What constitutes cheating ???

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
RobbieCanuck said:
Regarding Actovegin it is a protein-free extract obtained from filtered calf blood and has an insulin-like effect of increased glucose utilization. It also increases oxygen uptake and the utilization of oxygen.

WADA does not ban Actovegin itself or any substances that have an "insulin-like effect of glucose utilization." Generally speaking anything that one takes into the body has an effect on glucose so they cannot ban it that way.

So it seems to me until they specifically name it as a banned substance it is still OK.
Then, IMO, you condone doping as long as it is not on a list. Why bother with the clinic then?
 
May 19, 2010
1,899
0
0
RobbieCanuck said:
Regarding Actovegin it is a protein-free extract obtained from filtered calf blood and has an insulin-like effect of increased glucose utilization. It also increases oxygen uptake and the utilization of oxygen.

WADA does not ban Actovegin itself or any substances that have an "insulin-like effect of glucose utilization." Generally speaking anything that one takes into the body has an effect on glucose so they cannot ban it that way.

So it seems to me until they specifically name it as a banned substance it is still OK.
People have been sanctioned over Actovegin, so it is not OK. At least not if you are Russian.

http://en.ria.ru/sports/20110111/162099659.html
 

Justinr

BANNED
Feb 18, 2013
806
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Lance Armstrong admitted having to look up the word "cheat." That does not speak well of anyone who has to ask the question "What constitutes cheating?."
Well if you took the time to read my first post i was going to change it to doping but decided not to as I thought it would be good to take it wider than doping. You'll also see that I wanted to spark healthy debate in a separate thread. Unfortunately all you seem to want to do (AGAIN) is question the intelligence of the poster by throwing insults and not actually contribute to the debate...
 

Justinr

BANNED
Feb 18, 2013
806
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Then, IMO, you condone doping as long as it is not on a list. Why bother with the clinic then?
Which was the point of my initial question based on the fact that a previous post had said "if its not on the list then it is not banned" - what do people think. What about people that take vast quantities of Tramadol - its not banned, so is that doping?
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Justinr said:
Which was the point of my initial question based on the fact that a previous post had said "if its not on the list then it is not banned" - what do people think. What about people that take vast quantities of Tramadol - its not banned, so is that doping?
Yes, taking anything to enhance the performance is doping. Tramadol is taken to counteract the painful effects of lactic acid, hence the use of 'finish bottles' when the pace hots up as the peloton approaches the finish.

If Sky are using methods that enhance their riders performance, and i believe they are, then that is doping. If the method is new it is still performance enhancing and therefore cheating.
 
Benotti69 said:
Then, IMO, you condone doping as long as it is not on a list. Why bother with the clinic then?
The conclusion you draw from my post is absurd. I bother with the Clinic to among other things bring credible information to the patently naïve.

How can you sanction doping if it is not on the WADA list? Je$u$!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
DirtyWorks said:
The IOC definition: Cheating is getting caught. Anything less than that is not cheating.

This thread is done.

Be careful DW. When you tell CN a thread is done it is only the beginning. Good logic never prevented CN from closing a thread before.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
RobbieCanuck said:
The conclusion you draw from my post is absurd. I bother with the Clinic to among other things bring credible information to the patently naïve.

How can you sanction doping if it is not on the WADA list? Je$u$!!!!!!!!!!!!
WADA have made provision for what is not on their list. Read up on it.

God @TheTweetOfGod · 1h
For Jesus this was anything but a Good Friday.
 
Benotti69 said:
WADA have made provision for what is not on their list. Read up on it.
If it is not on the WADA list and is approved by a government regulatory health authority it is not banned so in the context of this thread if a cyclist takes such a substance even if it has a performance enhancing benefit it cannot be "cheating"

That's bureaucracy for you!
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
RobbieCanuck said:
If it is not on the WADA list and is approved by a government regulatory health authority it is not banned so in the context of this thread if a cyclist takes such a substance even if it has a performance enhancing benefit it cannot be "cheating"

That's bureaucracy for you!
That is professional sport and cheating for you.
 

Justinr

BANNED
Feb 18, 2013
806
0
0
Benotti69 said:
Yes, taking anything to enhance the performance is doping. Tramadol is taken to counteract the painful effects of lactic acid, hence the use of 'finish bottles' when the pace hots up as the peloton approaches the finish.

If Sky are using methods that enhance their riders performance, and i believe they are, then that is doping. If the method is new it is still performance enhancing and therefore cheating.
Ok, how about eating a healthy diet that metabolises more easily in to useable energy increasing performance rather than plates and plates of crap food that is bad for performance. Is that doping?

What about energy gels and electrolyte drinks - are they doping?

What about training hard to improve fitness / increase performance?
 
Mar 16, 2013
98
0
0
Considering the vast majority of "performance enhancement" takes place when we sleep, I have to think sleeping pills are one of the biggest offenders of all.

Many riders openly admit to using sleeping pills, while many others likely don't mention it. I may be part of a very small minority, but I think that is worse than most drugs that are being pumped through these kids.
 
jw1979 said:
Considering the vast majority of "performance enhancement" takes place when we sleep, I have to think sleeping pills are one of the biggest offenders of all.

Many riders openly admit to using sleeping pills, while many others likely don't mention it. I may be part of a very small minority, but I think that is worse than most drugs that are being pumped through these kids.
Research shows that people get their most restful sleep during the rem stage. The problem with sleeping pills is they sometimes disrupt normal circadian rhythms and prevent people from even getting into rem E.g. zoplicone.

Some athletes perform on very little sleep others need more. It is way too subjective to be considered other than a performance enhancing factor. Way too totalitarian!
 
Actually, I need to find a study that showed how a full night's sleep, approx 8hrs, improved a cyclist performance by something in the area of 15-20w or something, over someone who only had about 6-7hrs...I'm paraphrasing, but it was fairly significant.

Furthermore, another study I read showed that using those ice/cooling leg machines/contraptions, also improved recovery and gave significant advantage as well.

So I would consider 1) sleep; 2) Ice/Cold and 3) Well, anything and everything.

Furthermore, just my two cents, I believe there are many substances on the list that have no proven effect whatsoever on performance. Yet, the WADA based off silly beliefs, urban legend and junk science etc..put things on there to make some claim out of stupidity/politics to show they are doing something about actual performance enhancing substances.

An example, why can you take albuterol or allergy medications that allow you to even get on the bike? That is performance enhancing IMO. So your performance goes from basically zero, not being able to ride, to being able to ride/compete. What is the definition and "baseline" for what performance enhancing is? It is all relative and arbitrary performance. Hence why so many substances don't do anything for it on the bike, and many off do depending on your definition on what it means.

So let us first go back and start with what constitutes "Performance Enhacing", and take it from there what makes something actually scientifically enhance performance. I'm guessing this thread will go on forever with that idea.
 

Justinr

BANNED
Feb 18, 2013
806
0
0
zigmeister said:
Actually, I need to find a study that showed how a full night's sleep, approx 8hrs, improved a cyclist performance by something in the area of 15-20w or something, over someone who only had about 6-7hrs...I'm paraphrasing, but it was fairly significant.

Furthermore, another study I read showed that using those ice/cooling leg machines/contraptions, also improved recovery and gave significant advantage as well.

So I would consider 1) sleep; 2) Ice/Cold and 3) Well, anything and everything.
Like the ice bath that Andy Murray takes after a match? So, if thats performance enhancing are we saying its doping?
 

Justinr

BANNED
Feb 18, 2013
806
0
0
zigmeister said:
So let us first go back and start with what constitutes "Performance Enhacing", and take it from there what makes something actually scientifically enhance performance. I'm guessing this thread will go on forever with that idea.
It'll take a bit to beat the Sky thread. Some great points in your post above.
 

martinvickers

BANNED
Oct 15, 2012
4,903
0
0
Justinr said:
It'll take a bit to beat the Sky thread. Some great points in your post above.
Well, can we start then on some basic theory?

To be doping it really ought to be

1. Artificial manipulation of the body
2. Seeking advantage
3. Unfairly

I'm not saying that makes the task much easier, or there aren't grey areas, but it's a framework I hope. I think its easier to argue from the framework to a specific drug or technique than the other way around.

So an engine in the bike is cheating, but it's not doping, if you see what I mean. Training at altitude is not 'artificial', and since its open to anybody, it's probably not unfair. Whereas the use of pharmaceuticals explicitly or implicitly prohibited clearly ticks all three. It's also probably wide enough to capture xenon since that can't be found in any large quantities naturally, and gene doping.

The first grey area would be techniques that 'replicate' 'natural' conditions outside their obvious environment - obviously enough, ice baths, cryogenics and altitude tents. If you live in Kenya, or Sweden, those types of techniques are available naturally by reason of simple geography and climate. the question becomes perhaps is it inherently 'unfair' to 'recreate' that natural climatic advantage artifically?

Are all these things basically judgement calls? e.g. what if we found out tomorrow the simple act of eating fried goat meat dramatically increased natural epo production - would we ban eating goat meat?
 

Justinr

BANNED
Feb 18, 2013
806
0
0
martinvickers said:
Well, can we start then on some basic theory?

To be doping it really ought to be

1. Artificial manipulation of the body
2. Seeking advantage
3. Unfairly

I'm not saying that makes the task much easier, or there aren't grey areas, but it's a framework I hope. I think its easier to argue from the framework to a specific drug or technique than the other way around.

So an engine in the bike is cheating, but it's not doping, if you see what I mean. Training at altitude is not 'artificial', and since its open to anybody, it's probably not unfair. Whereas the use of pharmaceuticals explicitly or implicitly prohibited clearly ticks all three. It's also probably wide enough to capture xenon since that can't be found in any large quantities naturally, and gene doping.

The first grey area would be techniques that 'replicate' 'natural' conditions outside their obvious environment - obviously enough, ice baths, cryogenics and altitude tents. If you live in Kenya, or Sweden, those types of techniques are available naturally by reason of simple geography and climate. the question becomes perhaps is it inherently 'unfair' to 'recreate' that natural climatic advantage artifically?

Are all these things basically judgement calls? e.g. what if we found out tomorrow the simple act of eating fried goat meat dramatically increased natural epo production - would we ban eating goat meat?
Martin you are a typical lawyer ... lol

Good points there though. The goat meat one is a good one!

Xenon is also grey in my view - even if you just take the point that it isnt easily obtained. Now if Helium had the same effect would peoples view change (on the basis its really easy to get hold of for filling balloons)?
 
RobbieCanuck said:
The conclusion you draw from my post is absurd. I bother with the Clinic to among other things bring credible information to the patently naïve.

How can you sanction doping if it is not on the WADA list? Je$u$!!!!!!!!!!!!
By creating rules which deal with things outside the list:

1. The administration or reintroduction of any quantity of autologous, allogenic (homologous) or heterologous blood or red blood cell products of any origin into the circulatory system.
2. Artificially enhancing the uptake, transport or delivery of oxygen, including, but not limited to, perfluorochemicals, efaproxiral (RSR13) and modified haemoglobin products (e.g. haemoglobin-based blood substitutes, microencapsulated haemoglobin products), excluding supplemental oxygen.
3. Any form of intravascular manipulation of the blood or blood components by physical or chemical means.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Justinr said:
Well if you took the time to read my first post i was going to change it to doping but decided not to as I thought it would be good to take it wider than doping. You'll also see that I wanted to spark healthy debate in a separate thread. Unfortunately all you seem to want to do (AGAIN) is question the intelligence of the poster by throwing insults and not actually contribute to the debate...
It wasn't an insult to your intelligence, it was an insult to your sense of ethics...:rolleyes:
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
The IOC definition: Cheating is getting caught. Anything less than that is not cheating.

This thread is done.
This is reality...a sad reality, but reality none-the-less.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts