Norwegian Athletics Coach Suspended

[MightyBurner]

Story on front page.

The more interesting aspect of this is the peripheral implication of Merlene Ottey, who has somehow retained a sterling reputation even after she tested positive for a known substance (rather than something like a high T/E ratio) in 1999 yet got off without any punishment.

I don't particularly care about doping and think it should probably be legalized entirely, so this news doesn't really matter to me, but it's interesting nonetheless.

[eldanielfire]

I do care about doping and certainly don't think it should be allowed. To many negatives, athletes health, possibility of state sponsored programs abuse it on sporty children and the fact it won't level the playing field, it will most likely bend it in favour of rich countries. There would also be the Formula questions "was this achieved by the athlete or was it just the best car" and a decreased interest, women turning into half men and lesser human interest.

I'm not saying it's perfect now by the way, just at leats not every achievement is question by everybody and we are fairly confident in much T&F achievements. Heck the sport is in a better position than 10 years ago.

[Ned Ryerson]

Story on front page.

The more interesting aspect of this is the peripheral implication of Merlene Ottey, who has somehow retained a sterling reputation even after she tested positive for a known substance (rather than something like a high T/E ratio) in 1999 yet got off without any punishment.

I don't particularly care about doping and think it should probably be legalized entirely, so this news doesn't really matter to me, but it's interesting nonetheless.

No thanks.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/feb/05/belgian-cyclist-dies-heart-attack

[MightyBurner]

I assume that Hank Gathers, Reggie Lewis, Ryan Shay, Miklos Feher, Damien Nash and others were all doping then?

[Ned Ryerson]

I assume that Hank Gathers, Reggie Lewis, Ryan Shay, Miklos Feher, Damien Nash and others were all doping then?

Reggie Lewis's cocaine use contributed to his death, so yes (recreationally). Ryan Shay's autopsy discovered a heart defect. Yes, some top athletes (like Shay) will suffer from heart defects, but all these cyclists:

Denis Zanette (Italy)
11 January 2003; aged 32
Marco Ceriani (Italy)
5 May 2003; aged 16
Fabrice Salanson (France)
3 June 2003; aged 23
Marco Rusconi (Italy)
14 November 2003; aged 24
Jose Maria Jimenez (Spain)
6 December 2003; aged 32
Michel Zanoli (Netherlands)
29 December 2003; aged 35
Johan Sermon (Belgium)
12 February 2004; aged 21
Marco Pantani (Italy)
14 February 2004; aged 34

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_s ... 495967.stm

The Belgian cyclist died two days before Pantani, and, like the Italian, an autopsy highlighted apparent heart failure.

Sermon, who died in his sleep, was 21. Pantani was 34.

Their premature deaths take the total of elite cyclists to have suffered heart attacks in the last 13 months to eight. Four have been under the age of 24.

"The statistics appear to be well above average," John Brewer, Head of Human Performance at Lilleshall's Sports Injury & Human Performance Centre, told BBC Sport.

[MightyBurner]

There are going to be people doing these things anyway. I'd rather see them do it under the supervision of doctors who are not paid based on the performance of the athletes.

[Blues]

I assume that Hank Gathers, Reggie Lewis, Ryan Shay, Miklos Feher, Damien Nash and others were all doping then?

Nobody implied that. But it's important to realize that even though there may not have been drugs in their systems at the time of their deaths, chronic abuse of alcohol, cocaine, various stimulants, and other drugs can cause serious cardiac problems, including problems like the cardiomyopathies and cardiac arrhythmias that were responsible for most of the above deaths. To be fair, those cardiac abnormalities can also often be caused by certain health conditions that aren't drug related, but just because a person doesn't have drugs or PEDs in his or her system at the time of a cardiac related death doesn't always mean that drugs or PEDs can't still be responsible for the cardiac condition that led to the death.

[26mi235]

The problem of having the drugs legal is one of incentives, dependent on empirical elements. If athletes are free to dope, then non-doping athletes will not be able to compete at the highest level as long as some of the most talented individuals decide to dope.

If performance effect is increasing with dosage/duration, then people will be pushed into the unhealthy range, doctors or no doctors.

The is a game theory solution that has no good outcome. If you think you can set up a game-theoretic structure that does not have this outcome, please explain carefully how it would work. Note that the evidence is strong indicative that athletes will take substantial amounts even with it being illegal (see the cycling deaths noted above). Please, if you say the best ones will not dope because they know they are better and can beat unconstrained doping, you need to provide something more than 'it is my opinion'.

The open case is where drugs are illegal but do not harm the body in any dose that provides performance improvements. Pego might have something here, but note that it has to cover all of the relevant drugs, not just a subset if the other drugs provide greater benefit.

The only realistic game-theory that I can think of really requires that there be a party to the environment that gives known bad outcomes within the competitive seasons of the drug use. Death with higher likelihood ten years later is, I think, known not to be an adequate deterrent, although this is an empirical issue that I do not know enough about.

[Mighty Favog]

There are going to be people doing these things anyway. I'd rather see them do it under the supervision of doctors who are not paid based on the performance of the athletes.

In what way is this easier to enforce than our current system?

[ExCoastRanger]

I'd rather see them do it under the supervision of doctors who are not paid based on the performance of the athletes.

How would this work?

[eldanielfire]

There are going to be people doing these things anyway. I'd rather see them do it under the supervision of doctors who are not paid based on the performance of the athletes.

In many places coaches are only paid if their athletes do well. If doping was allowed any and all athletics associations would employ Doctors to enhance performance to the bets of their ability, why else would an athlete see a Doctor to dope?

[Ned Ryerson]

There are going to be people doing these things anyway. I'd rather see them do it under the supervision of doctors who are not paid based on the performance of the athletes.

So you now agree that PED's can threaten the health of the user?

Don't you get it: people will always push the envelope. You say you'd like to see PED's used under doctor supervision. You can't see people pushing beyond recommended dosages? All you've done by legalizing it is mandating its use and putting the health of athletes at all levels at risk. Because if everyone's doing it, then where's the edge? That was the whole point of taking drugs in the first place. So now you've got to take more than the next guy. And I don't want to tell my kids that in order to compete in this sport you'll need spikes along with a syringe.

[Blues]

There are going to be people doing these things anyway. I'd rather see them do it under the supervision of doctors who are not paid based on the performance of the athletes.

So you now agree that PED's can threaten the health of the user?

Don't you get it: people will always push the envelope. You say you'd like to see PED's used under doctor supervision. You can't see people pushing beyond recommended dosages? All you've done by legalizing it is mandating its use and putting the health of athletes at all levels at risk. Because if everyone's doing it, then where's the edge? That was the whole point of taking drugs in the first place. So now you've got to take more than the next guy. And I don't want to tell my kids that in order to compete in this sport you'll need spikes along with a syringe.

Couldn't have said it better myself... Well said Ned.

[Master Po]

There are going to be people doing these things anyway. I'd rather see them do it under the supervision of doctors who are not paid based on the performance of the athletes.

So you now agree that PED's can threaten the health of the user?

Don't you get it: people will always push the envelope. You say you'd like to see PED's used under doctor supervision. You can't see people pushing beyond recommended dosages? All you've done by legalizing it is mandating its use and putting the health of athletes at all levels at risk. Because if everyone's doing it, then where's the edge? That was the whole point of taking drugs in the first place. So now you've got to take more than the next guy. And I don't want to tell my kids that in order to compete in this sport you'll need spikes along with a syringe.

Couldn't have said it better myself... Well said Ned.

ditto.

[Blues]

There are going to be people doing these things anyway. I'd rather see them do it under the supervision of doctors who are not paid based on the performance of the athletes.

In many places coaches are only paid if their athletes do well. If doping was allowed any and all athletics associations would employ Doctors to enhance performance to the bets of their ability, why else would an athlete see a Doctor to dope?

Well, at least today when PEDs are still banned, unethical athletes also utilize certain physicians (who are willing to facilitate cheating) in order to avoid testing positive.. Having a physician conduct frequent tests of blood and urine PED levels, and carefully design dosing schedules accordingly based on the test results along with the athlete's competition schedule, can greatly improve the chance for an athlete to cheat and not test positive, at least with certain PEDs.

[eldanielfire]

There are going to be people doing these things anyway. I'd rather see them do it under the supervision of doctors who are not paid based on the performance of the athletes.

In many places coaches are only paid if their athletes do well. If doping was allowed any and all athletics associations would employ Doctors to enhance performance to the bets of their ability, why else would an athlete see a Doctor to dope?

Well, at least today when PEDs are still banned, unethical athletes also utilize certain physicians (who are willing to facilitate cheating) in order to avoid testing positive.. Having a physician conduct frequent tests of blood and urine PED levels, and carefully design dosing schedules accordingly based on the test results along with the athlete's competition schedule, can greatly improve the chance for an athlete to cheat and not test positive, at least with certain PEDs.

The answer to this is in Ned Ryerson's perfect written post. If everybody used PEDs there is no edge there, so Athletes will push themselves further still to dangerous levels. That also ignores the fact some countries can and will have state sponsored doping of children which is unethical in any arguement.

There is a good book written by a Biochemist called Run, swim, throw, cheat. It make sit clear all the evidence shows when drugs have entered or taken off ban lists, if you unban drugs the useage of more dangerous PEDs would increase massively. There really is no safe way of allowing drugs in sport, this would be especially amplified by pressure, doctors would be under pressure to psuh the athlete as far as drugs would go and the limits of the performance-risk balance is different in everybody and basically the limit is guess work when applying to an individual until they actually die or have serious health problems.

Also most drugs in PED use are side-products of the health industry (baring the odd Balco innovation which were cheap and questionable in performance effects anyway). Testing new drugs purely for the use of sports performance (which is where some segments of industry would take it) would be unethical as there are no health benifits. Testing would be done on people with drugs taht if harm, will also ahve no intention of improving health. The damage would be big through the general public, especially on the poor or poorer countries which is again an un ethical application.

[26mi235]

I suppose no one read my post above. I recommend that you do so if you think Ned's rendition is correct (I basically do but think that the language matters). If you have an inherently Game Theory situation, you need to treat it that way or you can make mistakes that you do not readily see. If you take a look at the literature on 'security' (i.e., think terrorists) you can see plenty of places where game-theory elements have been ignored and billions of dollars wasted or not well spent.

[MightyBurner]

There are going to be people doing these things anyway. I'd rather see them do it under the supervision of doctors who are not paid based on the performance of the athletes.

So you now agree that PED's can threaten the health of the user?

Don't you get it: people will always push the envelope. You say you'd like to see PED's used under doctor supervision. You can't see people pushing beyond recommended dosages? All you've done by legalizing it is mandating its use and putting the health of athletes at all levels at risk. Because if everyone's doing it, then where's the edge? That was the whole point of taking drugs in the first place. So now you've got to take more than the next guy. And I don't want to tell my kids that in order to compete in this sport you'll need spikes along with a syringe.

I take Adderall, a psychostimulant every day and have done so for well over a decade. Should I stop taking it because it has been tangentially linked to sudden death?

Doping is a small piece of a very large puzzle. People treat it as if it's a panacea, when it's not. An athlete with near perfect training taking no foreign substance will always beat a mediocre trained athlete that is doped to the gills. If I take EPO for the next few years, I won't run anywhere close to a four minute mile even if I undergo the most perfect training regimen in history.

Until drug testing becomes near foolproof, I'd just prefer that they tolerate doping and make sure that unhealthy athletes aren't competing. An arbitrary system of enforcement makes the sport a mockery far more than any one athlete taking an illicit substance.

[26mi235]

It is irrelevant what the 1000th or 10,000th best does; the question is what do the top 100 do with those incentives. They do not make the athlete but they make enough of a difference that they change the order at the top. Tight constraints make it harder to get big increments so that the order is less altered and more athletes can feel like that they can compete without the extra help (which also has to be be weighed against the cost of being caught, including internal angst).

[MightyBurner]

WADA's umbrella is too small for me to be comfortable with the system, and to say that I don't trust most anti-doping agencies worldwide, especially those in despot countries would be a bit of an understatement.

[Ned Ryerson]

I take Adderall, a psychostimulant every day and have done so for well over a decade. Should I stop taking it because it has been tangentially linked to sudden death?

Apples and oranges. Yours is to treat a condition. EPO and other hormones generally shouldn't be used and abused in otherwise healthy people for what amounts to recreational use. Besides, I'm sure you have a recommended dosage. Might there be complications if you took ten times that dosage?

Doping is a small piece of a very large puzzle. People treat it as if it's a panacea, when it's not. An athlete with near perfect training taking no foreign substance will always beat a mediocre trained athlete that is doped to the gills. If I take EPO for the next few years, I won't run anywhere close to a four minute mile even if I undergo the most perfect training regimen in history.

We're not talking about you. We're talking about top level athletes who are among the best handful in the world, where a tenth of a percent difference in ability can mean the difference between a six-figure bump in pay or finding a new line of work. Everyone is talented and everyone is working hard. Now, if it's a free-for-all, not only will everyone be required to take a concoction of different chemicals (which are often controlled substances, by the way) but they'll now be motivated to exceed the dosage of their peers in order to get an edge.

Until drug testing becomes near foolproof, I'd just prefer that they tolerate doping and make sure that unhealthy athletes aren't competing. An arbitrary system of enforcement makes the sport a mockery far more than any one athlete taking an illicit substance.

How are you going to make sure unhealthy athletes aren't competing? Testing?

You say you'd like to do away with drug testing until it's nearly foolproof. What's your standard? Should we get rid of breathalyzers because they're far from foolproof?

[Gabriella]

There's no point debating the legalisation of sterorids in athletics when in most countries these are controlled substances and you cannot purchase and them unless they have been prescribed by a medial professional. The debate is legalising them in society full stop. And why would (sane and normal) governments want to legalise steroids just in sport for athletes to take under supervision? You'd get every 20-odd year old vain man 'participating' in athletics, just so he can get steroids and the body he wants. I mean, how would this work? Do you have to be a member of an athletics club to qualify for them? Do you have to be at a certain level? How many times do you have to compete? It's just ridiculous, period.

On drug related deaths, look no further than Birgit Dressel, the heptathlete from the then West Germany, who died from multiple organ failure due to steroids at just age 26 She reportedly took over 100 different drugs leading up to her death, and in the last few days, when her organs were shutting down, medicated pain relief wasn't working because of the damage she'd done to her nerves through years of drugs misued.Her death is EXACTLY what will happen if steroids were legalised.