
Tracing doping use by amateur athletes from wastewater - Someone
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5807464/
======
mind_heist
Hmm, How effective is this? I recently watched ICARUS and I have been reading
a lot about doping and how athletes circumvent the tests done by WADA labs (
World Anti Doping Agency). I have a couple of questions regarding this and in
no particular order of importance

(1) Should a state decide to implement something like this, isn't this some
sort of privacy violation by the state? People could have been prescribed
these Anabolics by a physician too, don't they also come under the scanner?

(2) Also, I don't clearly understand the sampling here, tons of gallons get
pumped into the wastewater system. How much quantity of samples would be
collected for testing purposes? and what is the frequency of these samples
being collected?

(3) Please totally excuse my ignorance here, the major banned substances for
which athletes have been banned are "Methylhexaneamine",
"Methenolone","Oxandrolone", and a lot of "Stanozolol" and "Turinabol" ( I m
getting all this from this wiki
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Olympic_Games#Di...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Olympic_Games#Disqualified_2)).
The table in the paper doesn't seem to mention any of these substances. Are
they mentioned under a different name?

(4) Also, in the light of new information (ie) state-sponsored doping, Lance
Armstrong escaping some 500 Lab tests & going completing uncaught by WADA and
so many other labs around the world, as a spectator I already know that a ton
of Olympic athletes are doping. Isn't the actual problem trying to prove that
"individual" athletes are doping? A collective evidence is probably not as
useful anymore since all watchdogs, sports committees and spectators are more
skeptical from the get go.

~~~
loeg
(1) This is being measured in aggregate. It's no more privacy violating than,
say, measuring the amount of non-recyclable trash that ends up at the
recycling sorting facility.

(2) Consult the methodology section.

(3) Methylhexaneamine (DMAA, spelled "methylhexanamine" in the article) is the
3rd highest thing in the table. There are several other anabolic steroids in
the table (see list below). Chemicals tend to sell under several different
brand names and your list may intersect the article's list. It's also possible
the article's list just contains a different set of chemicals.

To categorize briefly (the list is heavily steroid-focused):

Aromatase inhibitor (prevent aromatization of androgens into Estrogen):
Anastrozole, Clomiphene, Tamoxifen

Masking steroid use: Finasteride (new tests obsolete this, at least for pros)

PED/Weight loss: Clenbuterol

Stimulants: Norephedrine, Ephedrine, Methylhexanamine (DMAA)

Steroids: Trenbolone, Nandrolone, Metenolone, Mibolerone, Metandienone

Weight loss: Sibutramine, 2,4-Dinitrophenol

Also note Table 1, which shows (basically) how quickly various PEDs degrade at
different temperatures. Several of them degrade in 0-1 days at 20° or 4°C. So
unless a large population is taking them (ephedrine), they tend to drop off of
test results.

The other consideration is LOD / LOQ (limit of detection, limit of
quantitation) — lower levels here ease detection and measurement.

(4) This study is targeted more broadly at the recreational athlete
population, rather than pro athletes.

~~~
trenninghard
Also note the steroids OP listed are all orals, the list you have for steroids
are oils that are injected.

All of these are used with a testosterone base. You don't want to run any of
these without test. Some people back in the early bodybuilding days would use
nandrolone (better known as Deca or the other variant equipose) as a stand
alone cycle but that isn't recommended now.

Another thing that I haven't seen mentioned anywhere here is the use of HGH,
IGF1, and insulin.

If you're training seriously for physical sport you need to be on an HGH
cycle. This is something that isn't illegal(well its usually aquired
illegally) and is prescribed through 'healtg and wellness' or anti-aging
clinics.

Insulin is probably going to be more common for weight lifting because it is
an incredible anabolic hormone. There are huge risks to using it and can kill
you if you mess up. Shockingly anyone can walk into Walgreens and buy it
though.

~~~
loeg
Thanks. I haven't used steroids myself and am unfamiliar with the details of
doing a cycle. Quick google search — you would use the testosterone base
because the steroids otherwise inhibit your natural test production?

Is there any good evidence that HGH helps sports? My understanding is that
there evidence is limited and it isn't clear it's positive.

~~~
trenninghard
Correct the other steroids can still cause your natural production to shut off
which is going to make your body feel like crap.

HGH is going to be beneficial because of it's going to increase collegan in
your body which will make your joints and ligaments stronger. It's going to
help with wuicker recovery from from work outs. Also most people report
getting better sleep while using it. So hgh isn't going to make you huge
directly rather it's more of a behind the scenes thing helping you out. If you
are predisposed for cancer though you might want to be careful. Hgh of course
does increase the rate of cellular growth and division so you are increasing
your odds of cancer by taking it, I'm not a doctor and that could be bs but I
think it's worth considering considering

------
nradov
The same basic technique was used to study the prevalence of cocaine use in
several European cities. They analyzed the level of drug metabolites in sewer
water.

[http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/topics/pods/waste-water-
analysis...](http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/topics/pods/waste-water-analysis_en)

------
davesque
Pretty interesting. I worked in the athletics (cycling) industry for around 5
years and I always suspected that there's a lot of doping among amateur
athletes. From what I understand, it's most common in amateur cycling among
masters racers.

~~~
rmcpherson
Do you know why that is? It seems possible that it could be because masters
racers started doping back before testing was prevalent/sensitive and now
can't stop without a precipitous drop-off in performance that would raise
eyebrows. Just conjecture though.

~~~
usrusr
When younger athletes max out their training capacity, they either come close
to pro level (where any doping would be out of scope for the question of the
perceived age correlation in _recreational_ doping) or they lose interest.
They lose interest either completely, or at least enough to be fully aware
that more training could make them so much better. It's easy to resist doping
if you know that the amount of training is your main bottleneck.

Age groupers are much more persistent, they have their hobby permanently
dialed in, they wouldn't even know where else to search for a sense of
achievement. They are used to getting faster from a combination of better
technology and better training, and to some of them doping might seem almost
like a natural extension of carbon and training plans when those are maxed
out. Fortunately, the deep end of both the training and the carbon is so far
out that I am confident that it's still only a small minority who falls for
the temptation (the very few testing that has happened on the amateur level
concentrated on the top results, if doping works, that's where you will find
the dopers)

(source: getting more carbon and more training as I get older)

~~~
soared
For those not into cycling

carbon -> carbon fibre bike parts, which is way lighter and way more expensive
but makes you go faster with less effort

------
sevensor
I'd never heard of 2,4 DNP, so I looked it up. Nasty stuff, and I can't see
how it would help performance. Apparently it reduces body fat, but has been
deemed too dangerous to use since 1938.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2,4-Dinitrophenol](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2,4-Dinitrophenol)

~~~
loeg
It's a weight loss drug. I've done a rough categorization of the full list
here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16777656](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16777656)

As far as why it counts as "doping" — it is probably used by body builders to
drop body fat to competition levels. Anecdotally, without chemical help you
are hungry all the time at 4-8 %bf.

Also, the common wisdom among runners is that body fat is dead weight and
losing it makes you faster and reduces load on your joints. So it may help
there too. Cyclists probably see less benefit, but less fat may help
acceleration and hill climb ability.

~~~
nradov
Yes this article confirms that professional cyclists in the Tour de France are
under 6% and hungry all the time. But they have to be careful not to go _too_
low or they run the risk of getting sick and dropping out of the race.

[https://www.outsideonline.com/2099881/how-skinny-are-top-
tou...](https://www.outsideonline.com/2099881/how-skinny-are-top-tour-de-
france-riders-really)

~~~
loeg
Yeah. In running there is some belief that it may be safer and healthier to
train at less extreme %bf in the off season, and only drop to extremely low
%bf shortly before and during the race season.

------
homero
What if you flush a lot just to mess with anyone testing it?

~~~
gitgreen
It's less about catching violators and more about understanding the
epidemiology of PED abuse. It may be possible to isolate populations that need
direct testing but by that point you're putting traps on every sewer pipe
associated with an event, it'd just be easier to test everybody directly.

------
jbob2000
This detection is easy to circumvent: use an outhouse or septic tank.

~~~
lopmotr
That's neither easy (where will you find access to those?) nor will it
circumvent testing. It'll concentrate your waste in a septic tank that's
clearly yours, not mixed with all the neighbors. These researchers measured
waste water downstream where it was mixed from many people so they can't
identify anyone individually.

