AG Drug use

joey100

Seen this article on Slowtwitch, Kona qualifying Age grouper caught for EPO use. Is it the first of many? I'd guess that it's a bigger problem than is known at the moment.

http://www.slowtwitch.com/News/AG_athlete_banned_for_doping_5530.html

After seeing that, the English junior TT rider who was caught with EPO and now the GAA trying to introduce blood testing for their athletes looks like drug use is still widespread in most sports, Even amateur ones, like this age grouper and the Irish cyclist caught earlier in the year.

Kurt_Godel

Helle didn't hold back on what she thought of her fellow Dane...

I want my voice and opinion to be heard on this. I won't try and hide it, it's an emotional voice because I care deeply about our sport, especially in my home country of Denmark. We are not a big nation but we are a proud triathlon nation. A nation that really has done our bit to contribute to the growth of triathlon globally. And yet again a gutless act by a person only driven and fuelled by their own self-ego, nothing more, nothing less, puts a dark grey shadow over all that so many of us work so hard for.

Given the large subset who are happy to cheat in plain sight (drafting), I'd expect EPO use to be fairly common in AG racing.

zico10

Kurt_Godel wrote: »

Given the large subset who are happy to cheat in plain sight (drafting), I'd expect EPO use to be fairly common in AG racing.

EPO use might 'be fairly common', but to compare it to drafting is way over the top. Drafting is a very grey area, it's a judgement call that race officials alone are allowed make.
Whereas with EPO, you either used it, or you didn't. It is totally black and white. Once someone has injected themselves with EPO, they've crossed a line and there's no come back.
Someone who drafts once, might never draft again and to say it is analogous to using EPO is completely ridiculous in my mind.

Kurt_Godel

zico10 wrote: »

EPO use might 'be fairly common', but to compare it to drafting is way over the top. Drafting is a very grey area, it's a judgement call that race officials alone are allowed make.
Whereas with EPO, you either used it, or you didn't. It is totally black and white. Once someone has injected themselves with EPO, they've crossed a line and there's no come back.
Someone who drafts once, might never draft again and to say it is analogous to using EPO is completely ridiculous in my mind.

I didn't make an analogy with someone who drafts once.

Study of 3,000 AG'ers at Ironman Frankfurt, Ironman 70.3 Wiesbaden and Ironman Regensburg. 13% admitted to physical doping (Steroids, EPO, Human growth hormone, etc).

tunney

zico10 wrote: »

EPO use might 'be fairly common', but to compare it to drafting is way over the top. Drafting is a very grey area, it's a judgement call that race officials alone are allowed make.
Whereas with EPO, you either used it, or you didn't. It is totally black and white. Once someone has injected themselves with EPO, they've crossed a line and there's no come back.
Someone who drafts once, might never draft again and to say it is analogous to using EPO is completely ridiculous in my mind.

if someone used EPO a few times, way back when, are they still dopers now? Do you subscribe to the "lifetime benefits" school of thought?

zico10

Kurt_Godel wrote: »

I didn't make an analogy with someone who drafts once.

Is it fair to say you made an analogy between drafting and doping? That's how I read it.

Study of 3,000 AG'ers at Ironman Frankfurt, Ironman 70.3 Wiesbaden and Ironman Regensburg. 13% admitted to physical doping (Steroids, EPO, Human growth hormone, etc).

Has this report not be rubbished by numerous authorities?

Kurt_Godel

zico10 wrote: »

Is it fair to say you made an analogy between drafting and doping? That's how I read it.

A large subset of people I see competing at AG level in Tri are happy to willingly cheat in plain sight (to be specific I mean the large group of the same people I see drafting in every race they enter); so I would not be surprised at all if there was also a large subset cheating behind close doors by doping.

zico10 wrote: »

Has this report not be rubbished by numerous authorities?

I've read it being rubbished lots of places. Never read it being refuted scientifically though. I know enough statistics to have studied this report when it first came out, and there's nothing to suggest its not rigorous and statistically significant.

peter kern

Kurt_Godel wrote: »

I didn't make an analogy with someone who drafts once.

Study of 3,000 AG'ers at Ironman Frankfurt, Ironman 70.3 Wiesbaden and Ironman Regensburg. 13% admitted to physical doping (Steroids, EPO, Human growth hormone, etc).

it would help if people read this study before quoting it.

The present survey examined the use of substances to improve physical and cognitive performance in a large collective of recreational triathletes. Specifically, this study assessed the prevalence of using physical and cognitive enhancers (i.e. legal and freely available substances) as well as the prevalence of physical and cognitive doping (i.e. illicit or banned substances/pharmaceuticals)

this includes , beta blockers and caffein tablets etc etc )

unless you see a table where it says X percent admited to use enhancers on the wada code you can not present this study for your purpose

tunney

peter kern wrote: »

it would help if people read this study before quoting it.

The present survey examined the use of substances to improve physical and cognitive performance in a large collective of recreational triathletes. Specifically, this study assessed the prevalence of using physical and cognitive enhancers (i.e. legal and freely available substances) as well as the prevalence of physical and cognitive doping (i.e. illicit or banned substances/pharmaceuticals)

this includes , beta blockers and caffein tablets etc etc )

Anti-depressants too.

I filled out that survey in Frankfurt.

Kurt_Godel

peter kern wrote: »

it would help if people read this study before quoting it.

The present survey examined the use of substances to improve physical and cognitive performance in a large collective of recreational triathletes. Specifically, this study assessed the prevalence of using physical and cognitive enhancers (i.e. legal and freely available substances) as well as the prevalence of physical and cognitive doping (i.e. illicit or banned substances/pharmaceuticals)

this includes , beta blockers and caffein tablets etc etc )

unless you see a table where it says X percent admited to use enhancers on the wada code you can not present this study for your purpose

Mea Culpa, the physical performance enhancers in the 13% include legal enhancers. Had another look, no they don't.

I spent ages looking at the maths behind it a while back. The 13% figure for physical doping is a prevalence estimate based on answers. “Physical doping” refers to the intake of illicit or banned substances to improve physical performance in sports. Looks mathematically sound to me. I think you need to read it more thoroughly Peter, as you are misreading the data, in my humble opinion. Its this misreading that has people rubbishing the report.

But I'm not going to labour the point. I reckon AG Tri racing is largely free of PED's, but there are plenty who will take whatever is available to gain an edge. Same as any other sport, or aspect of life for that matter.

peter kern

Kurt_Godel wrote: »

Mea Culpa, the physical performance enhancers in the 13% include legal enhancers. Had another look, no they don't.

I spent ages looking at the maths behind it a while back. The 13% figure for physical doping is a prevalence estimate based on answers. “Physical doping” refers to the intake of illicit or banned substances to improve physical performance in sports. Looks mathematically sound to me. I think you need to read it more thoroughly Peter, as you are misreading the data, in my humble opinion. Its this misreading that has people rubbishing the report.

But I'm not going to labour the point. I reckon AG Tri racing is largely free of PED's, but there are plenty who will take whatever is available to gain an edge. Same as any other sport, or aspect of life for that matter.

i would just look at the question b and see what is included.


"Have you used substances which can only be prescribed by a doctor, are available in a pharmacy, or can be bought on the black market (e.g. anabolic steroids, erythropoietin, stimulants, growth hormones) to enhance your physical performance during the last 12 months? "

( again in gemran you have to buy coffein talbets in a phanrmacy - in other countries not thats why its on their list while it is lega they say this very clearly in the report.
so again pleae show me the table where they distinguish the percentage of legel and illigal drugs.

btw i dont rubbish the report it could have been done better with 3 simple quetions and then presented in the result
a have you used substances that are banned on the wada list
b have you used substances that are legel but to enhance your performace such as caffein tabletes aspins in small doses some pain killer some anto flu drugs
c do you use drugs that might be enhancing but for medical reasons
for instance beta bloccker
( and here it could get a bit ify with testosterone but i dodnt know enough aobut that )

but their quetion has all 3 in one .
and of course iam happy to be proven wrong

edit

btw i just read an interview by the guy who did the study and he agrees with me ( his argument is they pulled all 3 in 1 as they do not expect an amateur to know the wada code they just wanted to know who uses perfomance enhancing drugs legaly or not legal.

and the result here is clear the more ambitous the athelte the more likely to do so.


Interview mit dem Leiter der Abteilung Sportmedizin des Institut für Sportwissenschaft der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Prof. Dr. Dr. Perikles Simon.
In der Studie wird die Abschätzung vorgenommen, dass sich 19.8% der Teilnehmerinnen und Teilnehmer des Ironman Frankfurt 2011 in den vorangehenden 12 Monaten physisch gedopt hätten.

Handelt es sich dabei um Doping im Sinne der WADA? Oder wird eine eigene, freiere Definition von Doping verwendet? Ist es möglich, dass die Studie Sportler als gedopt einordnet, die nach den gültigen Anti-Doping-Regeln nicht gedopt haben?

Bei der verwendeten Definition handelt es sich nicht um die sehr strenge Definition der WADA. Dies würde nämlich voraussetzen, dass die Befragten alle Substanzen auf der Verbotsliste der WADA kennen. Bei Breitensportler ist jedoch nicht anzunehmen, dass diese die ganze Palette dieser verbotenen Substanzen kennen. Aus diesem Grund galt es einen praxisnahen Dopingbegriff zu formulieren, mit dem diese Sportler etwas anfangen können. Es war außerdem nicht das Ziel dieser Studie, die Dopingprävalenz bei Triathleten zu schätzen, sondern zu analysieren, ob es einen Zusammenhang zwischen dem Konsum von, körperlich und geistig leistungssteigernden Substanzen gibt. Hierfür mussten beide Definitionen angepasst werden, um diese Hypothese empirisch prüfen zu können

In der Pressemeldung Ihres Instituts sowie in der Studie selbst wird vereinfachend von "Doping" gesprochen, ohne darauf hinzuweisen, dass dem eine eigene, unscharf formulierte Definition von Doping zugrunde liegt, die nicht dem üblicherweise verwendeten Begriff des Dopings entspricht. Was entgegnen Sie dem Vorwurf, zulasten der Sportler Populismus zu betreiben?

Der Populismus wird seitens der Medien betrieben, die sich ausschließlich auf eine Zahl stürzen, nämlich die geschätzte Dopingprävalenz beim Frankfurt IRONMAN, statt die Gesamtprävalenz von 13% oder das Kernziel der Studie hinreichend korrekt zu berichten. Als Wissenschaftler haben wir die Pflicht aufzuklären. Uns vorzuwerfen, wir betrieben Populismus, wäre daher eine verantwortungslose Unterstellung.

zico10

tunney wrote: »

if someone used EPO a few times, way back when, are they still dopers now?

Isn't someone who murdered someone 'way back when' still a murderer now?

In life in general, I believe people should be given a second chance. Having said that, I wouldn't want to share a house with a murderer, nor would I be happy racing against a doper.

'Are known dopers still doping now?' is a more pertinent question. If someone's caught a second time, then they should be told to just get the hell out of the sport.

Do you subscribe to the "lifetime benefits" school of thought?

It's not a question of whether or not I subscribe to this school of thought. I don't even think you should be even classifying it as a school of thought. Does doping give a lifetime benefit? I don't know the answer to this question, but I assume it's not as clear cut as whether someone doped or not in the first place. If lifetime bans were deemed appropriate by the proper bodies though, then I'd have no problem with them.

Kurt_Godel

Bit of a remove to say he agrees with you Peter!

Question given for Physical "enhancement"-
"Have you used substances which can only be prescribed by a doctor, are available in a pharmacy, or can be bought on the black market (eg. anabolic steroids, erythropoietin, stimulants, growth hormones) to enhance your physical performance during the last 12 months?"

If you are suggesting the study fails because the majority of respondents who answered Yes, had taken caffeine tablets to enhance their physical performance (or some other benign substance available off-the-shelf outside of Germany), then thats fair enough. They say themselves the word "doping" was omitted in case it caused answer bias. IMO its a bit of stretch though to think people answering this question will answer yes for taking some benign substance available in a pharmacy.

Oryx

That question is very open though. Do my pharmacy only vitamins count? My magnesium supplement? Solpadeine? I have heard of people taking over the counter painkillers before a race. Are they doping?

zico10

joey100 wrote: »

Seen this article on Slowtwitch, Kona qualifying Age grouper caught for EPO use. Is it the first of many? I'd guess that it's a bigger problem than is known at the moment.

http://www.slowtwitch.com/News/AG_athlete_banned_for_doping_5530.html

You have to hand it to his younger brother though;

Jonathan, 23, a medical student, had done marathons, long bike races and cross-country skiing, but after his experience at the Ironman distance, there was no looking back. He did that event in 11:30 and two years later broke nine hours.

Originally from: http://eu.ironman.com/triathlon/news/articles/2013/10/lawaetz-brothers-do-kona.aspx#ixzz3ucrn7eeH

And all on just 9 hours a week training.

peter kern

the study dosnt fail at all.after having read his intention .

the study makes it easy to be misinterpreded aswe can see.

it just does say people are taking perforamce enhancing drugs it does not say weather legaly or illegaly ( and he confirmmes this what not what he wanted to find out if it was legal or not )
you and bbc and other sources used it to claim x% of athletes use illigal druges which he say its not what his study says
its says people use substances to enhance perforamce ( legal and not legal )
he does blame the sources that interpret the resuts like you and bbc etc as populists that didn t read the study carefully enough .
anyway
its up to you to present the article as evidence for illegal drug use i have tried my best .
you can use it for people using substances to enahnce their perfomance . as long as you are clear its not all illegal but that their is intend to take a short cut.

Kurt_Godel wrote: »

Bit of a remove to say he agrees with you Peter!

Question given for Physical "enhancement"-
"Have you used substances which can only be prescribed by a doctor, are available in a pharmacy, or can be bought on the black market (eg. anabolic steroids, erythropoietin, stimulants, growth hormones) to enhance your physical performance during the last 12 months?"

If you are suggesting the study fails because the majority of respondents who answered Yes, had taken caffeine tablets to enhance their physical performance (or some other benign substance available off-the-shelf outside of Germany), then thats fair enough. They say themselves the word "doping" was omitted in case it caused answer bias. IMO its a bit of stretch though to think people answering this question will answer yes for taking some benign substance available in a pharmacy.

peter kern

Oryx wrote: »

That question is very open though. Do my pharmacy only vitamins count? My magnesium supplement? Solpadeine? I have heard of people taking over the counter painkillers before a race. Are they doping?

yes this would count for this study as doping ( in the wada rules it would depend on what painkiller you buy not where you buy them . as a rule over the thumb the weaker ones would gernally be ok but its always good to check first before you buy )
personally i would not advise to use pain killers in a race btw its not a good idea at all in my mind.

the clearest case pointed out by the study are coffeing tablets
so if you bought t a coffein tablet in the last 12 month and used it you had to answer yes to taking drugs as in german you have to by them in a pharmacy
if you use gels with with caffein to get the same contend of coffein , you where supposed to answer with no , if you bought it in a normal shop.

the same with vitamin supplement if you bought them in the supermarket no drug if you had to buy them in a pharmacy you had to answer yes to doping
same with pain killers supermarket no drug bought in phanrmacy drug.

peter kern

quote kurt
IMO its a bit of stretch though to think people answering this question will answer yes for taking some benign substance available in a pharmacy.

your are guessing now and dont use evidence .

Kurt_Godel

peter kern wrote: »

quote kurt
IMO its a bit of stretch though to think people answering this question will answer yes for taking some benign substance available in a pharmacy.

your are guessing now and dont use evidence .

To be specific, the examples given are for physical doping were "anabolic steroids, erythropoietin, stimulants, growth hormones". I don't know if there is a Germanic equivalent of the Oxford comma. Seem's like people will fall one side or the other on what they think of this study, depending on semantics. My prime interest was with the Maths behind it.

Out of interest, what % of AG triathletes at IM events would you imagine are taking PED's? And apologies if that question seems loaded- I don't mean it to be, just curious.