Seems odd that Sir Lance could win 7...

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:

> The origin of the modern Olympics is based on the class structure of its day
> with the idea being that the competitors, in the true spirit of sport, would be
> a bunch of dilletante swells. The participants would be insulated from the need
> to compete against actual fencing masters or trying to out shoot a gamekeeper or
> out ride the horse trainers.
>
> These were truly second rate participants. I don't call them competitors because
> they specifically ruled out anybody who could beat the members of their class
> and station in life.

Good afternoon and welcome to Hurlingham Park. You join us
just as the competitors are running out onto the field on
this lovely winter's afternoon here, with the going firm
underfoot and very little sign of rain. Well it certainly
looks as though we're in for a splendid afternoon's sport
in this the 127th Upperclass Twit of the Year Show. The
competitors will be off in a moment so let me just
identify them for you.

Vivian Smith-Smythe-Smith has an O-level in chemo-hygiene.
Simon-Zinc-Trumpet-Harris, married to a very attractive
table lamp. Nigel Incubator-Jones, his father is a
stockbroker and his mother won the Derby. Gervaise
Brook-Hamster is in the Guards, and his father uses him as
a wastepaper basket. And finally Oliver St John-Mollusc,
Harrow and the Guards, thought by many to be this year's
outstanding twit. Now they're moving up to the starting
line, there's a jolly good crowd here today. Now they're
under starter's orders... and they're off.

--
Michael Press

 

[Jack Hollis]

On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 19:00:38 +0200, "trg"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Way cool! That'll be 1 less injection a week for me. Though I think I'll let
>them test it a bit on some pigs and dogs first.

My guess is that the testing process will go from mice directly to
athletes.

 

[Jack Hollis]

On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 19:57:23 +0200, "trg"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I leave it up to the biomed pros to validate this, but I would assume that
>if someone had that particular gene therapy, it would be easily (though not
>cheaply) detectable since it is not present in the unadulterated human
>genome. Like finding that fish gene in the tomato.


It's injected into muscles and they begin to produce EPO. I suppose
you could detect it if you knew which muscle to biopsy. This looks
like it could have the potential to keep an athletes hematocrit level
where he wants it without blood doping or taking synthetic EPO.



This is an article from Scientific American that is two years old.
Below is an excerpt.


http://fig.cox.miami.edu/~cmallery/113/muscle.cell.pdf

Natural Advantage


As this article went to press, the New England Journal of Medicine was
about to release the first documented description of a human
being with a genetic mutation that wipes out myostatin production.
Such cases have been discussed in scientific circles but never
published because the subjects and their families usually do not wish
to risk being identified. At least one of those families is rumored to
include a European weight-lifting champion, which, if true, would not
be surprising, given the tremendous advantage in muscle building and
strength that a natural myostatin suppressing mutation would confer.
But would it constitute an unfair advantage in an athlete, and would
it justify other competitors using myostatin-inhibiting drugs or gene
therapy simply to level the playing field? These questions are bound
to be raised in continuing debate over the possibility of athletes
using new muscle therapies to enhance their performance.

Natural "mutants" among athletes have been documented, among them an
Olympic gold medalist. Finnish cross-country skier Eero Mäntyranta won
two gold medals in the 1964 Winter Olympics. But it was not until
decades later that Finnish scientists identified a genetic mutation in
Mäntyranta’s entire family that causes an excessive response to
erythropoietin, leading to extraordinarily high numbers of
oxygen-carrying red blood cells. Several of his family members, it
turns out, were also champion endurance athletes.

In addition to mutations with dramatic effects, investigators have
also begun to discover natural gene variants that more subtly favor
certain kinds of athletic activity. For example, last year Australian
researchers examined a gene called ACTN3 in a group of male and female
elite sprinters. Nearly 20 percent of people lack a functional version
of this gene that gives rise to a protein specific to fast muscle
fibers, although a less effective protein normally compensates for its
absence. The scientists found an unusually high frequency of the
working ACTN3 gene in the sprinters, however. In particular, more of
the female sprinters had two copies of the gene than would be expected
in a randomly selected group.

Many research groups are trying to identify other gene variants that
give athletes an edge by maximizing oxygen uptake, heart efficiency,
power output, endurance or other traits. More than 90 genes or
chromosomal locations have been associated with athletic performance
so far, and this research is already provoking
its own ethical controversies. Critics fear that based on their
genetic makeup, children will be recruited into certain sports or, if
they lack the right gene mix, denied a chance to advance to the elite
level of sports training. Even selective breeding for superathletes
has been predicted.

A more certain result of scanning athletes’ genomes will be the
discovery that some of them, like Mäntyranta’s, contain true genetic
mutations that amount to genetic enhancement. Such revelations will
add still more complexity to ethical arguments over the prospect of
gene doping in sports.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Jack Hollis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 19:57:23 +0200, "trg"
>
> http://fig.cox.miami.edu/~cmallery/113/muscle.cell.pdf

The author of this program is a post grad. What he is suggesting is
interesting but entirely speculative.

But I suppose that wild speculation is as good as fact here.

 

[RonSonic]

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 02:02:22 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:

>"Jack Hollis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 19:57:23 +0200, "trg"
>>
>> http://fig.cox.miami.edu/~cmallery/113/muscle.cell.pdf
>
>The author of this program is a post grad. What he is suggesting is
>interesting but entirely speculative.
>
>But I suppose that wild speculation is as good as fact here.

Not at all. But as speculation goes, it beats hell out of a lot of what gets
typed here.

Ron

 

[Tom Kunich]

"RonSonic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 02:02:22 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Jack Hollis" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 19:57:23 +0200, "trg"
>>>
>>> http://fig.cox.miami.edu/~cmallery/113/muscle.cell.pdf
>>
>>The author of this program is a post grad. What he is suggesting is
>>interesting but entirely speculative.
>>
>>But I suppose that wild speculation is as good as fact here.
>
> Not at all. But as speculation goes, it beats hell out of a lot of what
> gets
> typed here.

Do you remember the "Biotech Revolution"? Biotech companies sprang up all
over the place and they were going to revolutionize the pharmaceutical
business.

Can you suggest to me which pharmaceutical companies were put out of
business? In the meantime what's happened to 85% of the biotech companies?

 

[Kyle Legate]

RonSonic wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 08:58:33 +0200, Kyle Legate <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>RonSonic wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 01:09:34 +0200, Kyle Legate <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>RonSonic wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On 5 Aug 2006 11:57:40 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>...in-a-row and be totally clean.Maybe he was really that much better
>>>>>>>than anyone else....or maybe not
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Why do people keep saying "totally clean" and "never tested positive"
>>>>>>when he has the 1999 EPO finding?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Because it was a ******** test, with ******** results.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ron
>>>>
>>>>Your professional opinion?
>>>
>>>
>>>With full consideration of the facts.
>>>
>>
>>As created on RBR?
>>
>>What was the make and model of the mass spec used to determine the test
>>ratio? The isotope ratio? How was it calibrated? As I mentioned in a
>>previous post the sensitivity of mass specs these days nearly doubles
>>each year. The precise machine that was used to take the readings and
>>the instrument settings which were used throughout the run are important
>>facts which allow us to establish the accuracy, precision and
>>sensitivity of the test. Do you know for a fact that the machine isn't
>>up for the job?
>>
>>You only allow the facts that permit you to maintain your fantasy.
>
>
> No fantasy. There was not a doping test for EPO performed in 1999. There was a
> science fair project from like five years later that allegedly tested 1999 urine
> samples. Science fair, research project, whatever. It was not a certified test
> procedure and it was supposedly performed only for research purposes because
> nobody knows if that test works or not.
>

My mistake, I thought you were referring to the Landis case--it's so
hard to keep all the doping threads straight these days. Too much dope,
I guess. My response pertains to the detection of testosterone, which I
believe you also called a ******** test, am I correct? It's so hard to
keep all you bundles of electrons straight these days.