World cycling is broken - It's time to lift the ban on dopin

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

World cycling is broken - It's time to lift the ban on doping?

  • Yes, it is time

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Only for some substances

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Only under strict medical supervision

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I'am unsure

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Ask the athletes and let them decide

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Ask the athletes and let them decide

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Absolutely not

    Votes: 7 100.0%

  • Total voters
    7
Feb 26, 2015
8
0
0
The culture of drugs is still alive. It's time to step up and fight harder in the battle against doping.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
King Boonen said:
Creating a list of allowed substances would be completely unworkable and would make no difference, it would basically be the opposite of the list we have today but with the added hassle of trying to take into account everything that occurs naturally in foods across the whole world.
you're probably right about the hassle and it being unworkable.

but it wouldnot just be the 'opposite of what we have today'.
In what we have, it's not clear if OZOn therapy is illegal, it's not clear if derived versions of AICAR are illegal, etc. (AICAR is on the list, but its derivatives aren't). With a list of allowed substances, those grey areas are gone.

that said, yes, it's probably unworkable.
 
Sep 17, 2013
135
1
0
ooops

I misunderstood the poll and voted "yes it is time".
While a small part of me wants to see just how far we can push the limits with no restrictions on doping, the rest of me wants to punish those cheating *******s.
 
King Boonen said:
Creating a list of allowed substances would be completely unworkable and would make no difference, it would basically be the opposite of the list we have today but with the added hassle of trying to take into account everything that occurs naturally in foods across the whole world.
I was going to say this.

Take something used every day as a genuine herb in cooking.
How many flavour compounds are in that herb ? Do they vary by region the herb is grown in or sub-species of that herb. Rinse and repeat for everyday food items.
 
sniper said:
you're probably right about the hassle and it being unworkable.

but it wouldnot just be the 'opposite of what we have today'.
In what we have, it's not clear if OZOn therapy is illegal, it's not clear if derived versions of AICAR are illegal, etc. (AICAR is on the list, but its derivatives aren't). With a list of allowed substances, those grey areas are gone.

that said, yes, it's probably unworkable.
Have you actually read the WADA code ?

S0, covers everything not current licenced for therapeutic use in people, so anything currently undergoing clinical trials is covered. Anything that got to a trial and was pulled is covered.

S2.1 covers EPO and 'other substances with similar chemical structure or similar biological effects'

S4.1 covers all aromatase inhibitors, not just AICAR
(edit as Boonen below points out AICAR is under S4.5, sorry for the mindfart, the same point applies though)



Ozone therapy is covered by M1.1. Anything where you take blood out, and re-infuse it in to the circulation is banned.
(so something like kidney dialysis is banned, but anyone needed that is unlikely to be an elite athlete. If there was someone, or of they needed temporary dialysis to help recover from say a massive kidney infection it would be assumed they could get a limited TUE just to cover that)


Now just because something is banned doesn't mean you can test for it, detect it or have anyway of catching someone doing it (this is especially true for the EPO variants and peptide hormones).


But the list is quite comprehensive and the 'catch all' type phrases cover most/all possible doping products if only the authorities had the spine to actually go after people.

Xenon was in the new last year as 'being added to the list'. It was already ON the list as a class of products, they just added "eg xenon" to the verbiage.

The list isn't the problem. The will is the problem.
 
sniper said:
you're probably right about the hassle and it being unworkable.

but it wouldnot just be the 'opposite of what we have today'.
In what we have, it's not clear if OZOn therapy is illegal, it's not clear if derived versions of AICAR are illegal, etc. (AICAR is on the list, but its derivatives aren't). With a list of allowed substances, those grey areas are gone.

that said, yes, it's probably unworkable.
Ozone is a weird one but I think it's covered from my interpretation.

Derived versions of AICAR are on the list, they are covered under metabolic modulators:

5. Metabolic modulators:
5.1 Activators of the AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK), e.g. AICAR; and Peroxisome Proliferator Activated Receptor δ (PPARδ) agonists, e.g. GW 1516;
5.2 Insulins;
5.3 Trimetazidine.

Most things on the list are just examples, it covers a great deal more than what is named on there. Of course, the court battles and expert opinions arise because of the ambiguity of the source of many of these things, for example AICAR is produced endogenously.

We don't know every metabolite/protein etc. that can possibly occur, we are no where near that or being able to reliably detect and, most importantly, quantify them. The issue with an allowed list is there would have to be mechanisms for athletes to appeal and this would be extremely costly as it would require a large amount of research to be done to prove the source one way or another.

The other issue with an allowed list is that it doesn't take into account that it is very difficult to look for things which we don't know are there (fortunately for me...). For example, if you were to search the metabolite databases that exist for L-Glutamate and filter out the synonyms, you would still find around 13 other possible metabolites and if you were to use a structure predicting tool you would get many, many more. Any of these could be performance enhancing (this is a very poor example but just used to highlight the complexity) but with an allowed list it would be extremely difficult to look for as you would have to characterise everything in a sample and we don't even know everything that could possibly occur.


Honestly, the list is fine and it's the only workable way to do it. In fact, it's the best way to do it. It is enforcement and detection that will always be the rate limiting steps in these things.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Catwhoorg said:
Have you actually read the WADA code ?

S0, covers everything not current licenced for therapeutic use in people, so anything currently undergoing clinical trials is covered. Anything that got to a trial and was pulled is covered.

S2.1 covers EPO and 'other substances with similar chemical structure or similar biological effects'

S4.1 covers all aromatase inhibitors, not just AICAR



Ozone therapy is covered by M1.1. Anything where you take blood out, and re-infuse it in to the circulation is banned.
(so something like kidney dialysis is banned, but anyone needed that is unlikely to be an elite athlete. If there was someone, or of they needed temporary dialysis to help recover from say a massive kidney infection it would be assumed they could get a limited TUE just to cover that)


Now just because something is banned doesn't mean you can test for it, detect it or have anyway of catching someone doing it (this is especially true for the EPO variants and peptide hormones).


But the list is quite comprehensive and the 'catch all' type phrases cover most/all possible doping products if only the authorities had the spine to actually go after people.

Xenon was in the new last year as 'being added to the list'. It was already ON the list as a class of products, they just added "eg xenon" to the verbiage.

The list isn't the problem. The will is the problem.
great post, and many thanks for claryfing this.
I'm pretty lazy when it comes to tracking this kind of info down myself. I realize that opens me up to some erroneous or ill-thought reasoning, at least in this case.

So if I understand correctly: if Wiggins were found to have used AICAR in 2009, which wasn't on the list back then (i.e. S4.1 wasn't in the code yet I think), it would still be considered an (anti)doping violation of article S0...right?

edit: idem dito to King Boonen's post: thanks, great clarification.
King Boonen said:
Honestly, the list is fine and it's the only workable way to do it. In fact, it's the best way to do it. It is enforcement and detection that will always be the rate limiting steps in these things.
i'm starting to agree:)
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
Why re-invent the wheel? Cycling should work towards how doping is dealt with in NFL and football:

Publicially condemn and ban, secretly tolerate. The bounds on doping are provided by the predictable tests that do take place. They serve the double function of limiting what athletes can do and fooling the naive public who can't cope with the reality of widespread doping into a false sense of cleanliness.

Sport is entertainment.

Lifting the official ban on doping is lunancy at this point in time.
 
Jun 15, 2010
1,318
0
0
I don't understand why they have a rule that equipment must be commercially available, but no such rule for supplements?
It appears that one team has had sole access to a Ketones drink for the last few years.
 
Anti-doping should remain in place as a list of banned substances and practices, but only as a guideline and enforced by the honor system, riders to their team, teams to their sponsors, and sponsors to the race organizers. Further, the organizers will heed the hecklers in the crowd as winners receive their trophies: if a clear majority of the crowd rejects the result the second place finisher can accept the win or reject it. A final measure will be blocking suspect teams from entering races through physical blockades by the tifosi, or police, (no need for searches or arrests). This will all be much more humane, honest and reliable than the current travesty of sportive toleration, legal prosecution, and spectator powerlessness.
 
sniper said:
great post, and many thanks for claryfing this.
I'm pretty lazy when it comes to tracking this kind of info down myself. I realize that opens me up to some erroneous or ill-thought reasoning, at least in this case.

So if I understand correctly: if Wiggins were found to have used AICAR in 2009, which wasn't on the list back then (i.e. S4.1 wasn't in the code yet I think), it would still be considered an (anti)doping violation of article S0...right?

edit: idem dito to King Boonen's post: thanks, great clarification.
i'm starting to agree:)
Someone changing their mind in the clinic?!?!? Twice in one lifetime??!?! (You and me).

To be fair, what I do for a living is pretty closely related to all this so it's a) expected I have some clue about it and b) easier for me to find past examples and discussion notes on my computer :)
 
simo1733 said:
I don't understand why they have a rule that equipment must be commercially available, but no such rule for supplements?
It appears that one team has had sole access to a Ketones drink for the last few years.
Which drink? That does seem strange but I think it's a legacy rule to stop it turning into F1 on bikes, similar to all the other equipment restrictions, and they just haven't yet taken supplements into account. You raise a very interesting point.
 
I believe in 2009 AICAR was licenced for use for treating ischemic injuries in cardiac patients (its the main legitimate use) so S0 would not have applied. Even more so considering that S0 didn't come into being until 2011.

2011 was the first year I woudl say that WADA actually had a good robust prohibited list. Compare to the oldest list I have (2004) and its a night and day difference in closing loopholes.

I hate to say it, but the use of AICAR in 2009 almost certainly would not legally be considered doping.


Of course it would be to any lay person in the street, but the rules just didn't keep up.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Catwhoorg said:
I believe in 2009 AICAR was licenced for use for treating ischemic injuries in cardiac patients (its the main legitimate use) so S0 would not have applied. Even more so considering that S0 didn't come into being until 2011.

2011 was the first year I woudl say that WADA actually had a good robust prohibited list. Compare to the oldest list I have (2004) and its a night and day difference in closing loopholes.

I hate to say it, but the use of AICAR in 2009 almost certainly would not legally be considered doping.


Of course it would be to any lay person in the street, but the rules just didn't keep up.
cheers, very clarifying, good to know.
 
"Doping appears to be spreading into amateur cycling?!?!" Well, I've got news for you, the amateurs, and for quite some time now, are real pros when it comes to that.

What is it with doping "under medical supervision?" It has been that way since the 60's, if not before. Who do you think doped the riders? Medics!

Apart from this, there are two basic objections to legalizing doping: one is that it is "unsportsman-like," and two it is "unethical." As to the first, athletes have been looking to gain an edge through drugs since gladiators fought in the Colosseum. Therefore, sport has never really been "sportsman-like." The very nature of the activity excludes the myth. Although it does suck when you are a clean rider racing against dopers, that I will not contest. Whereas "criminalization" and recieving a sanction are two different things. Doping is not "criminal," but merely agaisnt the rules of sport. Bribery, defamation, purgery, making life-threats, corruption and Mafioso vendetta, which leads to individual livelyhoods being ruined, etc., on the other hand, are all criminal behaviors and should be punished accordingly.

Secondly if doping were legalized you'd have a real moral dilemma, despite the hypocrisy that prevails both within society and especially the sponsorship. Nevertheless what conscientious parent - though I realize how many unscrupulous parents wouldn't think twice about doping their teenagers if it meant a shot at fame and glory - would allow his or her child to participate in a sport in which it is not only known, but legitimized, that the only way to survive and make it in the sport is by doping?

For these reasons, despite the anti-doping campaign, we will probably never see doping legalized. If anything the sport will fade away beforehand.
 
Minor point.

In some jurisdictions (eg France) doping is indeed a criminal matter.


In most jurisdictions possession and use of some doping substances without a prescription woudl be a criminal matter.




In the US teens are already doping for NFL/NBA glory.
Don't know how much the parents are or are not involved (probably a mixture).
 
Catwhoorg said:
Minor point.

In some jurisdictions (eg France) doping is indeed a criminal matter.


In most jurisdictions possession and use of some doping substances without a prescription woudl be a criminal matter.




In the US teens are already doping for NFL/NBA glory.
Don't know how much the parents are or are not involved (probably a mixture).
Ok, but it is debatable whether or not doping should be a criminal offense.

My feeling on the matter, is that we have far too many other reasons to send people to prison...

On the other hand the medics who adminster the drugs should be held liable if the athlete dies or inflicts permanent damage and, why not, the team management. Even this would not be a total deterent to discourage doctors and team staff from being the technical complices of dopers, however, it would send a strong message to a system of which the athlete is only the last cog in the wheel.
 
Jul 15, 2013
550
0
0
doping has destroyed cycling. why anyone would want to allow it is beyond me. it's been a competition between doctors for 25 years now. allowing it would have the same effect as money has had on football with the richest teams having the best doctors. ferrari would be the most valuable man in the sport. wonder what his transfer fee would be?

what effect would it have on junior racing etc? serious can of worms and it would be a bad day for sport in general imo.

doping removes a lot of the human element of sports. may as well allow robots to race if you're going to allow it.
 
Feb 22, 2011
465
0
0
Catwhoorg said:
I believe in 2009 AICAR was licenced for use for treating ischemic injuries in cardiac patients (its the main legitimate use) so S0 would not have applied. Even more so considering that S0 didn't come into being until 2011.

2011 was the first year I woudl say that WADA actually had a good robust prohibited list. Compare to the oldest list I have (2004) and its a night and day difference in closing loopholes.

I hate to say it, but the use of AICAR in 2009 almost certainly would not legally be considered doping.


Of course it would be to any lay person in the street, but the rules just didn't keep up.
This is crazy. There's nothing in the rules of sports that says anything about needing to have an ischemic injury and be a heart patient before using the medication?

I'm seriously asking because I don't know. There's nothing in the rules about using a drug off-label to improve performance rather than address a health issue for which the drug has been tested and approved?

There's nothing about a penalty for diverting a drug/drugs meant for sick people to healthy people who just need a boost because they're skinny d****bags seeking knighthoods?
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
bewildered said:
doping has destroyed cycling. why anyone would want to allow it is beyond me. it's been a competition between doctors for 25 years now. allowing it would have the same effect as money has had on football with the richest teams having the best doctors. ferrari would be the most valuable man in the sport. wonder what his transfer fee would be?

what effect would it have on junior racing etc? serious can of worms and it would be a bad day for sport in general imo.

doping removes a lot of the human element of sports. may as well allow robots to race if you're going to allow it.
As the system is now, it is extremely bitter to the point of being intolerably unjust for the few black sheep who get caught and banned whilst knowing how widespread PEDs are and how many of the topguys are getting away with it.
 
In general no, there isn't something about using drugs "off label" once they have been approved for use.

WADA list is supposed to update and catch those which could be performance enhancing after approval.


As for diverting drugs, that would/should be a criminal matter, not a sports one.
The early days of EPO it was frequently stolen from hospitals/pharmacies by an insider and passed into the supply chain. Its main use woudl be to help chemo patients. So yeah those scumbags effectively stole drugs from people fighting cancer.
 
Jul 15, 2013
550
0
0
sniper said:
As the system is now, it is extremely bitter to the point of being intolerably unjust for the few black sheep who get caught and banned whilst knowing how widespread PEDs are and how many of the topguys are getting away with it.
agree but that's not a doping problem primarily imo, it's a corruption
issue
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
sniper said:
yes.

i guess my point is: the grey area of what is illegal and what is legal could become less grey by having a list of allowed substances.
it would illegalize all experimenting with new products.
it could be a tool to level the playing field, even create financial fair play.

look at the discussion about OZOn therapy. Very vague.
In a new system, such things should be illegal, period, until they get approved by an independent committee.
like this inverting the paradigm
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Catwhoorg said:
In general no, there isn't something about using drugs "off label" once they have been approved for use.

WADA list is supposed to update and catch those which could be performance enhancing after approval.


As for diverting drugs, that would/should be a criminal matter, not a sports one.
The early days of EPO it was frequently stolen from hospitals/pharmacies by an insider and passed into the supply chain. Its main use woudl be to help chemo patients. So yeah those scumbags effectively stole drugs from people fighting cancer.
like the ephedrine sales. That might make Big Pharma a billion a year from meth and ice sales? Fresno baby
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
BlueRoads The Clinic 2
the delgados The Clinic 19

ASK THE COMMUNITY