Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

MartinLWilliamson wrote:Good opinion piece on the VeloVeritas site:

http://www.veloveritas.co.uk/2012/10/12 ... l-too-far/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some of his previous articles are pretty good as well. There is something sad about it all... but I think professional sport is a bit this way inclined. When they are mounting GPS on players in rugby league and sitting them inside hyperbaric chambers half the time not to mention the supplments etc etc etc I just think we are past being able to say that it's just training hard. They say that drugs are bad, but there is a reason people are taking all these supplements and sitting in hyperbaric chambers - it is beyond the ability of normal human performance, and cannot be maintained without something artificial to support that performance. Steroids, EPO and the like are just much more effective.

Xplora wrote:

MartinLWilliamson wrote:Good opinion piece on the VeloVeritas site:

http://www.veloveritas.co.uk/2012/10/12 ... l-too-far/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some of his previous articles are pretty good as well. There is something sad about it all... but I think professional sport is a bit this way inclined. When they are mounting GPS on players in rugby league and sitting them inside hyperbaric chambers half the time not to mention the supplments etc etc etc I just think we are past being able to say that it's just training hard. They say that drugs are bad, but there is a reason people are taking all these supplements and sitting in hyperbaric chambers - it is beyond the ability of normal human performance, and cannot be maintained without something artificial to support that performance. Steroids, EPO and the like are just much more effective.

It is entirely possible to do these things (play football, race the TdF etc) "clean", just the level of performance is less when done without pharmacological aid.

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:

Xplora wrote:

MartinLWilliamson wrote:Good opinion piece on the VeloVeritas site:

http://www.veloveritas.co.uk/2012/10/12 ... l-too-far/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some of his previous articles are pretty good as well. There is something sad about it all... but I think professional sport is a bit this way inclined. When they are mounting GPS on players in rugby league and sitting them inside hyperbaric chambers half the time not to mention the supplments etc etc etc I just think we are past being able to say that it's just training hard. They say that drugs are bad, but there is a reason people are taking all these supplements and sitting in hyperbaric chambers - it is beyond the ability of normal human performance, and cannot be maintained without something artificial to support that performance. Steroids, EPO and the like are just much more effective.

It is entirely possible to do these things (play football, race the TdF etc) "clean", just the level of performance is less when done without pharmacological aid.

I didn't say that these artificial means aren't clean - hyperbaric chambers are clean... but they aren't natural. Natural is eating a steak every day and lifting the hell out of some weights to help. Unnatural is eating a cocktail of supplements and sitting in a hyperbaric chamber. Both are clean.
Drugs are not clean... but they are essentially doing a similar thing - allowing the body to recover faster and do unnatural things. Sitting in a hyperbaric chamber is on the same playing field as steroids to me.

The difference between a hyperbaric chamber and steroids and other PEDs is that the PEDs have harmfull side effects, that's why they are banned.

Ross wrote:The difference between a hyperbaric chamber and steroids and other PEDs is that the PEDs can have harmfull side effects, that's why they are banned.

And exercising to the point where your body needs a hyperbaric chamber to recover definitely has harmful side effects like injury and related depression. Tons of protein ruins your kidneys. You have to cycle most really cool supplements for a reason.

Just stirring... but you get my point. They are past the point of normal performance already. Drugs only makes it easier to keep up the training.

Matt White from GreenEdge has an article about him in Fairfax papers today. This is indeed the problem that the VeloVeritas blog was talking about - it decimates an entire cohort of careermen in the sport.

Xplora wrote:

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:

Xplora wrote: Some of his previous articles are pretty good as well. There is something sad about it all... but I think professional sport is a bit this way inclined. When they are mounting GPS on players in rugby league and sitting them inside hyperbaric chambers half the time not to mention the supplments etc etc etc I just think we are past being able to say that it's just training hard. They say that drugs are bad, but there is a reason people are taking all these supplements and sitting in hyperbaric chambers - it is beyond the ability of normal human performance, and cannot be maintained without something artificial to support that performance. Steroids, EPO and the like are just much more effective.

It is entirely possible to do these things (play football, race the TdF etc) "clean", just the level of performance is less when done without pharmacological aid.

I didn't say that these artificial means aren't clean - hyperbaric chambers are clean... but they aren't natural. Natural is eating a steak every day and lifting the hell out of some weights to help. Unnatural is eating a cocktail of supplements and sitting in a hyperbaric chamber. Both are clean.
Drugs are not clean... but they are essentially doing a similar thing - allowing the body to recover faster and do unnatural things. Sitting in a hyperbaric chamber is on the same playing field as steroids to me.

Shrug. Well, the TdF was something that no sane person would attempt and no normal person would complete for pretty much its entire history. Fancy riding through unsealed roads in the Pyrenees on a single-speed bike (it might even have been fixed at one stage ). ? featuring brake technology from the 20s? I know I don't. Whatever your view on the rights and wrongs of this, it hasn't become like that, it always was that way. So too the marathon, etc etc. And the human race has been applying technology to these competitions since time immemorial.

Now, all of the things you mention are technologies, even cooking meat. I don't think anyone much has anything against using technology to enhance performance per se.

That's where rules come in. So the distinction right now is crystal clear: whether is it against the rules. I gather hyperbaric chambers are not. Supplements are not (for some value of "supplement"). EPO and steroids are. The trend to break the rules in dangerous and unethical ways is to be deplored, but it's nothing new. Sad but true, I'm not sure this is going to be the spark that lights the powderkeg that breaks the camel's back or whatever. There have been so many doping scandals. What's one more to the powers that be?

high_tea wrote:....even cooking meat.

You cook your steak? SOFT

I think your post sums up my opinion, it's all technology, and if they have no way of enforcing these rules about drugs (especially within the statute of limitations) then it is a fool's errand to make these substances illegal.

high_tea wrote:Fancy riding through unsealed roads in the Pyrenees on a single-speed bike (it might even have been fixed at one stage ). ? featuring brake technology from the 20s? I know I don't. Whatever your view on the rights and wrongs of this, it hasn't become like that, it always was that way. So too the marathon, etc etc. And the human race has been applying technology to these competitions since time immemorial.

Yes, the unfair technological advantage in some of the early tours was...... the train

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1906_Tour_de_France" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In the third stage, four cyclists (Julien Gabory, Henri Gauban, Gaston Tuvache and Maurice Carrere) were disqualified for taking the train.

Cheaters gonna cheat!

Ross wrote:The difference between a hyperbaric chamber and steroids and other PEDs is that the PEDs have harmfull side effects, that's why they are banned.

Just reminding that the drug that microdosing of won Armstrong multiple TDFs, was the same one that helped him recover from cancer. EPO.

Xplora wrote:I didn't say that these artificial means aren't clean - hyperbaric chambers are clean... but they aren't natural. Natural is eating a steak every day and lifting the hell out of some weights to help. Unnatural is eating a cocktail of supplements and sitting in a hyperbaric chamber. Both are clean.
Drugs are not clean... but they are essentially doing a similar thing - allowing the body to recover faster and do unnatural things. Sitting in a hyperbaric chamber is on the same playing field as steroids to me.

You make an unnecessary rod for your own back. What about altitude tents/chambers? Air conditioning? Motorpacing? Heaters? Pre-packaged food? Are these "natural". Where is the line?

The WADA code defines what is and isn't prohibited. That's all we really need to know. The line is drawn for us.

Xplora wrote:

high_tea wrote:....even cooking meat.

You cook your steak? SOFT

I think your post sums up my opinion, it's all technology, and if they have no way of enforcing these rules about drugs (especially within the statute of limitations) then it is a fool's errand to make these substances illegal.

So if technology can't detect something, say murder for instance, we should not have a law against it?

Just because it's difficult to detect something, doesn't mean it should be permitted.

Xplora wrote:

MartinLWilliamson wrote:Good opinion piece on the VeloVeritas site:

http://www.veloveritas.co.uk/2012/10/12 ... l-too-far/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Some of his previous articles are pretty good as well. There is something sad about it all... but I think professional sport is a bit this way inclined. When they are mounting GPS on players in rugby league and sitting them inside hyperbaric chambers half the time not to mention the supplments etc etc etc I just think we are past being able to say that it's just training hard. They say that drugs are bad, but there is a reason people are taking all these supplements and sitting in hyperbaric chambers - it is beyond the ability of normal human performance, and cannot be maintained without something artificial to support that performance. Steroids, EPO and the like are just much more effective.

A good article? Gimme a break. This is the sort of stuff that in another era never got outside of the bar, certainly not given space on a public forum.

Guys, get a grip. Conspiracy against Republicans? The red versus the blue? You have gotta be joking. Sounds like a good theme for the next failed defence by Lance Fanboys. With all the merit that that implies.

Now excuse me while I go out and check that the earth is still flat.

It's not denied in any way that the two big footy codes in this country regularly hit their stars with localised painkiller jabs before and during a match and at least one team used to plug an IV shunt into their players pre match on hot days so they could be quickly rehydrated during breaks.

Legal? Performance enhancing? Likely to have negative health ramifications down the line?

Mulger bill wrote:It's not denied in any way that the two big footy codes in this country regularly hit their stars with localised painkiller jabs before and during a match and at least one team used to plug an IV shunt into their players pre match on hot days so they could be quickly rehydrated during breaks.

Legal? Performance enhancing? Likely to have negative health ramifications down the line?

Yes, I have always found the whole idea of letting that should be rested at least for the rest of the game in order to minimise further harm is instead given a pain killer and sent back on.

It would only be fine when they know that further injury is not a risk.

We will be having a lot of prematurely decrepit footballers in years to come.

ColinOldnCranky wrote:We will be having a lot of prematurely decrepit footballers in years to come.

Dermott Brereton is living proof, just look at his face!

roller wrote:

ColinOldnCranky wrote:We will be having a lot of prematurely decrepit footballers in years to come.

Dermott Brereton is living proof, just look at his face!

Naaaah. Dermott was ALWAYS that ugly.

Mulger bill wrote:It's not denied in any way that the two big footy codes in this country regularly hit their stars with localised painkiller jabs before and during a match and at least one team used to plug an IV shunt into their players pre match on hot days so they could be quickly rehydrated during breaks.

Legal? Performance enhancing? Likely to have negative health ramifications down the line?

I've often wondered how their anti-doping compares with that of, say, cycling. Their recreational drugs policy gets a lot of press, the one on PEDs not so much, not that I've noticed, anyway.

ASADA has a clear list of banned drugs for all sports. Most codes would adopt these rules.

http://www.asada.gov.au/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But how much real testing does the AFL do?

Oxford wrote:

il padrone wrote:But how much real testing does the AFL do?

and they have a 3 strikes policy, the main reason I do not follow AFL anymore.

Thought that was only for the recreationals? Pretty sure they're a signatory to the WADA agreement on PEDs.

So, amongst other tests, all winners are tested? As in cycling. That'd mean about 50% of active players are tested every week.



I doubt that this is done.

There are recreational drugs that are performance enhancing - amphetamines, cocaine to name a few.

There are people who take steroids recreationally - think "aesthetics" like Zyzz.

But there are drugs on the WADA banned list that have no known performance benefit - most notably marijuana.

There are plenty of people, myself included, that think it is on the list for political rather than sporting reasons.

And no the AFL has not signed up to the WADA code or they would be required to impose a 2 year ban for the first failed pot test rather than 3 strikes.

find_bruce wrote:There are recreational drugs that are performance enhancing - amphetamines, cocaine to name a few.

There are people who take steroids recreationally - think "aesthetics" like Zyzz.

But there are drugs on the WADA banned list that have no known performance benefit - most notably marijuana.

There are plenty of people, myself included, that think it is on the list for political rather than sporting reasons.

And no the AFL has not signed up to the WADA code or they would be required to impose a 2 year ban for the first failed pot test rather than 3 strikes.

Marijuana is not a banned substance out of competition. Just ask Michael Phelps.

There are many things on the WADA list that are not performance enhancing, but then that is not the one and only criteria for substances or methods to be included on the list. And nor should it be, otherwise food and water would be on the list.

I wish people would actually read the WADA code before commenting on it.

il padrone wrote:So, amongst other tests, all winners are tested? As in cycling. That'd mean about 50% of active players are tested every week.



I doubt that this is done.

There are over 500 AFL players and about 200 games per season. A lot to cover with in and out of competition testing just for AFL, let alone all other elite sports in Australia.

ASADA conducts around 6,000 tests per year* for all sports.

You do the maths.


* Split between those funded by their own govt provided resources and those that are contracted to them by sporting bodies and individuals.

Alex Simmons/RST wrote:Marijuana is not a banned substance out of competition. Just ask Michael Phelps.

There are many things on the WADA list that are not performance enhancing, but then that is not the one and only criteria for substances or methods to be included on the list. And nor should it be, otherwise food and water would be on the list.

I wish people would actually read the WADA code before commenting on it.

Yes I know marijuana is not banned out of competition & that reinforces the point. The other drugs banned only for in competition use, stimulents, narcotics and glucocorticosteroids all have an element of performance enhancement.

& what makes you think I have not actually read the WADA code Alex ?

World Anti-Doping Code wrote:A substance shall be considered for inclusion on the Prohibited List if the substance is a masking agent or meets two of the following three
criteria:
(1) it has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance;
(2) it represents a potential or actual health risk; or
(3) it is contrary to the spirit of sport.

It clearly does not meet 1 & I struggle to see how it meets either of the other 2 - while there are health risks, there is nothing to indicate that they are worse than tobacco products.