great. just great.
the bio passport is useless, is what i get from that.
4 months ago
ant1
25 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
As we used to say in Uruguay, !Chupa'! (That SUCKS!)
I’m pretty much convinced that you’re all batshit insane there. ~gavia~
there’s another time?
I'm feverished, or the way you want to spell it
by plinytheelder on Feb 2, 2012 5:14 AM EST up reply actions
Excellent point
(begins slow clap for Pliny)
All I've had today is, like, six gummy bears and some scotch.
Actually No That is not what it implies
Passports were never intended to directly detect EPO or blood doping and the fact that they didn’t here means little. In fact I am slightly shocked at how inflammatory the Abstract was. I have never seen one written like that. Are these guys Republicans or something?
The real reason that Passports are useless is that UCI doesn’t spend the money to really do them. No matter what you take, if you aren’t affecting oxygen uptake in a detectable maneer then do we as fans really care (for this class of drugs and techniques anyway) ? That is the point of the passport in the end.
This is beyond my level of knowledge really
but the abstract says:
a recent publication demonstrates the system to be incapable of detecting even a single subject as “suspicious” while treated with rhEpo for 10-12 weeks.
That is in line with what the passport promises. The abstract doesn’t mention any direct detection. does it?
That said I’d like to read the whole thing or even better, have someone knowledgable read the whole thing before drawing any conclusions.
Well, I think the authors comes to the conclusion we already know:
the ABP system can’t detect micodosing of EPO related products and carefully administrated blood transfusions.
i'm no expert on anything, and reading more than just the abstract might be a good idea
but this:
" In an attempt to detect and limit blood doping the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) has launched the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) where indirect markers for all types of blood doping are evaluated on an individual level. The approach seemed promising but a recent publication demonstrates the system to be incapable of detecting even a single subject as “suspicious” while treated with rhEpo for 10-12 weeks."
seems to say that the passport does not work, no?
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
or what Jens said.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
Might we have to substitute regulatory concepts?
I.e., instead of prohibition, might we have to settle for the “speed limit” concept?
Over the years of raising my blood pressure about these subjects, I’ve become less attached to the “moral” ‘Thou Shalt Not’ component of anti-doping. I still oppose misuse of non-training regimes to improve performance, but I don’t jump up and down about it like I used to.
The health-risk aspect bothers me more these days.
With a “speed-limit” concept based upon statistically sound and empirically verifiable parameters, however, you can minimize or manage the performance boost and health risks. This might be a more achievable outcome than striving for elimination . . .
in a lot of ways
i agree with the speed limit concept, biggest of which being that it’s actually enforceable (or more enforceable than the current system). couple points against it though. 1. you tell riders they can’t exceed x value on some variable and they’ll find another variable they can play with. 2. i don’t like the even playing field concept. people are different, with strengths and weaknesses, i like to see them use those against each other to gain an advantage. i don’t want to see 200 identically performing robots radio controlled by a ds with brain in a car following the peloton. and 3. think of the children. what is good about a sport where you know that to be competitive you have to dope yourself? take a 17 yr old kid wanting to make it to the big leagues, it’s dope or find another career. i don’t like the thought of that.
but yeah, given the track record of prohibition, we may have to settle. although one could argue, that the failures of the prohibition model might not all be due to its inherent shortcomings, but maybe to those of the people in charge (if you, like me, believe the uci only cares about appearing clean).
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
i hear ya.
I’m not happy with it, but inclined to settle for it.
as for the “what about the kids” argument: bollocks. We keep imagining the “pure, unspoiled child” of pre-Raphaelite delusions when we bring this up (ok, maybe not that far, but still) . . .
Ever seen Space Jam?
Towards the end, when Bugs labels the water bottle “Michael’s Secret Stuff”? All of the other toons ASSUME that its dope and they are totally fine with it. Based on what I’ve seen of kids and near-kids, that’s a pretty accurate depiction of kids . . .
yeah, it's a pretty idealistic (and unrealistic) argument
i just don’t like the thought of having to dope to make it (not like it’s much different now, imho).
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
And why we are worrying about 17 years old, making to choose to dope or not to dope?
Let me answer my own question – health risk!
But is in it well known fact that Big Sport is bad for your health, any way?
In loving memory of the HTC- Highroad
.
Is there a link the actual article?
I’m not going to pay, or register, just to read what appears to be a very poorly constructed document.
What would Deming do? (+8:00 GMT)
I can get it if you want? Let me know, takes a couple of days but free.
But I don’t think it’s worth reading. It’s clearly not a research paper, I don’t think it’s even a proper review of the literature, it almost looks like just one of those fluff half-page pieces that they put in journals to highlight developments in the field. But when a large group of authors can’t be bothered to find a native English speaker to proof read their abstract, and the editors of a British journal don’t notice the badly flawed English – really, what is the standard of professionalism here?
Just read it again.
Totally bizarre abstract. It reads like a newspaper editorial (leading article). No idea what this is even doing in PubMed.
I’m just looking for the actual research paper that they mention, that’s what we want to read I think.
if there is, i don't know where.
got a link to that page off twitter.
"Ants don’t worry, they operate like a fantastic team, they accept obstacles and deal with them in a positive manner, they don’t complain and remain positive. An ant doesn’t work on emotion, is proactive and always chooses the ant role."
I'm not going to pretend that I can evaluate the arguments
But I know that Bengt Saltin is an extremely experienced researcher.
Badger, badger, badger, badger, badger, badger...
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Celebrate the Giro d'Italia at Podium Cafe!
Check our Giro Section for race updates, on-the-scene reports, and other hijinx.
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
