Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Another Ag Doping positive announced by the ITU [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
RowToTri wrote:
Scottxs wrote:
It makes sense......the stuff she took doesn't provide much if any performance enhancement. If your a guy it would help with erectile dysfunction and its probably safe to say that SHE didn't take it for that reason.

I get the fact that WADA is in a hard spot (no pun intended) with stuff like this. DHEA has been shown (or the evidence is mixed at best) to have no PED effects on athletes but is ban none the less. I think that WADA "throws the baby out with the bath water" just to be on the safe side and bans anything that might be performance enhancing.

I'm not arguing that DHEA, etc should not be ban. Doping is a real problem. I'm arguing that if someone "dopes" especially unknowingly the so called advantage gained by the substance needs to be judged. This substance in the OP is has little effect compared to say EPO. In that regards 12 weeks makes sense to me.


DHEA is banned because it is used as a masking agent to hide the use of other drugs from showing up in tests.

A quick google and I found Higenamine is actually a powerful stimulant with cardiovascular benefits, that would be why it is banned, and why it was in her supplement. Also DHEA is a "prohormone" -- a substance that can increase the level of steroid hormones such as testosterone.
Quote Reply
Re: Another Ag Doping positive announced by the ITU [Geek_fit] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
So I'm assuming that only water goes into your drinks bottles?

How do we define what is a 'supplement' and what is 'nutrition'.
Last edited by: rmt: Aug 7, 19 18:49
Quote Reply
Re: Another Ag Doping positive announced by the ITU [rmt] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Are you actually replying to me?
Quote Reply
Re: Another Ag Doping positive announced by the ITU [Geek_fit] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Geek_fit wrote:
Oh, I'm not saying they should. Heck, one could argue"eating healthy" is performance enhancing.

But when hammer or first endurance markers a pill that says it will enhance your performance.... That's ok?

Again, I'm just posing the question for discussion sake.


There is a gray area in the nexus of factors including performance enhancing effectiveness, safety, and simple practicality in testing. But that gray area only exists in the the interpretation of the Code. There is no gray area in the list of substances in the Prohibited List. We're all free to use caffeine which is an effective performance-enhancing drug. None of us can use EPO, which is also a performance enhancing drug. Fair enough.

I think the Prohibited List gets it mostly right. And I think it would be effectively impossible to formulate some wording of the Code that would eliminate the gray area in interpretation.
Last edited by: trail: Aug 8, 19 7:27
Quote Reply

Prev Next