# On Performance Enhancing Drugs.



## elder999 (Jun 3, 2012)

On Performance Enhancing Drugs.

It&#8217;s as old as myth, really: Achilles is dipped in the waters of the River Styx, and made nearly invulnerable. Samson lets his hair grow long, and is as strong as a hundred men. Athletes of all sorts have used all sorts of potions and tactics to enhance their strength and stamina. In the modern times, we had the great Canadian cartoon, _Underdog,_-it&#8217;s been banned or edited in the U.S., because Underdog took a pill to replenish his energy in emergencies:






And, of course, we have a personal favorite of mine, Popeye, and his spinach:






Fact is, though., that human beings have been looking for-and finding-an edge in athletic endeavors since the beginning of competition. What is a performance enhancing drug, though? Most of us think of anabolic steroids, or human growth hormone, or EPO, but the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has a long list of banned substances, many of which are medications-some over the counter-that have a wide variety of purposes. Others, though, are methods like blood doping, or just an &#8220;idea,&#8221; like enhancing oxygen uptake. More importantly, why are such substances banned? 

Well, _because they *work*_-some would like us to think that it&#8217;s because they represent serious health risks, and their _abuse_ certainly can, but the fact is that, no matter what you&#8217;re told, doctors long ago worked out protocols for the use of anabolic steroids for recovery from injury, muscular development, and shortening recovery that are fairly safe. No, these substances are banned almost exclusively from some sense of contributing to &#8220;fair play,&#8221; when a truly level playing field would permit the use of them.

Interestingly, something I&#8217;ve known about for a long time from my own personal experience has recently been proven: beet juice enhances oxygen uptake, and lowers blood pressure-a great deal, actually, but now it&#8217;s been measured. I knew that after drinking beet juice, my blood pressure would typically be a full 10-15 counts lower, both diastolic and systolic, and that my endurance during aerobic exercise would be increased, but last year, a study published in the Journal of Applied physiology demonstrated that it increased endurance by a factor of close to 16%. 

Of course, WADA&#8217;s Prohibited list doesn&#8217;t ban any foods for competition, but it does say this:



> *PROHIBITED METHODS *
> *M1. ENHANCEMENT OF OXYGEN TRANSFER *
> The following are prohibited:
> 1. Blood doping, including the use of autologous, homologous or heterologous blood or red blood cell products of any origin.
> ...



Which would include, apparently, beet juice. 

I&#8217;ve long advocated simply permitting athletes to use whatever they thought they could-under a doctor&#8217;s care and direction, of course-to enhance performance. I&#8217;ve enjoyed the show that was Lance Armstrong at the Tour de France, as well as the end of the recent witch-hunt after him, and his never quite telling an outright lie about his supplementation program: "_I&#8217;ve never used any *banned* substances_."lfao: I look forward to his reentry into triathlon competition, and perhaps winning the Ironman on his "_unbanned_ (and, no doubt, _unknown_ to most) substances." I watched the major league baseball debacle with wry amusement, watched as a parade of outright lies came out and &#8220;tarnished&#8221; the records that were set during a time when such substances weren&#8217;t banned in professional basaeball. And I&#8217;ve seen people do significant, lifelong damage or die from steroid _abuse_-&#8220;use&#8221; that didn&#8217;t take place anywhere near a doctor&#8217;s care and direction, and didn&#8217;t really-when one considers the goals and end product of professional bodybuilding-have anything to do with &#8220;enhancement,&#8221; unless one ascribes to that sort of freakish aesthetic, and, most importantly, abuse that had to be conducted clandestinely in order to simply be competitive. Why not just get rid of the lies, and permit adults-especially professionals-to use supplements and performance enhancers safely?


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 3, 2012)

I can't say that I disagree with your point, Elder.  Other than perhaps that athletic competition is supposed to be about seeing the performance of the best un-augmented human?  Of course, in that case it could be argued that why do runners use special shoes and so on ... altho' in the case of equipment it is fairly easy to ensure that everyone is using the same I suppose.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 3, 2012)

This is something that interests me greatly. Many of the banned substances are actually prescribed by doctors in order to treat injuries and decrease recovery time. So, where is the line? Are we fighting a losing battle, just like The War on Drugs?


----------



## K-man (Jun 3, 2012)

What unbridled drug use would do is ensure that *all* athletes would then have to use drugs to be competitive. The downside of this is that children also would start at an age before their bodies fully develop which can have negative consequences.  Girls start to use hormones and we end up with masculine women as we saw from Eastern Europe in the seventies.  

Events like the Olympics would be a waste of time for athletes from poorer countries as many couldn't afford or wouldn't have access to drugs.

Personally, my vote is for drug free.    :asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 3, 2012)

K-man said:


> What unbridled drug use would do is ensure that *all* athletes would then have to use drugs to be competitive. The downside of this is that children also would start at an age before their bodies fully develop which can have negative consequences.  Girls start to use hormones and we end up with masculine women as we saw from Eastern Europe in the seventies.
> 
> Events like the Olympics would be a waste of time for athletes from poorer countries as many couldn't afford or wouldn't have access to drugs.
> 
> Personally, my vote is for drug free.    :asian:



Imagine what an "open" competition would look like. What is the human body capable of when the full power of modern medicine is turned loose? Imagine a human that could leap over 100 feet. Imagine a human that runs as fast as a cheetah. The "dirty" Olympics would be most watched sporting event ever! Can't we have "clean" and "open" competitions?


----------



## K-man (Jun 3, 2012)

I doubt it. I think one would spill over to the other and apart from that, how many lives would be adversely affected along the way?


----------



## Carol (Jun 3, 2012)

Where's the line between "dirty" Olympics and eugenics?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 3, 2012)

K-man said:


> I doubt it. I think one would spill over to the other and apart from that, how many lives would be adversely affected along the way?



Competing in many sports takes an incredible toll on one's body. Many of these performance enhancing drugs simply reduce that toll, making them more competitive. Imagine if people engaged in impact sports could take medicine that would lesson the overall effect of the impact. They might live longer!


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 3, 2012)

Carol said:


> Where's the line between "dirty" Olympics and eugenics?



Is eugenics inevitable?


----------



## K-man (Jun 3, 2012)

Depends on the definition of 'eugenics'. If you take it in the strictest sense as Germany started to implement in the 1940s, then no, I don't think so. 

In real life, active people tend to marry active people and have active offspring. Tall people mostly seem to find tall partners.  Food supplies, particularly in first world countries, have been better in the last 50 to 60 years than ever before, so we find the general population is bigger. 

It remains to be seen how the fast food obesity epidemic pans out!     :asian:


----------



## Carol (Jun 3, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Is eugenics inevitable?



I honestly don't know.  I'm not sure where it begins.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay-sachs

Tay-Sachs is a genetic disorder that has struck certain insular communities.  Its a horrible disorder that basically rots a toddler's brain to death -- forgive the unscientific language.

It is a greater-than-average concern up in the North Country where French-Canadian ancestry runs deep.  If both parents are carriers of the gene, there is a one-in-four chance that their child will get this beast of a disorder, and a two-in-four chance that their child will also end up being a carrier of the disorder.

If Public Service information is made available, suggesting parents get tested for Tay-Sachs before they conceive, is that Eugenics?  Or is that just good public relations based on sound science?  What about if a pregnant woman discovers with an amnio that her child has Tay-Sachs and opts for termination?  Is that Eugenics?  Or is it something more merciful?


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 3, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Imagine what an "open" competition would look like. What is the human body capable of when the full power of modern medicine is turned loose? Imagine a human that could leap over 100 feet. Imagine a human that runs as fast as a cheetah. The "dirty" Olympics would be most watched sporting event ever! Can't we have "clean" and "open" competitions?


Gotta dig around for it -- but someone explored that idea in a science fiction novel a couple years back.  Part of the question/challenge was just how far were competitors willing to go to gain an edge...


----------



## K-man (Jun 3, 2012)

jks9199 said:


> Gotta dig around for it -- but someone explored that idea in a science fiction novel a couple years back.  Part of the question/challenge was just how far were competitors willing to go to gain an edge...


I think I remember something like that.  They did a real life survey where they asked athletes how far they would go to win.  Many of them, and I think it was a majority, said they would use drugs, even though they knew the drugs would substantially shorten their life.


----------



## Buka (Jun 3, 2012)

Makalakumu said:


> Imagine what an "open" competition would look like. What is the human body capable of when the full power of modern medicine is turned loose? Imagine a human that could leap over 100 feet. Imagine a human that runs as fast as a cheetah. The "dirty" Olympics would be most watched sporting event ever! Can't we have "clean" and "open" competitions?



The dirty Olympics would sell a lot of popcorn.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/4090/saturday-night-live-weekend-update-all-drug-olympics


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 4, 2012)

I just want to know why pseudoephedrine is banned because it's a stimulant and makes people go 'faster' etc nut when I fall instantly asleep when I take it? If I take it ( in cold meds etc) I have to go to bed then take it, I will sleep deeply for several hours after taking it. It is that, not any other ingredient, I've tested it out on myself.


----------



## K-man (Jun 4, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I just want to know why pseudoephedrine is banned because it's a stimulant and makes people go 'faster' etc nut when I fall instantly asleep when I take it? If I take it ( in cold meds etc) I have to go to bed then take it, I will sleep deeply for several hours after taking it. It is that, not any other ingredient, I've tested it out on myself.


Pseudoephedrine is on the list because it is in the same family as ephedrine.  In normal doses it just has a drying effect on the nasal mucosa but in overdose it can have a slight pressor effect (ie elevation of blood pressure).

Ephedrine is the stimulant and I'm not sure if they could distinguish one from the other in the urine samples, therefore you can't take either.    :asian:


----------



## elder999 (Jun 4, 2012)

K-man said:


> What unbridled drug use would do is ensure that *all* athletes would then have to use drugs to be competitive. The downside of this is that children also would start at an age before their bodies fully develop which can have negative consequences. Girls start to use hormones and we end up with masculine women as we saw from Eastern Europe in the seventies.
> 
> Events like the Olympics would be a waste of time for athletes from poorer countries as many couldn't afford or wouldn't have access to drugs.
> 
> Personally, my vote is for drug free. :asian:



Let's look away from the Olympics, and to the Tour de _Farc_.....er, I mean the Tour de France, which has a storied history that demonstrates the perils of clandestine drug use with several rather spectacular deaths. For the cyclist of today, though, the primary hazard is cardiac arrest during sleep, due to a naturally low heart rate and thickened blood from EPO, and it's easily avoidable _under proper medical supervision._ In fact, most of them have that, and there haven't been any deaths due to EPO in a long time, that we know of. Of course, they have to engage in all manner of activity to fake the drug tests, or, as in the case of at least one extremely prominent cyclist, _not use any *banned* substances_. In any case, these substances-some of which are even legal, over the counter _supplements _and drugs, as others have pointed out, aren't banned, as I've said, for the safety of all, but to ensure an even playing field. Yet, with even the current state of the Tour, in order to compete-in order to even the playing field-it's widely held, known and accepted that the competitors have to use drugs. In fact, it's known to such an extent that WADA, as well as our own federal government, spent years and years and millions of dollars in pursuit of Lance Armstrong, certain that-in spite of hundreds of negative urinalyses and blood tests-he *had* to be doped, and never considering for a minute that he's a kind of genetic mutant, and that he might have been using something for which there were equivalent benefits, but no ban or testing for.

Why not just let these athletes use whatever they're going to? They are already, and-clearly-banning and testing does not deter them. Nor, apparently, is it completely effective-lots more are getting away with it than getting caught.

In the case of the Olympics, while most could probably find _some_ benefit from a variety of banned substances, for most athletes the primary benefits are going to be from anabolic steroid use for recovery-not for muscular hypertrophy, like a bodybuilder, or even for increased strength, like a ballplayer-though there are clearly some sports where that would take place. Most track athletes, though, are only going to realize any benefit from a smaller increase in strength-the accompanying hypertrophy and mass would defeat their purpose, eventually: the increased size of their muscles would change their mechanics, and their new weight would actually slow them down. In any case, if it were legal, they could gain what benefit they could while under a doctor's care-and such drugs are *widely* available: you can buy most of them over the counter in Mexico, for really cheap.

View attachment $mexico_pharmacy.gif

So, even in the case of anabolic steroids, it's not as though any country's athletes would have to do without. 

Getting back to the whole beet juice scenario, it basically demonstrated that a pint of beet juice increases endurance on an average of 16%. That means that a track athlete running the 10,000 meters only feels like he's running 8600 meters, and could up their pace a little-enough to win. Of course, it works by altering oxygen uptake, so it's a banned substance-by virtue of the wording of WADA's banned substances list, it qualifies as an "illegal method," now. Never mind that people have been using it forever-I drink close to a quart before running a marathon or ultra-not so much for an edge, I'm not even competitive-I'm never going to win- but to make my race _easier._

An even playing field can only come from allowing drug use.


----------



## K-man (Jun 4, 2012)

elder999 said:


> An even playing field can only come from allowing drug use.


Interesting juxtaposition.      :asian:


----------



## Carol (Jun 4, 2012)

Tez3 said:


> I just want to know why pseudoephedrine is banned because it's a stimulant and makes people go 'faster' etc nut when I fall instantly asleep when I take it? If I take it ( in cold meds etc) I have to go to bed then take it, I will sleep deeply for several hours after taking it. It is that, not any other ingredient, I've tested it out on myself.



Its called a paradoxical reaction - and that is not entirely uncommon with pseudoephedrine.  Benadryl too - its an antihistamine and makes most people sleepy, but it makes a few people hyper.


----------



## shinbushi (Jun 5, 2012)

K-man said:


> What unbridled drug use would do is ensure that *all* athletes would then have to use drugs to be competitive. The downside of this is that children also would start at an age before their bodies fully develop which can have negative consequences.  Girls start to use hormones and we end up with masculine women as we saw from Eastern Europe in the seventies.


 more like until the fall of the USSR.
with the fall of the soviet block the steroid docs all moved to China.  look at their women athletes now.


----------



## harlan (Jun 5, 2012)

Money. It's all about the money.

If one makes it legal, the drive 'to win' and the machine in place would require an inordinate amount of oversight to ensure that only the 'safe' levels of approved only substances were being used. Hand's off regulation isn't an option..as athletes would be dropping dead from abuse to gain 'the edge' and reward their backers.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 5, 2012)

harlan said:


> Money. It's all about the money.
> 
> If one makes it legal, the drive 'to win' and the machine in place would require an inordinate amount of oversight to ensure that only the 'safe' levels of approved only substances were being used. Hand's off regulation isn't an option..as athletes would be dropping dead from abuse to gain 'the edge' and reward their backers.



If an athlete dedicates himself on a path to winning that abuses his body, is it society's responsibility to save the athlete from himself?


----------



## harlan (Jun 5, 2012)

Can't reply to that I'm afraid. But will suggest that in the litigious world we live in, it would complicate things.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 5, 2012)

harlan said:


> Can't reply to that I'm afraid. But will suggest that in the litigious world we live in, it would complicate things.



Probably, but then again, if one chooses to take the drugs, what difference is there between that and getting pounded on the head?  Considering the negative effect of concussions, some drug use pales in comparison.


----------



## punisher73 (Jun 6, 2012)

If you get the chance, watch the documentary "Bigger, Stronger, Faster" (streaming on Netflix).  They make the case that steroids are safe under a doctors care and have less side effects and dangers when used properly than things like asprin.

They also talk about the double standard that we have.  We want our athletes to win at any cost, but don't let us catch you "cheating".

MMA has an interesting problem right now, because several high level athletes in the UFC are getting Testosterone Replacement Therapy under a doctors orders.  The fighters using it claim that TRT is needed, but the naysayers argue that it is just a loophole to cheat and get away with it and that the reason for the low T levels in the first place is due to steroid abuse earlier in their careers.

Lance Armstrong has had rumors of his PED usage haunt him for much of his career during his dominance of the Tour de France.  His teammate that won after him and then tested positive for banned substances also claimed that Armstrong was using PED's and just knew how to beat the tests better.

I would be interested in seeing an accurate and anonymous poll of pro athletes to see what the actual percentage is them that use a banned PED.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 6, 2012)

When he was competing on the Tour, Lance did little to really dispel those rumors, other than give urine and blood that tested negative. _"I haven't taken any *banned* substances._" Pretty sure Lance got himself some undetectable designer stuff.......who knows what his triathlon protocol will be like: he started his career as a triathlete, and really has the potential to be dominant, even at his age.

I wish him well.

And steroids are safe, depending upon how they're used, when used under a doctor's care. Most of the protocols for extreme muscular hypertrophy, ala Arnold Schwarzenegger, et. al., are somewhat riskier.

Since someone brought up eugenics, and it's covered by WADA, I thought we should also examine gene therapy.
Yes, WADA has already prohibited gene splicing, though I'm not sure they've developed a fool-proof method of detection, since I'm pretty sure it's already happening: splice in the fast-twitch genes of a rat, and some gorilla genes for good measure, and you get strength and explosiveness. Totally illegal, of course.

Now, I know a few world-class marathoners-have I mentioned that before? One is Doctor Erica Larson, with whom I worked at the Lab-nice gal; she's won the Pike's Peak marathon like 4 times in a row-at least five times, all told. I made a big mistake once, and went running with her for lunch. Talk about humiliation-chick about ran me into the ground....:lfao:

Her *husband*, Dr. Miles Baron, is also a world-class marathoner-and a really, really nice guy. 

Boy, can their kids *run.* About what you'd expect, right?

Now, it's not unusual for athletes of a feather to flock together in this manner: witness the Barons, or even me and Rita-that's the *wife*. WHat happens when two athletes who've had gene-therapy get together and have offspring? I mean, their offspring *would* inherit the spliced genes-do we ban some kids from all future athletic competition because of what their parents did? 

Better yet, do we *euthanize* all chimeric hybrid offspring?


----------

