TargetTalk

RobStubbs wrote:

Richard H wrote:<snip> As far as I'm aware most drugs on the list are on there because of how they potentially work in sick and ill people and theses results are extrapolated to healthy individuals.

I'm in no way doubting that PED's exist but arguing this perception that the science on PED's is some how complete, or has even started or been attempted on many drugs.

The science most likely won't ever exist as no one wants to subject otherwise healthy individuals to the potential negative side effects of many of these drugs.

You forget that (almost) all drugs are tested on heathy human volunteers before going into patients and so that information is out there already. There are a number of clinical trials databases freely accessible to all, if you care to do the searching for anything specific.

Rob.

There are different levels of trials, the ones you speak of are the smallest trials and are performed to see if there are any side effects (feed the drugs to poor students and pay them $50). They don't check them for performance enhancing properties. No drug has ever been tested on ELITE athletes ever to test for effects of performance enhancement, which does make a world of difference. Trials that have been done have been on non- athletes, recreational, or low level amateur athlete. Most enhancement claims come from extrapolation from what the drug is intended to do.

So I have not forgotten, but fact that a drug doesn't turn a healthy person blue, grow a third nipple or make you bray like a jackass really has little to do with PED's and elite athletes like I was talking about.

My comments are in no way to be construed as a denial that PED's exist, I just have an expectation that the Governing bodies and that pant full of political appointees that is WADA, should have some real evidence to place drugs on the list, subject people to what amounts to very draconian rules and remove peoples livelihoods.

I know many in the UK seem more than happy to give up their freedoms to any authority that comes up with some claim as to why it benefits the collective. Many in the rest of the world think there should be clear and definitive proof beyond a reasonable doubt before you take someones livelihood away.

Richard H wrote:No drug has ever been tested on ELITE athletes ever to test for effects of performance enhancement, which does make a world of difference.

I'm really impressed with your knowledge of every trial that's ever been carried out with any drug.

I can think of several ELITE athletes involved in the trials of beta-blockers who might not agree with you.

David Levene wrote:

Richard H wrote:No drug has ever been tested on ELITE athletes ever to test for effects of performance enhancement, which does make a world of difference.

I'm really impressed with your knowledge of every trial that's ever been carried out with any drug.

I can think of several ELITE athletes involved in the trials of beta-blockers who might not agree with you.

For starters I was unaware that we are only talking about beta-blockers, as my post clearly stated on a few occasions the following PED's, drugs and never referenced beta-blockers. That said who are they and where are the studies (and old former elite athletes that are now taking them for heart conditions, they don't count)? I still stand by what I wrote if you can show me any actual study performed on current (during the study period) world class athletes in any sport with any PED I'm more than willing to say hey you're completely right, I'm wrong, but until that time I stand by what I wrote (not necessarily what some choose to read).

The closest study that I've seen was a recent one with HGH but it was done on non elite athletes and at doses that were common to therapeutic uses and below what is common when used in many sports as a PED.

Another area that has not been studied are "cocktails" of PED's which is very common, if not one of the most common drug usage profile with PED's.

Here's one for you that just made it back on the list after being removed Pseudoephedrine. Where is the research that supports that drug being a PED with regards to shooting? It most like has to do with the war on drugs and the fact that they want to ban it because it is used a precursor to make meth.

I'll even give you the fact that there has been at least some studies on Beta-blockers, if not exhaustive, but at least its far more than the vast majority of compounds on the list.

Richard H wrote:

David Levene wrote:

Richard H wrote:No drug has ever been tested on ELITE athletes ever to test for effects of performance enhancement, which does make a world of difference.

I'm really impressed with your knowledge of every trial that's ever been carried out with any drug.

I can think of several ELITE athletes involved in the trials of beta-blockers who might not agree with you.

For starters I was unaware that we are only talking about beta-blockers...

We aren't, but you obviously included them in your "No drug...." statement.

Laslo Antal's previously mentioned double-blind beta-blocker study carried out around 1980 included several international shooters of the time.

Richard H wrote:

RobStubbs wrote:

Richard H wrote:<snip> As far as I'm aware most drugs on the list are on there because of how they potentially work in sick and ill people and theses results are extrapolated to healthy individuals.

<snip>

There are different levels of trials, the ones you speak of are the smallest trials and are performed to see if there are any side effects (feed the drugs to poor students and pay them $50). They don't check them for performance enhancing properties. No drug has ever been tested on ELITE athletes ever to test for effects of performance enhancement, which does make a world of difference. Trials that have been done have been on non- athletes, recreational, or low level amateur athlete. Most enhancement claims come from extrapolation from what the drug is intended to do.

With respect it was you that stated "...and theses results are extrapolated to healthy individuals.". Which is wrong.

Clinical trials are done under very controlled conditions (I've done a few few myself). Numerous physiological parameters are monitored which would include heart rate - as per beta blockers, so again, you're missrepresenting the facts.

I know many in the UK seem more than happy to give up their freedoms to any authority that comes up with some claim as to why it benefits the collective. Many in the rest of the world think there should be clear and definitive proof beyond a reasonable doubt before you take someones livelihood away.

How melodramatic. I'll ignore the dig at the UK, as it's wholly irrelevant.

If you read through the WADA site you'd see they include a specific piece as to why Pseudoephedrine is back on the prohibited list. But it is only 'in competition' and only above a specific (urinary) level.

Unfortunately there's a lot of drug cheats in sport, especially in big money events. The authorities (rightly in my book) want to keep a level playing field as far as possible.

Rob.

There we have it the mythical level playing field.

Why don't we regulate all the other unfair advantages in sport? Acesss to facilities, coaching, time which for many in the world are greater to over come?

Ok so how much pseudoephedrine is in your urine if you took a decongestant 12 hours ago?

Yes there are drug cheats in sport, I think "a lot" is a gross overstatment because in total I'm pretty sure it's a small percentage. But unlike you I don't believe the ends always justify the means in regards to doping in sport.


Your first statements in your reply are basically nonsense and really have nothing to do with what I said. I still assert that many of the "performance enhancing" effects are based upon the drugs effect on ill patients as that is where by far the greatest focus of study is done on drugs and rightly so. Ad for trials being tightly controled, well no sh*t. Even there there have been many trials that were nothing short of fraudulent.

David, once again, I'm aware of Antal's anecdotal references to beta-blockers but where is the actual study with the actual numbers so one can see how they were crunched?

I know because WADA says or the ISSF says is good enough for you and Rob, unfortunately I believe both organization have other interest at heart and choose to question their very pseudo science. ( interests other than the health of sport or athletes is what Im revering to)

Richard H wrote:David, once again, I'm aware of Antal's anecdotal references to beta-blockers but where is the actual study with the actual numbers so one can see how they were crunched?

I know because WADA says or the ISSF says is good enough for you and Rob, unfortunately I believe both organization have other interest at heart and choose to question their very pseudo science. ( interests other than the health of sport or athletes is what Im revering to)

No doubt, as you doubt their word, you have asked WADA and the ISSF for details of all the studies.

Having spoken to athletes involved in the Antal study I have absolutely no reason to believe that the findings regarding beta-blockers are anything but legitimate.

David I think the issue here is the mixing of terminology. Drug clinical trials usually consist of upwards of a thousand patients. Most of the sport studies consist of tens of patients.

My main point was I find it strange that the CAS places a burden of proof on the athlete greater than the burden of proof that was required to get a substance on the list.

Even today with old drugs that have undergone many clinical trials both efficacy and safety of some drugs are called into question. Yet for performance enhancing purposes the athprities are comfortable to stand on scant information.

I suspect much more will be called into question as these issues get dragged into real court as countries begin to criminalize doping. I'm sure both the performance enhancing drug or method along with the testing will be called into question and somehow these will need to proven beyond a reasonable doubt as opposed to a preponderance of the evidence.

It's is a very interesting topic.

With all the drugs on the list and all the sports one would think scientific studies should abound but there really doesn't seem to be all that many. The issues which face therapuetic uses of drugs are also not really addressed either that being the efficacy in gender and even race.

I know someone that was banned for two years for testing positive after taking a cold and flu tablet, ironically shortly thereafter pseudoepehdrine was taken off the banned list.

If they could just make up their bloody mind then the athletes would know what the bloody hell to take or not.

From what I recall there are over tens of thousands of deaths per year in the US alone from legal medication issues:

"The JOURNAL of the AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (JAMA) Vol 284, No 4 Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, shows that medical errors may be the third leading cause of death in the United States The report apparently shows there are 2,000 deaths/year from unnecessary surgery; 7000 deaths/year from medication errors in hospitals; 20,000 deaths/year from other errors in hospitals; 80,000 deaths/year from infections in hospitals; from other errors in hospitals; 80,000 deaths/year from infections in hospitals; 106,000 deaths/year from non-error, adverse effects of medications - these total up to 225,000 deaths per year in the US from iatrogenic causes which ranks these deaths as the # 3 killer. Iatrogenic is a term used when a patient dies as a direct result of treatments by a physician, whether it is from misdiagnosis of the ailment or from adverse drug reactions used to treat the illness. (drug reactions are the most common cause). or from adverse drug reactions used to treat the illness. (drug reactions are the most common cause)."

http://www.cancure.org/medical_errors.htm

Laslo's (who was a Doctor) trials were officially carried out with the GB air pistol squad in the late '70's, can't remember the exact date, they were carefully set up and monitored but I have not the faintest idea what happened to the formal results, probably sat in the archives of the NSRA somewhere, but I can give you my recolection of the conclusions.
I was not in the squad but as a good level national shooter who knew Laslo I managed to get in on it. Officialy it was the air pistol squad but unofficially several of the Air rifle squad (unofficialy as the rifle coach disagreed even though beta blockers were legal in shooting at that time) also took part, including my wife. We both did the test only with the real tablets (as far as we knew!) and not the placebo's as did the pistol squad.
We both found that we felt we were calmer and less likely to get flustered and suffer from nerves although our scores did not improve. We both forgot to take them on several occasions and only after the shoot remembered, again the scores nor our state of stress did not suffer. Two members of the squad who we knew well had similar results. We came to the conclusion and Laslo agreed that in our cases the advantages were probably so slight as to be immeasurable. My view was that as a training aid it worked, but it was teaching us that we could actually control our own stress levels, once learnt we did not need it or gain from it.
Interestingly in later life my wife had a condition in which the same drug (propanalol) was prescribed and in a larger dose than the 70's trials, she was shooting well at the time (mostly prone) but not internationaly, after, with the prescription, she joked that it would be interesting to see if she shot any better, it did not make any difference. As the adverse side effects became more known she stopped taking them and again it made no difference to her shooting. The now known side effects are as good a reason as any to not use betablockers unless your condition is so severe that they will save your life
Until you can find Laslo's (now not with us, he passed on earlier this year)results that's as much as I can remember, but we don't think it made any difference and I don't remember anyone who did the trial who thought it did although several agreed with our conclusion that it was a confidence aid like "training wheels" and then later not neccessary.
Possibly with a naturaly nervious type it might help but I always likened then to being like taking sea sickness tablets, it helps the adverse results but does not aid the base level. As for a person who has them prescribed for illness, the may reduce the likelyhood of a stroke but will not aid your shooting.
As for pseudofedrine, I have taken it for medical purposes and why it is illegal is beyond me, the side effects are much worse for shooting than the advantages of clearing the congestion, I would not take it before shooting legal or not, it destroys a shoot!
This is a personal view of ones who took part in the trial, they were legal then, we do not condone drugs now nor suggest that any one should use them in our sport.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11127782

""For people who have heart failure, their heart is always going too fast. Even when they are sitting doing nothing, their heart rate might be going along at 80 or 90 beats per minute and this drug helps slow that down," he added.

"In the past we have been able to do that with drugs called beta blockers... but many patients can't take beta blockers because they have asthma or it drops their blood pressure.

"This drug has the advantage that it can be added to beta blockers or it can be given to people who can't take them. "It slows the pulse rate without dropping the blood pressure or affecting any asthma, so it's a very exciting new option for doctors and patients to think about if they have heart failure.""

Is Ivabradine on the banned substances list?

Ken3 wrote:
Is Ivabradine on the banned substances list?

Do your own check here (or your own county's equivalent check), don't rely on anyone else when it comes to drugs.

The check I just did returned "Not Prohibited" either in or out of competition and not included on the WADA prohibited list, but things can change.

Yes Ken you can't take anyones word on the legality of drugs when involved in sport, that includes, doctors, coaches or even the manufacture of the drug, it is the sole responsibility of the athlete to know everything about every drug including how its manufactured.

Do I sense the ever slightest tinge of bitterness, Richard? ;-)

Regards, Alexander

Interesting news, concerning the topic. The (German) organizers tried to sweep it under the carpet at fierst:

"The issue was also raised at a National Rifle Association of India meeting a couple of days back, given that an upcoming pistol shooter, Ankush Bhardwaj became the first Indian to test positive for a banned Beta blocker (which steadies the arm of a shooter by controlling the heartbeat) at an international event in Suhl, Germany in May. The International Shooting Sport Federation then imposed sanctions on the marksman at a meeting before the start of the World Championship. Ankush, incidentally, was part of the core group preparing for the October Games. He was later expelled."

(Source: Indianshooting.com)

Alexander

(Edited, thanks to David's rectification, which I appreciate)

Here is the original source, on which Indianshooting.com seems to have relied:

http://www.mumbaimirror.com/index.aspx? ... 03d5eb9405

Alexander wrote:Interesting news, concerning the topic. The organizers tried to sweep it under the carpet at fierst:

The ISSF announced it in July

Alexander wrote:Do I sense the ever slightest tinge of bitterness, Richard? ;-)

Regards, Alexander

Nope no bitterness at all, but unlike the sheep, if I don't like it I'll speak up.

I find the systems (because there really isn't one system for all sports), very unfair and draconian, very few would except this intrusion into their lives willingly.

I feel very sorry for those that have to subject themselves to these unfair systems when in the end they give up their individual rights and freedoms to provide entertainment to the masses. In the end even that doesn't satisfy anyone because even if you test negative the suspicion still hangs over you, because you're probably doing something they can't detect. All this from a society that routinely uses drugs and artificial means for the most trivial of excuses.

Plus my post is just a fact, if a doctor gives you a Px and assures you it's not on the list but something in it is, to bad athlete loses, if a drug somehow has a trace amount of a banned substance that could even be from contamination, to bad, athlete loses. The athlete is responsible for everything that goes in his body known or unknown, and that is a pretty big burden. Many amateur athlete's give up a lot in the pursuit of their sport, its sad that they need to give up privacy and freedom too.