Author Topic: Doping - don't trust anybody  (Read 12301 times)

macdanger2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3853
    • View Profile
Re: Doping - don't trust anybody
« Reply #15 on: July 16, 2013, 02:35:31 PM »
Was Larry Reilly ever tested?

They tried but were unable to find a needle capable of piercing his skin.

Larry Reilly is on his way to your house right now to kill you for suggesting he might be a drug cheat

rory

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 183
    • View Profile
Re: Doping - don't trust anybody
« Reply #16 on: July 16, 2013, 04:24:00 PM »
Saw this piece the other day on Reddit:

At the pinnacle of sports, nobody is clean, just a bullshit illusion.

Sprinters use mostly:

    hGH at a fairly low dose. The low dose is to avoid gaining water weight (or even excessive muscle weight) which would slow them down. It is mostly used to enhance recovery, allow them to tolerate more volume of work and MOSTLY for tendon strethening/repair. Sprinters are like F1 racing cars: high performance but break VERY easily. A common approach is 4-6IU EOD.

    Insulin. This is to facilitate recovery by enhancing glycogen resynthesis following training. It isn't used all the time; mostly after the most grueling training days (e.g. a day where they would have both high volume track work and strength training)... sprinters normally strength train 3 or 4 days a week, so they use insulin 3-4 days a week on average. (Dont try this at home, insulin is very dangerous if you dont know what you are doing)

    EPO. The role of EPO for improving endurance is well known. For that reason it is mostly associated with endurance athletes and it is often assumed that it doesn't give anything to the power/strength athlete. That is not true. EPO allows one to tolerate a greater overall volume of work and increases the rate of recovery. In performance athletics, drugs are mostly used to allow the athlete to train more often and with more volume.

    Testosterone. Some synthetic steroids might be used far away from competition (if the athlete doesn't live in a country that conducts random testing) but testosterone is the most comonly used AAS to improve strength and power. It is much easier to pass the drug tests when using testosterone, especially since some natural compounds can decrease the testo/Epitesto ratio that is used to test for testostetone use. A lot of athletes can get away with 50mg of testosterone propionate or suspension every 3 days without testing positive... some races can even use much higher doses of testosterone than that because they lack the enzyme UGT2B17 which increases testosterone excretion in the urine. Approximately 60% of Asians have very low levels of this enzyme. More than 50% of the individuals having low levels of enzymes can take 300-400mg of testosterone per week and not test positive.

Obviously athletes from countries with a rich track and field support program use more exotic compounds that are harder to detect.

The only reason Ben Johnson tested positive for stanozolol/winstrol is that he and Charlie Francis (his coach) didn't know that he was taking winstrol!

    Johnson never liked winstrol, the few times he used it it gave him severe joint pain which reduced his capacity to train.

    Charlie Francis went on record saying that he knew exactly how long before the last winstrol intake you needed to wait to avoid testing positive for it (harder now since the tests are more precise).

What happened is that Dr.Astafan told Francis and Johnson that he could get them furazabol. At that time furazabol was not detectable (a doping test doesn't scan for ''steroids''... it needs the exact molecule or it's metabolite to know what to search).

So all 3 believed that Johnson could continue taking it right up to the race whereas the other sprinters had to stop whatever they were using 10-14 days before, enough to get a small performance decrement that could make a big difference in placings.

The problem is that the furazabol they bought was actually relabeled winstrol sold for 4-5 times the price.

The anti-doping procedures are fairly strict now. In the information age, any stunt like that (pouring the piss down the drain) would eventually surface.

However:

    Many countries/federation do ''home tests'' for their athletes. So they know EXACTLY when they need to stop using XYZ substance and which one they can keep taking without testing positive. Each physiology is different so this gives top athletes (as it is very expensive) the insurance of being able to use without risking testing positive.

    A lot of the people who design drug tests are hired by some countries/federation to explain how to beat the tests.

    A urine test needs to know the exact chemical structure that they are testing for. It can either be a drug itself or it's metabolites. Any decent chemist can make slight modification to the structure of a drug to make it undetectable (e.g. the clear).

Believe me, nobody wants unbeatable tests. Why?

    If all of a sudden you can test everybody who uses drugs with 100% efficacy, the winning numbers or speed would drop by about 10% across the board. This will make the decades of abuse obvious as performance levels will go back to what they were around 1960-1970. No sport federation, or the IOC wants that.

    We have been used to a certain level of sporting performance. Why are people who don't give a sh*t about track keep talking about Bolt's 100 and 200m records? Because they boggle the mind... if all of a sudden nobody runs below 10s the general interest will drop... we could say the same about baseball for example. After the 1 year strike people lost interest and the next year's crowd started VERY low... what saved the season (financially speaking)? The McGuire/Sosa home run race. People like unimaginable feats... they want to see 60 home run hitters... you wont see that anymore. Notice that all the new baseball stadiums are very small... in Miami they have a 35 000 people capacity... during the home run craze you could see averages of 50 000 people per game.

    Sports is fueled by money:

    Players want more money... to get it they need (1) to outperform their rivals (2) for the teams to make a lot of money (if the teams don't make money, they cannot spend it on the players).

    Owners want to make money, so they need to pull more people to the stadium.

    The leagues want more money (which is spread over to the teams) so they need big TV contracts.

    The TV channels want more money and they get it by selling TV ads. The more viewer there are, the more they can charge for the air time.

    The comissioners want to make more money and their salary is based on how much money the teams make.

The KEY if everybody is gonna make money is general interest... not the die hard fans who will come no matter what but rather the guys who are on the fence and need something special to go to games, watch them on TV and buy team stuff.

If overall performance goes down, so does general interest. Less people watch the sport on TV, companies will spend less in advertisement, the league make less TV money, the teams receive less transfer, they have less money to invest in the players, etc.

    Coaches/trainers do not want effective tests either because people will realise that they aren't the geniuses people thought they were.

NOBODY want clean sport.

JimStynes

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2257
    • View Profile
Re: Doping - don't trust anybody
« Reply #17 on: December 09, 2014, 11:24:28 PM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1YlKaN3cPs
The german documentary on the Russian Doping system.

NAG1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4137
    • View Profile
Re: Doping - don't trust anybody
« Reply #18 on: December 10, 2014, 02:33:39 PM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1YlKaN3cPs
The german documentary on the Russian Doping system.

I would say that the Jamaicans are not far behind in this type of systematic doping.

ballinaman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4915
  • MWWSSD
    • View Profile
Re: Doping - don't trust anybody
« Reply #19 on: July 19, 2016, 08:44:22 AM »

Dinny Breen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9115
  • I will repair to the Curragh of Kildare
    • View Profile
Re: Doping - don't trust anybody
« Reply #20 on: July 19, 2016, 09:08:32 AM »
Yet other countries athletes were able to beat them. Go figure!
#newbridgeornowhere

Hereiam

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1758
    • View Profile
Re: Doping - don't trust anybody
« Reply #21 on: July 19, 2016, 09:32:33 AM »
America/Britain really going after Russia

smort

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 194
  • O.A.S.I.S.
    • View Profile
Re: Doping - don't trust anybody
« Reply #22 on: July 19, 2016, 09:35:42 AM »
Yet other countries athletes were able to beat them. Go figure!

I don't think that is a fair comment Dinny, just because someone dopes doesn't mean they are necessarily going to win and beat non-dopers.

Dinny Breen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9115
  • I will repair to the Curragh of Kildare
    • View Profile
Re: Doping - don't trust anybody
« Reply #23 on: July 19, 2016, 09:53:54 AM »
Of course it's fair comment, a doped athlete where it's directly performance enhancing such as EPO should beat a clean athlete every time.
#newbridgeornowhere

imtommygunn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8052
    • View Profile
Re: Doping - don't trust anybody
« Reply #24 on: July 19, 2016, 09:57:43 AM »
It's not a fair comment at all. The clean athlete may just be a considerably better athlete. it can happen. EPO etc is cheating but if you are an athlete who is quite a bit off the top then EPO will probably not get you there. It will give you gains but if you are far enough behind some clean athletes then potentially not enough.


AZOffaly

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24776
    • View Profile
Re: Doping - don't trust anybody
« Reply #25 on: July 19, 2016, 10:32:51 AM »
Two Athletes of similar 'natural' times. One dopes, one doesn't. The doper wins.

Two Athletes of way different natural times, with the doper being the slower of the two. The clean guy probably still wins, but the doper closes the gap.

I could be on all the PEDs in the world, plus Angel Dust, plus Red Bull and I still am not going to catch Usain Bolt.

Franko

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1793
    • View Profile
Re: Doping - don't trust anybody
« Reply #26 on: July 19, 2016, 10:41:16 AM »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1YlKaN3cPs
The german documentary on the Russian Doping system.

I would say that the Jamaicans are not far behind in this type of systematic doping.

I long for the day that Bolt's cheating is uncovered.  I fear though, that like the banks, he's become 'too big to fail' and that the whole thing would come down like a house of cards if he was caught.  Armstrong was only uncovered when he had pissed off that many people that they began to tell tales.  If Bolt keeps his nose clean in this regard he may manage to pull it off.  Chicken nuggets.  ::)

AZOffaly

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24776
    • View Profile
Re: Doping - don't trust anybody
« Reply #27 on: July 19, 2016, 10:49:17 AM »
Chicken Nuggets?

Dinny Breen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9115
  • I will repair to the Curragh of Kildare
    • View Profile
Re: Doping - don't trust anybody
« Reply #28 on: July 19, 2016, 10:49:42 AM »
Ah Usain Bolt that great outlier 9/10 fastest athletes ever all have doped. Yet the fastest of them all hasn't, just as well his country has never produced doped athletes and has such an extensive anti-doping program.

No matter how talented you are a moderatly ability wise athlete who dopes will beat you. Those Russian athletes are considerably talented
athletes who would all avail of marginal gains via years of sports science research some of the best in the world and now also part of a doping program yet still couldn't beat clean athletes!!!! Now anyone who believes that is pretty naive imho.

#newbridgeornowhere

AZOffaly

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24776
    • View Profile
Re: Doping - don't trust anybody
« Reply #29 on: July 19, 2016, 10:55:31 AM »
That doesn't make sense Dinny. Take my hyperbole above. I was relatively fast as a footballer, but I was no Jack McCaffery. Are you saying that if I doped, I'd be able to beat clean athletes at the Olympics? Are there any scientific numbers about performance gains related to doping? Any test subjects that say, Joe Bloggs ran an 11.5 100m 'clean', but after 2 years in a doping program, he now runs a 9.8?