Discussion: Beating the dopers!

If what the story says about a 'planted molecule' are true it proves that the fight against the dopers is getting better. Obviously not all manufactures will comply but its bloody awesome!

http://www.smh.com.au/news/tourdefrance/ricco-bust...

I think I might disagree with your position. If there's a drug out there that can't be detected directly, but that can be inferred only by the presence of a marker that's added to it, that spells huge trouble. Sure, you can detect the version that Roche makes for legitmate anemics, but it won't be long before somebody is whipping up a "clean" version in the back of a van or in a motel room. It may be considerably more difficult to synthesize than something like meth, but there's big money for some chemist who is willing to supply the top sports teams.

i think its a nice creative move. wonder how many people will become injured before the olympics?

jjcote: maybe you are right, but i think you underestimate the technical difficulty in synthezing some sophisticated drugs, and the market size for endurance based drugs (anabolic steriod drugs may well be quite different). its also a suprise, who knows what companies they are working with, and for what drugs. while individuals dope, i think few teams have a regime (Saunier Dauvel look like a suspicious exception) and the cost to them is quite high (Barloworld as an example).

jjcote - obviously there will always be unsaviouries that will work their hardest to avoid detection and pay top dollar for these drugs without the new planted molecule. But every step like this is a good thing isnt it?

"If there's a drug out there that can't be detected directly, but that can be inferred only by the presence of a marker that's added to it, that spells huge trouble." - I'm betting that there are a few drugs undetectable, i very much doubt that this is the first!

The sad thing is that all these exotic drugs are being used primarily (but not exclusively) because all the legitamate and safe drugs are on the banned substances list and are easy to detect. Pro riders are deathly afraid of getting a cold, because they can't even take over the counter cough medicine.

If the race (NOT the team) doctor was allowed to perscribe reasonable doses of medicine and/or recovery drugs the doping problem would go away in a hurry. The vast majority of the riders don't want to cheat, but the demands of a grand tour are really quite extrodinarly. While it is easy for us amateurs to sit back and say "tsk, tsk", I can tell you that the temptation to take something when your body is that beat up is often overwhelming (and I never did anything remotely as hard as the Tour).

While I never took a true performance enhancing drug, I certainly did slip in the occasional hit of Nyquil to help get some much-needed sleep. I wasn't likely to get checked since I was always riding in a support role and domestic races don't do a whole lot of testing. Technically it was cheating, but if you get bronchitis, you might be off your form for the better part of a month. It's a chance worth taking.

I acknowledge that EPO is a complex molecule. There's money in sports, and therefore money available to a chemist who can synthesize this. It takes one (or a few) renegade labs, and it may well be outsourced to developing nations. Hard to keep this genie in the bottle (and it's definitely a very dangerous genie).

> "Pro riders are deathly afraid of getting a cold, because they can't even take over the counter cough medicine. If the race (NOT the team) doctor was allowed to perscribe reasonable doses of medicine and/or recovery drugs the doping problem would go away in a hurry."


Huh. I didn't know EPO was used to cure the common cold. :)

I'll admit to not knowing much about EPO as it came along after I left the sport. However, the bulk of the doping busts are steroid related and those are used for recovery. There are safer and more effective drugs that could be used in reasonable doses to keep the riders healthy.

Another alternative is simply to shorten the race, but of course, the Tour is the Tour because it's brutal.

EPO is really different, and it particularly problematic because it's in everybody's bloodstream. Using it tricks your body into making more red blood cells, thus increasing your oxygen-carrying capacity. Overdo it, and your blood gets too thick, and your circulatory system grinds to a halt. For a while, the testing (or the proposed testing, at least) was to forget about the drug, and just administer red-cell counts before the race. Too many red cells, and you're out, no matter whather it's because or drugs or excessive altitude training, due to the risk.

EPO isn't really different, most things on the banned list are produced within the body anyway. the first version of EPO produced was picked up because it was grown using animal cultures, but that has since changed. Steroids are the crude (easy to manufacture) drug, things like human growth hormone (still undetectable) are much more powerful in terms of recovery (incidentally EPO has recovery implications too).

i received this in my inbox earlier today (abbreviated) - [my opinion - the author is a complete tool, but he writes some interesting things and mainly uses all the appropriate science to get the point across]

China: Gene doping revealed in German TV documentary

On a more pessimistic note, a documentary that was aired in Germany showed how doctors in China offer gene-doping (the introduction of stem-cells) to a journalist posing as a swimming coach. The journalist approaches the doctor and requests stem-cell treatment for one of his "swimmers", and the doctor replies:

?Yes. We have no experience with sportspeople here, but the treatment is safe and we can help you.?
Asked how it would work, the doctor said: ?It strengthens lung function and stem cells go into the bloodstream and reach the organs. It takes two weeks. I recommend four intravenous injections . . . 40 million stem cells or double that, the more the better. We also use human growth hormones, but you have to be careful because they are on the doping list.?

And the price? ?Twenty-four thousand dollars,? the doctor said.

The documentary also reveals that doping products can be picked up for bargain discount prices in China - 100g of steroid hormones are sold for 100 Pounds, when the typical price in Europe is about 4500 Pounds per 100g.





Now, the knee-jerk reaction to this kind of information is to be hyper-critical of China, but it's probably prudent to point out that this same scenario is likely possible in any country, though of course the price would be different. China has been called the "world's doping pipeline", because it is able to make available ingredients so cheaply - that's nothing new, though. If your country is anything like South Africa, half your household goods were made in China. So economically, China can't be blamed for producing cheap drugs (though the impact of these drugs is a problem).




What is more disturbing and of concern is that in China, testing processes are likely to be far less transparent than anywhere else. Our first story today dealt with how WADA and Roche worked together to develop a test for a drug that was thought to be undetectable. This second story demonstrates just how much work they have left, because what happens in China is all too often insulated from the rest of the world. The relatively strict limits on foreign presence (and particularly "interference") means that if drugs are being made or distributed in China, which seems likely, no one will ever know.

incidentally,since at least someone seems interested....

EPO use is quite reliably picked up, or at least indicators of its use are. its part of the blood test (you have to have a positive urine AND positive blood test to "test positive" to EPO). The blood test measures ratios of things like the size of the red blood cells and age. its really really reliable, but the heirachy judges that there are too many false positives potentials (when you test positive by chance, not drug use). there is an on (when you detect someone is on it very recently) and an off (when you detect someone that was on it a few months ago) model. the on model is used in conjunction with the urine for a positive. it appears they screen blood and may use it to target testing, but its unclear. of course they could just use the blood only test and it would be quite good, but as I wrote, they think its too risky.

note however that Ricco would have tested positive to this implanted marker, which I know sweet FA about. its also not EPO use like it has been used traditionally (injecting the hormone/drug directly)

Apparently there was no implanted marker, Ricco just got busted conventionally. But the journalists might come up with some other story tomorrow.

And my two cents worth - if you take a banned drug which helps recovery it is just as much cheating as one which directly enhances performance. If you recover faster you can train more, which will also have performance enhancing effects.

And ebuckley - taking a banned substance and then having a good nights sleep? I'd hope it had to be pretty powerful ...

ebuckley's point is easy to see, here. There are numerous drugs that normal people take all the time, that aren't going to have a performance-enhancing effect that anyone should feel guilty about. Sudafed is a fine example. Yeah, it'a a stimulant that in large quantities could be useful in some sports. But in recommended doses, it's an effective decongestant. (It's hard to come by these days because it can be used to make methamphetamine, but that's a different issue.) Would I hesitate to take Sudafed? Not at all. But if an elite athlete takes Sudafed shortly before a competition, then it's going to show up in testing, and it's a banned substance. Available to the general public, but zero-tolerance for top competitors. Is taking a couple of Sudafed cheating? Hardly. (And some other substances are banned not because they are a problem in themselves, but because they interfere with the testing, such as by giving a positive reading for a different substance that does have an advantageous effect.)

Um, I think pseudoephedrine was taken off the banned list as of Jan 1st, 2004. I sure hope so, since my allergy medication contains it, and I do use it in competition....

Okay. Used to be on there, though, and it illustrates the point. I don't keep up with this stuff, and maybe the situation with drugs like this has been relaxed.

According to some draft WADA documents I've seen, pseudoephedrine above a certain concentration is going back on the banned list next year. I don't know if this concentration is low enough to be triggered by normal over-the-counter medications, though.

I consider Nyquil to be a pretty potent drug. And, it can certainly can show up in your sample and get you chucked depending on the timing of the test. I took it before major competitions more than once figuring I wouldn't get tested and was right about that. Call me a cheater if you will, but as Bernard Hinault once said, "Dead legs don't make for animated racing."

I don't see any ingredients in NyQuil on the 2008 WADA list. Psuedoephedrine and phenylephrine are currently monitored, but not prohibited.

Perhaps they're coming to their senses. A long way to go, though.

Taking any drug on the banned list *is* cheating. The rules state that competitors are not allowed to use those substances, and if you don't like the rules then don't play the game.

I'm with rambo on this one. However, there are different grades of "cheating"... and Eric's example comes higher on my bad list than taking cold medicine when one has a cold. And I would be more uncomfortable with orienteers taking legal stuff like creatine (do any?). Or adventure racers and rogainers pumping themselves with painkillers...

Thanks Eric for putting across the other point of view!

I hope cod liver oil doesn't get banned or I'd be in serious trouble....

Adventure racing without the option of painkillers? You've gotta be kidding.

I'm looking at what Neil said and what Eric said, and I'm thinking that maybe there's a misunderstanding. I think when Eric took the NyQuil before a major competition, he did legitimately have a cold.

from what I read, I understood it was multi-day and nyquil was taken as a preventitive measure to improve performance later on... I may be very wrong...
and bash, what do you have against pain?

No, Neal's premise is right, though he'd have a hard time finding anybody (including officials) in the cycling community who agrees with his conclusion. It was taken as preventative after tough days to keep the respiratory inflammation under control and help sleep. Once you actually have a cold, you might as well go home. Taking cold medicine as a preventative was such a common pracitce (still is, to my knowledge) that it's the first excuse riders would haul out if they failed a drug test. More than once, riders were reinstated when it was deemed that such an explanation was legit.

If you really want the opposing point of view, I'd have to pull in a few of my old teammates (who will remain nameless as they never got caught) who took significantly stronger stuff. I didn't agree with that practice as it was clearly over the line, but I can say that these folks are not "bad" people - there are legitimate arguments to be made that medicinal use of these drugs improves long-term health prospects and that the sport as a whole would be better off if riders were allowed to take care of their bodies according to currently accepted medical practice. The problem is that since everything is banned rather than regulated, it's very difficult to distinguish between proper use and true cheating to gain performance advantage.

"it's very difficult to distinguish between proper use and true cheating to gain performance advantage"

Hmm, don't think I can come close to agreeing with that. Perhaps I should have taken that advice back in '89. I was in a bad car accident in northern Ontario (got hit by a moose) 6-7 weeks before WOC and had to be taken to hospital by ambulance after being briefly knocked unconscious and with severe back, neck and head pain. At the hospital I was given 'something' for the pain (i.e, doctor's orders "here take these for the pain". Didn't know what they were at the time but they were tylenol 3's. The next day when I was released from hospital I was told to continue to take the T3's but now that I knew what it was I was given I refused because of the codeine ban. Then I got really worried about the doping tests at WOC but fortunately got all the appropriate exemption forms filled out. It was a long and painful 900km bus ride from Wawa to Toronto. I was in so much pain I couldn't train properly for 2 weeks. That close to WOC was not ideal.

A rule is a rule but I guess cycling is different than (most) other endurance sports. Here is to hoping that other endurance sports don't follow in cycling's tracks.

They are not bad people. They don't rob banks, they just don't pay their taxes...

jj wrote "There are numerous drugs that normal people take all the time, that aren't going to have a performance-enhancing effect that anyone should feel guilty about."

One has to be careful here. Take Ibuprofen, as a permitted example.

I have no major problem with the use of Ibuprofen in races if it is occasional to deal with a knock to the knee or whatever. I have the (perhaps incorrect) impression that some Adventure Racers use it more or less systematically to deal with normal pain like blisters, sore feet etc - for me this gives an unfair advantage over non-drug taking competitors. And while it is legal, it is against the spirit of the rules... I would be upset if I thought WOC competitors were doing likewise.

If ARers want to consider AR as a serious competitive sport then there should be an anti-drugs ethic. If they view it just as an activity, then they can do what they want - I have no problems with people downing steroids and EPO in order to go trekking in the Rockies or skiing across Norway, or taking coffee to do research...

But I don't want this lax attitude to drugs entering into O.

Did your research productivity increase when the caffeine ban went out on Jan 1 2004, Neil?

I don't know any adventure racers who take Ibuprofen systematically, but I don't race in your part of the world. They would be crazy to do so, since AR is tough enough on your digestive system without abusing medications.

Here are my notes from an Adventure Racing Nutrition seminar by Dr. Mark Tarnopolsky:
o Be cautious with anti-inflammatories like Motrin or Advil:
o If you're dehydrated, they can make things worse, potentially leading to kidney damage. (Reminder: Never get dehydrated!)
o Exercise diverts blood flow from the gut, reducing it by up to 70%. This in turn reduces your natural protection against ulcers, reflux and small hemorrhages.
o Thus in a race, anti-inflammatories have an increased risk compared to using them in your day-to-day life, so don't take them without a reason.

Having said that, there are times when reducing inflammation is good for an injury - not just good for reducing pain. I usually race with someone who prescribes painkillers as part of his job, and I've taken very few Ibuprofens on the race course in almost 6 years of AR. But it's an option that I wouldn't want to be without, given that some races last for several days.

"I have the (perhaps incorrect) impression that some Adventure Racers use it more or less systematically to deal with normal pain like blisters, sore feet etc - for me this gives an unfair advantage over non-drug taking competitors. And while it is legal, it is against the spirit of the rules... I would be upset if I thought WOC competitors were doing likewise."

It's tempting to agree with your point but every time I give the issue of doping some thought I always seem to stumble into the same question, shortly before my mind short circuits. Where's the line?

It's not ok to take Ibu to curb tendinitis over 24hrs of running on uneven terrain, but it's ok to ingest all sorts of lab formulated gels, powders, tabs to perform and recover? Should AR and other sports adopt similar rules to cycling where no one is allowed to ride a bike below a certain weight? Should the sport not be considered serious if they don't? Where are the fairness and ethical lines drawn?

What level of declared fairness borders on the ridiculous? Is it unfair that one person is well off an can afford to train 20-30hrs a week when another is less fortunate and can only train 10hrs a week. Or is it more sporting to have two people who trained equally compete mano y mano?

If it is fair for super power nations such as the US to pour millions of dollars into Olympic training centers, with a fleet of sports scientists, the best equipment money can produce, and on and on, all while developing nations show up without even wearing running shoes, who's to say that a mad race for developing the most superior race enhancing drugs is unfair?

I'm not a doper (knowingly anyway) and I hope I resist the temptations to dope that obviously exist for the remainder of my days. As a Dane I took Rasmussen's exit from the tour very hard last year as I'd been routing for him to the utmost. Now every time someone shows any sign of domination in the Tour I can't help but think that they must be doping. Despite these strong feelings though, I'm very carefully in how I perceive fellow athletes in their training or racing practice. I don't think I could ever be outwardly critical of someone's practice without knowing where the line of acceptable and unacceptable lies, and I'm not talking about the line set by WADA for any given year.

What makes something a "drug", anyway? If the definition is "something on the WADA list", okay. But in a Rogaine, I definitely bring aspirin/acetaminophen, and I take it when things hurt. But I do that when I'm at work, too. I don't consider this cheating by any means, and I'm not sympathetic to a "purist" who would eschew it.

I'd like to interject here the only legitimate reason why a drug/substance should be banned: if there's benefit form taking so much of it that it puts you in danger. EPO is a great example: take some, you get better, take more you get better still, take even more, you get better but your heart stops. Aspirin is different. Yes, you can take enough aspirin to trash your stomach, but the maximum useful amount is lower than that. Perhaps another good example would be antibiotics, where there's an amount that cures your infection, but taking more doesn't do anything useful at all. If there were a drug that made you faster/stronger, and had no harmful side effects at all (you could take unlimited amounts without harm), there would be no reason to ban it. (Perhaps pasta would be an example of something that comes close to that.) A drug should not be banned because it helps performance, but only because it provides a temptattion for an "arms race" in which those who try to gain the greatest advantage are at risk of harm.

Well, it seems I'm just digging myself in deeper here as I'm certainly not trying to defend doping. As a rider who was maxed out just to stay with the pro peleton, doping might have made a real difference in my results. It's not very likely that I would have been caught. But that's not the way you're supposed to play.

My point was not that people should dope, but that the rules should be changed in ways that make them not have to. Hammer's example is a good one. By forbidding a drug that effectively treats the condition, the athlete is forced to choose between their health and following the rules - precisely the opposite of the intended effect! By allowing impartial doctors to prescribe reasonable doses of medication, athletes could treat their bodies according to best current medical practice and stay in compliance with the rules. Excessive amounts (or any amount without the prescription) could still be penalized.

In the past year, I've refrained from post-op drugs on two occasions. Not because I'm worried about staying compliant, but because as a middle-aged has-been (never-was by some appraisals), pain is a good indicator of when I need to cool it. I don't know if I would have taken quite so high a road when cycling was more or less my livelihood for half the year. You don't get many years as a pro and to squander one on a stupid injury when a reasonable treatment exists seems dumb. I'm pretty sure I would have taken the drugs and then waited until I was sure they were washed out of my system before competing. As I said before, if that makes me a cheater in some eyes, I can live with that, but I would suggest that any such eyes are viewing the world through some very rosy glasses.

If its wrong to dope in sports, then is this wrong too? Why or why not?

The only thing new about this is the fact that it's Ritalin. A quarter century ago, it was methamphetamine, and 25-50 years before that, it was benzedrine. And I suppose cocaine before that. But the reason it isn't "wrong" is because there's no drug testing in academia. Prohibition of drugs isn't because of some moral problem, it's simply an agreed-upon convention for the protection of athletes. If the drug addiction problems among scholars was more widespread and problematic (and I'll assure you that it did exist when I was in college), then you'd see drug testing at universities. Ritalin and other modern drugs are likely a positive development due to lower addiction potential.

A quarter of a century or more ago I was at University, and we used caffeine and alcohol. Maybe I missed something.

This one took me by surprise - maybe it's something particular to America, or particular to certain fields of science. If use of drugs of those types was anywhere near as prevalent as that in the scientific cricles which I move in I'd have expected to have heard about it, if only in coffee-break gossip.

What I'm personally aware of was primarily at the undergraduate level (I went to a very high-pressure university), although there is at least one professor who I suspect was using something. It wasn't widespread (recreational drug use was more prevalent), but it did happen to some extent. And the stuff in the more distant past is hearsay. I have read articles recently about undergraduates (and suburban housewives) using Ritalin, sometimes to problem levels.

They should have an "open" doping category and a "natural" category in endurance and power sports.

It would be great to see which dopers would die first!

WADA's procedures are "half-assed", according to the author of an upcoming Nature article (1, 2). Nature, a leading scientific journal, has long questioned the methods used by doping testers and the intentions of testing agencies.

This is a sad reminder of what long-term doping (i.e., started in youth) can actually mean:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/11/sexchan...

JJ, for what it's worth, something like 30% of the undergrads at the college I was associated with at my last uni were on Ritalin or an equivalent.

Article in today's NY times, although it may require a log-in. It's free, though.

WADA spokesman Frédéric Donzé insisted that the agency understands its responsibility to protect fair play and an athlete's rights.

"The detection methods undergo rigorous validation prior to being introduced...This reliability has been consistently confirmed by tribunals," he said.

Wow--tribunals. I'm convinced. ;-) Hmm, haven't tribunals been advanced as a substitute for the commonly-accepted impartial forum in another venue? --perhaps also one that has the potential to "ruin people?s lives" and has similarly been discredited by many experts?

Berry's demand for greater transparency is unrealistic, said Larry Bowers, senior managing director for the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA).

If testing agencies released everything, "within a month there'd be a book published on how to beat standardized testing procedures," Bowers said. "We have a group of people trying to circumvent testing. It's unlike any other field I can think of."

We can't let the enemy see the evidence, so you'll just have to trust us to keep sport safe.

In the British Medical Journal last month, more than 30 scholars signed a statement supporting an article co-authored by Dr. Kayser calling the current system a failure that needs to be changed. The article also criticized the medical authorities for undermining their credibility with "prophylactic lies" that exaggerate the dangers of drugs like anabolic steroids based "on scant evidence tainted by a misguided moralistic motivation to protect sports."

Tribunals, secret protocols and evidence, exaggerated threat? That sounds like the recipe for "credibility". Not scientific, but the don't-mess-with-us kind that is used to project power and deter (or elicit) certain actions. The message to the dopers [or drug lords or terrorists or non-compliant governments] goes like this: "We will do whatever we want in order to go after you (irrespective of scientific method or peer review--or legality or popular opinion or expert opinion). We are the "bad cop", and the "good cop" is our buddy and likes us too much to protect you from our vigilante methods."