Guradian interview with David Millar

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by bugbear, Jul 27, 2004.



  1. bugbear wrote:

    > http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cycling/story/0,10482,1269733,00.html
    >
    > Depressing reading, I'm afraid.


    The guy is an idiot. Still, Dangermouse has got his Olympic place out
    of it :)

    What's worrying is if EPO can be taken well *just for training* so
    nothing shows up in the season. Makes you wonder about those riders who
    have a sparse schedule throughout the year, concentrating on one or two
    big events (this isn't supposed to be a cheap jibe at LA).
     
  2. Simonb

    Simonb Guest

    Zog The Undeniable wrote:

    > (this isn't supposed to be a cheap jibe at LA).


    But it looks just like one?
     
  3. Arthur Clune

    Arthur Clune Guest

    Zog The Undeniable <[email protected]> wrote:

    : What's worrying is if EPO can be taken well *just for training* so
    : nothing shows up in the season. Makes you wonder about those riders who
    : have a sparse schedule throughout the year, concentrating on one or two
    : big events (this isn't supposed to be a cheap jibe at LA).

    Hard to tell really isn't it. On the one hand, sparse racing and much hard training,
    reccing routes etc looks to be the way to go to peak for a given race, on the other
    it helps with the drug taking.

    I'll be both very surprised and very disollusioned if LA takes drugs though.

    Arthur

    --
    Arthur Clune
     
  4. Mark

    Mark Guest

    > I'll be both very surprised and very disollusioned if LA takes drugs
    though.

    Doesn't LA get drug-tested throughout the year, cycling or no cycling?

    Mark
     
  5. On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 18:05:46 +0100, Zog The Undeniable
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > bugbear wrote:
    >
    >> http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cycling/story/0,10482,1269733,00.html
    >> Depressing reading, I'm afraid.

    >
    > The guy is an idiot.


    I think he is far from an idiot. He's a clever, articulate, talented
    person. What is worrying is that someone who is not an idiot and clearly
    has enough natural ability can end up taking drugs. I certainly can't
    imagine the sort of pressures top sportsmen and women are under. But, this
    is their living and their sponsors only love them when their winning. They
    have a short, potentially very short, earning period. He alludes in the
    interview to the financial pressures when he dropped in the rankings. I
    can see how those pressures can lead to temptation.

    On a side-note I also wonder about the difference between taking EPO to
    increase the red cell count and living for days in special oxygen
    controlled tents to increase the count. Neither are training, one's just
    quicker than the other.

    Colin
     
  6. MSeries

    MSeries New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2003
    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Armstrong has undergone body changing therapy that has made him stronger. Several other cancer patients have demonstrated improved athletic performance after such therapy, even if is all mental it is still performance enhancing. The therapy is not on the UCI banned list so he is OK. The authorites can only really detect detectable substances, there are performance enhancing substances such as EPO that are not detectable. There are bound to be others and there are bound to be athletes that are using them. While these things are not banned they are legal to use, think of the Delgado Probenecine scandal in 1988, banned by the IOC but not by the UCI at that time. The question is more complex than is he or isn't he.
     
  7. Simon Brooke

    Simon Brooke Guest

    in message <[email protected]>, Arthur Clune
    ('[email protected]') wrote:

    > Zog The Undeniable <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > : What's worrying is if EPO can be taken well *just for training* so
    > : nothing shows up in the season. Makes you wonder about those riders
    > : who have a sparse schedule throughout the year, concentrating on one
    > : or two big events (this isn't supposed to be a cheap jibe at LA).
    >
    > Hard to tell really isn't it. On the one hand, sparse racing and much
    > hard training, reccing routes etc looks to be the way to go to peak
    > for a given race, on the other it helps with the drug taking.
    >
    > I'll be both very surprised and very disollusioned if LA takes drugs
    > though.


    OK, question I've wanted to ask. I'm not intending to make any snide
    suggestion here, merely asking a question.

    Armstrong is known to have had a testicle removed. Testosterone
    replacement therapy is a perfectly normal and medically respectable
    treatment for men who have had both testicles removed, and may be (I
    don't know) offered to men who have had one removed. But testosterone
    is also potentially performance enhancing, and low testosterone is
    definitely performance inhibiting. How is Armstrong's testosterone
    level regulated? You'd think that, having only one testicle, he would
    have a lower than average natural level, and that doesn't appear from
    his behaviour or his performance to be the case. But if he is getting
    testosterone replacement, how does one decide how much is 'medically
    justified' and how much is 'performance enhancing'?

    --
    [email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

    ;; Perl ... is the Brittney Spears of programming - easily accessible
    ;; but, in the final analysis, empty of any significant thought
    ;; Frank Adrian on Slashdot, 21st July 2003
     
  8. Gawnsoft

    Gawnsoft Guest

    On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 19:38:16 +1000, MSeries wrote (more or less):
    .... > The question is more complex than is he or isn't he.

    Absolutely. I used to fence competitively.

    I made sure I never ever drank coffee.

    That way, at the round when I first expected to be eliminated, I'd
    have a couple of strong cups of coffee.

    And I got the 10% uplift in reaction time that most daily
    coffee-drinkers have acclimated out of.

    But I still had a lot less caffeine in my system than almost everyone
    else, and so was /well/ below the limit that was checked for in
    drugs-tests.

    Now was I using performance enhancing drugs, or not?


    --
    Cheers,
    Euan
    Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
    Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
    Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
     
  9. Ian G Batten

    Ian G Batten Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    MSeries <[email protected]> wrote:
    > still performance enhancing. The therapy is not on the UCI banned list


    And that, ladies and gentleman, is why athletics in the large is not
    serious about drugs. By banning specific drugs, anyone who can produce
    a performance enhancing drug that's not on the list, and keep it quiet,
    will be OK: not merely are the testers always playing catchup, the
    regulations always are as well.

    If the rules said something like:

    The athlete is responsible for any and all substances they ingest or
    otherwise administer. They are permitted to consume any material
    which is sold as a foodstuff for general consumption in at least 20%
    of the branches of at least two of the largest five (by turnover)
    retail food distribution companies of the athlete's home or training
    country.

    Any product whose distribution is narrower than this, which is
    regulated in any way apart from age restrictions, or which requires a
    product license, is defined as a possible performance-enhancing drug.

    Such substances may be permitted, but the athlete should submit
    samples in advance together with a justification for their use. If
    approved, it is the athlete's responsibility to ensure that the
    composition of the substance they are taking matches that approved.
    If it subsequently transpires that the substance has a beneficial
    sporting effect which was not declared, but should reasonably have
    been known to a competent athlete or professional advisor, it will be
    retrospectively declared performance-enhancing. Similarly, if it
    subsequently transpires that the reason the substance was being taken
    was not that declared, it will be retrospectively banned.

    The following substances are pre-approved in the indicated
    concentrations [[ there follows a list of vitamins, minor
    anti-inflamatories and painkillers, etc, with mg/l blood
    concentrations ]]. It is the responsibility of the athlete to comply
    with this list.

    then there's no point in creating weird shit substances, because it's
    pre-defined as banned.

    ian
     
  10. Arthur Clune

    Arthur Clune Guest

    Ian G Batten <[email protected]> wrote:

    : The athlete is responsible for any and all substances they ingest or
    : otherwise administer. They are permitted to consume any material
    : which is sold as a foodstuff for general consumption in at least 20%
    : of the branches of at least two of the largest five (by turnover)
    : retail food distribution companies of the athlete's home or training
    : country.

    Thereby banning most decent healthfood/wholefood + local organic stuff.
    What you should be eating IMO.

    Arthur

    --
    Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org
    "Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
    - Paulina Borsook
     
  11. Gawnsoft <[email protected]> writes:

    > On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 19:38:16 +1000, MSeries wrote (more or less):
    > ... > The question is more complex than is he or isn't he.
    >
    > Absolutely. I used to fence competitively.
    >
    > I made sure I never ever drank coffee.
    >
    > That way, at the round when I first expected to be eliminated, I'd
    > have a couple of strong cups of coffee.
    >
    > And I got the 10% uplift in reaction time that most daily
    > coffee-drinkers have acclimated out of.
    >
    > But I still had a lot less caffeine in my system than almost everyone
    > else, and so was /well/ below the limit that was checked for in
    > drugs-tests.
    >
    > Now was I using performance enhancing drugs, or not?


    Most definitely.

    But you were using them at permitted levels.

    There was an article in Cycle about it a few issues ago. The answer is
    that it can help with physical activity as well.

    A
     
  12. On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 13:44:37 +0000 (UTC), Ian G Batten wrote:

    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > MSeries <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> still performance enhancing. The therapy is not on the UCI banned list

    >
    > And that, ladies and gentleman, is why athletics in the large is not
    > serious about drugs. By banning specific drugs, anyone who can produce
    > a performance enhancing drug that's not on the list, and keep it quiet,
    > will be OK: not merely are the testers always playing catchup, the
    > regulations always are as well.
    >



    Ian,

    Two points:

    1. Do you think athletics and cycling are the same thing?

    2. Your point doesn't seem to be valid for athletics. Dwain Chambers recently tried this defence for THG and failed:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/sport/newsid_3517000/3517923.stm

    % THG is a very new type of drug, and Chambers' legal team tried to argue that
    % because it is so new athletes weren't banned from using it.
    %
    % However, the UK Athletics Disciplinary Committee decided it was close enough to
    % other banned drugs that Chambers had broken the rules.


    --
    Michael MacClancy
    Random putdown - "I've just learned about his illness. Let's hope it's nothing trivial." - Irvin S. Cobb
    www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
    www.macclancy.co.uk
     
  13. Ian G Batten

    Ian G Batten Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Arthur Clune <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Ian G Batten <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > : The athlete is responsible for any and all substances they ingest or
    > : otherwise administer. They are permitted to consume any material
    > : which is sold as a foodstuff for general consumption in at least 20%
    > : of the branches of at least two of the largest five (by turnover)
    > : retail food distribution companies of the athlete's home or training
    > : country.
    >
    > Thereby banning most decent healthfood/wholefood + local organic stuff.


    Why? Carrots without pesticides are clearly permitted if carrots with
    pesticides are. It probably bans all those jars of tablets sold in
    `healthfood' shops, though --- I never understood: if the food's so
    healthy, how come they sell so many supplements?

    ian
     
  14. Ian G Batten

    Ian G Batten Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> wrote:
    > 1. Do you think athletics and cycling are the same thing?


    For practical purposes, yes.

    > 2. Your point doesn't seem to be valid for athletics. Dwain Chambers recently tried this defence for THG and failed:
    >
    > http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/sport/newsid_3517000/3517923.stm
    >
    > % THG is a very new type of drug, and Chambers' legal team tried to argue that
    > % because it is so new athletes weren't banned from using it.
    > %
    > % However, the UK Athletics Disciplinary Committee decided it was close enough to


    There's merit in what you say, but ``close enough'' isn't the point: my
    formulation would stop radical new blood doping techniques as yet
    undiscovered which work in novel new ways, just as EPO did when it first
    arrived.

    ian
     
  15. Arthur Clune

    Arthur Clune Guest

    Ian G Batten <[email protected]> wrote:
    : In article <[email protected]>,
    : Arthur Clune <[email protected]> wrote:
    :> Ian G Batten <[email protected]> wrote:
    :>
    :> Thereby banning most decent healthfood/wholefood + local organic stuff.

    : Why?

    Because of your critera that it had to be sold in major retaliers (ie
    supermarkets). These don't sell local produce or that much in the
    way or organic stuff (at least not compared to my local wholefood
    shops)

    Arthur

    --
    Arthur Clune
    The opposite of homosexuality is not hetrosexuality but marriage
    - Felix Guittari
     
  16. Ian G Batten

    Ian G Batten Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Arthur Clune <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Ian G Batten <[email protected]> wrote:
    > : In article <[email protected]>,
    > : Arthur Clune <[email protected]> wrote:
    > :> Ian G Batten <[email protected]> wrote:
    > :>
    > :> Thereby banning most decent healthfood/wholefood + local organic stuff.
    >
    > : Why?
    >
    > Because of your critera that it had to be sold in major retaliers (ie
    > supermarkets). These don't sell local produce or that much in the
    > way or organic stuff (at least not compared to my local wholefood
    > shops)


    No, I meant ``that stuff''. Carrots are, within limits, carrots: if
    you're challenged, you wave the bag that Tesco sells.

    If you allow the special stuff the local shop sells to its six
    customers, nothing the like of which is available at Safeway or Tesco,
    you've just let Balco in.

    ian
     
  17. On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 14:42:00 +0000 (UTC), Ian G Batten
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > Arthur Clune <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> Ian G Batten <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> : In article <[email protected]>,
    >> : Arthur Clune <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> :> Ian G Batten <[email protected]> wrote:
    >> :>
    >> :> Thereby banning most decent healthfood/wholefood + local organic
    >> stuff.
    >>
    >> : Why?
    >>
    >> Because of your critera that it had to be sold in major retaliers (ie
    >> supermarkets). These don't sell local produce or that much in the
    >> way or organic stuff (at least not compared to my local wholefood
    >> shops)

    >
    > No, I meant ``that stuff''. Carrots are, within limits, carrots: if
    > you're challenged, you wave the bag that Tesco sells.


    Fair enough but what about, say, BloodyHiBranNutriFlakes? Which are, to
    all intents and purposes, Kellogs Bran Flakes without the sugar but as
    they are only sold in Group4&Barratts wouldn't meet the criteria of your
    rules?

    Colin
     
  18. Ian G Batten

    Ian G Batten Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Colin Blackburn <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > No, I meant ``that stuff''. Carrots are, within limits, carrots: if
    > > you're challenged, you wave the bag that Tesco sells.

    >
    > Fair enough but what about, say, BloodyHiBranNutriFlakes? Which are, to
    > all intents and purposes, Kellogs Bran Flakes without the sugar but as


    So no problem there, either. Perhaps it needs re-wording: by
    ``foodstuffs'' I meant ``ingredients''. My bad. If you can find
    something in Tesco which you're prepared to bet your career on being a
    superset of what you want to eat, then fine.

    But if it turns out that someone slipped some Nandrolone into
    BloodyHiBranNutriFlakes, like those Chinese `herbal' remedies which work
    well on eczema because, er, they're stuffed with hydrocortisone, you'd
    better pray that Kellogs made the same mistake.

    ian
     
  19. Peter Clinch

    Peter Clinch Guest

    Arthur Clune wrote:

    > Because of your critera that it had to be sold in major retaliers (ie
    > supermarkets). These don't sell local produce or that much in the
    > way or organic stuff (at least not compared to my local wholefood
    > shops)


    And you may be caught by varying values of "apple" and so on. James
    Grieves have practically nothing in common with Golden Delicious (for a
    start, they're usually golden and delicious which Golden Delicious have
    never managed IME) and aren't available in any supermarket I've ever
    been in.
    Things like tayberries would be Right Out, and probably even things like
    damsons. Anyone who ate from a decent vegetable garden (never mind made
    liberal use of books like "Food for Free") would be doing a fair bit of
    submitting to the relevant labs, I'd think. Could get quite unworkable
    Real Soon.

    Pete.
    --
    Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
    Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
    Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
    net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
     
Loading...
Loading...