Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Masters Doping, Episode 738
Quote | Reply
I don't quite get this one: John Schiefer.

USADA seems to have gone very light because they accepted that the clomiphene was, "caused by a medication prescribed in a therapeutic dose under the care of a physician."

But my Google-fu gives me no indication of why a physician would prescribe clomiphene to a dude. The search term "Clomiphene for men" leads to pretty shady looking sites. It's apparently "off-label" at best. Are any physicians here aware of a medical condition where clomiphene would be considered a good treatment?

If there is, I'm OK with USADA putting on the kid gloves and giving a back-dated 6 months to this guy. But if 6 months is the new standard for every a-hole who gets a valid prescription from a "T clinic," and just "forgets" to apply for a TUE then that's not cool. With this guy's back-dated 6 months he can basically start the new road-racing season without skipping a beat.
Last edited by: trail: Oct 7, 17 6:58
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Maybe they give an automatic 6 months for forgeting to apply for a TUE, on top of any doping penalty.

Not looking forward to episode 739.
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Wow, this is nuts. Why then did Kevin Moats have an issue? His doctor subscribed it for him also? Seems they have set the bar that if a doctor subscribed it, then any drug is okay? Maybe at my Physical Friday I need my doc to load me up with subscriptions. :)

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [h2ofun] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
h2ofun wrote:
Wow, this is nuts. Why then did Kevin Moats have an issue? His doctor subscribed it for him also? Seems they have set the bar that if a doctor subscribed it, then any drug is okay? Maybe at my Physical Friday I need my doc to load me up with subscriptions. :)

You can't get banned for reading magazines or journals. Some prescriptions might lead to trouble though;)
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [rhayden] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
rhayden wrote:
http://www.maledoc.com/blog/2010/04/28/how-clomid-works-in-men/
Very interesting...thanks for posting.

BTW...

Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't get it either. So much doping now is enabled by "anti-aging doctors" and this ruling sends the message that it's basically ok. Just a minor oversight

-------------
Ed O'Malley
http://www.motivengines.com
@EdwardOMalley
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So much doping now is enabled by "anti-aging doctors"


OR... so many medications that are banned by USADA are being used by people for legitimate health concerns. Not saying this is the case here (I haven't looked into it), but your gross exaggeration of the situation required a response.
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [Ralph20] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ralph20 wrote:
So much doping now is enabled by "anti-aging doctors"


OR... so many medications that are banned by USADA are being used by people for legitimate health concerns. Not saying this is the case here (I haven't looked into it), but your gross exaggeration of the situation required a response.

You're naive. These guys are doping. The anti-aging clinics are a festering sore wrapped in spandex on the collective age-group ass.

It's so fuking easy to check if any drug is controlled by USADA, that anyone who's busted for doping is a doper.
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [Desert Tortoise] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
OR...
There has been a documented decrease in sperm levels (over 50% in the last 30 years) and a documented decrease in testosterone levels in men over the last 20 years. So chemicals in our environment are interacting with our body in unknown ways. There is also ZERO proof that supplementing testosterone back to age appropriate levels leads to any increase in performance. So the evidence is entirely against your claim that "these guys are doping". In fact, they may be looking to lead a normal life prior to pollution/chemicals wrecking our endocrine system.
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [Ralph20] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ralph20 wrote:
OR...
There has been a documented decrease in sperm levels (over 50% in the last 30 years) and a documented decrease in testosterone levels in men over the last 20 years. So chemicals in our environment are interacting with our body in unknown ways. There is also ZERO proof that supplementing testosterone back to age appropriate levels leads to any increase in performance. So the evidence is entirely against your claim that "these guys are doping". In fact, they may be looking to lead a normal life prior to pollution/chemicals wrecking our endocrine system.

Ha. So supplementing testosterone increases energy levels, drive, muscle development yet no impact on race performance. We hear this so often and it's absurd. People are like oh, I just didn't have any energy to train. T allows me to train and race like a normal person. It does not give me any performance benefit. LOL.

-------------
Ed O'Malley
http://www.motivengines.com
@EdwardOMalley
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [Desert Tortoise] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
And I will go even farther to say that all doping checks are now a waste of time. CRISPR is being used to alter genes and, while I have no proof, you can bet China and Russia are all over this as the next generation performance enhancer for which there is no test. Chances are it's already happening or will be within 1-2 years. Hell, it's not even banned yet by USADA.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/...l-than-steroids.html
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [Ralph20] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The Chinese might be engineering super-athlete babies soon so it's ok for me to take testosterone to finally beat Chuck to the top of the 45-49 podium! Yeah!

-------------
Ed O'Malley
http://www.motivengines.com
@EdwardOMalley
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [Ralph20] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ralph20 wrote:
OR...
There has been a documented decrease in sperm levels (over 50% in the last 30 years) and a documented decrease in testosterone levels in men over the last 20 years. So chemicals in our environment are interacting with our body in unknown ways. There is also ZERO proof that supplementing testosterone back to age appropriate levels leads to any increase in performance. So the evidence is entirely against your claim that "these guys are doping". In fact, they may be looking to lead a normal life prior to pollution/chemicals wrecking our endocrine system.

Zero proof?

So now I know. I guess testosterone is just a benign hormone. Thanks for making things clear, so clear.

And since it's benign, no one needs it.
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ha. So supplementing testosterone increases energy levels, drive, muscle development yet no impact on race performance. We hear this so often and it's absurd. People are like oh, I just didn't have any energy to train. T allows me to train and race like a normal person. It does not give me any performance benefit. LOL.

Show me a single piece of research that shows that supplementing T back to age appropriate levels provides a distinct benefit over an athlete who is already at that level. (For example, your T drops to 200 due to pituitary issue and you supplement back to 650). Please find just one respected research article on this. I have looked and haven't been able to find it.

I get that you are emotionally involved in this as you feel people are cheating. But the evidence points to this being an epidemic level defined medical issue. And that treatment to within age appropriate levels does not provide any benefit over atheletes already at that level. The EVIDENCE says those things not me.

Your next argument will be "but they are getting a boost over their natural level of T". Yes, you are correct. But there is no evidence of that boost augmenting performance versus what their normal level should be. And we allow this same type of treatment for other medical issues. Example- Thyroid, Insulin, Dopamine, etc. All of these are legal to supplement back to age appropriate levels and all of them will negatively effectperformance when they are low and performance will increase when they reach normal levels. So what's the difference with Testosterone??
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [Desert Tortoise] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Zero proof?

You are confusing the issue here. I am talking about supplementing to age appropriate levels. For that there is ZERO proof that is provides a performance benefit over someone who is already at that level.

I assume you are talking about supplementing to levels far above the age appropriate range. There is proof of that having a performance effect. But that's not what we are talking about here.
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [Ralph20] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ralph20 wrote:
Ha. So supplementing testosterone increases energy levels, drive, muscle development yet no impact on race performance. We hear this so often and it's absurd. People are like oh, I just didn't have any energy to train. T allows me to train and race like a normal person. It does not give me any performance benefit. LOL.

Show me a single piece of research that shows that supplementing T back to age appropriate levels provides a distinct benefit over an athlete who is already at that level. (For example, your T drops to 200 due to pituitary issue and you supplement back to 650). Please find just one respected research article on this. I have looked and haven't been able to find it.

I get that you are emotionally involved in this as you feel people are cheating. But the evidence points to this being an epidemic level defined medical issue. And that treatment to within age appropriate levels does not provide any benefit over atheletes already at that level. The EVIDENCE says those things not me.

Your next argument will be "but they are getting a boost over their natural level of T". Yes, you are correct. But there is no evidence of that boost augmenting performance versus what their normal level should be. And we allow this same type of treatment for other medical issues. Example- Thyroid, Insulin, Dopamine, etc. All of these are legal to supplement back to age appropriate levels and all of them will negatively effectperformance when they are low and performance will increase when they reach normal levels. So what's the difference with Testosterone??

Ohhhhh ok. It just enhances your performance to where it should be. That way you can get the results and Instagram likes you deserve. I get it. It's not really cheating. It's just using drugs to change your physiology to match a superior athlete's.

-------------
Ed O'Malley
http://www.motivengines.com
@EdwardOMalley
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [Ralph20] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Also, I find it hilarious that you attribute my stance to being emotionally involved - implying that your pro-doping stance has nothing to do with your frame of mind.

-------------
Ed O'Malley
http://www.motivengines.com
@EdwardOMalley
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ohhhhh ok. It just enhances your performance to where it should be. That way you can get the results and Instagram likes you deserve. I get it. It's not really cheating. It's just using drugs to change your physiology to match a superior athlete's.

Now I feel like you are being arbitrary just cause you can. I offered you proof (see below) that testosterone levels and sperm levels are declining in men. Most likely this decline is due to an outside influence, i.e. pollution, chemicals, in foods, etc. So I am not advocating upping testosterone levels to match a superior athlete. I am saying that if the age appropriate level for you is say...650, and you have a diagnosed condition whereby your level isn't that high. How is supplementing testosterone back to that level any different than supplementing Insulin, Dopamine, or Thyroid, etc..? In addition, there is NO proof that someone who supplements his testosterone to 650 has any advantage over someone who is naturally at 650. Please make an objective, fact based response.

Also, I'm not advocating doping by any means. I fully accept that testosterone is banned. What I'm trying to do is have a fact based discussion on the topic instead of all the drama that seems to get thrown around.


https://www.healio.com/...rone-levels-observed

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ng-in-western-world/
Last edited by: Ralph20: Oct 7, 17 9:24
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [Ralph20] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ralph20 wrote:
Zero proof?

You are confusing the issue here. I am talking about supplementing to age appropriate levels. For that there is ZERO proof that is provides a performance benefit over someone who is already at that level.

I assume you are talking about supplementing to levels far above the age appropriate range. There is proof of that having a performance effect. But that's not what we are talking about here.

Actually I'm not. You're using a pathetic form of reasoning often employed by people who misuse research to justify their own behavior. Lawyers use this approach too. There're a few of those folks here.

Shakespeare gave some good advice on how to deal with these people. I wish USADA followed it.
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [Ralph20] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ralph20 wrote:
And we allow this same type of treatment for other medical issues. Example- Thyroid, Insulin, Dopamine, etc. All of these are legal to supplement back to age appropriate levels and all of them will negatively effectperformance when they are low and performance will increase when they reach normal levels. So what's the difference with Testosterone??

I think this is a fair question, and I wish there could be some reasonable, unemotional discussion on it rather than branding people as amoral simply for asking the question. Why are diabetics that take insulin not dopers? They're enhancing their performance through the use of insulin, aren't they?

... and before people freak out, I don't use T, have not used it, have not contemplated using it, blah blah blah. I just find this question a bit more grey than some here would like to make it out to be.

---------------------------------------------------------
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [jkatsoudas] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jkatsoudas wrote:
Ralph20 wrote:
And we allow this same type of treatment for other medical issues. Example- Thyroid, Insulin, Dopamine, etc. All of these are legal to supplement back to age appropriate levels and all of them will negatively effectperformance when they are low and performance will increase when they reach normal levels. So what's the difference with Testosterone??


I think this is a fair question, and I wish there could be some reasonable, unemotional discussion on it rather than branding people as amoral simply for asking the question. Why are diabetics that take insulin not dopers? They're enhancing their performance through the use of insulin, aren't they?

... and before people freak out, I don't use T, have not used it, have not contemplated using it, blah blah blah. I just find this question a bit more grey than some here would like to make it out to be.

Nobody is freaking out.

Your question shows you don't understand the issue and think your ignorance is the foundation of a good critique. It's not.

Spend some time at the USADA site and come back once you understand the rationals for the list of drugs.
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [Desert Tortoise] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Desert Tortoise wrote:
Ralph20 wrote:
OR...
There has been a documented decrease in sperm levels (over 50% in the last 30 years) and a documented decrease in testosterone levels in men over the last 20 years. So chemicals in our environment are interacting with our body in unknown ways. There is also ZERO proof that supplementing testosterone back to age appropriate levels leads to any increase in performance. So the evidence is entirely against your claim that "these guys are doping". In fact, they may be looking to lead a normal life prior to pollution/chemicals wrecking our endocrine system.

Zero proof?

So now I know. I guess testosterone is just a benign hormone. Thanks for making things clear, so clear.

And since it's benign, no one needs it.

You don't NEED it. You elect to take it because you don't like the natural symptoms of aging or effects of training.

***
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [jkatsoudas] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Diabetes is a life-threatening disease. Left untreated you have toes and feet fall off and eventually just die. It is clearly definable and diagnosable.

T-levels naturally vary a great deal from person to person. One person having lower T than another does not threaten their life. It is not a disease. It's like one person being taller than another.

The idea that Ralph floated that decreasing T-levels for the entire population over time as some sort of justification for doping makes no sense. If it's affecting the general population, then someone is not at a competitive disadvantage from it. And for all his claims about wanting to have a scientific discussion he makes claims about declining t-levels to be caused by "chemicals" when there is absolutely no evidence if that. Might be caused by natural selection. Long life, successful mating and financial success are no longer enhanced by being a big burly male to the same extent as it used to. There are other traits that have grown in importance.

Taking his argument in his logical direction I could say:

Obesity has been increasing in the general population. Most of the guys winning my age group have skinnier builds than me, so I should be able to take catabolic steroids to slim down. It's not performance enhancing beyond where I would be if I were just that skinny on my own.

Tim Don and I are about the same age and his hematocrit levels are a lot higher than mine. My hematorcrit levels are not age-appropriate! I'm just gonna take some EPO to get my hematorcrit levels up to where they are supposed to be. It's not performance enhancing because my performance will be just like what it would be if I happened to have natural hematorcrit levels that high!

-------------
Ed O'Malley
http://www.motivengines.com
@EdwardOMalley
Quote Reply
Re: Masters Doping, Episode 738 [M----n] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
M----n wrote:
Desert Tortoise wrote:
Ralph20 wrote:
OR...
There has been a documented decrease in sperm levels (over 50% in the last 30 years) and a documented decrease in testosterone levels in men over the last 20 years. So chemicals in our environment are interacting with our body in unknown ways. There is also ZERO proof that supplementing testosterone back to age appropriate levels leads to any increase in performance. So the evidence is entirely against your claim that "these guys are doping". In fact, they may be looking to lead a normal life prior to pollution/chemicals wrecking our endocrine system.


Zero proof?

So now I know. I guess testosterone is just a benign hormone. Thanks for making things clear, so clear.

And since it's benign, no one needs it.


You don't NEED it. You elect to take it because you don't like the natural symptoms of aging or effects of training.

Amen.

And once you elect to take these supplements, you should bow out of competition and stick to posting pictures of your buff 54-year self all over Facebook.
Quote Reply

Prev Next