Canadian sport doc accused of importing Actovegin, etc., Not cycling, but cycling mentioned Options

[rational head]

Interesting thread, guys.

I don't know if I can contribute a great deal but if memory serves, some time ago, perhaps a year or so, I originated a thread (with some solid references and links if I recall right) where an entire national team of rowers was threatened with a ban from the Olympics for…using an injections with actovegin.

Again, I can not vouch 100%, but I'm pretty sure it was something like this: actovegin (among other substances and needles) was found in the team's trash. The international rowing federation performed both chemical and DNA analysis and traced the usage down to several rowers of that team . They were all suspended for 2 years. If interested, search on the forum.

…….
RH, if you are reading, any comment on the practicality or possible advantage of this?
Dave.

Dave, I've been reading the forum very sporadically. Not sure if I understood you question right. Sorry about that. Were you enquiring about the ozone therapy via a blood withdrawal (and re-infusion) that allegedly was administered to a 15-year old girl, right? If you did, I don't know much about it except, if I read the sources right, it does not meet the classic definition of blood doping. It appears the practice is directed at improving the immune response rather than increasing oxygen transport. Ozone is a very reactive "relative" of oxygen. The idea of the "ozone therapy" is to kill pathogens whatever that means. So, if the therapy is affective (and that's debatable) it would help with recovery in a GT race as time goes on. Same idea, allegedly, with actovegin. Essentially actovegin is a plasma product. It may serve a dual purpose: as a masking agent (diluting/blood expansion etc) and concurrently as an immune system booster, which it probably is. Kind of a similar effect to re-infusion own plasma - it's rich in hormones and anti coagulation factors.

edit: removed some speculative stuff.


This post has been edited by rational head: Nov 6 2009, 10:22 PM

[D-Queued]

Interesting thread, guys.

I don't know if I can contribute a great deal but if memory serves, some time ago, perhaps a year or so, I originated a thread (with some solid references and links if I recall right) where an entire national team of rowers was threatened with a ban from the Olympics for…using an injections with actovegin.

Again, I can not vouch 100%, but I'm pretty sure it was something like this: actovegin (among other substances and needles) was found in the team's trash. The international rowing federation performed both chemical and DNA analysis and traced the usage down to several rowers of that team . They were all suspended for 2 years. If interested, search on the forum.

....

Thx RH.

Damn Russkies... you have to like the original excuse, though:

an unbalanced vegetative system of the athletes, a metabolic disturbance of micardia, ischemia and distrubance of the heart rhythm, and disturbance of the water-mineral balance, as a result of maladaptation to training requirements with a background of overtraining... antioxident vitamin therapy (actovegin)

How about that?

Vitamin therapy for a disturbance in the Force.

Dave.

[Steve in ATL]

Weird.

Dave.

Not really, it's a pretty common injury. Part of the problem is the range of motion required for cycling can in some people cause the femoral neck to contact the acetablum (the bony / cartilaginous (sp?) rim of the socket that hold the femur). Repeated contact leads the body to grow a bony protrusion on the neck of the femur, and this restriction then starts to pinch the labrum. Eventually, it gets pinched one too many times and tears.

[D-Queued]

Not really, it's a pretty common injury. Part of the problem is the range of motion required for cycling can in some people cause the femoral neck to contact the acetablum (the bony / cartilaginous (sp?) rim of the socket that hold the femur). Repeated contact leads the body to grow a bony protrusion on the neck of the femur, and this restriction then starts to pinch the labrum. Eventually, it gets pinched one too many times and tears.

Ok, great, now all I have to do is wait for all the shorter cyclists that can climb way faster than me to finally get this condition.

Anyhow, joking and wrasslin aside, sorry to hear about this. My excuse is work. I cannot run, and need to cycle due to injury. I would hate to be barred from the bike as well.

Dave.

[Lister Farrar]

Not really, it's a pretty common injury. Part of the problem is the range of motion required for cycling can in some people cause the femoral neck to contact the acetablum (the bony / cartilaginous (sp?) rim of the socket that hold the femur). Repeated contact leads the body to grow a bony protrusion on the neck of the femur, and this restriction then starts to pinch the labrum. Eventually, it gets pinched one too many times and tears.

Interesting. Thanks for posting. Is it during the extreme of the range of hip flexion? Makes me wonder about saddles further forward etc.

[sweatpea]

I understand, and I didn't take any offense. I though we were just wrasslin'

Anyhow, as I told frenchfry in a PM, I'm a bit depressed right now as a friend of mind (who was injured) took something he ought not have and tested positive. While he's sent around a letter of apology and somewhat publicly apologized for what he did, the sanction has not been announced yet by USADA, so I'll leave it at that for now other than to say I would have never suspected that he would do something like that. This is the 2nd time that doping has hit (very) close to home for me.

St

Steve, is your friend Kenny Williams? Reported today in Cyclingnews.com that his A and B test for DHEA is positive.

[floridacyclist]

Steve, is your friend Kenny Williams? Reported today in Cyclingnews.com that his A and B test for DHEA is positive.

DHEA? Uh oh. Here we go again.

Didn't the Tyler apologists tell us DHEA provides no real performance benefit? That it shouldn't really even be on the banned list?

So does DHEA provide performance-enhancing benefits or not?

And all the usual questions left unanswered.

Williams admits he took the stuff to cheat. So here's a guy looking for a performance edge, feeling like using banned substances is the only way to get to "top form" in time for a key event, who makes the decision: "OK, I'm willing to cheat, I'm GOING to cheat."

At that point, he's got to decide HOW to cheat, WHEN to cheat, WHAT SUBSTANCE(S) to use to cheat, WHAT METHOD to use in cheating, and HOW TO COVER UP the cheating. And of course, he's got to decide what his BUDGET is.

So how is it a guy looking to cheat winds up choosing DHEA rather than the literally scores of other banned substances? Certainly he couldn't have chosen it because he thought it was the least likely substance to be caught in a drug test, knowing what we know from the Tyler case.

And did he do this "on his own"? Did he research, find, buy, and administer all on his own? Or was there a trainer, a teammate, a friend, a workout partner, or a doctor involved?

How exactly did he arrive at this decision? Surely he's been injured before, surely he's felt competitive insecurity leading up to an important event before, surely he's felt the lure and temptation of taking a little something extra to help him gain that edge before. Why did he decide to cross the line this time and none of the other times before?

Or ... is it a calculated deception to say "I only did this to try and catch up on my training arc because of the broken collarbone," knowing the listener will conclude because he's not had a broken collarbone to recover from in the run-up to years worth of events previously, that he never doped before, so it's just a one-time thing.

It's true, for all dopers, there has to have been a 1st time. But how many times does a doper get caught on that very first time? Given that dopers actually get caught such a tiny fraction of the time, statistically, the percentage would be small. In other words, odds suggest, this wasn't a first-time offense. Might have been. Could have been. Statistically, unlikely.

So if he's really so remorseful, so sorry, is he going to address those hard questions? And why not have the decency to name, the individuals who he robbed of their day in the sun, their place on the victory stand, instead of referring to them generically as "competitors". The guys who had to stand on the 2nd place plank of the victory stand have names. NAME THEM! At least have the decency to give them, however belatedly, and however unsatisfyingly, the satisfaction of having their names in print in the cycling publications, described as "the rightful winner".

The smooth p.r. statement will probably have its intended manipulative effect, soften the response, even make people feel a little sorry for him, perhaps even give him kudos for being "stand-up" in making an admission. That would be a shame.

[Lister Farrar]

DHEA? Uh oh. Here we go again.

Didn't the Tyler apologists tell us DHEA provides no real performance benefit? That it shouldn't really even be on the banned list?

So does DHEA provide performance-enhancing benefits or not?

And all the usual questions left unanswered.

Williams admits he took the stuff to cheat. So here's a guy looking for a performance edge, feeling like using banned substances is the only way to get to "top form" in time for a key event, who makes the decision: "OK, I'm willing to cheat, I'm GOING to cheat."

At that point, he's got to decide HOW to cheat, WHEN to cheat, WHAT SUBSTANCE(S) to use to cheat, WHAT METHOD to use in cheating, and HOW TO COVER UP the cheating. And of course, he's got to decide what his BUDGET is.

So how is it a guy looking to cheat winds up choosing DHEA rather than the literally scores of other banned substances? Certainly he couldn't have chosen it because he thought it was the least likely substance to be caught in a drug test, knowing what we know from the Tyler case.

And did he do this "on his own"? Did he research, find, buy, and administer all on his own? Or was there a trainer, a teammate, a friend, a workout partner, or a doctor involved?

How exactly did he arrive at this decision? Surely he's been injured before, surely he's felt competitive insecurity leading up to an important event before, surely he's felt the lure and temptation of taking a little something extra to help him gain that edge before. Why did he decide to cross the line this time and none of the other times before?

Or ... is it a calculated deception to say "I only did this to try and catch up on my training arc because of the broken collarbone," knowing the listener will conclude because he's not had a broken collarbone to recover from in the run-up to years worth of events previously, that he never doped before, so it's just a one-time thing.

It's true, for all dopers, there has to have been a 1st time. But how many times does a doper get caught on that very first time? Given that dopers actually get caught such a tiny fraction of the time, statistically, the percentage would be small. In other words, odds suggest, this wasn't a first-time offense. Might have been. Could have been. Statistically, unlikely.

So if he's really so remorseful, so sorry, is he going to address those hard questions? And why not have the decency to name, the individuals who he robbed of their day in the sun, their place on the victory stand, instead of referring to them generically as "competitors". The guys who had to stand on the 2nd place plank of the victory stand have names. NAME THEM! At least have the decency to give them, however belatedly, and however unsatisfyingly, the satisfaction of having their names in print in the cycling publications, described as "the rightful winner".

The smooth p.r. statement will probably have its intended manipulative effect, soften the response, even make people feel a little sorry for him, perhaps even give him kudos for being "stand-up" in making an admission. That would be a shame.

+1
I think one of the scary things about doping and it's hold on cycling is that apparently decent people do decide they should cheat. Then spin it as well as they can when they are caught. This is possibly more evidence of how insidious it is to allow cheating, like cycling has done for decades.

[Steve in ATL]

Steve, is your friend Kenny Williams? Reported today in Cyclingnews.com that his A and B test for DHEA is positive.

Yup, although I wasn't sure if he asked for the "B" to be tested or not.

So if he's really so remorseful, so sorry, is he going to address those hard questions?

And if he did, would you believe him? I ask this because it's already apparent that you didn't read his full letter (that was sent around to competitors that he had contact info for, friends, etc, and also posted on fixedgearfever.com), which answereed several of those very questions. Not your fault since Cycling"news" dot com can't even publish the letter in it's entirety.

Setting aside all the "perfect world" happy horseshit, I mean, here we have exactly what everyone here asked for: caught by testing, admitted it, no bullshit, no "my dog ate my homework and it contaminated my sample," and we STILL find things to be unsatisfactory.

I sometimes wonder if the only way some people on this board would be happy would be for WADA to test the A, confirm the B, and then shoot the guilty party. And then some here would probably argue for the firing squad after the A sample.

Just sayin'


Also, since the ONLY place this was published on the 'net was fgf.com, I'd like to say "Hey Laura Weislo, how about crediting your effing sources?"

[D-Queued]

...

Setting aside all the "perfect world" happy horse####, I mean, here we have exactly what everyone here asked for: caught by testing, admitted it, no bull####, no "my dog ate my homework and it contaminated my sample," and we STILL find things to be unsatisfactory.

I sometimes wonder if the only way some people on this board would be happy would be for WADA to test the A, confirm the B, and then shoot the guilty party. And then some here would probably argue for the firing squad after the A sample.

Just sayin'
Also, since the ONLY place this was published on the 'net was fgf.com, I'd like to say "Hey Laura Weislo, how about crediting your effing sources?"

And, your points are well taken.

Florida's too.

Personally, if I really wanted to dope I would probably:
1. Remember to take my asthma medicine (even with a TUE, I still forget and always pay dearly for the mistake)
2. Try caffeine (why not, its legal)
3. Try something mild (experiment)
4. Look myself in the mirror and say, mild? Don't be an idiot, go for the EPO... read on the intarweb (and in that great Outside article) how to microdose and get over fear of sticking myself with a needle. Be happy. Maybe even try some 'roids (like the Outside article) in the off-season since Masters racing doesn't get much attention anyways.

But, every time I look in the mirror I recognize that I am really competing with myself and doping gains are losses. And, it is pretty damn obvious who in the Masters field is on something when you ride with them all the time, and know what their training habits, capabilities, and patterns are.

Maybe Kenny tested positive at #3?

Dave.

This post has been edited by D-Queued: Nov 11 2009, 01:05 AM

[frenchfry]

...
I sometimes wonder if the only way some people on this board would be happy would be for WADA to test the A, confirm the B, and then shoot the guilty party. And then some here would probably argue for the firing squad after the A sample.
...

Quite honestly, I can't think of anyone on these forums who has these feelings.

Even though at some point the athlete has to take some responsibility for the decision to take PEDs, and some individuals can be considered more "guilty" than others, I don't think your comment is fair to those who defend clean sports whatever their reasons.

[Steve in ATL]

Quite honestly, I can't think of anyone on these forums who has these feelings.

Even though at some point the athlete has to take some responsibility for the decision to take PEDs, and some individuals can be considered more "guilty" than others, I don't think your comment is fair to those who defend clean sports whatever their reasons.

I'm still trying to figure out if you actually said anything here.

[D-Queued]

I'm still trying to figure out if you actually said anything here.

I think he was taking offense at your suggestion that some here (clearly inferring those that post frequently - or at all anymore) were:
1. The type that shoot first and ask questions later
2. Show no ability for thoughtful discussion and careful consideration

Further, that those that appear prone to shoot (up) first without apparent thought(ful consideration) of the damage that is being created in the sport are the ones that are actually loading their guns and shooting things. (see Category: Big name dopers)

In other words, there are some here who appear to defend the death of the sport through willfull doping by those who appear to have no conscience. Those with clear sociopathic tendencies.

Other than your comment, who has suggested shooting any doper? Ever?

But, are not the recidivist dopers putting bullet holes in the sport? There certainly are people dying from doping or doping-related causes (see high profile recent deaths for example). Doping is what is killing them and the sport.

Thus, I think that ff could have been suggesting your vitriole is misplaced and you are pointing your gun in the wrong direction.

That, of course, is just my interpretation.

Dave.

This post has been edited by D-Queued: Nov 11 2009, 05:36 PM

[Steve in ATL]

I think he was taking offense at your suggestion that some here (clearly inferring those that post frequently - or at all anymore) were:
1. The type that shoot first and ask questions later
2. Show no ability for thoughtful discussion and careful consideration

Further, that those that appear prone to shoot (up) first without apparent thought(ful consideration) of the damage that is being created in the sport are the ones that are actually loading their guns and shooting things. (see Category: Big name dopers)

In other words, there are some here who appear to defend the death of the sport through willfull doping by those who appear to have no conscience. Those with clear sociopathic tendencies.

Other than your comment, who has suggested shooting any doper? Ever?

But, are not the recidivist dopers putting bullet holes in the sport? There certainly are people dying from doping or doping-related causes (see high profile recent deaths for example). Doping is what is killing them and the sport.

Thus, I think that ff could have been suggesting your vitriole is misplaced and you are pointing your gun in the wrong direction.

That, of course, is just my interpretation.

Dave.

Dave,

Try looking up the definition of "hyperbole." It's an effect argument tool. In this instance, pointing out that there are some who post here who will never accept any statement by a doper after a positive test, even when that person does exactly what "everyone" wanted a dopers to do: namely, own up to his mistake with no equivocation.

I remember, and I know you do to, that a number of people expressed that it would be refreshing for someone who was caught to just admit it. So here we have that example. Where's the refreshment?

I don't want to single out floridacyclist on this. I don't think, to my recollection, that he's ever expressed such an opinion. But his post served as the spur for my honest opinion: that there are some here who have expressed such a desire, but who will now hold this particular individual to a new, higher standard (that was not the standard until this particular individual met the old standard).

Those people are here. You know it, and so do I. don't castigate me for pointing it out. Even if I did use hyperbole to do so. As you yourself said, they were fair points.

[D-Queued]

...

Those people are here. You know it, and so do I. don't castigate me for pointing it out. Even if I did use hyperbole to do so. As you yourself said, they were fair points.

Thanks.

Yes, mutual recognition here.

I hope that I did understand where you were coming from, and appreciate that you felt I understood your frustration.

Now the subject is whether ff "actually said anything".

His comments may be a counterpont to your hyperbole. As such, the quick dismissal actually reflects more poorly on you - particularly given your allusion to shoot first, ask later.

I respect your friend for admitting he doped. There was a Cdn MTBer who admitted he had doped about two years ago now. He claimed he had injected EPO for the very first time, and had received it via Internet purchasing. I applauded the admission, but it still comes across as dubious and contrived.

This, of course, is a fundamental problem with cheating.

Letteman admitted affairs on air. Thanks for admitting, but we and his wife now we know he is a cheater.

The path to redemption starts, and not ends, by honest admission. Trust has to be regained and rebuilt. It isn't automatic, even if he is your friend.

Dave.

[Steve in ATL]

Thanks.

Yes, mutual recognition here.

I hope that I did understand where you were coming from, and appreciate that you felt I understood your frustration.

Now the subject is whether ff "actually said anything".

His comments may be a counterpont to your hyperbole. As such, the quick dismissal actually reflects more poorly on you - particularly given your allusion to shoot first, ask later.

Yes, I was being conspicously incomplete, which was my reaction to his labling my post as " I don't think your comment is fair to those who defend clean sports whatever their reasons." It was nothing of the sort. I *specifically* identified who I was talking about, and even qualified that: "some."

On the other hand, if we are to take him literally, he didn't think my comment was fair to those who defend clean sport for the reason that they think dopers should be shot out of hand ("whatever their reasons."). So while I specifically qualified MY statement, he left his (deliberately?) broad.

You'll pardon me if I was less than impressed.

I respect your friend for admitting he doped. There was a Cdn MTBer who admitted he had doped about two years ago now. He claimed he had injected EPO for the very first time, and had received it via Internet purchasing. I applauded the admission, but it still comes across as dubious and contrived.

This, of course, is a fundamental problem with cheating.

Letteman admitted affairs on air. Thanks for admitting, but we and his wife now we know he is a cheater.

The path to redemption starts, and not ends, by honest admission. Trust has to be regained and rebuilt. It isn't automatic, even if he is your friend.

Dave.

Where have I said he should be automatically trusted? This is not a trust issue - this is goalpost-moving we're talking here. Or at least I am.

[D-Queued]

...this is goalpost-moving we're talking here. Or at least I am.

Yes, I understand.

I don't mean to be inflammatory at all, so forgive me if I observe that your friend also did some goalpost moving.

He is a nobody to me, but he cheated you.

A sometime riding chum of mine had his second positive last summer. Like another of our well-known posters and a rather infamous DPF doping personality, I even introduced my son to this guy and my son would cheer wildly for him whenever he was racing nearby.

He is/was a pretty big name at one point and he spanked me pretty hard one time when I was ripping up the pavement on everyone else. I had observed his other-worldly sprint on other occasions -- effortlessly bridging, attacking, taking primes, and then coming from a block back and winning races - and knew what to expect - and it was impressive. What are you supposed to do against that?

I had already conceded that he was probably still on some special sauce - maybe he even knows the sport doc that this thread was started to discuss (once upon a time he even associated with some famous Actovegin users) - so it didn't bother me that much.

I was happy with my performance against everyone else. But, my goals are different than yours appear to be.

Looks like my friend has to go find a real job now. It should be good for him.

Dave.

[frenchfry]

If nothing else my "hollow" comment sparked an interesting exchange of ideas between 2 thoughtful members. By the way, I did qualify my statement by saying that I didn't think anyone on these forums had "these feelings", referring to wanting to shoot guilty dopers. Maybe I was wrong, but I don't think so.

Should we applaud Kenny Williams' response to his doping positive? Of course it is a good thing that he admits his error publicly, but as floridacyclist points out we have been down this path soooo many times that it is difficult to give him a whole lot of credit for what on the surface is an honourable act. By reading comments on other sites from posters who appear to know the Masters track scene quite well, and Kenny Williams personally, a certain number are not surprised that he was caught and aren’t convinced that it was a one time deal. I personally have no familiarity with either so I can only speculate.

One piece of information that is particularly disturbing is that Kenny Williams is involved in coaching. I don't think I am being excessive by thinking that someone who takes banned substances, even once, is in no way qualified to be coaching.

I have mixed feelings about confessions. My knee jerk reaction is to think this is a very positive thing, and those that confess should be judged less harshly. Unfortunately, some confessions can later be seen as PR strategy and can be questioned as to their sincerity.

I also tend to judge dopers differently. For those who aggressively dope then deny and attack when caught I reserve the harshest of judgement. For those who are caught up by a system and dope just to hang on in a sport they love, I will accord a certain amount of leniency. Obviously a sincere admission goes a long way towards redemption but it isn't the only factor. These criteria are obviously subjective, but I don't think they are unfair.

For example, I thought Chris Sheppard was courageous and sincere - hopefully DQ won't tell me I was wrong on this one.

So I stand by my reaction to your post, while at the same time recognising where you are coming from and trying to understand your stance when cyclists are caught doping and are held accountable.

[D-Queued]

...

For example, I thought Chris Sheppard was courageous and sincere - hopefully DQ won't tell me I was wrong on this one.

...

Yes, I cannot tell you that you were wrong. Certaintly his 'admission' came pretty swiftly - which was commendable.

But...

Oddly (given the relationships with other MTBers) my close circle of riding buddies did not seem to know him that well if at all.

The general impression within this group at that time was that it was somewhat disingeneous. Ordering EPO over the Internet for the first time (for any PED), immediately (no second thoughts) injecting for the first time (for any PED), then having doping control show up the next day sounds pretty flukey.

Maybe he should have requested a shower first.

But, even if it was the first time, there was more than a little planning here.

He seemingly didn't get that much attention because he was ranked something like 125th at the time (and what does that say about riders 1-124?).

Also, MTBing in general seems to not get the focus on doping that road and track get.

I have never understood that, paticularly given
1. The nature of the races being far more potentially influenced by blood vector doping
2. The notorious nature of some past stars
3. The appeal to the alternative lifestyle culture

We have seen some 'miracle' riders emerge on the peloton scene out of MTBing. At least one really notorious doping case as well.

Since this case was closer to home, I did send a letter to the national federation suggesting a more pro-active stance on doping. I don't believe I received a reply. Or, if I did it wasn't very reassuring or memorable.

Dave.

[frenchfry]

Yes, I cannot tell you that you were wrong. Certaintly his 'admission' came pretty swiftly - which was commendable.

But...

Oddly (given the relationships with other MTBers) my close circle of riding buddies did not seem to know him that well if at all.

The general impression within this group at that time was that it was somewhat disingeneous. Ordering EPO over the Internet for the first time (for any PED), immediately (no second thoughts) injecting for the first time (for any PED), then having doping control show up the next day sounds pretty flukey.

Maybe he should have requested a shower first.

But, even if it was the first time, there was more than a little planning here.

He seemingly didn't get that much attention because he was ranked something like 125th at the time (and what does that say about riders 1-124?).

Also, MTBing in general seems to not get the focus on doping that road and track get.

I have never understood that, paticularly given
1. The nature of the races being far more potentially influenced by blood vector doping
2. The notorious nature of some past stars
3. The appeal to the alternative lifestyle culture

We have seen some 'miracle' riders emerge on the peloton scene out of MTBing. At least one really notorious doping case as well.

Since this case was closer to home, I did send a letter to the national federation suggesting a more pro-active stance on doping. I don't believe I received a reply. Or, if I did it wasn't very reassuring or memorable.

Dave.

Its hard to be forgiving, even though I really try.

As I recall, in his apology he said he was coming back from injury (that could explain the low placing), was depressed and EPO was a desperate attempt to break out a downward spiral.

Fact or fiction, I wouldn't know. As you say though, quite a coincidence that doping control showed up the next day.

How about Jérôme Chiotti as an example of a good citizen. So far I haven't heard anything suspicous about his confession.