TEGENCAMPS BLOOD PLATELET THERAPY NOW BANNED BY WADA

rttrzgrtz wrote:

Viren did nothing wrong

Boom, roasted.

I wish idiots like you would be stripped of their ability to communicate. The sentiment your statement expresses (not its literal meaning) shows such an unbelievable inability to extrapolate that it puts in doubt your ability to function in society. Do you believe the performance enhancing effects OF FOOD should be banned???? This is one of those rare subjects where having a certain opinion actually makes you an idiot.

"silly old fossil" didn't say that anything should be banned. He simply made the correct observation that, if a technique speeds up healing, then it enhances performance. Perhaps you should now use your own ability to communicate by apologizing to him.

the verdict wrote:

Hops Rutherford wrote:

What is this platelet therapy? Can anyone post a short description?

You inject your own platelts into the injured area to help it heal. Sounds pretty close to blood doping to me, but what do I know.

Yeah, too bad 'blood doping' has never been proven to actually make any kind of difference in performance. But what do you know, snapperhead.

I have read several research reports that indicate that blood doping does improve performance by about 8%.

silly old fossil wrote:

justintherunner wrote:

I have had it done numerous times for injuries. The take out a couple of syringes of blood, really not very much, and spin it down to to concentrate the platelets. Then the re-inject it into the area of injury to stimulate healing by promoting blood flow to the area. For some people it seems to help a lot, for me it was just okay. It is in NO way performance enhancing. Google platelet rich plasma therapy for more info. It's been around for a few years now.

If it allowed you to recover from an injury faster than the normal healing of your own body, then it is definitely performance enhancing!!!!

Theoretically....so do stitches. You want them banned too?

Read the whole thread and not the single post. In the context of the thread, he used the statement, not as a correction of the previous poster's semantics, which would have been correct, but as a type of propaganda technique; he took a clearly obvious intended meaning, ignored it, showed a literal meaning of the words to be false, and then implied that the previous intended meaning of the statement was also false. I hate this action so very, very much. This is how I read the post (and I'm normally very good at reading these types of subtleties).

Of course it could have been a joke that required some hint of sarcasm to be funny (which is more difficult to do on an internet forum than in person), and if it was this, I apologize.

The final possibility is that it was intentionally ambiguous between these two extremes (a troll); Although I would find this annoying, I again should not have reacted so harshly.

I guess it must be common sense that you would naturally want to stick yourself with a syringe extract blood spin it around in a machine and inject it back in with said syringe. Yes that all sounds all peachy to me, yes exactly like eating food.

Neither you nor I know what the intentions of "silly old fossil" were, but I understood him to be pointing out that "performance enhancing" really isn't a very good way of distinguishing between drugs and techniques that are banned and those that are allowed. It's a reasonable point. Ultimately, determinations about what to allow and what to ban are highly subjective. We saw that back in the '70s and '80s in discussions about blood doping, and we've seen it in more recent years in discussions about so-called "altitude tents."

The distinction between "performance enhancing" and "healing" certainly does not provide a satisfactory explanation for the current rules. Consider, for example, the absence of a ban on using cortisone injections immediately before a competition (as Bernard Lagat did shortly before running the 5,000 meter final at this year's world championships). Although cortisone injections may be used to speed up healing by reducing inflammation, it seems clear that injections immediately before a competition are done specifically to allow the athlete to perform better while subjecting his already-injured tissue to more damage during competition.

the verdict wrote:

Hops Rutherford wrote:

What is this platelet therapy? Can anyone post a short description?

You inject your own platelts into the injured area to help it heal. Sounds pretty close to blood doping to me, but what do I know.

You evidently don't know shit.

This doesn't elevate the amount of oxygen your blood can carry. It only facilitates the healing of an injury buy making blood available.

With PRP they separate the red blood cells from the platelets. With blood doping, the red blood cells are the "good stuff" that gets frozen and reinjected. If anything, removing red blood cells is the OPPOSITE of blood doping. The ONLY reason this is being restricted at all is so that people can't use it as an excuse when they do actually blood dope.. "Oh no, I know someone saw me injecting blood into myself, no no I was just using PRP" It's an extremely sad commentary on the state of sport that potentially revolutionary medical techniques can't be used because people are cheaters.

Less Than Half-Joking wrote:

silly old fossil wrote:

If it allowed you to recover from an injury faster than the normal healing of your own body, then it is definitely performance enhancing!!!!

By that logic ice, anti-inflamatories, and deep-tissue massage are all peformance enhancing. I don't believe that banning them would serve any purpose, even if they are PEDs (which, if that term weren't so loaded, I would say they are).

Training is performance enhancing.

rttrzgrtz wrote:

Viren did nothing wrong

Neither did Geb or KB. Jos Hermens is a pillar of honesty. Look at his background when he was competing.

hahahaaa

read the WADA rules and documents before making stupid replies on here folks...

just because something improves performance does not mean it needs to be banned. (otherwise we would need to ban training). 2 of 3 criteria below need to be satisfied for something (technique/substances etc) to be officially banned:

1) improve performance

2) adverse to both acute and chronic health

3) against the spirt of sport (ethics)

#3- is is tricky, and WADA has a large ethical panel that discusses the ethics of each item at length (e.g. altitude tents were discused for a long time over the last few years).

In sum-- Teg, and the thousands of other athletes that have gotten PRP therapy, did absolutely nothing wrong in 2009 or prior. After Jan 1st, 2010.....

lalalala wrote:

In sum-- Teg, and the thousands of other athletes that have gotten PRP therapy, did absolutely nothing wrong in 2009 or prior. After Jan 1st, 2010.....

That statement right there gives Alberto a woody. Anytime that WADA or USADA ban something that his athletes are using he feels like he has always been one step ahead of the testers. He sees that as good coaching or cutting edge.

Webb just had achilles surgery/ repair. How much money you wanna put on him getting PRP with that treatment?

"If it allowed you to recover from an injury faster than the normal healing of your own body, then it is definitely performance enhancing!!!!"

While eating food or training isn't comparable to PRP (which are available to everyone and don't have to be performed in a special facility), the use of a medical technique or product (which cannot "naturally" occur) that allows an injury to heal faster is far closer to the following list of things than it is to a veritable performance enhancer like epo, hgh, or injecting massive quantities of your own blood back into yourself.

Here's to things we'd need to ban if WADA bans PRP:

Only available at/because of a medical facility:

Surgery (this doesn't just allow something to heal faster, it actually changes the ligament/tendon/muscle!!!!)

Casts

Stim

Ultrasound

Ibuprofen

Ankle/Wrist/Knee Braces

Physical Therapy

Crutches

Non-natural injury enhancers:

Eye Patches

Compression shorts/socks/tights

Stitches

Band Aids

Neosporin

Ice

Heat

The Stick

Foam Rollers

Sun Screen

Athletic Tape

Hot Tubs

The list goes on. For now, PRP doesn't fit WADA's criteria for doping - most likely because it's not. As other posters have pointed out, it's literally the exact opposite of blood doping. Moreover, the technique is at least 100,000 times less questionable that cortisone use – which is pervasive across nearly all sports.

I'm in favor of banning eye-patches.

A doc (resident?) on the Track and Field News board stated unequivocally that the therapy is NOT blood doping or packing.

Think about it; even immediately after, would it change your blood hemoglobin values or your oxygen uptake? What a really stupid line of reasoning it is to get you to the 'conclusion that it is blood doping. It involves blood - duh.