Australian Cycling Forums - Bicycles Network Australia

Ross wrote:

twizzle wrote:

Ross wrote:So do you (fellow forumers) reckon that cyclists are using peptides like footballers allegedly are? Are they tested for them?

Hell yes, and (AFAIK) there aren't any tests for peptides.

So how did the footballers get busted?

Interesting link saing Peptides are deadly - http://www.triplem.com.au/melbourne/spo ... -cjc-1295/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Essendon officials wrote a letter to the AFL stating they may have had a "supplements" program that was possibly illegal. I'm not from Melbourne, but thats my understanding of what happened.

I didnt think there was any peptide tests either, I am not aware of any player actually testing positive for them.

The league player from Canberra was busted for trafficking peptides to other players and I think they had evidence he was taking them, but not a positive test. Again, my understanding, happy to be proven wrong.

Stop using the term peptides and it will clear things up. While they were peptides that is not the issue. We consume a lot of peptides that are totally legal. The fact it is a peptide refers to one of the bonds within the molecule. The media (and AFL) have dubbed it as peptides so it doesnt actually sound like it is a performance enhancing drug. It is a media ploy. From my understanding (I have not actually looked into it properly) what they were taking was a steroid (or a precursor to it).

I also think it came about due to an investigation into the bikies, and it was discovered that they were buying off the bikies. There was no investigation into it when the revelations came out.

True, the media and Essendon have been down playing the whole thing by avoiding drugs/doping and using "supplements"

Dank took it even further and would refer to them not even as peptides but as amino acids to down play them as well.

If it was cycling involved (not to say they are not using them) they would be blowing it up big time!

michaelten wrote:Essendon officials wrote a letter to the AFL stating they may have had a "supplements" program that was possibly illegal. I'm not from Melbourne, but thats my understanding of what happened

Would it be overly cynical to think that the AwFuL grabbed this particular ball and headed for the square, ensuring at all times that the spotlight was on one team as a way of keeping others in the shadows?

Personally, I do not see how the practice of "needling" (targeted IM painkillers before and during a match) is not seen as performance enhancing.
If Billy wants to play with a torn hammy don't dope him up so he can run about like a teenager, let him limp!

vander wrote: From my understanding (I have not actually looked into it properly) what they were taking was a steroid (or a precursor to it).

The drug cheats are my team, unfortunately, Vander. Yep, forwards shooting up the field, etc etc.

Peptide is probably the better description.

IIRC, it's a fragment of Human Growth Hormone missing the steroid bit.

It was so new it hadn't been banned yet, which was exactly why Dank used it.

wombatK wrote:That's what I value about PED free sporting competition - it tests whether preparation has met opportunity.

Not that I fundamentally disagree with you, but I am interested in working out where the line is and why - even if it is only my line. I am uncomfortable with going on a gut feeling as to some things being wrong and some things being OK. In that vein...

wombatK wrote:But it's too long a bow to suggest that correcting dietary deficiencies with iodine supplementation is "performance enhancing". It's no moreso than suggesting eating is performance enhancing.

But eating and, particularly, performance enhancing food supplements are big business. And some of them surely cross the line into PEDs. Not too long ago caffeine was on the banned list and people got done for too much caffeine in their system - but that is just eating isn't it? What about creatine? Seems to be popular with bodybuilders and baseball sluggers but it's not on the banned list. Chewing on cocoa leaves gives you a mild stimulant effect - don't know if you will test positive for cocaine or whether it is considered performance enhancing.

Is it that we dislike when a chemist gets involved and extracts the active ingredient from food, but are OK with anything you can prepare on a household stove? When does a food supplement become a PED?

jasimon wrote:But eating and, particularly, performance enhancing food supplements are big business. And some of them surely cross the line into PEDs. Not too long ago caffeine was on the banned list and people got done for too much caffeine in their system - but that is just eating isn't it? What about creatine? Seems to be popular with bodybuilders and baseball sluggers but it's not on the banned list. Chewing on cocoa leaves gives you a mild stimulant effect - don't know if you will test positive for cocaine or whether it is considered performance enhancing.

Is it that we dislike when a chemist gets involved and extracts the active ingredient from food, but are OK with anything you can prepare on a household stove? When does a food supplement become a PED?

Caffeine is still banned if you have far too much in your system, Creatine is used in track sprinters (possibly road sprinters) for endurance performance it doesnt do much (or anything).

jasimon wrote:
Is it that we dislike when a chemist gets involved and extracts the active ingredient from food, but are OK with anything you can prepare on a household stove? When does a food supplement become a PED?

It's an interesting question, and one I've been thinking about for a while. I don't know the answer but personally I won't consume caffeine or creatine as neither feels right to me (not that i'm a pro by any stretch of the imagination of course).

jasimon wrote:Is it that we dislike when a chemist gets involved and extracts the active ingredient from food, but are OK with anything you can prepare on a household stove? When does a food supplement become a PED?

For things like iodine, there is a well established science that a minimum level of it is needed for normal (i.e. not sporting) bodily functions. There is
chemistry involved, but it is restorative rather than performance enhancing. It has been proven safe in scientific trials at the dosage levels
normally administered (e.g. in bread).

It can be hard to distinguish between restorative and performance enhancing. Asthma bronchodilators, although developed for entirely
restorative purposes, appeared to be abused by some athletes who believed they were performance enhancing. WADA concluded some
weren't, but still banned them because of the adverse effect on athletes health with long term use.

Other substances like caffeine have been less easily defined as performance enhancing, and so previous bans were over-turned.
WADA "monitors" its use - in case stronger evidence emerges of its performance benefits. Or equally, of adverse health effects
from very high level consumption (e.g. in energy drinks).

A food supplement ingredient is, until tested and approved by ASADA/WADA, by definition a PED (guilty until proven innocent).
Athletes are all told this, and while the AFL has attempted to deflect blame onto the coach and support staff, it's by definition the athletes
responsibility to not put unknowns in their mouth.

It's the risk to athletes health that "crosses the line". We've seen the worst of it with the East German athletes, and need to protect athletes from
themselves and/or their less scrupulous competitors. In the case of the AFL and ARL, there's a suggestion that the substances
and/or supplements being administered were not tested in any scientific study - the players were the unconsenting guinea pigs. Ethically, that's deplorable.

New film out "The Armstrong Lie" - the film-maker Alex Gibney was able to exclusively shoot a film on / with Lance Armstrong in 2009 at the time the doping allegation were really growing momentum. The film was selved - no longer relevant.

Taking a fresh look at the footage late last year, Gibney and producer Frank Marshall recognized that they had captured the incredible truth that had been "hiding in plain sight," he said.

"We realized that we had all of this stuff that we didn't know was so important then, but was now important," said Marshall.

source

There are two views, one is where I can't stand this fellow and the other is looking back, where I suspect the film won't deliver new insights rather confirm Armstrongs conviction.

Jonathon Tiernan Locke written to by UCI, asked to explain blood values. Now we know how he won the Tour of Britain in 2012. Sky hired him, of course.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/new ... 320651.ece

ldrcycles wrote:

jasimon wrote:
Is it that we dislike when a chemist gets involved and extracts the active ingredient from food, but are OK with anything you can prepare on a household stove? When does a food supplement become a PED?

It's an interesting question, and one I've been thinking about for a while. I don't know the answer but personally I won't consume caffeine or creatine as neither feels right to me (not that i'm a pro by any stretch of the imagination of course).

WADA draws the line in the sand for us with respect to prohibited substances. As to choices of what to use, well layer on that things that are illegal and are matters of law of the state you are in. After that it's a matter of ethical considerations and personal choices as to what you do or do not choose to use but doping is only that which is prohibited under the WADA code.

e.g. there might be things I'd consider reasonable to test the use of with an elite athlete and even though there may be no specific impediment from a WADA or legal perspective I wouldn't even consider such things for a junior as it would cross my personal ethical standards.

"Bio passport expert raises concerns about Horner's published biological passport values"

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/15660 ... alues.aspx

No wonder the World Tour teams don't want to touch him.

Ryder Hesjedal admits to doping.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/hesjeda ... n-to-usada

Man that really sucks to hear that one.

I've got to agree with a bunch of comments on that article, how are we supposed to believe that ANOTHER pro "doped once XX years ago and then never did it again"?

I'm in two minds about Hesjedal. I like the fact that he went to the relevant bodies without being busted and before he was outed by Rassmussen - it puts him ahead of the long, long, long list of riders, including Rassmussen, who continued to deny even in the face of overwhelming evidence. But like LDR I am sceptical that Hesjedal just stopped, supposedly just a bit more than 8 years ago.

find_bruce wrote:I'm in two minds about Hesjedal. I like the fact that he went to the relevant bodies without being busted and before he was outed by Rassmussen - it puts him ahead of the long, long, long list of riders, including Rassmussen, who continued to deny even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

But he didn't do that, according to the statement released by Garmin-Sharp:

"Ryder is no exception and a year ago when he was contacted he cooperated fully and truthfully testified to USADA and CCES. For this reason and because of our desire for 100 per cent truth and reconciliation in the sport of cycling, we support him."

Also, I wouldn't be so sure Rasmussen hadn't already outed him, or warned him that he was going to. Rasmussen made a detailed confession in February.

"Rasmussen’s confession and cooperation hasn’t just been confined to the Danish authorities, with NOC and Sports Confederation of Denmark), The Netherlands (Doping Autoriteit) and the USA (USADA) and WADA all being consulted."

Like Stuart O'Grady, he's only confessed days before it was to be revealed in print.

Once again, doping is so prevalent in those days. The sport just needs a completely new page in preparation for the genetic/molecular modifications.

sogood wrote:Once again, doping is so prevalent in those days. The sport just needs a completely new page in preparation for the genetic/molecular modifications.

Brave new world.

ldrcycles wrote:

jasimon wrote:
Is it that we dislike when a chemist gets involved and extracts the active ingredient from food, but are OK with anything you can prepare on a household stove? When does a food supplement become a PED?

personally I won't consume caffeine or creatine as neither feels right to me (not that i'm a pro by any stretch of the imagination of course).

You won't ride with caffeine...I won't ride without it !
Sent from my HTC Desire S using Tapatalk 2

It's a bit disturbing to hear that the new head of Cycling Australia will be Gerry Ryan, not because I doubt his integrity but due to the potential conflict of interest given he's the owner of GreenEdge.

Ballan faces two year ban.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/coni-pr ... for-ballan

Doping bans seem to be a window into past discretions. Yes there should be consequences but ones of the unsatisfying pasts is that it seems to take time.

Armstrong says Verbruggen (ex-UCI President) helped doping cover up. Looks like Armstrong is starting to open up about the UCI's role in this mess.

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/lance-a ... g-cover-up