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

because... wrote:

i didn't read through the thread after this to see if anyone continues to argue with your utter retardedness, but you are an utter retard if you're arguing that drinking coffee is in any way (legally or illegally) cheating.

don't pretend that your cute little argument holds any water at all...great plan you monstrous f***ing douchebag.

I'm curious to hear what you think about my question from a little earlier. You obviously think it's no big deal for an NCAA athlete to have a cup of coffee or two. It will give a performance boost but not exceed the 15 micrograms/liter limit. Do you also think it's OK for NCAA athletes to take testosterone as long as they don't exceed the limit (6:1 T:E ratio)?

If I'm naturally at 3:1, in your eyes, is it not cheating if I boost myself up to 5:1? One poster was kind enough to offer his opinion already, but you seem like such an interesting guy I want to hear your take on it too.

I love that the best argument against what I said is "you're a raging idiot." Calling me a "moran" (sic) was also cute.

The fact is, you have the same mentality as any doper. You want the performance-enhancing benefit of the drug, and you don't want to feel bad about it. Everybody's doing it, it's culture, blah blah blah. Those arguments are trash.

So jam your fists in your ears and live your myopic existence.

surprised me wrote:

If I'm naturally at 3:1, in your eyes, is it not cheating if I boost myself up to 5:1? One poster was kind enough to offer his opinion already, but you seem like such an interesting guy I want to hear your take on it too.

The use of exogenous testoterone is banned. It may not be caught or tested for until you exceed the prescribed ratio but it is still against the rules and if, for example, you were seen with a T patch on your arm, you could still be banned even if your ratio was less than the 6:1.

Also, in response to an earlier poster, I'm pretty sure creatine is on the banned list as well.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

The use of exogenous testoterone is banned. It may not be caught or tested for until you exceed the prescribed ratio but it is still against the rules and if, for example, you were seen with a T patch on your arm, you could still be banned even if your ratio was less than the 6:1.

That's not how I'm reading it.

"Definitions of positive depends on the following:

** For testosterone – if the administration of testosterone or the use of any other manipulation has the result of increasing the ratio of the total concentration of testosterone to that of epitestosterone in the urine to greater than 6:1, unless there is evidence that this is due to a physiological or pathological condition."

Looks like you can do whatever you want until you hit 6:1. I'm just wondering how many supporters of "a little caffeine" would also support "a little testosterone".

I tend to agree with Wejo... one of the reasons a substance gets banned is the damage it can due to a person's health... EPO for instance has been linke dto numerous cyclists's deaths...

Blood brother: i dont think the focus is on bashing Wejo. I think beyond what NYTimes wrote, people want to know more from him.

For example: at what age would you start kids taking caffeine specifically for Performance Enhancement (and not because coffee tastes nice)?

I dont believe there is a drinking age for coffee but there probably are guidelines amongst doctors and pediatricians. How would you feel about those parents/coaches who start their athlete-kids drinking coffee as a cultural ritual - say for breakfast - to "break them in"?

How about energy drinks which are mostly about caffeine but in fact have a host of other stimulants which could be easily described as "just like caffeine" and therefore increase PED consumption?

I think people are saying that when you describe something powerful like a PED you need some guidelines. Focussing on concentration levels is good for passing/failing tests but arguably not for educational purposes.

For example i remember some ballet dancers - athletes in their admirable artistic sense - who use to smoke between their exploits on stage to "ease the tension" and relax, ultimately to dance better.

There was no competition there, just coping with the need to be pefect. The ciggies helped some of them, possibly also to control their weight and appetite. To this extent they were using Performace Enhancing Drugs: nicotine.

Seeing them smoke backstage just didnt look right. Seeing somebody pop caffeine pills before a race might not be illegal but just wouldnt look right.

Since you seem to be the spokesman for the "coffee is unethical" camp, I'll direct my reply to you. Escalating the issue/threat that coffee/caffeine poses only serves to downplay the real threat of more powerful and dangerous substances.

First, don't be fooled -- the issue of what constitutes a banned substance is completely arbitrary, and can be nothing else. A "drug" is simply any substance which can be used in medicine. More specifically, a: "natural or artificial substance used as a medication; narcotic, opiate, hallucinogen". This definition can include just about everything, including bananas and Gatorade.

Since the effects of coffee and caffeine are widely known, and anti-doping organizations such as WADA simply are not concerned, and have already addressed this well-known substance, there doesn't seem to be any reason to create an ethical debate, where there is no debate.

You stated that one important distinction is that "carbs" are necessary simply for living, and "caffeine" is not. Au contraire. Your energy can also be supplied by fat and alcohol -- it is not necessary to consume carbs at all, simply to survive. I also recall a story where a WWII POW was able to survive, by eating coffee grounds dug up from the garbage -- i.e. he needed coffee simply to survive. Tragically, his companions did not eat coffee, and did not survive. Coffee comes from a bean, and beans are food.

So how do we decide what is banned, and what is not? The issues that need to be addressed and balanced are:

- Availability and accessibility -- it is no secret that coffee is a stimulant, and is virtually available to everyone. We don't speak of doctors in a secret lab.

- Risk to health or life. Does winning become a life or death decision?

- Fairness - the ethical and moral "spirit" of the rules is to ensure fairness, not to apply the letter of rules designed to disallow EPO, HGH, etc, to mundane substances. Ultimately, the rules exist to ensure a level playing field, and that athletes can win or lose to other athletes fair and square. Otherwise, if it is simply complying to rules, taking PEDs would have the same gravity as high school girls rolling down their shorts -- gasp, horror, shock.

- maybe more...

The answer to this is necessarily and completely arbitrary -- some committee must decide, balancing these (and other) factors, what constitutes fairness. Now whether USADA, WADA, etc., are the right committees, or are doing the job right, is another subject, but ultimately it is a group decision as to what constitutes fairness.

The question to ask, is "Is taking coffee/caffeine unfair to other competitors?" The question has already been asked, and the committee has already answered, "no".

Similarly, your question about injecting testosterone, to jump from 3 to 5 is easy to answer. Would an anti-doping committee reasonably conclude that this practice is fair to competitors? I would say no. It's not about the rule, but about fairness. Unfortunately, since such decisions need to withstand legal challenge, we experience the harsh reality that enforcing fairness (fairly) is not without its problems.

this thread the the best troll of all time 10/10

neanderthal dream wrote:

I love that the best argument against what I said is "you're a raging idiot." Calling me a "moran" (sic) was also cute.

The fact is, you have the same mentality as any doper. You want the performance-enhancing benefit of the drug, and you don't want to feel bad about it. Everybody's doing it, it's culture, blah blah blah. Those arguments are trash.

So jam your fists in your ears and live your myopic existence.

suprised me wrote:

That's not how I'm reading it.

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

"Definitions of positive depends on the following:

** For testosterone – if the administration of testosterone or the use of any other manipulation has the result of increasing the ratio of the total concentration of testosterone to that of epitestosterone in the urine to greater than 6:1, unless there is evidence that this is due to a physiological or pathological condition."

Looks like you can do whatever you want until you hit 6:1. I'm just wondering how many supporters of "a little caffeine" would also support "a little testosterone".

You are quoting the NCAA rulebook. I did not look up the rules on testosterone but was going off of what I remember from Landis at his WADA hearing. I'm pretty sure use of any exogenous T is banned. The 6:1 ratio merely triggers further testing (mass spectrometry?) in that system.

I drank some before the Boston Marathon last year and all it did for me was make me have to shit at mile 11

Your arguments flow but are weak and developed with a contradictory layout. Arguably, they create more confusion.

Just to mention:

1) you say there is no ethical debate yet conclude with the implied ethical difficulty of the pursuit of Fairness;

2) comparing taking PEDs to "high school girls rolling down their shorts" is flashy but incomprehensible in scope. At the very least, needs to be explained;

3) do you honestly think people really understand how they come to drink too much coffee? I.E. that the effects of caffeine are truly undestood?

4) winning and Life and Death? Yet another "unwanted" ethical approach

5) You state an illogical untruth: the answer to the question if taking caffeine is unfair to other competitors is not NO. It is no IF below a certain concentration.

6) the WWII POW item. There are many stories of survival from bygone wars. I have living relatives who have often recounted their eating eggshells to get proper nutrition, to survive. Eggshells = PEDs? War is an extraordinary time frame with extraordinary rules that should not apply in peacetime.

And last but not least i love the poster who did product placement with his Illy handle. Caffe' Paulista is good too. I drink coffee. My wife drinks coffee. My children have tasted it on rare occasions but have not expressed any real desire for it.

On some races where i had a cup of espresso before hand, i felt "primed". On other occasions i felt exhausted in the first few kilometers. Not all cups of coffee have been the same strength.

I think if you just wrote: "Hey it's legal, appreciated and available worldwide" WHY are we even talking about this, it would have made more sense.

Education, studies, info-sharing are the most useful initiatives on these issues to help people make up their mind.

I did not think I created more confusion, but it seems you did not understand what I wrote, so let me try again, addressing you point by point.1) I did not say there is no ethical debate, just that coffee/caffeine is not part of it.2) Admittedly an obscure and unrelated reference to some old discussions, but apparently it is against the rules for girls to roll down the band of their shorts (too sexy and immoral I guess), and some girls have been disqualified for that, because, dumb or not, that's the rule, and rules are rules, and the officials are just doing their job. The point is that not all rules, and infractions, should be equated to each other. Some things are more serious. It is not hypocritical to criticize steriod use, yet promote caffeine. It is also not correct to stretch the semantics of a rule designed to exclude explicitly "banned substances" to also include the explicitly "unbanned substance" coffee, because it is coincidentally also performance enhancing (as are bananas and Gatorade). Such a stretching equates the two, leaving an unthinking person to conclude that "rules are rules", and "performance enhancing is not allowed" and therefore "coffee is unethical".3) I don't know. I wasn't talking about drinking too much coffee, and for sure I can't say what people understand. Apparently the effects of caffeine related to enhancing performance are well known and documented by scientists, and they only talk about a couple of cups at a time.4) ??? Just making the point, that a life threatening substance should reasonably be banned. Coffee/caffeine can not be considered part of a life threatening ethical discussion, at least in the amounts permitted.5) Perhaps I should have included an (*) with a footnote. The answer is a "qualified" no. Hardly an "illogical untruth", but a "qualified truth". The indisputable fact is that caffeine was considered and is allowed in small amounts. Apparently the performance advantage is not considered unfair by WADA and other anti-doping organizations. Judging by the lack of general outcry from athletes about coffee, they also seem to be OK with the current status of caffeine in sports.6) Someone argued that an important distinction between carbs and caffeine was that carbs are necessary for life, and caffeine is not. Therefore Gatorade, and bananas are OK, but coffee is not, because it is a luxury. I was simply rejecting both assumptions, and demonstrating that coffee can also be considered a food. The spirit of the issues are not whether substances are necessary for life, but revolve around fairness and safety for the athletes.I don't mean to create more confusion. Simply speaking, what I mean to say is, to guide their thinking, people should think in terms of fairness and safety to the athletes. The issue is not whether a substance can enhance performance, but whether this enhancement results in an unfair, or dangerous, situation for other athletes to compete. And this can only be a group decision, on a case-by-case basis.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

You are quoting the NCAA rulebook. I did not look up the rules on testosterone but was going off of what I remember from Landis at his WADA hearing. I'm pretty sure use of any exogenous T is banned. The 6:1 ratio merely triggers further testing (mass spectrometry?) in that system.

Yes, I am quoting the NCAA rulebook. I was specifically asking about NCAA athletes (this was in my post from a few pages back).

Dear Voice of Ray-san,

thank-you for time and extra effort to play this out.

Especially thank-you for your civilized approach. Clearly, you understand i am not a fundamentalist in principle, yet like to consider the issue in depth.

In general i would say we are not that far apart from an accessible common ground.

If we were to take the discussion further i would say the most important issue is, like in several other behavioral domains, "guidelines" for young people, their parents, coaches, mentors.

To makes the quickest and most provocative example, we need to think out the tween/teen athlete scenario who wants to try to pop a couple of caffeine pills before a race - all legal right? - because he reads about it on the net, in magazines, sees older succesful peers do it, speak about it ect ect. I suppose this is not that different from other growing-up issues. And it might just be something to work out in the family? In school? Together? Just sounding things out here...

This is what i would like to hear your opinion on. For the rest i pretty much accept your points. And your politeness.

Sincere regards.

surprised me wrote:

I'm curious to hear what you think about my question from a little earlier. You obviously think it's no big deal for an NCAA athlete to have a cup of coffee or two. It will give a performance boost but not exceed the 15 micrograms/liter limit. Do you also think it's OK for NCAA athletes to take testosterone as long as they don't exceed the limit (6:1 T:E ratio)?

If I'm naturally at 3:1, in your eyes, is it not cheating if I boost myself up to 5:1? One poster was kind enough to offer his opinion already, but you seem like such an interesting guy I want to hear your take on it too.

of course i wouldn't think it's cheating if it's legal. if someone can obtain it legally and not break any rules by taking it, it's fine.

that, by definition, is not cheating, you f***ing dumbass.

jesus christ. if you think drinking coffee is cheating, you should kill yourself. the world would be so much better off without uptight assholes like you.

Voice of Ray-san wrote:

The question to ask, is "Is taking coffee/caffeine unfair to other competitors?" The question has already been asked, and the committee has already answered, "no".

Similarly, your question about injecting testosterone, to jump from 3 to 5 is easy to answer. Would an anti-doping committee reasonably conclude that this practice is fair to competitors? I would say no. It's not about the rule, but about fairness. Unfortunately, since such decisions need to withstand legal challenge, we experience the harsh reality that enforcing fairness (fairly) is not without its problems.

This is contradictory, because there are many competitors who are unable to consume caffeine for any number of reasons (neurological, cardiological, etc.) and thus cannot take advantage of the boost that anyone else would derive from caffeine use. Just because the "committee" decided a certain way does not mean that they lent enough weight to ethical considerations.

There is no contradiction. The issue of caffeine has had sufficient weight, and there is no ethical consideration involving caffeine.Let's try to keep everything in perspective.Certain quantities of caffeine are permitted, because the advantage difference is too small to be considered unfair, even for those unable to reap the advantages caffeine offer. Athletes do not feel that they have to load up on caffeine in order to win. Athletes can win events without taking caffeine.Contrast this with the Tour de France, where 9 out of the top 10 winners have a dark cloud of suspicion around them, either caught in a failed test, linked with dodgy doctors, or admitting their sins after the fact. The universal feeling among all riders is, if they don't do/take something, they will just be "also rans".As a side note, it's a curious argument - that some athletes can not consume caffeine. Should we ban sugar because it's unfair to diabetics? Athletes with some physical disadvantage should rightly lose a physical contest against someone with a physical advantage -- life may be unfair, but this is a harsh reality.

BOGUS! wrote:

This is contradictory, because there are many competitors who are unable to consume caffeine for any number of reasons (neurological, cardiological, etc.) and thus cannot take advantage of the boost that anyone else would derive from caffeine use. Just because the "committee" decided a certain way does not mean that they lent enough weight to ethical considerations.

Your welcome. Not sure what I'm supposed to respond to, but I strive to keep my head, and not resort to calling idiots the idiots they are. :-)My main point really is just to keep things in perspective. We are simply talking about a couple cups of coffee. This is not the same thing as comprehensive blood doping, or third generation EPO. There are differences in gravity here which simply requires applying common sense to know when it is appropriate to be outraged.Look at how athletes object now to the "24-hour whereabouts rule". The last thing any athlete wants is an organization like WADA banning them from their livelihood, and smearing their reputation, for having their morning cup of coffee.Regarding a culture of popping pills before a race, I am generally against this shortcut mentality that life's problems can be quick-fixed by taking pills. I'm in favor of doing things "old-school", and not looking for cheesy short cuts. Passing on the right mindset to children is an important responsibility for parents, coaches, role models, and everyone else in a position to influence our children.Regarding children, and "guidelines" to shield them from legal substances like caffeine, I just point out how much Coca-Cola kids drink starting at a very early age. I'm not familiar with caffeine concentrations, but at least the current Coke recipes are no longer "the real thing" they were originally.

You're in denial. I just laid out the inherent lack of fairness is allowing caffeine. Some athletes can't take caffeine at all, owing to health conditions. This is like many other banned substances in that regard. It poses a genuine health threat to a certain segment of the population.