Interesting study of Doping and amateur Triathletes

Kurt Godel

Associations between Physical and Cognitive Doping – A Cross-Sectional Study in 2,997 Triathletes


Results: 2,987 questionnaires were returned (99.7%). 12-month prevalences for physical and cognitive doping were 13.0%
and 15.1%, respectively. The prevalence estimate for physical doping was significantly higher in athletes who also used
physical enhancers, as well as in athletes who took part in the European Championship in Frankfurt compared to those who
did not. The prevalence estimate for cognitive doping was significantly higher in athletes who also used physical and
cognitive enhancers. Moreover, the use of physical and cognitive enhancers were significantly associated and also the use of
physical and cognitive doping.

Kurt Godel

Some interesting stats: among the physical dopers (defined as answering "Yes" to the question "Have you used substances which can only be prescribed by a doctor, are available in a pharmacy, or can be bought on the black market (e.g. anabolic steroids, erythropoietin, stimulants, growth hormones) to enhance your physical performance during the last 12 months?), versus those who responded "No";

Median; Yes : No

Age, years; 38 : 40
Height, cm; 180 : 180
Mass, kg; 74 : 74
BMI ; 23 : 23
Years of training, years; 7 : 7
Hours/week, hours; 14 : 12
Km/week bike, km; 200 : 180
Km/week running, km; 42 : 40
Km/week swimming, km; 6 : 5

RayCun

Interesting that both groups are so similar, also interesting that the average time in the sport is quite long, but performance seems to be poor (that's just my guess, but 12 hours a week with that much experience should equal longer distances, right?)

Oryx

All I see from that is they are pretty much the same. Pretty even split between yes and no on gender lines too.

They mention your log a lot in that report.

Kurt Godel

Oryx wrote: »

All I see from that is they are pretty much the same. Pretty even split between yes and no on gender lines too.

It's a really large study, and the similar numbers suggest that doping isn't any "magic pill" that substitutes for training (although a >10% weekly training load among dopers is quite significant). What is surprizing is just how similar the numbers are, in that dopers don't have a great big red doping head on them, or are bulked up, or whatever. Bearing in mind the likelihood the doping figures are underrepresented (many stopped filling out the form once the questions got sensitive), the numbers who are taking pharma aids are a lot higher than I would have thought.

The real interest would be a measure of these numbers versus performance, but that's not likely!

Oryx wrote: »

They mention your log a lot in that report.

Fazz

If these are the results from a similar survey like the one I participated at Wiesbaden 70.3 then I'd take the results with a pinch of salt.

There were like 2 or 3 cryptic questions and linked to other answers.
Id say there was a lot of invalid responses such was the wording.

Stuff like:

A - Have you taken illegal substance s for performance.?

B - If you've answered truthfully and your birth month is in the first half of the year tick yes in this box

C - If your birth month is in the second half of the year And you haven't answered truthfully tick this box.


I realise the contradiction but they were that cryptic and nonsensical!

Kurt Godel

Fazz wrote: »

If these are the results from a similar survey like the one I participated at Wiesbaden 70.3 then I'd take the results with a pinch of salt.

There were like 2 or 3 cryptic questions and linked to other answers.
Id say there was a lot of invalid responses such was the wording.

Stuff like:

A - Have you taken illegal substance s for performance.?

B - If you've answered truthfully and your birth month is in the first half of the year tick yes in this box

C - If your birth month is in the second half of the year And you haven't answered truthfully tick this box.


I realise the contradiction but they were that cryptic and nonsensical!

They asked similar questions in this survey- thats a common statistical device to eliminate random box ticking. The results of the study have been adequately tested for statistical errors, and aren't really up for debate (the very large sample size and testing to 95% confidence intervals mean that the sample results can be regarded as representative of the Triathlon population as a whole, or at least to that population that competes at a similar level as the events tested). There's an awful lot of Sports Science that uses spurious methods to produce erratic results, but this study isn't one of them. It's pretty concrete statistically speaking, and pretty damning.

shotgunmcos

One of the things that turned me somewhat off tri. I'd imagine its rife at mdots

MrCreosote

Big problem in the States I'd say as well- there's this vogue there for testosterone "replacement" of naturally declining levels, or "support" of levels suppressed by hard training. The guys taking it might even argue that it isn't doping, cos you know it's just putting things back to where they should be.:rolleyes:

Similar to the thyroid replacement for those top marathoners in the US.

TRR

MrCreosote wrote: »

Big problem in the States I'd say as well- there's this vogue there for testosterone "replacement" of naturally declining levels, or "support" of levels suppressed by hard training. The guys taking it might even argue that it isn't doping, cos you know it's just putting things back to where they should be.:rolleyes:

Similar to the thyroid replacement for those top marathoners in the US.

not just the top US marathoners, top US distance runners and associated British double olympic champions.

Getting back to original post, these figures don't surprise me one bit. I mentioned this before but there is a group of triathletes that train close to me. Met a couple of them one night in the pub a while back while they were training for IM Wales and they were telling me they had bought stuff on the internet (EPO and some steroids). They didn't even bat an eyelid!!! Gas thing is that they didn't seem to be putting in the training in as far as I could see and as Kurt pointed out probably thought of them as magic pills. I suppose itl's worth mentioning a couple of these guys are quite dim so god only knows how they were administering said PEDs/magic pills

Oryx

I know so few people seriously into their training, that the likelihood of knowing someone who takes illegal supplements is slim.

Only heard it mentioned once, when I was with a group abroad, they were discussing some kind of supplement that seemed to be in a very grey area of legality, I cant remember what it was, but more enhancement than full on doping. But as mentioned above they didn't seem to care about whether it was illegal, just if it worked.

peter kern

just scanned the paper so please appologise if what i say is wrong
but its not that 1 in 7 is a doper as they dont use WADE code . And I guess one is only an official doper when you break that code
it ,s 1 in 7 looks to improve his perfomance without training and using nutritional "enhancer" ( now if we add drafting and buying aero gear that number would be close to 80 %)

If we use caffeine ( in wada i believe caffeine is caffeine regardless of us of tablets or coffee its limited to something like 1200 mg before classified as doping)
given the fact that it was filled in by 30 % in english and in many places you can buy caffeine tablets outside a pharmacy that would have to have an impact in the study for cognitive doping . Wada rules would have been better

Still, it's interesting that Frankfurt scores very differently than Wiesbaden when both are European champs . ( but again could this be that an ironman often gets more foreign atheltes than a 70.3 race ? or is it the hawaii spot factor ?

But I would still be interested if wada code was applyied how many people dope. as I would assume this that number would be way way lower. ( still a big problem but far less than drafting )

As an aside, why do females do not like answering this questionnaire since the participation rate of females is higher than the 12.7 % of the females that took part in this survey?

bryangiggsy

One in 7 imo is a load of bs. No he did not beat me becaue he is fitter than me he beat me because he is doping. The one in seven becomes bigger than the 6 in 7. Accept the fact if your beaten out there your beaten fair And square by the overwhelming majority of fitter athletes. Yeah there may be 1 bad apple in he bunch but 1 in 7...BS

tegerman

The 1 in 7 figure does not surprise me at all. Call me a cynic, but imho a larger percentage of elite athletes in every sport are doing the same. How else do you explain athletes in countrys with lax testing getting world records and beating known dopers? Or other certain countrys with lax testing and known histories in drug use suddenly dominating in a broad range of sports?

Knowing what I know of human nature, I would be surprised if the 1 in 7 figure is not an underestimate.