Results 1 to 46 of 46
  1. #1
    Team NFI
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,296

  2. #2
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,143
    It's doping.

    If a rider wants to have "anti-aging" treatments to enhance what they consider their quality of life, including riding a bike, I don't have any problem with that concept.

    Just do it in other types of riding, and skip entering races. Competing against others who accept aging and participating in the activity to keep healthy as age advances, is part of the challenge.

  3. #3
    More than a little slow
    Reputation: dskunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    643
    "The diagnosis was hypogonadism, and now he takes supplemental testosterone to raise his levels to average for a man of his age, 58. He also takes the medication to combat low bone density."
    I don't think I would call that "anti aging" treatments.
    Cheers, Dave

  4. #4
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,143
    Quote Originally Posted by dskunk View Post
    "The diagnosis was hypogonadism, and now he takes supplemental testosterone to raise his levels to average for a man of his age, 58. He also takes the medication to combat low bone density."
    I don't think I would call that "anti aging" treatments.
    This was the information the subject presumably gave to the writer, but I'll bet that USADA declined to give the TUE because they had access to more detailed information that lead to their decision to decline the TUE on strictly medical grounds (which they can't comment on for privacy reasons), and instead thought the treatments were a lot closer to elective anti-aging than a medical requirement. Just my opinion based on what I see, and I could be totally off base but in the absence of more details that's the interpretation I'm sticking with.

  5. #5
    More than a little slow
    Reputation: dskunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    643
    The information was also given to the writer by the subject’s doctor.
    Which do you think the general public would consider sadder; 1) to willingly take performance enhancing drugs which are probably damaging to one’s health in order to compete in sub-sub-elite amateur sport (presumably in order to be competitive) or 2) to refrain from following a doctor’s prescribed course of treatment in order to continue to compete in sub-sub-elite amateur sport ?
    Cheers, Dave

  6. #6
    Team NFI
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,296
    Circlip, so are you putting forth the opinion then anyone with a medical condition that brings them below the athletic norm in any capacity should not compete at all while taking their required meds?

  7. #7
    Evil Jr.
    Reputation: garage monster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    6,859
    I'm not even sure why a mid-pack Cat 4 Master would bother applying for a TUE. It seems like the odds of going through a control are extremely low (though things may be different in Colorado) and from what I read, I don't have the impression that he's cheating "in spirit". Maybe I'm just cynical... or not cynical enough, can't decide.
    Please enjoy seeing this terrible collection of me - something wonderful is about to happy.

  8. #8
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,143
    Quote Originally Posted by dskunk View Post
    The information was also given to the writer by the subject’s doctor.
    Which do you think the general public would consider sadder; 1) to willingly take performance enhancing drugs which are probably damaging to one’s health in order to compete in sub-sub-elite amateur sport (presumably in order to be competitive) or 2) to refrain from following a doctor’s prescribed course of treatment in order to continue to compete in sub-sub-elite amateur sport ?
    You left out an important option 3, which is that some doctors may be "over enthusiastic" in their recommendation of treatment. Not saying that's necessarily the case in this situation, but I can guarantee you there are a lot of doctors out there knowingly engaging in what the formal authorities responsible for managing this (WADA and the various NADAs) would classify as banned performance enhancing methods, at both the professional and amateur levels. That's why there's a control (ADA) set up so that individual doctors aren't the ones deciding what is or isn't fair, as it's not a requirement of their treatments to understand how that interfaces with anti-doping regulations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Enduramil View Post
    Circlip, so are you putting forth the opinion then anyone with a medical condition that brings them below the athletic norm in any capacity should not compete at all while taking their required meds?
    No, I'm putting forth the opinion that if you want to compete you follow the rules. Some medical treatments will be offside from the rules, and some are perfectly allowable. Further, sometimes treatments that are normally off side can be allowed through a TUE.

    If you don't like the rules, work to change them, but don't sign a license application saying you are following the rules regarding performance enhancing methods and then ignore them. That's cheating, and it's why the rules exist.

    Not every event falls under the WADA/NADAs umbrella. People who don't like the WADA rules can choose non-WADA events instead.

  9. #9
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,143
    Quote Originally Posted by garage monster View Post
    I'm not even sure why a mid-pack Cat 4 Master would bother applying for a TUE. It seems like the odds of going through a control are extremely low (though things may be different in Colorado) and from what I read, I don't have the impression that he's cheating "in spirit". Maybe I'm just cynical... or not cynical enough, can't decide.
    I should have noted also in my responses above that I think the parties involved in this particular instance, both the athlete Hammond in abstaining from races and also USADA, are going about this in exactly the right way. Further, that it's fair game for Hammond to get his story out there in hope that it may spur some interest in reviewing the rules to ensure they fit the need.

  10. #10
    Team NFI
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,296
    Hmm....this discussion is missing something...


    Oh...I know. Where is Uncle Oggie?

  11. #11
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,143
    Quote Originally Posted by Enduramil View Post
    Hmm....this discussion is missing something...

    Oh...I know. Where is Uncle Oggie?
    So, you have elected to escalate to the next level of management? Sounds serious.

  12. #12
    snowbound
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    239
    From the information shared in the article I am going to have to side with the USADA.

    The USADA is pretty clear in saying what the requirements are
    http://www.usada.org/uploads/testost...guidelines.pdf

    In the article the USADA also says
    I feel very strongly about allowing the athlete to come back with more medical information,” said Fedoruk. “And they’re provided very extensive commentary on the reasons for denial as well, if their application is denied … it’s a denial letter with a very detailed opinion as to why the athlete doesn’t meet the criteria.”
    It sounds to me like they are being very reasonable. It will be interesting to see what response is made by Hammond - and I do hope he does make it public.
    The article also says "and now he takes supplemental testosterone to raise his levels to average for a man of his age, 58."
    What is average? From the quick search I have done, there is variation in what is considered "normal" and if you look at a "standard" as below, there is a huge range. From what has been shared we don't know what Hammond's results were
    Testosterone, total
    Adult Males:
    19-49 years old 249-836 ng/dL
    50 years and older 193-740 ng/dL

    (Sourced from Testosterone, Free and Total, Adult, Plasma )

    Given more information and a better understanding of the issue I may have a different opinion.

  13. #13
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,143
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    The USADA is pretty clear in saying what the requirements are
    http://www.usada.org/uploads/testost...guidelines.pdf
    Nice link - thanks. I'm no doctor, but from a quick layperson's review it seems USADA and WADA have their crap together on this issue. Whether they applied these guidelines properly in this case is impossible to say as 1) I'd have to be a doctor, and 2) need access to the full documentation submitted by Hammond, but seeing their thorough treatment of the guidelines and process in the documentation, I'll give them the benefit of doubt. They have no vested interested in rejecting TUE applications that properly meet the criteria.

  14. #14
    Team NFI
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,296
    Quote Originally Posted by Circlip View Post
    So, you have elected to escalate to the next level of management? Sounds serious.
    Nope... Just sitting back and wondering what the more European opinion on this is.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Raineman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    456
    Why do I feel like I did when I read the article about a guy who blew his life's savings on a game of chance at a carnival and then blamed the carney and sought remuneration?

    I think there is a fundamental aspect being overlooked. There is no entitlement to race in cycling once you are taking prohibited PEDs. Aging comes with natural limitations. If a racer seeks to restore hormone levels, that's altering a natural process so that they regain lost attributes - which can change race outcomes.

    The racer involved seems to overlook this. He has convinced himself to see an injustice and is even attempting to overcome it. He can take all the treatment he wants. Agencies don't prohibit him taking hormones for his health(however dubious hypogonadism diagnoses may sometimes be. Does "Just ask you doctor for a little T." sound familiar? ) Racing when under this sort of treatment is prohibited and any rationalization otherwise is fundamentally flawed.

    Egos often eclipse sound judgement. Tempering your own ego takes maturity.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: secret agent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    770
    I am with Raineman on this. We don't really know the extent of the diagnoses, but if you have any condition for which the treatment is a well known PED, then you don't get to race. It is not fair to him, but then it is also unfair to the whole field and adds a level of mistrust and suspicion if allowed at all. It is not like it is a life threatening situation for which he needs the drug. Race without it if racing is that important. It is not that he wants to race, it's that he wants to win.
    Burnt Norton

  17. #17
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,143
    Quote Originally Posted by secret agent View Post
    It is not that he wants to race, it's that he wants to win.
    Doesn't sound like Hammond is going to be winning anything with or without the extra "T" supplements, but then where do you draw the line? Is it OK for a someone to use unauthorized/banned medical treatments (in the athletic sense) to go from non-participant to Category 4 road racing? Exactly how high in the results is it OK for them to place before they are taking away a position from someone else? If it's OK for a Cat 4 racer, is it then OK also for a Cat 3 racer who is still really low on the overall global scale but just wants to be able to race at the same level they could 10 years ago? Maybe then it's OK for top tier local racers, because they aren't pulling down six or seven figure salaries like a pro? But then if it's OK for local amateurs, then surely it must be acceptable also for full-time professionals who are actually paid to ride a bike for a living? If it's fair for professionals, then surely it must also be OK for young talents who have demonstrated they may have the capacity to become pro cyclists?

    Hopefully the slippery slope described above becomes obvious, when people start deciding on all sorts of grey lines of justification. There are rules to try to eliminate those grey lines as best as possible.

    Hammond says he just wants to go out and challenge himself. There are tons of ways to do that on a bike without racing against other people in a formal event.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,198
    I realize that rules are rules, but I think this situation has some room for remedy. I would let him compete and if his results improve dramatically and he suddenly goes from mid-pack to podiums, then remove his license. Otherwise, nothing is achieved except keeping him from his passion for racing.
    My rides:
    Lynskey Ti Pro29 SL singlespeed
    KHS Team 29
    S-Works Roubaix SL3 Dura Ace
    KHS CX 550 cyclocross

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation: secret agent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    770
    I am not sure I agree. It is either ok or not not ok to dope. How high in the rankings before he gets yanked. What if he keeps needing more and more juice to keep his youthful performance. Maybe he has a medical issue; let's grant him that it is fully on the up and up. Even so, I would not allow him to race if the solution to his problem is a PED. It is just an unfortunate situation, but allowing him to race under this condition would open a can of worms in a sport that has a huge black eye and many would not take seriously for so many years. It's not like we are preventing the guy from a career or even riding his bike. As pointed out above, he can challenge himself in many ways.
    Burnt Norton

  20. #20
    Evil Jr.
    Reputation: garage monster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    6,859
    Quote Originally Posted by serious View Post
    I realize that rules are rules, but I think this situation has some room for remedy. I would let him compete and if his results improve dramatically and he suddenly goes from mid-pack to podiums, then remove his license. Otherwise, nothing is achieved except keeping him from his passion for racing.
    This is procedurally problematic for the same reason that we (Commissaires) try to pull DQ'ed riders out of the peloton as soon as possible at a road race. While they may not podium or take points, they have every chance of affecting the outcome.
    Please enjoy seeing this terrible collection of me - something wonderful is about to happy.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,198
    Yeah, I see your points guys. It is an unfortunate situation.
    My rides:
    Lynskey Ti Pro29 SL singlespeed
    KHS Team 29
    S-Works Roubaix SL3 Dura Ace
    KHS CX 550 cyclocross

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    47
    Not trying to bring up a touchy situation again. But I was just told I have low T. Doctor did all the tests and said that I was at half what I should be and my "free" T is very low as well.

    I have felt like complete shit for the past month and a half and haven't felt real good for 6 months. I want to continue to race when I can but I don't know what to do. It's not my fault my body isn't doing what it should. But I also don't want to get accused of cheating when I am 100% on the up and up. I am never close to the podium and probably never will.

    I am just hoping I am going to start feeling better and get back to my normal self.

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ol-crank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    583
    Low T is more complicated than most doctors understand. See Masters Men's Clinic For Andropause (Male Menopause)* Diagnosis & Treatment for an opinion. There are different ways of measuring testosterone, bio-available testosterone is different.

    And as far as Hammond in the original post, this part,

    There has to be more than just generalized symptoms, or a single low blood test, a single low value. They have to be able to show a diagnosis and pinpoint a reason for why they have hypogonadism. So without that, it’s impossible for us to grant a TUE

    is important as if he is diagnosed properly, not just an opinion about his condition,and treated there would be a history of low t and he would have a better chance for the exemption. P.S. I have an 8 year history of treatment for this.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: secret agent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    770
    This Master Men's Clinic seems like one of these drug company backed organizations trying to medicalize aging or just jumping on that bandwagon. Drug companies are trying to create a market for a vague condition. The Current on CBC is running a show on this this morning. I read an article on this a while ago that I managed to find again and linked below. According to the great Dr. OZ and others, testosterone prescriptions have risen to 5 times what they were in the 90's. There was a huge backlash a few years back when drug companies were trying to market the "viagra for women" They pay off tons of mouthpieces from the medical community to suddenly come up with a syndrome or a bunch of vague symptoms that they group into a so called disease. There are instances of actual need for medication, but these types of treatments are highly profitable for drug companies as the patient is on it for years or for life. This is the same for many osteoporosis treatments that have women on a perpetual drug regimen with very little study as to risk/benefit.

    Study shows testosterone therapy doubles the risk of heart attack | The Current with Anna Maria Tremonti | CBC Radio

    Testosterone Boom: Taking the 'Testo Test' Online - SPIEGEL ONLINE
    Burnt Norton

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,613
    Competing naturally means just that.
    Regardless of whether or not the guy has a legitimate medical condition, treating that condition no longer makes him natural.

    Some guys have naturally bigger muscles or higher testosterone levels. If a guy like that beats you, its fair. God didn't create us all equally.

    If a guy takes a drug that could in any way possibly effect his performance, then its not fair to those people who are not doping.

    Even if a guy is taking testosterone to reach the "normal level" of T, its not fair. Everyone has different testosterone levels. We don't normalize everyone's level to be fair. Whatever you have naturally is fair, what ever comes unnaturally is unfair.

  26. #26
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,143
    Nailed it below.

    If I had a medical condition that was causing a sudden drop in my ability to enjoy my lifestyle of casual riding with my usual group of riding buddies and there was a medication available (classified as a banned substance/method in the competition rules) that would help solve the problem, I would probably take it and wouldn't be ashamed to tell my friends. However, that would be the end of racing for me.

    Taking a medication to increase my performance to a level I never had naturally before though, even for casual riding? That's a tough question that everyone will have to answer for themselves. I would probably ride whatever distance or speed seemed like the workout I wanted to get out of it. If that happened to be less speed or distance than some others, no big deal. It's not a competition and I can have just as much fun in a ride of X hours of riding time regardless of distance or speed.

    Quote Originally Posted by smilinsteve View Post
    Competing naturally means just that.
    Regardless of whether or not the guy has a legitimate medical condition, treating that condition no longer makes him natural.

    Some guys have naturally bigger muscles or higher testosterone levels. If a guy like that beats you, its fair. God didn't create us all equally.

    If a guy takes a drug that could in any way possibly effect his performance, then its not fair to those people who are not doping.

    Even if a guy is taking testosterone to reach the "normal level" of T, its not fair. Everyone has different testosterone levels. We don't normalize everyone's level to be fair. Whatever you have naturally is fair, what ever comes unnaturally is unfair.

  27. #27
    Ms. Monster
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    1,812
    Hmm. Does that mean you disagree with all therapeutic use exemptions? Asthma inhalers would be the classic example. They are banned substances; you can get an exemption if you have a diagnosed medical condition. The fact that it's testosterone (and maybe that the "medical condition" is not as clear cut) seems to be polarising people.

    Quote Originally Posted by Circlip View Post
    Nailed it below.

    If I had a medical condition that was causing a sudden drop in my ability to enjoy my lifestyle of casual riding with my usual group of riding buddies and there was a medication available (classified as a banned substance/method in the competition rules) that would help solve the problem, I would probably take it and wouldn't be ashamed to tell my friends. However, that would be the end of racing for me.

    Taking a medication to increase my performance to a level I never had naturally before though, even for casual riding? That's a tough question that everyone will have to answer for themselves. I would probably ride whatever distance or speed seemed like the workout I wanted to get out of it. If that happened to be less speed or distance than some others, no big deal. It's not a competition and I can have just as much fun in a ride of X hours of riding time regardless of distance or speed.

  28. #28
    Team NFI
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,296
    Quote Originally Posted by Nerdgirl View Post
    Hmm. Does that mean you disagree with all therapeutic use exemptions? Asthma inhalers would be the classic example. They are banned substances; you can get an exemption if you have a diagnosed medical condition. The fact that it's testosterone (and maybe that the "medical condition" is not as clear cut) seems to be polarising people.
    Well put Nerdgirl.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Nerdgirl View Post
    Hmm. Does that mean you disagree with all therapeutic use exemptions? Asthma inhalers would be the classic example. They are banned substances; you can get an exemption if you have a diagnosed medical condition. The fact that it's testosterone (and maybe that the "medical condition" is not as clear cut) seems to be polarising people.
    If its banned, then I think I would agree. It should be banned for everyone.

    I also think Oscar Pistorius shouldn't have been allowed to run in the Olympics.
    As admirable as he was ( for a murderer ), it doesn't make sense to me to have people competing with all these special allowances. In the end, what is the meaning of winning, if it is with "exemptions"?

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,760
    He is a mid-pack cat4 grandapa... Who fuking cares.

    Cat 4 Master winners get a jug of Heed and $3 medal.


    But seriously... Pack it in gramps, you're doping.
    15 Yeti ASR-c
    14 Yeti ARC
    16 Bianchi Specialissima
    15 Echo Big Deal
    15 Roubaix S-Works

  31. #31
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,143
    Quote Originally Posted by Nerdgirl View Post
    Hmm. Does that mean you disagree with all therapeutic use exemptions? Asthma inhalers would be the classic example. They are banned substances; you can get an exemption if you have a diagnosed medical condition. The fact that it's testosterone (and maybe that the "medical condition" is not as clear cut) seems to be polarising people.
    Three comments;

    - Under the prevailing status quo I'd never call out anyone on having a TUE. It's OK by the current rules for anyone that can acquire a TUE, and so it's fair game as fair as far as I'm concerned for anyone who wants to apply.

    - Although I'd never call out anyone else on having a TUE, I'm not sure whether I'd ever apply for one myself if I were ever in that position even if it were likely that my TUE application would be successful. It's easy for me to get all high-handed in a hypothetical discussion and say now that I'd never do a TUE, but I have to admit I'm not 100% sure what I'd do if I were actually in that position myself.

    - Anyone racing at a relatively casual local level using a banned substance/method under the premise that they don't need to go through the formal TUE process because they aren't competing for a podium or at a higher category level is cheating, even though it's unlikely they'll ever get tested. You have to be either all in or all out, not half way between.

  32. #32
    Team NFI
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,296
    Quote Originally Posted by smilinsteve View Post
    If its banned, then I think I would agree. It should be banned for everyone.

    I also think Oscar Pistorius shouldn't have been allowed to run in the Olympics.
    As admirable as he was ( for a murderer ), it doesn't make sense to me to have people competing with all these special allowances. In the end, what is the meaning of winning, if it is with "exemptions"?
    Since you opened the door a little further on the "Natural state vs Medicated natural state".



    How far shall we take this argument of natural state and competition? Just playing the devils advocate here.....

    Should we allow an athlete to race when they have say Bi Polar? Because based on the natural state argument by taking their drugs they are not in a natural state. Or how about a depressed athlete? When you think about it we have no idea if taking any medication has a side effect that may provide them an "unnatural edge".

    As I commented in a couple of other cases in the last few years. I think there is a lot of reactions based on emotion and such. We need more hard science to make our understanding clearer.

  33. #33
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Enduramil View Post
    Since you opened the door a little further on the "Natural state vs Medicated natural state".



    How far shall we take this argument of natural state and competition? Just playing the devils advocate here.....

    Should we allow an athlete to race when they have say Bi Polar? Because based on the natural state argument by taking their drugs they are not in a natural state. Or how about a depressed athlete? When you think about it we have no idea if taking any medication has a side effect that may provide them an "unnatural edge".

    As I commented in a couple of other cases in the last few years. I think there is a lot of reactions based on emotion and such. We need more hard science to make our understanding clearer.
    If the medicine or other exemption is known to have, or could have, performance enhancing effects, then it should be banned, or everyone should be allowed to use it (example caffeine).

    For the bipolar guy, if he's taking Prozac, then no problem, unless there is evidence that Prozac makes you stronger or faster.

    This slippery slope type argument could go on, since no one is 100% natural (vitamins?) But the point is to apply the same rules to everyone.

    If they changed the rules in the Olympics to allow steroids, then taking steroids wouldn't be cheating.

  34. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ol-crank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    583
    wow sometimes posting on this thread is like jumping into the wood chopper on Fargo.
    Let me ask this, when Floyd got DQ'd his testosterone to epitestosterone ratio was 11:1 and 12:1 on two tests, and the max allowed by UCI was 4:1 and the average male is 1 or 2:1. So if Hammond is just bringing up his T levels to a normal male level what chance is there that he would be cheating according to UCI? Maybe he just likes the idea that a whole bunch of people are talking about him when he doesn't have much else going for him.

  35. #35
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,143
    Quote Originally Posted by ol-crank View Post
    when Floyd got DQ'd his testosterone to epitestosterone ratio was 11:1 and 12:1 on two tests, and the max allowed by UCI was 4:1 and the average male is 1 or 2:1. So if Hammond is just bringing up his T levels to a normal male level what chance is there that he would be cheating according to UCI?
    Simple ; Hammond would be cheating according to WADA (which sets anti-doping rules, not UCI). Cheating isn't defined by how much total T you have, as some people naturally have more than others. Instead, it's how you arrived at that total T level, whether by natural or enhanced means. There's a pretty decent tolerance built into the T:eT ratio to avoid false positives, but the actual allowable amount of exogenous T supplementation (without TUE) to be breaking the rules is anything more than zero. In other words, in a practical application an athlete could be sanctioned for any non-analytical proof that they were supplementing T in any amount, regardless of whether they trip the T:eT threshold of an analytical test.

    More to your specific point though, if Hammond brought his T levels up through the use of exogenous T in any significant manner his T:eT ratio would probably be off just as you describe above.

  36. #36
    Team NFI
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,296
    It seems that biological doping is so 2010. The UCI is more concerned with PED's on bikes now.

    What?s in Your Frame? UCI Officials Check Worlds Bikes for Motors | Cyclocross Magazine ? Cyclocross News, Races, Bikes, Photos, Videos

    And talking of "cheating" at the age group and Masters level. If you actually watched what went on in the "sport" of Golf at the same level as we are talking about here. Make cyclists look like a peleton of saints. Rules? More like a set of flexible guidelines.

  37. #37
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ol-crank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    583
    Quote Originally Posted by Circlip View Post
    Simple ; Hammond would be cheating according to WADA (which sets anti-doping rules, not UCI). Cheating isn't defined by how much total T you have, as some people naturally have more than others. Instead, it's how you arrived at that total T level, whether by natural or enhanced means. There's a pretty decent tolerance built into the T:eT ratio to avoid false positives, but the actual allowable amount of exogenous T supplementation (without TUE) to be breaking the rules is anything more than zero. In other words, in a practical application an athlete could be sanctioned for any non-analytical proof that they were supplementing T in any amount, regardless of whether they trip the T:eT threshold of an analytical test.

    More to your specific point though, if Hammond brought his T levels up through the use of exogenous T in any significant manner his T:eT ratio would probably be off just as you describe above.
    I believe WADA rules that you are offside over 4:1, but I think they also did an isotope test to determine Landis had synthetic T, but I am not the expert. I wonder if the natural Testosterone compounded by a Pharmy would register as exogenous and also wonder if the epitestosterone was reaallly low, the ratio could prove a problem. Boy it is complicated.

  38. #38
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,143
    Quote Originally Posted by ol-crank View Post
    I believe WADA rules that you are offside over 4:1.
    My recollection is that you are correct on the 4:1 unless it has been changed since, but I hope you understood my previous post that this is not an allowance in the WADA rules for taking exongenous T (the rule is that you are not allowed to administer any T supplements in any amount - period - without a TUE). Instead, that is simply the threshold for the basic analytic anti-doping test that is designed to catch the athletes who are really cooking it on their program, and avoid racking up a bunch of borderline positives that they have to sort through examining everyone's individual physiology in challenges to adverse findings. In other words, it's accepted that many riders within the 4:1 ratio could still be supplementing T through micro dosing, but keeping it within a level that allows the NADA's to manage adverse findings efficiently and reliably.

  39. #39
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ol-crank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    583
    A couple of things that are not clear, and the first is testosterone is said to help build muscle faster and to help repair after a hard workout but nowhere have I read that it makes you superman like Floyd in 06 on the 17th stage of TDF, have you any thoughts.
    And if andropause Andropause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is a legitimate diagnosis and the treatment involves applying or taking testosterone replacement as the therapy why wouldn't a TUE be forthcoming. In the Hammond article he seems to simply selfdescribe symptoms and maybe his doctor didn't completely convince anyone of the medical findings in the last 5-10 years.

  40. #40
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,143
    Quote Originally Posted by ol-crank View Post
    A couple of things that are not clear, and the first is testosterone is said to help build muscle faster and to help repair after a hard workout but nowhere have I read that it makes you superman like Floyd in 06 on the 17th stage of TDF, have you any thoughts.
    And if andropause Andropause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia is a legitimate diagnosis and the treatment involves applying or taking testosterone replacement as the therapy why wouldn't a TUE be forthcoming. In the Hammond article he seems to simply selfdescribe symptoms and maybe his doctor didn't completely convince anyone of the medical findings in the last 5-10 years.
    Where are you going with this? If you're looking to convince anyone that T supplementation without a TUE is OK for athletes who are racing/competing (at any level) is OK then you're barking up the wrong tree, at least in directing the questions at me. It's cheating, and anyone doing it is of weak moral fibre no matter how they try to rationalize it. Any results they may achieve, even if they position it as just competing against their themselves, are meaningless.

    Whether Hammond has low T, or andropause is irrelevant if he didn't follow the procedure for a TUE, and subsequently meet the defined criteria for a successful application with his national agency USADA as has already been described earlier in this thread. There's no retroactive option for the TUE. You either have it before you compete or you are cheating.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ol-crank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    583
    [QUOTE=Circlip;10993079]Where are you going with this?
    Actually your opinion is clear and I respect that. I just found it over the top that this rider takes himself so serious he writes letters, studies forever, and yet is off the mark with his diagnosis where if he had his facts properly supported by medical science it might have been a no brainer.

  42. #42
    No. Just No.
    Reputation: Circlip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    5,143
    Quote Originally Posted by ol-crank View Post
    Actually your opinion is clear and I respect that.
    Ya, I understand that I come across as a hardliner on the doping thing. I have reasons for that which I won't bother detailing here, and which have nothing to do with my own personal racing activities nor is it related in any way to anyone I have ever raced against (I have no knowledge of ever having competed against any athlete who was doping at the time).

    Quote Originally Posted by ol-crank View Post
    I just found it over the top that this rider takes himself so serious he writes letters, studies forever, and yet is off the mark with his diagnosis where if he had his facts properly supported by medical science it might have been a no brainer.
    Doesn't the incongruity you describe above raise some red flags with you that the athlete's account of the situation that he is presenting in the media may not match the actual facts of the case, or accurately reflect his medical and physiological status? Note that the potentially high costs in securing a TUE for low T have been referenced in this thread also, which may be a barrier. I'm not sure there's a perfect remedy for that problem, but it does put forth an effective filter to anyone considering going through the process if it's not a well-supported application.

  43. #43
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ol-crank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    583
    I have reasons for that which I won't bother detailing here,

    and I have reasons for a strong defence of T replacement therapy.

    I do understand Hammond and hope that he keeps riding, racing and maybe the testosterone replacement will give him a better quality of life with his family, friends, and himself.

  44. #44
    mtbr member
    Reputation: smilinsteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    8,613
    If a guy is allowed to test positive for exogenous T, then how would they control that he is only supplementing to normal levels?
    A guy could be juicing sky high, and skip his last injection before the race. T levels fluctuate a lot when you are doing shots once a week...

    I hope Hammond enjoys his improved quality of life as well, but juicing and racing against natural athletes is chickensh1t.

  45. #45
    Team NFI
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    5,296
    Knowing how almost everyone pounds back the coffee and caffeine. I wonder how many here up until a few years ago would have failed drug testing due to high caffeine levels.

  46. #46
    No one calls me Maurice.
    Reputation: Forster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    2,730
    Quote Originally Posted by Enduramil View Post
    Knowing how almost everyone pounds back the coffee and caffeine. I wonder how many here up until a few years ago would have failed drug testing due to high caffeine levels.
    Great question but the levels weren't regulated way back and rules change over time. In the dawn of doping all types of things were done because they weren't yet regulated. Was it right?, probably not. Was it fair?, only when the rules apply equally to everyone is anything fair. I can make the exact same argument for HGH (I need it to return to healthy hormone levels I used to have) but it represents a potentially unfair advantage.

Similar Threads

  1. Medicine Park - Lawton Riders
    By fat-but-slow in forum Great Plains - OK, KS, NE, SD, ND
    Replies: 176
    Last Post: 01-15-2016, 10:04 AM
  2. Specilialized getting a taste of their own medicine?
    By frank daleview in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 09-05-2013, 10:28 AM
  3. Medicine of Cycling
    By akakuk in forum Rider Down, injuries and recovery
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-23-2013, 08:25 AM
  4. Replies: 54
    Last Post: 03-01-2012, 07:56 PM
  5. Sports Medicine Doc in SLC?
    By JTrue in forum Rider Down, injuries and recovery
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-17-2011, 01:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •