as an aside, i would just like to say that sprinters use EPO too; ask Marion Jones, Dwain Chambers, Tim Montgomery, Michelle Collins... or just ask Victor Conte it will be quicker.
so here is the official announcement for the press conference:
http://www.wada-ama.org/en/News-Cen...eration-in-the-Fight-against-Doping-in-Sport/
but i am not really sure about the benefits of a collaboration between WADA and the pharmaceutical industry, except for PR.
if the deal had been struck earlier, this is what would have happened:
1920
Pharma: we're about to synthesise this new drug called amphetamine. i think it might be misused as a doping agent
WADA: you have a test for it?
Pharma: yes!
WADA: thanks. we'll ban it straight away.
Victor Conte: doesn't matter, we'll use modafinil instead.
... 2004
WADA: but why didn't you tell us about this modafinil* that's been on the market for a while?
Pharma: oh, we're sorry, we didn't realise it could be used in sport.
1980
Pharma: we've got the new insulin out in 2 years. it's 100% human-like
WADA: and you have a test for it???
Pharma: well, we have a test for the long-duration one...
WADA: and the short-acting one?
Pharma: no
Victor Conte: doesn't matter, just take the short-acting one
1987
Pharma: we're in final testing phase of a new thing. it's called EPO
WADA: you've got a test for it?
Pharma: yes. but if you administer it intravenously and you drink water, it's only gonna be detectable for 6 hours
WADA, scratches his head: what are we gonna do?
Victor Conte: doesn't matter, just microdose it
i may be plain wrong but i think this cooperation, had it started in 1920, would just have brought us to where we are today.
it would have brought us there faster, but we'd still be right where we are today.
by partnering with the pharmaceutical industry WADA are improving on their chemical testing, but chemical testing was very good already. so i only see this as a very minor improvement.
by partnering with angel heredia, victor conte, bernhard kohl, dr. fuentes...
anyone who has cheated the system (very) successfully, it's their strategy that they would improve, dramatically. and their attitude too.
but i know that patrick sinkewitz had a lot to say and they never tried to get in touch with him.
and when i read that anti-doping experts (ashenden, i think it was, but not 100% sure) react all surprised when Floyd Landis says
that intravenous EPO disappears faster, i really think we should appoint mr Landis as head of a laboratory or as head of WADA for a tenure,
to see what happens, what changes, what he does differently... i bet he'd do a good job.
*also, yes, modafinil did go unnoticed by the anti-dopng authorities for a very long while,
and so a "partner" from the pharmaceutical industry could well have overseen it too, because the people at WADA and those in the pharmaceutical industry have the same background.
the pharmaceutical industry is trying to cut costs anyway, so they won't hire anti-doping officers or anything fancy, they'll
just say drug x is coming, it may be misused, here is the test we have, now you sort yours out (the one that stands in anti-doping trials). and they will help further where they can but they won't go out of their way just for the sake of anti-doping. and the fact that there is no mention of the press conference on the IFPMA's web site is probably already proof of it.
besides, companies such as Organon are known to earn some of their money on the back of doping, so all companies
may not be equally cooperative. but we'll see what they announce at the press conference.
which brings me to markers.
a marker in the sense of an add-on structure placed within a drug specifically to simplify anti-doping tests is not a realistic thing at all.
on average, it takes a company between 7 to 2 years and many millions of dollars to develop a new drug molecule that treats obesity, diabetes, glaucoma, etc...
if on top of that a company had to try and put a marker in, they would just have to spend another x years of research and a further many millions just to find the one marker that
1 - adds no side effects to the drug,
2 - has no impact on the way the drug already works,
3 - still delivers acceptable pharmacokinetics.
and the drug licensing authorities would certainly want to see the complete dossier that proves that this little marker is really innocuous.
and me as a patient, i certainly would not want my doctor to prescribe me a drug that has an anti-doping marker in it. i'd be scared to get side effects from it.
in recent years, many drugs, like sibutramine and rofecoxib, have been launched on the market only to be withdrawn about 5 years later because of new side effects (that hadn't been identified in testing).
so anything in a drug that doesn't directly contribute to the therapeutic effect, i would be very scared about, and rightly so.
markers just don't exist, and if they did they would raise serious ethical questions.
http://www.wada-ama.org/en/News-Cen...eration-in-the-Fight-against-Doping-in-Sport/
it is his mistakes or those by the translator, but not all in it is true. it is a while since i read it,
but i remember a particular place where he says that "30% of the world's growth hormone is thought to be used for doping purposes".
but the (american) article he is taking this information from was actually saying:
"about a third of all growth hormone prescribed is used off-label".
and by "off-label" the author was meaning rejuvenation cures as well as doping. and seen as she was saying "prescribed", i would think that there is a lot more rejuvenation cures in these 30% than doping.
because soccer players are sport's guardian angels, WADA's good messengers in the fight against doping in the whole wide world:
http://www.wada-ama.org/en/News-Cen...Say-NO-to-Doping-Campaign-during-World-Cup-1/
so here is the official announcement for the press conference:
http://www.wada-ama.org/en/News-Cen...eration-in-the-Fight-against-Doping-in-Sport/
but i am not really sure about the benefits of a collaboration between WADA and the pharmaceutical industry, except for PR.
if the deal had been struck earlier, this is what would have happened:
1920
Pharma: we're about to synthesise this new drug called amphetamine. i think it might be misused as a doping agent
WADA: you have a test for it?
Pharma: yes!
WADA: thanks. we'll ban it straight away.
Victor Conte: doesn't matter, we'll use modafinil instead.
... 2004
WADA: but why didn't you tell us about this modafinil* that's been on the market for a while?
Pharma: oh, we're sorry, we didn't realise it could be used in sport.
1980
Pharma: we've got the new insulin out in 2 years. it's 100% human-like
WADA: and you have a test for it???
Pharma: well, we have a test for the long-duration one...
WADA: and the short-acting one?
Pharma: no
Victor Conte: doesn't matter, just take the short-acting one
1987
Pharma: we're in final testing phase of a new thing. it's called EPO
WADA: you've got a test for it?
Pharma: yes. but if you administer it intravenously and you drink water, it's only gonna be detectable for 6 hours
WADA, scratches his head: what are we gonna do?
Victor Conte: doesn't matter, just microdose it
i may be plain wrong but i think this cooperation, had it started in 1920, would just have brought us to where we are today.
it would have brought us there faster, but we'd still be right where we are today.
by partnering with the pharmaceutical industry WADA are improving on their chemical testing, but chemical testing was very good already. so i only see this as a very minor improvement.
by partnering with angel heredia, victor conte, bernhard kohl, dr. fuentes...
anyone who has cheated the system (very) successfully, it's their strategy that they would improve, dramatically. and their attitude too.
but i know that patrick sinkewitz had a lot to say and they never tried to get in touch with him.
and when i read that anti-doping experts (ashenden, i think it was, but not 100% sure) react all surprised when Floyd Landis says
that intravenous EPO disappears faster, i really think we should appoint mr Landis as head of a laboratory or as head of WADA for a tenure,
to see what happens, what changes, what he does differently... i bet he'd do a good job.
*also, yes, modafinil did go unnoticed by the anti-dopng authorities for a very long while,
and so a "partner" from the pharmaceutical industry could well have overseen it too, because the people at WADA and those in the pharmaceutical industry have the same background.
the pharmaceutical industry is trying to cut costs anyway, so they won't hire anti-doping officers or anything fancy, they'll
just say drug x is coming, it may be misused, here is the test we have, now you sort yours out (the one that stands in anti-doping trials). and they will help further where they can but they won't go out of their way just for the sake of anti-doping. and the fact that there is no mention of the press conference on the IFPMA's web site is probably already proof of it.
besides, companies such as Organon are known to earn some of their money on the back of doping, so all companies
may not be equally cooperative. but we'll see what they announce at the press conference.
which brings me to markers.
a marker in the sense of an add-on structure placed within a drug specifically to simplify anti-doping tests is not a realistic thing at all.
on average, it takes a company between 7 to 2 years and many millions of dollars to develop a new drug molecule that treats obesity, diabetes, glaucoma, etc...
if on top of that a company had to try and put a marker in, they would just have to spend another x years of research and a further many millions just to find the one marker that
1 - adds no side effects to the drug,
2 - has no impact on the way the drug already works,
3 - still delivers acceptable pharmacokinetics.
and the drug licensing authorities would certainly want to see the complete dossier that proves that this little marker is really innocuous.
and me as a patient, i certainly would not want my doctor to prescribe me a drug that has an anti-doping marker in it. i'd be scared to get side effects from it.
in recent years, many drugs, like sibutramine and rofecoxib, have been launched on the market only to be withdrawn about 5 years later because of new side effects (that hadn't been identified in testing).
so anything in a drug that doesn't directly contribute to the therapeutic effect, i would be very scared about, and rightly so.
markers just don't exist, and if they did they would raise serious ethical questions.
Susan Westemeyer said:
http://www.wada-ama.org/en/News-Cen...eration-in-the-Fight-against-Doping-in-Sport/
yes, i had read somewhere that the European Union had commissioned research that found that a lot of the EPO produced was being used for doping but i never managed to lay my hands on the original research paper. in fact i spent a whole day looking for it once, but i found nothing.bobbins said:
about this article by sandro donati on WADA's web site: it is a translation from italian. i don't know if131313 said:
it is his mistakes or those by the translator, but not all in it is true. it is a while since i read it,
but i remember a particular place where he says that "30% of the world's growth hormone is thought to be used for doping purposes".
but the (american) article he is taking this information from was actually saying:
"about a third of all growth hormone prescribed is used off-label".
and by "off-label" the author was meaning rejuvenation cures as well as doping. and seen as she was saying "prescribed", i would think that there is a lot more rejuvenation cures in these 30% than doping.
as for why WADA chose to make the anouncement at the tour de france rather than at the soccer world cup...Polish said:
because soccer players are sport's guardian angels, WADA's good messengers in the fight against doping in the whole wide world:
http://www.wada-ama.org/en/News-Cen...Say-NO-to-Doping-Campaign-during-World-Cup-1/
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram