it's a classic!

https://journals.plos.org/...journal.pone.0078702

you can also search for other stuff by the same research team; they've done further/similar studies.

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

I don’t know the study very much, but I know it’s highly invalid or unrelated to the common understanding of doping…

One example only: if somebody had taken a caffeine booster in the 12 month period, then this person was classified as a doper.

There you’ve got your 1 out of 7.

Caveat. Caffeine was only classified in the "cognitive doping" category, so doesn't factor into the "physical doping" category which still got a full 13% positive rate. (vs 15% for "cognitive doping"). Still approximately 1/7.

Also a second caveat in that it's only supposed to cover caffeine consumed in tablet form, not liquid. So coffee, tea, energy drinks, caffeinated food don't count as cognitive doping. Apparently caffeine tablets are not "over the counter" in Germany as they are in the U.S.

I think it's still dumb to use that definition in the paper, as we have a very clear definition of doping in WADA. And that's the standard used in Ironman. It only muddies the waters to manufacture some alternative definition of doing that athletes knew nothing about when they were racing. If they wanted, for research purposes, to make their own categories, they should have used some term other than "doping." That's a term with very specific definitions and connotations to athletes.

You can buy caffeine pills in pharmacy or nutrition shops in whole Europe.

Yeah, that's consistent with the paper, I think. I somewhat misconstrued the actual text of the paper which is, "these tablets can only be bought in pharmacies and not in supermarkets or drug-stores."

I know very little about the German or European role of a "pharmacy." In the U.S. I tend to think of it as where you get prescription drugs, with the adjacent "drug store" where you get over-the-counter stuff. But definitions can vary.

The larger point is that the study authors used the somewhat regulated status in Germany as the rationale for considering the tablet form a "doping product".

As shared: https://journals.plos.org/...journal.pone.0078702
@AndyLangdon - thanks for starting the thread. Having read the study, what do you think and/or conclude?

Many shades of grey on this subjects... and pretty sure they are very 'conservative' in what is doping.

Ie: take few Maurten caffeinated gels and few Advil's and they make you look like a serial murder.

What about if someone add a scope of pre-workout to their nutrition? Do they fall in the same category as someone glowing on EPO?


While I'm pretty sure that some people at the front of the pack are 'assisted'... I will be very surprise if their are many >12hr racers using anything that is not for sold at the grocery (or legit prescription).

The study is 10 years old but I still wouldn't down play it. The numbers are probably the same or worse today. 13% admitted to physical doping -- that's a high number + it relies on people, you know, admitting to it so I would guess the number is a bit higher. What's troubling is the hours/week + average age. People are on drugs & are training hard but, with an average age in the upper 30s, it's not to get their pro card but to take qualification slots away from other athletes. This is disgusting.

The cognitive doping category is cognitively stupid.

The study is 10 years old but I still wouldn't down play it. The numbers are probably the same or worse today. 13% admitted to physical doping -- that's a high number + it relies on people, you know, admitting to it so I would guess the number is a bit higher. What's troubling is the hours/week + average age. People are on drugs & are training hard but, with an average age in the upper 30s, it's not to get their pro card but to take qualification slots away from other athletes. This is disgusting.//

This topic pops up every once in awhile and it is the same old same old. Why would any AG'er dope for nothing? And once again folks, it is about ego. And this study is way undershooting the actual number, I figure a proper test done would net 30% to 50% failure rate, especially in the upper AG's. The pointy end know its wrong, and they do everything in their power to get away with it. Years ago a doping agency showed up to a training ride in Vegas, swooped in and tested everyone with a license, and popped dozens that day, some high profile names too. I just came out of retirement and did my first Tri in over a decade along with some cycling and swimming races, and befriended this guy in my age group. He was ok, but down the ranks as far as performance, and I mentioned to him if he lost 20 to 25lbs, he could be a lot faster and feel better. His next comment was, "I think it is all the testerone I'm taking, I cannot lose weight!". And I'm afraid that probably most of my competitors fall into this category.


So it has to be either of two things. He doesnt know it is cheating, got his doc to prescribe it and talks about it like it is nothing.


Or he just believes that everyone is doing it, and figures it is no big deal, and a topic for discussion among peers.


Because if he knew it to be wrong and against the rules, and knew that some people like me are still fighting the good fight, he would not have opened up and just blurted that out..He just said it makes him feel better(no shit Sherlock) and that is that...Its out there people, more than you think and its not going away anytime soon. I've made my peace with it and just dont let it bother me anymore, at least not for very long. Just the way of the world, but I do get a little giddy when things like that Vegas sting happen...

The question literally says - emphasis mine:

“Have you used legal or freely available substances with the purpose of enhancing your cognitive performance (e.g. ginkgo biloba)/to enhance your physical performance (e.g. creatine, colostrum) during the last 12 months".

For the life of me, I can't understand why anybody would take this "study" seriously? it is 100% pure unadulterated clickbait.

---

"FTP is a bit 2015, don't you think?" - Gustav Iden

Yep. It seems this study comes up every so often on ST and we have the same discussion. You don't have to dig deep into that report to see that there all sorts of questionable assumptions. I'd love to learn more about doping at the AG level, but there's not much to learn from this particular 'study'.