US cycling scene in the 70s and 80s

[Merckx index]

Here's another study by Costill in which steroids were given to athletes:

Anabolic Steroid Use Among Athletes: Changes in HDL-C Levels
The Physician and Sportsmedicine
Volume 12, Issue 6, 1984
D. L. Costill PhD**, D. R. Pearson MS* & W. J. Fink MA*
pages 112-117

Note, however, that the authors conclude that giving these drugs to athletes would be “ethically and clinically inadvisable”.

So the problem is not that these studies don't exist, they clearly do. The issue is why were they performed, what was the goal of the researchers. Sniper, if I understand you correctly, you're implying that they were trying to determine the optimum doping program for athletes, or at the least, were using what appeared to be legitimate research as a cover or front for studying the effects of drugs on performance. I already pointed out that the diuretic study I posted was using the drug to induce dehydration independently of stress, and did not appear to be designed to determine how a masking agent could be used successfully.

Costill has actually published a lot of work in the area of dehydration, and some of it might be relevant to performance, e.g.:

Muscle water and electrolyte following varied levels of dehydration in man
Article in Journal of applied physiology 40(1):6-11 · January 1976 

David L Costill R Coté W Fink

Alterations in red cell volume following exercise and dehydration
Article in Journal of applied physiology 37(6):912-6 · December 1974 

Costill Branam Eddy Fink

Leg muscle metabolism during exercise in heat and cold
Article in European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology 34(3):183-90 · August 1975

Fink Costill Van Handel

But the studies focus on potentially detrimental effects, even if they aren't always reported.

The same general notion applies here. The main conclusion of the study was that the steroids resulted in changes that could potentially be detrimental to health. This does not absolutely rule out that the researchers were hoping to optimize a doping program--after all, if you're going to dope, it's a good idea to understand the downsides--but that certainly is not the most likely interpretation. Taken at face value, the researchers were well aware that athletes were taking these drugs, and wanted to get information out there that might help them see this is not a good idea. The very fact that they were studying something like HDL levels reinforces this, because if one wanted to document performance enhancement, this would be more or less irrelevant.

 

[acoggan]

Here's another study by Costill in which steroids were given to athletes:

Anabolic Steroid Use Among Athletes: Changes in HDL-C Levels
The Physician and Sportsmedicine
Volume 12, Issue 6, 1984
D. L. Costill PhD**, D. R. Pearson MS* & W. J. Fink MA*
pages 112-117

Yes, that's the one I pointed out originally, when I wrote that Costill had apparently performed only one study of anabolic steroids.

 

[sniper]

... This absolutely does not rule out that...

fixed that for you

seriously though, that's a good find, and good post + good points.
have to run, but will respond later in more detail.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

No, I'm saying that sniper was wrong when he claimed that 1) Costill has published more than one study looking at the effects of diuretics on performance, 2) that it showed improved performance in some individuals, and 3) that the drugs were used in actual competitions...and those are just the falsehoods he has presented on this one specific issue.

1. he has published more than 1, so its your falsehood.
2. i acknolwedged that. and merckxindex put a nice cherry on that.
3. link showing that they werent, please.

4. you claimed the study didnt even exist.
5. you falsely claimed i made up that study.

seems you just beat me with falsehoods, 3-1, and thats just on this specific issue.
your backtracking on the coffee issue didnt go unnoticed either
you were saying so ething about copperhead?

Is your reading comprehension that poor, or do you simply not understand how science works? There was only one study, which was first published as an abstract and then later as a full paper. The latter is the one to which I provided the link, and it contains no data showing evidence of improvements in performance as you claimed, or that subjects in the study used the diuretic in competition, as you claimed.

IOW, you're 0 for 3 on this issue...which as I said, seems to be about par for the course for you.

....the following is what sniper posted....note the bolded...

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

....and here is what Merckx Index posted soon after.....again note the bolded...

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

....now I realize the wording is a little back assward but I would think someone as highly trained, and with as big a brain as you claim to have, should be able to read that, and figure it out ( read, sniper did not claim performance improvements, he claimed time increases, and even someone with an a brain as small as blutto's could work that out )....and mention of competition ? ain't there either....

...so, speakin' about this poor reading comprehension thingee ?....am I missing something ?...

Cheers

Yes, you missed this post:

viewtopic.php?p=1921910#p1921910

in which sniper falsely claimed that the subjects used the diuretic in actual competition, and that several set new personal bests.

Bottom line is that sniper distorts facts and spreads misinformation, and in the process is opening himself, and potentially this website, to a lawsuit for libel.

....you are absolutely correct, I did miss that post....and upon looking at that post it is quite apparent you have missed something as well....there is after the line that talks about personal bests and competition a thing iinm ( which means "if I'm not mistaken " ) which you seem to have either missed or assumed, as I initially did, to be a typo....the use of that indicates to me, and most everyone, that sniper was not absolutely and unequivocally making statements about things but rather he was throwing something out there ( as a kinda of a question ?....as something to invite comment ?...I mean there where several questions/calls for answers or opinions that followed that line....)...

...and to be fair the wording of the time differences is, as I noted in my previous post, a little, uhhh, back assward...so some confusion on that point is understandable...in my case it wasn't until until MI posted his comments on that "abstract" that it became clear what the recorded time differences actually referred to...so yeah for a while I thought increases referred to better times...

...now to draw a blanket conclusion on all of sniper's work based on that post is not really fair.....pushed to the limit some may say that could be considered disingenuous but lets just stick with fair which I think is much more appropriate...

....so we have all had some misses, some misreading of odd ways of describing things...so let's head back to the salt mines shall we...

Cheers

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

....you are absolutely correct, I did miss that post....and upon looking at that post it is quite apparent you have missed something as well....there is after the line that talks about personal bests and competition a thing iinm ( which means "if I'm not mistaken " )

Appending an acronym (or even spelling it out) does not justify making such a patently-false statement.

Indeed, even now sniper has yet to explain why he made it, nor admit that it was incorrect.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

....you are absolutely correct, I did miss that post....and upon looking at that post it is quite apparent you have missed something as well....there is after the line that talks about personal bests and competition a thing iinm ( which means "if I'm not mistaken " )

Appending an acronym (or even spelling it out) does not justify making such a patently-false statement.

Indeed, even now sniper has yet to explain why he made it, nor admit that it was incorrect.

...so how about if we remove, or ignore, the bolded from your sentence, you know, to get the meaning I really think is correct for my purposes...is that ok with you ?....would seem I was wrong about using fair...

Cheers

 

[Irondan]

I'm going to post this friendly warning for the last time.

Please keep your comments impersonal and courteous.

This discussion should not resort to ugly name calling, hyperbole and strawmen.

Let's keep it civil, shall we?

Cheers

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Reminder: Merckx_Index and acoggan are by far the most knowledgeable forum members as it relates to Sports Science. Keeping scores with them may not be wise .

And if participants find nothing but personal attacks or bruised egos to bring to the table, should we keep discussing this or move on to something else?

The '70s, not so much, but the '80s are an interesting topic indeed. Two OG boycotts built the hypefor a showdown in Seoul '88, cold war propaganda, and research stepped up. FloJo, Ben Johnson shattered records. A leap. But as far as endurance sports, what happened? The CCCP and DDR 100km TTT were beasts, so dominant than I would argue that the western countries didn't use a program. So?

If we want to get something out of this discussion, maybe we should take an approach that is about the topic, not about our opinions.

....DDR and CCCP teams were beasts eh....well the DDR, which won certainly was, but the CCCP not so much, they finished 7th....and Eddie B's old stomping ground, Poland, finished a very very close 2nd....so by the numbers the beasts were DDR and Poland....everybody else was fighting for the Bronze ( which was a very tight race btwn 4 countries )...

Cheers

I would not say based on the results - the western countries were not on the programs.

How come there are only two people with knowledge here?

Is it the goal here---- to shut the conversation down just like before?

 

[Dr.Guess]

I for one enjoy reading MI responses to snipers questions and statements. It's like Yoda and Luke. Blutto is han solo. Glenn Wilson, eh, chewie?

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...

....you are absolutely correct, I did miss that post....and upon looking at that post it is quite apparent you have missed something as well....there is after the line that talks about personal bests and competition a thing iinm ( which means "if I'm not mistaken " ) which you seem to have either missed or assumed, as I initially did, to be a typo....the use of that indicates to me, and most everyone, that sniper was not absolutely and unequivocally making statements about things but rather he was throwing something out there ( as a kinda of a question ?....as something to invite comment ?...I mean there where several questions/calls for answers or opinions that followed that line....)...

...and to be fair the wording of the time differences is, as I noted in my previous post, a little, uhhh, back assward...so some confusion on that point is understandable...in my case it wasn't until until MI posted his comments on that "abstract" that it became clear what the recorded time differences actually referred to...so yeah for a while I thought increases referred to better times...

...now to draw a blanket conclusion on all of sniper's work based on that post is not really fair.....pushed to the limit some may say that could be considered disingenuous but lets just stick with fair which I think is much more appropriate...

....so we have all had some misses, some misreading of odd ways of describing things...so let's head back to the salt mines shall we...

Cheers

thanks for this.
hitting nail clean on the head.

 

[Merckx index]

Re:

I'm going to post this friendly warning for the last time.

Please keep your comments impersonal and courteous.

This discussion should not resort to ugly name calling, hyperbole and strawmen.

Let's keep it civil, shall we?

Cheers

I think for the most part name-calling has been absent. AC should not have accused Sniper of lying, because that implies Sniper knew the facts and intentionally misrepresented them in order to deceive. AC has no way of knowing that, and FWIW, I don't think Sniper has posted anything he knew at the time to be false, though he is IMO guilty of sometimes rushing to judgment without always carefully considering what a particular piece of information says or doesn't say.

But everything else AC has said is definitely within the bounds of proper discussion of scientific results, even the accusation that "sniper distorts facts and spreads misinformation". I know that sounds ugly and personal, and no doubt the same point could be made more tactfully, but as long as a motive like intention to deceive is not added to this point, it's certainly a fair one to make, the kind scientists frequently make when arguing among themselves. (To paraphrase Shakespeare, hell hath no fury like a scientist in full critical mode). It's not an ad hominem (other than an accusation of sloppy thinking), it's simply a description of what happened. The notion that the diuretic improved performance is misinformation; it didn't enhance performance. The notion that any study of steroids is directed at determining their ability to enhance performance is misinformation; all the studies I've seen examined only health effects. Misinformation happens. It's not necessarily a sin, just a human weakness.

Again, I don't think this is intentional. I very much agree with Blutto that the simple statement that performance times increased 8.4 seconds is ambiguous. If it were time to exhaustion, time maintaining a certain level of power, or the like, then it would indicate enhancement. Even if it were time to run a certain distance--as it turns out was the case--the statement is still suggestive of performance enhancement, simply because of the word "increase". I wouldn't blame anyone for looking at that statement out of context and jumping to the conclusion, at least anyone who was not a scientist working in that area.

It only becomes misinformation when that connection to PE is explicitly made, as Sniper apparently did do upthread ("improved their personal bests"). But it's a mistake I can understand his making if he didn't see the full abstract, only the phrase that performance times increased. He should not have jumped to that conclusion, he's wrong, and he should be called out for this. This much has to be allowed if this thread is to be meaningful.

 

[sniper]

Some good points there, MI.
And so the irony is that, in the end, the only ones lying were those who suggested I was lying.

But hold the phone, because if we're gonna split hairs about misinformation, i can play that game all day long and some people are not gonna look pretty. And you just provided some misinformation yourself (I'll get back to that later).
But the obvious downside of all this epic hair splitting is that it will be the end of discussion and the end of the thread.
So I disagree firmly with the second paragraph of your post. Not because I'm butthurt, but because it adds zilch to the discussion; rather, it kills the discussion.
Example: a total of four posters, amounting to a total of five or six posts, have pointed out to me that Hagerman wasn't a hematologist. Never mind that I acknowledged it immediately after djpbaltimore told me, and I immediately changed my post on Hagerman accordingly.
So the other four, five posts had one effect, and one effect only: to derail. Not to mention the fact that the same four posters have accused me of lying, something every normal person is going to defend him/herself against. Again, the end effect: clogging/derailing.
So while I appreciate and welcome all kinds of comments and/or corrections on the info put out there by me and some others, the accompanying personal remarks ('liar, pushing agenda, distorting facts') do nothing but derail.

edit:
MI: "rushing to judgment without always carefully considering what a particular piece of information says or doesn't say".
This is certainly true. Some things to consider in that regard:
- imo life is too short to beat around the bush.
- i'm not a native speaker.
- i'm not getting paid for this.
That's no excuse for making errors though. So sure, I'm gonna take some punches on the chin and eat some humble pie from time to time. But so be it.

 

[acoggan]

Re:

a total of four posters, amounting to a total of five or six posts, have pointed out to me that Hagerman wasn't a hematologist. Never mind that I acknowledged it immediately after djpbaltimore told me, and I immediately changed my post on Hagerman accordingly.

...and then turned right around and later referred to him as a "medic". And you're still surprised that people question your motives and doubt your claims?

 

[sniper]

i hope for the adolescents and athletes who received his needles that he did have at least some basic medical background.

 

[acoggan]

Re:

i hope for the adolescents and athletes who received his needles that he did have at least some basic medical background.

Knowing how to draw blood does not make one a medic.

Moreover, I don't know anyone who would describe having their blood drawn as "receiving somebody else's needle."

Finally, why do you refer to adolescents? All of Hagerman's published research involving blood sampling entailed consenting adults.

 

[Tonton]

I could have dissected it further, be more precise. Fair enough. CCCP gave us a ton of ITT monsters too, including my first pick in the doping draft, the guy who BigMigged Big Mig. Split hair if you want. I should have been more careful but the point, and maybe you missed it, was...the topic. And bringing arguments to the table that are not hormones, ego...

...we are of like minds then...

....and as for "Da Beasts of TTT"....you should take a gander at the following ....you'll find them interesting...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UCI_Road_World_Championships_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_team_time_trial

http://www.sports-reference.com/olympics/summer/1992/CYC/ ( this one takes a bit of jumping around but yields all kinds of fun facts and figures )...

Cheers

Thanks blutto. From a doping standpoint, it is very interesting, and there are so many acorns in there, a squirrel couldn't choose which one to get to first

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

...
Finally, why do you refer to adolescents?

HAGERMAN: In the late 1970s Ed Burke and I studied both Eric Heiden and Greg Lemond at the US Olympic Training Center at Squaw Valley. They performed so well on all of our tests, both aerobic and anaerobic, (...)

https://books.google.pl/books?id=AkgQAQAAMAAJ&q=Physiology+and+Nutrition+for+Competitive+Sport&dq=Physiology+and+Nutrition+for+Competitive+Sport&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnkIuVzuTMAhUmS5oKHckHCT4Q6AEIHDAA

 

[sniper]

MI:
The notion that any study of steroids is directed at determining their ability to enhance performance is misinformation

any study? You mean Costill's studies?

Well, in his 1981 study he (they) conclude(s) that more testing is needed with higher dosages to simulate the dosages used by athletes. If that isn't directed at determining steroids' ability to enhance performance then I don't know what is.

Another question is Hagerman's and Ariel's steroid studies. We can look at those, too, if you doubt they were directed at determining steroids' ability to enhance performance.

 

[sniper]

Gideon Ariel on steroids:

1972: "The effect of anabolic steroid (methandrostenalone) upon selected physiological parameters."

1972: "Anabolic steroids: the physiological effects of placebos"

1972: "Effect of anabolic steroids on reflex components."

Should that still be ambiguous, I can provide the abstracts.

 

[sniper]

As for Hagerman, I'm still waiting for djpbaltimore to send me that scan of his 1975 study on weightlifters (provided this platform allows for such transactions in the first place).
But the evidence at the very least suggests he was interested in the effects of steroids on performance.
To give you an idea:

Golding (1972) reported interviews by Dr. Fritz Hagerman with athletes competing in the World Pentathlon Games in 1966 and in the 1968 Olympic Games in Mexico City. Using just two examples, one shot-putter’s weight increased from 225 to 280 pounds over a two year period with anabolic steroids, and the athlete achieved his lifetime best performance during this time. In the second example, a discuss thrower’s weight went from 220 to 268 pounds in less than six months while taking steroids and his throws increased from the low 180s to 207 feet. In both examples, the dosage was from two to eight times the recommended dosage.

To be sure, I don't have the original Golding study at hand.
I took this from a book by Jack Wilmore from 1982 (Training for sport and activity: The physiological basis of the conditioning process).
That particular paragraph is from the chapter on "Ergogenic Aids", which in addition to a section on steroids contains sections on blood doping and amphetamines.
Unfortunately i don't have a copy-pastable version. But believe me, it's very much focused on discussing the effects of these aids on performance.
On a side, Wilmore's book was republished in 1988(?) with David Costill as co-author.

All that said, it is a fact that these authors were also interested in health effects. It's clearly not a matter of either/or.

 

[blutto]

Re: Re:

i hope for the adolescents and athletes who received his needles that he did have at least some basic medical background.

Knowing how to draw blood does not make one a medic.

Moreover, I don't know anyone who would describe having their blood drawn as "receiving somebody else's needle."

Finally, why do you refer to adolescents? All of Hagerman's published research involving blood sampling entailed consenting adults.

...or lets run this the other way, does drawing blood require you to be a "medic"...so that if you are able to draw blood it would be safe to assume you are a "medic"....

....now I don't how things are done in your country but here in Soviet Canuckistan it is very rare indeed to have anyone below a nurse "pay grade" to draw blood....so it kinda depends how you define medic ( read it isn't just any person off the street that can be doing it as you seem to be implying....it can be a doctor or a medical student or someone trained in first aid type responses.....btw finding veins is a learned skill that requires experience and not leaving huge bruises is more than just a cosmetic issue as it can have some very nasty consequences...)....

Cheers

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re:

As for Hagerman, I'm still waiting for djpbaltimore to send me that scan of his 1975 study on weightlifters (provided this platform allows for such transactions in the first place).
But the evidence at the very least suggests he was interested in the effects of steroids on performance.
To give you an idea:

Golding (1972) reported interviews by Dr. Fritz Hagerman with athletes competing in the World Pentathlon Games in 1966 and in the 1968 Olympic Games in Mexico City. Using just two examples, one shot-putter’s weight increased from 225 to 280 pounds over a two year period with anabolic steroids, and the athlete achieved his lifetime best performance during this time. In the second example, a discuss thrower’s weight went from 220 to 268 pounds in less than six months while taking steroids and his throws increased from the low 180s to 207 feet. In both examples, the dosage was from two to eight times the recommended dosage.

To be sure, I don't have the original Golding study at hand.
I took this from a book by Jack Wilmore from 1982 (Training for sport and activity: The physiological basis of the conditioning process).
That particular paragraph is from the chapter on "Ergogenic Aids", which in addition to a section on steroids contains sections on blood doping and amphetamines.
Unfortunately i don't have a copy-pastable version. But believe me, it's very much focused on discussing the effects of these aids on performance.
On a side, Wilmore's book was republished in 1988(?) with David Costill as co-author.

All that said, it is a fact that these authors were also interested in health effects. It's clearly not a matter of either/or.

Sure thing. Have the PDF right on my flash drive. Have you checked whether this forum allows attachments? In the study, the only readouts are health related. Nothing involving strength. Still waiting for you to answer any of the times that I asked you directly why team USA rowing results were so poor in the Hagerman era if he was blood and steroid doping everybody as you seen to insinuate.

 

[Irondan]

Re: Re:

As for Hagerman, I'm still waiting for djpbaltimore to send me that scan of his 1975 study on weightlifters (provided this platform allows for such transactions in the first place).
But the evidence at the very least suggests he was interested in the effects of steroids on performance.
To give you an idea:

Golding (1972) reported interviews by Dr. Fritz Hagerman with athletes competing in the World Pentathlon Games in 1966 and in the 1968 Olympic Games in Mexico City. Using just two examples, one shot-putter’s weight increased from 225 to 280 pounds over a two year period with anabolic steroids, and the athlete achieved his lifetime best performance during this time. In the second example, a discuss thrower’s weight went from 220 to 268 pounds in less than six months while taking steroids and his throws increased from the low 180s to 207 feet. In both examples, the dosage was from two to eight times the recommended dosage.

To be sure, I don't have the original Golding study at hand.
I took this from a book by Jack Wilmore from 1982 (Training for sport and activity: The physiological basis of the conditioning process).
That particular paragraph is from the chapter on "Ergogenic Aids", which in addition to a section on steroids contains sections on blood doping and amphetamines.
Unfortunately i don't have a copy-pastable version. But believe me, it's very much focused on discussing the effects of these aids on performance.
On a side, Wilmore's book was republished in 1988(?) with David Costill as co-author.

All that said, it is a fact that these authors were also interested in health effects. It's clearly not a matter of either/or.

Sure thing. Have the PDF right on my flash drive. Have you checked whether this forum allows attachments? In the study, the only readouts are health related. Nothing involving strength. Still waiting for you to answer any of the times that I asked you directly why team USA rowing results were so poor in the Hagerman era if he was blood and steroid doping everybody as you seen to insinuate.

I have not seen a function that would attach any files for sharing in this forum.

You'll have to use an outside vendor (Dropbox, Google Drive, etc.) to share attachments.

 

[Merckx index]

OK, Ariel seems like the real deal, interested in the performance enhancing effects of steroids. That doesn't prove he doped athletes or advocated doping them, but that's certainly a reasonable possibility. If he didn't, one could reasonably ask, why was he so interested in the performance-enhancing effects? If his athletes weren't taking these substances, why all the effort to find out how useful they might be? He could have used the results to publicize how unfair the advantage was that they gave athletes, but did he ever emphasize this? I don't know, but it doesn't seem so.

And he was one of the founders of the OTC (though as far as I can tell, his last steroid study or paper was published several years earlier; he did not publish any studies of this kind after OTC was founded). Having someone like that in charge of selecting and training promising young athletes definitely raises a red flag for me. Again, it's not proof--and this is steroids, not blood-doping--but it's suspicious.

 

[sniper]

OK, Ariel seems like the real deal, interested in the performance enhancing effects of steroids. That doesn't prove he doped athletes or advocated doping them, but that's certainly a reasonable possibility. If he didn't, one could reasonably ask, why was he so interested in the performance-enhancing effects? If his athletes weren't taking these substances, why all the effort to find out how useful they might be? He could have used the results to publicize how unfair the advantage was that they gave athletes, but did he ever emphasize this? I don't know, but it doesn't seem so.

And he was one of the founders of the OTC (though as far as I can tell, his last steroid study or paper was published several years earlier; he did not publish any studies of this kind after OTC was founded). Having someone like that in charge of selecting and training promising young athletes definitely raises a red flag for me. Again, it's not proof--and this is steroids, not blood-doping--but it's suspicious.

yes, ariel was the 'real deal', as was dardik.
that much is certain.

Hagerman, well, nothing proven, but hard to deny he had at the very least an *interest* in the possible effects of doping on athletes.
Did you ever see this post?
viewtopic.php?p=1914388#p1914388
Especially the part in boldface+underscore, where he recommends further cardiorespiratory testing on adolescents with modifications along the lines of what "certain Scandinavian countries" are doing.
It's really tough not to read "blood boosting" between the lines there.
That's what the Scandinavian authors (Astrand, Ekblom) he refers to were experimenting with. The reference to German doping-guru Woldemar Gerschler there doesn't bode well either.