 Poster: A snowHead
|
... and apparently she's one tough cookie!
Would anyone care to be a 'fly on the wall', assuming that such a wall is available?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
This topic was raised earlier here and I'm pleased to see it getting more of a reaction this time.
My comments stand: What's he/She? (Wiberg) going to say? Thank Bode for expressing a rational, well thought out argument that just happens to go against the establishment? Sadly I suspect not.
Bode's comments, as in the Denver Post, presumably not sub-edited to twist them are entirely sensible. He makes a coherent case that if drugs exist (whether or not they are performance enhancing) that would protect athletes from injury, or long term damage due to intense training regimes and competion and thereby safeguard their long term health then their use should be properly examined and permitted if sensible. He is not promoting or condoning performance enhancing "dope" for the sake of it.
Banning all "doping" without any deeper consideration is ridiculous. IMHO there is a case that whether or not they are performance enhancing (caffeine?) drugs should be selectively allowed or not based on whether or not they are detrimental to an athlete's long term health.
Before jumping down the poor guys throat folks, please read what he actually said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Yes, but also be careful about what is actually classed as a performance-enhancing drug. You've quoted caffeine (with a question mark). I spoke to someone in the know yesterday who told me that you can drink a lot of coffee before an Olympic ski race and this would not have you disqualified.
What about Red Bull? This contains some interesting ingredients, and my understanding (without verifying this) is that its sale - and consumption? - not just by athletes - is still banned in certain parts of the world. Can you drink a few cans of Red Bull before a ski race - anyone know? Can you drink a few cans of Red Bull before a ski race in France? Here's an interesting reference to the situation in France. Not sure if this is still up-to-date:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/index.php?newsid=5753
What Bode Miller is doing is arguing against the carefully-agreed drugs policy of international sport, but without any clearly defined proposition of his own.
Maybe if he set out in writing which drugs exactly, and in which quantities, he'd like to see legalised he'd advance his case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
David Goldsmith, Good points. But clearly the "carefully-agreed" policies are not achieving the objectives.
Caffeine AFAIK is used by many athletes as it is a well known and powerful stimulant. AFAIK it is not banned. red Bull - I don't know - I knwo it was illegal in France before, which is a real shame when a tad hungover!
The topic also has to be sport specific - would you want to be "hyper charged" for a bumps race when most of the time you're not actually trying to go as fast as possible? Synchronised swimming? Where control is more important than speed (if you can call it a sport...)
All Miller is doing is raising an interesting and sensible question, which as usual gets smacked down by the drugs=bad lobby. I take several drugs for my health, one of which would get me disqualified without a doctors "note". Does that make me a bad person?
If so I'd rather be "bad" and a "cheat" than rolling around on the floor, blue and dying of asthma.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
The most telling sentence in the Sports Illustrated article was Bode's comment that
| Quote: |
| "Of course, it's not even possible to have that conversation these days.'' |
which I think is spot on. All discussion seems to be slapped down, but despite this the anti-doping regulations aren't effective enough to prevent drug use, AND they allow breaches of natural justice such as the Baxter case. All power to Bode, in my opinion. There needs to be a sensible discussion about anti-doping regulations, if only to keep up with the advances in science.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
From the NZ sports authority:
PROHIBITED: Other beta 2 inhalers and all oral/systemic beta 2 agonists eg Bambec, oral Ventolin.
Systemic corticosteroids e.g. prednisolone.
Thankfully my Asthma is "well controlled" and I don't use these drugs - although I have had to use Prednisolone in the past. It was not pretty and skiing was the last thing on my mind.
But query - what possible benefit could someone get from using Ventolin in a skilled sport? OK, it may open ones airways, but it also causes tremor and loss of fine muscle control. Surely not what one is looking for at 80mph down than Hannenkahm? Shoudl we ban Oxygen? in which case there are several genetic groups in Finland who'd be disqualified for having naturally efficient blood
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As long as sport is professional then the pressure on athletes will continue to increase. However to turn the clock back to "chariots of fire" days is a ridiculous idea. Serious consideration and discussion is needed, preferably without the knee jerk yea/nay reactions of so many people.
I wonder if Ginseng is on the banned list - I bet it is! BTW I believe you can have too much caffeine and fail a drugs test in ski-ing anyway. That'd be two infringements for me before I even started.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
easiski, he he. Bet it is too.
Personally, as long as there is no long term detrimental effect I'm in favour of performance enhancing drugs anyway. And bionics. & I'd love to have been genetically modified to ski. It's going to happen one day...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It was once explained to me that "taking EPO (erythropoietin) is like training at high altitude without actually having to travel to high altitude". With that in mind, I could imagine teams with funds too limited to afford altitude training, actually regarding EPO as morally "levelling the playing field". It would allow them to compete against teams which could afford to travel to altitude. Of course, I have no idea how much EPO costs; if it's more expensive than actually travelling to high altitude, it would obviously defeat the purpose!
But I was always under the impression that EPO was for endurance events, and would have little use in alpine races lasting less than 2 minutes. Obviously Bode has heard different and I'd imagine he has access to more up-to-date knowledge.
Kudos to Bode for opening up the discussion, at considerable personal inconvenience - he is bound to be tested much more often now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Martin Bell, kudos indeed!
FYI, EPO seems inexpensive at about $50 per dose - if what I surf is correct. And it seems to mimic the genetic effect enjoyed by a bunch of Finns who were familialy extremely good at x-country because they had congenitally high red blood cell count.
The happy fact of making them terribly competitive at sliding around leaves them with an unhappily strong pre-disposition to various, generally fatal, cardio-vascular disorders.
EPO seems to have similar adverse effects? And as you say, what use is enhanced oxygen capacity/transport in an effectively anaerobic event?
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
The Scotsman has an interesting interview with Alain Baxter on the use of performance-enhancing drugs in skiing. He is critical of Bode Miller's apparent endorsement of their use though, not surprisingly, in agreement with him on one aspect of his views:
Here is the Scotsman report.
| Quote: |
| Baxter tested positive for Lev-metamphetamine ingested using a nasal spray. Baxter feels that the medical form should be separated from the performance-enhancing stimulant known popularly as "speed". This is where Miller and Baxter converge because Miller says that "the hapless and innocent are being persecuted for unintentional consumption", while the real abusers of performance- enhancing drugs are getting away with it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| The Scotsman has an interesting interview with Alain Baxter on the use of performance-enhancing drugs in skiing. He is critical of Bode Miller's apparent endorsement of their use though, not surprisingly, in agreement with him on one aspect of his views |
Do you think that Alain, with his unfortunate history, could afford to say publicly what Bode has said recently with regard to drug use? No matter what Alain thinks in private, there's no way that he would say in public that the safe use of drugs should be considered if it helps keep athletes healthier. That kind of statement would just confirm in some people's minds that Alain was guilty of a deliberate doping office at the SLC Games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
In the eyes of his peers (I never read a report of another racer supporting the decision to strip him of his Olympic medal) and many others, Alain Baxter was innocent of any intentional use of a stimulant. His inhaling of what was claimed to be a stimulant was totally inadvertent, as far as I can see.
From what you say, Rob, you may agree with that. I wasn't sure, from what you wrote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| From what you say, Rob, you may agree with that. I wasn't sure, from what you wrote. |
Yes, I believe that it was an innocent (and understandable) mistake, which didn't actually provide any competitive advantage.
No doubt some of Alain's peers belive him to be innocent (and hard done by the authorities). Benni Raich's actions sum up the whole situation as far as I'm concerned. But I don't think we can assume that all of his peers think that, and there's no way that Alain should play a leading role in any debate on legalised drug use within skiing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
The inference of that is slightly unfair, Rob. Alain Baxter was asked for his opinions and expressed them. Freedom of speech is his. It seems a very fair and considered set of opinions.
If anyone's to be criticised I would have thought it was Bode Miller - for not spelling out in precise terms which drugs are OK (in his expert opinion) and which are not. He's been thrashing about without engaging brain before mouth, as far as I can see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
The inference of that is slightly unfair, Rob. Alain Baxter was asked for his opinions and expressed them. Freedom of speech is his. It seems a very fair and considered set of opinions.
If anyone's to be criticised I would have thought it was Bode Miller - for not spelling out in precise terms which drugs are OK (in his expert opinion) and which are not. He's been thrashing about without engaging brain before mouth, as far as I can see. |
Unfair? Not sure what you mean. I wasn't criticising Alain at all, simply providing a different interpretation to his comments than you. Given all that he has been through Alain will know better than anybody the sensible line to take with journos asking drug questions.
As for Bode, I disagree that it is his responsibility to offer expert opinion. He is not a medic or a scientist, and we shouldn't expect expert testimony from him. He is an athlete and we should expect him to talk of athletes' concerns. As far as I can see, his argument (that there should be a proper discussion on whether some drugs are beneficial to athletes' health) is an entirely reasonably point to make. I wouldn't care to say whether Bode has given this a lot of thought or not - perhaps it would be better just to deal with the substative point he is making rather than flinging insults back in his face?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Regarding Alain Baxter to be penalised for what was an obvious mistake. To be accused of doping oneself with a drug that would seem (as far as I can gather) to have have neutral effects at best and possibly performance inhibiting ones in it's "street" form and no sporting effect whatsoever in it's "medical" form is patently absurd. All sorts of rumours circulate about just why he was treated so harshly. (Yes, yes he broke the "rules" etc, etc. personla responsibility etc. but...)
Some of Millers comments are here. I quote a few,
"If it's going to hurt an athlete or a person, it should be illegal, period."
"If they come up with safe levels for different drugs, there's a good chance that would help athletes live a better life, be more healthy, prevent injuries and have a better physical condition when they're 50 or 60. I see athletes at that age, and they're totally beat up. They talk about the long-term effects of all these steroids, but they ignore the long-term effects of sport."
"The long-term effects of being a ski racer are blown-out discs, blown-out knees, blown-out hips. You need to minimize that stuff. If you have to balance it with the long-term effects of steroids, I think that is a legitimate argument."
"The current system is hypocritical and ineffective. My team and all the other teams are jumping behind this ineffective message that the World Anti-Doping Agency and U.S. Anti-Doping Agency are pushing. It's frustrating to see them do it because of the political correctness of the whole thing. They don't want to stir the pot, and they want to come off as ultra-clean."
OK, anyone like to come up with a rational and sensible rebutal? I can't. The guy has a valid point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
David Murdoch, It's a given that professional sport is bad for your health - any professional sport. On the other hand, many of the drugs that appear to be relatively harmless early in their availability do have nasty side effects 10 or 20 years down the line. the problem is that this is what can't be tested for.
Having said that, the powers that be do seem to be simplistic and draconian in their rules and interpretations of same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Just to show how almost any substance can be abused. Some body builders have been injecting insulin to give raised levels throughout the night after a days workout. The same effect could probably be had naturally by ingesting large amounts of carbohydrates every hour. I think that I shall just continue using it for diabetes control though 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
