Ride On
Posts:537
 |
| 01/21/2014 05:11 PM |
|
Is it safer for PED users to be under the control of the team doctor giving them PEDs or sourcing and administering them on their own ? |
|
|
|
|
Orange Crush
Posts:4499
|
| 01/21/2014 05:41 PM |
|
If your name is Ricco you should probably be under the control of a doctor.
If your doctor's name is Fuentes you may want to store those blood bags in your own fridge so he doesn't mix 'em up with those of your buddies. |
|
|
|
|
stronz
Posts:447
|
| 01/22/2014 08:41 AM |
|
| safer health-wise? I would say using a doctor who knows what he/she is doing is probably the best way to do it. Even so there have been plenty of instances when the "doctors" eff-d up the whole business and a whole team got sick and had to retire. Still if it were me and I made the decision to dope (which I really dont think I have the intestinal fortitude to do -- all those lies just would become too tangled to live with especially if I was winning...) I would seek out the best doctor or trainer I could find. But if youre talking about safer as relates to not getting caught I would say doing it yourself is safest. Fewer people to rat you out.... Problem is you really have to have a modicum of intelligence to do it at least in a sanitary way -- see Ricco -- |
|
|
|
|
longslowdistance
Posts:2886
|
| 01/22/2014 09:11 AM |
|
| Doping supervised by a qualified physician (Board certified in PED?) is safe and effective. |
|
|
|
|
stronz
Posts:447
|
| 01/22/2014 09:24 AM |
|
| LSD -- can we define "safe?" -- ie when you go to a real doctor with a particular ailment you can expect to receive a treatment, especially if it includes a medication, that is not going to cause significant adverse effects both short and long-term. Those medications are studied and vetted by a 4 phase FDA protocol which usually (but not always) eliminates the really bad ones from getting to market. So... lets say you go to your imaginary board-certified PED doctor and are given meds at a specific dose and duration, where are the studies to back up the long-term safety profiles? Point is that there really is no science to show that at the doses and regimens that athletes use whatever it is they use (EPO may be the only exception however dosing regimens for people who need the drug for hematologic abnormalities are different for the idiots who use it to perform better in sports) they can assume that they wont get sick now or later. Copnclusion: there is no "safe" way to use PEDs |
|
|
|
|
longslowdistance
Posts:2886
|
| 01/22/2014 01:30 PM |
|
Sorry, but "because we can't be 100% certain it's safe, therefore medically supervised doping can't be safe" is a silly argument. As just one counterexample, consider the East Germans who were doped like mad under medical supervision decades ago, male and female, now healthy in their early elderly years, with healthy children and grandchildren, with their Olympic and "People's Hero" medals displayed on their walls. e.g., Kornelia Ender. That was safe.
|
|
|
|
|
stronz
Posts:447
|
| 01/22/2014 03:19 PM |
|
| well I dont think its silly exactly. Erroneous maybe. But silly? nah. Nor is your argument terribly persuasive. I would think we probably agree that if youre going to put stuff into your body you'd like to know there is some scientific evidence (the more the better, yes?) that it aint going to give you a god-awful disease down the road -- or at least know that the risk is very low. Your example of the Eastern bloc countries is purely anectdotal. You cant say that just because some people survived the whole process - whatever that was exactly -- it is therefore safe to use. Those kind of statements have no scientific weight. None. Mind you I didnt say it has to be 100% safe -- nothing is of course. But what is the percentage truely? In a prospective, well-designed study containing sufficiently large number of subjects using the agents that are relevant to today's PEDs what would be the incidence of adverse effects, the nature of those effects and would any of them pass the rigorous requirements necessary to allow prescribing on a large scale basis by a qualified prescriber. If those studies were actually done then we would know the exact incidence of adverse effects and we could make rational decisions about risks v benefits. As it is now we cant make that kind of informed decision due to lack of scientifically valid data. Conclusion -- there is no "safe" way to use PEDs |
|
|
|
|
wanker
Posts:19
|
| 01/22/2014 03:42 PM |
|
Willy Voet (of the Festina affair) explained in detail that the reason the team began organized doping with doctors is because the management was concerned that the riders were idiots and would eventually kill themselves. Hence Festina reasoned that it was better to control it than leave the riders up to their own devices.
However, some doctors and doping programs were better than other. Kelme's program sucked, US Postal's was excellent. |
|
|
|
|
Berzin
Posts:76
|
| 01/22/2014 07:12 PM |
|
| Out of every single one of the so-called "doctors" implicated in doping scandals, none were endocrinologists. They were employed to implement doping programs for riders, procure drugs for them and help them not get caught. There is a big difference between this and having a doctor administering a PED program and monitoring levels for the sake of a rider's health. A rider's health is not part of a doping protocol because there are no proven, effective "safe" levels when it comes to endocrine manipulation or blood transfusing. |
|
|
|
|
longslowdistance
Posts:2886
|
| 01/22/2014 09:17 PM |
|
Semantics here, but a legitimate distinction.
Stronz and I think Berzin are making the point that we are not aware of a PED program that has been proven to be safe in a rigorous, peer reviewed, double blinded medical trial.
This absence of such validation does not mean that properly medically supervised doping is unsafe. You are incorrect when making that leap.
But you are correct that I am making an assertion (albeit with some justification) rather than stating indisputable fact when I claim that properly medically supervised doping is safe.
Feel free to disagree with my assertion, but ultimately it's an opinion either way. |
|
|
|
|
Ride On
Posts:537
|
| 01/22/2014 10:25 PM |
|
Safer is the word I used. The question was not are PEDs safe or not but given that a rider is taking them which is safer a team doctor ( who is interested in performance gains ) administering them or a rider ( who is interested in performance gains ) administering themselves. They are both trying to make sure they don't get caught and get a gain.
Some of the team doctors seem clueless but then again some of the riders do as well. |
|
|
|
|
Berzin
Posts:76
|
| 01/24/2014 12:31 AM |
|
There are no safety guidelines for doping. It's all about doing as much as possible while not getting caught.
What in the world would a sports doctor know about endocrinology? What would any of these doctors know about what amounts of EPO would be safe to administer? All they could go by were the guidelines. When the levels were 50% maximum hematocrit, riders were riding at 49.9%, a la Paolo Salvodelli the day Pantani got caught at the Giro.
Fuentes was a gynocologist, for cryin' out loud, and was so incompetent he couldn't keep the blood bags from getting mixed up. |
|
|
|
|
JS
Posts:61
|
| 01/26/2014 01:07 AM |
|
LSD, are you fooking kidding me?
http://www.dw.de/east-germanys-doping-program-casts-long-shadow-over-victims/a-5968383 |
|
|
|
|
longslowdistance
Posts:2886
|
| 01/26/2014 09:56 AM |
|
JS thanks for the link. You are absolutely right that anabolic steroids in high doses are dangerous, whether or not it was ( in this case very much improperly) medically supervised. If I implied otherwise I was dead wrong. It's natural to extend this the blood doping - if that form of doping is dangerous, that this other form must be too.
I still think that properly medically supervised blood doping can be done safely. |
|
|
|
|
Master50
Posts:340
|
| 01/26/2014 12:02 PM |
|
Posted By JS . on 01/26/2014 01:07 AM
LSD, are you fooking kidding me?
http://www.dw.de/east-germanys-doping-program-casts-long-shadow-over-victims/a-5968383
Lets see doctor of obstetrics went to medical school. cheating athlete did not. Contrary to your claim I would say that even a GP knows a lot more about the dangers than the athlete does. Much worse than that soiners were for years practicing medicine and I think that might make your point. At least most doctors can read a drug sheet. Do you really think that any MD cannot increase the safety of the athlete? |
|
|
|
|