
How I became a drug cheat athlete to test the system - sjcsjc
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-32983932
======
ghshephard
In case one has ever wondered why the huge preponderance of drug use
(particularly EPO) in endurance sports:

Pre: EPO microdosing:

 _I managed about 10-and-a-half minutes and a power output of 350 watts. ...
score a 58 on the test, which compares favourably to the average person 's 35
but rather pathetically against an elite athlete's 70+._

Post EPO microdosing:

 _I flew past my previous mark and hung on for more than 12 minutes and 375
watts. This gave me a score of 63, a 7% increase in seven weeks._

How on earth could clean athletes ever expect to compete, particularly given
that the chances of getting caught are so slim.

~~~
utefan001
In cycling one key is drafting. We have a few guys where I live that do well
in big national races. When they show up on the Saturday group ride, weaker
riders can keep up thanks to the advantage of drafting. A rider has to be
about 30% stronger than me to pull away when I am drafting him.

~~~
nl
Which is why Grand Tours are really a test of climbing and time trialing
ability.

~~~
bmj
And surviving three weeks of racing, often over very difficult terrain.

Your "average" pro cyclist (the domestiques) dope because that's the only way
get through a grand tour. It's not about going faster, it's about survival.

------
rwmj
I really would like to see sports where performance-enhancing drugs (except
life-threatening ones) are permitted.

~~~
majani
Currently the world's most famous athlete, Lionel Messi, is legally permitted
to take HGH, one of the most potent steroids ever made, due to an earlier
growth deficiency. Johann Cruyff, also considered one of the football greats,
went through the same legal HGH treatments.

Their acceleration and injury tolerance is mind blowing. See how Messi blew
past 6 players in a cup final last week after playing 50+ games:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOX2QpfMkq4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOX2QpfMkq4)

And also here's Johann Cruyff blowing past players with ease:

[https://youtu.be/YU-k-Ots3iY?t=1m31s](https://youtu.be/YU-k-Ots3iY?t=1m31s)

The popularity of these two players would indicate that athletes legally
permitted to use steroids would be very popular among sports fans

~~~
TillE
Lionel Messi is not generally considered a great athlete, with exceptional
strength or stamina or anything like that which would be affected by PEDs. His
ability is pure skill and intelligence. Cruijff was similar.

~~~
josefresco
In Messi's case this is exactly why it's the supreme advantage. He already
possess world class skill and intelligence, add HGH to the mix to boost his
athleticism and you have a balanced, top tier athlete.

------
nl
Related, much earlier (2003) article:
[http://www.outsideonline.com/1924306/drug-
test](http://www.outsideonline.com/1924306/drug-test)

He didn't try to avoid any tests though.

That micro-dosing is effective for passing the biological passport hasn't been
news since Tyler Hamilton detailed how it was done in his book[1]. Michele
Ferrari (who invented it, and systemised a lot of doping methodology) is bad
person.

If you are interested in any endurance sport outside of cycling (which
suffered the worst for a long time) then your sport has some challenges.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_Hamilton#Autobiography](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyler_Hamilton#Autobiography)

------
mipapage
Here's the discussion over at Cyclingnews' 'doping' sub-forum:
[http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=29527](http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=29527)

Interesting to read what insiders have to say/think about it.

------
dylanjermiah
Offtopic-ish, I do not think taking PED's is cheating. I'd really love to see
what we're capable of without the shackles of the illegality and false
perception that most have of PED's. Allowing for proper research and
acceptance.

~~~
michael_h
"The All-Drug Olympics"

EDIT: The Reference: [https://screen.yahoo.com/weekend-drug-
olympics-000000571.htm...](https://screen.yahoo.com/weekend-drug-
olympics-000000571.html)

~~~
dylanjermiah
"The Olympics"

But where athletes don't have to risk their health and can safely do what
they're going to do anyway. Also they're better.

~~~
lmm
Many PEDs are inherently unsafe. If you're e.g. boosting the hæmoglobin levels
in your blood, that's necessarily putting stress on your heart and increasing
your risk of problems in later life.

~~~
dylanjermiah
You're right, 'safer' not necessarily 'safe'. That being said I believe people
should make their own decisions for themselves, elite athletes understand the
risks associated, but to them it's worth it.

~~~
stouset
To some of them. To the athletes for whom it isn't worth it, they are now
effectively left behind.

When you allow some to dope, the reality is that _all_ face pressure to dope.

~~~
dylanjermiah
The reason they are left behind is because the illegality of the substances.
If you have two separate organisations, one which you can do what you please,
and another where you are restricted/tested. You would not have the disparity.

What we have now is an underground culture with little knowledge and even less
perception. Banning does not work.

------
andy_ppp
It's interesting that we just accept genetic advantage and even prize it, but
man made advantage is called cheating.

Athletes should have handicaps like in horse racing ;-)

~~~
andy_ppp
I'm not really sure why this was downvoted, apart from because you didn't
enjoy my point of view. I personally think it added to the discussion.

You are, of course, welcome to downvote this comment that definitely doesn't
add to the discussion.

------
gadders
There was an interesting series of articles on T-Nation relatively recently on
how easy it is to beat the Cross Fit (and by extension other organisaion's)
drug tests:

[https://www.t-nation.com/steroids/beating-the-crossfit-
drug-...](https://www.t-nation.com/steroids/beating-the-crossfit-drug-test)

------
j1e
There is a lot of interesting info and history in the movie "Bigger Stronger
Faster":

[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1151309/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1151309/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1)

------
SebKba
Wow! I've competed in rowing at fairly high level and reading this is article
is shocking. I did not expect such a huge performance boost and THEN to turn
up clean is insane.

So far I've always given people the benefit of the doubt but this really makes
me wonder...

~~~
SovietDissident
Rowing would be a perfect sport to do this in. I've heard rumors that there
are rowers who do it, but I think the reason why it isn't that widespread is
because there's no money in the sport. Although testing is lax, so maybe it is
widespread at the top levels and we just don't know about it?

~~~
SebKba
I rowed just below international level and several of my former team mates
have world and olympic medals. Also, I know that my pure power output was
better than some of the international rowers and I didn't even take Creatine.
My house mate is in a national team squad right now and he gets surprise
tested every few months. He actually has to keep a calendar of where he sleeps
every single night so they can find you in the morning... I doubt there is
much cheating going on in rowing, like you said, it's just not worth it
financially.

------
S_A_P
The whole guilt narrative seems odd to me. Wasn't he testing micro dosing and
the passports efficacy? It seems disingenuous to add that whole aspect to me.

~~~
ghshephard
I think it was pretty clear why he did that - now that people know he can
MicroDose to very significantly enhance performance, who is going to believe
in his performance being "natural" if he does extraordinarily well?
Particularly as he demonstrated that even the more stringent systems didn't
catch him.

He was trying to make it super, super clear that he know that it is cheating,
that it is wrong, and that if he _EVER_ did this outside of this trial, that
he would be guilty as sin.

------
bennofs
It would be interesting to compare this with the improvement that he would
have got if he did altitude training.

------
hobbyjogger
I'm skeptical of the author's claim about V02max that "even half a percentage
point can make the difference in elite sport, that is a huge bump."

________

RUNNING PREDICTS RUNNING BETTER THAN PHYSIOLOGY (a duh? moment here)

Noakes, T. D., Myburgh, K. H., & Schall, R. (1990). Peak treadmill running
velocity during VO2max test predicts running performance. Journal of Sports
Sciences, 8, 35-45.

The best laboratory predictors were: (a) peak treadmill running velocity (r =
-.89 to -.94); (b) running velocity at lactate turnpoint (r = -.91 to -.93);
and (c) fractional use of VO2max at 16 km/h (r = .86 to .90). The predictive
value of the lactate turnpoint measure increased as the distance increased.

The poorest predictors were: VO2max (r = -.55 to -.81) and VO2 at 16 km/h (r =
.40 to .45).

~~~
Someone
At lower levels, technique can handily beat raw power, and vice versa. At
elite level, those lacking either technique or raw power will be filtered out,
or forced to work hard on their weak points (example: Federer had to work on
his weight training when the likes of Nadal and Djokovic hit the scene)

In sports where competition is strong (1) that, at best, leaves those with
good technique and exceptional power or exceptional technique and good power,
but likely, top players are exceptional in both areas. In that group, getting
more power or endurance can certainly be a decisive factor.

And as another reply said, cycling (like cross-country skiing, and rowing) is
a bit different in the sense that raw power (per kg) is a really good
indicator of performance.

(1) in weaker competitions, you can still see strong players with weak
technique or vice versa. That happens in smaller countries, for example, and,
historically in about every sport.

~~~
hobbyjogger
Like I said to the other reply, you are making logical points but the data
shows that they are flat out wrong. "Raw power" whatever that means (likely
you're using it as a rough proxy for VO2max) is a solid predictor if you're
trying to distinguish elites from untrained people but a _terrible_ predictor
if you're trying to distinguish among elites.

See this study(1) showing that the best two cyclists out of 11 world class
professionals tested had a VO2max that was closer to this amateur reporter
(before doping) than to the elite cyclists with the highest VO2max. (1)
[https://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/R063.pdf](https://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/R063.pdf)

------
SCAQTony
The 7% increase in performance is astonishing but with the gain comes
potential pain:

Least harmful side effects: Cold symptoms such as stuffy nose, sneezing,
cough, sore throat, joint pain, bone pain, muscle pain, muscle spasm;
dizziness, depression, mild headache, weight loss, sleep problems (insomnia),
nausea, vomiting, trouble swallowing; or pain or tenderness where you injected
the medication.

Most severe side effects include: Seizure, uneven heartbeat, dangerously high
blood pressure and more.

[http://www.rxlist.com/epogen-side-effects-drug-
center.htm](http://www.rxlist.com/epogen-side-effects-drug-center.htm)

------
yodsanklai
It's interesting, but not a scientific experiment. Can we draw any conclusion
with "1 datapoint"? The 7% increase may be explained by familiarity with the
effort test the second time, 7 weeks additional training, better confidence
and morale and so on...

~~~
jusben1369
I think the biggest failure here is not tracking the 4 months prior. Each
week, given he undertook dedicated training under the guidance of a
professional, he would have seen an improvement in his results. I'm sure his
measurements and ride data would have looked meaningfully different between
week 2 and week 12 of his 4 month run up period. Now some of that would taper
but he'd still see performance improvements after 4 months with regular
dedicated training in place. So it would be key to have that context. Perhaps
the increase due to doping is 3-5% vs the 7%. Still substantial either way.

