Why I will always be a "fanboy" and proud of it

[Race Radio]

If only everyone was born with the same genetic makeup and potential as a cyclist. Then the playing field would be even.

You do understand there is a big difference between natural ability and this?

 

[straydog]

You do understand there is a big difference between natural ability and this?

And a picture of a chest drain has what relevance to someone's natural ability or indeed this thread?

 

[SpartacusRox]

Yup, a still a bunch of Tri geeks pretending the know something about bike racing.

What color Speedo did you wear in the race? Red is supposed to make you ride you bike faster.

I'm not a triathlete, was just holidaying not racing. Yeah I've heard that red budgie smugglers make you go faster.

 

[thehog]

Its true. Not everyone can lactate like LA

Lance can lactate better than a pregnant woman. I've also seen him lactate into a biscuit once.

 

[WonderLance]

Lance can lactate better than a pregnant woman. I've also seen him lactate into a biscuit once.

Thats a horrible thing thing to call the Olsen girl.

 

[stephens]

Please tell us of a legal nutrient that can give one highly trained professional athlete an improvement of 13% while giving another a 2% improvement.

There are lots of guys whose body metabolizes their legal diet in such a way to produce a blood hematocrit in the high 40s, and other guys like me whose body takes the same legal diet and turns it into only a mid 30s hematocrit.

The whole "level playing field," argument against doping is stupid. Allowing use of EPO to a safe hematocrit level would actually provide a more level playing field and let the winners be, not those born with a lucky metabolism, but those that train the hardest, develop the best skills and mental tenacity and all that stuff that you really do have to earn.

There are arguments for making some substances illegal that make sense, but the level playing field argument is not one of them.

 

[Race Radio]

There are lots of guys whose body metabolizes their legal diet in such a way to produce a blood hematocrit in the high 40s, and other guys like me whose body takes the same legal diet and turns it into only a mid 30s hematocrit.

The whole "level playing field," argument against doping is stupid. Allowing use of EPO to a safe hematocrit level would actually provide a more level playing field and let the winners be, not those born with a lucky metabolism, but those that train the hardest, develop the best skills and mental tenacity and all that stuff that you really do have to earn.

There are arguments for making some substances illegal that make sense, but the level playing field argument is not one of them.

Didn't you claim to be a doctor? I am sure you have seen that every person reacts differently to pharmacological stimulation, some people respond others don't....some people respond insubordinately. Most would say that they prefer sport to be about who is the most naturally gifted and trains the hardest, not who responds best to a chemically altered "metabolism"

Still waiting for your answer. Please tell us about these magical nutritional products that give a long term Pro a 15% increase in output?

 

[stephens]

No, I'm not a doctor nor have I ever claimed to be one. I don't need to name any magical nutritional products: Just pick any legal diet you want. And compare how different people respond to it. Some will produce more red blood cells than others. There is nothing "level" about that playing field.

If you want sports to be about rewarding who is most naturally "gifted," and prohibit those that are not so naturally gifted from making their bodies work the same thing as those naturally gifted guys' bodies do, then that's fine. But don't pretend that that is a level playing field.

 

[straydog]

Didn't you claim to be a doctor? I am sure you have seen that every person reacts differently to pharmacological stimulation, some people respond others don't....some people respond insubordinately. Most would say that they prefer sport to be about who is the most naturally gifted and trains the hardest, not who responds best to a chemically altered "metabolism"

Ok RR, I promised, so here goes: Well one thing you are clearly wrong about is the assertion that Stephen's claimed to be a doctor?

The second thing you are wrong about is an individual's propensity to responsd differently to EPO. (I know in this post you haven't explicitly named that product, but you have elsewhere)

EPO is a naturally occurring protein in the human body that promotes the production of new blood cell growth. Supplementing EPO synthetically will lead to a rise in EPO levels in any patient, just as supplementing any protein will lead to an increase of that proteins level in the body. Any differences due to the persons natural state are overcome by dosage differences. The increase in EPO will lead the individual to start producing more new red blood cells, again any differences in this response due to iron deficiency etc are overcome by further supplementation or differeing dosgaes.

Of course, to be absolute about increasing the percentage of red blood cells per measured unit of blood (haematocrit) in an individual, blood transfusion is a more efficient method. In short, anyone can raise their concentration of red blood cells, their haemaglobin etc, even acutely active anaemic patients, if the right protocols are followed.

Non responders do not exist. If you are talking about non responders to Hypoxia (altitude), well yes they do exist. But then, that isn't against the rules.

 

[Merckx index]

The whole "level playing field," argument against doping is stupid. Allowing use of EPO to a safe hematocrit level would actually provide a more level playing field and let the winners be, not those born with a lucky metabolism, but those that train the hardest, develop the best skills and mental tenacity and all that stuff that you really do have to earn.

There are arguments for making some substances illegal that make sense, but the level playing field argument is not one of them.

I agree with you that it's not a level playing field, because some are more gifted genetically than others. In fact, one of the benefits of the whole doping controversy may be to force people to come to grips with the fact that sports are a highly artificial endeavor, with rules that inevitably favor some over others.

But you can't address this problem by allowing riders to raise their HT. This simply favors a new subset of athletes. Look at Cunego. He has a natural HT of over 50%, IOW, he naturally operates at a level beyond what other riders can attain using EPO and blood doping. But while he's an excellent one-day racer, he has not been for several years a serious GT contender, where one would think his elevated HT would give him a great advantage.

Why not? Presumably because other parameters, such as V02 max and lactate threshold, are not as good. In fact, if Cunego had an average HT of low to mid 40s, one wonders if he would even be good enough to ride in the pro peloton.

So if you allowed all riders to raise their HT to 50%, some current riders would do much better, some riders not even in the pro ranks would now be good enough to join them, while others, like Cunego, would lose their natural advantage, and do worse relative to others.

If you could create a level playing field by bringing up all physiology parameters to the same point--by gene doping, e.g.--mental factors would come into play. Your argument is that the determining factors would now be "mental tenancity", "willingness to train harder", "will" to win, etc. The problem with this argument is that science tells us that these qualities are also physiological/molecular. As such, they are determined to some extent by genes--some are born with a greater predisposition towards focus and hard work than others--and to some extent by environment. But what determines environment? Family you're born in, other early life influences, etc., all factors that are a matter of chance. So the mental factors are not a level playing field, either.

Life is not fair...The entire concept of sports is premised on making contests fair, but it's only done by setting up rather arbitrary rules that inevitably favor some over others.

 

[Race Radio]

Ok RR, I promised, so here goes: Well one thing you are clearly wrong about is the assertion that Stephen's claimed to be a doctor?

The second thing you are wrong about is an individual's propensity to responsd differently to EPO. (I know in this post you haven't explicitly named that product, but you have elsewhere)

EPO is a naturally occurring protein in the human body that promotes the production of new blood cell growth. Supplementing EPO synthetically will lead to a rise in EPO levels in any patient, just as supplementing any protein will lead to an increase of that proteins level in the body. Any differences due to the persons natural state are overcome by dosage differences. The increase in EPO will lead the individual to start producing more new red blood cells, again any differences in this response due to iron deficiency etc are overcome by further supplementation or differeing dosgaes.

Of course, to be absolute about increasing the percentage of red blood cells per measured unit of blood (haematocrit) in an individual, blood transfusion is a more efficient method. In short, anyone can raise their concentration of red blood cells, their haemaglobin etc, even acutely active anaemic patients, if the right protocols are followed.

Non responders do not exist. If you are talking about non responders to Hypoxia (altitude), well yes they do exist. But then, that isn't against the rules.

Nope, you are wrong.

The fact is each person responds differently to artificial enhancement. It is a consistently proven fact in study after study covering wide ranges of drugs for a wide range of uses. Studies have non responders, responders, and super responders.

Riders with greater muscle mass get greater benefit from the increased ability to deliver oxygen then those with less. Riders with lower Hct benefit more from the 50% cut off then those with a higher level.

It is not just EPO but almost every drug. For example Sildenafil significantly improved the cardiovascular and exercise performance measures of trained cyclists at high altitude, mostly because the drug helped some participants improve a lot -- up to 45% -- while others showed little change. 40% of the riders show no benefit while 60% showed a benefit, some significantly.

 

[Race Radio]

No, I'm not a doctor nor have I ever claimed to be one. I don't need to name any magical nutritional products: Just pick any legal diet you want. And compare how different people respond to it. Some will produce more red blood cells than others. There is nothing "level" about that playing field.

If you want sports to be about rewarding who is most naturally "gifted," and prohibit those that are not so naturally gifted from making their bodies work the same thing as those naturally gifted guys' bodies do, then that's fine. But don't pretend that that is a level playing field.

No legal diet offers the performance benefits to a trained Pro that EPO does, none.

To equate a person natural ability with doping is absurd. Doping does not level the playing field, it distorts it. Allow it and the sport becomes about who responds best to dope, who can afford the best program, and who will take the biggest risks.

Wow, the fanboys are struggling to find new ways to justify the doping.

 

[Velo Dude]

The whole "level playing field," argument against doping is stupid.

My point isn't about whether or not doping should be allowed. My point is that, given the fact that doping is against the rules, it is unfair for one rider to gain any advantage over any other rider due to doping.

 

[stephens]

No legal diet offers the performance benefits to a trained Pro that EPO does, none.

Don't be silly. The difference between eating and not eating is going to be much more profound than the difference between epo or no epo. All I was trying to say is that there is nothing "level" about the way any of us respond to any substance that enters our body. Some of you eat and end up with Cunego-like hematocrit and some eat and end up in the 35% range. That is just as uneven of a response as the uneven responses you want to claim for EPO (though I don't believe this has actually been widely tested). So the fact that there is uneven response is not reason alone to put something on the illegal list or you'd have to put everything on the illegal list.

To equate a person natural ability with doping is absurd. Doping does not level the playing field, it distorts it. Allow it and the sport becomes about who responds best to dope, who can afford the best program, and who will take the biggest risks.

The "biggest risk" argument can be dealt with by going back to the 50% rule. Give exemptions to those who can prove they are naturally above that. There is your level playing field.

Wow, the fanboys are struggling to find new ways to justify the doping.

I'm no fanboy of anyone and am not trying to justify doping. I just want to provoke you all to come up with some better arguments against doping than the lame ones you keep repeating. You can do it.

 

[stephens]

My point isn't about whether or not doping should be allowed. My point is that, given the fact that doping is against the rules, it is unfair for one rider to gain any advantage over any other rider due to doping.

Well, of course. I don't think anyone has ever said anything to the contrary. But we are discussing the whole legitimacy of what is illegal and why (I say much of it is arbitrary), who should be the ones making those rules (I say the cyclists, not the suits) and the methods used to enforce the rules (which I find ridiculously intrusive and flawed by inaccuracies anyway).

 

[straydog]

Nope, you are wrong.

The fact is each person responds differently to artificial enhancement. It is a consistently proven fact in study after study covering wide ranges of drugs for a wide range of uses. Studies have non responders, responders, and super responders.

Riders with greater muscle mass get greater benefit from the increased ability to deliver oxygen then those with less. Riders with lower Hct benefit more from the 50% cut off then those with a higher level.

It is not just EPO but almost every drug. For example Sildenafil significantly improved the cardiovascular and exercise performance measures of trained cyclists at high altitude, mostly because the drug helped some participants improve a lot -- up to 45% -- while others showed little change. 40% of the riders show no benefit while 60% showed a benefit, some significantly.

Sigh....ok...I will try again....but i can see the "force" is strong in this one.

EPO (synthetic or recombinant) is a protein not a drug. OK? with me so far? It supplements the bodies natural level of said protein. It's like saying if you eat a lot of cake you get full. The rate at which your body then converts said cake to glycogen varies depending on your individual metabolism etc and whether you have any underlying issues such as Diabetes. The extent to which the body reacts to a spike in EPO levels by producing more red blood cells is likewise dictated by underlying conditions and symptoms, of course, and can be circumnavigated by further supplementation. But in "healthy" subjects the correlation between EPO levels and red blood cell production has been proven empirically and definitively. Please provide me some clinical data that shows otherwise. Because I can show you plenty to back up what I say.

Ok, if you can't or don't want to address any of that, what about blood transfusion? Please again provide clinical data that shows how blood transfusion can have a non response subject, in regards to raising an individual's red blood count. And please don't try and find me any data connected to a trauma patient with an open fracture of their femur....lol

As to your assertion that increased oxygen being delivered to muscles is more keenly felt by those "with greater muscle mass", I am sorry to say this but I think you are confused. If you mean that as a percentage of their total body mass they have a higher percentage of muscle, then yes, but that is as obvious as saying that if you give someone with a small bladder two litres of water that they are going to need a pee.

Believe me, if you were prescribed EPO, even for a month, you would feel it more keenly as you climbed any mountain on your bike, than if it was prescribed to a pro.

Unless someone using PEDS really doesn't know what they are doing, or is badly advised, the idea that they can't bring their biological parameters to a par with anybody else is ridiculous and founded in the land of the "hunch".

Listen, RR, I know you love google, so do I. But please maybe consider at least getting past page two of any searches you do in future. You clearly have an inquisitive mind, and I honestly think you will enjoy it more.

Now come and hug it out with me baby....we don't need no hate here!

 

[Race Radio]

completely absurd ramble.

You appear to have confused quantity with quality.

My point is clear and valid. Every person responds to EPO as well as all other drugs, hormones, steroids, etc, in widely varying degrees. No amount of babble will change this. Transfusions also have a wide variety of effects on people. Some struggle to adapt to the surge in blood volume while others fell excellent within hours.

No matter how much you Google or spew it will not change the fact that my point is correct.

 

[Race Radio]

I just want to provoke you all to come up with some better arguments against doping than the lame ones you keep repeating.

No luck so far, you have only shown that you are looking for conflict. It is absurd to compare eating, or not eating, to EPO.

Bait, provoke, whatever you want to call it.....

 

[buckwheat]

You appear to have confused quantity with quality.

My point is clear and valid. Every person responds to EPO as well as all other drugs, hormones, steroids, etc, in widely varying degrees. No amount of babble will change this. Transfusions also have a wide variety of effects on people. Some struggle to adapt to the surge in blood volume while others fell excellent within hours.

No matter how much you Google or spew it will not change the fact that my point is correct.

Of course your points are clear and valid.

Tell me, since when did logic have any chance against Love?

 

[buckwheat]

Its true. Not everyone can lactate like LA

No they can't, and you're sure drinking it all up! Enjoy!

 

[straydog]

You appear to have confused quantity with quality.

My point is clear and valid. Every person responds to EPO as well as all other drugs, hormones, steroids, etc, in widely varying degrees. No amount of babble will change this. Transfusions also have a wide variety of effects on people. Some struggle to adapt to the surge in blood volume while others fell excellent within hours.

No matter how much you Google or spew it will not change the fact that my point is correct.

As ever, your precise, thorough and logical dissection of my post, coupled with the irrefutable data that you have provided is greatly appreciated.

As are your repeated "ad hominems" regarding the validity of tri "geeks" and their postings.

I love ya RR....really I do....in the same way that I love watching someone slip on something messy in the street. It's free entertainment. A bit cruel to laugh sometimes, but no real harm done

Anyway, seeing as you really seem to have exhausted google for any "proof" to back up your assertions, then allow me to get this thread slightly back on track;

Lance is "great" and so far, despite my two month vacation, almost 17,000 people have wanted to read why I think so

 

[Ferminal]

As ever, your precise, thorough and logical dissection of my post, coupled with the irrefutable data that you have provided is greatly appreciated.

As are your repeated "ad hominems" regarding the validity of tri "geeks" and their postings.

I love ya RR....really I do....in the same way that I love watching someone slip on something messy in the street. It's free entertainment. A bit cruel to laugh sometimes, but no real harm done

Anyway, seeing as you really seem to have exhausted google for any "proof" to back up your assertions, then allow me to get this thread slightly back on track;

Lance is "great" and so far, despite my two month vacation, almost 17,000 people have wanted to read why I think so

The unique hits would be much closer to 1000, given that less than 100 people have actually posted here.

 

[straydog]

The unique hits would be much closer to 1000, given that less than 100 people have actually posted here.

You have your numbers. I have mine. I like my numbers

 

[Merckx index]

EPO (synthetic or recombinant) is a protein not a drug.

It's both. You seem to think that a protein can't be a drug.

Unless someone using PEDS really doesn't know what they are doing, or is badly advised, the idea that they can't bring their biological parameters to a par with anybody else is ridiculous and founded in the land of the "hunch".

Of course everyone responds to EPO to some degree, but everyone may not respond exactly the same to a given dose. EPO, like any hormone, acts on receptors, triggering a metabolic response. Individuals may differ with respect to the density of receptors on target cells, for example, as well as the affinity of the receptor for EPO, the metabolic response for a given degree of receptor binding, etc.

I think your point is that someone who responds less could in principle make up the difference by doping more, but that might increase the risk of getting caught. Also, even two athletes doping to the same extent may have different risks of getting caught. Doping is not just about changing natural parameters, but also about doing it without being detected. One program may be superior to another by allowing an athlete to raise his parameters more without being detected.

 

[straydog]

It's both. You seem to think that a protein can't be a drug.



Of course everyone responds to EPO to some degree, but everyone may not respond exactly the same to a given dose. EPO, like any hormone, acts on receptors, triggering a metabolic response. Individuals may differ with respect to the density of receptors on target cells, for example, as well as the affinity of the receptor for EPO, the metabolic response for a given degree of receptor binding, etc.

I think your point is that someone who responds less could in principle make up the difference by doping more, but that might increase the risk of getting caught. Also, even two athletes doping to the same extent may have different risks of getting caught. Doping is not just about changing natural parameters, but also about doing it without being detected. One program may be superior to another by allowing an athlete to raise his parameters more without being detected.

OK, my definition for the purpose of responding to RR, did not include any substance that when absorbed into the body, could be said to alter the body's normal function. Being that pedantic I could have said that "blood" is a drug. My point was that EPO does not have the same physiological purpose as say methotrexate, or sulphasalazine or even ibuprofen and other such drugs, which are not produced naturally by the body, but that are ingested to alter the body's response to disease or inflammation. EPO supplementation is exactly that: supplementation of a naturally occurring protein. Hey, but something tells me I am teaching my grandmother to suck eggs here I was quite rightly, in my opinion being pedantic with RR as his vagueness, due in part to his inability to properly explore google, needed correcting.

I sort of agree with your interpretation of my post, but not entirely. I didn't mean that someone who responded less could make up for it by doping more, although that of course is an option. And even in a clinical setting, dosages naturally differ. Rather my point was, that in normal medical circumstances differences in response rate to EPO due to underlying extraneous factors are normally tackled by complimentary prescriptions.

My over all point remains this. Any PED user who is knowledgeable or "well" advised, as I would have thought was abundantly clear by cycling's recent history, can carry out the practices and use the PEDs they "need" to be competitive biologically, without undue fear of being detected.