescriptions also used phrases like: "level playing field" and "low t supplementation, not an advantage...an equalizer".
The Doc's testing confirmed that allergies contributed to my asthma response. After consideration and some trials with Advair I decided it wasn't for me. The doctor's willingness to discuss other middle-aged "equalizers" clued me into the conversations many of my asthmatic peers probably had as well.
My point is: those that did resort to Advair admitted it did very little and most chose to swear off of it.
I wasn't exaggerating about SURVIVAL; some people are so asthmatic they do need help to live their daily life. I don't know a single racer that fits into that category.

 

[proffate]

I apologize for not noting that I don't take Advair or other aids. The same doctor that wrote the initial prescriptions also used phrases like: "level playing field" and "low t supplementation, not an advantage...an equalizer".
The Doc's testing confirmed that allergies contributed to my asthma response. After consideration and some trials with Advair I decided it wasn't for me. The doctor's willingness to discuss other middle-aged "equalizers" clued me into the conversations many of my asthmatic peers probably had as well.
My point is: those that did resort to Advair admitted it did very little and most chose to swear off of it.
I wasn't exaggerating about SURVIVAL; some people are so asthmatic they do need help to live their daily life. I don't know a single racer that fits into that category.

Alright, I aplogize for misunderstanding your argument, which appears to be that even asthma or allergy medications should be banned both in and out of competition. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

 

[zigmeister]

Most physicians are stupid beyond belief about many topics, HRT is one of the.

There are only really a handful of truly knowledgeable leaders in the field of TRT in the World, and US specifically.

This thread is a prime example of the lack of understanding regarding the subject almost entirely.

 

[proffate]

http://www.usacycling.org/us-cyclin...s-sanction-for-anti-doping-rule-violation.htm

not a master, just an amateur.

Also Zigmeister, please enlighten us instead of just calling us uninformed. I read these forums to gain knowledge.

 

[Oldman]

http://www.usacycling.org/us-cyclin...s-sanction-for-anti-doping-rule-violation.htm

not a master, just an amateur.

Also Zigmeister, please enlighten us instead of just calling us uninformed. I read these forums to gain knowledge.

...don't expect a bright light....

 

[ralphbert]

As a link to my other post about mandatory standown, the doc prescribed me 5 days of steroids and 30 days of antihistamine to get over an acute allergy response. I don't normally have any allergy problems but I got run down after a heavy block, got a virus and followed up with chronic asthma like symptoms, the thinking is because my immune system is depressed my allergy system is hypersensitive. She said the course "should" put me back to where I was before getting sick. Both prescriptions are on the banned list, I won't be racing until the prescriptions are run + a few weeks. Very very unlikely I would be tested if racing but it could happen an I would feel like a complete fool if I got busted. I don't really have a problem with other people taking stuff like this and racing but I choose not to.

 

[Race Radio]

http://www.usacycling.org/us-cyclin...s-sanction-for-anti-doping-rule-violation.htm

not a master, just an amateur.

Also Zigmeister, please enlighten us instead of just calling us uninformed. I read these forums to gain knowledge.

There is a lot more to this one. Wonder what his dad thinks?

 

[Buffalo]

Modafinil? I know a law student who takes that for studying. She said it is like the Limitless drug. How would help in a race?

 

[TrackCynic]

Father and son on the same team, too. http://www.gsmengoniusa.com/bios/pollo.htm

"GS Mengoni USA...graduated more top amateur cyclists to the professional ranks than any other amateur team in the United States."

Interesting list of ex-riders: Alexi Grewal (doper), Leonard "Harvey" Nitz (blood doper), Wayne Stetina, Matt Eaton, Steve "cycling is the cleanest sport in the world" Bauer... Love the pics of Hincapie, too. Classy.

Why the hell are these teams still allowed to exist?!?

 

[Oldman]

Father and son on the same team, too. http://www.gsmengoniusa.com/bios/pollo.htm

"GS Mengoni USA...graduated more top amateur cyclists to the professional ranks than any other amateur team in the United States."

Interesting list of ex-riders: Alexi Grewal (doper), Leonard "Harvey" Nitz (blood doper), Wayne Stetina, Matt Eaton, Steve "cycling is the cleanest sport in the world" Bauer... Love the pics of Hincapie, too. Classy.

Why the hell are these teams still allowed to exist?!?

I'm not familiar with current members of the team but they go back a ways. Not everyone would have possibly embraced PEDS as you suggest. To suggest they are a haven or facilitator of doping is wrong. Suggesting a competitive club might inadvertently create pressure on a good or average rider to dope is an environmental occurrence and the rider's the guilty party. Those clubs exist because no one else cared about cycling when they were founded and this comes from a West Coast rider with no stake in the situation.

 

[Le breton]

Father and son on the same team, too. http://www.gsmengoniusa.com/bios/pollo.htm

"GS Mengoni USA...graduated more top amateur cyclists to the professional ranks than any other amateur team in the United States."

Interesting list of ex-riders: Alexi Grewal (doper), Leonard "Harvey" Nitz (blood doper), Wayne Stetina, Matt Eaton, Steve "cycling is the cleanest sport in the world" Bauer... Love the pics of Hincapie, too. Classy.

Why the hell are these teams still allowed to exist?!?

Don't you think that the inclusion of Bauer (with an unfortunate isolated quote) weakens your argument?

As for Wayne Stetina, he raced at a time when drugs were inefficient and not really needed in a predominantly doping-free US cycling scene.

Of course Grewal was probably ready to test anything that came his way.

The others I don't know anything about.

 

[DirtyWorks]

As for Wayne Stetina, he raced at a time when drugs were inefficient and not really needed in a predominantly doping-free US cycling scene.

Riders were doping in the U.S. though. Levi got his first positive at Nationals one year as a junior(???).

The doping is equal opportunity at this point. It's not particularly expensive relative to the cost of high-end bikes, easy and relatively safe to administer. Dose protocols are well known and the results extraordinary for most. In this sense it's not fair to single-out GS Mengoni.

 

[Le breton]

Riders were doping in the U.S. though. Levi got his first positive at Nationals one year as a junior(???).

The doping is equal opportunity at this point. It's not particularly expensive relative to the cost of high-end bikes, easy and relatively safe to administer. Dose protocols are well known and the results extraordinary for most. In this sense it's not fair to single-out GS Mengoni.

When talking about Wayne Stetina I was thinking of his "first period", not realizing that his career extended into the 80's. For me he was a man of the seventies, a time when I always thought doping was not widespread in the US.

 

[TrackCynic]

My point was more about

a) lightning struck multiple times in the same place

b) it struck very recently in that very same place yet again

and not so much that it has never struck anywhere else (i.e. other clubs or development teams).

Maybe it shows that some riders are still getting guidance and preparation from people who have history and involved with that club?

 

[DirtyWorks]

Not a cyclist, but an idiot masters road runner gets busted for evidence of possession of EPO. http://www.usada.org/media/sanction-carnes41814

Again, PED's that REALLY work just aren't very expensive or exotic any more.

 

[nslckevin]

My point was more about

a) lightning struck multiple times in the same place

b) it struck very recently in that very same place yet again

and not so much that it has never struck anywhere else (i.e. other clubs or development teams).

Maybe it shows that some riders are still getting guidance and preparation from people who have history and involved with that club?

GS Mengoni has been an elite east coast team for decades. I would wager that most of the east coast riders who went on to do anything were on that team at one time or another. And some of those riders went on to do dodgy things later in their career's. I have a hard time linking their time on GS Mengoni with doping. I'll bet lots of them did the Somerville and Nutley criterium's in New Jersey. Maybe that's the link. Even the sainted Greg Lemond was friends with Fred Mengoni. Anybody else remember him saying, "Don't die Fred!" in the mele after beating Fignon in Paris?

Also, though it was very unethical and shady, the 1984 US Olympians who blood doped did not commit a doping offense at that time. There is no analogy to make it less bad, but they took an advantage that based on the rules was not cheating based on the guess/assumption that "everyone else was doing it". This is not an excuse for what they did, but keep in mind that they did not cross that fine line into thinking "this is cheating, but I want/need/have to do this because <insert rationalization here>".

I know that subtle doesn't work too well here in the clinic, but there is a subtle difference between what they did and illegal doping. That may or may not have been a bridge that they were willing to cross, but when those olympians took that bag of blood from one of their relatives it wasn't yet illegal. That rule was changed in 1985 to make it illegal.

It was still dumb and shady, but it wasn't illegal at the time.

 

[TrackCynic]

It was still cheating. They still tried to cover it up - why? It was also possibly the root of the EPO-infusion days.

Just because it wasn't "illegal" doesn't make it any less morally repugnant. Today, how would you feel if you knew that a juniors development team was carrying out "legal (today)" unnatural practices (pharmaceutical or other) that are at best shady and at worst, physically unproven and potentially dangerous to their health? It's OK to do it because it's "legal"? That's the problem with these coaches, sponsors and team managers (many of whom are still in the sport) - they don't care where the moral line is - just the legal one. And even when there is a legal one, they will still cross it thanks to pressure from idiots like Weisel and Johnson and Ochowicz. Anyone who spouts the "it wasn't illegal" line just doesn't get it; it's not about winning at all costs.

 

[alanshearer]

Not a cyclist, but an idiot masters road runner gets busted for evidence of possession of EPO. http://www.usada.org/media/sanction-carnes41814

Again, PED's that REALLY work just aren't very expensive or exotic any more.

As an idiot master fattie, this is my favorite thread of the forum. I so love it when it resurfaces to the front page.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

It was still cheating. They still tried to cover it up - why? It was also possibly the root of the EPO-infusion days.

Just because it wasn't "illegal" doesn't make it any less morally repugnant. Today, how would you feel if you knew that a juniors development team was carrying out "legal (today)" unnatural practices (pharmaceutical or other) that are at best shady and at worst, physically unproven and potentially dangerous to their health? It's OK to do it because it's "legal"? That's the problem with these coaches, sponsors and team managers (many of whom are still in the sport) - they don't care where the moral line is - just the legal one. And even when there is a legal one, they will still cross it thanks to pressure from idiots like Weisel and Johnson and Ochowicz. Anyone who spouts the "it wasn't illegal" line just doesn't get it; it's not about winning at all costs.

I empathize with your point of view. It is important to note that WADA does try to cover off this situation by making substances not specifically covered by the Prohibited List, prohibited as long as they have not been approved by a governmental regulatory health authority. Section SO of the Prohibited List is as follows,

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.

 

[nslckevin]

It was still cheating. They still tried to cover it up - why? It was also possibly the root of the EPO-infusion days.

Just because it wasn't "illegal" doesn't make it any less morally repugnant. Today, how would you feel if you knew that a juniors development team was carrying out "legal (today)" unnatural practices (pharmaceutical or other) that are at best shady and at worst, physically unproven and potentially dangerous to their health? It's OK to do it because it's "legal"? That's the problem with these coaches, sponsors and team managers (many of whom are still in the sport) - they don't care where the moral line is - just the legal one. And even when there is a legal one, they will still cross it thanks to pressure from idiots like Weisel and Johnson and Ochowicz. Anyone who spouts the "it wasn't illegal" line just doesn't get it; it's not about winning at all costs.

I said in my post that subtle doesn't work in the clinic and you've proven me right.

I agree that it was unethical and wrong.

I also repeat that it was not against the IOC rules at that time. That doesn't mean it was right or that it was not unethical. But it wasn't against the rules.

I'm wasting my breath but what I'm about to write does not mean that I equate the 1984 blood doping with what I'm about to say.

Having said that many people felt that Lemond winning the Tour in '89 with aero bars was cheap and unethical. Lots of teams probably felt the same way about the US Olympic team and their disk wheels and "funny bikes" in the '84 Olympics too. Neither was against the rules, but there was talk about it not being fair. Francesco Moser taking the hour record with his disk wheels, etc.

Of course pushing the limits on equipment is nothing like infusing the blood of a realtive. I condemn the what they did, but it wasn't against the rules at that time.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

I said in my post that subtle doesn't work in the clinic and you've proven me right.

I agree that it was unethical and wrong.

I also repeat that it was not against the IOC rules at that time. That doesn't mean it was right or that it was not unethical. But it wasn't against the rules.

I'm wasting my breath but what I'm about to write does not mean that I equate the 1984 blood doping with what I'm about to say.

Having said that many people felt that Lemond winning the Tour in '89 with aero bars was cheap and unethical. Lots of teams probably felt the same way about the US Olympic team and their disk wheels and "funny bikes" in the '84 Olympics too. Neither was against the rules, but there was talk about it not being fair. Francesco Moser taking the hour record with his disk wheels, etc.

Of course pushing the limits on equipment is nothing like infusing the blood of a realtive. I condemn the what they did, but it wasn't against the rules at that time.

This might help make the distinction.

The 1984 blood infusions would be described best as being in section D (in most people's opinion), since at the time there wasn't a lot in the way of anti-doping code and it was probably not illegal.

In general it's better to simply define doping to be whatever the relevant anti-doping code defines it to be. That doesn't mean that using a substance or method that's not defined as doping in this manner is right, ethical or legal.

What's ethical is also context specific. e.g. a consenting adult using an ergogenic (but not a prohibited or illegal) supplement might be considered OK by many (e.g. a caffeine pill), but giving that to a 13 year old junior would likely be considered unethical.

In general I find it easier if we use the anti-doping code to define what is doping, the law to define what's illegal, and thereafter we can debate what's ethical.