Wejo the Doper (LetsRun.com in the NY Times)

I wonder if this played any role in Ryan Shay's death.

fstnic wrote:

Caffeine doesn't work as a PED if your body is used to ingesting it.

Just for the record, that's not true. The NYT article says the following:

"The beneficial effects on exercise, though, remain. Even if you are a regular coffee drinker, if you have a cup of coffee before a workout or a race, you will do better, Dr. Tarnopolsky said. 'There is no question about it,' he added."

I have also interviewed Terry Graham (the other key expert cited in the article), and he said the same thing.

On another note, as someone else pointed out, pure caffeine and coffee are very different things. The ergogenic effects of caffeine are absolutely proven beyond a shadow of a doubt; results for coffee, on the other hand, are less clear because it contains so many different active ingredients.

wejo wrote:

Millions of Americans have a cup of coffee everyday. I don't think taking a cup of coffee before a race is too much of a grey area. What is next trying to ban having a glass of water or gatorade?

Neither is harmful to anyone, all of them enhance performance.

The difference between caffeine and water is that if you don't drink water, you will die. Not true with caffeine. That's a huge difference in considering the ethics of taking a performance-enhancing substance.

Wejo, I don't have a problem with you staying within the laws of the sport, but I do have a problem with you trying to justify it ethically, or by saying Terrance Mahon did it. The fact of the matter is you took a drug to enhance your performance. It seems a little hypocritical to come down so hard on other cheaters, when the only difference between you and them is that their drug of choice is listed on a piece of paper somewhere as illegal.

you can't be serious....every one has consumed caffeine at some point in their life. What about the Kenyans they drink tea, are they unethical?yquote]neanderthal dream wrote:

wejo wrote:

Millions of Americans have a cup of coffee everyday. I don't think taking a cup of coffee before a race is too much of a grey area. What is next trying to ban having a glass of water or gatorade?

Neither is harmful to anyone, all of them enhance performance.

The difference between caffeine and water is that if you don't drink water, you will die. Not true with caffeine. That's a huge difference in considering the ethics of taking a performance-enhancing substance.

Wejo, I don't have a problem with you staying within the laws of the sport, but I do have a problem with you trying to justify it ethically, or by saying Terrance Mahon did it. The fact of the matter is you took a drug to enhance your performance. It seems a little hypocritical to come down so hard on other cheaters, when the only difference between you and them is that their drug of choice is listed on a piece of paper somewhere as illegal.[/quote]

Totally serious. How can you use a known performance-enhancing substance and then blast others for using known performance enhancers? What a joke.

There's a world of difference between using caffeine to stay awake on the job and using it to boost your performance.

Defending it by saying "Eating a steak before your race" is performance enhancing is total bull. You need food and water to simply live... caffeine is obviously in another category. The PED category, I would suggest.

I've known several people who don't drink coffee or whatnot, but take caffeine pills before their race.

Is it wrong? I don't think so. Is it cheating? It's not against the rules. Did it enhance their performance? They thought so.

I wonder how many people on here blasting caffeine are also against taking advil - that's a performance enhancer, it's a pill.

This thread is enlightening for the idiotic "purity" obsession of many runners. You would rather remain "pure" and self-righteously virginal than consume a glass of wine and bed a beautiful woman.

Ginseng is not banned - can you point to your authority for this?

Here is an interesting article to which Tim Noakes is a contributor

http://www.cmej.org.za/index.php/cmej/article/viewFile/892/701

Wejo, Serious question: did you ever have gut issues in races and had to use the bathroom mid-race, especially in ten milers?

I have no real ethical issue with adults using something that isn't banned. But, as someone who now mostly avoids caffeine, I wouldn't want to develop the habit, which the article says you have to do in order to avoid unwanted effects such as elevated heart rate and blood pressure. If I were trying to make a living at running, maybe I'd consider it. Otherwise, no thanks. And it doesn't seem appropriate to me to promote its use (on a performance basis) by scholastic and collegiate athletes.

..? wrote:

Ginseng is not banned - can you point to your authority for this?

Here is an interesting article to which Tim Noakes is a contributor

http://www.cmej.org.za/index.php/cmej/article/viewFile/892/701

perhaps I'm wrong, and I hope I am. is it banned in the NCAA, maybe that's what I was thinking of?

This doctor, who is ostensibly an expert, is obviously not very bright. He is asserting an average improvement of 5 percent, which would take a 28:00 10k guy to 26:36, and a 40:00 10k guy to 38:00. The article is a joke, and the "expert" is an idiot.

wejo wrote:

I don't think most people are drinking coffee 1.5 hours before a race because they like the taste.

Actually, I like the taste of coffee. ;)

Seriously, though, how do we draw the line? Coffee has become pretty much a part of many people's daily routine, occurs in some foods such as chocolate (please, please, no chocolate bans!), and has mixed benefits. I've seen caffeine help my performance, but I've also experienced it having a negative effect. I have stopped taking anything with caffeine before workouts or races on hot days for instance because when I have taken it then, I've bonked seriously.

It's a drug--but does it necessarily always enhance performance?

And from what I understand (and please correct me if I'm wrong), when it was banned, the amount one would have to consume for it to show up in a test would be about 12 cups of coffee... not something most would want to consume before a race no matter how tasty or performance enhancing. I like coffee but not THAT much.

The primary reason for banning PEDs is not "purity of sport" but because many enhancers have drastic and potentially fatal effects. Look at all of these NFL players from the 70s and 80s who are dead before their 60th birthday from "mysterious" heart problems. The purity argument is mostly born from the PR campaigns designed to appeal to the individual moral obligation. If WADA just told everyone not to do these drugs because they were dangerous there would still be a bunch of people who think it is worth the risk, especially considering the financial rewards for success.

Caffeine, on the other hand, is hundreds of years old. There is a sense among a lot of people that drinking coffee will enrich, not shorten, your life. Caffeine alone isn't going to take decades off your life. Sure, if you have a pre-existing heart condition that makes it dangerous to have an increased heart rate then it could be dangerous. But this is not the case for most athletes. Caffeine is allowed in small amounts because it is well-studied and known to be safe. So it is a performance enhancer but there is no need to ban it.

Finally, thanks to the honesty and outing-courage by one of this website's founders, a doping thread with something at stake: credibility.

In these doping-debate days, Amby Burfoot not too long ago documented popping two caffeine pills just before a race. I asked him on his blog how he felt about it but he never answered me nor felt the need to address the issue indirectly.

Perhaps it is my father role which has an edge on "judging" here, but the gesture of "popping pills" itself has something ambigous about it which if a kid saw you before a race doing just that - popping [unrecognizable] pills - it would look no different if they were throat lozenges, viagra, or amphetamines.

However Letsrunners, WJ's interview is not quite like Chambers book.

But to some, understandably as a function of the anti-doping literature and sentiments expressed endlessly on this site, it must have felt somewhat similiar; at the ideological seams; on the motivational perimeter of taking something that by the end of the race you can correctly and accurately call a PED: a Performace Enhancing Drug.

In this polarized purity/legality debate what is truly lost is the sense of Fairness: the real breakthrough I argue, is not the morally based corral which embraces purity and the law, but the idea that competitors should be willing to be candid, honest, striaghfoward about HOW they compete. As in how they train, what they use, how they use it, when they use. In very detailed terms. In this sense the Athlete is a Scientist on the field, doing applied research. And for the advancement of Humanity this is Science that would be worth sharing. Maybe not to the point where you have to admit - for example - "making your wife, or lover, just before a race." But then again, maybe, why not? What if somebody prays before a race? Why not see releasing that information as a way to levelling with your opponent? Fair?

The main point is that Athletes are aware of what they are doing. And the knowledge of the factors leading to their achievement are factored in.

This should not take away from the thrill of competition. UNfair competition is not when somebody has greater talent, knowledge than you or more aptitude to trying things out, to experiment when it counts, i.e. in competition, before a "public", collective judge. Unfair competition is the unknown, secret "weapon" to give the edge, to your unknowing opponent, even if it was only a shot of espresso.

Fairness, expressed in a duel, means: equal rules, equal weapons. In this day and age, the combination of the two has become extremely complex. Could Athletics set an example?

Then it is up to the atheletes to be the best one to win.

caffeine is banned by the NCAA

http://www.netitor.com/photos/schoolslt/domi/genrel/auto_pdf/ncaa-banned-substance-list.pdf

get ugly wrote:

caffeine is banned by the NCAA

http://www.netitor.com/photos/schoolslt/domi/genrel/auto_pdf/ncaa-banned-substance-list.pdf

OK, here's a question. From the article, Wejo thinks Rojo's Cornell kids should be lining up at Starbucks. One cup of coffee isn't going to make them piss in a greater than 15 micrograms/ml amount, which is the threshold (see the link above).

So Wejo is fine with some caffeine as long as it's within the rules. Fine, that's fair. A rule is a rule, you can do everything it takes to win within the confines of the rules.

But look at the testosterone threshold in that same link. Testosterone is banned if it increases the ratio of the total concentration of testosterone to epitestosterone in the urine to greater than 6:1.

Using the same logic as with caffeine, if you naturally have a 3:1 ratio of T:E, would it be acceptable to inject yourself with testerone to bring yourself up to 5:1?

It really opens up a whole can of worms when we start debating about whether or not caffeine is ethical or not, and whether using a performance enhancing substance is doping or not, and more complex, what doping is cheating.

Caffeine unquestionably improves endurance performance, given the right circumstances. This has been scientifically demonstrated. So it is a performance enhancing substance. And it is legal and found in many of the foods and beverages consumed by the world's general population. Okay...

Having sufficient carbohydrates to fuel your body through a race enhances performance. This has been scientifically demonstrated. Carbohydrates are legal and found in many of the foods and beverages consumed by the world's general population. How is that different than caffeine?

How is using one doping and using the other not doping? Or if they are both doping, why is one cheating and one not cheating?

What about taking extra vitamins or hydrating properly in an effort to improve performance? Or simply training itself? The debate gets more complex as we consider substances which are illegal but do not enhance performance, things that are legal but do not enhance performance, etc. But the point is the same - there is a huge gray area of what is ethical and what is not ethical, and it is important to consider everything out there when you decide what your stance is.

surprised me wrote:

Using the same logic as with caffeine, if you naturally have a 3:1 ratio of T:E, would it be acceptable to inject yourself with testerone to bring yourself up to 5:1?

yes, it would be acceptable, but your peers would think you're a jackass. look at all the folks on these boards who hate galen rupp because of the high-tech performance enhancing he does with al-sal.

remember rocky iv. the public will always choose someone who trains the blue-collared way over someone created in a lab (and coffee is blue-collared, not laboratory -- caffeine pills are sketchier).