US cycling scene in the 70s and 80s

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

Now you're just making stuff up. There is no mention of individual results in the paper whatsoever. Furthermore, all of the data are from trials conducted strictly for research purposes, i.e., no actual competitions were involved.

no, not making it up.
i now see he did more than one study on diuretics, so i must have read it in another study than the one you linked.
I will look tomorrow.

#20: INFLUENCE OF DIMINISHED PLASMA VOLUME ON RUNNING PERFORMANCE
L. E. Armstrong · D. L. Costill · M. Grosso · A. Barnett · A. Orheim · W. Pink · L. Hermansen
No preview · Article · Jan 1981 · Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise

Brief summary of findings:
- diuretic drug Lasix
- tested on 8 athletes
- doing randomized events (1500m, 5000m, 10.000m)
- performance times increased 8.4 seconds on average

you're welcome.

I don't know where you're getting your information, but it is wrong: that is the study to which I linked earlier.

The article you list above simply does not exist.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

so if i understand correctly, you were a subject in that study but you don't know if the product you were given was banned or not?

Why would I really care? For research purposes I took a common prescription drug known, or at least likely, to be detrimental to performance at a time when I wasn't competing. Yes, diuretics can be used as masking agents, but since there was no such thing as OOC testing at the time (at least for people at my level), I wouldn't have needed to use it for that purpose.

What about Costill's anabolic steroid study on national level athletes. Any idea if there were OTC athletes involved?

This seems to be the only study of steroids that Costill has ever published:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27176021

What happened to the part of your post about caffeine?
You said I was "making **** up" there.
Having second thoughts?

I decided to focus on indisputable facts.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

I don't know where you're getting your information, but it is wrong: that is the study to which I linked earlier.

The article you list above simply does not exist.

I couldn't find it on pubmed either.

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

I couldn't find it on pubmed either.

I can no longer access pubmed, I get an error message saying the site has been configured improperly. Anyone else have this problem?

However, one of the co-authors, David Costill, does list this paper in his publication list:

http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/32713583/#20-influence-of-diminished-plasma-volume-on-running-performance

It was presented as a poster at a conference, that's why it's not in pubmed:

http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/toc/1981/01320

Here's the poster abstract:

http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Citation/1981/01320/_20__INFLUENCE_OF_DIMINISHED_PLASMA_VOLUME_ON.160.aspx

Click on PDF to the right, and you can get the poster summary in readable form. It says performance times increased an average of 8.4, 78.6 and 157.2 seconds in the 1500, 5000 and 10,000 m, respectively. No effect on V02 max, but time to exhaustion on a treadmill, and post-exercise lactate levels were reduced.

So dehydration negatively affects performance. Who would have guessed? Careful when you take that masking agent.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

Now you're just making stuff up. There is no mention of individual results in the paper whatsoever. Furthermore, all of the data are from trials conducted strictly for research purposes, i.e., no actual competitions were involved.

no, not making it up.
i now see he did more than one study on diuretics, so i must have read it in another study than the one you linked.
I will look tomorrow.

#20: INFLUENCE OF DIMINISHED PLASMA VOLUME ON RUNNING PERFORMANCE
L. E. Armstrong · D. L. Costill · M. Grosso · A. Barnett · A. Orheim · W. Pink · L. Hermansen
No preview · Article · Jan 1981 · Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise

Brief summary of findings:
- diuretic drug Lasix
- tested on 8 athletes
- doing randomized events (1500m, 5000m, 10.000m)
- performance times increased 8.4 seconds on average

you're welcome.

I don't know where you're getting your information, but it is wrong: that is the study to which I linked earlier.

The article you list above simply does not exist.

...or more correctly perhaps, the article you list above simply does not exist on PubMed....?.....

Cheers

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

I couldn't find it on pubmed either.

I can no longer access pubmed, I get an error message saying the site has been configured improperly. Anyone else have this problem?

However, one of the co-authors, David Costill, does list this paper in his publication list:

http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/32713583/#20-influence-of-diminished-plasma-volume-on-running-performance

It was presented as a poster at a conference, that's why it's not in pubmed:

http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/toc/1981/01320

Here's the poster abstract:

http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Citation/1981/01320/_20__INFLUENCE_OF_DIMINISHED_PLASMA_VOLUME_ON.160.aspx

Click on PDF to the right, and you can get the poster summary in readable form. It says performance times increased an average of 8.4, 78.6 and 157.2 seconds in the 1500, 5000 and 10,000 m, respectively. No effect on V02 max, but time to exhaustion on a treadmill, and post-exercise lactate levels were reduced.

So dehydration negatively affects performance. Who would have guessed? Careful when you take that masking agent.

....nice find....chapeau...

Cheers

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

Now you're just making stuff up. There is no mention of individual results in the paper whatsoever. Furthermore, all of the data are from trials conducted strictly for research purposes, i.e., no actual competitions were involved.

no, not making it up.
i now see he did more than one study on diuretics, so i must have read it in another study than the one you linked.
I will look tomorrow.

#20: INFLUENCE OF DIMINISHED PLASMA VOLUME ON RUNNING PERFORMANCE
L. E. Armstrong · D. L. Costill · M. Grosso · A. Barnett · A. Orheim · W. Pink · L. Hermansen
No preview · Article · Jan 1981 · Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise

Brief summary of findings:
- diuretic drug Lasix
- tested on 8 athletes
- doing randomized events (1500m, 5000m, 10.000m)
- performance times increased 8.4 seconds on average

you're welcome.

I don't know where you're getting your information, but it is wrong: that is the study to which I linked earlier.

The article you list above simply does not exist.

...or more correctly perhaps, the article you list above simply does not exist on PubMed....?.....

Cheers

An abstract is not an article.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

I couldn't find it on pubmed either.

I can no longer access pubmed, I get an error message saying the site has been configured improperly. Anyone else have this problem?

However, one of the co-authors, David Costill, does list this paper in his publication list:

http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/32713583/#20-influence-of-diminished-plasma-volume-on-running-performance

It was presented as a poster at a conference, that's why it's not in pubmed:

http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/toc/1981/01320

Here's the poster abstract:

http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Citation/1981/01320/_20__INFLUENCE_OF_DIMINISHED_PLASMA_VOLUME_ON.160.aspx

Click on PDF to the right, and you can get the poster summary in readable form. It says performance times increased an average of 8.4, 78.6 and 157.2 seconds in the 1500, 5000 and 10,000 m, respectively. No effect on V02 max, but time to exhaustion on a treadmill, and post-exercise lactate levels were reduced.

So dehydration negatively affects performance. Who would have guessed? Careful when you take that masking agent.

So the same study ( as I said), but not published as cited (e.g., not in January), and most importantly, nothing to support sniper's claims of improved performance in some individuals or use of Lasix by study subjects in actual competition. Seems about par for the course re. his factual accuracy.

 

[Tonton]

Let's make sure that the tone remains courteous, please. Thank you.

Apologies. I just felt that sniper needed to be called out on his blatant lies.

I don't know why you are apologising when you were spot on. There should be a sticky of what you said somewhere in here. If a poster is just making stuff up, distorting facts and generally running a campaign of disinformation, they should be called on it.

pmcg76, I kindly reminded Andrew that the tone of this forum must remain courteous. And he recognized that he got a little carried away. That's cool. It's not what acoggan said that broke the rules of the forum: it's how he said it.

As a mod, I won't take sides, but I'll say this: I have had my share of clashes with sniper. He has strong opinions, and I prefer the approach of a, say, Merckxindex who looks at everything and may conclude that he doesn't know for sure. sniper a liar (i.e willfully trying to make things up), I don't think so.

And I don't think that it's productive to call each other liars to begin with.

Having said that, when acoggan talks about doping, I recognize that he knows more than all of us combined. I may ask questions or gently challenge him (i.e. Froome's MHR vs. the Ventoux video), but more often than not I just read and learn. And I learn a great deal.

Nothing wrong with arguing (respectfully), and nothing wrong with...being wrong. Personally, I'm not here to pick fights, but share what I know, learn from others, enjoy the sport and everybody's takes. I may not always agree. But I respect the forum and everybody who participates.

Obviously, I'll be checking this thread (and others), I don't like warnings and bans, I want everyone to say his/her piece. As long as we stay cool. It's not what we say, it's how we say it.

 

[sniper]

thanks @MerckxIndex for fleshing that out. Well done indeed.

thanks @tonton, too. Bang on the money, imo. Nothing to add to that.
As I said plenty of times, I'm eager for people to fill me in on certain topics that I either know *** about or which are thematically above my paygrade, or both. If I make a factual error, like calling Hagerman a hematologist, I appreciate and acknowledge the correction. I've been processing quite a bit of info in the past few days, so I'm bound to make some errors. As andy coggan says, it's par for the course really and it's why all help/input is appreciated. Again, I'm happy for the errors to be pointed out, and I will eat some humble pie if necessary. But to go from there to accusing me of lying or pushing some agenda, that doesn't cut it.
For instance, pcmg76 was wrong about Mottet, but it never occurred to me to call pcmg76 a liar because of that, or to claim he's pushing some agenda. Same for scienceiscool, wrong about Lemond's kidneys, wrong about Lemond's myopathy, wrong about Lemond's entourage, but does that make John a liar? Of course not.
And to be sure, Hagerman not being a hematologist is about as relevant as 'Floyd having the timeline all wrong'. In neither instances did/does the inaccuracy have much if any bearing on the wider issue. So as you say, making it about the poster is besides the point and just not productive, at all.
The diuretics issue that just played out, or previously the Van Haute blood doping issue, are imo nice examples of how two or three brains can get to the bottom of things so much quicker than one brain.

 

[pmcg76]

Let's make sure that the tone remains courteous, please. Thank you.

Apologies. I just felt that sniper needed to be called out on his blatant lies.

I don't know why you are apologising when you were spot on. There should be a sticky of what you said somewhere in here. If a poster is just making stuff up, distorting facts and generally running a campaign of disinformation, they should be called on it.

pmcg76, I kindly reminded Andrew that the tone of this forum must remain courteous. And he recognized that he got a little carried away. That's cool. It's not what acoggan said that broke the rules of the forum: it's how he said it.

As a mod, I won't take sides, but I'll say this: I have had my share of clashes with sniper. He has strong opinions, and I prefer the approach of a, say, Merckxindex who looks at everything and may conclude that he doesn't know for sure. sniper a liar (i.e willfully trying to make things up), I don't think so.

And I don't think that it's productive to call each other liars to begin with.

Having said that, when acoggan talks about doping, I recognize that he knows more than all of us combined. I may ask questions or gently challenge him (i.e. Froome's MHR vs. the Ventoux video), but more often than not I just read and learn. And I learn a great deal.

Nothing wrong with arguing (respectfully), and nothing wrong with...being wrong. Personally, I'm not here to pick fights, but share what I know, learn from others, enjoy the sport and everybody's takes. I may not always agree. But I respect the forum and everybody who participates.

Obviously, I'll be checking this thread (and others), I don't like warnings and bans, I want everyone to say his/her piece. As long as we stay cool. It's not what we say, it's how we say it.

Really, how many times has sniper stated as fact that Eddie B was taking juniors to Poland to blood dope. Yet if you read the article sniper links to back that 'fact', it amazingly says nothing of the sort. It mentions Van den Haute being on a trip with the juniors and them all finding out about blood doping from East Europeans, the same article states that this is when Eddie B got the idea for the Olympics and how it was never mentioned again until just before the Olympics. There is no mention in the article of US Juniors doping or blood doping taking place for a prolonged period before the Olympcis. Just pure distortion from sniper.

I pointed out that Van den Haute would not have been a junior at that time and maybe it was an error in the article. Sniper then turned that into another 'fact' and repeated it on more than one occasion that US juniors were blood doping as far back as 1974 when Van Den Haute was a junior. More complete distortion.

The Kidney, sniper claimed multiple times that LeMond had a kidney removed, many questioned that and reading further back through the thread, I found a link that sniper used as a source. It was an anon poster on another forum Would it not be necessary to provide verifiable evidence rather than use anon posters on forums.

Draaijer, Planckaert, Demol. He claimed many times times that these riders declined despite being on EPO. I pointed out more than once, Draaijer sadly passed away and using him as an example was disrespectful. I also pointed out that Planckaert retired due to a back injury and that Demol never really declined as his big win was a fluke anyway. Sniper continued to ignore these explanations and use them as examples.

He was also using the ADR link as a guilt by association tool and was quoting Colin Sturgess to back this up. I asked him 3 times if Colin Sturgess was doping, that was ignored until much later in the thread when FGL asked the same question. Suddenly sniper wasn't sure if Sturgess had doped despite having the exact same links to ADR that he was pushing as evidence of LeMond being nefarious. Double standards much.

He has repeated several times that nothing that comes from LeMonds mouth should be given any credence but that the rumour about Max Testa saying LeMond doped too much should be examined more, despite the fact that it too, came from LeMonds mouth.

How about after it being mentioned numerous times that LeMond started working with Eddie B at 16/17, sniper states that LeMond was 14 when he started working with Eddie B. Or after being told repeatedly that Planckaert retired due to back problems, sniper states it was leg problems. Both those claims were in the same post which was clearly deliberately done to bait people.

Now he is saying I was wrong about Mottet, I wasn't wrong, I pointed out that Mottet admitting to trying amphetamines once did not make him a doper no more than Paul Kimmage was a doper and I was aware of that fact before. It was Willy Voet who said Mottet was clean and just who is that sniper was quoting recently to back his case, Willy Voet.

Just recently again, sniper denied making a certin claim and another poster showed exactly where that claim was indeed made by sniper word for word. Sniper then tried to spin his way out of it by saying the other poster didn't understand what he meant which is a common trend when they have been exposed for lies.

Look, this is just a small part of the distortion, double standards, cherry picking of information, ridiculous claims(Hampsten having braces is evidence of HGH abuse) that goes unnoticed because people have no time to read through all of snipers tenous links or don't have the knowledge to counter the numerous unfounded claims. I can easily go and find 10-15 examples of the same type of stuff.

 

[sniper]

pcmg76, you sure like making stuff up about me. When I ask you to back any of that up, you remain crickets. SSDD.
Two other things:
1. can you please take this post to either the sidebar thread, the mod thread, or pm?
2. if you have anything to call me out on, please do it specifically, e.g. by replying to a post where you feel I'm misrepresenting something, and in the appropriate thread. That way we might actually grow something of a debate without clogging threads.
thanks for your understanding.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re:

And to be sure, Hagerman not being a hematologist is about as relevant as 'Floyd having the timeline all wrong'. In neither instances did/does the inaccuracy have much if any bearing on the wider issue. So as you say, making it about the poster is besides the point and just not productive, at all.

When building a case for blood doping entirely through circumstantial evidence, calling someone a hematologist is a salient part of that case IMO. There is no evading that point.

 

[sniper]

so, back on topic. Dr. David Costill.
What we have thus far, and please acoggan correct me if wrong:
- one study testing the effects of anabolic steroids on national level athletes
- several studies testing the effects of diuretics on performance
- several(?) studies on the effects of caffeine on performance
- co-authored an article with Bengt Saltin
- was mentor of Dr. Edmund Burke, co-architect of the 84 blood boosting program
- was recruited by Dr. Irving Dardik to be part of the OTC medical program in the late 70s (@andy coggan: any idea how long Costill worked for/with Dardik and in what capacity?)

Here's an article celebrating/reviewing Costill's carreer. Some of the stuff would fit well in the pseudo-science thread, too.

Dr. Costill joins the swimmers each day at lunchtime. Tall and lean, with an athlete's easy grace, he swims as fast now as he did in college, more than 40 years ago.

He is, colleagues say, a legend in his field. One of the first, and still one of the few, to apply scientific methods to the study of exercise and training, he has published more than 400 papers and won awards from groups that include the American College of Sports Medicine, where he was president, and Runner's World.

''He's just a superb person as well as one of the top exercise physiologists,'' said Dr. Paul Ribisl, the chairman of health and exercise science at Wake Forest University. ''He's certainly done some of the most interesting work and he had a powerful influence on the field.'' Dr. Costill's specialty, Dr. Ribisl added, was to apply the methods of science to a field that had often neglected them. ''He's basically allowed the science to dispel the misconceptions,'' Dr. Ribisl said.

Science and sport. Heard that before.

Dr. Edmund R. Burke, a former student of Dr. Costill who directs the exercise science program at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, said that Dr. Costill was one of the few who not only used scientific methods but asked the same questions as athletes and people trying to get fit. And then he gave them practical advice.

Over the years, Dr. Costill has asked questions like, Why are some people so much better at certain sports than others? Is there an inborn physiological difference between, say, a sprinter and a marathon runner? How should people train to maximize their performance? Why does the body adapt with training?

For real, what tha *** is Ed Burke (rip) doing in 2001 directing the exercise science program at the University of Colorado? In a parallel universe where antidoping actually means something, the guy who co-designed the BB program in 84 shouldn't come anywhere athletes. But there he is. Which reminds me, there is also still an Edmund Burke cycling grant. USA Cycling just taking the piss with antidoping. Full stop.[/quote]

Now, at age 65, Dr. Costill is asking, Why do old people move so slowly? Can their muscles be trained to develop like those of someone younger? And what happens to the bodies of athletes as they grow old?

Costill tapping into the anti-aging industry?

When he did the dehydration study, in 1970, marathon rules forbade runners to have fluids before they ran 10 kilometers, or 6.2 miles. Fluids were believed to be equivalent to performance-enhancing drugs. But runners were becoming seriously dehydrated, and some were collapsing with body temperatures as high as 104, 106 or even 109 degrees in a man who, miraculously, was not killed, Dr. Costill said. ''People would lose 12 pounds or more,'' he said. ''They would lose a gallon of fluid.''

The study did not show that Gatorade was any better than water for dehydration. But it did change marathon rules by documenting that runners were in dire need of fluids.

as i said, pseudo-science. It's the era when blood boosting, amphetamines and steroids were trending, also in endurance sports, but of course he won't mention this.

As his research got going, Dr. Costill came back to his question about what, physiologically, makes a good distance runner.

''I wanted to find out why I was such a bad runner,'' Dr. Costill said. ''The best I ever did in a marathon was 3 hours and 15 minutes. I was training 70 miles a week, but I just couldn't get any better. I wanted to know what made those other guys so good.''

The answer, he discovered, is that champion runners had an almost freakishly efficient system to get oxygen-rich blood to the muscles and for allowing muscles to keep contracting for hours without tiring.

Sounds a lot like Radcliffe's 'running economy' avant-la-lettre.
Where's the 'names for dope and doping' thread when you need it.

Distance runners tend to have huge hearts and muscles that just soak up oxygen. Many of the famous distance runners he tested, like Steve Prefontaine, the legendary runner from Oregon, had hearts that were one and a half to twice the normal size, probably, Dr. Costill says, because they had a genetic gift of being able to adapt to training. Since he never studied these athletes before they became champions, he points out, it is impossible to say for sure which came first, the large heart or the running ability.
''We found some really good distance runners who didn't have big hearts, but when their hearts would contract, they would empty more fully,'' Dr. Costill said.

this is where someone needs to pass me the bucket, fast.

They also had an unusual distribution of muscle fibers. Most people have about equal amounts of two types of fibers -- slow twitch fibers, which are best for endurance events like marathons, and fast twitch fibers, which are best for sprints. Distance runners have mostly slow twitch muscles in their legs, Dr. Costill found, while sprinters have mostly fast twitch muscles.

When he tested his own muscles, Dr. Costill learned why he was not a champion distance runner.

''I'm built like a sprinter,'' he said.

i thought he was "lean and tall"? Oh well.

Dr. Burke was a student in the class, and he told Dr. Costill that his fraternity team, which had performed miserably in the race the last year, would like to try Dr. Costill's method. Would he train them? Dr. Costill said he would.

One student that Dr. Burke recruited to join the team that year was his roommate, Tom Doughty. Mr. Doughty had never raced a bicycle before, but he turned out to be a natural, so good that he went on to become a national champion in individual and team trial bicycling and qualified for the 1980 Olympic bicycling team.

The ties with Burke, not looking good for Costill's cred if you ask me.

In the local race, Mr. Doughty rode the first 60 laps, putting the team far ahead. But other team members chafed to ride. So Mr. Doughty stopped, letting others take over. Soon the team was ahead by only one lap, so Mr. Doughty got back on his bike and finished the race, winning it for the team.

Tom Doughty, btw, present at Lemond's fundraiser for Eddie B. in 2004.
Antidoping all the way.

These days, Dr. Costill and Dr. Scott W. Trappe, the current director of the Human Performance Laboratory, are looking at aging. With training, they found, older and younger people gain the same amount of strength in their quadriceps muscle in the front of the thigh. But, the researchers also discovered, older people gain mostly slow twitch muscles, while the younger subjects gain mostly fast twitch ones.

''What happens when people get old?'' Dr. Costill asked. ''They get slow.'' They move slowly and their reaction times are slowed, contributing to falls when they trip, for example, probably because their muscles are so weak.

Really?

''Older people are not trying to win Olympic gold medals,'' Dr. Costill said. ''Their goal is to maintain their independence and stay out of nursing homes.''

He and his colleagues hope to figure out the molecular signals that tell younger people to build fast twitch muscles and older people to build slow twitch ones.

Maybe, Dr. Costill said, they can figure out the best way for older people to train, to maximize the quality of the muscles they build. Maybe, he said, ''you can cheat aging a little bit.''

Old school HGH perhaps?

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/30/health/scientist-work-david-costill-career-spent-study-training-exercise-lap-grueling.html?pagewanted=all

 

[pmcg76]

Re:

pcmg76, you sure like making stuff up about me. When I ask you to back any of that up, you remain crickets. SSDD.
Two other things:
1. can you please take this post to either the sidebar thread, the mod thread, or pm?
2. if you have anything to call me out on, please do it specifically, e.g. by replying to a post where you feel I'm misrepresenting something, and in the appropriate thread. That way we might actually grow something of a debate without clogging threads.
thanks for your understanding.

A cursory read of any of the threads would show all these claims to be true. Are you really gonna tell me you never claimed that Eddie B was taking juniors to Poland to blood dope or that US juniors were doping in 1974. My post was pertinent because it relates directly to some of the things concerning US Cycling/Eddie B/LeMond.

 

[Merckx index]

Sniper, I agree that those passages you posted about Costill could be consistent with someone who pushed doping. But by themselves they strike me as mostly innocent. For example, the genetic gift for adapting to training that you bolded is well established now. I discussed this several years back in referring to the book The Sports Gene, which goes into some detail about it. Some athletes have a genetic propensity for performing very well in a given sport from the get-go, i.e., before any training. Thus you can take a group of untrained school boys and tell them to run a certain distance as fast as they can, and there will of course be a great range, with a few doing far better than most of the others. Others may not perform particularly well initially, but move far ahead of others starting at the same point following the same training regimen. So the best individuals in the initial group may not turn out to be the best performers following training. This kind of knowledge is obviously very important in selecting athletes who are most likely to succeed in a particular sport. Of course, doping is a way of maximizing the response to training, but that doesn't negate the fact that there are intrinsic differences in how clean athletes respond to training.

I haven’t read the steroid study you alluded to, but based on the diuretic paper/poster discussed above, the latter area of research seems unlikely to be related to doping. The purpose of using the drug was to separate the effect of stress from dehydration, i.e., produce in subjects the same degree of dehydration they would normally exhibit only far into a grueling race. Sure, that information might be useful to someone who wanted to mask some drug, but if that really were the purpose of the study, they surely would have had the subjects drinking like crazy to make up for fluid loss. I don’t understand why you criticize Costill for pointing out the importance of fluid intake.

I don’t think Costill’s ties with Burke necessarily implicate the former in doping. At best, I would say they’re a rationale for examining his career more closely, but not a standalone piece of evidence. While I agree with you it’s unfortunate Burke is heading any sports programs now, as we all know from following cycling, the most experienced trainers frequently have a background in doping, and sports are unwilling to ban them when they could have valuable knowledge beyond doping. I also agree with you that there is an enormous amount of BS in the anti-aging field, and that is often closely allied with doping (case in point: Peyton Manning). But there is enormous interest in the field, which translates to lots of money, and tons of academic work in it that is completely unrelated to doping (I did a little animal research in that area myself, many years ago, before it became trendy and applied to ourselves).

I do tend to agree with you about Dardik, just go to his wiki page and read about his phony cure for MS, and then apparently he got into cold fusion. Sure does sound like a quack to me, and any researcher pushing miracle cures is likely to be attracted to doping.

 

[sniper]

Thanks for a constructive reply, MI.
Like a breath of fresh air, really.
And some very good points. Will reply in a bit more detail later.

 

[pmcg76]

Here is one of many claims that Eddie B was blood doping juniors.
viewtopic.php?p=1870171#p1870171

Another mention of Eddie B taking juniors to Poland to blood dope

viewtopic.php?p=1903702#p190370

Here is the post where you say Planckaert quite because of a leg problem rather than a back problem and you mention Draaijer again, and LeMond was 14/15 when he started working with Eddie B.
viewtopic.php?p=1904105#p1904105

Here is you going on about Max Testa even though you said nothing LeMond says should be taken serioulsy.
viewtopic.php?p=1902026#p1902026

I could waste lots of time finding loads of examples but really most people know already waht you have saying/claiming.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

After I read the article about Eddie B. I became skeptical of his Poland issues. I tend to believe he did take some to Poland to blood dope. Not only that he brought it back to the USA to use for the Olympics. So what is the harm in saying that? It is an opinon, and after other read the information they may also draw some conclusions on Eddie B that they might not have had before. What is so important about protecting him from speculation?

 

[sniper]

Re:

After I read the article about Eddie B. I became skeptical of his Poland issues. I tend to believe he did take some to Poland to blood dope. Not only that he brought it back to the USA to use for the Olympics. So what is the harm in saying that? It is an opinon, and after other read the information they may also draw some conclusions on Eddie B that they might not have had before. What is so important about protecting him from speculation?

i love the sound of a hammer hitting the nail firmly on the head.

 

[pmcg76]

Re:

After I read the article about Eddie B. I became skeptical of his Poland issues. I tend to believe he did take some to Poland to blood dope. Not only that he brought it back to the USA to use for the Olympics. So what is the harm in saying that? It is an opinon, and after other read the information they may also draw some conclusions on Eddie B that they might not have had before. What is so important about protecting him from speculation?

You can believe all you want but there is a world of difference between that being your opinion and stating it as fact repeatedly and presenting it as evidence.

There is a rule in this forum that if you present something as a claim, you back it with actual evidence(not distorted interpetations) or state that it is your personal opinion. That rule has been violated consistenly.

 

[acoggan]

Re:

so, back on topic. Dr. David Costill.
What we have thus far, and please acoggan correct me if wrong:
- one study testing the effects of anabolic steroids on national level athletes

Wrong. Costill performed no such study.

- several studies testing the effects of diuretics on performance

Wrong again. Costill only performed one study using Lasix, and the design and results were not as you originally made up.

- several(?) studies on the effects of caffeine on performance

Correct, but so what? As I pointed out recently in the Lemond III thread, scientists often study substances that may have ergogenic benefits as tools to better understand physiology.

- co-authored an article with Bengt Saltin

Again, so what? There is no evidence that Saltin ever had anything to do with doping, much less that Costill is guilty by association.

- was mentor of Dr. Edmund Burke, co-architect of the 84 blood boosting program

IIRC, Ed had already graduated from Ball State by the time I started my undergrad degree there in 1977. Given the fame that Costill's Human Performance Laboratory had achieved by the mid-1970s, is it any surprise that he chose to go there? I therefore don't think you can really draw any connection between Costill and the events of 1984.

(BTW, I was one of three people asked to speak at Ed's eulogy at ACSM after he passed away. Here are the tributes published by VeloNews: http://velonews.competitor.com/2002/11/news/remembering-ed_3211)

- was recruited by Dr. Irving Dardik to be part of the OTC medical program in the late 70s (@andy coggan: any idea how long Costill worked for/with Dardik and in what capacity?)

Again, Costill was a big name by that time; it therefore doesn't surprise me that he was recruited to advise some program. I doubt that it ever amounted to much, however - the OTC has never had much in the way of resources to direct towards sports science; the real money resides with the individual NGBs.

what tha **** is Ed Burke (rip) doing in 2001 directing the exercise science program at the University of Colorado? In a parallel universe where antidoping actually means something, the guy who co-designed the BB program in 84 shouldn't come anywhere athletes.

The University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, i.e., same town as the OTC, and an institution that doesn't have much in the way of sports programs. Ed developing the curricula and teaching a few courses there hardly demonstrates that he was involved with doping athletes, and given his background, the local connection, and the fact that transfusions were not technically banned in 1984, I'm not surprised that the UCCS administration hired him.

"When he tested his own muscles, Dr. Costill learned why he was not a champion distance runner.

''I'm built like a sprinter,'' he said." i thought he was "lean and tall"? Oh well.

Oh well indeed: Costill is, in fact, tall, lean, and has (had) a high percentage of fast twitch muscle fibers (which is what his statement alludes to).

Dr. Burke was a student in the class, and he told Dr. Costill that his fraternity team, which had performed miserably in the race the last year, would like to try Dr. Costill's method. Would he train them? Dr. Costill said he would.

One student that Dr. Burke recruited to join the team that year was his roommate, Tom Doughty. Mr. Doughty had never raced a bicycle before, but he turned out to be a natural, so good that he went on to become a national champion in individual and team trial bicycling and qualified for the 1980 Olympic bicycling team.

The ties with Burke, not looking good for Costill's cred if you ask me.

In the local race, Mr. Doughty rode the first 60 laps, putting the team far ahead. But other team members chafed to ride. So Mr. Doughty stopped, letting others take over. Soon the team was ahead by only one lap, so Mr. Doughty got back on his bike and finished the race, winning it for the team.

Tom Doughty, btw, present at Lemond's fundraiser for Eddie B. in 2004.
Antidoping all the way.

Just an FYI: Before deciding it wasn't for me, I pledged the same frat, and one winter Costill wrote the first power-based training program that I'd ever seen just for me. Does that make me guilty of doping?

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

[/quote]

An abstract is not an article.[/quote]

....so are you then saying the information in an abstract is wrong ipso facto like ?....

Cheers

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Sniper, I agree that those passages you posted about Costill could be consistent with someone who pushed doping. But by themselves they strike me as mostly innocent.

"Mostly"? Sniper is obviously totally clueless about academia in general and the individuals he is attempting to tar in particular. His comments have as much veracity as most of Donald Trump's claims.

What exactly does Copperhead have to do with this?

I would not go so far as to claim someones clue or not with respect to academia.

But you could say some of the folks in USA cycling back in the 70's 80's were playing loose with their moral compass.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

so, back on topic. Dr. David Costill.
What we have thus far, and please acoggan correct me if wrong:
- one study testing the effects of anabolic steroids on national level athletes

Wrong. Costill performed no such study.

- several studies testing the effects of diuretics on performance

Wrong again. Costill only performed one study using Lasix, and the design and results were not as you originally made up.

- several(?) studies on the effects of caffeine on performance

Correct, but so what? As I pointed out recently in the Lemond III thread, scientists often study substances that may have ergogenic benefits as tools to better understand physiology.

- co-authored an article with Bengt Saltin

Again, so what? There is no evidence that Saltin ever had anything to do with doping, much less that Costill is guilty by association.

- was mentor of Dr. Edmund Burke, co-architect of the 84 blood boosting program

IIRC, Ed had already graduated from Ball State by the time I started my undergrad degree there in 1977. Given the fame that Costill's Human Performance Laboratory had achieved by the mid-1970s, is it any surprise that he chose to go there? I therefore don't think you can really draw any connection between Costill and the events of 1984.

(BTW, I was one of three people asked to speak at Ed's eulogy at ACSM after he passed away. Here are the tributes published by VeloNews: http://velonews.competitor.com/2002/11/news/remembering-ed_3211)

- was recruited by Dr. Irving Dardik to be part of the OTC medical program in the late 70s (@andy coggan: any idea how long Costill worked for/with Dardik and in what capacity?)

Again, Costill was a big name by that time; it therefore doesn't surprise me that he was recruited to advise some program. I doubt that it ever amounted to much, however - the OTC has never had much in the way of resources to direct towards sports science; the real money resides with the individual NGBs.

what tha **** is Ed Burke (rip) doing in 2001 directing the exercise science program at the University of Colorado? In a parallel universe where antidoping actually means something, the guy who co-designed the BB program in 84 shouldn't come anywhere athletes.

The University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, i.e., same town as the OTC, and an institution that doesn't have much in the way of sports programs. Ed developing the curricula and teaching a few courses there hardly demonstrates that he was involved with doping athletes, and given his background, the local connection, and the fact that transfusions were not technically banned in 1984, I'm not surprised that the UCCS administration hired him.

"When he tested his own muscles, Dr. Costill learned why he was not a champion distance runner.

''I'm built like a sprinter,'' he said." i thought he was "lean and tall"? Oh well.

Oh well indeed: Costill is, in fact, tall, lean, and has (had) a high percentage of fast twitch muscle fibers (which is what his statement alludes to).

Dr. Burke was a student in the class, and he told Dr. Costill that his fraternity team, which had performed miserably in the race the last year, would like to try Dr. Costill's method. Would he train them? Dr. Costill said he would.

One student that Dr. Burke recruited to join the team that year was his roommate, Tom Doughty. Mr. Doughty had never raced a bicycle before, but he turned out to be a natural, so good that he went on to become a national champion in individual and team trial bicycling and qualified for the 1980 Olympic bicycling team.

The ties with Burke, not looking good for Costill's cred if you ask me.

In the local race, Mr. Doughty rode the first 60 laps, putting the team far ahead. But other team members chafed to ride. So Mr. Doughty stopped, letting others take over. Soon the team was ahead by only one lap, so Mr. Doughty got back on his bike and finished the race, winning it for the team.

Tom Doughty, btw, present at Lemond's fundraiser for Eddie B. in 2004.
Antidoping all the way.

Just an FYI: Before deciding it wasn't for me, I pledged the same frat, and one winter Costill wrote the first power-based training program that I'd ever seen just for me. Does that make me guilty of doping?

....ah now you're just playing with us poor dumb peasants and that is hardly fair...you know this kinda stuff is just so far above our pay grade, I mean, most of us can barely read....but hey, here is an idea, you could always ask academia because he knows everything eh...

Cheers