Is all doping cheating?

ROK ON

I would like to stet a thread about practices that exist in cycling (and possibly many othe sports) where athletes umdergoe treatments and / or take medicinal products that are not banned. Many of these are done for performancing enhancement.

The motivation here is not to out riders - that is a surefire way to get this thread closed. Simply want to stimulate discussion without names or innuendo.

Yesterday I read an article where a team doctor suggested that many of the recent spate o crashes were in his opinion due to riders taking the painkiller, Tramadol.

Whatever about the assertion of the doctor, riders have long resorted to a legal cocktail of medicines to dull the pain and aches associated with the sport.
My view is that this is doping. If you need stuff to compete because your body is sore and fatigued then you should IMHO be recovering not participating.
I was happy to see TJVanGarderan and Steve Cummings out te practice of the painkilling drink late in races.

Also, what do people make of oxygen tents. Used by many athletes across many sports. Again IMHO it is cheating.

What are peoples views.

Inquitus

Oxygen tents just simulate training at altitude, can't see how one can be considered cheating and the other not.

Re: Tramadol, if there's nothing wrong with you then you shouldn't be taking it, but if you are 3 weeks into a stage race and have developed saddle sores or similar is it really cheating to take something to alleviate the pain and allow you to finish, or Geriant Thomas riding with a Fractured hip, or any other heroes of the sport who have ridden with broken collar bones and the like? maybe apply TUE's to the likes of Tramadol? to seperate the genuine cases from the "cheating".

lennymc

I think you are just old fashioned ROK ON. You don't even own a power meter ffs!!

bren_mc

As I see it, the determining factor in deciding if any substance or practice should be banned is whether or not is poses a threat to the health of the individual using it i.e. nobody should have to put their health at risk in order to be able compete on a "level playing field".

TheBlaaMan

Use of oxygen tents are not doping/cheating, but I guess it - and training at altitude - are ones for discussion as a number of grey areas in sport. I was surprised to hear Mo Farah indicate that he uses them for a few days before big races. Then again, how do you deal with the competitive advantage that the Kenyan athlethes or the Columbian cyclists have by virtue of their location of birth. Its complicated !

buffalo

Would a system that treated all medicinal drugs as doping - but with TUEs accepted for them - be feasible? And then riders would have to disclose how much of what they were taking, and could be published (although, is that ethical?).

Which would allow us to see hey, Rider X won Race Y, but he had to take 500mg of Tramadol to do it. And then we could judge them good and proper as real men/women, or not.

smacl

If the broad opinion of the medical profession is that cycling while on Tramadol leads to significantly higher likelihood of crashes, it should be banned on that basis. Also worth remembering that the crash is likely to effect others.

Cycling seems to suffer from the prisoner's dilemma more than most sports. Difficult one to solve.

ROK ON

Sorry I should clarify. If a rider takes a painkiller for a saddle sore or road rash then that is not the issue for me.
The issue is that it seems painkillers mixed with caffeine seem to be used as a soft stimulant/dull the pain sontgat folks can finish. That is the point.
Oxygen tents - I cannot see how this can be considered natural. In my odd view of the world it is cheating. I don't know why.
I don't view scientific training such as PMs/lactate tests etc as cheating. For me tents cross a line (an arbitrary one I admit).

smacl

ROK ON wrote: »

For me tents cross a line (an arbitrary one I admit).

Would flying off to a high altitude location to train be considered cheating by that criteria? Similar net effect.

jinkypolly

smacl wrote: »

Would flying off to a high altitude location to train be considered cheating by that criteria? Similar net effect.

That's exactly what I was thinking.

Beasty

I would like to make it absolutely clear that I have never knowingly taken Tramadol...

jinkypolly

I'll hold my hand up and admit I've taken energy gels before, some even had...had caffeine in them.

maloner

Would a load of redbull before a race would be considered doping (say at A3 level for example)?

barrabus

Finish Bottles..

http://www.inthegc.com/2012/10/cycling-and-truth-about-finish-bottles.html

Junior

I suppose the question is posed the wrong way - is all cheating doping ? And if there's a glaring hole in the rules and you exploit it is this cheating also ?

Russman

Inquitus wrote: »

Oxygen tents just simulate training at altitude, can't see how one can be considered cheating and the other not.

There was a really good documentary on RTE (yes, I know !!) in the run up to the last Olympics discussing drugs and the whole issue, and this point came up re oxygen tents. Basically the argument was to do with some athletes having access to oxygen tents and some not and was this an unfair advantage or just the way of the world. It was a genuinely fascinating programme.

One part of the show was where the presenter (can't remember his name) was going to take EPO for a number of weeks and see how/if his performance changed - he was a runner, better than recreational but I don't think elite. Anyway the docs stopped him taking it after one or two weeks as his blood values were getting into dangerous territory.

They also touched on supplements and if they should be considered "doping" or not, and where is the line between drugs and legal supplements. It brought up a lot of ethical questions and dilemmas, still not sure what I think about it tbh.

Actually another thing they questioned was different types of swimsuit giving performance advantages and was this right or wrong.

Like I say it was fascinating and raised a lot of issues, worth checking out.

godtabh

Beasty wrote: »

I would like to make it absolutely clear that I have never knowingly taken Tramadol...

Probably something stronger recently.

In Kimmages book he talks about people taking VC injections and the likes to aid recovery (there was other stuff that he wasnt sure about). Thats a competitive advantage.

Under what criteria are PED banned? ie is it aids recovery, makes you go faster (or are they just the effects?)

Brian?

Oxygen tents aren't banned because they don't have any negative health implications to the user. If they're not banned then it's not cheating. I don't see it as a grey area either. Are you going to ban being Columbian as well?

Should tramadol require a TUE? Possibly, that's for the doctors at WADA to decide.

Maybe my view is too simplistic, but if it's not banned then it's not cheating. Everyone has the same level playing field.

Brian?

godtabh wrote: »

Probably something stronger recently.

In Kimmages book he talks about people taking VC injections and the likes to aid recovery (there was other stuff that he wasnt sure about). Thats a competitive advantage.

Under what criteria are PED banned? ie is it aids recovery, makes you go faster (or are they just the effects?)

Banned substance usually pose a danger to the user. Caffeine, creatine and other benign substances slightly enhance performance but are not banned.

shutup

Inquitus wrote: »

Re: Tramadol, if there's nothing wrong with you then you shouldn't be taking it, but if you are 3 weeks into a stage race and have developed saddle sores or similar is it really cheating to take something to alleviate the pain and allow you to finish, or Geriant Thomas riding with a Fractured hip, or any other heroes of the sport who have ridden with broken collar bones and the like? maybe apply TUE's to the likes of Tramadol? to seperate the genuine cases from the "cheating".

I don't agree. If it's ok to take for an injury or sickness it should be ok to take for everyone. Otherwise a rider could be at a disadvantage because he is not technically injured or sick.
I know it's harsh but it's not the fault of anyone the somebody else needs medicine.

mcgratheoin

Russman wrote: »

One part of the show was where the presenter (can't remember his name) was going to take EPO for a number of weeks and see how/if his performance changed - he was a runner, better than recreational but I don't think elite. Anyway the docs stopped him taking it after one or two weeks as his blood values were getting into dangerous territory.

Ian O'Riordan from the Irish Times was the reporter. IIRC his initial tests showed that his natural haemocrit count was too high to take EPO safely, even under the supervision of a doctor.

mcgratheoin

shutup wrote: »

I don't agree. If it's ok to take for an injury or sickness it should be ok to take for everyone. Otherwise a rider could be at a disadvantage because he is not technically injured or sick.
I know it's harsh but it's not the fault of anyone the somebody else needs medicine.

EPO and HGH are both prescribed for certain conditions. There's a big difference between a genuine therapeutic use and a performance enhancing use.

Lumen

shutup wrote: »

If it's ok to take for an injury or sickness it should be ok to take for everyone. Otherwise a rider could be at a disadvantage because he is not technically injured or sick.

In normal sports, athletes aren't pressured to compete when injured or sick!

ford2600

Lumen wrote: »

In normal sports, athletes aren't pressured to compete when injured or sick!

I've seen too many painkilling injections given in gaa dressing rooms to know that's not the case.

Young men will always do dangerous stupid stuff to gain an edge and win. Not saying it's right but competitive sports people will often play by what you can get away with rather than rules.

Watch early part of rugby game when teams are trying to figure out what referee will allow.

ZiabR

ROK ON wrote: »

Oxygen tents - I cannot see how this can be considered natural. In my odd view of the world it is cheating. I don't know why.
I don't view scientific training such as PMs/lactate tests etc as cheating. For me tents cross a line (an arbitrary one I admit).

But then the sport will NEVER be a level playing field. How can it be when riders born at high altitude have an immediate advantage over the rest of the riders.

I see nothing wrong with Oxygen Tents personally. If a rider was to be sent to a place of high altitude for training would you class this as the same as using an Oxygen Tent?

godtabh

Lumen wrote: »

In normal sports, athletes aren't pressured to compete when injured or sick!

That should probably read amateur sports

ROK ON

Lumen wrote: »

In normal sports, athletes aren't pressured to compete when injured or sick!

What is a normal sport? The amount of sports where people are pressurised to play while not full fit is legion.
This is not simply pro sports. I have seen this in an U16 rugby team.

Paddigol

Surely it's not meant to be a level playing field? It's about finding the finest human specimen of bike rider/ athlete. If Colombians have an advantage over us, and allows them to be better cyclists and athletes, then maybe we should just suck it up and accept it?

What happens if Colombians use oxygen tents to even further improve their performances?

Great thread anyway.

mcgratheoin

Paddigol wrote: »

What happens if Colombians use oxygen tents to even further improve their performances?

It doesn't work - diminishing returns and all that. I tend to think of oxygen tents in terms of financial doping. Not every athlete can afford to sleep high train low, and oxygen tents simulate this environment at a lower cost. The flip side of this is that not every athlete can afford an oxygen tent either. Extending this analysis, financial doping has very large effect on top level sport - cycling is a pretty good example of this at present - relatively expensive equipment (bikes) and developed infrastructure (roads) is needed to train & compete at the highest level, so the sport tends to have a bigger presence in locations where the facilities and training options are available. I'd be interested to hear people's take on how economics assists and hinders the development of athletes.

lennymc

Paddigol wrote: »

What happens if Colombians use oxygen tents to even further improve their performances?

Scrappy600

Beasty wrote: »

I would like to make it absolutely clear that I have never knowingly taken Tramadol...

I take it regularly enough for a long term serious illness with lots of pain and I can tell you this much, if you're capable of cycling competitively even the day after taking it then you deserve to be wherever you want in the pack as I struggle to function even the day after!

rubadub

Inquitus wrote: »

Oxygen tents just simulate training at altitude, can't see how one can be considered cheating and the other not.

I think they are brushed off because they seem fairly benign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_tent

Oxygen therapy often benefits patients by providing more oxygen to their lungs and consequently to their tissues. Typically, the treatment raises the amount of oxygen in the blood, decreases load on the heart, and facilitates breathing.

now what if they used some other method to oxygenate the blood

http://panvent.blogspot.ie/2009/09/using-dialysis-machine-to-do-ecmo.html

Another technology that almost certainly will be in shortage during the pandemic is access to ECMO (Extra Corporeal Membrane Oxygenation) machines. ECMO machines oxygenate the blood directly using a gas permeable membrane.

Now if you read that link it goes on about anti-coagulants, but you can probably get my point. I reckon if a guy was hooked up to some sort of huge expensive machine and oxygenated his blood to the exact same level as high altitude or tent then people would have more object than to the tent.

And what about artificial testosterone boosting treatments, if you do it to get the same levels you might if you watched porn all day is it OK, or whatever other "natural methods" there are of boosting testosterone.


ordinary baking soda AKA bread soda, just over a euro for 500g in most supermarkets, can be used to enhance performance

some experts, including Dr Deitrick, claim that its effects are so powerful that it shouldn't have a place in competitive sport. “It comes down to whether or not the athlete has a competitive advantage by taking an aid,” he says. “And in the case of sodium bicarbonate, I believe the answer is yes. It violates the spirit of fair play by artificially enhancing performance.”

Harrybelafonte

rubadub wrote: »

ordinary baking soda AKA bread soda, just over a euro for 500g in most supermarkets, can be used to enhance performance

Many wonder why the ingestion of sodium bicarbonate isn’t commonly used by more athletes. This is because when taken in large amounts, sodium bicarbonate can actually cause harm to the stomach instead of neutralizing the stomach to become less acidic. Side effects of sodium bicarbonate include nausea, stomach cramping, and diarrhea. It has also been found to leave an unwelcoming taste in the mouth. Drinking large amounts of water to accompany the sodium bicarbonate will aid in reducing the side effects. It is said that ingesting about 300 mg of sodium bicarbonate per kilogram of body weight approximately 2-3 hours before engaging in exercise is likely to delay fatigue and maintain the level of performance.

http://www.conceptualchemistry.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=88:sodium-bicarbonate-in-athletic-performance&catid=48:special-topics-chapter-10&Itemid=391

Creatine would be a safer bet?

pprendeville

I was happy to see TJVanGarderan and Steve Cummings out te practice of the painkilling drink late in races.

Pardon my ignorance but what's that mean? Great topic by the way.

pprendeville

mcgratheoin wrote: »

It doesn't work - diminishing returns and all that. I tend to think of oxygen tents in terms of financial doping. Not every athlete can afford to sleep high train low, and oxygen tents simulate this environment at a lower cost. The flip side of this is that not every athlete can afford an oxygen tent either. Extending this analysis, financial doping has very large effect on top level sport - cycling is a pretty good example of this at present - relatively expensive equipment (bikes) and developed infrastructure (roads) is needed to train & compete at the highest level, so the sport tends to have a bigger presence in locations where the facilities and training options are available. I'd be interested to hear people's take on how economics assists and hinders the development of athletes.

Here's a really good article on top level cycling in China: http://cyclingiq.com/2013/07/03/insight-twisted-pathways-fail-chinas-road-cyclists/

To make a long story short, top level cyclists have less chance of being economically successful compared to recreational athletes. Main reasons are the way the system is setup encourages provincial coaches to make money by finding the best riders but not allowing them to further develop while pocketing money for their own interests (lack of social welfare system contributes a lot to this mentality here). The way finances are allocated seems atrocious. China has the resources, good roads, mountains aplenty, a top class velodrome but all are seemingly going to waste.

unichall

Brian? wrote: »

Oxygen tents aren't banned because they don't have any negative health implications to the user. If they're not banned then it's not cheating. I don't see it as a grey area either. Are you going to ban being Columbian as well?

Should tramadol require a TUE? Possibly, that's for the doctors at WADA to decide.

Maybe my view is too simplistic, but if it's not banned then it's not cheating. Everyone has the same level playing field.

I can't agree with what you are saying here. I understand your reasoning but let me put it like this.

Pre 2000 the drug THG was not widely known of. It was a designer drug developed to enhance athletic performance by a lab in LA (Balco) and a select few athletes benefited from using it, most notably Marion Jones. This drug was not known about widely, there was no test to detect it but surely you couldn't condone those taking it by saying if it wasn't banned it was Ok?

As for oxygen tents I don't see it as a doping issue anymore than team sky going to Mt Teide for training camps

kumate_champ07

maloner wrote: »

Would a load of redbull before a race would be considered doping (say at A3 level for example)?

caffeine had a set limit but theres none anymore, its popular with swimmers, now theyre allowed as much as they like as are all other sports. its also 1 of a few supplements proven to work!

kumate_champ07

the UFC is going thru a bit of a problem, they had previously allowed exemptions for medically supervised testosterone therapy, only if they could prove they needed it. some fighters had genuine medical conditions. others had low natural testosterone because they had used alot of steroids in the past which screwed up their hormone balance, so they could get the cert.

the interesting thing is that you still have to be tested(same rules as IOC/cycling) and if you fail youre in trouble, the idea is to bring the testosterone back up to natural levels, tho theres a wide enough margin of what is considered natural. some fighters would taper before a fight so their levels would go back down to 'average'. fans and other fighters dont think its fair as those fighters can train harder and recover better, mma is all about recovery from constant injuries.

its actually very popular in Brazil with ordinary men not involved in sport, same in North America. our bodies produce the stuff, there has to be a certain amount of track sprinters that use it and make sure they get to normal levels at competitions. I know the bikes are better but todays sprinters are faster than 'Eastern Block steroid for breakfast dinner and tea sprinters' from a few decades back, they knew about what the human body was capable of and how to get there

Ole Rodrigo

^. Thats a good point. Your testosterone levels naturally fall after a certain age - around 34 - so is it fair to replenish those levels to compete with riders in their twenties ?

kumate_champ07

ror_74 wrote: »

^. Thats a good point. Your testosterone levels naturally fall after a certain age - around 34 - so is it fair to replenish those levels to compete with riders in their twenties ?

I personally believe that would be fair, but not if its banned obviously( don't agree with a 34 yr old having an unfair advantage over another 34yr old)

kumate_champ07

Bigger Stronger Faster is a great watch for anyone who hasnt seen it yet. in war Jet pilots use amphetamines even tho they are illegal, its so they can get the job done, musicians take beta blockers so they can play better and get the good Orchestral jobs

Harrybelafonte

As it stands testosterone is beginning to be used as a supplement in older age similar to HRT for men. Let's be honest though, you're pretty much out of professional sport when it's being used. But I'm not sure if you're tested in the Masters etc.

kumate_champ07

back to the age thing, the days of 30+ yr olds being Irish national sprint champion are gone, they had it handy for a while but theres some seriously quick 17,18,19 yr olds at the moment. up until 2years ago it was 26-32yr olds winning the senior title

kumate_champ07

Harrybelafonte wrote: »

As it stands testosterone is beginning to be used as a supplement in older age similar to HRT for men. Let's be honest though, you're pretty much out of professional sport when it's being used. But I'm not sure if you're tested in the Masters etc.

theyre tested but probably not many of them. the last flying 200m record from a couple of years ago (35+) was by a guy doping

Harrybelafonte

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

Bigger Stronger Faster is a great watch for anyone who hasnt seen it yet. in war Jet pilots use amphetamines even tho they are illegal, its so they can get the job done, musicians take beta blockers so they can play better and get the good Orchestral jobs

US Air Force + drug use + end of war = no drugs for unemployed airforce pilots = Hells Angels.

shaka

ford2600 wrote: »

I've seen too many painkilling injections given in gaa dressing rooms to know that's not the case.

Young men will always do dangerous stupid stuff to gain an edge and win. Not saying it's right but competitive sports people will often play by what you can get away with rather than rules.

Watch early part of rugby game when teams are trying to figure out what referee will allow.

When I was young I had a few pain killing injections mainly prior to GAA , felt pressurised a few times in college. See local GAA clubs still at it prior to championship games.

It was never an option or encouraged with the Rugby,Soccer or anything else.

Henlars67

I've taken cortisone to get me through a football match on more than one occasion.

Was advised not to do it, but made the call myself.

Badly wanted to play, but would have been in too much pain without it.

Could have done lasting damage, but luckily I didn't.

feck sake lads

bring back LANCE

RobFowl

Henlars67 wrote: »

I've taken cortisone to get me through a football match on more than one occasion.

Was advised not to do it, but made the call myself.

Badly wanted to play, but would have been in too much pain without it.

Could have done lasting damage, but luckily I didn't.

FWIW To do that now would be an anti doping offence and if caught/detected would lead to a 2-4 year ban.
Also re lasting damage, only time will tell.
Kudos for the honesty.

Koobcam

bren_mc wrote: »

As I see it, the determining factor in deciding if any substance or practice should be banned is whether or not is poses a threat to the health of the individual using it i.e. nobody should have to put their health at risk in order to be able compete on a "level playing field".

This is effectively an argument against professional cycling, since it definitely poses a threat to health (it's too bloody hard) and is pretty dangerous. There is a wider argument that professional sport in general essentially demands that people put their health at risk. I think that's probably part of the appeal-pushing yourself, finding out what your limits are, trying to better yourself etc.

Henlars67

RobFowl wrote: »

FWIW To do that now would be an anti doping offence and if caught/detected would lead to a 2-4 year ban.
Also re lasting damage, only time will tell.
Kudos for the honesty.

I always thought it was allowed once it was prescribed by a doctor.

I regularly hear of footballers at all levels, from local to professional level, getting shots if they're carrying an injury.