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

So you want to continue this line or reasoning that allowing caffeine is unfair to sick athletes with health problems? The brutal truth is that competition is biased towards healthy athletes -- sometimes life isn't fair, but the rules are not designed to fix that. The goal is to provide a level playing field for healthy athletes.But then again, so what? Simply not being able to take caffeine for health reasons does not constitute an inherent unfairness to that athlete. The unfairness is linked with the magnitude of the performance advantage conveyed. The current rules presume that non-caffeinated athletes can compete with caffeinated athletes fairly, because the performance advantage, which has been well studied and is well known, seems to be not enough to warrant any concern.Which athletes are campaigning for a ban on coffee?If neither USADA, WADA, nor the NCAA think it's an issue, and no athlete thinks it's an issue, then maybe it really is not an issue. What expertise do I, or you, have to create an issue that those directly involved are not concerned with?

BOGUS! wrote:

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.

Did the doctor measure race times, or power output?Would be idiotic to equate the two.

jeery wrote:

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.

You're oblivious, perhaps willfully so, if you think that caffeine is only detrimental to "sick athletes with health problems."

Perhaps you should go back and re-read what was said by whom for comprehension, and try to place your comments in the right context, and direct them to the right person."BOGUS" claimed that some athletes can not take caffeine because they have pre-existing health problems, presumably caused by something else than caffeine, to demonstrate a kind of injustice to some narrow class of athletes. I made no claims at all that caffeine was detrimental to anyone.In fact, no one at all, in this entire thread, except txRUNNERgirl's dad, ever talked about caffeine being detrimental.I have a willful bias for a proper perspective and accuracy.Try again...

Bias Detector wrote:

You're oblivious, perhaps willfully so, if you think that caffeine is only detrimental to "sick athletes with health problems."

Dear Voice of Ray-san,

your astute politeness leads me to safely believe that in your opening line you are not suggesting that i am one of the idiots ;-) (Still, in the true, profound spirit of Letsrun, you may gain much popularity to correct Your to You are o You're...)

[quote]Voice of Ray-san wrote:

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. :-)

On the other hand, the point could be that it is entirely idiotic to argue against the use of something tasty, aromatic, culturally rooted, legal, pleasurable and that will enhance your sporting performance.

Please note that debating issues on this particular board is often a pleasurable mental training session itself. I would call it the Letsthink shadow of Letsrun. And i like thinking. Not unlikely, while sipping a rich cup of hot coffee.

And to this effect, i will say this.

Is the pleasure of caffeine consumption going to be to sports and running, what the pleasure of smoking and alcohol were intended to be to socialization? I say intended because i am trying to factor in the concept of abuse.

As you appropriately say: lets keep things in perspective.

But in twenty-years time, I would hate to see on my 500g packet of Espresso "Coffee causes Instant Death Syndrome" or "Caffeine is hazardous to your health" labels, because some idiots abused coffee. Because some idiots end up in emergency because they estimated that if a couple of cups of coffee would give them a 3% boost in their 10K, with 30 cups before a race they would qualify for the olympic trials. Because there have been idiots who have gotten so drunk they could not drive safely. And others that have smoked themselves to death.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of a more dehumanizing practice than to deprive man of one of Life's pleasures. We are wired for pleasure, be it the pleasure of self-betterment, or the pleasure of taste. Coffee can be safely catalogued in these categories according to the article which began this thread.

I am just thinking if something useful has been learned from the mistakes of other pleasure industries.

Darwin awards are a harsh reality. But Idiot Proofing is a fascinating field.

Sincere regards.

No, no health "problems" were referenced. The athletes are able to perform just fine but introduction of caffeine into their systems proves to harm performance rather than enhance it. That's the reality, like it or not, and it's true regardless of whatever is posted on this thread. Narrow class or not, they do deserve consideration with respect to the rules and standards of the sport.

Bias Detector wrote:

No, no health "problems" were referenced. The athletes are able to perform just fine but introduction of caffeine into their systems proves to harm performance rather than enhance it. That's the reality, like it or not, and it's true regardless of whatever is posted on this thread. Narrow class or not, they do deserve consideration with respect to the rules and standards of the sport.

gatorade bothers my stomach so much that it usually makes me throw up if i drink either during or immediately after races. i suppose it's only fair that we put it on the list of banned substances as well. even better, i should probably file lawsuits against road races that provide gatorade at their water stops. what an unfair advantage!

the existence of this thread has made everyone unlucky enough to click on it substantially dumber. may god have mercy on your souls.

Are you contending that Gatorade is the only electrolyte replacement drink available?

ANALOGY FAIL

Thanks for making an already stupid thread even more stupid.

double shot every morning wrote:

Maybe you're kidding, BOGUS (April fool's!), because this is just too much. Running 120 miles a week poses a "genuine health threat" to a certain segment of the population; does this mean high mileage should be banned in favor of a committee-approved, across-the-board cap of 35 mpw?

Or, perhaps more to the point, consider peanut butter. Should peanut butter--fatty, sweet, protein-rich peanut butter--be banned as a pre-race snack because of all the kids with allergies?

yes, according to these anti-caffeine RETARDS, all of that stuff should be banned.

competitive runners should all have to meet at one central location for all of their training and meals to make sure nobody gets an unfair advantage.

you are correct.

You are sleeping, you don't want to believe.

Well "BOGUS" said: "Some athletes can't take caffeine at all, owing to health conditions." I won't argue whether a "health condition" qualifies as a reference to a "health problem".Regardless, it's not relevant if some athletes can not or will not take caffeine for whatever reason.The only issue to decide is that if one athlete does take caffeine, does that present an unfair advantage to the competitors? As you said, "The athletes are able to perform just fine" without caffeine.De-caffeinated athletes were given due consideration, and the rules were formed to permit a minimum amount of caffeine.No one has presented any reason why this issue merits further consideration, and presumably athletes and anti-doping organizations agree, that caffeine-doping is not a priority.There is no technical, or ethical debate here.

Bias Detector wrote:

No, no health "problems" were referenced. The athletes are able to perform just fine but introduction of caffeine into their systems proves to harm performance rather than enhance it. That's the reality, like it or not, and it's true regardless of whatever is posted on this thread. Narrow class or not, they do deserve consideration with respect to the rules and standards of the sport.

Time to end this inconsequential thread.

1. Caffeine is not a drug.

2. Caffeine is not on any prohibited list.

3. Therefore Wejo is NOT using a prohibited PED.

4. End of story.

f

Grow up kiddies.

That's fine, except technically speaking,1) caffeine really is a drug2) and it is on prohibited lists -- it is only permitted in small amountsThis casts doubt on 3) (should be reworded), and we can only hope for 4).But you knew that... Time for my nap.

But you knew that wrote:

Time to end this inconsequential thread.

1. Caffeine is not a drug.

2. Caffeine is not on any prohibited list.

3. Therefore Wejo is NOT using a prohibited PED.

4. End of story.

f

Grow up kiddies.

no coffee here wrote:

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the fact that in many ways, caffeine functions like a mild form of adrenaline or epinephrine.

Adrenaline release, which is increased by caffeine ingestion is the performance enhancer.

Wejo and the rest of us should be nervous enough already before a race and not need to be shaking with nerves.

But then again we are conditioned to believe in ergonic aids, so a shot of coffee is a psycholigal prop, but it doesn't give you anything you can't achieve naturally and it doesn't boost noradrenalin, which is equally important in performance boosting effect as adrenalin.

Your level of "ethics" supports an inherently unfair standard. End of story.

I got some energy gum(1 piece = 1/2 a cup worth of caffeine) ,which I figured was the best of all worlds. Don't have to deal with the coffee part when it comes to having to piss it out later or deal with the cocoa, and you keep your mouth from getting dry.