benefits of stimulants? [split]


This Forum was created to divert traffic from Current Events at the height of the BALCO scandal. It comes and goes as "needed"; it's back to being locked.

Re: 5 More Jamaican positives? [Simpson & Powell?]

Postby TrackTeacher_AP » Sun Jul 14, 2013 2:26 pm

26mi235 wrote:Didn't do well on those SAT word analogies did we? I did not equate either to doping, I de-equated one vs the other, just like not all doping positives are the same offense.

Sorry I'm from the Midwest we dont take the SAT. But I do know what an analogy is and if there is any analogy it would be first degree murder and man slaughter. Varying degrees of the same thing. PED's are PED's whether a stimulant or steroid they all have the ability to enhance performance. For some people they may not need the steroid so they use stimulant for others they may need steroid.
TrackTeacher_AP
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 7:28 pm

Re: 5 More Jamaican positives? [Simpson & Powell?]

Postby Pego » Sun Jul 14, 2013 2:31 pm

TrackTeacher_AP wrote:
26mi235 wrote:Didn't do well on those SAT word analogies did we? I did not equate either to doping, I de-equated one vs the other, just like not all doping positives are the same offense.

Sorry I'm from the Midwest we dont take the SAT. But I do know what an analogy is and if there is any analogy it would be first degree murder and man slaughter. Varying degrees of the same thing. PED's are PED's whether a stimulant or steroid they all have the ability to enhance performance. For some people they may not need the steroid so they use stimulant for others they may need steroid.


Do you have any solid evidence that stimulants have PED effect. Sorry, but I ask everybody who states it and so far, nobody could provide it.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: 5 More Jamaican positives [Simpson & Powell big names]

Postby MJR » Sun Jul 14, 2013 2:37 pm

Stimulants enhance the central and peripheral nervous systems. That, by definition, makes them a PED. Very simple. No need to go into the exacting details of pharmacology.
MJR
 
Posts: 1815
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: on walkabout....

Re: 5 More Jamaican positives [Simpson & Powell big names]

Postby Pego » Sun Jul 14, 2013 2:42 pm

MJR wrote:Stimulants enhance the central and peripheral nervous systems. That, by definition, makes them a PED. Very simple. No need to go into the exacting details of pharmacology.


I am not aware of their effect on peripheral nervous system.By whose definition should they be classified as PEDs? As far as I know, PED effect has never been conclusively demonstrated.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: 5 More Jamaican positives [Simpson & Powell big names]

Postby tm71 » Sun Jul 14, 2013 2:45 pm

MJR wrote:Stimulants enhance the central and peripheral nervous systems. That, by definition, makes them a PED. Very simple. No need to go into the exacting details of pharmacology.


Yeah that is the 6th grade definition but as pego and others pointed out there are no data in terms of studies. Even If i took a stimulant I don't think it would improve any of my abilities in any physical or mental task !
tm71
 
Posts: 2302
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 5 More Jamaican positives [Simpson & Powell big names]

Postby ldnbloke » Sun Jul 14, 2013 2:47 pm

tm71 wrote:
MJR wrote:Stimulants enhance the central and peripheral nervous systems. That, by definition, makes them a PED. Very simple. No need to go into the exacting details of pharmacology.


Yeah that is the 6th grade definition but as pego and others pointed out there are no data in terms of studies. Even If i took a stimulant I don't think it would improve any of my abilities in any physical or mental task !

The effects of this type of stimulant
Alertness and similar - effect on the central nervous system
Alpha and beta receptors - autonomic nervous system
ldnbloke
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 8:37 pm

Re: 5 More Jamaican positives [Simpson & Powell big names]

Postby Pego » Sun Jul 14, 2013 2:54 pm

ldnbloke wrote:
tm71 wrote:
MJR wrote:Stimulants enhance the central and peripheral nervous systems. That, by definition, makes them a PED. Very simple. No need to go into the exacting details of pharmacology.


Yeah that is the 6th grade definition but as pego and others pointed out there are no data in terms of studies. Even If i took a stimulant I don't think it would improve any of my abilities in any physical or mental task !

The effects of this type of stimulant
Alertness and similar - effect on the central nervous system
Alpha and beta receptors - autonomic nervous system


How does this provide evidence of PED effect? This is my favorite adage on the subject.

"Make you feel like Tarzan, perform like Jane."
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: 5 More Jamaican positives [Simpson & Powell big names]

Postby Master Po » Sun Jul 14, 2013 2:57 pm

Pego wrote:
MJR wrote:Stimulants enhance the central and peripheral nervous systems. That, by definition, makes them a PED. Very simple. No need to go into the exacting details of pharmacology.


I am not aware of their effect on peripheral nervous system.By whose definition should they be classified as PEDs? As far as I know, PED effect has never been conclusively demonstrated.


I would be really and sincerely interested if those of you (e.g., those quoted here, et al.) could discuss the stimulants & performance enhancement question in some more depth. I write this as an interested layperson -- my Chemistry and Biology training is pretty much from the dark ages. Perhaps this can't happen in this thread, but it seems pertinent to current and recent events, to say the least. I assume that not all stimulants are created equal, but what effect might/do they have, in relation to athletic performance? My direct experience is limited to caffeine, which upon being consumed each morning does seem to enhance my functioning, if ever so slightly. :) But in my line of work, mostly in the classroom & study, my responses aren't being measured to the hundredth or thousandth of a second, and my success in the world isn't correlated to these fine-tuned reactions. (Though I think it helps me in workouts, too, especially in the latter stages of long runs, but I can't prove that.) So, then, what do the stimulants in question do, or might do, that gets them on this list? Some thinking on this must have changed, because I get that caffeine isn't banned any longer. (Thank the gods that it's still OK in my line of work.) What, then, is the story with the stimulants in question? Do they, or might they, provide other effects? Again, a sincere though entirely undramatic question. Any attention to it by those with the training to respond is greatly appreciated.
Master Po
 
Posts: 2641
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: north coast USA

Re: 5 More Jamaican positives [Simpson & Powell big names]

Postby tm71 » Sun Jul 14, 2013 3:00 pm

ldnbloke wrote:
tm71 wrote:
MJR wrote:Stimulants enhance the central and peripheral nervous systems. That, by definition, makes them a PED. Very simple. No need to go into the exacting details of pharmacology.


Yeah that is the 6th grade definition but as pego and others pointed out there are no data in terms of studies. Even If i took a stimulant I don't think it would improve any of my abilities in any physical or mental task !

The effects of this type of stimulant
Alertness and similar - effect on the central nervous system
Alpha and beta receptors - autonomic nervous system


Dude I know the receptor pharmacology well since I occasionally prescribe stimulants in
my practice. the question is whether the effect in the nervous system is enough to improve ones ability to run the 100 meters faster. Running the 100 meters fast is much more complicated than this and it is very likely that 80-90 % of it is genetic even though there has never been a study able to prove that either!
tm71
 
Posts: 2302
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 5 More Jamaican positives [Simpson & Powell big names]

Postby ldnbloke » Sun Jul 14, 2013 3:09 pm

I just gave a simple explanation for the mode of action.
I don't know if they enhance performance as I doubt ill find good RCTs about it.
They should be banned though / running in the heat, exertion, fit athletes / sympatomimetics with no indication / medically not the right thing to take .
ldnbloke
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 8:37 pm

Re: 5 More Jamaican positives? [Simpson & Powell?]

Postby 26mi235 » Sun Jul 14, 2013 3:10 pm

TrackTeacher_AP wrote:
26mi235 wrote:Didn't do well on those SAT word analogies did we? I did not equate either to doping, I de-equated one vs the other, just like not all doping positives are the same offense.

Sorry I'm from the Midwest we dont take the SAT. But I do know what an analogy is and if there is any analogy it would be first degree murder and man slaughter. Varying degrees of the same thing. PED's are PED's whether a stimulant or steroid they all have the ability to enhance performance. For some people they may not need the steroid so they use stimulant for others they may need steroid.


Are you playing dense or what?
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: 5 More Jamaican positives [Simpson & Powell big names]

Postby TrackTeacher_AP » Sun Jul 14, 2013 3:13 pm

tm71 wrote:Dude I know the receptor pharmacology well since I occasionally prescribe stimulants in
my practice. the question is whether the effect in the nervous system is enough to improve ones ability to run the 100 meters faster. Running the 100 meters fast is much more complicated than this and it is very likely that 80-90 % of it is genetic even though there has never been a study able to prove that either!


I think he could mean that it makes runners more alert and focused which enhances their reaction times. I am a mathematics person so I do not know all of the science behind it however it is a reasonable explanation as to why it is banned?
TrackTeacher_AP
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu May 31, 2012 7:28 pm

Re: 5 More Jamaican positives? [Simpson & Powell?]

Postby tm71 » Sun Jul 14, 2013 3:18 pm

26mi235 wrote:
TrackTeacher_AP wrote:
26mi235 wrote:Didn't do well on those SAT word analogies did we? I did not equate either to doping, I de-equated one vs the other, just like not all doping positives are the same offense.

Sorry I'm from the Midwest we dont take the SAT. But I do know what an analogy is and if there is any analogy it would be first degree murder and man slaughter. Varying degrees of the same thing. PED's are PED's whether a stimulant or steroid they all have the ability to enhance performance. For some people they may not need the steroid so they use stimulant for others they may need steroid.


Are you playing dense or what?


Unfortunately a lot of people are very concrete and think in that dichotomy, clean or dirty, good or bad and don't understand how things can be relative and on a continuum.
tm71
 
Posts: 2302
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 5 More Jamaican positives [Simpson & Powell big names]

Postby ldnbloke » Sun Jul 14, 2013 3:20 pm

It is rather indicative that most accidental stimulant findings are among the sprinters.
ldnbloke
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 8:37 pm

benefits of stimulants? [split]

Postby gh » Sun Jul 14, 2013 3:29 pm

TrackTeacher_AP wrote:
tm71 wrote:Dude I know the receptor pharmacology well since I occasionally prescribe stimulants in
my practice. the question is whether the effect in the nervous system is enough to improve ones ability to run the 100 meters faster. Running the 100 meters fast is much more complicated than this and it is very likely that 80-90 % of it is genetic even though there has never been a study able to prove that either!


I think he could mean that it makes runners more alert and focused which enhances their reaction times. I am a mathematics person so I do not know all of the science behind it however it is a reasonable explanation as to why it is banned?


As Pego (and other MDs on the board) have mentioned many times, you basically can't change reaction time. There are limits on how fast a neuron can transmit a signal and that's the end of the story.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: 5 More Jamaican positives [Simpson & Powell big names]

Postby Pego » Sun Jul 14, 2013 3:33 pm

MasterPo wrote:So, then, what do the stimulants in question do, or might do, that gets them on this list?


Amazingly, there is not one study available anywhere that would conclusively say, "they make you faster," "they make you stronger," "they make you jump further"...The most you can get out of available literature are words such as "may improve...", "some scientists believe..." In other words, not much. They stimulate the nervous system, but sometimes you actually need an inhibition instead of stimulation in order to achieve PED effect. If you, for example, consume a stimulant of certain cerebellar neurons, you'll be tripping all over yourself. Why are stimulants on the Index? I have been asking this question on numerous threads here for years.

TrackTeacher_AP wrote:I think he could mean that it makes runners more alert and focused which enhances their reaction times.


Reaction times are already reduced to the absolute physiological minimum. 100 msec is the minimum allowed and some of us that are familiar with evoked potentials are convinced that anything faster than 120 msec is anticipation rather than reaction. Add stimulants and the only thing to achieve would be a higher incidence of false starts.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: 5 More Jamaican positives [Simpson & Powell big names]

Postby tm71 » Sun Jul 14, 2013 3:42 pm

Pego wrote:
MasterPo wrote:So, then, what do the stimulants in question do, or might do, that gets them on this list?


Amazingly, there is not one study available anywhere that would conclusively say, "they make you faster," "they make you stronger," "they make you jump further"...The most you can get out of available literature are words such as "may improve...", "some scientists believe..." In other words, not much. They stimulate the nervous system, but sometimes you actually need an inhibition instead of stimulation in order to achieve PED effect. If you, for example, consume a stimulant of certain cerebellar neurons, you'll be tripping all over yourself. Why are stimulants on the Index? I have been asking this question on numerous threads here for years.

TrackTeacher_AP wrote:I think he could mean that it makes runners more alert and focused which enhances their reaction times.


Reaction times are already reduced to the absolute physiological minimum. 100 msec is the minimum allowed and some of us that are familiar with evoked potentials are convinced that anything faster than 120 msec is anticipation rather than reaction. Add stimulants and the only thing to achieve would be a higher incidence of false starts.


Exactly. The stimulant effect could cause people to be jittery and jump the gun. The ataxia from affecting the cerebellum would not happen unless high doses were used.
tm71
 
Posts: 2302
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 5 More Jamaican positives [Simpson & Powell big names]

Postby gh » Sun Jul 14, 2013 4:20 pm

I find it interesting that they don't test for stimulants out of competition, but if there is a place where they might help, it's during the training phase.

Tackling a monster session in the weight room and want the mindset of The Terminator? Wanna train through pain? Get wired and see what happens.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: 5 More Jamaican positives [Simpson & Powell big names]

Postby gh » Sun Jul 14, 2013 4:44 pm

Pego wrote:...
Reaction times are already reduced to the absolute physiological minimum. 100 msec is the minimum allowed and some of us that are familiar with evoked potentials are convinced that anything faster than 120 msec is anticipation rather than reaction. Add stimulants and the only thing to achieve would be a higher incidence of false starts.


An important key here is that even though 120 appears to be about the limit, the IAAF has allowed for the occasional super-freak (think Colin Jackson) by fudging it down to 100.

Which, of course, means that any races you see w/ an RT between 0.100 and 0.120 was probably an anticipation, and the runner got über-lucky.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: benefits of stimulants? [split]

Postby Master Po » Sun Jul 14, 2013 5:11 pm

Appreciate the posts from those who have responded to my question re: what do stimulants supposedly do that gets them on the banned list? I know that many of you have dealt with these questions much more, and so I appreciate the attention to what is probably a very elementary question. I also realize these things are complex and unsettled but those responses helped. One hopes that in time the doping protocols, in addition to being improved in terms of detection and due process, will also be improved in terms of identifying and focusing on those substances that really have athletics performance enhancements (or mask the use of such). I don't follow this dimension of our sport in great detail, but I think there has been some progress on this front. Not making a claim about these stimulants, by the way, as I am still close to square 1 in terms of my own understanding.
Master Po
 
Posts: 2641
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: north coast USA

Re: benefits of stimulants? [split]

Postby Pego » Sun Jul 14, 2013 5:38 pm

Master Po wrote:One hopes that in time the doping protocols, in addition to being improved in terms of detection and due process, will also be improved in terms of identifying and focusing on those substances that really have athletics performance enhancements (or mask the use of such).


This is exactly what some of us have been advocating for years. Simplify it, remove recreational drugs from the list, remove the ones that have either none or very little PED property. Finally, my personal favorite, legalize autotransfusion.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: benefits of stimulants? [split]

Postby gh » Sun Jul 14, 2013 5:59 pm

Master Po wrote:Appreciate the posts from those who have responded to my question re: what do stimulants supposedly do that gets them on the banned list? ...


I'm guessing the genesis starts w/ the Danish cyclist who died at Rome in '60 and who had stimulants in his system.

(this link, by the way, disputes whether that was relevant: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... 20#preview)

So the initial move to prohibition probably had nothing to do with any PED aspect, but a public health one. (which isn't necessarily a bad thing)

I do know that in the fledging days of testing (and I got this from somebody intimately involved in the program at the time), things went on the list because "they're showing up with frequency in tests, so if the athletes think it's helping, we should ban it"; hardly good science.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: benefits of stimulants? [split]

Postby Master Po » Sun Jul 14, 2013 6:04 pm

thanks gh. That explanation makes historical sense. Perhaps not much scientific sense, as you note, but it gives an idea of how some of these trajectories in doping testing began.
Master Po
 
Posts: 2641
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: north coast USA

Re: 5 More Jamaican positives [Simpson & Powell big names]

Postby 26mi235 » Sun Jul 14, 2013 9:35 pm

gh wrote:
Pego wrote:...
Reaction times are already reduced to the absolute physiological minimum. 100 msec is the minimum allowed and some of us that are familiar with evoked potentials are convinced that anything faster than 120 msec is anticipation rather than reaction. Add stimulants and the only thing to achieve would be a higher incidence of false starts.


An important key here is that even though 120 appears to be about the limit, the IAAF has allowed for the occasional super-freak (think Colin Jackson) by fudging it down to 100.

Which, of course, means that any races you see w/ an RT between 0.100 and 0.120 was probably an anticipation, and the runner got über-lucky.


And the data that mikli supplied provided a relatively strong indication that such is the case. I can definitely live with the 0.10 because I would rather live with the occasional slight advantage and not can a extreme case that got their best result.
26mi235
 
Posts: 16335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Madison, WI

Re: benefits of stimulants? [split]

Postby MDelano » Sun Jul 14, 2013 10:51 pm

Just a couple of minutes of Google Scholar (don't have more time, off to the EC juniors in an hour) and I can find the following studies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7392905
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10223267
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11828246
showing improvements in running performances (of long duration) with stimulants.

I can imagine it won't improve 100m time but why do these athletes mess with these supplements then.
MDelano
 
Posts: 225
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 6:57 am

Re: benefits of stimulants? [split]

Postby Pego » Mon Jul 15, 2013 3:27 am

MDelano wrote:Just a couple of minutes of Google Scholar (don't have more time, off to the EC juniors in an hour) and I can find the following studies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7392905
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10223267
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11828246
showing improvements in running performances (of long duration) with stimulants.

I can imagine it won't improve 100m time but why do these athletes mess with these supplements then.


Thank you Delano, I have not seen these before (the first one I might have, but not sure). Just like all others, these studies indicate increase in certain physiologic functions with stimulants, but none indicate that any of these test subjects would run faster (short or long distances), jump further or throw/lift more. I am back to my original premise that increase in individual various physiological functions does not mean that an overall performance will be improved.

I am in full agreement with your concluding sentence, why indeed? I would propose that a placebo effect is a very powerful factor.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: benefits of stimulants? [split]

Postby Kav » Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:26 am

So the implication is that the stimulant may or may not improve an athletes condition but not his performance?

It may or may not improve his/her state of mind=> Therefor his psychological state can put him at advantage in a race. Is that the argument?

I can understand some stimulants being banned, those that improve for example your ability to use oxygen or your ability to retain or discharge of fluids. However clarity is needed.
Last edited by Kav on Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Kav
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2013 11:58 am

Re: benefits of stimulants? [split]

Postby sjm1368 » Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:42 am

Stimulants work.

While this is on longer duration exercise, read this study to understand what certain stimulants do:
http://bjsportmed.com/content/43/10/782.abstract

It's a central nervous system modulator. Same way that caffeine works to a degree. Stimulants work in a combined physiological/psychological manner. Fatigue isn't just some peripheral thing that occurs.

For instance, in some studies on stimulants, muscle recruitment/activation is enhanced.

It changes the limiter because of its effects on CNS. Now this depends on the stimulant type, but it works.
sjm1368
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Tx

Re: benefits of stimulants? [split]

Postby BruceFlorman » Mon Jul 15, 2013 5:00 am

gh wrote:As Pego (and other MDs on the board) have mentioned many times, you basically can't change reaction time.

Well that's certainly not true. Perhaps you can't improve reaction time, but there's lots of ways to make it worse. So if there was a sprinter who was particularly prone to distraction, then a stimulant that improved his focus, and thus reduced his tendency to f*** up his starts, then it would clearly be enhancing his performance.
BruceFlorman
 
Posts: 1305
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Back home again in Indiana

Re: benefits of stimulants? [split]

Postby Pego » Mon Jul 15, 2013 5:23 am

sjm1368 wrote:Stimulants work.

While this is on longer duration exercise, read this study to understand what certain stimulants do:
http://bjsportmed.com/content/43/10/782.abstract

It's a central nervous system modulator. Same way that caffeine works to a degree. Stimulants work in a combined physiological/psychological manner. Fatigue isn't just some peripheral thing that occurs.

For instance, in some studies on stimulants, muscle recruitment/activation is enhanced.

It changes the limiter because of its effects on CNS. Now this depends on the stimulant type, but it works.


Yes, this study also confirms what I have been saying all along. Certain physiologic functions improve, but not the overall performance. Subjects in this study did not cycle faster or retained speed at longer interval. We are not talking basic physiology here, we are discussing performance enhancement. What I want to see is a study that shows the subjects running faster, throwing further, jumping better. So far, no study showed that.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: 5 More Jamaican positives [Simpson & Powell big names]

Postby tandfman » Mon Jul 15, 2013 5:25 am

gh wrote:I find it interesting that they don't test for stimulants out of competition

They don't? Gay's positive reportedly came from an out-of-competition test.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: benefits of stimulants? [split]

Postby Pego » Mon Jul 15, 2013 5:30 am

BruceFlorman wrote:
gh wrote:As Pego (and other MDs on the board) have mentioned many times, you basically can't change reaction time.

Well that's certainly not true. Perhaps you can't improve reaction time, but there's lots of ways to make it worse. So if there was a sprinter who was particularly prone to distraction, then a stimulant that improved his focus, and thus reduced his tendency to f*** up his starts, then it would clearly be enhancing his performance.


I'll accept this when somebody can show me better reaction time with stimulants than placebo. Everything so far has been assumptions of what stimulants might or could do to the performance, but not one piece of evidence of what they actually do to it.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: benefits of stimulants? [split]

Postby sjm1368 » Mon Jul 15, 2013 5:39 am

I'm not sure what you mean. They were able to cycle significantly longer before fatigue set in slowing them down.

That's specific endurance right there...
sjm1368
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Tx

Re: benefits of stimulants? [split]

Postby Pego » Mon Jul 15, 2013 5:51 am

sjm1368 wrote:I'm not sure what you mean. They were able to cycle significantly longer before fatigue set in slowing them down.

That's specific endurance right there...


Yes, that would mean something, if true. My problem is that nobody ever claimed that stimulants improve endurance (I am not even sure how would they). Sprinters use them, not distance people.

This is what I'd like to see. Time for certain distance with nothing, with the stimulants and with placebo. If the stimulants beat the other two, I will shut up and forever hold my peace, but I bet against it.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: 5 More Jamaican positives [Simpson & Powell big names]

Postby toyracer » Mon Jul 15, 2013 5:54 am

tandfman wrote:
gh wrote:I find it interesting that they don't test for stimulants out of competition

They don't? Gay's positive reportedly came from an out-of-competition test.


As gh said, stimulants are listed in the "SUBSTANCES AND METHODS PROHIBITED IN-COMPETITION" section of the WADA code, not in the "SUBSTANCES AND METHODS PROHIBITED AT ALL TIMES (IN- AND OUT-OF-COMPETITION)" section. The inference is that stimulants are not regarded as AAF's in out-of-competition testing.

http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World ... 013-EN.pdf
toyracer
 
Posts: 1759
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 12:38 pm
Location: Kingston, Jamaica

Re: benefits of stimulants? [split]

Postby betterthanb4 » Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:18 am

After Recent Positive tests. Ato Boldon thinks some stimulants 'should be legalized'.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ol ... y/2516727/

"Ato Boldon's stance was a bit softer, but also bold. The former world champion said stimulants should be legalized but the hard stuff – steroids, human growth hormone and blood doping – should remain banned.

"It's not even bleeding anymore," said Boldon, one of the most respected voices in his sport. "We have to get out the paddles because we have to be resuscitated now."

Boldon doesn't think the sport should open the floodgates, but it should legalize some of the stimulants and supplements on the banned list because "everyone is already on it. It's a question of who's getting away with it and who isn't."

Boldon said the culture of the sport needs to be changed. "There is a distrust in this sport that the person I'm competing against is doing something so I have to continue to push the envelope," he said. Athletes know they will get caught if they take the serious substances – steroids, hormones, blood doping – so they use something less effective, like a stimulant, even though it's also banned, Boldon said.

"Some of these things these guys are getting popped for, it's like, really? It's a stimulant," he said. "The person I'm competing against is doing something so someone comes to me and gives me something that's really close to being legal, and everyone feels like this is how I keep my competitive edge."
betterthanb4
 
Posts: 1105
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 8:21 pm

Re: benefits of stimulants? [split]

Postby batonless relay » Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:23 am

betterthanb4 wrote:After Recent Positive tests. Ato Boldon thinks some stimulants 'should be legalized'.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ol ... y/2516727/

"Ato Boldon's stance was a bit softer, but also bold. The former world champion said stimulants should be legalized but the hard stuff – steroids, human growth hormone and blood doping – should remain banned.

"It's not even bleeding anymore," said Boldon, one of the most respected voices in his sport. "We have to get out the paddles because we have to be resuscitated now."

Boldon doesn't think the sport should open the floodgates, but it should legalize some of the stimulants and supplements on the banned list because "everyone is already on it. It's a question of who's getting away with it and who isn't."

Boldon said the culture of the sport needs to be changed. "There is a distrust in this sport that the person I'm competing against is doing something so I have to continue to push the envelope," he said. Athletes know they will get caught if they take the serious substances – steroids, hormones, blood doping – so they use something less effective, like a stimulant, even though it's also banned, Boldon said.

"Some of these things these guys are getting popped for, it's like, really? It's a stimulant," he said. "The person I'm competing against is doing something so someone comes to me and gives me something that's really close to being legal, and everyone feels like this is how I keep my competitive edge."

Spoken like a person who tested positive for a stimulant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ato_Boldon
In 2001, Boldon tested positive at an early-season relay meet for the stimulant ephedrine
batonless relay
 
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2013 9:40 am

Re: benefits of stimulants? [split]

Postby tjallen » Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:30 am

Pego while I agree in general with your assertion that PEDs on the list should have a scientific basis for being there, I don't see that any test will ever meet the strict standards you've set regarding stimulants. The variance between individual performances is greater than the small % the PED is alleged to deliver. You couldn't perform this test with one athlete, one pill and one afternoon at the track. You'd have to recruit hundreds of sprinters, and have them compete hundreds times, and adjust for temperature differences, wind, track conditions, fatigue, etc etc. You'd be looking for the tiniest amount of improvement over thousands of trials. Such a test will never be performed. Even the worst steroids are not required to pass such rigorous tests. (I can hear you now on the steroid committee, "Yes his muscle mass increased, and his recruitment improved, and his fast twitchers have been increased, but can he really run faster? We haven't proved that yet!")

I wonder if we could prove things like excitement, pressure of a big event, crowd support and similar psychological factors have any "PED" effect. Many athletes seem to improve on the "big stage" but I bet this effect also is unprovable, if you demand such high standards. (Imagined Pego: Yes I know you're excited and hyped by the crowd, but can you run faster?)
tjallen
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: VA

Re: benefits of stimulants? [split]

Postby Marlow » Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:42 am

Ato wrote:[ "everyone is already on it. It's a question of who's getting away with it and who isn't."

Isn't that the case with MOST PEDs, which MANY athletes still use.
I totally get Pego's point, but my own anecdotal evidences suggests otherwise. I know caffeine has always helped me (and doubt it was just psychological/placebo). My biggest problem is believing that it helps them enough to risk getting busted for. If I wanted to cheat (in for a penny, in for a pound)I'd be on the steroid/HGH/testosterone wagon, not the 'marginal stimulant' one.
Course, they may be on EVERYTHING.

I actually believe Asafa's story; the others a little less so. I am (was?) a huge fan of Tyson's (as I was Gatlin's). but he says he'll take it like a man (kudos there), so I will too - he done the crime; now do some time.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21126
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: More Jamaican positives [split] [Simpson one]

Postby toyracer » Mon Jul 15, 2013 7:52 am

batonless relay wrote:
toyracer wrote:On a personal note, that's what has always been puzzling to me about the WADA code. WADA says, in effect, "yes, you can use this when not competing but if we find traces of it when you compete then you are busted".

And, that's why it should be banned all the time. MAKE IT CLEAR. WADA needs to make the rules concise enough to fit on a post-it note instead of this nonsense of office hours of a part-time post office (open on Tuesdays, but only every other Tuesday that has an odd number date...)


Agreed. Either:

a)allow stimulants all the time

or

b) ban stimulants all the time

This "you can use them but not when competing" is a "gotcha" moment just waiting to happen.
toyracer
 
Posts: 1759
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 12:38 pm
Location: Kingston, Jamaica

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest