When is the smackdown on Chris Horner?

[The Hitch]

I'm one of those that thinks if they pass the test - that should be enough.

Is that you Pat?

 

[Energy Starr]

There are testosterone gummies that can be taken on the start line that will not trigger positives upon testing at the finish. I would surmise some guys could time them to be taken at a specific time during the race, and they still would not trigger a positive at the finish. If they can do it with testosterone I assume there are many other substances that can do the same. How on earth do you create a meaningful test?

 

[The Hitch]

I'm one of those that thinks if they pass the test - that should be enough.

And btw, that means Valverde is clean for you?

 

[Parker]

There are testosterone gummies that can be taken on the start line that will not trigger positives upon testing at the finish. I would surmise some guys could time them to be taken at a specific time during the race, and they still would not trigger a positive at the finish. If they can do it with testosterone I assume there are many other substances that can do the same. How on earth do you create a meaningful test?

So basically there's some bloke at the start of your races selling gummy bears as testosterone. And you believe him. Isn't this just the cycling equivalent of drugs that will make your johnson bigger.

 

[sponsor]

And btw, that means Valverde is clean for you?

Passing does not mean anyone is has not doped. Likely it would mean everyone had doped to the point that they could just pass the test and not more.

At that level:
1 I don't see it causing much physical harm - at least not near the level of a crash.
2 It is fair.

 

[sponsor]

.. How on earth do you create a meaningful test?

By basing it on a level, not an action.

Meaning riders may very well take their stuff. If it doesn't reach a level - it passes.

I would prefer no dope, as I prefer no war. But the reality is that most athletes will push the limit. So rather than base it on their word where the clean guys are disadvantaged, just base it on a test level.
If the officials see a rider chewing T gummy before the race and they pass the test - they pass the test and the result stands.

Just like if bike is seen to weight 5.8kg before the race and when weighed it weighs 6.8kg. It is over. Bike passed - move on.

 

[Energy Starr]

So basically there's some bloke at the start of your races selling gummy bears as testosterone. And you believe him. Isn't this just the cycling equivalent of drugs that will make your johnson bigger.

Heck I have no idea if it's true...but it could be. Apparently Arod paid big, big money for these, amongst other things.

 

[DirtyWorks]

...I do not believe the old Lemonds and certainly not the 17 year old Lance could hang with these kids.

I have little doubt the current system, as the prior system can be beat.

For historical reference, the USCF that lemond came through could barely put together a world's squad. By Armstrong, carmichael was doping kids and you were either taking the injections or leaving.

They sanctioned some poor u23 CX winners for epo VERY swiftly. Yet another kind of anti-doping behavior from the UCI. Why? Dunno.

Let's eliminate federation's ability to ignore positive first. IOC would hate it.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

There are testosterone gummies that can be taken on the start line that will not trigger positives upon testing at the finish. I would surmise some guys could time them to be taken at a specific time during the race, and they still would not trigger a positive at the finish. If they can do it with testosterone I assume there are many other substances that can do the same. How on earth do you create a meaningful test?

But what does test do mid-race? Can you perhaps expand on the ergogenic aid availed using T during a race? My understanding is it was good for post-race / training recovery, but also supresses endogenous T, so it's a balancing act that you'd maintain OOC during a heavy block and then back off pre-comp?

Or is it more placebo?

It's a bit like EPO - you don't get Hgb as soon as you take it. It takes about 12 hours for the effect to kick in fully. Assuming all other things are up to par - like iron supplies, etc.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Passing does not mean anyone is has not doped. Likely it would mean everyone had doped to the point that they could just pass the test and not more.

At that level:
1 I don't see it causing much physical harm - at least not near the level of a crash.
2 It is fair.

Yes. Very much for many years.

You've looked into doping for years but feel that it's fair?

We're going to have to agree to strenuously disagree. It's almost like saying all riders have the same physiology. Completely fallacious.

 

[Energy Starr]

But what does test do mid-race? Can you perhaps expand on the ergogenic aid availed using T during a race? My understanding is it was good for post-race / training recovery, but also supresses endogenous T, so it's a balancing act that you'd maintain OOC during a heavy block and then back off pre-comp?

Or is it more placebo?

It's a bit like EPO - you don't get Hgb as soon as you take it. It takes about 12 hours for the effect to kick in fully. Assuming all other things are up to par - like iron supplies, etc.

I highly doubt I know enough about how it actually works to give a satisfactory answer. But if it was able to simply raise your test level during the race, would that not be helpful? I know of weightlifters who put liquid test under their tongue right before the lifting session, to raise their test specifically for the session. Maybe it would be a similar effect for cycling. Maybe the placebo effect as well. Perhaps like slamming a bunch of caffeine for the race.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I highly doubt I know enough about how it actually works to give a satisfactory answer. But if it was able to simply raise your test level during the race, would that not be helpful? I know of weightlifters who put liquid test under their tongue right before the lifting session, to raise their test specifically for the session. Maybe it would be a similar effect for cycling. Maybe the placebo effect as well. Perhaps like slamming a bunch of caffeine for the race.

Except caffeine is not a placebo - it helps you metabolise fats better, is a stimulant and also enhances the effects of certain pain killers, etc, etc.

I am curious - not saying you're wrong, just hadn't heard of it being used in-race.

 

[Oldman]

By basing it on a level, not an action.

Meaning riders may very well take their stuff. If it doesn't reach a level - it passes.

I would prefer no dope, as I prefer no war. But the reality is that most athletes will push the limit. So rather than base it on their word where the clean guys are disadvantaged, just base it on a test level.
If the officials see a rider chewing T gummy before the race and they pass the test - they pass the test and the result stands.

Just like if bike is seen to weight 5.8kg before the race and when weighed it weighs 6.8kg. It is over. Bike passed - move on.

This is pretty simplistic reasoning for someone who professes to have studied doping products. The "move on" part sounds familiar; the phrase of doping era cheats that want to preserve a legacy.
There are reasons that all of these substances are controlled and we can't reeducate every person that pretends there's no danger.
Back to Chris...it's possible his competition is doing everything he is and also not getting tested or caught. Doesn't change the rules of the game.

 

[Le breton]

Except caffeine is not a placebo - it helps you metabolise fats better, is a stimulant and also enhances the effects of certain pain killers, etc, etc.
...

It is also known to help you get cramps

 

[Dear Wiggo]

It is also known to help you get cramps

Ahhh the spectre of diuretics, perhaps?

 

[Master50]

So when the doctor tells you to stop smoking, do you tell him that you only take that kind of advice from your mortician?

Not a VERY good parallel. A mortician is not even a medical professional. Do you take medical advice from a forum? If a Doctor tells me to quit smoking I take his advice but when Foxxy tells me to stop smoking I get it may still be good advice but I am not taking it from him.

There are a few here who seem to have near expert knowledge and I would guess have formal medical training but the majority seem to just like to be sceptics. There are some regulars here that don't seem to have any personal understanding of doping at all but still have solid beliefs their opinions are well supported as fact? I just like the Bona Fide experts best.

 

[sponsor]

You've looked into doping for years but feel that it's fair?

We're going to have to agree to strenuously disagree. It's almost like saying all riders have the same physiology. Completely fallacious.

I'm guessing I did not express my point of view correctly. We may disagree anyway, but lets try again.

Fair to me is when all players get to use the same stuff. When PED testing is so beatable then it is unfair to the ones that don't dope - primarily for ethical reasons. If there was enough fear of getting caught that no one doped - great - lets have a dope free sport. I just don't think that that is where it is yet - hence the Clinic to figure it all out.

So...
By allowing everyone to dope, everyone is allowed to use the same stuff. That is fair.
It may be dangerous, but it is fair.
So then how can we make it less dangerous than say a racer riding their bike?
A:Make the testing levels tight, so the amount of whatever PED is being used would have to be so small it would not be considered a health risk.

Once we learn how to eliminate doping - well, great. But until the winner can win - and be old, or put out X+Watts/Kg without being questioned and there is no need for a Clinic then I don't think what we have is working out so well.

If instead a just pass the tests and results were final even if the athlete spills all training methods on Oprah method were used, there would be a lot less to talk about. And it would be fair.

 

[proffate]

A:Make the testing levels tight, so the amount of whatever PED is being used would have to be so small it would not be considered a health risk.

this simply can't work. Let's consider drug X with a half life of 3 days. If you are allowed to have a certain quantity of this drug in your bloodstream, say max M% at any given point, you could safely dope up to 2M% as long as you won't be tested for the next 3 days.

On the other hand, if you're not allowed to have any of drug X, then the "glow time" depends on how sensitive they can make the test. If they can detect a very small quantity, but it requires a large quantity (say 16x that) to get a performance benefit, then the glow time is 12 days. Clearly a longer glow period equals a more effective test equals less chance of abuse.

 

[sponsor]

this simply can't work. Let's consider drug X with a half life of 3 days. If you are allowed to have a certain quantity of this drug in your bloodstream, say max M% at any given point, you could safely dope up to 2M% as long as you won't be tested for the next 3 days.

On the other hand, if you're not allowed to have any of drug X, then the "glow time" depends on how sensitive they can make the test. If they can detect a very small quantity, but it requires a large quantity (say 16x that) to get a performance benefit, then the glow time is 12 days. Clearly a longer glow period equals a more effective test equals less chance of abuse.

Then the standard is M/2. And if it can't be detected, what's the point of testing unless just testing at a max level allowed daily - which makes sense.

What drugs are harmful at the dosage undetectable when tested daily?

Cheating under current rules - yes. Harmful, I don't know of any when under the detectable limits.

 

[DirtyWorks]

By allowing everyone to dope, everyone is allowed to use the same stuff. That is fair.
It may be dangerous, but it is fair.

This leads immediately to doping children. I'll compromise and predict that under-23's will have deaths due to doping. After that, the doping starts as pre-teen.

Does that seem fair?

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I'm guessing I did not express my point of view correctly. We may disagree anyway, but lets try again.

Fair to me is when all players get to use the same stuff.

There's a thread for this sort of discussion, which has nothing to do with Chris Horner.

Starts here: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=22758

 

[Jack (6 ch)]

By allowing everyone to dope, everyone is allowed to use the same stuff. That is fair.
.

Not really. Some respond better than others. You are distorting the competition.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Not really. Some respond better than others. You are distorting the competition.

And, some want to ride clean. How easily we forget.

 

[veganrob]

This leads immediately to doping children. I'll compromise and predict that under-23's will have deaths due to doping. After that, the doping starts as pre-teen.

Does that seem fair?

Thank you. And that is exactly the point when people start the ridiculous talk of legalizing doping for the pros.
It is already bad enough when teens in high school are doing steroids and more. They all think they are going to be pros, or get a scholarship or whatever. then worse is some parents are getting their kids hooked up. WTF. stop the madness.

 

[Granville57]

Well, since this total tread derailment is still in place, I may as well add something else that has nothing to do with Chris Horner.

Have you looked into doping all that much?

Yes. Very much for many years.

Really? And what you surmise, after those "many years," and your "very much" looking into it is...

I am pretty sure other sports dope as much..

Ya' think?

If other sports doped only as much as cycling, those "other" sports would be cleaner than they are now. I am pretty sure about that.