Guradian interview with David Millar

[Gawnsoft]

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 18:04:43 GMT, JohnB <[email protected]> wrote (more
or less):

>Gawnsoft wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>> Now was I using performance enhancing drugs, or not?
>
>Yes.
>But not now. AIUI caffeine is no longer on the list of proscribed substances.

It was never proscribed, but it did have maximum permitted levels.*

Have the max. levels gone?

* (Or at least didn't for the FIE (International Fencing Federation) .
I don't know the specifics for other sports governing bodies.)


--
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

 

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

Gawnsoft <[email protected]>typed

> >Yes.
> >But not now. AIUI caffeine is no longer on the list of proscribed
> >substances.

> It was never proscribed, but it did have maximum permitted levels.*

> Have the max. levels gone?

> * (Or at least didn't for the FIE (International Fencing Federation) .
> I don't know the specifics for other sports governing bodies.)

It was never totally proscribed in any sport AIUI but there were max
levels in many sports.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email protected]
Edgware.

 

[David Martin]

On 28/7/04 5:43 pm, in article [email protected], "davek"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>> Indeed, globe artichokes are precious and AIUI hard to grow,
>
> They aren't hard to grow at all for an allotmenteer. They are hard to
> grow /commercially/ because the plants take up a lot of space and have a
> fairly low yield. That's why when you do see them in the supermarkets
> they are so expensive.

Are you growing globe or jerusalem artichokes?

I'm tempted to put some asparagus in this year..

...d

 

[Daren Austin]

bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule_trim.co.uk> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cycling/story/0,10482,1269733,00.html
>
> Depressing reading, I'm afraid.
>
> BugBear

I'd like to see David undergo some physiological tests with randomised
EPO/placebo treatment to try and measure the effects of EPO. My
reading suggests that in fit volunteers and non-professional atheletes
there is a 6% increase in VO2max at the doses administered. It would
be worth trying to show how much of a performance enhancement is
gained by EPO once the psychological effects are controlled for.

kind regards,

Daren
---
remove outer garment for reply

 

[davek]

David Martin wrote:
> Are you growing globe or jerusalem artichokes?

Globe. We put the plants in last year and this year we've been enjoying
a steady supply of small but perfectly formed and very delicious
artichokes. Expecting an even bigger crop next year.

> I'm tempted to put some asparagus in this year..

We recently laid a big bed of 1yr-old asparagus crowns (about 30 crowns
altogether) - we might get a small crop next year but the year after
should see us swimming in asparagus. Mmmmmm!

We have a policy of growing mostly things that are expensive and/or hard
to come by in the shops, such as asparagus and artichokes - we coud just
grow loads of potatoes like everyone else, but they are so cheap in the
shops it hardly seems worthwhile. (It takes me less time to earn the
money to buy potatoes than it takes to do all the digging and so on
required to grow them - time I'd rather spend cycling, just to get back
on topic for a moment.)

Tomatoes and strawberries are a different matter - you can buy them
cheaply enough, but their taste bears no comparison to homegrown.

d.

 

[Steve McGinty]

On Wed, 28 Jul 2004 10:35:20 GMT, Simon Brooke <[email protected]>
wrote:

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

>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'?

It's well documented that Armstrong had only one testicle removed - as
in almost all cases of testicular cancer. The remaining testicle is
more than able to produce the required testosterone.

Regards!
Stephen

 

[Roos Eisma]

Steve McGinty <[email protected]> writes:

>It's well documented that Armstrong had only one testicle removed - as
>in almost all cases of testicular cancer. The remaining testicle is
>more than able to produce the required testosterone.

And even with no testicles some testosterone is produced elsewhere IIRC...

(ages ago, read an article about landmine injuries in WWI. Mines with 2
explosives, one to raise it a meter in the air first. So quite a few men
came back with less testicles than they left with, which led to people
working out the role of testosterone. Most men who had lost both testicles
showed signs of low testosterone, some didn't)

(don't try this at home

Roos

 

[dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers]

>(don't try this at home
>
>Roos

Oh I dunno, perhaps there's a few women would find it an attractive idea when
he's gone to the pub, yet again, and the kitchen still needs decorating ;-)

Cheers, helen s


--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

Roos Eisma <[email protected]> writes:
> Steve McGinty <[email protected]> writes:
>
> >It's well documented that Armstrong had only one testicle removed - as
> >in almost all cases of testicular cancer. The remaining testicle is
> >more than able to produce the required testosterone.
>
> And even with no testicles some testosterone is produced elsewhere IIRC...
>
> (ages ago, read an article about landmine injuries in WWI. Mines with 2
> explosives, one to raise it a meter in the air first. So quite a few men
> came back with less testicles than they left with, which led to people
> working out the role of testosterone. Most men who had lost both testicles
> showed signs of low testosterone, some didn't)
>
> (don't try this at home
>
Unless you're a speeding motorist, someone who's run into a cyclist,
etc, etc,

In which case the traditional URC cry (cut their goolies off) applies

A

 

[Geraint Jones]

Ambrose Nankivell <[email protected]> wrote:
> ..., jerusalem
> artichokes are almost inedible weeds.

Heresy! A few hours in a warm oven with a dash of olive
oil and they are dangerously tastier than roast potatoes.

Now, had you claimed they were largely indigestible that
might be technically correct.

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Roos Eisma wrote:
>Steve McGinty <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>It's well documented that Armstrong had only one testicle removed - as
>>in almost all cases of testicular cancer. The remaining testicle is
>>more than able to produce the required testosterone.
>
>And even with no testicles some testosterone is produced elsewhere IIRC...
>
>(ages ago, read an article about landmine injuries in WWI. Mines with 2
>explosives, one to raise it a meter in the air first. So quite a few men
>came back with less testicles than they left with, which led to people
>working out the role of testosterone. Most men who had lost both testicles
>showed signs of low testosterone, some didn't)

Google confirms my memory that it is the adrenal glands, in relatively small
amounts, but sufficient to retain established "masculine" characteristics
post-puberty in at least some cases. IIRC correctly emotional state had a
lot to do with it, and men who weren't in a supportive sexual relationship
were more likely to develop in a stereotypical eunuch way, and men who were
were more likely to continue to function normally. (I read about the same
landmines. I think they were rare, but had a disproportionate effect on morale
(as they were designed to).)