Seems the racist Kenyan Nation publication is in agreement with Coevett, plus they're not raging about "Paula Radcliffe's blood values":
Shock as Kenyan runners banned for doping in 2022 reach 23 | Nation
Seems the racist Kenyan Nation publication is in agreement with Coevett, plus they're not raging about "Paula Radcliffe's blood values":
Shock as Kenyan runners banned for doping in 2022 reach 23 | Nation
Physician here (not in sports medicine, just a lowly pulmonologist). The only performance benefits I could foresee from taking systemic glucocorticoids like triamcinolone would be the anti-inflammatory effects? Medina Spirit, the horse that won the Kentucky Derby in 2021, was busted for being given a different GC (betamethasone), in all likelihood for similar purpose.
Maybe there are some theoretical metabolic effect like increasing lipolysis (breakdown of stored fat into free fatty acids) and increasing skeletal muscle glycogenolysis (breakdown of stored glycogen into glucose) to keep your plasma glucose levels up, and thus keep you from "bonking". BUT that would all be at the cost of many countervailing side effects after repeated use over even a modest time frame. For example, I don't think of triamcinolone (or any other GC) as helping with weight loss: in fact weight *gain* is a well known side effect of chronic GC use, even at relatively low daily doses for several months at at time. GCs tend to make people retain fluid due to some mineralocorticoid effect, which stimulates the kidneys to hang onto more sodium and water. Same thing with effects on muscle strength: if anything GCs are known to cause muscle *weakness* -- just google "steroid myopathy".
Whole thing seems bizarre. Other than being cheap and easily accessible, GCs are inherently catabolic and inherently have vanishingly low affinity for the androgen/estrogen receptors so there's no little to no anabolic effects. I just don't see how there's much performance upside here.
Okay one other thought after reading the David Millar article in the New York Times. Particularly regarding how he mentions a lot that triamcinolone made him "feel" more powerful.
Among the litany of bad things GCs do to you, they tend to have a reasonably powerful euphoric effect. It's notable to the point that when I use GCs for patients sick in the hospital with asthma exacerbations, gout flares, cancer treatment side effects, etc., many will report feeling better soon after starting steroids even though objectively the GCs haven't had enough time to exert any therapeutic effects.
Makes me wonder how much of this triamcinolone craze is really chasing a psychological effect rather than physiological effect 🤷.
Would love to opinion of someone like Ross Tucker on this.
You do know this gives extra cover to other
Kenyans that never fail tests but dirty .
Usual politics and show to keep public
At bay .
A corticosteroids that being around for a long time is the new drug ......
I have mentioned the new endurance drug
Many times now ,
MOTS-c,.......... MOTS-c,,.............. MOTS-c.
I told you to watch the world track cycling champs this weekend, for both MOTS-c and new
power muscle contracting drug ..
Italian ganna did it in 4 k by alot And the Dutch in sprints
Oh yeah...
1) Never understimate a substance used by Lance Armstrong.
2) For a substance they found there are at least other two or three they dont found . Peds never walk alone
I mean, of course genetic superiority is a racist lie. There is no one human group better than another at being human, at living, breathing thinking and being worthy of honor, dignity and concern.
Nonetheless, it is not racist to think that environment and lifestyle over 10’s of thousands of years selection might provide an advantage in one tiny piece of human activity, say, long-distance running.
Life is also a distribution of talents and advantages/disadvantages. A given man or woman from the Rift Valley might be more likely to one day run a world record 10k, but there are also some slow folks there and some fast ones from elsewhere.
I love that our sport brings worldwide cultures and people together, if just a bit. Most readers and posters on these pages are big fans of athletes from many 10’s of countries.
That’s cool.
I'm sure this plays a role. Salazar knew this when he gave Rupp an "allergy shot" (probably an IM glucocortcoid) in the hotel before he set the AJR for 10k back in 2005.
Trick is not long term use rather short term it can aid in energy sources and improve alertness and overcoming fatigue in a race. None of these athletes abuse it long term. I if you took Dex 4mg injection you feel pretty great.
There's a possibility it hasn't been paid out yet. On the Coffee Club podcast a few weeks ago (can't remember exactly which one), the OAC guys talked about how it takes quite a long time (sometimes up to a year) for them to see their winnings from races.
No, once you start claiming that one group has quite vastly different 'talents' then you are opening the door to any kind of racist generalizations. There is no difference in logic between attributing genetics to percieved East African dominance in distance running, and attributing genetics to white or Jewish domination of Nobel Prize winners. And given the never ending doping busts in East Africa, it's quite obscene (and also has helped to mask the doping problem). Not to mention it affects the belief and motivation of non-African athletes. Why do you need to believe that East Africans have some strange genetic advantage when we know conclusively that for the last 25 years there has been a rampant use of a drug that many studies (as well as common sense observation of performances) have shown that improves 5K times by 20 - 30 seconds?
Provocatively entitled Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports And Why We're Afraid To Talk About It, the book has brought up to date a controversy that, in various guises, has been stirring ever since black sportsmen began regularly beating their white counterparts.
One critic, writing in the New York Times, described the book as 'demagogic quackery' and a 'piece of good-old fashioned American anti-intellectualism', while another drew parallels with Nazi ideology. 'Didn't we hear all this in Germany in 1936?' asked Richard Lapchick, the founder of America's Centre for the Study of Sport in Society. Elsewhere the book has been praised as brave, reasoned and honest.
What is beyond doubt is that, regardless of its strengths or flaws, the book plugs into a belief that is widely shared but seldom stated: that people with black skin are better suited to the athleticism of sport than people with white skin. Which is to say, it provides back-up to an unthinking stereotype, not necessarily an offensive stereotype, but one that could easily be conflated with those that are...
..There are a number of questions that might be asked about this situation but perhaps the first is why there should be any questions? Why look for biological reasons to explain black success? Why not just accept it in the same complacent spirit that we accept the supremacy of whites in just about every other field of human endeavour?
Harry Edwards, the sociology professor who organised the Black Power demonstrations at the 1968 Olympics, believes that there is in fact a consensus of indifference on the matter that amounts to tacit racism. 'Whites,' he says, 'have always been comfortable with blacks working in the fields, whether they're cotton fields or football fields.' He argues that the reasons for black advancement in sport are not to be found in the biological sciences but in the 'social environment and racism' that creates the conditions for that success.
It's certainly true that the history of research inspired by black achievements in sport is not one of which scientists can be proud. All manner of bizarre theories and contrived studies have in the past been presented as established fact, only subsequently to be utterly discredited by experience. In the 19th century the widespread belief that blacks were physically inferior was underpinned by warped interpretations of Darwin's theory of evolution. Indeed, the many theorists claimed that sub-Saharan Africans composed a different, less evolved, inferior species.
The concept of a hierarchy of races saw its practical application in an effective separation of blacks from whites. Blacks were seldom allowed to compete against whites in sport and thus the untruth was able to flourish that whites were by nature superior athletes...
...The legacy of such crude racism is the suspicion that any attempt to attribute a physical advantage to an ethnic group also implicitly apportions a mental disadvantage. And the suspicion is not paranoia. In 1994 Charles Murray published The Bell Curve, a book that examined IQ differences among races and drew heavily on the work of a Canadian psychologist, J Philippe Rushton, a proponent of the inversely proportional relationship between brains and brawn.
Entine is aware of the problem and argues that it's 'time to decouple intelligence and physicality'. All the same, much of the criticism that has been levelled at Taboo in the States stems from a conviction that the ideas explored in the book will have precisely the opposite effect. If the conclusion drawn from black domination of Olympic track medals is that blacks are physically superior, what is to be made of the enormous over-representation of whites on the list of Nobel prize winners?
The science is limited,' concedes Entine. 'It's fascinating, it does point in all kinds of directions, and you can speculate. But the fact is the way we tend to speculate is really the important issue.' In fact, Entine himself inadvertently demonstrates the way in which we allow race to colour our interpretation of events. Partly, I suspect, to make the book fit the title, he plays down the contribution of (non-black) North Africans in middle and long-distance running and concentrates on (black) East Africans. He is also not above bringing in misleading evidence to back up his case...
..his two most vocal antagonists are black Americans, Harry Edwards, and another sociologist, Todd Boyd.
Edwards recently said that the data presented in the book amounted to an 'underhand way' of saying that blacks were 'closer to beast ' than they are to the rest of humanity.' Still, Entine is certain that whites in America are obsessed with race in a way that black Americans are not, and that, furthermore, white liberals feel obliged to see any discussion of race as inherently racist. 'I'll tell you this,' says Entine defiantly.'It's very condescending, especially to sports fans and African-Americans and others who I think are far more interested in understanding the world in ways that they see around them.'
Exactly how Taboo will lessen the American obsession with race is not at present easy to see. For all Entine's talk of respecting the 'biodiversity' of humanity, our attitudes to race are not yet so evolved that we are able to take ethnic difference in our stride. Even in Britain - which, if not as afflicted by racial division as America, is a long way from being colour blind - few have the appetite to confront the notion of racial superiority in any form.
When Sir Roger Bannister , the first man to run a mile in less than four minutes, spoke in 1995 as a neurologist at a British Association for the Advancement of Science meeting of 'certain natural anatomical advantages' possessed by 'black sprinters and black athletes in general', he provoked a mixture of fear, anxiety and silence. Garth Crooks, the (black) former Spurs striker who is now BBC football reporter, said at the time: 'I don't think it matters what the biological conclusions are. It forges a distinction between black and white athletes which is unhealthy, unhelpful, and untrue.' Linford Christie, the only Briton ever to run under 10 seconds, and a man who has been made acutely aware of his skin colour, was less condemnatory.
But he refused to accept Bannister's argument: 'What Sir Roger said is a cop out, in a way. As long as white people believe that black people can run faster, they always will. It makes my job a lot easier. I'll accept that. But Allan Wells was an Olympic champion. Valeri Borzov was an Olympic champion. So it can be done.'
Cool stuff...
According to study results, MOTS-c treatment helped middle-aged and old mice run significantly longer and further than untreated mice. What’s more, old mice outperformed untreated middle-aged mice.
I'm a little surprise runners at this high a level would take such a risk for a drug that most people in the know agree isn't going to help performance even close to as much as EPO or an anabolic.
When someone goes to the doctor for a cortisone shot for an achey knee or some other ache or pain, 95% of the time, that drug given is triamcinolone. This drug is given out like candy in orthopedics, family medicine and dermatology offices.
Yes, it does reduce inflammation. I suppose it might help reduce some aches and pains in training. Maybe it allows you to recover a little quicker because of that. But it doesn't build leg muscle like anabolic or testosterone. It doesn't increase red blood cells like EPO. Especially considering it should be very easy to get a TUE for since anyone can say they had a skin rash or itchy skin and get a prescription for it in cream form.
Rojo—seriously, are you a total M0R0N?
Where are they getting it? Seriously?? And now you’re lauding one of the Italians for having sacrificed some chump?
GET REAL. WTF is the matter with you people, I thought you used to compete at a serious level—and yet you saw and learned NOTHING???!!
I’m beside myself in disbelief at the naïveté shown on this board by people who I think would know better.
I used triamcinolone topically for a good 5 years and not only was it not very effective in curing my allergic skin reactions, I also noticed 0 improvement in my athletic endeavors.
I have several unused tubes at home. I eventually switched to betamethasone.
Mind boggling to me that it is a PED.
Yes, it sounds very useful for endurance athletes particularly. Duck is on the ball here.
hmm m wrote:
There's a possibility it hasn't been paid out yet. On the Coffee Club podcast a few weeks ago (can't remember exactly which one), the OAC guys talked about how it takes quite a long time (sometimes up to a year) for them to see their winnings from races.
That sounds about right. The larger point still stands. Not Demadonna's first positive athlete.