Sky - gaming the system?

[Exit Stage Left]

Darts is hard to cheat at, especially since they're allowed, nay encouraged, to drink plenty of lager (off stage these days) to loosen their throwing arm 

Beta-Blockers are on the banned list for darts. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/prohibited-list/prohibited-in-particular-sports/beta-blockers

Are they allowed to watch post-race Froome interviews?

I liked Froome's interviews, they showed a man in control. Wiggins always looked so tense, not as much as Cadel Evans, who was a nightmare. Nerves are part of the equation, as it influences the ability to rest and sleep. Appetite is another component.

Lance is still the most interesting package overall. I'm still surprised that no-one's done a musical/opera about him, a sort of Faust meets Starlight Express.

[Jakob]

Doping was rife in baseball...and almost encouraged at one stage (See McQuire/Bonds/A-Rod). Despite the sluggers taking the limelight, pitchers were probably abusing it more as their recovery greatly benefited from steroids. Testing is a lot more rigorous now and doping is widely seen as unethical.
NFL/American football is probably very bad. It's officially banned, but the players organisation has fought any kind of where-abouts/OOC testing system, citing it would be too much for the players.
This carriers through to college football as well.
 Hocley seems like a sport that's perfect for wanna-be dopers and testing is very lax. The NHL is more concerned with cocaine use than PEDs. ('cause drugs are bad, mkay?). Most hockey fans denies that doping takes place, because hockey players are hard working honest men.

[mzjo]

I think it's just taken longer for it to come out in athletics, but yes this is all elite level sport and quite a lot of non-elite also. The sophistication has increaased in leaps and bounds though.

On ball games, I suspect doping is rife. Tennis is a good example of a sport where the ability to maintain strength and form over a long match and to recover for the next is critical to success. Hard to believe that players wouldn't benefit from doping and, equally, that the federation would benefit financially from finding their top assets were doing my so.

Apparently top-level (semi-pro or pro level) petanque also has had its share of doping scandal. Obviously Ricard is not sufficient for staying at the top. There are a couple of other unlikely sports with proven doping but I can't remember which now (things like chucking the horseshoe come to mind - not really that but something similar). I think tug-of-war also had a problem once (but that is a very serious sport as most of its participants would readily admit).

[sojournermike]

Doping was rife in baseball...and almost encouraged at one stage (See McQuire/Bonds/A-Rod). Despite the sluggers taking the limelight, pitchers were probably abusing it more as their recovery greatly benefited from steroids. Testing is a lot more rigorous now and doping is widely seen as unethical.
NFL/American football is probably very bad. It's officially banned, but the players organisation has fought any kind of where-abouts/OOC testing system, citing it would be too much for the players.
This carriers through to college football as well.
 Hocley seems like a sport that's perfect for wanna-be dopers and testing is very lax. The NHL is more concerned with cocaine use than PEDs. ('cause drugs are bad, mkay?). Most hockey fans denies that doping takes place, because hockey players are hard working honest men.

Football too seemed to have more of an issue with performance reducing drug, but the physiques of current players and the information coming out of the Fuentes case in Spain suggests times have changed (albeit from somewhere around the 50s).

Rugby players (both codes) also appear to have joined in enthusiastically. The growing number of serious head injuries may well be correlated with the conversion from man (adipose) mountain to wall of muscle. To be fair, who wouldn't. You don't take a knife to a gunfight.

[Jaded]

I think it's just taken longer for it to come out in athletics, but yes this is all elite level sport and quite a lot of non-elite also. The sophistication has increaased in leaps and bounds though.

On ball games, I suspect doping is rife. Tennis is a good example of a sport where the ability to maintain strength and form over a long match and to recover for the next is critical to success. Hard to believe that players wouldn't benefit from doping and, equally, that the federation would benefit financially from finding their top assets were doing my so.

Apparently top-level (semi-pro or pro level) petanque also has had its share of doping scandal. Obviously Ricard is not sufficient for staying at the top. There are a couple of other unlikely sports with proven doping but I can't remember which now (things like chucking the horseshoe come to mind - not really that but something similar). I think tug-of-war also had a problem once (but that is a very serious sport as most of its participants would readily admit).

This is quite a concern

I shall ask questions as to whether our local council does drug testing on boules players, especially when those pesky French come over here rubbing their balls with a design on our treasures.

[Hot Flatus]

Kimmage nails it


https://m.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/cycling/paul-kimmage-the-greatest-ever-or-just-another-drug-cheat-after-all-the-bullshit-why-should-we-care-36414204.html

[sojournermike]

This is good too

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/sport/ewan-mackenna-we-aim-our-rage-at-russia-when-the-real-enemy-is-staring-back-at-us-in-the-mirror-36412183.html

[sojournermike]

Here's a quote from another McKenna article written around the time of the 2016 Olympic disgrace

'It’s just that all of it pales beside what sport has become – a vast array of criminals and cheats and bullshitters maintaining a cosy and self-serving status quo where the rewards are great but accountability isn’t.'

[IJL]

The Kimmage article is good read and there is a certain weary resignation to all of this, however it did occur to me that the testing does have some odd limits.

WADA allow 1600 micrograms over 24 hours, but only 1000nano grams/ml in the urine

1600 micrograms =1600000 nanograms

72% of the inhaled drug is excreted with 24 hours

clearly hydration is going to have a huge impact on the outcome of the urine testing, there lots of room to fudge this 

[andyoxon]

...clearly hydration is going to have a huge impact on the outcome of the urine testing...

I expect that concentrations of a range of usual urine consituents of the tested samples can be compared with an indiviudual's 'fully' hydrated reference samples to test hydration status(?)

[IJL]

I expect that concentrations of a range of usual urine consituents of the tested samples can be compared with an individual's 'fully' hydrated reference samples to test hydration status(?)

you may be right but it still makes for some interesting numbers

if 72% of the 1600 mg is excreted in 24 hrs that gives 1152mg excreted. 

1152mg =1152000 nanograms at 1ng/ml that would require 1152 litres of urine

it makes me wonder what the 1000ng/ml is based on

[Karla]

The urine limit is 1000 ng/ml, i.e. 1 ug/ml.  See here.  You're out by a factor of 1000.

Also, please don't use mg to mean microgram.  It means milligram, i.e. 1000 ug.

[IJL]

woops, all then 0's it does my 'ead in

[simonp]

“Approximately 72% of the inhaled dose is excreted in the urine within 24 hours, 28% as unchanged drug and 44% as metabolite”

Are they counting drug or metabolite or combined total in this analysis?

[sojournermike]

“Approximately 72% of the inhaled dose is excreted in the urine within 24 hours, 28% as unchanged drug and 44% as metabolite”

Are they counting drug or metabolite or combined total in this analysis?

The reference is to Salbutamol, but it wouldn't be the first time that was incorrect. There are a lot of research references on t'web that suggest the level is highly unlikely with any sensible quantity of inhaled Salbutamol.

[Cudzoziemiec]

Banning performance enhancing drugs seems to make no more sense than banning performance enhancing training. They should concentrate on what's harmful to health, including the training (including amateur, school kids, and possibly even non-competitive events; sportives, audaxes). Beyond sport, the same applies to eg exams.

[sojournermike]

Banning performance enhancing drugs seems to make no more sense than banning performance enhancing training. They should concentrate on what's harmful to health, including the training (including amateur, school kids, and possibly even non-competitive events; sportives, audaxes). Beyond sport, the same applies to eg exams.

Yep, or actually no. Let's not even bother focusing on health. We allow people to drink and smoke, so it's just a matter of degree. Individual freedom to choose will only enhance the spectacle.[\irony]

[DuncanM]

Banning performance enhancing drugs seems to make no more sense than banning performance enhancing training. They should concentrate on what's harmful to health, including the training (including amateur, school kids, and possibly even non-competitive events; sportives, audaxes). Beyond sport, the same applies to eg exams.

Loads of PEDs are harmful to health (especially when abused). Salbutamol, in high doses is linked to sudden cardiac arrest. Amateurs were dying in the early-mid 90s because they took too much EPO and their heart couldn't pump the super thick blood at low bpm when asleep. Steroids have loads of nasty side-effects (especially in women).
The question is whether we want to protect athletes from themselves (numerous surveys of athletes show that they would consider taking a dug that would allow them to win everything, but drop dead at 40), or from being massively disadvantaged when compared to their competitors because they wouldn't take that risk.
As things stand, would you encourage your child to take up cycling? If they were a competitive type, would you allow them to race? For me, the answer is yes and yes. If you then change the rules so that to be competitive drug taking is mandatory, do you get the same answers? (Mine would be yes and no.)

This is massively off the topic of Sky though...

[Cudzoziemiec]

Banning performance enhancing drugs seems to make no more sense than banning performance enhancing training. They should concentrate on what's harmful to health, including the training (including amateur, school kids, and possibly even non-competitive events; sportives, audaxes). Beyond sport, the same applies to eg exams.

Loads of PEDs are harmful to health (especially when abused). ...

That's the point. They should be banned for their harm not their enhancement.

[sojournermike]

It's actually an interesting question. The nature of the game depends on the decision:

No doping - 'natural sport' tests elite physiology and training

Doping - tests above plus adds in attitude to risk

Doping restricted/permitted by current regime - somewhere in eteeen with different risks

[Hot Flatus]

MPCC reams Sky

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mpcc-calls-on-team-sky-to-suspend-chris-froome/

We learned last year why Sky was one of the 7/50 world tour teams that didn't join the MPCC. It wasn't because Sky had tougher internal rules than the MPCC, as suggested by Brailsford, which in itself was a ludicrous excuse as well as a lie. It was because if they had joined, Wiggins wouldn't have been able to abuse the TUE system to win races.

Now that cat is out of the bag it's open season on Team Sky. Plus of course, they no longer have Cookson around to make things go away...

[LEE]

I'll watch the Tour de France as usual, assuming everyone is taking something, and knowing it's still bloody impressive.

Shame they can't go back and check Cancellara's seat-tube and bottom bracket on the 2010 Paris-Roubaix.

[Cudzoziemiec]

...
This is massively off the topic of Sky though...

Fair point! Even if Froome turns out to be clean and if you accept their use of TUEs was technically within limits, Sky have broken their own rules, which seems to be what is really annoying people. Liars worse than cheats?!

[toontra]

Sky claim they are complying with current the investigation, which begs the question why they weren't so willing to co-operate with the earlier jiffy-bag investigation (according to UK Anti-Doping chief executive Nicole Sapstead when giving evidence to the PSC).

[trekker12]

It's entirely possible the Jiffy bag contained something they would rather not know about but in this case I think it's been mentioned up thread that it's a rather amateurish way of trying to cheat so why would they when they are so professional about everything else. This might have taken them by surprise. Although it seems like it might be pretty hard to prove they weren't up to no good