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.

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

You can't get banned for reading magazines or journals. Some prescriptions might lead to trouble though;)

http://www.maledoc.com/...clomid-works-in-men/

Very interesting...thanks for posting.

BTW...

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
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

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.

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
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

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

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
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

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.

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??

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.

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
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

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
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

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/

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.

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.

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

---

***

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
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

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.

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

I am not talking about natural symptoms of aging. I thought I made that pretty clear but let me try again. T levels are falling (as are sperm levels) generation from generation. For example, the normal T level of a 47 year old man is, on average, 20% lower than what it was 20 years ago due to our body reacting to some chemical that we are breathing, eating, drinking. Since this statistic is "on average" there are many men who don't have the issue and many that have experienced a much larger drop than 20%. For these men, I am discussing what is the difference between them supplementing to age appropriate levels (as they have a defined medical issue) versus what are people are taking (ex Dopamine, Insulin, Thyroid)? Add to that question that there is NO proof that supplementing to age appropriate levels gives any advantage over another subject whose T level is already at the accepted level.

You say you want a scientific-based discussion but you keep saying that population-wide testosterone changes are due to chemical exposure. Where's the evidence for this?

And if so, where is the evidence that some people have been affected by it more than others and that testosterone variability between men as increased, which is a central part of your argument that simply having lower testosterone than "appropriate" as defined by what other people have (or had 20 years ago?) makes it OK to take testosterone and race.

As I said before, hormone levels vary between people. It's like one person being shorter than another. People's physiological differences are a big part of what makes sporting competition interesting, worth it, and even a competition at all.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

So if testosterone levels are lower (and that's a dubious claim in the first place, especially since we do not have reliable data for large samples running back to more than two decades or so) and all we have from endocrinologists are studies that propose absolutely no cause what-so-fuking-ever, we should allow doping to arbitrary testosterone levels?

Before we go on, I need you to ask yourself if you really are that stupid.

I think you are, but I'm going to point out that we have no idea what a "natural" level of testosterone is. None. Nada. No fuking clue. At all.

And then the idea that pushing needles into your body with synthetically produced hormones will get you to a "natural" state is just dum. Really dum, dum.

We have no idea what this shit does long term, and that's why anti-aging clinics are pushing the stuff and not the vast majority of endocrinologists.

Exterminate the dopers.

Before we go on, I need you to ask yourself if you really are that stupid.

I think you are, but I'm going to point out that we have no idea what a "natural" level of testosterone is. None. Nada. No fuking clue. At all. //

Well it is either the stupidity or a justification, lets hope it is not the latter..

Hello Desert Tortoise and All,

This is interesting ...... and of course you would want to know who funded the study and what the results were from other similar studies ....

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

Excerpts:

"The Massachusetts Male Aging Study was composed of randomly selected men (aged 45-79 years) living in the Boston area. The men were initially sampled between 1987 and 1989 (n=1,374). There were two follow-up periods: 1995 to 1997 (n=906) and 2002 to 2004 (n=489). There were 2,769 total observations from 1,532 men.

The age-matched study was conducted to measure participants at different times and generations, according to Travison.

In each wave, the researchers took blood samples and conducted extensive interviews, Travison said. Participants were asked about demographic and lifestyle characteristics, self-assessed general health, smoking and alcohol habits, BMI, waist-hip ratio, physical activity and other factors.

Age-independent decline

At baseline, the median serum testosterone level was 501 ng/d; at the first follow-up it was 435 ng/dL and at the second follow-up it was 391 ng/dL.

The estimated cross-sectional decline in total testosterone level was 0.4% per year of age (95% CI, –0.6% to –0.2%). The longitudinal within-person decline was about 1.6% per year (95% CI, –1.8% to –1.4%). The age-matched time trend was 1.2% lower per year (95% CI, –1.4% to –1.0%).

The decline was age-independent. “It is a little troubling,” Travison said. “The average differences are not very large, but they are big enough and occurring over a short enough time period to be the cause of some concern.”

These demonstrated population-level declines are greater than the cross-sectional declines typically associated with age, according to the researchers."


"The researchers wondered whether these factors are contributing to the generational decline. “We know that people in all age groups are heavier today than they used to be. Similarly, they’re taking a lot more medication, which has an influence on endocrine health, and they are smoking a lot less, which is good. Smoking is associated with higher testosterone levels; if you stop smoking that can bring levels down,” Travison said."


Who knew ... ????


Do you suppose that smoking will increase in athletes that are attempting to dope?

---

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster

SO less people smoking and getting fatter seems to be able to explain the results. In fact, I'm kind of surprised it is not more, but guess there are still a lot of people smoking. The equation doesn't seem to need anything else to be valid, chemicals, GMO's, etc.

Why don't USADA make TUE retroactive for non national level competitors. The average weekend bike race, tri or fun run would be filled with people who would inadvertently fail a test from being on Doctors orders.

retroactive for non national is the standard in other places

I think the risk and side effects of testosterone supplementation are not stressed enough. The average joe sees a bunch of middle aged men who look good, pretend to have a great sex life and pretend to achieve great things. Simply ignoring the fact that adding T to your system substantially increases the risk of cardiovascular events. But of course if the poster boys of these aging clinic pass away at 65 no one notices and probably also no one really cares.

If T would be the solution to delay aging and have a higher quality life I would totally go for it, screw triathlon or all other sports for that matter. It is a hobby and I would not put my health second to a random sport. BUT there simply is no magic bullet or pill or anything which does that.

Everyone has to decide for him/herself what to do with their body but it should be an informed decision and then people should take the responsibility for their decisions
U

Couple of responses..

That might be reasonable for some substances and some types of competition. But in this case the athlete was tested at U.S. masters track nationals. So though one might consider any masters competition "non-national level", I believe under the rules a even a geezer national championship is considered "national level." In fact in the press release USADA said he'd been selected for testing specifically because he'd been among the top performers at nationals.

Also, from what I can tell, a retroactive TUE does not lower the criteria necessary to get a TUE. Clomiphene is not FDA approved to treat any condition at all in males. So given that USADA places a pretty high bar on TUEs for substances whose sole intended purpose is to increase testosterone (as appears to be the case with clomiphene), I'm pretty doubtful that any TUE - retro or "standard" - would be allowed.

Maybe the substance could have been used as alternative treatment for a legitimate medical condition. And his Dr. decided to go a little cowboy and use clomiphene. That's why I hesitated to completely throw the guy under the bus in the OP. Like I didn't know if maybe it was useful in treating some kind of rash, or something like that. Like if it was testing positive for a corticosteroid - sure, I could buy that rationale. But it sure doesn't appear that's the case. You can go through page after page of search results and the only use in men I can find is: raise testosterone levels.

Also USADA has busted 10 guys for clomiphene this year. Tied with ostarine for Most Popular Substance of 2017. So it's a "thing," apparently, in doping circles.


Edit: Actually, it's interesting. Clomiphene was relatively rare in USADA's sanction list. Nothing in 2014 or 2015. Then earlier this year Brock Lesnar and Jon Jones (UFC) tested positive for it. Then suddenly, boom, boom, boom. 8 more guys (and one woman) show up in the following months. Including the last 3. It's not hard to connect the dots. Celebrity substance.

Wasn't expecting the controversial Pro-doping take, justified with some hand waving rationals and vague appeals to authority. "supplementing your T levels" back to what you had at 20 is DOPING. Full stop. You're a cheater if you do it and race. No TUE, no race. Its simple.

The thing I don't understand is why they aren't disqualifying all his results since the time he started taking the drug. It says he admitted to taking it, and stopped taking it three months before the positive test (amazed you can test positive three months later!). They are disqualifying him as of the positive test, but really he should in addition be disqualified from all races he took part in since he admitted starting the drug. His results are mostly pretty lackluster, but I don't think that's any reason not to apply the same penalty. Also, given the sketchy nature of the drug in question I would have supported a larger penalty.

I agree- I always ask people "what is your end game"? Because if you start using T, you may not like what you see when you come off it.
Your doc just assumes you will keep taking T until you die or until they come up with something better.

It is sad that we live in a world where you just get prescribed a drug for whatever ailment or affliction you have- even if the the ailment is old age.
Then you get prescribed another drug for the side effects that the 1st drug caused, and on and on...

Also weird they didn't DQ his 2nd-place Team Pursuit team, just his individual events. If I was on that team pursuit team and my teammate was busted I'd have a DQ request to USAC in the mail.

His results are weird. In 2016 he was full profamateur. Raced 79 (!) times, and apparently a podium threat in any 45+ race. Eyeballed, it looks like around 20-30 podiums and around 10 wins. That's pretty much geezer-baller status.

Then in 2017 he just does a few races, and mostly sucks in them. Some DNFs. Until track nationals where he throws down some good results.

So putting on my twitch-hunt hat, there are two narratives that come to mind:

1) He had a medical condition in 2017, messed him up pretty good.

2) He decided to dope for track masters worlds starting in his home state of CA tomorrow. And laid low to avoid testing (everyone knows that USADA targets podium finishers at the masters level), but got busted at nationals because he miscalculated the clomiphene "glow time."

I'd like to believe 1), but of course the it's hard to fit placing well at nationals in that narrative. If you're pretty badly jacked up for medical issues, you don't schedule yourself into national championship races, generally.

So, are you taking T and racing?

Until track nationals where he throws down some good results. //

Good results, wasn't he national champion?

I had a tough time figuring that out with the DQ! I was just going off his IP time, which was decent.

So, are you taking T and racing?


Jesus, it's impossible to have a rational conversation about this topic. Expressing scientific viewpoints does not mean I am taking it nor advocating for it. Simply pointing out some often overlooked facts. No where in this forum did I advocate or endorse its use. So basically you are making an unsubstantiated allegation against me because I looked to have a conversation. Classy...really classy.

No need for a hissy fit.

Your cluelessness about testosterone and your pseudo-scientific rhetoric made you sound like someone who has sat in a anti-aging clinic and listened to a man in a white coat explain the various solutions they have for your suppressed t-levels.

He asked what everyone was thinking.

The argument of doping T up to normal levels seems to be a constant in these threads... One of the main flaws with that argument is that you can suppress T levels just by training hard. So your argument is that everyone should be allowed to dope up to some magic number. OK, train hard enough and drop your levels below that number, take some T to get back, rinse and repeat. You effectively make T supplementation a requirement of competition. For endurance athletes the main advantage of taking T is the ability to do more work. Wouldn't it be nice to totally smash a workout and be able to back it up the next day instead of three days later? You bet, compound that over months and years.

..

It's only going to get worse as medicine keeps getting better, we'll need a new division for anti aging doping.

Hmmm...I don't think in all that Ralphy actually answered the question...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

So since you care about the degeneration of the human race, you make it your personal cruisdade to stem this by supplementing Testo and make the World a better place?

Wow, that is a new apology that I haven't heard yet.

"The pituitary gland expands, which is worrisome, unless there is more space in the brain to do so without affecting vision."

Wow, you guys totally missed the merits of this conversation and resorted to name calling and flame throwing. For the record, I am not taking testosterone, not dispensing testosterone, not advocating testosterone. I'm not even saying the word anymore. Ignorance won. Congrats

Hello Monty and All,

"Clomiphene is a selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) commonly used in female fertility brand name prescription medications, such as Clomid. In women, clomiphene acts on the pituitary gland to stimulate the release of specific hormones responsible for ovulation."

"In men, clomiphene can alter testosterone levels by interfering with the negative feedback loop of the hypothalamic–pituitary–gonadal axis."

"The researchers wondered whether these factors are contributing to the generational decline. “We know that people in all age groups are heavier today than they used to be. Similarly, they’re taking a lot more medication, which has an influence on endocrine health, and they are smoking a lot less, which is good. Smoking is associated with higher testosterone levels; if you stop smoking that can bring levels down,” Travison said."

I quoted the above in a previous message.

I think that statement above about smoking increasing Testosterone is probably wrong ....... This study below found little difference in Testosterone levels ... smokers vs. non smokers.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19473474


Excerpt:


MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:
"The influence of smoking on levels of TT, FT, and BT.
RESULTS:
No significant difference was observed in the mean values of TT (P = 0.580), FT (P = 0.869), BT (P = 0.933), SHBG (P = 0.279), LH (P = 0.573), and FSH (P = 0.693) in the different levels of pack-years when compared to nonsmokers. Moreover, after multivariate logistic regression, no association between increased pack-years of smoking and increased odds ratio for occurrence of low hormones and SHBG levels was observed.
CONCLUSION:
In this study, smokers and nonsmokers had similar mean values of androgens, gonadotropins and SHBG. However, it is necessary to standardize pack-years of smoking in order to elucidate the influence of cigarette smoking on sex hormone levels, as well as to minimize differences among studies and to confirm our results." [emphasis added]
================================
So now I am thinking about smoking and nicotine ......

With that in mind it is important to note that a percentage of females/males 15%/20% smoking ..... is still with us and the physical effects of smoking are not good .... but it appears currently tobacco products are legal for WADA .

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...articles/PMC3752189/

but not legal for NCAA:

"Tobacco: Tobacco contains nicotine, a stimulant, and a multitude of damaging chemicals. Smoking damages lung tissue and reduces lung capacity. Spit tobacco use contributes to inflammation of soft tissue in the mouth and raises the risk of oral cancer. Tobacco use in all forms is prohibited during practice and competition by student athletes and game personnel, and may result in ejection from the game."

Smoking used to be ubiquitous .... not now, at least in California, it is so rare to see a cyclist with a cigarette ... it rates a second take .... and you think ... did I really see that?





Back to Clomiphene and ovulation and smoking ......

In the days of the silver screen, there was little sex shown, but lots of inference, and the post coital smoke scene was the code that spoke to what had just happened .... off screen.


https://mic.com/...-nicotine#.vszXC6BFd



"He first made the association after seeing it in the movies.

If that strikes you as archaic, it shouldn't. In 1988, Philip Morris USA, one-third of the Big Tobacco triumvirate, asked more than 400,000 smokers about their smoking habits, and found that more than half of respondents regularly lit up after sex."

Nearly three decades later, the practice is not only very much alive, but has evolved with trends."

---

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster

Well, smokers are also less likely to get Parkinson's Disease.

For what it is worth, similar benefits have been claimed for Dark Chocolate and Red Wine.

For me convincing enough to stick with natural substances....

Which brings me to:
"To stay this slim, do you use the finger or do you take pills?"

Here is my problem with the idea of legitimate health concerns and age-appropriate levels. Unless you have been testing the entire population at nice five or ten year intervals, we don’t really know what is appropriate. I have thought about this a few times as I get older and my wife has teased me about “going to see a doctor.” So let us consider one hypothetical situation:
Me and my buddy have been racing each other in duathlon (yeah, I know, who does that anymore?) for fifteen years. For the most part, when we are both fit, I win about 80 percent of the time. Then age 40 rolls around and things start changing. We both are training the same as we used to—well, maybe a little less, we are old after all—and now he starts beating me. Now he is winning 80 percent of the time. That rankles, of course, so I go to the doctor and he tells me, “Yeah, your testosterone is a little low.” He prescribes me something and in a reasonable amount of time I am feeling better and back to beating my buddy, as it should be. Except, it really is not as it should be. I had the good fortune in my prime of having the genetics to be faster than my friend, but he had the good fortune to be hit much less by the aging problem and so he slowed down a lot less and now he is faster than me. That is just the genetic breaks, but I am sure there are hundreds of men out there with money to burn telling themselves they are just making things right again, as they should be.


When I first saw the poster-child doctor for the ‘anti-aging’ movement on TV, I was just dying. He was a fat 50 something guy who started working out, “supplementing”, and oddly, going to the tanning booth. The others were like, “Man you look great for 72!” Of course, he did, he was a doctor prescribing himself the good stuff to get him back to his age 45 levels. Could a 72 year old get there on his own? Probably not. He was so vain and puffed up about himself his very positive message about changing your lifestyle was mostly lost, at least to me.



Which is why I would never agree with anyone who is supplementing back to “age appropriate levels.” Maybe your age appropriate level just does not cut it anymore and it is time for someone else to shine.
Chad

I would tend to agree. As soon as you open the door, it's a Pandora's box. "Leveling the playing field" is a red herring. I think most who use that phrase or concept are being utterly disingenuous.

That said I have no problem with people arguing that masters should be able to compete while taking various "lifestyle enhancement" drugs. As long as they're transparently lobbying for change, and not racing while doping. Anyone "lobbying-for-change-through-cheating-because-they-know-they're-right" is a POS.

I agree with your post. My other issue is that let's suppose I am a guy who is below my age appropriate T level, but I am training like a fiend, and I have other genetic benefits that allow me to beat my competitors who are also below their age appropriate T level (assuming such a thing even exists).

So then all my competitors go on T to get their levels up to age appropriate levels (not even back to their 20 year old level), and now they start beating me.

If I want to beat them, I am now basically forced to take T to keep up. But maybe I don't want to take it. Maybe I think it is bad for me - who knows. It basically means there is a good chance a bunch of athletes that were doing just fine on their own, are suddenly stuck doing T just to keep up.

I also wonder why we don't apply this to other things - like height in basketball. If I am below the average height of the NBA, can I buy some really tall shoes to get me to the league average and join the league?

simple question, how old are you and what is your competitive level?

---

Mike Plumb, TriPower MultiSports
Professional Running, Cycling and Multisport Coaching, F.I.S.T. Certified
http://www.tripower.org

I realise your scenario is hypothetical, but in my experience changes in the pecking order of who's fastest as we get older are entirely explained by lifestyle and training approach, not different rates of aging. I think a lot of stuff you can get away with in your 20s if you have enough talent - poor nutrition, not enough sleep, booze, too much intensity work - catches up with you increasingly through your 30s, 40s and especially 50s. Out of hundreds of long-term friends, training partners and club mates going back nearly 3 decades I honestly can't think of anybody who has slowed down at a noticeably higher rate than their peers without there being associated lifestyle, training or injury factors that explain the drop in speed. Or conversely any increases in speed can be explained by people cleaning up their lifestyle or training harder/smarter.

Also, just to echo a comment earlier in the thread, if some of the anti-aging treatments were shown to genuinely slow down physical decline of the body with no adverse side effects, then screw competitive sport, I'd be taking them in a flash and quitting racing if need be. Health trumps hobbies for sure (though I'd still train so not sure where I'd draw the line on "competitive" sport - is it still OK to try and set PBs on local hill climbs on Strava, or to participate in the sprints on club rides???). Problem is that as far as I can tell every single treatment comes with possible negative side effects. So they're not really anti-aging in the truest sense of the word, they're maintaining an outwardly younger appearance/performance, while putting unseen additional strain on your body which could actually shorten your lifespan.

I 100% agree with not being allowed to use it for the simple fact that it is banned.

But all the arguing about how it is terrible for you, I don't think there is proof of that. For example, from Mayo:

"However, more recent studies show no increase in cardiovascular disease in men taking testosterone therapy. Some research even shows a lower risk of death in men receiving testosterone therapy compared with those not receiving therapy. A large 2016 study following more than 1,000 men for three years found that testosterone therapy did not increase the risk of cardiovascular events."

I have also yet to see a wild outbreak of heart disease and cancer in pro cycling or any other pro sport for that matter, where this and other drugs are obviously rampant.

Just to be clear, so Dessert doesn't throw a fit, I am 100% against the use of any substance that is banned if you choose to compete. Simple. And totally in favour of harsh penalty for those caught. But drop the holier than thou attitude regarding the choices other (non-competitive) people make.

Playing a little bit of Devil's Advocate, but what about other drugs that make people feel like a normal person? Anyone who has ever been legitimately clinically depressed, they know what I'm talking about. You don't have the energy to train, not because your body is physically unable, because the neural receptors in your brain have gone sideways and are not receiving/producing the transmitters you need to in a way that allows you to even function in the world, let alone train.

In cases like that, medication can allow you to recover from and correct abnormal brain function. Some people have to take these medications for a little while to reset their brain, and then they're able to go off and resume normal life, but without it they literally are unable to function at all.

Is that performance-enhancing?

I think the argument that certain drugs allow people to function as they should normally be able to is a pretty strong one, when it's medically necessary being the huge caveat.

That said, I think the testosterone "Clinic" explosion in recent years is not fueled by people who medically need it any more than the Obesity epidemic is a result of people with physiological issues that prevent them from losing weight.

Hello cartsman and All,

The following information generally does not consider the fact that the drugs being discussed are illegal for venues that subscribe to the rules promulgated by WADA and USADA and other organizations.

It appears that it is too early to say what effect various drugs (such as testosterone, growth hormone, and EPO) will have on longevity and we will need to wait until the human 'early adopters' get sick, die, or survive ...... or perhaps get some clues from animal studies.


I find very little information about effects of EPO on longevity .... searching various PubMed articles.


Regarding EPO with renal and AIDS patients ...

"The overall-incidence of side effects occurring in either group of these two studies was of approximately 83% and 95%, respectively. In contrast to these results the data published for the dose finding/treatment studies is approximately 30% for development of arterial hypertension, approximately 5% for occurrence of cerebral convulsion/hypertensive encephalopathy, approximately 10% for thrombo-embolic complications/clotting of vascular access, approximately 50% for development of iron deficiency, and approximately 10% for symptoms summarized as influenza-like syndrome."

And a novel use for EPO ....

"Globally, greater than 30 million individuals are afflicted with disorders of the nervous system accompanied by tens of thousands of new cases annually with limited, if any, treatment options. Erythropoietin (EPO) offers an exciting and novel therapeutic strategy to address both acute and chronic neurodegenerative disorders." (Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and other nervous system diseases.)


Human Growth Hormone:


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...articles/PMC2682398/


"Although advanced age or symptoms of aging are not among approved indications for growth hormone (GH) therapy, recombinant human GH (rhGH) and various GH-related products are aggressively promoted as anti-aging therapies. Well-controlled studies of the effects of rhGH treatment in endocrinologically normal elderly subjects report some improvements in body composition and a number of undesirable side effects in sharp contrast to major benefits of GH therapy in patients with GH deficiency.

Controversies surrounding the potential utility of GH in treatment of a geriatric patient are fueled by increasing evidence linking GH and cancer and by remarkably increased lifespan of GH-resistant and GH-deficient mice. Conservation of cellular signaling mechanisms that influence aging in organisms ranging from worms to mammals suggests that at least some of the results obtained in mutant mice are applicable to the human.


We suggest that the normal, physiological functions of GH in promoting growth, sexual maturation and fecundity involve significant costs in terms of aging and life expectancy. Natural decline in GH levels during aging likely contributes to concomitant alterations in body composition and vigor but also may be offering important protection from cancer and other age-associated diseases." [emphasis added]


The effects of testosterone has several studies published (but not regarding longevity)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...articles/PMC3897047/

Excerpt:

"Testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) is a widely used treatment for men with symptomatic hypogonadism. The benefits seen with TRT, such as increased libido and energy level, beneficial effects on bone density, strength and muscle as well as cardioprotective effects, have been well-documented. TRT is contraindicated in men with untreated prostate and breast cancer. Men on TRT should be monitored for side-effects such as polycythemia, peripheral edema, cardiac and hepatic dysfunction."


(Testosterone and other androgens have an erythropoietic stimulating effect that can cause polycythemia, which manifests as an increase in hemoglobin, hematocrit, or red blood cell count. The incidence of polycythemia secondary to testosterone use ranges from 2.5% to 40% depending on the testosterone dose and formulation and is less common with transdermal vs injectable formulations.[2[/url],3[/url],4[/url]] Definitions in men vary, but polycythemia generally occurs when hemoglobin is above 18.5 g/dL or hematocrit is above 52%.

Polycythemia is sometimes called erythrocytosis, but the terms are not synonymous because polycythemia refers to any increase in red blood cells, whereas erythrocytosis only refers to a documented increase of red cell mass. The increase in hemoglobin and hematocrit secondary to testosterone use is usually accompanied by an increase in the red blood cell count, which can lead to an increase in blood viscosity. This increase in blood viscosity can reduce cerebral blood flow which could theoretically be a risk factor for thrombosis and stroke.[3[/url]]) [emphasis added]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...articles/PMC4650486/

Excerpt:


"For several decades any diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) has been considered an absolute contraindication to the use of testosterone (T) therapy in men. Yet this prohibition against T therapy has undergone recent re-examination with refinement of our understanding of the biology of androgens and PCa, and increased appreciation of the benefits of T therapy. A reassuringly low rate of negative outcomes has been reported with T therapy after radical prostatectomy (RP), radiation treatments, and in men on active surveillance. "

https://breakingmuscle.com/...iving-everybody-else

https://breakingmuscle.com/...-our-double-standard

Excerpts:

"So when you look at a sport like cycling, which comes complete with crashes at high speeds wearing nothing other than Lycra and a history of prolific drug use, it’s hard to believe that top cyclists actually outlive their countrymen by an average of five years.

This is the conclusion researchers came to and shared in a recent study published in the European Heart Journal. What makes this study even more extraordinary is that the study was not just an examination of elite cyclists, but Tour de France cyclists who participated in the event during the years of 1947 to 2012.

"I would also point out that the study on the Tour cyclists doesn’t really take into account riders who went through the EPO and growth hormone era. These cyclists were included in the test, but most are not yet at an age where their previous lifestyle has come back to bite them. In the generation of older cyclists, such as those who raced during the steroid and amphetamine era, there have been suicides linked to depression. The most notable of these was Marco Pantani, himself a former Tour de France winner. I’d suggest that the statistics might need to be revisited in a decade’s time when we can get a better look at the longer-term results.


Having said that, endurance athletes run a higher risk of having enlarged chambers of the heart, which can in turn lead to atrial fibrillation. In fact, I can name three high-level Australian triathletes (Greg Welch, Brad Bevan, and Emma Carney) who all suffered from this and had to retire because of it. So it’s not like elite endurance racers are immune to heart problems, just that they avoid the problems associated with a sedentary lifestyle.

The overall message of this new study is very positive, though. Endurance activity, even extreme activity such as the Tour, is not bad for you. In fact, it may help you live longer than those who don’t engage in regular aerobic activity."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19574095

"It appears that elite endurance (aerobic) athletes and mixed-sports (aerobic and anaerobic) athletes survive longer than the general population, as indicated by lower mortality and higher longevity. Lower cardiovascular disease mortality is likely the primary reason for their better survival rates. On the other hand, there are inconsistent results among studies of power (anaerobic) athletes. When elite athletes engaging in various sports are analysed together, their mortality is lower than that of the general population. In conclusion, long-term vigorous exercise training is associated with increased survival rates of specific groups of athletes." [emphasis added]

---

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster

I think the argument is that if you do not have an issue, an anti-depresent will not help your performance. T on the other hand will help pretty much anyone. So no real argument to ban anti-depresents because they are not going to make anyone perform better, unless they have an issue.

Good point with boosting your brain activity....giving the popularity of Alderall et al. particularly in Tech circles.

I do not think improved brain activity can be directly linked to endurance exercise performance....which is mostly limited by cardiovascular system performance. Although there certainly are indirect benefits that are harder to quantify.

But you have to draw the line somewhere, and that is why brain-doping is so far not an issue for endurance sprots such as Triathlon, whereas it should be of center concern for other sports (sports shooting etc.).


for other

If health is the aim, then people could consider castration rather than testosterone supplementation:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/...s-men_n_1910455.html

...good point. Not sure I would bet my balls on some historic eunuch life expectancy data though. Now the question comes to my mind if eunuchs could adopt a more aero position, that would of course change things. As here on Slowtwitch I have read many times: aero trumps everything ;-)

Pretty obvious that...

1.) Unapproved TRT is cheating.
2.) Extra T does improve training, recovery, and race performance.
3.) The "there's no proof that TRT up to a level lower than another guy's T ever helped anyone beat the other guy" argument is stupid.

On the other hand...

4.) TRT prescribed my a knowlegable doctor doesn't seem to be very dangerous.
5.) There are many people that swear by TRT's capacity to improve quality of life.

The underlying issue here is that triathlon simply doesn't want TRT to become table stakes for successfully competing in triathlon at the age group podium level. TRT is outlawed for that reason alone. Yes, this is a case of the "convenient for triathlon" tail wagging the "overall quality of life" dog, but that's the way it is right now.

TRT gives you a choice with respect to triathlon: get the TUE or don't race.
Hmmm... Maybe triathlons should have a division for juicers?

Well, there's only so much real estate on this planet, so I guess this self-inflicted reduction is not necessarily a bad thing. Nature's a bitch init.

---

29 years and counting

I'm aware of that, but I was using it as an analogy. There are *some* people out there with depressed levels of testosterone due to medical issues, issues that may prevent them from being able to train or perform the water people with normal levels do. It does beg the question of if they deserve to be able to supplement it to get up to normal levels.

That said, I believe the people with true medical issues out there are a tiny fraction of the people who are actually taking testosterone.

I guess my question would be more accurately phrased as: "Is there a true medical condition where it should be allowed?"

In genuine medical circumstances, why not. But if you have a genuine medical need, then you probably shouldn't be racing triathlons.

---

29 years and counting

If your T levels are low due to hard training, I suggest 4-6 weeks of rest will bring your T levels up nicely.

It does beg the question of if they deserve to be able to supplement it to get up to normal levels. //

These don't exist so this argument is pointless..

I'm not totally against the idea of TUEs for things like T. Say some soldier gets his balls blown completely off. And comes back and wants to enter a sprint tri or parking lot crit while on TRT. I'd sign that THE. I'm not going to be butthurt if he beats me. What am I going to say? "Thanks for serving, but sorry, you're upsetting the purity of this 40-45 age category."

But my idea of where to draw the line is about 12 light years from Ralph20's line.

I’d make the ineligible for awards... Yeah that sucks, but you’re taking a supplement with performance enhancing effects.

This is exactly the sort of situation where a TUE for T will be issued. If you lose them, or were somehow never born with them (or they were too underdeveloped or something) then yes you can get a TUE for T. There is no other situation, though, where you can get it.

This guy is local to me, and although I never raced against him since he's in the geezer categories, there's obviously been a lot of discussions on the local message boards about this. Consensus that came out of it was that yes, #1 definitely happened where he had a medical condition that F'ed him up, and for which his doc prescribed some meds that went against USADA. With the combination of the meds and recovering he just didn't race for the first half of the year, and decided to wait long enough for all drugs to clear his system as opposed to dealing with the paperwork to get a TUE (which he may or may not have gotten, no idea how that works). Obviously while he and his doc thought the drugs would have cleared by the time he raced track nats, they obviously didn't. The track wrinkle thing is interesting as he hadn't been a track guy previously, but supposedly started exploring it more this year as it better suited his pack-sprinter(ex-track runner) physiology and aptitudes.

Again, this is what has been going around here, I don't really believe it personally (nothing with this guy personally, just geezer doping skepticism), but thought I'ld share some light. A lot of people here in the race scene who have raced against him regularly just can't see him as the intentional doper type. Who knows....

and if people are really hungry for a 'twitch hunt, I can copy/paste the pages and pages worth of FB comments here. Is there a post size limit on ST?

"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."


Sounds like someone's been drinking good, old-fashioned Kool-Aid.

If you keep stopping by the barber, sooner or later you're gonna get a haircut.

Keep talking to "anti-aging" docs and sooner or later you're gonna start believing that tripe.

Here are his race results: https://www.usacycling.org/...compid=john+schiefer
He raced in every month this year except April (up to his positive test in July). There may be more to this story, but this is not it.

In other words...

Bring what ya got, eh, Chad?

Seems a simple enough concept. Or maybe I'm just not vain enough to buy the argument that life might deal me an unfair hand that requires outside assistance.

Hello Steve Irwin and All,

Along with WADA, USADA, NCAA, and other organizations having rules prohibiting performance enhancing drugs I think the possible adverse long term health problems of many performance enhancing drugs argues against their use in healthy athletes ..... and TUE's address drug use by unhealthy athletes.

Your mention of castration (not likely to enhance performance) for better health and longer life is certainly thinking out of the box ...... (Lance Armstrong was halfway there) ....

perhaps a Caloric Restriction diet (lighter weight is performance enhancing) is the road to take ….. rather than castration for life extension … and caloric restriction may be the primary agent for the better cardiovascular health of professional cyclists and their approximately 5 year longer life than the general male population in this study:

(Time will tell if the caloric restriction effect on professional cyclists will mitigate or erase possible adverse effects from those cyclists that may have used performance enhancing drugs.)

https://academic.oup.com/...pants-in-the-Tour-de

It appears many professional cyclists are experts at caloric restriction.



"Here's a rough rule of thumb that many experts generally agree on now: Eat 15 percent less starting at age 25 and you might add 4.5 years to your life, says Eric Ravussin, who studies human health and performance at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Louisiana.
One important caveat: Ravussin's estimate is based mostly on studies of other animals and only preliminary research in humans. But the work by Weiss and others is unlocking the mysteries of aging and suggesting the animal studies apply to humans."
"There is absolutely no reason to think it won't work," Ravussin told LiveScience.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23924667

Calorie Restriction (CR) without malnutrition slows aging and increases average and maximal lifespan in simple model organisms and rodents. In rhesus monkeys long-term CR reduces the incidence of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer, and protects against age-associated sarcopenia and neurodegeneration.

"Whether or not CR will extend lifespan in humans is not yet known, but accumulating data indicate that moderate CR with adequate nutrition has a powerful protective effect against obesity, type 2 diabetes, inflammation, hypertension, cardiovascular disease and reduces metabolic risk factors associated with cancer. Moreover, CR in human beings improves markers of cardiovascular aging, and rejuvenates the skeletal muscle transcriptional profile. More studies are needed to understand the interactions between CR, diet composition, exercise, and other environmental and psychological factors on metabolic and molecular pathways that regulate health and longevity."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19262201

"There are currently no interventions or gene manipulations that can prevent, stop or reverse the aging process. However, there are a number of interventions that can slow down aging and prolong maximal lifespan up to 60% in experimental animals. Long-term calorie restriction without malnutrition and reduced function mutations in the insulin/IGF-1 signaling pathway are the most robust interventions known to increase maximal lifespan and healthspan in rodents. Although it is currently not known if long-term calorie restriction with adequate nutrition extends maximal lifespan in humans, we do know that long-term calorie restriction without malnutrition results in some of the same metabolic and hormonal adaptations related to longevity in calorie restriction rodents. Moreover, calorie restriction with adequate nutrition protects against obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension and atherosclerosis, which are leading causes of morbidity, disability and mortality. " [emphasis added]

---

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster

I have four kids. If I were training like I could train (in an age appropriate range for men without kids) I would be a much stronger swimmer, biker, runner, climber, etc. etc. Therefore, I am going to supplement myself with drugs to bring my physiology to the point it would be without those kids. Why should I suffer the consequences of my station in life...Im just getting back to where I should be...Right?

Oh, and about the CRISPR thing, you are ignorant or stupid if you believe this. Please do not take my word for it...read about the off site insertions from this technique in the peer review scientific literature. In addition to being a Dad, Im also molecular biologist who actually knows about this stuff.

Stephen Judice

---

I believe my local reality has been violated.
____________________________________________
Happiness = Results / (Expectations)^2

There is no causal relationship as you seem to be implying...although there are suggestions in the literature that it is linked to increased levels of obesity...triathletes would be a subpopulation which is divergent from the obese population (at least those who would be concerned with peak performance), and leads you back to the statement which you are trying to refute.


What is the accepted level? What is age appropriate levels? Where is the literature that says that any one individual should be at some specific measurement? One could also ask what are you using to measure that level, and who is doing the measuring; as these can greatly affect the answer you get. To address your point in red above, there is no way to prove a null hypothesis; so claiming that as evidence of your hypothesis is not the correct statement to be making if you are trying to make a believable argument.


Stephen J

---

I believe my local reality has been violated.
____________________________________________
Happiness = Results / (Expectations)^2

And here is some data from that study.... Interesting how they got those 'trends' isn't it? THIS IS WHY YOU HAVE TO READ THE PEER REVIEW ARTICLE AND NOT JUST A SUMMARY!!!! Take a look at their SD and CVs...They are all in the original paper.

---

I believe my local reality has been violated.
____________________________________________
Happiness = Results / (Expectations)^2

But you are not being rational, you are not expressing scientific viewpoints, and not pointing out facts. I think that is the issue that I have problems with.

Stephen J

---

I believe my local reality has been violated.
____________________________________________
Happiness = Results / (Expectations)^2

Hello stephenj and All,


The following information generally does not consider the fact that the drugs being discussed are illegal for venues that subscribe to the rules promulgated by WADA and USADA and other organizations.

It appears that it is too early to say what effect various drugs (such as testosterone, growth hormone, and EPO) will have on longevity and we will need to wait until the human 'early adopters' get sick, die, or survive ...... or perhaps get some clues from animal studies.

My personal view is that because of the dollar value of the global testosterone market ($3.4 billion in 2022) we do have to be wary of the possibility of skewed testosterone studies funded to support greater sales of testosterone.

=========================================

It appears that you are disagreeing with the data reduction in the authors study because of their Standard Deviation and Coefficient of Variance values.

stephenj stated: "In addition to being a Dad, Im also molecular biologist who actually knows about this stuff."

With that in mind I appreciate your thoughtful criticism of the study I posted ...... but will leave the defense of the study to the authors.

Could you post some studies contradicting the referenced study .... that is .... studies showing that men's testosterone is not declining historically?

It appears there is a relationship between sperm count and testosterone. Is it reasonable to associate sperm count lowering historically with testosterone levels lowering historically?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26789272

Excerpts:

"There was a significant decline in sperm concentration (-3.55, 95% CI -4.87, -2.23; p < 0.001), total motility (-1.23, 95% CI -1.65, -0.82; p < 0.001), total count (-10.75, 95% CI -15.95, -5.54; p < 0.001) and total motile count (-9.43, 95% CI -13.14, -5.73; p < 0.001). "

"This report demonstrates a decline in semen quality among young adult men in the Boston area who were attending or completed a college education during the past 10 years, and requires further study." [emphasis added]

stephenj wrote in part:

"And here is some data from that study.... Interesting how they got those 'trends' isn't it? THIS IS WHY YOU HAVE TO READ THE PEER REVIEW ARTICLE AND NOT JUST A SUMMARY!!!! Take a look at their SD and CVs...They are all in the original paper. "



More in line with your comments ..... this study below proposes a thoughtful approach to prescribing Testosterone to older men ....

(and you are welcome to read the all of the citations and other articles that pertain to this one too)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...articles/PMC4707424/


Excerpts:


"Treatment for hypogonadism is on the rise, particularly in the aging population. Yet treatment in this population represents a unique challenge to clinicians. The physiology of normal aging is complex and often shares the same, often vague, symptoms of hypogonadism. In older men, a highly prevalent burden of comorbid medical conditions and polypharmacy complicates the differentiation of signs and symptoms of hypogonadism from those of normal aging, yet this differentiation is essential to the diagnosis of hypogonadism. Even in older patients with unequivocally symptomatic hypogonadism, the clinician must navigate the potential benefits and risks of treatment that are not clearly defined in older men.

More recently, a greater awareness of the potential risks associated with treatment in older men, particularly in regard to cardiovascular risk and mortality, have been appreciated with recent changes in the US Food and Drug Administration recommendations for use of testosterone in aging men."

"Testosterone has become one of the most widely prescribed medications in the USA, increasing five-fold according to 2011 data. This increase has resulted in the dramatic growth of the testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) sector of the pharmaceutical industry from US$18 million in the 1980s to US$1.6 billion in 2011 [Handelsman, 2013]. The reason is multifactorial, but can partly be attributed to the continued growth of the population over 65 years of age and a greater awareness of medical comorbidities more prevalent with age and associated with low testosterone, such as metabolic syndrome (MetS) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) [Traish et al. 2009a, 2009b]."

"The authors encourage clinicians to only offer TRT to men diagnosed with symptomatic hypogonadism based upon a careful history demonstrating clear symptoms along with convincing laboratory data, and only after a thorough discussion of the uncertain benefits and possible risks of treatment. Informing patients of the recent FDA statement regarding TRT in aging men is of utmost importance in the current healthcare climate, particularly because testosterone use for this population may now be considered ‘off-label’.


With these caveats, the authors also want to reiterate the vast literature of known and proven benefits of testosterone normalization, which must also be carefully considered during the decision of whether or not to offer treatment. The best approach to TRT for the population of older hypogonadal men is probably one of full disclosure and shared decision-making." [emphasis added]

Go to:
Footnotes

Funding: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Conflict of interest statement: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

---

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster

so, the guy who takes supplemental T to get to within the "normal" range for men his age is doping ? any benefits derived from this is considered (positively) impacting race performance ? i suppose, verbatim, that might be correct. but, let;'s be honest. is this guy gaining performance benefits over and above a guy with normally-occurring T ? me, in my layman's view, would say no. i'm a 57-year old BOP-er, and i take T to get me up to within "normal" range. believe me, i don't see this is as gaining any type of competitive advantage in racing. jack the T up to above "normal" levels, and then maybe you have a point. you seem to make the simple equation of " take T, then you're doping and getting an advantage". that's a bit intellectually dishonest to make that kind of generalization.

What a giant crock of bullshit

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

 i don't see this is as gaining any type of competitive advantage in racing. jack the T up to above "normal" levels,//

So you are saying that you are not any faster taking T from your former self who was not taking it?? Because that is the only question that needs to be answered, you bringing in all this not beating the other guy or being on a level playing field, or I'm just normal now is all nonsense in this argument. Are "YOU" personably faster? Of course the answer is yes, otherwise why would you take it? You are doping, don't race. Do everything else in life, feel better, have better workouts, have better sex, sleep better, recover better, but JUST DONT RACE others that are not doping like you are...


And there is no such thing as a normal level, red herring..

Yes you are a doper. Yes, you should be banned from competing in all orgainzed sport. You have no place among honest athletes. The massive errors in your logic have been pointed out ad nauseum on this thread and others.

Edit - and this is not just my opinion. This is what WADA, USADA, and all the other national anti-doping federations say.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

You know who's "intellectually dishonest" in this conversation? You!

Sport has deemed Testosterone as a performance enhancing substance. Period.
You, in your infinite wisdom, have decided that it doesn't apply to YOU!

You don't think that's intellectually dishonest?

Wake up and smell the coffee.

---

"Good genes are not a requirement, just the obsession to beat ones brains out daily"...the Griz

"so, the guy who takes supplemental T to get to within the "normal" range for men his age is doping ? any benefits derived from this is considered (positively) impacting race performance ? i suppose, verbatim, that might be correct. but, let;'s be honest. is this guy gaining performance benefits over and above a guy with normally-occurring T ? me, in my layman's view, would say no. i'm a 57-year old BOP-er, and i take T to get me up to within "normal" range. believe me, i don't see this is as gaining any type of competitive advantage in racing. jack the T up to above "normal" levels, and then maybe you have a point. you seem to make the simple equation of " take T, then you're doping and getting an advantage". that's a bit intellectually dishonest to make that kind of generalization."

Your logic is a perversion of "normal", in my view. Unless you have a specific medical condition (cancer, etc.) that reduced your ability to produce your own natural level of testosterone, you are creating an artificial condition of your body's natural state. Frankly, the studies I have been exposed to have not substantiated "normal" among the greater population to the degree that satisfies the arguments for allowing it in sports. Here's an example abstract:

"The diagnosis of hypogonadism in human males includes identification of low serum testosterone levels, and hence there is an underlying assumption that normal ranges of testosterone for the healthy population are known for all ages. However, to our knowledge, no such reference model exists in the literature, and hence the availability of an applicable biochemical reference range would be helpful for the clinical assessment of hypogonadal men. In this study, using model selection and validation analysis of data identified and extracted from thirteen studies, we derive and validate a normative model of total testosterone across the lifespan in healthy men. We show that total testosterone peaks [mean (2.5–97.5 percentile)] at 15.4 (7.2–31.1) nmol/L at an average age of 19 years, and falls in the average case [mean (2.5–97.5 percentile)] to 13.0 (6.6–25.3) nmol/L by age 40 years, but we find no evidence for a further fall in mean total testosterone with increasing age through to old age. However we do show that there is an increased variation in total testosterone levels with advancing age after age 40 years."

If you feel the need to supplement, that's an issue with you and your doctor, and I don't have any issues with the basic act. I'm pretty laissez-faire about such things people do in private life. I'll ride bikes with you, run the woods and roads with you, swim with you....whatever. It's not a moral judgement of supplemental T itself.

I'm just damn sure going to continue to say I don't want you or others toeing the line against me at sanctioned races. THAT is a moral and ethical judgement I make regarding what is fair in racing.

so, it seems we cannot have a polite difference of opinion. since you choose to make this a personal venomous spew, i'll simply add that you are a narrow-minded moron with no capacity to have an intellectual sharing of thoughts. go find your liberal safe space and pet a puppy or play with some crayons or some damn thing.

LLLLOOOOOLLLL.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

i re-read my post. i don't see anything that resembles a claim that using T (as a banned PERFORMANCE ENHANCING substance) doesn't apply to me.

in reality, i'm a BOPer. there is no amount of PED of any type that can change that fact. do you think i give a shit if you or anyone else thinks i'm a doper ? trust me, i don't. get a life.

Hi Neal,
Unfortunately, what you ask for is proof of a null hypothesis. This is proving that something does not exist which is impossible if it were true. The issue that I have is the use of data sets to drive forward an agenda which the data does not support. Could there be an environmental trigger to cause testosterone to decrease in a population? Maybe; but using a dataset like that to suggest that it is OK to supplement with testosterone so that some guy can play the game we like to play a little bit better than someone else when that has already been called out as against the rules...Well, that just seems stupid; and I was pointing that out in my poorly worded way.

Regarding the other study which you attached a link to...I took a quick look, and it suffers from some additional issues. In the final paragraph of the paper (full text of the paper) the author actually goes over the problems with the study...and there are some big controls which were not in place. One of the huge problems with human studies are that humans are very hard to control (experimentally or otherwise), and their longevity lends itself to additional problems if you are doing longitudinal studies. And then you have to add in to that the sample collection differences, sample preparation differences, operator differences/error, and unfortunately the list goes on. I would guess this is why you so often hear that one thing is good for you, and then a few weeks/years/decades later, you hear something that directly contradicts that. So, with that said, when you are dealing with differences which are as small as those described in the article, something as mundane as tight pants will make a difference in sperm motility (heat is the cause), and something as stupid as questions not answered properly in a survey (or not included in an earlier survey) which goes along with the collected data will throw off the numbers...So I don't think that one could use this study as a definitive link between decreased sperm counts/motility with decreasing testosterone...but it might just get the author another grant to study this question (please don't think that academia is altruistic...those gals/guys have gotta put food on the table too).
This reminds me of a case in which I had to travel across to Europe to diagnose a problem with a clinical diagnostic which I developed and was being manufactured overseas. It took walking into the room and looking at their setup for 5 seconds to determine the problem...it was too close to a window which led to thermal gain in the instrumentation which prevented deposition of the proper quantity of a compound which needed to be extremely precise to give correct results (language barrier was a major contributing factor in this). The point Im making (hopefully not too poorly) is that little things can affect measurements in a big way sometimes, and that one needs to look carefully at not just the data, but also at the way the data was generated to determine the robustness of conclusions which may be drawn.

Thinking is important, and learning how to determine what is important is important. I appreciate your contributions on this forum, and hope that I can give something useful every now and again.

Stephen J

---

I believe my local reality has been violated.
____________________________________________
Happiness = Results / (Expectations)^2

It sounds like you're aware that Testosterone is a banned substance.

You've used the term "BOP", meaning you compete and don't place well in races

If you are competing and taking Testosterone, you don't think that's intellectually dishonest?

---

"Good genes are not a requirement, just the obsession to beat ones brains out daily"...the Griz

Haha, I was actually going to slightly defend abablduya, and then he goes on this rant!

I will say this though. I think it's clear abablduya1 is a "cheater" in the literal sense. Same with amateur golfers who take mulligans on the first tee box, or take 4 foot "gimmes", etc. I personally couldn't care less if a middle aged BOP or MOP dude races occasionally on T therapy though. T therapy is cheating, period, but there's a huge difference between using it to beat serious competitors who have invested lifetimes of 20 hour training weeks, and using it to mainly just improve your quality of life and sometimes beat a few competitors who occasionally go for a weekly jog or bike ride and entered a sprint triathlon for fun.

I've made this point before but I'll make it again. I can't remember within 50 places where I finished in the 1 Ironman I've ran. I have a vague sense of where I was in percentile terms within my age group, but couldn't give 2 hoots if 3 guys on T therapy beat me. Now,...if I had trained like some of you guys train and someone on T beat out of a Kona spot, THAT would be a bummer

Yup, he definitely cheats at golf too.

Ha!

But, ANYONE doing "T" therapy is a liar if he does any USAT events since you agree to USAT rules when you sign up. They are quite clear about doping.

Medication is between you and your doctor, but when you sign on the dotted line for these races and agree to race according to the rules, and knowingly just ignore the parts you disagree with, it shows a shocking lack of integrity.

It is obvious what the word of anyone who does that is worth - nothing.

Awesome! I nominate this division to be called the Gilderoy Lockhart division. Mirrors provided in transition.

So he's a doper, AND a jerk. Really the complete package.

Why do people at the back of the pack think the rules don't apply to them? Seriously. I see this all the time, mostly with drafting. People think that because they're not winning awards it doesn't matter if they cheat.

If you're taking testosterone without a TUE, you ARE a doper. It's not a matter of opinion.

the difference between me and those of you who live and die by the "rules" is that i live in reality, and reality is not absolute, it's not pure black and white. i'm 57, i take medically prescribed T to improve the quality of my life. and yes, i am aware that it is on the WADA banned substance list. given that fact, i'll agree that my use would constitute "doping", in the literal sense. in reality, i participate (i prefer to use that word instead of compete, because it's more accurate) in triathlons as a recreational activity, an end goal to attach to training /preparation. again, i finish waaay back in the pack, so anything i do or anything i ingest will have zero effect on anyone who is truly "competing". so, i'm not about to go to the effort of obtaining a TUE because it will influence nothing; if my T gets me into a "normal range" as far as my health and quality of life is concerned, i'm not gaining any advantage on anyone. so, yeah, in this particular circumstance, i am ignoring the rule regarding this substance. if this suggests to some of you that i am a cheat, you go right ahead and believe that, i really don't give a shit. further, to suggest that i "cheat" across the board, such as drafting, because i am slow and in the back of the pack, is being intellectually dishonest.

it's clear that some of you are hard-line anti-doping, period, and that's fine. now, how many of you same folks stop at EVERY stop sign, or commit some other traffic violation on occasion ? if so, nice for you. if not, then accept being a "rule-following" hypocrite and keep your righteous indignation to yourself.

What's your real name and what races are you signed up for?

They aren't "rules". They're rules. No air-quotes. You aren't "cheating". You are cheating. again, no air-quotes.

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

Do the triathletes in your community know you dope?

If you truly don't give a shit...How about giving us your real name and the city you live in?

---

"Good genes are not a requirement, just the obsession to beat ones brains out daily"...the Griz

Sounds more like a distorted version of reality where you've convinced yourself you're not cheating because you don't think you're gaining an advantage. The rules are clear. You either get a TUE or you don't compete, or participate, or whatever you want to call it.



I didn't say you draft, just that I see a lot of people at the back of the pack justify breaking the rules (often drafting) because they're not competitive. The rules apply to everyone.

This is false. Stop saying it.

Just because you are "BOP" - however you define that - does not mean that it does not matter that you are finishing ahead of honest athletes in your age group. The entire point of entering a race is to compete, and people train and race - at least in part - to see where they stand. So you are taking something away from every person you finish in front of.

If you do not care about competing at all, just go out and do your own triathlon without an organized race.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

Yeah, because nobody's ever lost a nut or two testicular cancer, or injuries, or had hormone issues. *pink*

Must be nice to go through life with perfect health all the time

Nice False Equivalency attempt. 3/10.

"the difference between me and those of you who live and die by the "rules" is that i live in reality, and reality is not absolute, it's not pure black and white. i'm 57, i take medically prescribed T to improve the quality of my life. and yes, i am aware that it is on the WADA banned substance list. given that fact, i'll agree that my use would constitute "doping", in the literal sense"

Holy shit I don't know what to do with this statement!

I really don't give a shit if you agree or not. I don't give a shit if you care or not. If you take T and compete, without having a TUE, in a sanctioned race....you are doping and cheating. Any other interpretation is garbage. Any rationalization of that is garbage. Your last argument is a special kind of garbage, and a logical mismash of complete buffoonery.

At 57, you ought to know and act a hell of a lot better. Grow up and take responsibility for your actions.

Hello TriBriGuy and All,

"the difference between me and those of you who live and die by the "rules" is that i live in reality, and reality is not absolute, it's not pure black and white. i'm 57, i take medically prescribed T to improve the quality of my life. and yes, i am aware that it is on the WADA banned substance list. given that fact, i'll agree that my use would constitute "doping", in the literal sense"

I suggest ..... this is one of the reasons (among a spectrum of reasons) why we have rule enforcement ...... body fluid testing, biological passports, and so on.

---

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster

I think this is the very definition of "intellectually dishonest." My understanding of WADA may be incorrect, but I believe that T is banned because it IS a performance enhancer.

It is not banned if only used as "performance enhancing"...which is what this post suggests.

It is ALWAYS banned and anyone using it without a TUE is, by definition: cheating. If you're cool with that, fine...but at least acknowledge that it's cheating.

Am i the only one thinking this guy is a troll?

Am i the only one thinking this guy is a troll? //

The unfortunate reality that even if he is a troll, there are 100's out there that think exactly like him, and doing exactly what he is talking about. So troll or no troll(I actually believe him) the sad truth is that the anti aging doctors and drug companies have won a very big battle here in AG racing. Still remains to be seen if they win the war or not, another war on drugs???

Nope ..... me too ...... and doing an excellent job of raising the collective blood pressure I might add.

---

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster

Ditto.

Rules is rules, agreed to by the competitors. Follow them or get them changed.

My sentiments exactly. I hope everybody reads this twice.

Insulin is needed to live. I am diabetic and would die without it

Well you'd be a lot slower if you were dead, wouldn't you? Cheater! /pink

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

Wait wait wait. If I use insulin to literally stay alive, then I am doping? That’s the dumbest fucking thing I’ve ever heard. I must be taking my insulin wrong because other than keeping me alive I haven’t seen any performance enhancement from it. I suppose I would be slower if was dead.

On the off hand that I can help clarify:
1) There is no such thing as a "normal" testosterone level.
2) This means that each testosterone user gets to decide for themself what is "normal" for them.
3) It is not a "rule" if the participant gets to decide the parameters.

Let's illustrate..
"My testosterone was always much, much higher then everyone else's. I can't function with these low T problems that came on recently. "

Let's try the same argument with other rules.
"I find that I get less draft than others. So.... my doctor says I only have to give the rider in front of me 3 feet."

"I am naturally much heavier than everyone else. So...my doctor says running 10 miles for me, is like a marathon for a skinny fat athlete. So I should only have to run 10 miles."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...articles/PMC2500251/
Insulin effects on anthropometry, strength, and exercise performance
Glucose metabolism significantly increased following exogenous insulin in trained athletes. V̇O2 peak also significantly increased (Sato et al 1986).
Insulin’s anabolic actions are believed to improve performance, by increasing protein synthesis (Bonadonna et al 1993; Kimball et al 1994) and inhibiting protein catabolism and enhancing transport of selected amino acids in human skeletal muscle (Biolo et al 1995). Physiological hyperinsulinemia stimulates the activity of amino acid transport in human skeletal muscle, thereby stimulating protein synthesis (Bonadonna et al 1993).
Insulin-treated diabetics are known to have increased lean body mass versus controls (Sinha et al 1996). In addition to its role in regulating glucose metabolism, insulin increases amino acid transport into cells. Its stimulation of lipogenesis, and diminished lipolysis, is one of the reasons why bodybuilders and athletes will take rhGH in conjunction, to counteract this adverse effect, whilst optimizing protein synthesis (Sonksen 2001).
It is the inhibition of proteolysis that the athlete is interested in and the physiology of the diabetic patient has been extrapolated by the athlete to the sporting arena. Insulin administration is protein anabolic in the insulin-resistant state of chronic renal failure. It inhibits proteolysis and when administered with amino-acids, it increases net protein synthesis (Lim et al 2003).
The administration of exogenous insulin, establishes an in-vivo hyperinsulinemic clamp, increasing muscle glycogen before and in the recovery stages of strenuous exercise. This may increase power, strength, and stamina and assist in recovery from strenuous exercise.
Secondly, by inhibiting muscle protein breakdown and in conjunction with a high protein and high carbohydrate diet, insulin will have the action of increasing muscle bulk, potentially improving performance.

and yet every type 1 worldwide would gladly give up all these supposed benefits to have their pancreas working again, I assure you.

Plus that study talks about taking exogenous insulin - but it doesn't say for diabetics who don't produce any. In fact the study would probably be looking at people who produce their own insulin but are adding more insulin.

Trust me, there is no benefit when your out on a bike riding for miles in a race and your thinking what your blood sugar is, how much carbs you can take, how much to inject etc. You try sit up, stop pedalling and coast, whip out a needle and jab your thigh then put it all back away, just so you can eat something.

Or every run you have top take a running belt chocked full of some form of carbs...

Or mid swim in a 70.3, you have to tread water and take out a gel and down it in the middle of the ocean, and just hope that's enough to get you to T1

Yeh nah, ill pass on all these benfits it gives ;)

I don't doubt that for a second.



Actually, no.

"Insulin-treated diabetics are known to have increased lean body mass versus controls (Sinha et al 1996). "
"It is the inhibition of proteolysis that the athlete is interested in and the physiology of the diabetic patient has been extrapolated by the athlete to the sporting arena."




Listen, I completely understand all of that and I would never be so callous as to suggest that diabetics are dopers. My initial post in this thread was simply a question - is it possible to have an unemotional discussion on the subject so that folks that are admittedly ignorant on certain aspects of this debate (such as myself) can better understand the issues. I posed a hypothetical question. Unfortunately, the answer appears to be that no, it is not possible to have an unemotional discussion on this topic on this forum. No worries. I'm not intellectually curious enough on the topic to wade further in to this mess. Apologies to any I may have offended with my question.

but does an increase in lean body mass = an increase in performance for diabetics? generally as a type 1 diabetic, if you inject more insulin, it means you are eating more. if you don't eat more, or treat the hypo, you die. so it stands to reason that a type 1 diabetic will gain weight from injecting more insulin. whether that has performance enhancing benefits for a diabetic remains to be seen.

Those are great questions. I have no idea. I was simply looking for some thoughtful discussion. Having read through this whole thread, there have been some good points made, and there has been a lot of mud slung, so I'm just going to sit over there, on the sideline and watch this one. Again, apologies to any I may have offended with my question.

Hello seeyouincourt and All,

I understand that you need insulin to live ..... but if you do not have a TUE you may need to get one to be legal to race in venues subscribing to WADA, USADA, NCAA, and other rules .... and may want to check it out if you have not done so already.

I see on the WADA prohibited list INSULINS , AND INSULIN-MIMETICS under S4 Hormones and metabolic modulators.

Being prescribed Insulin it would seem you are eligible for a TUE with a note from your doctor.

And following the stream of consciousness .........Insulin is in the news as a rumor cause of death of Rich Piana:

https://www.menshealth.com/...-rumors-bodybuilding

Excerpt:

"The exact cause of his death has yet to be determined, but that certainly hasn’t stopped people from speculating about potential causes. First, there were reports that an overdose might have been to blame. Now, there are rumors that Piana might have died from using insulin, the hormone that regulates your body's blood sugar. People who inject insulin and who already produce the hormone naturally can see their blood glucose levels drop dangerously low—and if they don't ingest additional sugar to bring their blood glucose back up, the consequences can be fatal."




I think the writing is "Whatever It Takes"

---

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster

If anybody has the time to read:

Took just One attempt at Google:

https://www.usada.org/wp-content/uploads/TUE_guidance_diabetes_mellitus-insulin.pdf


Sucks that you have to declare, but at least it is clearcut that you are good to race with it.




Otherwise, guys in their late midlife crisis trying to fool themselves into beating ageing, the competition and the reaper by taking Testo, just make me sad.


It takes a man to age gracefully.

Re tues for insulin, I've been told by drug free sport nz that a tue can be applied for retrospectively if you're diabetic and only competing as an age grouper. I asked them this ahead of masters games in nz this year

What's so hard about saying "I used to enter triathlons but I stopped as I take a banned substance to improve my health, so now I just enjoy my recreational outdoor activities without the added thrill of competition?"

---

Eliot
blog thing - strava thing

exactly - also note that with increased lean body mass, also comes at the cost of lipogenesis and reduce lipolysis. In other words, sure you will add some muscle, but i lovely addition of body fat too.

What I am hearing there is that a non-diabetic person could dope with insulin. What I did not see among random cut-and-paste snippets of citations is the research that Type 1 diabetic people gain an athletic advantage from their insulin therapy.

From your one cite about diabetics:

“Insulin is used to control blood glucose but may have an adverse effect on the amount and distribution of fat mass and other cardiovascular risk factors. To test this hypothesis the effect of insulin therapy on blood glucose, body composition, and lipid levels was measured during 6 months in 9 patients with newly diagnosed insulin-dependent (Type 1) diabetes mellitus (IDDM) and 15 patients with non-insulin dependent (Type 2) diabetes (NIDDM) and secondary failure of therapy with oral hypoglycaemic agents“

Hardly a test about athletic performance.

You forgot the time lost for manual glucose checks in transition, or the choice between stoppping on the course with medical to check or verify a glucose number or risk falling into a coma or even death.

Because insulin is banned in an out of competition, I asked USAT about a TUE and they had no clue at all. Said to ask USADA. So I asked them. USADA said to ask my governing body, USAT. I went back and forth with calls to people at both organizations who were supposed to know. USAT really didn’t seem to know and USADA was of the opinion to just fill out a TUE and you’d be covered.

I’m pretty sure being heavier is not making me faster even if some of that weight is muscle.

Now if I wanted to put myself into a state of diabetic ketoacidosis I’m sure I could lose a lot of weight, but unfortunately also my life, and all that does is eat away muscle, mostly.

Insulin for diabetics is not doping.

For non-diabetic I’m sure it could help with bodybuilders as an anabolic hormone but it would also be a good way to kill yourself if you dose wrong. Still, I don’t see having a lot of muscle mass being great for endurance sports.

Hello seeyouincourt and All,

One of our sons is an attorney ..... are you looking for a barrister?

Sorry you got the run a round on your TUE .... anyway looks like you know how to get covered now.

You are probably aware of this information but I'll post it for general curiosity.

Many years ago we had an employee whose brother as a teenager with Type 1 diabetes did not stick to his diet and would occasionally rebel and eat a lot of candy .... resulting in a hospital admission .... and a lot of worry about his life.

We sold that business ..... and many years later ran into the employee and asked how her brother was doing. He had a pancreas transplant and no longer needed insulin and was in good health.

"The National Kidney Foundation estimates that a pancreas transplant will cost$125,800, including the cost of the evaluation, procedures to obtain the donated organ, hospital charges, physician fees, follow-up care and immunosuppressants." Wiki

We had a customer who had an insulin pump and had some near death events ..... sometimes waking up in a partial coma (her husband saved her) and she took it all in stride (life with diabetes is not easy to say the least) . When we would have lunch together she usually skipped desert (and we did too) but occasionally she would say, "lets have a piece of cake." and she would press the button on the insulin pump for about 3 'beeps'.

I hope you are not worrying about what people are thinking about your insulin use. The informed understand and disregard the others.

---

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster

I skipped a bunch, but this is a good one. Steven Strickler. Busted for the "good stuff" at the Dana Point Grand Prix.

Over the past decade has been an elite SoCal masters crit racer in the 45+/55+ range, influencing most races he was in, almost always in the top 5. Essentially started his own, well-sponsored team 2 years ago. Prior to that raced for other elite masters teams.

Though the sanction doesn't mention it, I suspect his test at Dana Point wasn't all that random. He came in 10th, and usually they test the podium places. So either USADA is getting crafty (masters testing at Dana Point has been as predictable as death and taxes) or someone tipped them off that maybe they should test Steven. Either way - good job, USADA.

Steven Strickler, SS, double letters

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

Exactly. The "natural symptoms of aging" are precisely why we have age groups. Doping to mitigate those effects is the essence of cheating.

Many of us would like to compete on a fair basis without having to take drugs, many of which are shown to have major side effects.

"many of which are shown to have major side effects". I'm not arguing your position, but this is the type of gross over generalization that seems to accompany any talk of medications on this forum. Some medications have varying side effects and some don't. We can certainly do better by speaking in more scientific terms than this. Especially when a great deal of science and research exists on these topics.

Reference your topic about taking medications to mitigate the effects of aging. Again, a perfectly reasonable statement. But what makes you think that we are aging normally? There is an abundance of research showing the impacts that environmental chemicals are having on our bodies. The chemicals, known as endocrine disruptors, have metabolic impacts including low testosterone, obesity, and diabetes. The evidence is overwhelming that endocrine and metabolic disorders are increasing in prevalence. And not just by a little. I think the conversation around this is a little more nuanced than what some of the comments here would convey.

" I think the conversation around this is a little more nuanced than what some of the comments here would convey. "

Not really. Nobody here is saying you cannot take various medications if you think they will help you. That is between you and your doctor.

What they are saying is that you cannot do that AND RACE.

Why? Well, it is against the rules. It is against the rules because those drugs make you faster, faster than you would otherwise be. If in fact the cause is environmental, then it is an argument against allowing drugs. Everyone has do deal with the environment. Some choose to deal with the various issues related to age as best they can within the rules of the sport. Others choose to cheat.

If everyone using various doping therapies goes up to the race officials and says "Due to the environment I am taking medications X, Y, and Z. " I would have no problem with that.

But that is not what happens is it? In fact, everyone who signs up for USAT races also agrees to abide by the rules when they sign up.

But some people chose to agree to those rules and then do something else.

If you don't like the rules of a sport get them changed, or do something else. This argument is not about what medications people can take, it is about cheating.

"What they are saying is that you cannot do that AND RACE. "

They are saying much more than that, lol. My point is only that can have a conversation about medications and disease alongside this issue of doping. And having that conversation doesn't mean one intends to bypass the rules.

I don't think you intended to shut the conversation down with your comment but this is the tactic used by some other rather short-sighted people on this forum. As soon as a conversation starts about doping it resorts to "it's against the rules" and anything other than is an attempt to cheat.

Edited to add- I'm not saying anyone use the excuse of the environment to dope. I hope that isn't what you walked away from my post with. My intention is to show that use of certain medications is, particularly those for endocrine disorders, is not just a fad that people are partaking in. There is a legitimate epidemic of endocrine diseases that is only starting to come to light.

This actually happened to me when I started seeing a new doctor a few years ago. I was training really hard at the time and, for a unrelated medical reason, my doctor checked my testosterone levels and freaked. Wanted to get me on a supplemental dose, I was only 25 at the time, and I had to explain why my levels were low and that I would not, under any circumstances short of life threatening ones, supplement.

Actually, he won the 55+ race that day. I looked it up at USAC after it was announced, but before they updated his results. (List as 0th place now.) Did he maybe get 10th in the 45+ race also?

FYI, Rich Meeker who got popped at master's nationals in Bend in 2012 was 3rd in the 55+ race that day.

---

Kevin

http://kevinmetcalfe.dreamhosters.com
My Strava

Ah, thanks for the correction. I thought I'd checked it earlier (his name was in rumors for months prior), but must have missed it.

There's a rumor that there's a second masters dude at Dana who refused to be tested and is still in the USADA pipeline.

Pretty bold to know with complete certainty you'll be tested, and still go for the podium anyway. And it's not about being "stupid." Strickler is, by all appearances, a very successful, smart guy. And a "nice guy" because there's very little social shaming going on here in SoCal as compared to Kayle, who no one liked.

Yeah, and bummed about Meeker. Not so much his being back, but how warmly welcomed he seemed.

BTW, that is the third doper that the Dana Point GP has caught. Kayo Legrande in 2017, Logan Loader in 2014 and Now Strickler in 2018. Kudos to the promoter Roger Worthington for getting USADA to show up every year. That brings up another point, you can't really make a case for a rider being surprised about getting tested if they win at Dana Point.

---

Kevin

http://kevinmetcalfe.dreamhosters.com
My Strava

http://www.stickybottle.com/latest-news/masters-cyclist-doping-united-states/


Came up on my feed today. 3 riders caught in same race.

I think you are overstating the case of endocrine disruptors.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...articles/PMC2078473/

"To date, conflicting results of epidemiological studies have failed to confirm the hypothesis that exposure to environmental chemicals with endocrine disrupting properties is associated with human reproductive health problems."

There are also other things that can affect sperm count, like being overweight or obese. And that has most definitely risen in the West, and can just as easily explain the decline in sperm counts as chemicals.

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

Yes while you will not need insulin after a pancreas transplant you have to take a host of other drugs including anti-rejection drugs for the rest of your life. Also with most pancreas transplants kidney transplants at the same time is the norm.

I'm surprised that the USAT nor USADA are clueless about insulin. Diabetes is only the number 7 killer in the USA and there was a pro-cycling team called Type 1 because they all had diabetes. You got the runaround.

“Gonzalez....finished 11th, narrowly being denied the $50 on offer for 10th prize”

———————-

Hilarious!

---

@rhyspencer

Interesting...well I've seen folks with insulin pumps race in triathlons...are we calling that doping around here? A lot of holier than thou folks running around.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

All part of a long, proud tradition of cheating in Southern California cycling.

I remember the SCNCA's "State Championship" TT back in 2007 or 2008, where 3 guys in the 45s were DQed for drafting (that was a pretty good percentage of the field). This wasn't "hang-on-for-10-meters-after-you're-passed" drafting, either. I pulled a guy for over a mile. I saw another guy pulling two others to the last corner, like a mini-peloton. Wish I could find the results because I think SS might have been one of them.

---

My latest book: "Out of the Melting Pot, Into the Fire" is on sale on Amazon and at other online and local booksellers

We can agree to disagree on the extent of the impact of environmental chemicals. Recent research has certainly been heading that way as a way to explain the increasing epidemic of endocrine issues. I think the larger point I was trying to make was that we are not talking about just "getting older" and decreasing T levels. This is a disease process that lowers T far below what is considered normal for a given age.

You keep repeating the same thing over and over again, and yet I don't think you've offered a single reference to a journal article or anything else to support your position (my apologies in advance if you have and I just missed it). Every article I've found on the subject has not identified a single "disease process" that is causing lower T levels. And, across the population, it would appear that T levels are about 17% lower or so, not exactly what I would call "far below."

---

___________________________________________________
Taco cat spelled backwards is....taco cat.

So the solution to chemicals (such as discarded pharmaceuticals) in our environment damaging our health is putting more chemicals into our body? Interesting, I hadn't considered that option. My approach is to try to avoid putting anything artificial into my body, drink organic milk, do not eat farmed fish, eat limited meat and poultry, only hormone and antibiotic free. The low sperm count seems like a bonus, at my age I don't want to accidentally have a kid.

No peer reviewed paper will be found.

Unless you have primary hypogonadism you should not be taking testosterone supplementation over the longer term. In the setting of testosterone supplementation and sports competition it is banned and rightly regarded as cheating.

Just so that everyone is on the same page here is a link to a succinct summary.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/...-causes/syc-20354881

My point is that primary causes are infrequent. From what I've read on this thread people seem surprised that obesity and sleep apnoea (itself associated with obesity and alcohol) can cause low testosterone. They are listed as secondary causes, in other words reversible either by lifestyle changes or medication (pituitary/hypothalamus causes). Secondary causes should always be addressed before testosterone is prescribed. Unfortunately with pervasive quick fix medicine testosterone is often the first treatment offered to patients. That's not good medicine and there's no way around it you will be regarded as cheating in competition if caught.

For people genuinely in this position and taking testosterone is the only thing that gives them more energy to attempt to change their lifestyle then that's the best of a bad situation. I support that as a pragmatist but don't enter competitive races until your secondary cause has been addressed and you no longer need testosterone.

The rest is cheating. Full stop.

Ride in SoFL with fast riders and you'll quickly conclude that the whole field is juiced (or at least most of it).