Study on microdosing and bio passport

Well excuse me. I didn't know you were gatekeeper of these forums. Now, don't be such an ignorant 'tard. For your information, injecting supplements can be part of a regime to mask microdosing.

Straight Dope wrote:

Crazy stuff. That means you SHOULD microdose at the elite level. There's no way to get caught.

If you are deemed valuable by the federation, then no need to worry about microdosing. Worse case is you take an unscheduled break like the Jamaicans just did.

I'm not sure how one gets protected status though. I mean, besides winning.

Seize the Lite wrote:

So, "A Duvk" you have seen the light, and are now in acceptance, and fulltime defense, of your favorite "running" program.

Horace Clarke wrote:

of course it is... just quit worrying about others and concentrate on yourself.

I don't get the idiotic nonsense about doping. who cares???

what's killing the sport is the media focus on doping, the vast majority of potential viewers/consumers could care less.

just run

Yeah, no.

Not me.

I'm long on record for lifetime bans for first time positives.

And also for mandatory out of season testing in Ethiopia, Kenya, and Jamaica. It's criminal that there never has been. That pisses me off, and was one of the reasons I didn't follow the sport much for years, except the normal 4 years event..

I wish there was an "all knowing, all seeing" definitive way to clear out all the dopers.

Until that "tractor beam" is invented, the Bio Passport evidently is the best we have.

The problem is not the sport, the problem is human corruption, poverty, and/or greed.

A Duck wrote:

The problem is not the sport, the problem is human corruption, poverty, and/or greed.

Emphasis on NIKE.

What do you want translated -- the whole thing?The cyclingnews link already summarizes the video pretty well:A group of amateur athletes and tri-athletes underwent a doping regime microdosing EPO, HGH, cortico-steroids, and a blood transfusion, with a goal of quantifying the effects on performance, and the corresponding changes to the bio-passport values.A couple of guys felt lots of extra energy. One guy remarked waking up at 5am, fully charged, but also noticed some aggressivity in his behavior that was surprising.One of the blood transfusions didn't go well -- guy got dizzy, and felt hot.Couple of guys thought the improvements (26-31 seconds in the 3K) were inhuman, especially considering the "micro-dosed" protocol.The 6.1% wasn't an improvement in VO2max, but power produced in a VO2max test.It is easy to point out things, like lack of controls, subjects not blinded (or double-blinded), but this kind of test is a good simulation of the reality, where there is also a lack of controls, and subjects are not blinded, and it does seem interesting/valuable to demonstrate that this kind of regime can be used to game the bio-passport, especially if It ultimately helps improve the test (rather than turn public opinion against improvements like the ABP).My observations/opinions/understanding:- I would like to know about the actual times and power, and also the guys that weren't interviewed. Were there some non-responders or negative responders? What happened to the guy that got dizzy -- bad blood?- I'd be careful with any conclusion about the 7:48 time dropping to 7:31 -- that was just an example, because one guy improved by 31 seconds (3.9%). They didn't give times, but I guess these amateurs are closer to 10:00-11:00 runners than they are to 7:48. (Actually, with a couple of assumptions on my part, the guy that improved 31 seconds went from something like 13:26 to 12:55). But just the same, I expect that clean, elite athletes should at least have less room for improvement then a group of eight amateurs.- Even if the results fall within the bio-passport pre-defined limits, my understanding of the bio-passport is that these limits are set conservatively (to avoid too many false positives), and that even clean (but suspicious) passports can still be used to decide further targeted testing.The recent UCI CIRC report was interesting in that the cyclists interviewed credited the bio-passport for reducing the effectiveness of doping. I forget the actual figures, but the magnitude was something like 10-15% performance increase before the ABP, reduced to 3-5%, giving today's "clean" athletes hope that they can be competitive without doping.

common wrote:

http://api.dmcloud.net/player/pubpage/4e7343f894a6f677b10006b4/5546515d94a6f6358504e2ba/e245022a19a247e5890f4224f9a3949f?wmode=transparent&autoplay=1

This is amazing. Anyone able to translate?

I've been saying for years that there needs to be a study like this done, with fit athletes, so we know what we're looking for. This bullsh1t about guessing based on who we think might be doping is ridiculous. Cold, hard data.

The bad news is this makes basically everyone suspect. I think I understood from the video that the improvement in running ability was significant enough to take a 7:48 3000m runner to a 7:32 in a month. And this is microdosing.

Christ.

and and yet wrote:

Imagine of you were a huge shoe company and had a sophisticated medical lab on your campus, even though there is no reason for having a sophisticated medical lab in order to design, make or market your product. Wouldn't you expect people to be skeptical?

imagine if you were a huge shoe company and a didn't have a sophisticated medical lab on your campus to help your sponsored athletes... imagine not being able to do regular tests on them to check their blood or do more complicated testing.

Imagine if you didn't screen your athletes for drug use and you let the company be exposed to damaging press should someone use peds on the side. That company would have been very foolish not to have that lab in place.

They also mentioned coupling the EPO with iron and vitamin B12 (one guy indicated there was no overdose risk with these two), and using the corticosteroids only in the end.

One of the subjects was Cédric Fleureton, former triathlete, was twice silver medallist at the European tri championships (2005 and 2006). Still trains regularly, was national trail championships winner last year. Will stay away from competition for two months.

After ten days:

* Cédric Fleureton said he couldn't feel any difference during training;

* the other guy said he could now run at 16 km/h while talking, which he couldn't before. Went 10 minutes faster on his usual 24 km run, while feeling fresh, feeling like he could go on.

The blood was reinjected after 20 days.

Cédric Fleureton mentioned after the bike test that in spite of the difficulty, it was possible to maintain the effort, improving the time considerably.

The doctor mentioned that he was surprised by the improvement in spite of micro-dosing and testing the athletes at a time of detraining.

The presenter mentions 12 micro-dosed injections overall, without specifying the substance (it has to be EPO, then?).

One of the participants said he was amazed by the improvement while training so little.

Read "Cedric" (with an E with acute accent) instead of the mangled "Cric".

Is the mangling of non-ASCII letters a Let's run forum anti-foreign language measure?

what do you think the level of doping is in soccer? do a little studying and understand that it's a sport rife with doping from a very young age when kids enter the premier academies.F1: same type of cheating that occurs with NASCA, every crew understand just how far they can push the envelope before they will get punished

Getting deeper in to it wrote:

quote]Getting deeper in to it wrote:

Yeah who cares, lets stick our heads in the sand and go for it. Who gives a shit if we end up like cycling, they've just about managed to get themselves out of the quagmire so we can do the same if it all goes tits-up, can't we?[/quote][/quote]

"what's popular and what's not?" - In Europe and other parts of the world cycling is one of the most popular, along with real football and real car racing i.e. F1, etc, etc. Suggest "dude" you get your head out of your arse, get yourself educated and realise there's a whole world out there who couldn't give a flying fvck about MMA (what ever that is), NFL, NBA or NASCAR. FMD, I'm glad I don't live in your so called "realityville".

Have a nice day y'all.[/quote]

Tommie Tresh wrote:

what do you think the level of doping is in soccer?

How about you tell us?

The problem with doping in athletics vs doping in other sports is that in other sports being the fittest, the most athletic etc doesn't guarantee success. Sure it helps a lot, but fitness isn't what differentiates F1 drivers, soccer players etc.

In athletics its about fitness and nothing else. Bolt doesn't win because of his tactical savvy, he wins because he is fastest and fittest.

Once you add doping to athletics it is all a sham

pop_pop! wrote:

Straight Dope wrote:

Crazy stuff. That means you SHOULD microdose at the elite level. There's no way to get caught.

If you are deemed valuable by the federation, then no need to worry about microdosing. Worse case is you take an unscheduled break like the Jamaicans just did.

I'm not sure how one gets protected status though. I mean, besides winning.

If it were so easy, we wouldn't be hearing anything about Russian doping.

[quote]Tommie Tresh wrote:

what do you think the level of doping is in soccer? do a little studying and understand that it's a sport rife with doping from a very young age when kids enter the premier academies.

F1: same type of cheating that occurs with NASCA, every crew understand just how far they can push the envelope before they will get punished

Rampant, I'd guess. Gareth Bale certainly got pretty beast all of a sudden. I'll even give a link to that left-wing rag, The Guardian.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/picture/2014/aug/08/sport-picture-of-the-day-gareth-bale-transformation