BBC: Lance Armstrong to have his 7 titles stripped. - Page 7

qayak · 27th August 2012, 12:19 AM

Originally Posted by BabyLion

Glucosamine can be taken after a work out to cut your muscle rehab time in half. So where is the line between supplements and "performance enhancing drugs"?

First, do you have a citation for the claim regarding glucosamine? All the ones I find say glucosamine is ineffective but I can't seem to find one on muscle recovery times.

To your question: I think the issue is two fold. First, sporting events are meant to determine who is the best athlete, not who has access to the best drugs. It comes down to the human desire for fair play as well.

Second, it has to do with health issues. Soviet and East German athletes were subject to national programs of steroid use. The life expectancy for their Olympic caliber athletes was 41 years. The life expectancy of an NFL player is 52.

These are athletes, supposedly the healthiest members of society. It's an alarming issue. Look at the steroid use and resulting deaths in professional wrestling.

a_unique_person · 27th August 2012, 06:00 AM

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

Well, that doesn't look good.

Who came third?

a_unique_person · 27th August 2012, 06:04 AM

Originally Posted by qayak

Drugs aren't magic but they do give you a 10-15% boost in performance.

The issue is that clean athletes get screwed. They get beat by cheaters. An athlete using PED no more wins a race than the athlete who trips all the competitors in the 1500 meters and raises his hand as he crosses the finish line.

Two choices:

1) Change the rules to make drugs a part of the sport.

2) Go after the cheaters mercilessly.

It looks like the USADA is taking the second option.

The problem is taking so long to do so. It gives those who don't cheat and watch those who do cheat win, want to win as well by cheating.

qayak · 27th August 2012, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

The problem is taking so long to do so. It gives those who don't cheat and watch those who do cheat win, want to win as well by cheating.

I agree but I think Armstrong's tactic was to fight this for as long as possible hoping it would go away or that people would start sympathizing with him as the "victim" of a witch hunt.

I think it worked pretty well for him. The media even reported that the day after he was banned there were several hundred contributions to his foundation. He claimed a 25X increase. From $3200.00 to $78,000.00.

qayak · 27th August 2012, 09:30 AM

Quote:

"Nobody needs to cry for me," Armstrong told reporters. "I'm going to be great."

Is it just me or did Armstrong take a page from Charlie Sheen's book, because apparently he's winning too?

dakotajudo · 27th August 2012, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by BabyLion

Why are some supplements legal while others aren't. I practice Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, there are some supplements that i can go to GNC and buy that make me feel like a machine. I can go twice as long without getting tired ect. Glucosamine can be taken after a work out to cut your muscle rehab time in half. So where is the line between supplements and "performance enhancing drugs"?

Supplements are typically nutritional. Some are constituents of macromolecules and needed to replace what is lost during exercise (like carbohydrates for glycogen recovery) or to promote protein synthesis during the adaptation phase (most amino-acid supplements). Other are related to biochemical intermediates, such as creatine, which serves as a temporary ATP store the is depleted during intense exercise.

There are performance enhancing drugs that you can buy at GNC that might not be legal if used prior to competition. A common one used to be ephedrine - a stimulant much like caffeine. Caffeine itself is consider a performance-enhancing drug, but is still allowed in most cases. Synephrine is similar, and seems to be growing in popularity - look for "bitter orange"

Are you sure it's glucosamine that cut's your muscle rehab time? Typically, that's response is most commonly associated with other amino-acids, primarily BCAAs. Maybe your thinking about glutamine?

But the bigger problem is the hormones - molecules that in very small doses trigger significant changes in cellular responses. These would be most commonly anabolic steroids, growth hormone and EPO.

Damien Evans · 27th August 2012, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

Who came third?

In 1999 6 of the top ten were suspended at some point during their career, including all of 2-6. Lance makes 7. It's not much better for other years.

BabyLion · 27th August 2012, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by dakotajudo

Are you sure it's glucosamine that cut's your muscle rehab time? Typically, that's response is most commonly associated with other amino-acids, primarily BCAAs. Maybe your thinking about glutamine?

You are right, glucosmine is for joints i think.

casebro · 27th August 2012, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by BabyLion

You are right, glucosmine is for joints i think.

IIRC, only horse knees. No benefit for humans ever shown.

Probably because horses are vegetarians, so don't get enough insects like crabs in their diet. Or cock's combs either. (I forget, "Glucosamine and Condroitin", one is form crab shells, the other chicken scrap? )

BabyLion · 27th August 2012, 11:17 AM

Interesting, the only thing I currently take is fish oil. Its supposed to be good for the heart, joints ect. Then again i have not done any research on it. Just going off what others have told me.

qayak · 27th August 2012, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by BabyLion

Interesting, the only thing I currently take is fish oil. Its supposed to be good for the heart, joints ect. Then again i have not done any research on it. Just going off what others have told me.

You shouldn't take any supplements except maybe whey protein. Everything else you should get from the food you eat.

BabyLion · 27th August 2012, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by qayak

You shouldn't take any supplements except maybe whey protein. Everything else you should get from the food you eat.

Very true statement. One of those "easier said than done" things though.

I Ratant · 27th August 2012, 01:45 PM

An internet diagnosis is worth what you paid.
See your licensed physician for answers for what -you- may or may not need.

tsig · 27th August 2012, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by qayak

The next time you are dying of an infection, tell me antibiotics don't have powers beyond what you, as a mortal man/woman, have.

The drugs do things to the body that the cyclist can't do themselves, that's why they are called "Performance Enhancing Drugs."

So we know they enhance performance because they're called "Performance Enhancing Drugs"?

tsig · 27th August 2012, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by qayak

http://www.sportsci.org/encyc/anabster/anabster.html#5

Armstrong isn't accused of taking steroids or antibiotics so this is a straw man argument.

qayak · 27th August 2012, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by tsig

So we know they enhance performance because they're called "Performance Enhancing Drugs"?

You have it backwards, which isn't surprising. They are called PEDs because they enhance performance.

qayak · 27th August 2012, 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by tsig

Armstrong isn't accused of taking steroids or antibiotics so this is a straw man argument.

First: Armstrong is accused of taking EPO. From Wiki:

Quote:

ESAs have a history of use as blood doping agents in endurance sports such as horseracing, boxing,[15] cycling, rowing, distance running, race walking, cross country skiing, biathlon, and triathlons. The overall oxygen delivery system (blood oxygen levels, as well as heart stroke volume, vascularization, and lung function) is one of the major limiting factors to muscles' ability to perform endurance exercise. Therefore, the primary reason athletes may use ESAs is to improve oxygen delivery to muscles, which directly improves their endurance capacity. With the advent of recombinant erythropoietin in the 1990s, the practice of autologous and homologous blood transfusion has been partially replaced by injecting erythropoietin such that the body naturally produces its own red cells. ESAs increase hematocrit (% of blood volume that is red cell mass) and total red cell mass in the body, providing an unfair advantage in sports where such practice is banned. In addition to ethical considerations in sports, providing an increased red cell mass beyond the natural levels reduces blood flow due to increased viscosity, and increases the likelihood of thrombosis and stroke. Due to dangers associated with using ESAs, their use should be limited to the clinic where anemic patients are boosted back to normal hemoglobin levels (as opposed to going above the normal levels for performance advantage, leading to an increased risk of death)

Second, you commit a strawman of your own. No one has to prove PED's enhance performance so that Armstrong's ban is justified. All one needs do is show he violated the rules. According to the rules, competitors are not allowed to use PEDs. Armstrong used them so he gets banned and loses his championships. End of story.

Too bad, so sad, Lance.

qayak · 27th August 2012, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by I Ratant

An internet diagnosis is worth what you paid.
See your licensed physician for answers for what -you- may or may not need.

I think you do not know the meaning of the word "diagnosis."

The advice to get your nutrients from food, and not from supplements, is the advice of doctors trained in nutrition.

portlandatheist · 27th August 2012, 04:42 PM

Seems like Ibuprofen and Tylenol could be considered performance enhancing drugs as they enable you to return to a work out sooner by relieving the pain of aching muscles.

Another trend I heard about was personal hyperbaric chambers. This is for the "live high, train low" philosophy and increases red blood cell count.

Here's an article on it:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.08/nike_pr.html

Morrigan · 27th August 2012, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by Damien Evans

This tired old rubbish again?

If you're going to be rude, you could at least provide a refutation (or a link to a post which had it that I may have missed) alongside your faux-outrage.

Honestly though, it was just an idea, personally I couldn't care less for professional sports.

bruto · 27th August 2012, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by portlandatheist

Seems like Ibuprofen and Tylenol could be considered performance enhancing drugs as they enable you to return to a work out sooner by relieving the pain of aching muscles.

Another trend I heard about was personal hyperbaric chambers. This is for the "live high, train low" philosophy and increases red blood cell count.

Here's an article on it:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.08/nike_pr.html

As far as I know, hyperbaric chambers are permitted, and there was never any secret about Lance and others using them.

I suppose painkillers of any sort could be considered performance enhancing, but then so could binding up a sprain or putting on a bandaid or who knows what else. Somewhere there has to be a line drawn, and in any sport the lines are drawn, the rules spelled out, and you either follow them or get disqualified, no matter how fair they seem to you.

Redtail · 27th August 2012, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by casebro

IIRC, only horse knees. No benefit for humans ever shown.

Probably because horses are vegetarians, so don't get enough insects like crabs in their diet. Or cock's combs either. (I forget, "Glucosamine and Condroitin", one is form crab shells, the other chicken scrap? )

Works for cats too.

Skeptic Ginger · 28th August 2012, 04:07 PM

So, to summarize the possibilities:

Either, Armstrong used EPO and shouldn't have

If so then, either everyone does it

Or, only a few people do it

Or, Armstrong is innocent and the test is not as reliable as people believe.

Unless there is evidence the test is reliable on urine specimens collected after heavy exercise and after years of storage, I cannot be confident in the test results. Sometimes we are biased by the same science we should be remembering the fallibility of.

halides1 · 28th August 2012, 05:45 PM

IIRC the method of analysis includes a type of electrphoresis known as isoelectric focusing (IEF). If the sample degraded over time in such a way as to change its electrical charge charge, it would be expected to have a different mobility in the IEF experiment. There are a number of ways I could envision this happening. For example, asparagine residues in a protein degrade. If absolutely no degradation occurred over time, then this objection would be null. Don't take my comment too seriously; it is just a bit of hypothesizing after a long day at work. Has anyone checked whether the test remains valid for old samples?

Skeptic Ginger · 28th August 2012, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by halides1

...Has anyone checked whether the test remains valid for old samples?

I doubt it. My experience with marketing of medical innovations, be they drugs or tests, is the initial research is limited in samples size and length of time. After a drug or a test comes to market, more data is collected expanding what we know about the drug or test.

Initial tests of drugs, for example, are done on 100s to 1000s of subjects. Side effects that are on the order of 1/100,000 or more doses don't come to light until after a drug comes to market. That's OK, it's just the limitations of reality, prescribers take this into account.

Same with lab tests. I find it difficult to believe that researchers involved in testing the reagents for this EPO test had the time or resources to study the test using stored urine. And the study I linked too showed heavy exercise could cause false positives in the test.

I have yet to see that these issues have been resolved. If they have, great, I'll change my opinion. And I admit to not having any significant amount of knowledge about the sport or Armstrong or the other evidence regarding his doping. But from a strictly medical scientific analysis of the test itself, I urge caution in the weight people are giving the results of this test.

GlennB · 28th August 2012, 11:40 PM

Originally Posted by halides1

IIRC the method of analysis includes a type of electrphoresis known as isoelectric focusing (IEF). If the sample degraded over time in such a way as to change its electrical charge charge, it would be expected to have a different mobility in the IEF experiment. There are a number of ways I could envision this happening. For example, asparagine residues in a protein degrade. If absolutely no degradation occurred over time, then this objection would be null. Don't take my comment too seriously; it is just a bit of hypothesizing after a long day at work. Has anyone checked whether the test remains valid for old samples?

One especially damning aspect of the study was that not only did the samples test positive, but that the pattern of elevated EPO matched the days of doping that you would expect to see in relation to the severity of the race stages. i.e. what a crooked doctor or knowledgable self-administrator would have chosen.

That the samples might have been systematically faulty in this way doesn't seem plausible.

Damien Evans · 29th August 2012, 12:45 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

I doubt it. My experience with marketing of medical innovations, be they drugs or tests, is the initial research is limited in samples size and length of time. After a drug or a test comes to market, more data is collected expanding what we know about the drug or test.

Initial tests of drugs, for example, are done on 100s to 1000s of subjects. Side effects that are on the order of 1/100,000 or more doses don't come to light until after a drug comes to market. That's OK, it's just the limitations of reality, prescribers take this into account.

Same with lab tests. I find it difficult to believe that researchers involved in testing the reagents for this EPO test had the time or resources to study the test using stored urine. And the study I linked too showed heavy exercise could cause false positives in the test.

I have yet to see that these issues have been resolved. If they have, great, I'll change my opinion. And I admit to not having any significant amount of knowledge about the sport or Armstrong or the other evidence regarding his doping. But from a strictly medical scientific analysis of the test itself, I urge caution in the weight people are giving the results of this test.

There have been significant changes in anti-doping practice since Armstrongs run, the biggest probably being the improvements of the biological passport.

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

Now, I know no sport is 100% clean, but I'm reasonably confidant this and other measures have reduced doping by at least 75% from 1998 levels.

tsig · 29th August 2012, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by qayak

First: Armstrong is accused of taking EPO. From Wiki:

Second, you commit a strawman of your own. No one has to prove PED's enhance performance so that Armstrong's ban is justified. All one needs do is show he violated the rules. According to the rules, competitors are not allowed to use PEDs. Armstrong used them so he gets banned and loses his championships. End of story.

Too bad, so sad, Lance.

Now all you have to do is prove that he broke the rules that were in place at the time he competed and you're home free.

You're argument seems to be "no one could have won without doping, Lance won so he was doping".

qayak · 29th August 2012, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by tsig

Now all you have to do is prove that he broke the rules that were in place at the time he competed and you're home free.

You're argument seems to be "no one could have won without doping, Lance won so he was doping".

That would be redundant as the USADA already did with the help of UCI, a French journalist and federal investigators.

So, we agree, Lance is guilty.

I Ratant · 29th August 2012, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by tsig

Now all you have to do is prove that he broke the rules that were in place at the time he competed and you're home free.

You're argument seems to be "no one could have won without doping, Lance won so he was doping".

.
As everyone he competed with was doping, and he beat them all.... That is the reasonable conclusion.
Otherwise, all those dopers were just worsening their own physical conditioning by doping... but still finished ahead of non-dopers.
Doesn't compute.
Lance beat all those guys using standard doping techniques against competitors who were using standard doping techniques.

tsig · 29th August 2012, 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by I Ratant

.
As everyone he competed with was doping, and he beat them all.... That is the reasonable conclusion.
Otherwise, all those dopers were just worsening their own physical conditioning by doping... but still finished ahead of non-dopers.
Doesn't compute.
Lance beat all those guys using standard doping techniques against competitors who were using standard doping techniques.

If everyone was doping then there were no non dopers.

You're using the same circular reasoning "you had to dope to win so if you won you must be doping".

I Ratant · 29th August 2012, 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by tsig

If everyone -at his level- was doping then there were no non dopers.

You're using the same circular reasoning "you had to dope to win so if you won you must be doping".

.
Ftfy
The non-dopers couldn't win squat.

tsig · 29th August 2012, 08:07 PM

Originally Posted by I Ratant

.
Ftfm

How do you know that Bradly Wiggins wasn't doping?

I Ratant · 29th August 2012, 08:10 PM

Who?

tsig · 29th August 2012, 08:12 PM

Originally Posted by I Ratant

.
Ftfy
The non-dopers couldn't win squat.

How do you know this?

Oh, I know, those who won must be doped because you have to be doped to win.

tsig · 29th August 2012, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by I Ratant

Who?

The winner of this year's TdF. By asking this question you reveal that you know nothing about the subject you've been arguing about.

Woolgatherer · 29th August 2012, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by qayak

That would be redundant as the USADA already did with the help of UCI, a French journalist and federal investigators.

So, we agree, Lance is guilty.

USADA on Friday banned the 40-year-old American for life and stripped him of his record seven Tour de France titles, but the UCI has said it wanted to see USADA's full explanation for the sanctions before acting.

Damien Evans · 29th August 2012, 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by qayak

that would be redundant as the usada already did with the help of uci, a french journalist and federal investigators.

So, we agree, lance is guilty.

wrong!

Damien Evans · 29th August 2012, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by I Ratant

Who?

qayak · 29th August 2012, 09:03 PM

Originally Posted by tsig

If everyone was doping then there were no non dopers.

But not everybody was. 87 samples, 13 positives, that leaves 74 clean.

6 of the positives were Armstrong's so let's say that 6 is the average number of samples from each competitor. That means, from the samples, 2-3 were doping and 11-12 weren't.

I have no sympathy for cheaters. No matter what justification is used, it always comes down to the fact that they didn't win.

27th August 2012, 12:19 AM	#241
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,710	Originally Posted by BabyLion Glucosamine can be taken after a work out to cut your muscle rehab time in half. So where is the line between supplements and "performance enhancing drugs"? First, do you have a citation for the claim regarding glucosamine? All the ones I find say glucosamine is ineffective but I can't seem to find one on muscle recovery times. To your question: I think the issue is two fold. First, sporting events are meant to determine who is the best athlete, not who has access to the best drugs. It comes down to the human desire for fair play as well. Second, it has to do with health issues. Soviet and East German athletes were subject to national programs of steroid use. The life expectancy for their Olympic caliber athletes was 41 years. The life expectancy of an NFL player is 52. These are athletes, supposedly the healthiest members of society. It's an alarming issue. Look at the steroid use and resulting deaths in professional wrestling.
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,710	__________________ "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them." (Mark Twain)

27th August 2012, 06:00 AM	#242
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,326	Originally Posted by Matthew Best Well, that doesn't look good. Who came third?
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

27th August 2012, 06:04 AM	#243
a_unique_person Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Mt Disappointment Posts: 33,326	Originally Posted by qayak Drugs aren't magic but they do give you a 10-15% boost in performance. The issue is that clean athletes get screwed. They get beat by cheaters. An athlete using PED no more wins a race than the athlete who trips all the competitors in the 1500 meters and raises his hand as he crosses the finish line. Two choices: 1) Change the rules to make drugs a part of the sport. 2) Go after the cheaters mercilessly. It looks like the USADA is taking the second option. The problem is taking so long to do so. It gives those who don't cheat and watch those who do cheat win, want to win as well by cheating.
	__________________ *Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.* Everything is possible, but not everything is probable. For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes

27th August 2012, 09:29 AM	#244
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,710	Originally Posted by a_unique_person The problem is taking so long to do so. It gives those who don't cheat and watch those who do cheat win, want to win as well by cheating. I agree but I think Armstrong's tactic was to fight this for as long as possible hoping it would go away or that people would start sympathizing with him as the "victim" of a witch hunt. I think it worked pretty well for him. The media even reported that the day after he was banned there were several hundred contributions to his foundation. He claimed a 25X increase. From $3200.00 to $78,000.00.
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,710	__________________ "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them." (Mark Twain)

27th August 2012, 09:30 AM	#245
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,710	Quote: "Nobody needs to cry for me," Armstrong told reporters. "I'm going to be great." Is it just me or did Armstrong take a page from Charlie Sheen's book, because apparently he's winning too?
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,710	__________________ "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them." (Mark Twain)

27th August 2012, 10:38 AM	#246
dakotajudo Critical Thinker Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 298	Originally Posted by BabyLion Why are some supplements legal while others aren't. I practice Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, there are some supplements that i can go to GNC and buy that make me feel like a machine. I can go twice as long without getting tired ect. Glucosamine can be taken after a work out to cut your muscle rehab time in half. So where is the line between supplements and "performance enhancing drugs"? Supplements are typically nutritional. Some are constituents of macromolecules and needed to replace what is lost during exercise (like carbohydrates for glycogen recovery) or to promote protein synthesis during the adaptation phase (most amino-acid supplements). Other are related to biochemical intermediates, such as creatine, which serves as a temporary ATP store the is depleted during intense exercise. There are performance enhancing drugs that you can buy at GNC that might not be legal if used prior to competition. A common one used to be ephedrine - a stimulant much like caffeine. Caffeine itself is consider a performance-enhancing drug, but is still allowed in most cases. Synephrine is similar, and seems to be growing in popularity - look for "bitter orange" Are you sure it's glucosamine that cut's your muscle rehab time? Typically, that's response is most commonly associated with other amino-acids, primarily BCAAs. Maybe your thinking about glutamine? But the bigger problem is the hormones - molecules that in very small doses trigger significant changes in cellular responses. These would be most commonly anabolic steroids, growth hormone and EPO.

27th August 2012, 10:39 AM	#247
Damien Evans Up The Irons Tagger Join Date: May 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 25,284	Originally Posted by a_unique_person Who came third? In 1999 6 of the top ten were suspended at some point during their career, including all of 2-6. Lance makes 7. It's not much better for other years.
	__________________ WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN? - Death "Racism is a disease in society. We're all equal. I don't care what their colour is, or religion. Just as long as they're human beings they're my buddies." - Mandawuy Yunupingu, lead singer of Yothu Yindi

27th August 2012, 11:05 AM	#248
BabyLion Scholar Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Texas Posts: 100	Originally Posted by dakotajudo Are you sure it's glucosamine that cut's your muscle rehab time? Typically, that's response is most commonly associated with other amino-acids, primarily BCAAs. Maybe your thinking about glutamine? You are right, glucosmine is for joints i think.

27th August 2012, 11:11 AM	#249
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,792	Originally Posted by BabyLion You are right, glucosmine is for joints i think. IIRC, only horse knees. No benefit for humans ever shown. Probably because horses are vegetarians, so don't get enough insects like crabs in their diet. Or cock's combs either. (I forget, "Glucosamine and Condroitin", one is form crab shells, the other chicken scrap? )
casebro Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 6,792	__________________ Please pardon me for having ideas, not facts. Some have called me cynical, but I don't believe them. It's not how many breaths you take. It's how many times you have been breathless that counts.

27th August 2012, 11:17 AM	#250
BabyLion Scholar Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Texas Posts: 100	Interesting, the only thing I currently take is fish oil. Its supposed to be good for the heart, joints ect. Then again i have not done any research on it. Just going off what others have told me.

27th August 2012, 12:09 PM	#251
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,710	Originally Posted by BabyLion Interesting, the only thing I currently take is fish oil. Its supposed to be good for the heart, joints ect. Then again i have not done any research on it. Just going off what others have told me. You shouldn't take any supplements except maybe whey protein. Everything else you should get from the food you eat.
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,710	__________________ "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them." (Mark Twain)

27th August 2012, 12:20 PM	#252
BabyLion Scholar Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Texas Posts: 100	Originally Posted by qayak You shouldn't take any supplements except maybe whey protein. Everything else you should get from the food you eat. Very true statement. One of those "easier said than done" things though.

27th August 2012, 01:45 PM	#253
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	An internet diagnosis is worth what you paid. See your licensed physician for answers for what -you- may or may not need.

27th August 2012, 03:36 PM	#254
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,761	Originally Posted by qayak The next time you are dying of an infection, tell me antibiotics don't have powers beyond what you, as a mortal man/woman, have. The drugs do things to the body that the cyclist can't do themselves, that's why they are called "Performance Enhancing Drugs." So we know they enhance performance because they're called "Performance Enhancing Drugs"?

27th August 2012, 03:38 PM	#255
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,761	Originally Posted by qayak http://www.sportsci.org/encyc/anabster/anabster.html#5 Armstrong isn't accused of taking steroids or antibiotics so this is a straw man argument.

27th August 2012, 04:26 PM	#256
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,710	Originally Posted by tsig So we know they enhance performance because they're called "Performance Enhancing Drugs"? You have it backwards, which isn't surprising. They are called PEDs because they enhance performance.
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,710	__________________ "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them." (Mark Twain)

27th August 2012, 04:33 PM	#257
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,710	Originally Posted by tsig Armstrong isn't accused of taking steroids or antibiotics so this is a straw man argument. First: Armstrong is accused of taking EPO. From Wiki: Quote: ESAs have a history of use as blood doping agents in endurance sports such as horseracing, boxing,[15] cycling, rowing, distance running, race walking, cross country skiing, biathlon, and triathlons. The overall oxygen delivery system (blood oxygen levels, as well as heart stroke volume, vascularization, and lung function) is one of the major limiting factors to muscles' ability to perform endurance exercise. Therefore, the primary reason athletes may use ESAs is to improve oxygen delivery to muscles, which directly improves their endurance capacity. With the advent of recombinant erythropoietin in the 1990s, the practice of autologous and homologous blood transfusion has been partially replaced by injecting erythropoietin such that the body naturally produces its own red cells. ESAs increase hematocrit (% of blood volume that is red cell mass) and total red cell mass in the body, providing an unfair advantage in sports where such practice is banned. In addition to ethical considerations in sports, providing an increased red cell mass beyond the natural levels reduces blood flow due to increased viscosity, and increases the likelihood of thrombosis and stroke. Due to dangers associated with using ESAs, their use should be limited to the clinic where anemic patients are boosted back to normal hemoglobin levels (as opposed to going above the normal levels for performance advantage, leading to an increased risk of death) Second, you commit a strawman of your own. No one has to prove PED's enhance performance so that Armstrong's ban is justified. All one needs do is show he violated the rules. According to the rules, competitors are not allowed to use PEDs. Armstrong used them so he gets banned and loses his championships. End of story. Too bad, so sad, Lance.
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,710	__________________ "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them." (Mark Twain)

27th August 2012, 04:38 PM	#258
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,710	Originally Posted by I Ratant An internet diagnosis is worth what you paid. See your licensed physician for answers for what -you- may or may not need. I think you do not know the meaning of the word "diagnosis." The advice to get your nutrients from food, and not from supplements, is the advice of doctors trained in nutrition.
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,710	__________________ "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them." (Mark Twain)

27th August 2012, 04:42 PM	#259
portlandatheist Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,111	Seems like Ibuprofen and Tylenol could be considered performance enhancing drugs as they enable you to return to a work out sooner by relieving the pain of aching muscles. Another trend I heard about was personal hyperbaric chambers. This is for the "live high, train low" philosophy and increases red blood cell count. Here's an article on it: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.08/nike_pr.html

27th August 2012, 05:28 PM	#260
Morrigan Crone of War Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 6,875	Originally Posted by Damien Evans This tired old rubbish again? If you're going to be rude, you could at least provide a refutation (or a link to a post which had it that I may have missed) alongside your faux-outrage. Honestly though, it was just an idea, personally I couldn't care less for professional sports.
Morrigan Crone of War Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 6,875

27th August 2012, 07:11 PM	#261
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 11,183	Originally Posted by portlandatheist Seems like Ibuprofen and Tylenol could be considered performance enhancing drugs as they enable you to return to a work out sooner by relieving the pain of aching muscles. Another trend I heard about was personal hyperbaric chambers. This is for the "live high, train low" philosophy and increases red blood cell count. Here's an article on it: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/10.08/nike_pr.html As far as I know, hyperbaric chambers are permitted, and there was never any secret about Lance and others using them. I suppose painkillers of any sort could be considered performance enhancing, but then so could binding up a sprain or putting on a bandaid or who knows what else. Somewhere there has to be a line drawn, and in any sport the lines are drawn, the rules spelled out, and you either follow them or get disqualified, no matter how fair they seem to you.
	__________________ "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.(Samuel Johnson) The gods are less for their love of praise....(Wendell Berry)

27th August 2012, 07:17 PM	#262
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,304	Originally Posted by casebro IIRC, only horse knees. No benefit for humans ever shown. Probably because horses are vegetarians, so don't get enough insects like crabs in their diet. Or cock's combs either. (I forget, "Glucosamine and Condroitin", one is form crab shells, the other chicken scrap? ) Works for cats too.
Redtail Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 9,304	__________________ AVENGERS!!!.. Turn off the dark!

28th August 2012, 04:07 PM	#263
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,558	So, to summarize the possibilities: Either, Armstrong used EPO and shouldn't have If so then, either everyone does it Or, only a few people do it Or, Armstrong is innocent and the test is not as reliable as people believe. Unless there is evidence the test is reliable on urine specimens collected after heavy exercise and after years of storage, I cannot be confident in the test results. Sometimes we are biased by the same science we should be remembering the fallibility of.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

28th August 2012, 05:45 PM	#264
halides1 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 5,517	I know just enough about this topic to be dangerous IIRC the method of analysis includes a type of electrphoresis known as isoelectric focusing (IEF). If the sample degraded over time in such a way as to change its electrical charge charge, it would be expected to have a different mobility in the IEF experiment. There are a number of ways I could envision this happening. For example, asparagine residues in a protein degrade. If absolutely no degradation occurred over time, then this objection would be null. Don't take my comment too seriously; it is just a bit of hypothesizing after a long day at work. Has anyone checked whether the test remains valid for old samples?
halides1 Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Posts: 5,517	__________________ “Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.” – Winston Churchill

28th August 2012, 10:11 PM	#265
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,558	Originally Posted by halides1 ...Has anyone checked whether the test remains valid for old samples? I doubt it. My experience with marketing of medical innovations, be they drugs or tests, is the initial research is limited in samples size and length of time. After a drug or a test comes to market, more data is collected expanding what we know about the drug or test. Initial tests of drugs, for example, are done on 100s to 1000s of subjects. Side effects that are on the order of 1/100,000 or more doses don't come to light until after a drug comes to market. That's OK, it's just the limitations of reality, prescribers take this into account. Same with lab tests. I find it difficult to believe that researchers involved in testing the reagents for this EPO test had the time or resources to study the test using stored urine. And the study I linked too showed heavy exercise could cause false positives in the test. I have yet to see that these issues have been resolved. If they have, great, I'll change my opinion. And I admit to not having any significant amount of knowledge about the sport or Armstrong or the other evidence regarding his doping. But from a strictly medical scientific analysis of the test itself, I urge caution in the weight people are giving the results of this test.
	__________________ (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.) Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 28th August 2012 at 10:12 PM.*

28th August 2012, 11:40 PM	#266
GlennB Jellied eel and offal fancier Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arcadia Posts: 8,944	Originally Posted by halides1 IIRC the method of analysis includes a type of electrphoresis known as isoelectric focusing (IEF). If the sample degraded over time in such a way as to change its electrical charge charge, it would be expected to have a different mobility in the IEF experiment. There are a number of ways I could envision this happening. For example, asparagine residues in a protein degrade. If absolutely no degradation occurred over time, then this objection would be null. Don't take my comment too seriously; it is just a bit of hypothesizing after a long day at work. Has anyone checked whether the test remains valid for old samples? One especially damning aspect of the study was that not only did the samples test positive, but that the pattern of elevated EPO matched the days of doping that you would expect to see in relation to the severity of the race stages. i.e. what a crooked doctor or knowledgable self-administrator would have chosen. That the samples might have been systematically faulty in this way doesn't seem plausible.

29th August 2012, 12:45 AM	#267
Damien Evans Up The Irons Tagger Join Date: May 2007 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 25,284	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger I doubt it. My experience with marketing of medical innovations, be they drugs or tests, is the initial research is limited in samples size and length of time. After a drug or a test comes to market, more data is collected expanding what we know about the drug or test. Initial tests of drugs, for example, are done on 100s to 1000s of subjects. Side effects that are on the order of 1/100,000 or more doses don't come to light until after a drug comes to market. That's OK, it's just the limitations of reality, prescribers take this into account. Same with lab tests. I find it difficult to believe that researchers involved in testing the reagents for this EPO test had the time or resources to study the test using stored urine. And the study I linked too showed heavy exercise could cause false positives in the test. I have yet to see that these issues have been resolved. If they have, great, I'll change my opinion. And I admit to not having any significant amount of knowledge about the sport or Armstrong or the other evidence regarding his doping. But from a strictly medical scientific analysis of the test itself, I urge caution in the weight people are giving the results of this test. There have been significant changes in anti-doping practice since Armstrongs run, the biggest probably being the improvements of the biological passport. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_passport Now, I know no sport is 100% clean, but I'm reasonably confidant this and other measures have reduced doping by at least 75% from 1998 levels.
	__________________ WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN? - Death "Racism is a disease in society. We're all equal. I don't care what their colour is, or religion. Just as long as they're human beings they're my buddies." - Mandawuy Yunupingu, lead singer of Yothu Yindi

29th August 2012, 02:41 PM	#268
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,761	Originally Posted by qayak First: Armstrong is accused of taking EPO. From Wiki: Second, you commit a strawman of your own. No one has to prove PED's enhance performance so that Armstrong's ban is justified. All one needs do is show he violated the rules. According to the rules, competitors are not allowed to use PEDs. Armstrong used them so he gets banned and loses his championships. End of story. Too bad, so sad, Lance. Now all you have to do is prove that he broke the rules that were in place at the time he competed and you're home free. You're argument seems to be "no one could have won without doping, Lance won so he was doping".

29th August 2012, 06:23 PM	#269
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,710	Originally Posted by tsig Now all you have to do is prove that he broke the rules that were in place at the time he competed and you're home free. You're argument seems to be "no one could have won without doping, Lance won so he was doping". That would be redundant as the USADA already did with the help of UCI, a French journalist and federal investigators. So, we agree, Lance is guilty.
qayak Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 8,710	__________________ "The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them." (Mark Twain)

29th August 2012, 06:35 PM	#270
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	Originally Posted by tsig Now all you have to do is prove that he broke the rules that were in place at the time he competed and you're home free. You're argument seems to be "no one could have won without doping, Lance won so he was doping". . As everyone he competed with was doping, and he beat them all.... That is the reasonable conclusion. Otherwise, all those dopers were just worsening their own physical conditioning by doping... but still finished ahead of non-dopers. Doesn't compute. Lance beat all those guys using standard doping techniques against competitors who were using standard doping techniques.

29th August 2012, 07:21 PM	#271
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,761	Originally Posted by I Ratant . As everyone he competed with was doping, and he beat them all.... That is the reasonable conclusion. Otherwise, all those dopers were just worsening their own physical conditioning by doping... but still finished ahead of non-dopers. Doesn't compute. Lance beat all those guys using standard doping techniques against competitors who were using standard doping techniques. If everyone was doping then there were no non dopers. You're using the same circular reasoning "you had to dope to win so if you won you must be doping".
	Last edited by tsig; 29th August 2012 at 07:22 PM.

29th August 2012, 08:06 PM	#272
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	Originally Posted by tsig If everyone -at his level- was doping then there were no non dopers. You're using the same circular reasoning "you had to dope to win so if you won you must be doping". . Ftfy The non-dopers couldn't win squat.
	Last edited by I Ratant; 29th August 2012 at 08:07 PM.

29th August 2012, 08:07 PM	#273
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,761	Originally Posted by I Ratant . Ftfm How do you know that Bradly Wiggins wasn't doping?

29th August 2012, 08:10 PM	#274
I Ratant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 15,305	Who?

29th August 2012, 08:12 PM	#275
tsig a carbon based life-form Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 26,761	Originally Posted by I Ratant . Ftfy The non-dopers couldn't win squat. How do you know this? Oh, I know, those who won must be doped because you have to be doped to win.