On the long term benefits of juicing in light of Justin Gatlin's 60m championship.
I'd love to see a study done on epigenetic changes induced by PEDS.
Thanks for that link.
They don't really conclude anything, and chalk up the lack of knowledge to the fact that clinical trials would have difficulty getting approved.
But the question remains, and I think it's an interesting one--because if beneficial changes last a long time relative to current suspension lengths or to the length of a typical track career, a lifetime ban would be the only equitable solution.
Any new test would need either a baseline, or distinct evidence of past use, no matter when that use occurred.
If detected and use concluded, it would have to be investigated if the use had been for a legitimate therapeutic purpose, rather than for athletic advantage, such as could occur if somebody was voluntarily kept out of competition and totally ineligible from, say, 17-21 or 22 yrs of age, then released upon the scene while not currently using.
A fantasy, I know, but if the reward is big enough...
Thanks again for the link.
unsure why you are asking an obviously unscientific qualified chump for this ???
from a guy who does have some relevant qualification :
1) the "hypothetical" example is flawed :
he used to squat 500, injured 1y & says he squats 350 but back to 500 again quicker than a 350 guy trying to improve
the example is nonsense, as we have complete conjecture whether 1y is sufficient time for a 500 drop to 350 get back to 500
we are not expecting any specific musculoskeletal injury in this case such as a torn quadricep or herniated L5, but some insidious generalised illness which debilitates for 1y ?!
it may take YEARS to assuage the "insidiousness" for "non-surgical consideration maladies"
2) "epigenetics" ???
we are not ameoboeic-organisms or even more pertinently bacteria/viruses which can adapt our genome within a few years of adverse/different conditions
it takes dozens of generations to develop genetic adaptations in erectus - look up malaria & sickle cell in africans
yes, i'm sure the heaviest dopers may develop some "epigenetic" changes thru pumping buckets of stanozolol for 10y into their blood, but once off, i doubt it woud have benefit after much than 4y, maybe a coupla hundredths over 100m
proof here :
the biggest doping bum came back to his
after 4y out with 2nd place
|toothpaste in my leg rub|
OK "How I know?"
he was a 6.5+++ basic who didn't last to 100
same as your peabrain can't transpose to cason with 6.41i not running 9.82 basic off that & ~ 9.75 with good wind, but went 9.92 with 0.3
get it into your numbskull
he was a 6.5+++ who didn't last the last 40m even stuffed to the gills with stanozolol, proofed, as his seoul 6.33 split indicated
but even without celebrating, he wasn't going to run better than mid-9.7
with the 1.1 wind which gave him
0.05 - 0.06
The article isn't great.
A 500 lb squat comes back more quickly because the person has the ability to do it in the first place. They also have the confidence, determination and experience that it takes.
Re steroids: Within 6 months you are fully back to normal (if not worse due to suppression). The fact that certain compounds are detectable for longer periods, doesn't mean that they are present in effective doses.
The only advantage that former dopers have is the type of competitive mindset that got them there initially.
"we are not ameoboeic-organisms or even more pertinently bacteria/viruses which can adapt our genome within a few years of adverse/different conditions
it takes dozens of generations to develop genetic adaptations in erectus - look up malaria & sickle cell in africans"
But if the genetic adaptations ALREADY EXIST and are just being activated it can take as little as TWO WEEKS.
Ventolin, I'm shocked you are so far behind current gene expression theory.
Lots of pathways that can be switched on and off due to various exogenous stimuli.
Take cold adaptation for example.
What I'm most interested in, and the article doesn't address, is anyone who has firsthand experience with PEDS, which I have from my weight lifting days (albeit in a minor way compared to most), is the response to PEDS is so genetically controlled.
Some people do one cycle and BLOW UP. There are clearly hyper-responders.
I'm sure the same is true with EPO, though I have no experience with that substance.
The fact that Coach Canato insists Kenyans don't benefit tells me they must benefit LESS that Eastern Europeans or Chinese-- who clearly do.
Not to mention, the whole subject of epigenetic changes triggering hyper-response in the offspring of PED users has yet to be touched upon.
I'd bet kids of PED users, if they were using before conception (of course) have a more significant response to PEDS.
Therefore kids of PED users will get a bigger advantage from using PEDS.
When that is proven, remember you read it here first-- and it wasn't Ventolin who posited it.
it works only on embryonic level
science hasn't got there to modify a born rodent+
offer prose not paste
when you offer sticking an injection into a 1'50 guy & show he runs 1'40 within 1/12, then come back...
cure for hypothermia ???
The smoking gun:
As usual, Eldrick runs his (foul) mouth off without having a clue. That's why Gary Hill banned him from T&FN, so he has infested letsrun.
That's an interesting article. Although I've got too many things on my plate these days to investigate the research protocol and findings, it does at least suggest that there are some permanent, or at least long-term relative to an athletic career, structural changes in the body that are enabled by 'roids.
I have always believed this to be true. Take another PED, HGH--if administered at the right time in life, the effects are permanent, even if use is discontinued. I also believe that males don't physiologically, or biochemically, mature until they are around 30 or so, give or take a few years, and that any roid use prior to that time is somewhat analogous to giving HGH to a child, in that it can permanently alter structures and pathways that are still developing.
If true, it's not surprising. If the adverse side-effects can persist, and manifest later in life, I would suspect no reason that the same thing wouldn't apply to the "athletically positive", or anabolic effects.
Right now, reconciling the possibility of permanent advantages with temporary sanctions requires 1 of 2 things: either you decide that there ARE no permanent advantages and that hence the temporary sanctions are appropriate, or you just accept the wisdom of the policies underpinning the current sanctions.
I have done the latter. I don't want to stop watching worlds or OG's or nationals just because Gatlin or Chambers or whomever is competing, and to just declare all of track B.S. because of a potentially large deficiency in the protocol.
When I see a roided-up guy run incredibly fast, first and foremost what I see is an incredible athletic performance...only afterwards do I consider that it was bogus...but the performance stands. Heck, people still use videos of Koch, Johnson, etc. for training purposes.
So when I see a doper run, I see first and foremost an athletic performance--like Gatlin's sprint to win worlds--and using that metric, a sort of "addiction" to track, accepting the wisdom of the policies underpinning the current sanctions becomes not too difficult.
I think I'd feel differently if I were a competitor, however. Yeah, I competed against guys I knew were doping, massively. They were usually a bit older than me, the Johnson/McKoy/Issajenko era, so when I was young, I just assumed that they were intrinsically better than I was, because they were, say, 6, 7, or 8 years older...a big difference, even when you're 18, 19, or 20 (well, unless you're really great when really young like Lemaitre or Blake or Bolt, which I wasn't)--so even though there were issues, I didn't really care.
But if I were competitive with the very best, I'd probably be complaining like a bltch, like Lewis did about Johnson. I'd do everything possible within the rules to make his life crap, to try to take away some of the permanent advantage. I feel for the clean competitors today.
"Like who?", you ask? Well, there have got to be some...and if not, then even temporary sanctions are too long.
It appears that there's more. Up to now, I was only interested out of intellectual curiosity (if somebody dumped a box of sarms at my front door, I really wouldn't know what to do with it). But THIS is legal:
The evidence seems to argue quite strongly for a heavy loading period in the offseason/early season.