Professional Cycling For the Fans - Will cycling ever be 'clean'? Are drugs just a part of sporting life?

Cycling is sick, perhaps sicker than we think or know, and needs its own treatment; not by doctors, though, because it seems some of them are part of the doping problem.

I found this great article and instead of copying it would like to add the below link, I don't think explosive sports like cycling and sprinting in athletics will ever be trusted again..

http://www.sportingo.com/cycling/team-telekoms-dope-doctors-highlight-just-how-sick-cycling-is/1001,3503

I disagree with your assessment. I think cycling is regulating itself perfectly on the inside - which is the only place where it really counts anyway. The only people who think there is anything wrong with the current situation are people who were deceived by the drug testing lunatics to believe that drug tested competitions equal drug free competitions. That is a complete farce as everyone is finding out now.

Here's a fantastic article written by rather well informed PhD's containing their thoughts...
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6939/8/2

Cycling is not sick - if the current situation looks awfully bad, it's only because cycling is actually confronting the problem and doing something about it, while other professional sports are making great wailing noises while sweeping the whole matter under the rug when it comes to currently playing major atheletes.

If you'd like a good parallel, look at Major League Baseball's way of handling the situation over the past 10-12 years. Had they handled doping the way cycling is doing it, there's a very good chance that the home run record would still be at Roger Maris' 61, and Hank Aaron's all time record would still be standing with no one even close to challenging it. And the fan base is really being lukewarm to the latter challenge, so they're catching on.

No, cycling's got another year or two of bad news ahead of it, at the end of which I firmly believe that two things are going to happen: 1. Just about everybody who has doped will end up being outed, and dealt with, making it bloody difficult if not impossible for anyone to risk that kind of behavior in the future, and, 2. Try as his detractors might, Lance Armstrong's name will stay clean.

Cycling is sick, perhaps sicker than we think or know, and needs its own treatment; not by doctors, though, because it seems some of them are part of the doping problem.

I found this great article and instead of copying it would like to add the below link, I don't think explosive sports like cycling and sprinting in athletics will ever be trusted again..

http://www.sportingo.com/cycling/team-telekoms-dope-doctors-highlight-just-how-sick-cycling-is/1001,3503


Cycling will be clean only if the organizers drastically reduce the mileage and duration of the season. Which leads to the question of whether these reduction might in of in themselves weaken the sport. Its kind of a catch 22 situation.

Cycling will be clean only if the organizers drastically reduce the mileage and duration of the season. Which leads to the question of whether these reduction might in of in themselves weaken the sport. Its kind of a catch 22 situation.

I have never understood that argument. Look at track and field; sprinters dope too.

No sport will be clean as long as people are willing to cheat to win. In this day and age you might get things to the point where only 10% of the riders dope and where they use less than is generally used today. But as long the tests can be beaten some people will take advantage.

I have never understood that argument. Look at track and field; sprinters dope too.

as long as ego and money are involved you're going to have athletes who'll do anything to get the edge.

the sport was supposedly cleaning up a few years ago when after the festina affair and then again later after pantani got booted from the giro.

i say let 'em dope. test these guys and suspend them but the witch hunt is what's ruining the sport :eek: .

ed rader

Unfortunately, when you have millions of dollars on the line, there will always be someone willing to risk it all to win. A natural athlete simply can not compete against a pharmaceutically enhanced athlete so then it becomes an arms race.

I think cycling is regulating itself perfectly on the inside - which is the only place where it really counts anyway.
Since several cyclists (including a few pros and advanced amateurs) have in fact died for reasons that are attributable to PED usage, I do not see how rampant and unchecked PED usage qualifies as "perfectly self-regulating."

It's pretty clear that if there were no doping controls at all (e.g. regular hematocrit checks), pro riders would be dropping like flies due to PED abuse.



The only people who think there is anything wrong with the current situation are people who were deceived by the drug testing lunatics to believe that drug tested competitions equal drug free competitions.
It seems fairly obvious that the current testing methods are not picking up on a great deal of PED usage; I don't think any of the anti-doping agencies, teams or even journalists are "deceived" in this respect. Hence the increased presence of (and effectiveness of) law enforcement operations in anti-doping efforts. This has been fairly obvious for awhile, as evidenced by things like David Milllar's ability to use EPO in several competitions (including the World's) without any adverse findings.

I for one am not "deceived" by any "drug testing lunatics." The simple fact is, even utterly regardless of the reasons, PED's are not allowed, period. To use them is to violate the rules of the sport, in the exact same way as corking a bat, taking a dive, lying about your age, using an emery board, soaking the tires, sharpening your spikes, etc etc are verboten. Corking a bat won't hurt anyone, but it's still against the rules; and wide-spread corking does not magically legitimize the practice.

If you want to try to change the mentality of the entire world about PED's, be my guest. Since it's pretty clear that riders were dying from specific types of PED usage prior to any attempts to detect those specific substances, and that sponsors are reluctant to fund a sport that is currently associated with wide-spread PED usage, I think you're going to have an uphill battle (to put it mildly).

Until then: Follow the rules.



Cycling will be clean only if the organizers drastically reduce the mileage and duration of the season....
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. They could chop 5 days off the Tour de France, and as long as riders believe they can dope without getting caught, at least some of them will do so.

Since several cyclists (including a few pros and advanced amateurs) have in fact died for reasons that are attributable to PED usage, I do not see how rampant and unchecked PED usage qualifies as "perfectly self-regulating." It's pretty clear that if there were no doping controls at all (e.g. regular hematocrit checks), pro riders would be dropping like flies due to PED abuse.

If you're going to tell part of the truth, then tell the whole truth, please. No one is going to die from anabolic steroid, hGH, testosterone, IGF-1, insulin, or sensible stimulant use. The ONLY drug in question here is EPO or the blood doping protocol. Those deaths that were assumed to be attributed to EPO misuse happened 15 years ago. Amgen released Epogen about 16 years ago. Obviously, the body of knowledge surrounding the use of EPO did not exist at that point as it does today. There is nothing mysterious about the drug. Start with a baseline CBC, read the prescribing information, and take follow up CBC's in order to titrate the dosage correctly according to your physiology. It's relatively straightforward and with the current 50% cutoff, there is no reason to go above it because you'll fail the blood test anyway.


It seems fairly obvious that the current testing methods are not picking up on a great deal of PED usage; I don't think any of the anti-doping agencies, teams or even journalists are "deceived" in this respect. Hence the increased presence of (and effectiveness of) law enforcement operations in anti-doping efforts.

This is pathetic. Dr. Fuentes' actions were not even against the law in Spain. The whole Op. Puerto was a joke. The case against him was effectively thrown out. When you start incriminating (or trying to incriminate) medical doctors for treating their patients for known medical conditions (testosterone deficiency IS a medical problem, whether it's genetic or environmentally created, for example), then you have moved into the realm of insanity.


I for one am not "deceived" by any "drug testing lunatics." The simple fact is, even utterly regardless of the reasons, PED's are not allowed, period. To use them is to violate the rules of the sport, in the exact same way as corking a bat, taking a dive, lying about your age, using an emery board, soaking the tires, sharpening your spikes, etc etc are verboten. Corking a bat won't hurt anyone, but it's still against the rules; and wide-spread corking does not magically legitimize the practice.

Personally, I say screw the rules. The rules cannot be enforced perfectly, so they are irrelevant. If I had my medical license, I would help every athlete beat these tests if that's what they wanted to do.

substance testing will always be several steps behind the atheletes and their doctors. there is probably a new drug or technique being used now that will evade the current tests, then they'll be a test for it, and then something new will crop up, etc. neverending circle.

i really like the slipstream method. testing against pre-recorded biomarkers seems a pretty good way to go. for now, when i see a slipstream rider, i actually feel confident that they're clean. maybe i'm too much of an optimist.

^^^You are because I have already hashed out how to beat that system either here or on other forums. In the end, if they truly remain drug free, however, you'll see the team continue to get crushed since it is impossible at that level to remain competitive drug free against users.

i'm sure it's possible to get around too, and maybe in the end it's not a better method than anything else. but, at least for now, in the trial run of this program, i would be very surprised if their riders are doping.

Cycling is sick, perhaps sicker than we think or know, and needs its own treatment; not by doctors, though, because it seems some of them are part of the doping problem.

I found this great article and instead of copying it would like to add the below link, I don't think explosive sports like cycling and sprinting in athletics will ever be trusted again..

http://www.sportingo.com/cycling/team-telekoms-dope-doctors-highlight-just-how-sick-cycling-is/1001,3503


Unfortunately it is a very idealistic and unrealistic to think that sports will ever be drug free. It has not been for more than twenty years and it is not now. It is fundamentally at odds with what people are trying to do in sports. Go farther, faster, higher, harder, bigger,etc.

This can only be accomplished through drugs and foods and training routines that accomplish these goals. So do you think that medical and exercise science is going to just lay down and not seek methods on how the human body can perform better. This is a pipe dream and a failure to understand the basic competitive mindset.

The only questions should be not if drugs are used but how they can be used in a legal way and where the line is drawn between acceptable drug use and non acceptable drug use.

After all, you are allowed to eat and drink and sleep to recover. Should not these things be considered performance enhancing things also. The problem is the current system which bans the total use of all drugs. Many of which are used in small quantities for recovery purposes but do not directly aid in enhanced performance. In my opinion the only drugs which should be banned are drugs that directly enhance performance like EPO. It is to the point now where they are trying to take Landis victory away from him on very weak science or evidence. WHen three or four of the leading scientists in this field believe that the LNDD and WADA drug testing protocols are unreliable then should we really be destroying someones career over questionable evidence.

Unfortunately it is a very idealistic and unrealistic to think that sports will ever be drug free. It has not been for more than twenty years and it is not now. It is fundamentally at odds with what people are trying to do in sports. Go farther, faster, higher, harder, bigger,etc.



And there you hit the core of the issue. The Olympic moto is something like Higher, farther, faster. If results are all that count drugs enter and grow. Contrast to the Barbarians motto. Sport for sports sake. Not a cure all by any means, but a step in the right direction.

If what I've read is true, then professional bike racing is sick, because the teams are having increasing trouble signing up deep pocket sponsors. I dunno, maybe what I've read isn't right.

TCS

"No bucks, no Buck Rogers." The Right Stuff

If what I've read is true, then professional bike racing is sick, because the teams are having increasing trouble signing up deep pocket sponsors. I dunno, maybe what I've read isn't right.

TCS

"No bucks, no Buck Rogers." The Right Stuff

Ya this is just the problem. Sponsors want thier teams to win to bring them some notoriety. They often know what the team doctors are doing. And only condemn it when they get caught.

So if cycling regulators are going to be so hard on drug use in cycling they are only putting nails in thier own coffins because eventually they won't have any sponsors willing to deal with all the political and bad PR issues surrounding the team. This makes for a lot less money being put into pro cycling.

The doping rules need to be changed big time but the doping agencies are on such a crusade that they can't see they are going to destroy thier own sport. Look at pro sports everywhere else. Drug use has minimal consequences compared to cycling.

If you're going to tell part of the truth, then tell the whole truth, please. No one is going to die from anabolic steroid, hGH, testosterone, IGF-1, insulin, or sensible stimulant use.....
As long as we're going to tell the truth, perhaps you'd like to list the side effects of all of these drugs?

And what is "sensible stimulant use?" Coffee is reasonably safe of course. But many stimulants are habit-forming, or can be damaging or possibly even fatal (even ephedrine, which is a relatively minor stimulant, can cause death in certain circumstances).

Athletes have died from EPO and amphetamine usage. If it wasn't for testing -- e.g. the threat of benching any athlete with a hematocrit of higher than 50% -- I have little doubt there would be more deaths from these substances. It is quite clear that if the restraints on PED's were completely lifted, athletes would not utilize these drugs in a responsible manner.

In fact, if it is impossible to "perfectly" regulate PED usage in the attempt to block athletes from using them altogether, how could you possibly regulate them to strictly "responsible" usage?

And what's in the pipeline? Surgical procedures to enhance morphology? Gene therapies, with as yet unknown consequences? If you tell an athlete that you have a gene therapy that will use their own genetic material to enhance their muscles beyond ordinary human capacity in an undetectable fashion, do you really think the athletes will wait 15 years until all of the studies are completed and the consequences explored before using it?

What about surgical removal of a healthy limb, and replacement with a mechanical construct for the specific and sole purpose of enhancing athletic performance? Is that acceptable? Is it desirable?




This is pathetic. Dr. Fuentes' actions were not even against the law in Spain. The whole Op. Puerto was a joke.....
It was not a "joke," it is a result of the fact that in the arms race between dopers and testers, the dopers currently have the upper hand.



When you start incriminating (or trying to incriminate) medical doctors for treating their patients for known medical conditions (testosterone deficiency IS a medical problem, whether it's genetic or environmentally created, for example), then you have moved into the realm of insanity.
If an athlete has a genuinely debilitating testosterone deficiency or need for a steroid, then they are allowed to apply for an exception. For example, Floyd Landis received several medical exemptions due to his necrotic hip (none of which, by the way, were responsible for the adverse findings), and there are lots of exemptions for albuterol inhalers.

If you genuinely believe that Fuentes was giving his athletic patients a mild testosterone booster to fix a legitimate testosterone deficiency, then you are deceiving yourself.... but no one else. If the evidence is accurate (which is highly likely, but not definitively evaluated yet) then it's clear that he was prescribing medicines with the explicit goal of improving athletic performance.



Personally, I say screw the rules. The rules cannot be enforced perfectly, so they are irrelevant.
H'm, let's look at the logical extensions of this opinion.... ;)

Obviously, substances like marijuana, cocaine, heroin, meth and any other Schedule 1 / contraband should be legalized. We cannot "perfectly" enforce any anti-drug laws, therefore they should all be shelved. I suppose it is irrelevant that many of these substances are habit-forming and potentially fatal to the user, yes?

What else? Prostitution hasn't been shut down by the laws, so that's in as well. Theft? Well, the laws clearly are not "perfectly enforced" against theft. Or murder, or assault, or ****, or embezzlement. Or would you describe the laws against these behaviors as "perfectly enforced?"


The bottom line is, if you are going to advocate for the legalization of medical performance enhancements, you need to establish their justifiability first, then convince others that your view has merit, then change the rules. Until then, no matter how you slice it or rationalize it, breaking the rules is cheating, period.

Since we are talking about using a drug during an athletic competition, rather than freeing an individual from chattel slavery, your attitude that you would assist someone to cheat is, to put it mildly, far from admirable....

Your reply indicates the degree to which you have been misinformed on a few facts. If you want me to talk about the side effects of testosterone, hGH, IGF-1, insulin, and everything else under the sun, I will. I've used these drugs for years and I know what the side effects are. At the doses these guys are using, there are no side effects worth talking about. They don't exist because the doses are too little to yield the adverse side effects that you think will result from their use.


If it wasn't for testing -- e.g. the threat of benching any athlete with a hematocrit of higher than 50% -- I have little doubt there would be more deaths from these substances. It is quite clear that if the restraints on PED's were completely lifted, athletes would not utilize these drugs in a responsible manner.
You should change the first sentence to read: "If it wasn't for testing -- e.g. the threat of benching any athlete with a hematocrit of higher than 50% -- I have little doubt there would be more deaths from EPO and blood doping."

The reason I can talk about rational drug use is because I have personally used these drugs in question and I once was a cyclist, so I KNOW how much these guys can use before it begins to undermine their CV conditioning from PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. I can tell you that even if drug testing disappeared tomorrow, not much would change because everyone would quickly discover that you can't shoot 750mg/wk of testosterone enanthate and then try to climb the mountains. It's too much - too strong. Nobody could get away with that. Same with hGH. Who wants to gain 10# of water in a couple weeks? You just can't get away with the doses used in the strength sports as an endurance athlete. So there's no need to "regulate" usage in cycling because the sport regulates itself based upon the nature of the sport and the nature of the drugs. Of course I favor drug testing for street drugs since no one has any business using that crap as I've said before. And I have already stated many times that I fully support the hcrit blood test for safety, not incrimination - basically the way it works now.

There is no way you can compare genetic engineering to the current crop of PED's. That's a whole different ballgame and everyone knows it. I don't consider that a "drug" so I'm not going to comment on it in this thread.


It was not a "joke," it is a result of the fact that in the arms race between dopers and testers, the dopers currently have the upper hand.
Your point here is irrelevant. If the testers want to hire their own enforcement team and obtain the proper search warrants (which they would never be issued anyway), then go ahead and try. But to use public service at the taxpayers' expense to investigate something that is not even deemed "illegal" is beyond belief. Personally, I'm glad Fuentes is back in business.


If an athlete has a genuinely debilitating testosterone deficiency or need for a steroid, then they are allowed to apply for an exception. For example, Floyd Landis received several medical exemptions due to his necrotic hip (none of which, by the way, were responsible for the adverse findings), and there are lots of exemptions for albuterol inhalers.
I cannot believe you are going to compare a beta-2 agonist to testosterone or Deca. Give me a break. I would love to see you try to get a TUE for transdermal testosterone if you were hypogonadal or nandrolone if you were recovering from a ruptured tendon. If you seriously believe that WADA/IOC/UCI would even consider that request, you're out of your mind. Frankly, I'm surprised Albuterol has not yet been banned since there have been some snide comments made from the anti-drug nuts regarding that drug and the unbelievable number of "sick" elite athletes using it compared to the general population. Albuterol definitely is performance enhancing, even if it is not medically necessary, and that's why everyone is using it.


If you genuinely believe that Fuentes was giving his athletic patients a mild testosterone booster to fix a legitimate testosterone deficiency, then you are deceiving yourself.... but no one else. If the evidence is accurate (which is highly likely, but not definitively evaluated yet) then it's clear that he was prescribing medicines with the explicit goal of improving athletic performance.
I'm deceiving myself?! Hardly. Have you ever read the medical studies conducted on extreme endurance athletes that document a significant decline in serum testosterone, going even as far as describing them as "hypogonadal?" Do a PubMed search, I'm sure you'll find them. Living in a hypogonadal state has been positively correlated with several adverse medical conditions. All Fuentes was doing with transdermal T (not a booster FYI) was getting these guys back to baseline - normal physiologic levels - because the simple fact of the matter is that you can't go supraphysiological with that product like you can the injectables because it was specifically designed for TRT. That's why it won't trip the 4:1 T/E screen unless something wild happens with E (FL case).

Lastly, comparing rules in sport with criminal activity is ridiculous. Fortunately, use of many PED's is not contingent upon changing the rules because the technology to enforce the rules does not exist. So everyone ignores the rules. Let's see....I shouldn't cheat and go nowhere in the sport, or I cheat and get paid 100's of thousands of dollars (or even millions in other sports)/yr. Hmmm, that's a pretty easy choice for most people.

Sorry to change the subject a little but I have been going through as much of the hearing snippets that I can get and I have come to one incontrovertable conclusion.

The USADA has turned the hearing into a kangaroo press event by bringing in witnesses irrelevant to the case. The hearing should have been to determine if Floyd Landis failed his drug tests. Appearantly the LNDD lab evidence was so weak and full of errors for even the follow up B samples that USADA was in the position of trying to prove Landis was guilty by other methods rather than lab evidence. Hence the Rii witness, which while interesting has no bearing on whether Floyd Doped. Lemond testimony is suspect due to various reasons and an unwillingness to say anything against Armstrong.

This was an unusual position for USADA to be in since they usually have very good and convincing lab evidence from other labs.

the landis trial seemed a place for people to air all their dirty laundry. i learned all the things i didn't need to know: everything from childhood sex abuse to the medicore career of joe papp.

I am not convinced that Floyd did not dope but I am convinced that all of his tests are invalid. The LNDD lab simply did not know how to do the mass spectrometry tests and executed them on non calibrated and inproperly set up machines.

Not to mention the human error in manually readjusting the isotope results while all the while they had the results from the first test to confirm. The testing process is bogus at the LNDD lab. Appearantly, they do not do enough of these tests to concern themselves with accurate procedures and results.

Note: for those who don't want to read long posts, feel free to skip this one. :D



If you want me to talk about the side effects of testosterone, hGH, IGF-1, insulin, and everything else under the sun, I will. I've used these drugs for years and I know what the side effects are.
H'm, I thought I asked you to list the side effects, not to rationalize them away. ;) And allow me to award you an honorary M.D. for your drug use. :D

Now, I have no idea why you are taking certain medications, and it's none of my business really. But given a choice between actual medical evidence and anecdotal assertions that "the side effects are minimal," I'll stick with research. Not to mention that although some of the risks may be small or moderate, you have no way of knowing if your activities will promote tumor growth, for example, until it is a bit late in the game. While there can be instances of exaggeration, it's slightly ridiculous to pretend that numerous drugs, particularly in combination, are as harmless as M&M's.

Are these side effects minimal in adolescent athletes, by the way? (Or does your personal experience extend back to the age of 14? ;) ) If not, then how would you enforce a rule that bans PED's for athletes under the age of 18?

And I'd still like to know what qualifies as "rational stimulant use" that is not already given a green light (e.g. coffee) given the propensity of many stimulants to be habit-forming and, in some extreme circumstances, life-threatening. Or is getting a heart attack at age 25 qualify as a form of "self-regulation?" :D



There's no need to "regulate" usage in cycling because the sport regulates itself based upon the nature of the sport and the nature of the drugs....
Again, I find it hard to believe, based upon the occasional PED-related death (not to mention the general tendency of human nature) that this is the case. All it takes is something similar to EPO -- a new drug or medical procedure comes onto the scene, it is temporarily undetectable as the authorities don't even know about it yet, its side effects are undetermined, and damage (or death) is a possible result.

What about external pressures, by the way? Coach demands that Rider takes an extensive course of PED's or he's fired. Would this be a good thing? Would the rider have any recourse to reject the coach's demand? Would the rider be able to refuse if they started to experience a "minimal" side effect, like liver toxicity? Isn't this clearly one step beyond "show up for practice at 5AM or you're out?"

And since athletes are more than willing to use drugs that would appear to provide no overt or large advantage -- e.g. sprinters using EPO -- I find it hard to believe that we can reasonably conclude that PED usage will be any more "self-regulating" than anything else. Although humans can behave rationally, the idea that humans consistently and accurately make the decisions that are in their own self-interest is not exactly the case. After all, it wasn't exactly in Enron's best interests to implode, was it? ;)



Of course I favor drug testing for street drugs since no one has any business using that crap as I've said before. And I have already stated many times that I fully support the hcrit blood test for safety, not incrimination - basically the way it works now.
Why, what's wrong with "street drugs?" A drug is a drug is a drug, yes? If cocaine is a stimulant that's going to give me a performance boost, why shouldn't I be allowed to use it? After all, I can self-regulate my usage. Or is there some magic line that is crossed when the FDA lists a drug as Schedule I...?

The "success" of the hematocrit test is like being glad that the retaining wall is being propped up by a single steel beam. And if a drug is developed that is completely undetectable and has highly toxic side effects, how would you regulate it to keep it to a "rational" level?



There is no way you can compare genetic engineering to the current crop of PED's. That's a whole different ballgame and everyone knows it. I don't consider that a "drug" so I'm not going to comment on it in this thread.
There is no comparison because it is not a viable option -- yet. But it's just a matter of time; and clearly athletes will experiment with gene doping the instant a given technique is available. So what's the difference? With both PED's and gene therapies, you're using an elective medical procedure that carries a degree of risk for the specific purpose of improving athletic performance.

Why not discuss it, before it becomes wide-spread? Not getting squeamish, are we? ;)



If the testers want to hire their own enforcement team and obtain the proper search warrants (which they would never be issued anyway), then go ahead and try. But to use public service at the taxpayers' expense to investigate something that is not even deemed "illegal" is beyond belief. Personally, I'm glad Fuentes is back in business.
Clearly, and fortunately, private agencies cannot conduct searches and arrest people. ;) That kind of action should be restricted to law enforcement.

Why would you be glad, exactly? After all, it really shouldn't matter if the sport is 100% clean or 90% dirty, especially with an endurance sport like cycling. No one is trying to break records, and if "everyone" is doping, then the removal of such substances will also create the "level playing field" that you allegedly seek to promote.

Fuentes is hardly a shining beacon of light in the wilderness. He's engaging in moderate-risk practices such as blood transfusions and prescriptions of drug regimens -- not to keep an individual healthy, but to boost an athlete's performance by a truly fractional amount. Nor is Fuentes publicly advocated for the rightness of PED usage. He is just another doctor who fully knows he's violating the rules (quite possibly including the Hippocratic Oath), in order to make a very large pile of money.



I cannot believe you are going to compare a beta-2 agonist to testosterone or Deca. Give me a break. I would love to see you try to get a TUE for transdermal testosterone if you were hypogonadal or nandrolone if you were recovering from a ruptured tendon. If you seriously believe that WADA/IOC/UCI would even consider that request, you're out of your mind.
I'm not comparing albuterol to testosterone; I'm pointing out that if you have a genuine physiological deficiency, you can apply for and likely get a TUE (again: Landis, TUE for cortisone). Ruptured tendon, probably not. Loss of a testicle, and medical evidence to show that your testosterone levels were significantly lower than normal for a male, I think you'd have a good shot.



I'm deceiving myself?! Hardly.... All Fuentes was doing with transdermal T (not a booster FYI) was getting these guys back to baseline - normal physiologic levels - because the simple fact of the matter is that you can't go supraphysiological with that product like you can the injectables because it was specifically designed for TRT. That's why it won't trip the 4:1 T/E screen unless something wild happens with E (FL case).
If you think all that Fuentes was doing was supplying T strictly to get these guys "back to baseline," then yes, you're definitely deceiving yourself. Evidence is indicating that someone like Hamilton got quite the cocktail -- EPO, IGF-1, testosterone, HGH, anabolic steroids -- and "scrubbed" blood prior to transfusions, in order to avoid detection. Would a healthy 30 year old need all that to stay at a normal level?

It's quite clear that athletes, including Fuentes' clients, dope not to "get back to normal" -- because unless they have received some sort of serious physiological damage -- but to go above their normal capabilities, and thus get an edge on the competition.

If you're 35 and you can't hit a baseball as far as when you were 25, should you be allowed to cork your bat so that you can "get back to baseline...?"

Oh, one more thing. Meet Tammy Thomas:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/photos/2002/may02/sydneyworldcup/day%203/TBtammythomas.jpg

Ms Thomas was a track cyclist, busted for steroids. I believe it is reasonably certain that a large part of her physiology in this photo is related to steroid use. Are you sure that cyclists have no use for steroids, and/or that Ms Thomas' use for such substances is strictly to stay at a "normal" level...?




Lastly, comparing rules in sport with criminal activity is ridiculous.
My point is that you cannot legitimately argue for the ethical viability of a form of behavior based upon the difficulties of enforcement, and/or the claim that "enforcement does not produce a 100% eradication of the behavior, therefore the law/rule should be discarded." If you have problems enforcing a law or rule, you don't ditch the law, you turn to other legally permissible enforcement methods.

I.e., your claim that "PED's cannot be perfectly regulated, therefore they should be allowed" is not an acceptable argument.



Let's see....I shouldn't cheat and go nowhere in the sport, or I cheat and get paid 100's of thousands of dollars (or even millions in other sports)/yr. Hmmm, that's a pretty easy choice for most people.
Ahh yes, punishment and "what's in it for me" as the proper guide to moral behavior. I believe that per Kohlberg's schema of moral development, this would fall into Stage 1 ("pre-conventional") and that most children grow into Stage II around, oh, age 10 or 13? :D

H'm, I thought I asked you to list the side effects, not to rationalize them away. ;) And allow me to award you an honorary M.D. for your drug use. :D

Now, I have no idea why you are taking certain medications, and it's none of my business really. But given a choice between actual medical evidence and anecdotal assertions that "the side effects are minimal," I'll stick with research. Are these side effects minimal in adolescent athletes, by the way? (Or does your personal experience extend back to the age of 14? ;) ) If not, then how would you enforce a rule that bans PED's for athletes under the age of 18?

I've seen the research. Do a PubMed search and you'll see it for yourself. In one study, different levels of inj. T were administered to subjects for 16 weeks. I believe the doses were 25mg/wk, 50mg/wk, 100mg/wk, 200mg/wk, 400mg/wk, and 600mg/wk. Even at 600mg/wk, no adverse side effects were reported. NONE. Research conducted by Chein and Terry regarding hGH use concludes that no serious side effects have been identified when doses mimic the natural pulsatile release pattern of the pituitary gland. Read the book "Grow Young with HGH" by Dr. Ronald Klatz. You'll find all the info there. What these TdF racers are doing with T and hGH is nothing more than replacement therapy. It's no different than you walking into a local anti-aging clinic and getting scrips for T and HGH. They're using the same doses. How do I know this? Because I have personally used these drugs and I KNOW that if the doses are too high, the endurance athlete experiences NEGATIVE returns, not just diminishing returns. IOW, the physiological side effects undermine their CV conditioning.

Regarding adolescent use, adolescent use already happens to some small degree. The tests can be beaten by them just as easily as it can by adults. So there is no enforcement of the rules for anyone under 18 as it stands today.

Regarding longterm side effects, there are longterm side effects to everything we choose to do. Do you consume alcohol? Consumption has been positively correlated with atrophy of brain tissue. Estrogen (synthetic estro and progestins) have been positively associated with angiogenesis - a process which accelerates tumor development and growth. Yet, how many millions of women worldwide use oral hormonal contraception?

People weigh the risks with the rewards and choose the appropriate course of action, whether you're talking about PED's or Big Mac's.


And I'd still like to know what qualifies as "rational stimulant use" that is not already given a green light (e.g. coffee) given the propensity of many stimulants to be habit-forming and, in some extreme circumstances, life-threatening. Or is getting a heart attack at age 25 qualify as a form of "self-regulation?" :D

I agree with some of what you say. Of all of these drugs in question, certain stimulants are the most dangerous. I guess since WADA lifted the restriction on caffeine, that would be "sensible stimulant use." However, caffeine is regarded as one of the most addictive substances anywhere, so not sure how you can reconcile that fact. It's also quite the diuretic, and that's certainly not good.


Again, I find it hard to believe, based upon the occasional PED-related death (not to mention the general tendency of human nature) that this is the case. All it takes is something similar to EPO -- a new drug or medical procedure comes onto the scene, it is temporarily undetectable as the authorities don't even know about it yet, its side effects are undetermined, and damage (or death) is a possible result.

Actually, to my knowledge, there haven't been any PED-related deaths in decades in cycling. I am not including street drugs in the PED category because no one has any business using those.


What about external pressures, by the way? Coach demands that Rider takes an extensive course of PED's or he's fired. Would this be a good thing? Would the rider have any recourse to reject the coach's demand? Would the rider be able to refuse if they started to experience a "minimal" side effect, like liver toxicity? Isn't this clearly one step beyond "show up for practice at 5AM or you're out?"
Actually, that's the way it works today. Lifting the ban on PED's wouldn't have any affect on this practice because the teams know how to beat the tests. So testing does not stop this practice.


And since athletes are more than willing to use drugs that would appear to provide no overt or large advantage -- e.g. sprinters using EPO -- I find it hard to believe that we can reasonably conclude that PED usage will be any more "self-regulating" than anything else. Although humans can behave rationally, the idea that humans consistently and accurately make the decisions that are in their own self-interest is not exactly the case.
TdF racing would be self regulating with respect to AAS, T, hGH, insulin, IGF-1, and EPO. All someone would need to do would be to shoot 3cc's of Sustanon/wk and down 50mg of Dbol/day and they would find out mighty quick that those drugs at those doses will not enhance performance.


Why, what's wrong with "street drugs?" A drug is a drug is a drug, yes? If cocaine is a stimulant that's going to give me a performance boost, why shouldn't I be allowed to use it? After all, I can self-regulate my usage. Or is there some magic line that is crossed when the FDA lists a drug as Schedule I...?

Actually there is. Any substance listed in Schedule I is recognized as having the most chemically addictive characteristics possible. EPO, IGF-1, insulin, and HGH are not scheduled drugs. And scheduling anabolic androgenic steroids was opposed by the FDA, AMA, DEA, and NIDA because they do not meet the addictive requirement of Schedule III. These are the drugs in question here.


The "success" of the hematocrit test is like being glad that the retaining wall is being propped up by a single steel beam. And if a drug is developed that is completely undetectable and has highly toxic side effects, how would you regulate it to keep it to a "rational" level?

Well you can't win the TdF if you're dead, right? I imagine that people would exercise a little common sense when it comes to risk vs. reward. But, in the end, if it would be undetectable, you would not be able to regulate regardless of whether the athletes were drug tested or not. So that's really a moot point.


There is no comparison because it is not a viable option -- yet. But it's just a matter of time; and clearly athletes will experiment with gene doping the instant a given technique is available. So what's the difference? With both PED's and gene therapies, you're using an elective medical procedure that carries a degree of risk for the specific purpose of improving athletic performance.
I really don't care one way or another. If someone wants to be an "early adopter" with genetic engineering, knock yourself out. Personally, I'll pass for the moment. Again your point is moot because no piss test in the world will ever be able to detect it.



Why not discuss it, before it becomes wide-spread? Not getting squeamish, are we? ;)
Because there's nothing to discuss. Nothing viable at this point exists and there are plenty of problems with the current system. Why invest time and money into a problem that doesn't even exist when the current technology trying to deal with drugs that have been around for 20 years still doesn't work?


Why would you be glad, exactly? After all, it really shouldn't matter if the sport is 100% clean or 90% dirty, especially with an endurance sport like cycling. No one is trying to break records, and if "everyone" is doping, then the removal of such substances will also create the "level playing field" that you allegedly seek to promote.

ABSOLUTELY! I personally don't care if 100% is using or 0% is using. Well, actually, I do care a little because if no one is using, then the entertainment value declines substantially. But, yeah, you've got a level playing field either way. Unfortunately, drug testing has not accomplished this at all. My point has always been the technology does not exist to enforce the rules that were designed to level the playing field. All that has been done is make the playing field even more unlevel than it was prior to implementing drug testing.


Fuentes is hardly a shining beacon of light in the wilderness. He's engaging in moderate-risk practices such as blood transfusions and prescriptions of drug regimens -- not to keep an individual healthy, but to boost an athlete's performance by a truly fractional amount. Nor is Fuentes publicly advocated for the rightness of PED usage. He is just another doctor who fully knows he's violating the rules (quite possibly including the Hippocratic Oath), in order to make a very large pile of money.

Actually, one could argue the exact opposite. If someone walked into your office who was complaining about hypogonadal symptoms and you ran a total T panel and it came back "low" or out of range, any doctor refusing to treat that condition would be violating his oath. The same thing with hGH and IGF-1. I'll give you that EPO is harder to justify. But, in the end, again, it doesn't matter because he is not violating any laws in his governing country. And that's why I'm glad he's back in business. It must drive the drug testing lunatics absolutely berzerk to know they can't touch this guy. Justice was served and the case against him was dismissed. The drug testing idiots know their stupid drug tests don't work, so they try to circumvent the law or change the law to do their anti-doping work for them. It didn't work in this case and that makes me very happy.


I'm not comparing albuterol to testosterone; I'm pointing out that if you have a genuine physiological deficiency, you can apply for and likely get a TUE (again: Landis, TUE for cortisone). Ruptured tendon, probably not. Loss of a testicle, and medical evidence to show that your testosterone levels were significantly lower than normal for a male, I think you'd have a good shot.

If this were true, everyone would have a TUE for T. It's so simple to document a hypogonadal condition. here's how you do it: Run a heavy cycle of synthetic androgens without exogenous T for a couple months. Come off everything. Walk into your doc's office a few weeks later and take a total T panel. I guarantee it will come back out of range because the synthetic androgens inhibit LH release from the pituitary, thus resulting in a severly declined endogenous T serum level. Doc sees the results and hears your complaints about not being able to get it up, and writes the scrip. Simple as that.

You will never get a TUE for T ever.


If you think all that Fuentes was doing was supplying T strictly to get these guys "back to baseline," then yes, you're definitely deceiving yourself. Evidence is indicating that someone like Hamilton got quite the cocktail -- EPO, IGF-1, testosterone, HGH, anabolic steroids -- and "scrubbed" blood prior to transfusions, in order to avoid detection. Would a healthy 30 year old need all that to stay at a normal level?

I've already said exactly what Fuentes was doing. I merely used T as an example. You're the one that brought up T with Fuentes, so I just commented on the legitimate medical application of the drug. Of course he was giving a full blend of PED's. I've never said any differently. Again, the point is irrelevant because no one is failing the drug tests. It doesn't matter if people need the drugs or not. They're using them and passing the single test designed to keep drugs out of sports. The tests don't work. The guys who have the money to pay people like Fuentes, get the treatment. Those who don't are out of luck. Yeah, that's a really fair system isn't it? Hardly.


Ms Thomas was a track cyclist, busted for steroids. I believe it is reasonably certain that a large part of her physiology in this photo is related to steroid use. Are you sure that cyclists have no use for steroids, and/or that Ms Thomas' use for such substances is strictly to stay at a "normal" level...?

I am not so dillusional that I cannot acknowledge the use of banned PED's in other areas of cycling. However, every time I've talked about this topic in this forum, I have prefaced my statements with TOUR DE FRANCE RACING, not track, not sprinting, not football or anything else. That is the title of this forum, is it not?


My point is that you cannot legitimately argue for the ethical viability of a form of behavior based upon the difficulties of enforcement, and/or the claim that "enforcement does not produce a 100% eradication of the behavior, therefore the law/rule should be discarded." If you have problems enforcing a law or rule, you don't ditch the law, you turn to other legally permissible enforcement methods.

Actually, three PhD's do a pretty good job doing just that in the journal article I linked to in my post above. You should check it out with an open mind.

So it is fair to say that there is huge concern for drugs in the sport, the article also stated that:-

"Surely cycling must be on its last legs (or wheels), no thanks to those who should be upholding society’s virtues - doctors. We entrust them with our lives but when they put our lives at risk by giving us drugs when we are not sick, well it's anything goes, isn’t it?"

Maybe it's the team's doctors that need sacking and appointing neutrals will fix the problem?

More here (http://www.sportingo.com/cycling/team_telekoms_dope_doctors_highlight/1001,3503)

So it is fair to say that there is huge concern for drugs in the sport, the article also stated that:-

"Surely cycling must be on its last legs (or wheels), no thanks to those who should be upholding society’s virtues - doctors. We entrust them with our lives but when they put our lives at risk by giving us drugs when we are not sick, well it's anything goes, isn’t it?"

Maybe it's the team's doctors that need sacking and appointing neutrals will fix the problem?

More here (http://www.sportingo.com/cycling/team_telekoms_dope_doctors_highlight/1001,3503)

If cycling is on its last legs because of drugs then baseball and american football are already dead and burried.

Barry Bonds ... need I say anymore?