ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 25th August 2012, 01:46 PM   #201
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 44,989
So maybe it's been mentioned in the 5 previous pages, but in case it hasn't been, apparently not everyone agrees the USADA has the authority at this point to strip Armstrong of his titles. The International Cycling Union claims the titles have not been rescinded.

International Cycling Union statement on Lance Armstrong
Quote:
The UCI recognizes that USADA is reported as saying that it will strip Mr. Armstrong of all results from 1998 onwards in addition to imposing a lifetime ban from participating in any sport which recognizes the World Anti-Doping Code.

Article 8.3 of the WADC states that where no hearing occurs the Anti-Doping Organization with results management responsibility shall submit to the parties concerned (Mr. Armstrong, WADA and UCI) a reasoned decision explaining the action taken.

As USADA has claimed jurisdiction in the case the UCI expects that it will issue a reasoned decision in accordance with Article 8.3 of the Code.

Until such time as USADA delivers this decision the UCI has no further comment to make.”
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 25th August 2012 at 01:48 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 01:54 PM   #202
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
 
I Ratant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,133
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Yes, the flaw in the "let them do what they want" argument is that then drugs become almost mandatory. Then all your winning female shot-putters develop hairy chests and deep voices, meaning that big women who fancy a crack at that sport might as well not bother unless they want the hairy chest.*

In addition, an exceptional clean winner's performance is downgraded in the public mind as they are assumed to be doing drugs.

*this 'hairy chest' business might not be entirely accurate, but substitute "untoward physical and health effects" and you get the gist
.
I've noticed female body builders when they bulk up to advance to higher classes have facial feature changes.
I Ratant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 02:38 PM   #203
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 33,969
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
Drugs aren't magic but they do give you a 10-15% boost in performance.

The issue is that clean athletes get screwed. They get beat by cheaters. An athlete using PED no more wins a race than the athlete who trips all the competitors in the 1500 meters and raises his hand as he crosses the finish line.

Two choices:

1) Change the rules to make drugs a part of the sport.

2) Go after the cheaters mercilessly.

It looks like the USADA is taking the second option.
Any proof of that?
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 02:46 PM   #204
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 33,969
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
So maybe it's been mentioned in the 5 previous pages, but in case it hasn't been, apparently not everyone agrees the USADA has the authority at this point to strip Armstrong of his titles. The International Cycling Union claims the titles have not been rescinded.

International Cycling Union statement on Lance Armstrong
Stripping Armstrong of his wins after this long makes a travesty of the TdF and all bike races.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 02:52 PM   #205
malicus
Graduate Poster
 
malicus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,588
Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic View Post
Not content with that..........http://store.theonion.com/p-5045-che..._campaign=ad11
malicus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 02:54 PM   #206
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
 
I Ratant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,133
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Stripping Armstrong of his wins after this long makes a travesty of the TdF and all bike races.
.
It's a buncha old men cutting off their noses to spite their faces... as Mom would say.
I Ratant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 03:19 PM   #207
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 10,455
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Any proof of that?
Not on the specific amount. It was simply a regurgitation of a quote I heard from a doctor who was caught helping athletes dope. His point was that PEDs were a free 15% increase in speed and strength so the question isn't why would athletes using them, the question is, why wouldn't they?

Of course, there is little doubt they are of benefit. The problem with studying them is one of ethics. Knowing the harm they do, is it ethical to test them on humans. However, there have been some tests done. This one for example:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...html?full=true

As well, look at the number of records that are/were held by users. The fact is, people don't win until they use PEDs.
__________________
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them."

(Mark Twain)
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 03:24 PM   #208
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 10,455
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
Yes, the flaw in the "let them do what they want" argument is that then drugs become almost mandatory. Then all your winning female shot-putters develop hairy chests and deep voices, meaning that big women who fancy a crack at that sport might as well not bother unless they want the hairy chest.*

In addition, an exceptional clean winner's performance is downgraded in the public mind as they are assumed to be doing drugs.

*this 'hairy chest' business might not be entirely accurate, but substitute "untoward physical and health effects" and you get the gist
Exactly. And then you have to reexamine what the spirit of sports is. It wouldn't be athletic prowess and fair play, it would be medical technology and win at any cost.

The win at any cost thing is already bad enough with the money riding on events like the Olympics. There must be something to counteract it. Doping rules are a great way to do it.
__________________
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them."

(Mark Twain)
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 04:22 PM   #209
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 8,212
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
So maybe it's been mentioned in the 5 previous pages, but in case it hasn't been, apparently not everyone agrees the USADA has the authority at this point to strip Armstrong of his titles. The International Cycling Union claims the titles have not been rescinded.

International Cycling Union statement on Lance Armstrong
I mentioned it, but others probably did as well. The most power that USADA has with regard to this is to make a determination that the UCI is required to act on based on an agreement. Clearly the USADA can't strip anybody of anything, but it can, apparently make a finding which some other agency may be required to act on.

Somebody explained it previously, but I'm still not clear on what the legal basis is for the USADA to ignore their own 8 year statute of limitations on this. I guess the argument is something like Armstrong was racing within the 8 year statute of limitations and therefore everything becomes subject to review. Whatever the legal logic here is, the whole thing strikes me as stupid. Eight years seems like a ridiculously long statute of limitations on this already and the idea that there is some legal dodge that allows the statute of limitations to be ignored entirely strikes me as even stupider.

I think I read that the UCI has a 3 year statute of limitations which strikes me as a reasonable number. If that is correct how is it that the USADA expects to impose their craziness on the UCI. The USADA is going to argue that the statute of limitations is whatever they feel like and the UCI needs to go along with it?
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb
davefoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 04:46 PM   #210
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
tsig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 33,969
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
Not on the specific amount. It was simply a regurgitation of a quote I heard from a doctor who was caught helping athletes dope. His point was that PEDs were a free 15% increase in speed and strength so the question isn't why would athletes using them, the question is, why wouldn't they?

Of course, there is little doubt they are of benefit. The problem with studying them is one of ethics. Knowing the harm they do, is it ethical to test them on humans. However, there have been some tests done. This one for example:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...html?full=true

As well, look at the number of records that are/were held by users. The fact is, people don't win until they use PEDs.

Energy isn't free it has to come from some where and in this case it has to come from the body of the cyclist. How do they store this extra energy?

So we can tell they use PEDS because they win?

Until there's evidence that any of the drugs that Armstrong is alleged to have used actually do anything there's nothing scientific about this whole thing.

You still seem to view drugs as magical substances that gives users powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men.

Last edited by tsig; 25th August 2012 at 04:52 PM. Reason: add s
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 05:07 PM   #211
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 8,212
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Energy isn't free it has to come from some where and in this case it has to come from the body of the cyclist. How do they store this extra energy?

So we can tell they use PEDS because they win?

Until there's evidence that any of the drugs that Armstrong is alleged to have used actually do anything there's nothing scientific about this whole thing.

You still seem to view drugs as magical substances that give users powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men.
It seems plausible to me. There is a chemical that controls the production of red blood cells. If one takes this drug the quantity of red blood cells increases. It seems plausible to me that this would lead to increased athletic performance because of the increase in red blood cells or perhaps indirectly because the increased number of red blood cells improves the effect of training. I'm not informed to any great extent about all this but it seems like there isn't a physical law that precludes the possibility that PED's work.

If you would like more than my uninformed opinion (not to say that you were particularly interested in that anyway) here is an article about EPO.

http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/cm...?articleid=456

From that article:
Quote:
Magic Shoes
In 1989, seven athletes underwent an EPO experiment in Sweden. Swedish scientist, Dr. Bjorn Ekblom of the Stockholm Institute of Gymnastics and Sports, injected the athletes with EPO and then measured their endurance levels on a treadmill.

All subjects outperformed their previous endurance levels after injecting with EPO. Dr. Ekblom reported that, on average, EPO cut up to 30 seconds off a 20-minute running time. In world-class events, where fractions of a second sometimes separate winners from losers, the benefits of EPO for athletes are huge.
But even without doing any specific research it seems the case that PED's improve athletic performance is pretty strong. One common example is home run hitting in American baseball. When testing wasn't in place the number of people hitting more than 50 home runs a year skyrocketed. When testing was instituted the number returned to historical averages.

Of course, a common sense argument is that athletes are routinely caught using PED's and it seems likely they're not all naive woo woos that might be just as willing to rely on pyramid power as opposed to something that might work like PED's.
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb

Last edited by davefoc; 25th August 2012 at 06:21 PM.
davefoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 05:07 PM   #212
OnlyTellsTruths
 
OnlyTellsTruths's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,834
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Until there's evidence that any of the drugs that Armstrong is alleged to have used actually do anything there's nothing scientific about this whole thing.

You still seem to view drugs as magical substances that gives users powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men.

I understand what you are saying, but are you trying to suggest that they give 0% improvement??

I don't have any links offhand, but from the studies I remember it is generally more like 5% to 10%, not the 10% to 15% that qayak said.

I also seem to remember it was a bit more or less depending upon if it was physical (like weightlifting) or endurance (like long distance cycling). I don't remember which.

Also, there are countless different drugs of countless different types. So your point about testing the exact drugs in question is quite reasonable.
__________________
________________________
OnlyTellsTruths is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 06:10 PM   #213
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 10,455
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Energy isn't free it has to come from some where and in this case it has to come from the body of the cyclist. How do they store this extra energy?

So we can tell they use PEDS because they win?

Until there's evidence that any of the drugs that Armstrong is alleged to have used actually do anything there's nothing scientific about this whole thing.

You still seem to view drugs as magical substances that gives users powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men.


The next time you are dying of an infection, tell me antibiotics don't have powers beyond what you, as a mortal man/woman, have.

The drugs do things to the body that the cyclist can't do themselves, that's why they are called "Performance Enhancing Drugs."
__________________
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them."

(Mark Twain)
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 06:17 PM   #214
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 10,455
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Until there's evidence that any of the drugs that Armstrong is alleged to have used actually do anything there's nothing scientific about this whole thing.

You still seem to view drugs as magical substances that gives users powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men.
http://www.sportsci.org/encyc/anabster/anabster.html#5

Quote:
Anabolic Steroids and Performance

The effects of anabolic steroids on physical performance are unclear. Well controlled, double blind studies have rendered conflicting results. In studies showing beneficial effects, body weight increased by an average of about four pounds, lean body weight by about six pounds (fat loss accounts for the discrepancy between gains in lean mass and body weight), bench press increased by about 15 pounds, and squats by about 30 pounds (these values represent the average gains for all studies showing a beneficial effect). Almost all studies have failed to demonstrate a beneficial effect on maximal oxygen consumption or endurance capacity. Anabolic steroid studies have typically lasted six to eight weeks and have usually used relatively untrained subjects.

Most changes in strength during the early part of training are neural: increased strength is mainly due to an improved ability to recruit motor units. Anabolic steroids affect processes associated with protein synthesis in muscle. Studies lasting six weeks (typical study length) would largely reflect neural changes and could easily miss the cellular effects of the drugs.

The gains made by athletes in uncontrolled observations have been much more impressive. Weight gains of thirty or forty pounds, coupled with thirty percent increases in strength, are not unusual. Such case studies lack credibility because of the absence of scientific controls. However, it would be foolish to completely disregard such observations because the "subjects" have been highly trained and motivated athletes.Please see the articles on pharmacology of sport and sports medicine in the countries of the former Soviet Union for more information on anabolic steroids.
__________________
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them."

(Mark Twain)
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 06:18 PM   #215
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 44,989
Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
I mentioned it, but others probably did as well. The most power that USADA has with regard to this is to make a determination that the UCI is required to act on based on an agreement. Clearly the USADA can't strip anybody of anything, but it can, apparently make a finding which some other agency may be required to act on.

Somebody explained it previously, but I'm still not clear on what the legal basis is for the USADA to ignore their own 8 year statute of limitations on this. I guess the argument is something like Armstrong was racing within the 8 year statute of limitations and therefore everything becomes subject to review. Whatever the legal logic here is, the whole thing strikes me as stupid. Eight years seems like a ridiculously long statute of limitations on this already and the idea that there is some legal dodge that allows the statute of limitations to be ignored entirely strikes me as even stupider.

I think I read that the UCI has a 3 year statute of limitations which strikes me as a reasonable number. If that is correct how is it that the USADA expects to impose their craziness on the UCI. The USADA is going to argue that the statute of limitations is whatever they feel like and the UCI needs to go along with it?
The UCI also cited the need for a hearing and the be presented with the evidence in lieu of the hearing which has not happened.

The news today also reported that at least one of the guys who came in second said he would not accept the yellow jersey if Armstong is stripped, and many other racers and some in the UCI are on Armstrong's side.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 06:23 PM   #216
Natural Born Skeptic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,456
Originally Posted by malicus View Post
Ha, they also published a fake oped by none other than Armstrong himself yesterday for those who want to have a laugh and read it.
Natural Born Skeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 06:29 PM   #217
Natural Born Skeptic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,456
In the computer world each new format improves on security, sometimes with claims it will be "unbreakable". This happened for instance with both HD and Blu Ray DVD's, both of which claimed hackers would not be able to get around their copyright protection. It took a year or so but both formats were hacked.

I'm curious if there is a similar game of cat and mouse with drug testing, with the drug testers and doping testers claiming they have made it almost impossible to cheat, with the cheaters discovering new and improved methods of cheating to once again evade detection? Or have they in fact made it almost impossible to beat the tests (assuming proper testing procedures are in place)?
Natural Born Skeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 06:32 PM   #218
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 44,989
So there is a normal level of erythropoietin in the blood and I'm pretty sure that would have been one of the gazillion drug tests done on Armstrong. Anyone care to point out how he supposedly got past all those tests and what evidence the USADA actually has on Armstrong. I understand it is some secret snitch (no necessarily reliable, an anonymous witness) and a pattern of red cell counts they think means something.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 06:38 PM   #219
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 10,455
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Energy isn't free it has to come from some where and in this case it has to come from the body of the cyclist. How do they store this extra energy?

So we can tell they use PEDS because they win?

Until there's evidence that any of the drugs that Armstrong is alleged to have used actually do anything there's nothing scientific about this whole thing.

You still seem to view drugs as magical substances that gives users powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men.
http://rphr.endojournals.org/cgi/con...ll/57/1/411/F3

Quote:
There are virtually no controlled studies of AAS effects on women for obvious ethical reasons but dramatic evidence of these effects derives from the recently released results of the East German sports program of the 1970s and 1980s (Franke and Berendonk, 1997). Figure 3 shows shotput performance of a female German athlete, with the bars below indicating the periods of AAS administration.

__________________
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them."

(Mark Twain)
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 06:41 PM   #220
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 10,455
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
So there is a normal level of erythropoietin in the blood and I'm pretty sure that would have been one of the gazillion drug tests done on Armstrong. Anyone care to point out how he supposedly got past all those tests and what evidence the USADA actually has on Armstrong. I understand it is some secret snitch (no necessarily reliable, an anonymous witness) and a pattern of red cell counts they think means something.
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interv...chael-ashenden

This will dis-spell the conspiracy theories Armstrong has used to discredit the evidence as well.
__________________
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them."

(Mark Twain)
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 08:25 PM   #221
stanfr
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 376
Yep, Lance knew he was checkmated and conceded to avoid the trouncing. I once assumed that a cancer survivor would be reluctant to use anything that might cause ill effects health-wise, but given that EPO is a 'natural' substance and even is used in treating cancer patients (hmmm...) it sort of makes sense Lance would have no issue with using. I've never seen him argue that the ban on PEDs is fair or just, only that his persecution is unjust...
stanfr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 08:29 PM   #222
Matty1973
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 253
A 2min video of the situation for Armstrong

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Matty1973 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 08:35 PM   #223
Natural Born Skeptic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,456
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
Until there's evidence that any of the drugs that Armstrong is alleged to have used actually do anything there's nothing scientific about this whole thing.

You still seem to view drugs as magical substances that gives users powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men.
Are you also of the opinion that until there's some evidence that the planets rotate around the sun that there's nothing scientific about the whole thing? And that the idea that the planets rotate around the sun is magical?
Natural Born Skeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 08:51 PM   #224
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 10,455
Originally Posted by Nessie View Post
Because, as has been raised a number of times, who do you give the title to?
Somehow this becomes reasoning for not going after Armstrong: We can't expose a cheat because we don't know who we should give the title too?

Well that's quite simple to solve. Leave it vacant and pick it up again next year. Wipe the cheats right out of the record books. All of them. Make it like they never existed.

In the Olympics it would be very simple to solve the problem. Everyone competes under the flag of their country. They are all members of a large team. If one member gets caught doping, boot the whole team out. They lose all their times, medals, and records like they never competed.

Now, that would be some serious motivation for countries to put a stop to doping.
__________________
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them."

(Mark Twain)

Last edited by qayak; 25th August 2012 at 08:54 PM.
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th August 2012, 08:57 PM   #225
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 44,989
Originally Posted by stanfr View Post
Yep, Lance knew he was checkmated and conceded to avoid the trouncing. I once assumed that a cancer survivor would be reluctant to use anything that might cause ill effects health-wise, but given that EPO is a 'natural' substance and even is used in treating cancer patients (hmmm...) it sort of makes sense Lance would have no issue with using. I've never seen him argue that the ban on PEDs is fair or just, only that his persecution is unjust...
EPO is an important drug in cancer treatment since a lot of treatments attack rapidly dividing cells which blood cells are.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2012, 01:02 AM   #226
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Moderator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 28,734
Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
Of course, a common sense argument is that athletes are routinely caught using PED's and it seems likely they're not all naive woo woos that might be just as willing to rely on pyramid power as opposed to something that might work like PED's.
Well, sportsmen in general are not especially noted for their intelligence or rationalilty. Have you seen how many top athletes drink special drinks, wear Power Balance Bands or Kinesio tape? None of those may be actually harmful, but their widespread use doesn't suggest a great deal of critical thinking. (Though you could argue that money is a rational motivator, if they're being paid to use the products.)
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2012, 01:05 AM   #227
GlennB
Cereal pedant
 
GlennB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sapounakeika
Posts: 13,376
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
So there is a normal level of erythropoietin in the blood and I'm pretty sure that would have been one of the gazillion drug tests done on Armstrong. Anyone care to point out how he supposedly got past all those tests and what evidence the USADA actually has on Armstrong. I understand it is some secret snitch (no necessarily reliable, an anonymous witness) and a pattern of red cell counts they think means something.
The Ashenden interview explains it well, though it's a long read.
GlennB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2012, 01:12 AM   #228
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
Tagger
 
Damien Evans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 28,826
Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
Assuming that the Ashenden's information is correct there is not only definitive proof that Armstrong used EPO for the 1999 TDF, the use by his competitors of EPO was much less common than most of us had surmised. Armstrong also showed a willingness to commit fraud to gain a payout by contending he didn't use PED's although it sounds like the case was eventually settled based on a theory that payment could not be withheld whether Armstrong did or did not use PED's.

My view up to this time was that some kind of drug cheating was rampant and Armstrong was just particularly skillful at masking it and as such he won the by the rules and the testing that was available at the time which is all that was significant. It sounds like the use of PED's was very common in 1998 but had been very significantly reduced by 1999. It also sounds like a rider in an environment where most people weren't using EPO was going to have a significant advantage.

Was Armstrong cheating from a moral standpoint? I'm still a little unclear on that. If all your competitors are willing to use PED's if they don't get caught and you just happen to be the one that figure's out how to do it, it seems like you're playing by the same rules as your competitors and as such maybe what Armstrong did was not exactly cheating in the moral sense. But it also seems like that wasn't exactly the case in 1999. It sounds like most of the competitors made the decision to follow the rules perhaps based on the theory that racing authorities were going to even the playing field by successfully enforcing the rules and Armstrong just decided to exploit the naivety of his opponents and used PED's when he knew that most had decided not to.
Not even close. Of the GC riders in 1999: Second was Alex Zulle, who admitted taking EPO, Fernando Escartín was third, but in 2004 one of his teammates admitted to systematic doping within that team, Laurent Dufaux who finished fourth was one of the 1998 Festina druggies along with Zulle so we can't have him either, fith was Ángel Casero who was later implicated in the Operacion Puerto scandal so we can't have him, Abraham Olano was 6th but he was a customer of the infamous Michele Ferrari.

Daniele Nardello, in 7th, is the first rider in the GC who has never been implicated in drug taking.

It continues below him though. Well known doper Richard Virenque came 8th as well, leaving only 3 riders in the top ten who we can be reasonably confident were clean. So if you think use of drugs wasn't rampant in the late 90's and early 2000's, you're kidding yourself.

http://www.vice.com/read/so-wait-who...-france-titles

And that, in a nutshell, is why the decision to try to take these titles away is ridiculous. Because either you'll be giving it to another doper, or someone so far behind it's a joke.
__________________
WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN? - Death
http://australasianskeptics.info/
"The dogs bark, but the caravan goes on." - icerat
Damien Evans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2012, 01:14 AM   #229
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
Tagger
 
Damien Evans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 28,826
Originally Posted by Morrigan View Post
This may be a really dumb suggestion... but why not allow doping? Seems like they all do it anyway, and it's impossible to win without it, so might as well let them compete with it. You'd save the hassle of testing and find who the best athlete is among a bunch of dopers. *shrugs*

Some are saying that we are now entering an era of "clean cyclists"... uh, are you really that naive? Maybe the tests are improved now, but they'll just make a new drug that will pass the tests, until these get caught later on... and again and again.
This tired old rubbish again?
__________________
WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN? - Death
http://australasianskeptics.info/
"The dogs bark, but the caravan goes on." - icerat
Damien Evans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2012, 01:22 AM   #230
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
Tagger
 
Damien Evans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 28,826
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
http://nyvelocity.com/content/interv...chael-ashenden

This will dis-spell the conspiracy theories Armstrong has used to discredit the evidence as well.
On the other hand:
http://web.archive.org/web/200712012...report1999.pdf
__________________
WHAT CAN THE HARVEST HOPE FOR, IF NOT THE CARE OF THE REAPER MAN? - Death
http://australasianskeptics.info/
"The dogs bark, but the caravan goes on." - icerat
Damien Evans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2012, 09:59 AM   #231
I Ratant
Penultimate Amazing
 
I Ratant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,133
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
Somehow this becomes reasoning for not going after Armstrong: We can't expose a cheat because we don't know who we should give the title too?

Well that's quite simple to solve. Leave it vacant and pick it up again next year. Wipe the cheats right out of the record books. All of them. Make it like they never existed.

In the Olympics it would be very simple to solve the problem. Everyone competes under the flag of their country. They are all members of a large team. If one member gets caught doping, boot the whole team out. They lose all their times, medals, and records like they never competed.

Now, that would be some serious motivation for countries to put a stop to doping.
.
I'll go with that.
As it appears everyone in that time frame was cheating, drop all of them from the record books.
I Ratant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2012, 10:31 AM   #232
Skeptic Ginger
formerly skeptigirl
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 44,989
Originally Posted by GlennB View Post
The Ashenden interview explains it well, though it's a long read.
So his crit was always less than 50 and if he used the synthetic EPO so did a lot of other riders. Are they also being charged?

There's also the issue of the reliability of the test. There are tests that have poor specificity.

False-positive detection of recombinant human erythropoietin in urine following strenuous physical exercise
Quote:
Erythropoietin (Epo) is a glycoprotein hormone that promotes the production of red blood cells. Recombinant human Epo (rhEpo) is illicitly used to improve performance in endurance sports. Doping in sports is discouraged by the screening of athletes for rhEPO in urine. The adopted test is based on a combination of isoelectric focusing and double immunoblotting, and distinguishes between endogenous and recombinant human Epo. We show here that this widely used test can occasionally lead to the false-positive detection of rhEpo (epoetin-β) in postexercise, protein-rich urine, probably because the adopted monoclonal anti-Epo antibodies are not monospecific.
Certainly 'post exercise' would apply. And if the test subjects weren't heavy exercisers when the test was developed that makes the results used in sports events even more questionable.

That doesn't mean I know one way or the other how they tested the test prior to using it, but I think it needs serious consideration, as does using the test on stored urine.
__________________
(*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, Pubbie Party, Repubs "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 26th August 2012 at 10:41 AM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2012, 10:43 AM   #233
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 8,212
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
So his crit was always less than 50 and if he used the synthetic EPO so did a lot of other riders. Are they also being charged?
Assuming the report linked to by Damien Evans above (http://web.archive.org/web/200712012...report1999.pdf) is correct it looks like WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) engaged in an effort to specifically target Armstrong using methods that were in violation of various safeguards to protect the privacy of athletes and to produce reliable results that could be definitively associated with a particular individual. Possibly because of this the results of other competitors that tested positive have not been identified.

However, I suspect that the USADA is aware that the procedures used to obtain positive results against Armstrong were not useful in a proceeding against him and planned to base the case against him on testimony of people that had specific knowledge of his use of some kind of PED (probably EPO, nothing else has been mentioned that I have seen).
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb
davefoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2012, 01:15 PM   #234
Marcus
Master Poster
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,021
Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
Assuming the report linked to by Damien Evans above (http://web.archive.org/web/200712012...report1999.pdf) is correct it looks like WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) engaged in an effort to specifically target Armstrong using methods that were in violation of various safeguards to protect the privacy of athletes and to produce reliable results that could be definitively associated with a particular individual. Possibly because of this the results of other competitors that tested positive have not been identified.

However, I suspect that the USADA is aware that the procedures used to obtain positive results against Armstrong were not useful in a proceeding against him and planned to base the case against him on testimony of people that had specific knowledge of his use of some kind of PED (probably EPO, nothing else has been mentioned that I have seen).
Former Postal riders may testify to witnessing (and participating in) blood doping in addition to EPO use, including the transfusions themselves and the storage and transport of blood bags.I say this because Johan Bruneel has chosen arbitration so the testimony may still be heard .
Marcus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2012, 04:02 PM   #235
Tricky
Briefly immortal
 
Tricky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 43,668
I feel Lance Armstrong likely engaged in some very borderline activities, as far as the doping rules are concerned. But I'm going to go all libertarian here and say, "so what?"

It is my feeling that performance enhancing drugs should be recognized, monitored, and allowed in all competitions. Why? Because it's technology. It is like discovering a new compound for a lighter bike frame or a new kind of brakes that stop more efficiently or new apparel that gives you less wind resistance.

Yes, I know there is a difference. Drugs are used on the athlete, not on the equipment, but really, is there an ethical difference? Anybody who becomes a professional athlete has already sold his body. Why shouldn't he do as much as he can to deliver a superior product? Yes, they may be harming their future, but face it, athletics are dangerous to your future in any case. You make the choice. You take the risk.

I think of the "Blade Runner", Oscar Pistorius, who is a double amputee, but has prosthetic legs which, arguably, may give him an advantage. True, he did not choose to be an amputee, but it is still technology that makes him able to compete. Should he be forbidden to participate because he has a "technological advantage"? Many say "yes", but most think "no", because of the pity thing, but I say "yes" because, get over it. Technology makes us better. Yes, I think there are limits. No cyborgs or stuff like that, but you cannot halt technology. However good detection methods get, science will be one step ahead. So just accept it and let athletes deform themselves however they will in order to succeed, because you are never going to know if you missed something.

Last edited by Tricky; 26th August 2012 at 04:03 PM.
Tricky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2012, 04:35 PM   #236
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 8,212
Originally Posted by Tricky View Post
I feel Lance Armstrong likely engaged in some very borderline activities, as far as the doping rules are concerned. But I'm going to go all libertarian here and say, "so what?"

It is my feeling that performance enhancing drugs should be recognized, monitored, and allowed in all competitions. Why? Because it's technology. It is like discovering a new compound for a lighter bike frame or a new kind of brakes that stop more efficiently or new apparel that gives you less wind resistance.

Yes, I know there is a difference. Drugs are used on the athlete, not on the equipment, but really, is there an ethical difference? Anybody who becomes a professional athlete has already sold his body. Why shouldn't he do as much as he can to deliver a superior product? Yes, they may be harming their future, but face it, athletics are dangerous to your future in any case. You make the choice. You take the risk.

I think of the "Blade Runner", Oscar Pistorius, who is a double amputee, but has prosthetic legs which, arguably, may give him an advantage. True, he did not choose to be an amputee, but it is still technology that makes him able to compete. Should he be forbidden to participate because he has a "technological advantage"? Many say "yes", but most think "no", because of the pity thing, but I say "yes" because, get over it. Technology makes us better. Yes, I think there are limits. No cyborgs or stuff like that, but you cannot halt technology. However good detection methods get, science will be one step ahead. So just accept it and let athletes deform themselves however they will in order to succeed, because you are never going to know if you missed something.
Several people have made this suggestion in this thread. And I hesitate to say anything that would get you off your libertarian path but there are issues. But on the libertarian front, the only violation of libertarian ideals I see here is when the government set up an anti-doping agency. If the various non-governmental sports bodies want to set up anti-doping rules and methodologies I think your inner libertarian can feel at ease. These are organizations for which membership is voluntary and people's tax money isn't being collected to enforce a particular view point.

Regardless of who is enforcing these rules there are some issues about how far athletes should be able to go as far as PED's. How interested in sports will people be if it turns into a giant chemical experiment where people are driven to partake of ever more serious drugs to win. It might be interesting in a ghoulish sort of way. How premature will be the death of the sprint competitors when the full negative effects of their drug cocktails begin to destroy their lives and eventually kill them. What are the long term effects on women that take male hormones? You could look to female body building participants for an answer to that.

I don't think there are any perfect answers here, but not allowing PED's seems like a reasonable policy to me. On the other hand, wide spread drug use that was open and monitored might lead to improvements in medical treatment for many people while damaging the lives of only a few elite athletes.
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb

Last edited by davefoc; 26th August 2012 at 04:39 PM.
davefoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2012, 05:17 PM   #237
Doghouse Reilly
Adrift on an uncharted sea
 
Doghouse Reilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,354
Originally Posted by Howie Felterbush View Post
Because "Gunderson" is hilarious and "Armstrong" isn't.

Makes me think of Fargo.
What a stand up guy you are. He changed his name so he would carry the name of the stepfather who raised him instead of the jerk who abandoned him when he was two years old.
Yeah, real hilarious to refer to someone by the name of the person who abandoned them that they're trying to put behind. The tone of your post implies that the name change was frivolous.

Last edited by Doghouse Reilly; 26th August 2012 at 05:22 PM.
Doghouse Reilly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2012, 05:41 PM   #238
BabyLion
Scholar
 
BabyLion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 100
Why are some supplements legal while others aren't. I practice Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, there are some supplements that i can go to GNC and buy that make me feel like a machine. I can go twice as long without getting tired ect. Glucosamine can be taken after a work out to cut your muscle rehab time in half. So where is the line between supplements and "performance enhancing drugs"?
BabyLion is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2012, 07:58 PM   #239
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,178
Originally Posted by BabyLion View Post
Why are some supplements legal while others aren't. I practice Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, there are some supplements that i can go to GNC and buy that make me feel like a machine. I can go twice as long without getting tired ect. Glucosamine can be taken after a work out to cut your muscle rehab time in half. So where is the line between supplements and "performance enhancing drugs"?
I think it's largely arbitrary, though harm done by taking it is supposedly a factor, but it may not always make sense. But then again, when you think about it, all the rules for any sport are arbitrary. If you decide to play it, you find out the rules, and either you play by the rules or you get thrown out. You look at the list. Deciding what supplements are permissible is not that different from reading the other rules, and deciding whether you can get four strikes in a baseball game or pull a knife on your Jiu Jitsu opponent.
__________________
Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding. (Samuel Johnson)

I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th August 2012, 08:30 PM   #240
Natural Born Skeptic
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,456
Originally Posted by Tricky View Post
Anybody who becomes a professional athlete has already sold his body.
That's as silly as asserting that anyone that is a scientist has sold their brain.
Quote:
Yes, they may be harming their future...
And therein lies the rub. I don't want a culture that is so corrupt that it's actually endorsing the use of steroids in sports, thereby saying "we don't have a problem with you destroying your body or increasing the risk of cancer, and if you'd like to compete in sports without doing those things, too bad". I don't think most people have an issue with performance enhancements that are safe and not potentially damaging to the body. I suppose blood doping is on the edge of that discussion, as no doubt would be certain steroid us (all steroids are not equally dangerous).
Quote:
but face it, athletics are dangerous to your future in any case.
Apart from a few sports such as football or boxing which I suspect could be shown statistically to result in increased health risks, most sports likely have just the opposite affect, resulting in increased health and lifespan.

Notice I said likely, absent data that's an educated guess based on the fact that we know that exercise is good for us, the balls in your court to prove that basketball, running, cycling, baseball, swimming, and 101 other sports are dangerous to your future.

Last edited by Natural Born Skeptic; 26th August 2012 at 08:56 PM.
Natural Born Skeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:45 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.