Smoothie104

In 2000 US Postal was filmed throwing away empty vials of injectable Actovegin. Here the basic timeline:

Postal denies throwing away anything etc.

It was not a banned substance, and Team Captain Lance Armstrong said he had never heard of it, and was unable to pronounce it. Calling it Acto something etc...

Later it is revealed that the Team did bring it into France with them, Team Manager Mark Gorski (see notes at bottom) said it was for treating skin abrasions, and to treat a staff member who had diabetes (skin ulcers) There are two holes in this story, 1st nycomed made a cream for the skin abrasions, but postal was tossing out vials of injectable solution. 2nd the Alleged diabetic was never identified.

No one really knew what it was for, even the manufactures was vauge, it apparently helped oxygen uptake in tissue, but some said yes, some said no, some mentioned that plenty of racers give doctors money for stuff that does nothing. Maybe its placebo etc.... Its not approved by the FDA for use on humans anyway.

But Thanks to Postals sloppy disposal, it was added to the banned substance list, then debated over, and almost removed, becuase no one really knew what it was.

Then some Olympic Swimmers were caught with it, but they werent diabetic, and they didnt get road rash.

Then it turned up more often in cycling raids, Jesus Manzano mentioned it in his tell all as well. But by then, everyone was worried about EPO etc..

Lance puts in his book that its not a doping product.

And now today, when you type Actovegin into google, you find out that it in fact does speed up oxygen absorbtion, elevates the utilization of glucose, and decreases the formation of lactic acid. It is prescibed now for people who don't get enough oxygen flow to their brain, cerebral hypoxia.

I'd say thats a doping product of substantial worth.

If its not illegal (becuase its unknown) is it doping?


(Gorski was a member of the 1984 Olympic Cycling team, which openly blood doped, as it was unethical, but not illegal at that time. Gorski won gold in the 1000m Sprint, whether he transfused or not, I have no idea)

meb

USDA approval?

Smoothie104

FDA< my bad, its 4 am here, lol

meb

Get some sleep before you miss the Prologue.

domestique

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it fall.... did it make a sound?"

My humble opnion:
Any product (not approved by doctors for medical purposes) used in competive gain over another is doping.

With new drugs constantly being made, I wouldn't be surprised if everyone was on something.... and rider's knew what was being tested and what was not.

Smoothie104

Where are all the Lance fans now?

unkchunk

Now do you understand Aesop's fable "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"? The next lesson is Mary Shelly's "Frankenstein" where the monster turns it's wrath on it's creator.

feltdude

Seriously, get over it. Go out and ride.

DMF 

Smoothie, for more credibility, try posting citations.

In any case, you say it wasn't illegal. So where's the problem? High altitude training has similar effects. Where's the moral outrage over that? Drinking beer helps with stress. So why aren't you condemning Lance as a known beer drinker?

Smoothie104

My credibility in here has been in place for years before you joined this forum. Seems as if you are too lazy to do your own research on a subject you claim to be well versed in, and allegedly passionate about.

Drinking Shiner Bock Beer is not the same as possesing and injecting a bovine based blood substitute, especially one sold only in Russia, and not approved for use in humans.

Also does lying about its existance and acting naive towards its performance enhancing effects fit well with your image of someone who never doped?

Hitchy

It stands to reason that the 'testers' are always going to be one step behind the dopers. How can you test for something that you don't even know exists or that the dopers (in the case of blood doping) are doing. Peckerheads like that 'Balco' dude are coming up with new drugs every day. Its even harder to detect 'products' that occur naturally in the body anyway...that's why they have 'acceptable levels' of this stuff....the downside is it also allows cheats like Hamilton et al, to mount some sort of legal mumbo jumbo arguements about being genetic freaks etc etc. Cycling will never be drug free whilst there is any money or prestige attched to 'winning'. The best we can hope for is that they get caught, rubbed out & personally humiliated...perhaps we should lock the cheats in 'stocks' in the town square & we could all throw tomato's at them!...works for me

ElJamoquio

Lance drinks beer?

I didn't know that.

NOW he's my hero.

DMF 

I'd like to research it. That's why I asked for citations. It has nothing to do with your credibility.

Or is this more of Euro's "truth known to all right-thinking persons"?

DMF 

Obviously it's not the same. But both are putting chemical substances into the body with the intent of improving performance.

Kindly explain why you think one is okay and the other isn't.

DMF 

Don't get me wrong on this, btw. I'm not advocating doping. I'm saying that if you condemn someone for a legal and apparently common practice, you ought to have good reasons. I'd like to hear what they are.

timmyquest

Take a deep breath, quit being an ***hole, and go back to college to learn how to write a convincing thesis. No one is saying your wrong but hell anyone can come here and claim whatever they want. The fact that you ride a lot, and post a lot, does not give you the right to just be a jerk let alone expect everyone to take what you say as the words of god. You can’t even spell possessing or existence and we’re just suppose to listen to you like you are the great enlightener of biekeforums.net.

Get over yourself.


And for what it's worth, i am a big fan of Lance Armstrong, and there is little doubt that he is not entirely honest.

pseudobrit

Perfect irony all wrapped up in one sentence.

Anyone who can't see that the pro peloton has been up to its eyeballs in dope for the past decade in being wilfully blind.

Athletes point to never having tested positive as concrete proof of their cleanliness. But nearly every time a cheater has been caught, it's been with a carload or hotel-roomful of substances and/or supplies. They're caught by the police, not by the chemical testing of blood and urine. Of course, up until that day, that particular athlete could point to a list of negative tests as long as his arm as a reason to believe he was clean. It just goes to show how utterly ineffective the testing procedures are.

What the sport needs are permanent and retroactive bans for any proven doping. You get caught doping this year, you never race again. Your doping gets found out after the fact and you disappear from the record books forever. Like it never even happened. Because honestly, it didn't.

timmyquest

Pseudobrit...you're not going to have a hard time convincing me that lance armstrong or ray lewis doesnt use drugs to help themselves advance in their field.

Smoothie104

Hey timmy, This isn't supposed to be a thesis, ******bag.
It's an informal online discussion forum. God forbid someone mispell something.

I must warn you, I don't know if there are any typos in the following links, so watch out! I'd hate for you to have an aneurysm. (I spelled it right!)

https://www.cyclingnews.com/results/2...ec17news.shtml

https://archive.sportingnews.com/othe...12/280095.html

https://philebus.tamu.edu/pipermail/r...er/000145.html

https://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/3031535.stm

People on these forums constantly ask "if they are doping, how come they don't get caught?"

This Thread was in response to that, to show that a cycling team had obtained a rare performace enhancing substance before the testing authorities even knew it existed.

And while the substance it self was not banned at that time, if used, it would have constituted "chemical or pharmalogical manipulation of the blood" which was prohibited. There was no way to prove it was used, therefore they escaped persecution.

We do know that it was a still only a research drug, not yet approved for human use, and that Postal took extra time to drive the waste to a motorway rest stop in order to dispose of the empty packets.

Either the riders were taking it to enhance their oxygen uptake and decrease the amount of lactate produced. Or the staff was treating a still unknown member for diabetes, with an untested, unapproved derivative of cows blood that was only sold in Russia.

timmyquest

the·sis Audio pronunciation of "thesis" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (thss)
n. pl. the·ses (-sz)

1. A proposition that is maintained by argument.

Really?

What would you call it?

I dont have a problem with your position on the topic...in fact i agree with you. What i have a problem with is that you make the argument then when someone asks for proof you tell them that because you've been a member since october of '03 you dont need to provide that proof.

Smoothie104

I'll give you that, going back and reading it, i did come off as an A-hole. But he could have said "where did you get your info?" instead of ordering me to build my credibility with him. I felt it was more of him telling me i was full of sh*t, than really asking for information.

El Diablo Rojo

Having followed Smoothie's posts over the last two years and cross checking his statements I'll take his word over an obvious Lance lover any day. Smoothie has shown to be well versed in both the history of the sport and the history of doping in the sport.

BTW people who point out grammar and spelling errors on an forum like this are just as big as A-holes as anyone else.

Devil

Shouldn't that be "well-versed"?

timmyquest

Well red devil...having seen his posts over the past two years, having not crossed checked his posts, i can't just assume anything.

I'm not suggesting he has to cite a post in a message board but when someone asks for a little proof i think the worst response is "Trust me, i've been a member of these message boards a long time".

The truth is that i didn't doubt a single one of his words until he typed that.

"Why is that so?"
"Because i say it is"

Thats not a very strong argument.

Furthermore, the spelling doesn't bother me, my spelling is not good at all. But i work for newspapers and if you can't even edit your own writing then how am i suppose to take your words for the truth?

Was i trying to be an ***hole? Yes...to prove a point. I think everyone, that matters, is on the same page now.

El Diablo Rojo

Damn you.....you....you...Devil