IV usage is not doping

Mar 24, 21 19:24

Post #1 of 58 (3542 views)

Funny story: on around post 80 of the IC thread I asked if we could have a separate thread about ICs issues and someone agreed and keep that thread merely about results. Ha.

To the main point here: WADA is quite clear in the WHY of banning IV usage:

WADA has justified the inclusion of IV infusions on the Prohibited List given the intent of some athletes to manipulate their plasma volume levels in order to mask the use of a prohibited substance and/or to distort the values in the Athlete Biological Passport.

If you read the full paragraph they specifically address using IV for recovery. “Further, it must be clearly stated that the use of IV fluid replacement following exercise to correct mild rehydration or help speed recovery is not clinically indicated nor substantiated by the medical literature. There is a well-established body of scientific opinion to confirm that oral rehydration is the preferred therapeutic choice.”

I’m not comfortable writing off IVs as drafting penalties. But for what it is worth: I’d interpret what WADA says this way: IV use is to doping as mirror usage* is to drafting.

I don’t care the IC does it beyond he is promoting bad medicine and encouraging the unwitting to break a rule. So I guess I’d prefer him not do it.

(*I think you aren’t allowed to wear a mirror while biking so you cannot spot a martial coming from behind?)

Re: IV usage is not doping [ajthomas] [ In reply to ]

Mar 24, 21 21:33

Post #2 of 58 (3415 views)

The point in comparing IV usage to drafting was to draw a parallel regarding the advantage those two forms of cheating provide the athlete.

If what WADA says here is correct, then apparently I was mistaken: drafting is much more advantageous.

Re: IV usage is not doping [ajthomas] [ In reply to ]

Mar 24, 21 22:54

Post #3 of 58 (3362 views)

Am just putting a few thoughts out, as someone who makes a living putting in iv lines, giving drugs and fluids through them all day and keeping people alive by doing that!

There are a few distinctions here:
1. The first is that the main thrust of the wada statement is the potential use of Iv’s as a masking agent. Having an iv after getting dehydrated etc after a big race is not really useful from a masking perspective, you won’t actually be masking anything in the urine. Using it in training etc is quite different potentially.

2. Using an IV to aid recovery: I get what wada is saying in terms of the evidence supporting oral rehydration, but frankly someone clapped out from severe dehydration etc after a race will really struggle to take in sufficient fluids rapidly orally. An IV makes that a lot easier, it should not be an issue when medically indicated (which is the case from memory).

I don’t really care if the IC is using IVs to potentially aid his recovery as the benefits are pretty marginal at best. In the scheme of the overall picture that is pretty minor.

Re: IV usage is not doping [Amnesia] [ In reply to ]

Mar 25, 21 2:48

Post #4 of 58 (3247 views)

I think it's pretty simple - it's prohibited method under WADA, so it's a sanctionable incident.

<https://www.wada-ama.org/...0_jan2018_en.pdf> does note exemptions under hospital treatment, clinical diagnoses, or surgical treatment but suggests TUEs may need to be applied for under these circumstances in any case.

TUEs have to be applied for under the following:
1) a medical practitioner’s office, suite, home, tent or vehicle;
2) IV clinics or any clinic/treatment room or centre outside of a hospital facility unless a clinical diagnostic investigation or surgical procedure has been performed;
3) event organizers’ medical facility, tent, first aid station, or start-finish line facility.

3) suggests that the retrospective TUE may be a pathway that's been followed previously.

Re: IV usage is not doping [altayloraus] [ In reply to ]

Mar 25, 21 3:10

Post #5 of 58 (3219 views)

altayloraus wrote:

I think it's pretty simple - it's prohibited method under WADA, so it's a sanctionable incident.

<https://www.wada-ama.org/...0_jan2018_en.pdf> does note exemptions under hospital treatment, clinical diagnoses, or surgical treatment but suggests TUEs may need to be applied for under these circumstances in any case.

TUEs have to be applied for under the following:
1) a medical practitioner’s office, suite, home, tent or vehicle;
2) IV clinics or any clinic/treatment room or centre outside of a hospital facility unless a clinical diagnostic investigation or surgical procedure has been performed;
3) event organizers’ medical facility, tent, first aid station, or start-finish line facility.

3) suggests that the retrospective TUE may be a pathway that's been followed previously.

How many people honestly retroactively get a tue after an iv in the Med tent after a race? I am not being sarcastic. Just as a doctor if that was me giving it then following the code it would mean you should also advise all that get it that they need to apply for a tue. I doubt that happens?

Re: IV usage is not doping [Amnesia] [ In reply to ]

Mar 25, 21 3:43

Post #6 of 58 (3183 views)

Honestly, very few. But are post race IVs really still a thing?

I'm paranoid and probably would apply for one - I used to shit bricks every time I got tested. Not because I'd done anything, but the case of accidental ingestion etc is be hard to show your face!

Ticking off a TUE application just makes sense.

Re: IV usage is not doping [ajthomas] [ In reply to ]

Mar 25, 21 4:16

Post #7 of 58 (3136 views)

According to usada it's an anti-doping violation

https://www.usada.org/...pts-doping-sanction/

Re: IV usage is not doping [Amnesia] [ In reply to ]

Mar 25, 21 5:42

Post #8 of 58 (3014 views)

Amnesia wrote:

altayloraus wrote:

I think it's pretty simple - it's prohibited method under WADA, so it's a sanctionable incident.

<https://www.wada-ama.org/...0_jan2018_en.pdf> does note exemptions under hospital treatment, clinical diagnoses, or surgical treatment but suggests TUEs may need to be applied for under these circumstances in any case.

TUEs have to be applied for under the following:
1) a medical practitioner’s office, suite, home, tent or vehicle;
2) IV clinics or any clinic/treatment room or centre outside of a hospital facility unless a clinical diagnostic investigation or surgical procedure has been performed;
3) event organizers’ medical facility, tent, first aid station, or start-finish line facility.

3) suggests that the retrospective TUE may be a pathway that's been followed previously.

How many people honestly retroactively get a tue after an iv in the Med tent after a race? I am not being sarcastic. Just as a doctor if that was me giving it then following the code it would mean you should also advise all that get it that they need to apply for a tue. I doubt that happens?

Things went extremely sideways for me at the finish line of a hot 5hr long race in 2018... I was not well and was definitely saved by the medics/docs who dumped me in an ice bath and got IVs going in each arm lickety split. I was unable to process what was going on or participate or help... I was just an observer without a clear thought in my head. It was scary.

I forgot to apply for a retroactive TUE of course. Totally slipped my mind.

E

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.”

Last edited by: ericMPro: Mar 25, 21 5:44

Re: IV usage is not doping [ajthomas] [ In reply to ]

Mar 25, 21 7:04

Post #9 of 58 (2911 views)

IV usage is not doping?? Dude, even there's no banned substances in it , still is an artificial hydration. You are saying if I inject glucose into my vein is not doping just because is glucose?
People who support these statements are such a cheaters! Oh, by the way, climbing Everest with O2 is also doping! period ;D lol

Re: IV usage is not doping [guillermoD] [ In reply to ]

Mar 25, 21 10:49

Post #10 of 58 (2677 views)

guillermoD wrote:

IV usage is not doping?? Dude, even there's no banned substances in it , still is an artificial hydration. You are saying if I inject glucose into my vein is not doping just because is glucose?
People who support these statements are such a cheaters! Oh, by the way, climbing Everest with O2 is also doping! period ;D lol

WADA went out of their way to say that IVs are banned because they are masking agents, not because they MAY provide restorative hydration better than oral fluid intake.

Re: IV usage is not doping [ajthomas] [ In reply to ]

Mar 25, 21 10:57

Post #11 of 58 (2665 views)

I am curious what is the purpose of this thread? WADA has other banned masking agents, like diuretics, for example. What difference does it make. They are banned. The stuff WADA bans either improves performance or they can be used to hide substances that improve performance. Does it matter which category something is in, if it is banned. If you are using diuretics and IVs to hide your doping, and you get busted, you are a doper. If you get busted because you are ignorant, you are still a doper.

Re: IV usage is not doping [exxxviii] [ In reply to ]

Mar 25, 21 11:20

Post #12 of 58 (2642 views)

exxxviii wrote:

I am curious what is the purpose of this thread? WADA has other banned masking agents, like diuretics, for example. What difference does it make. They are banned. The stuff WADA bans either improves performance or they can be used to hide substances that improve performance. Does it matter which category something is in, if it is banned. If you are using diuretics and IVs to hide your doping, and you get busted, you are a doper. If you get busted because you are ignorant, you are still a doper.

IC is a doper

Re: IV usage is not doping [exxxviii] [ In reply to ]

Mar 25, 21 11:52

Post #13 of 58 (2606 views)

Being ignorant doesn't make you a doper. Taking dope is what makes you a doper.

Re: IV usage is not doping [davearm] [ In reply to ]

Mar 25, 21 11:59

Post #14 of 58 (2595 views)

Being ignorant of the law does not exempt you from the law. My point was that if someone was ignorant of anti-doping rules and takes a banned masking substance (or method) and is busted, they are a doper. They are a doper because they committed an anti-doping violation.

Re: IV usage is not doping [exxxviii] [ In reply to ]

Mar 25, 21 12:48

Post #15 of 58 (2545 views)

Nah. Getting busted for some other reason (stupidity, ignorance, missing a test, etc) doesn't make you a doper.

Taking dope is what makes you a doper.

Re: IV usage is not doping [davearm] [ In reply to ]

Mar 25, 21 13:13

Post #16 of 58 (2502 views)

I was not following the IC thread until just now. So, the context flips this a little.

Your argument is moral relativism and not applicable. You are not a universal moral or legal authority that gets to determine what a doper is or is not. The law (or rules) that govern a thing are the only entity that has the right to define doping. If you break that law, you are a law breaker. It is that simple and there is no other reasoning. If the law is anti-doping, and you break it, you are a doper. It is irrelevant what you or anyone else want to label something, the law governing that context is the only law.

In the case of IC, if IC is not governed by WADA, USADA, or any other anti-doping agency, then he cannot be labeled a doper, no matter what he does. He is not subject any external laws of doping. It is like a person from the UK arguing that an American legally driving on an 80 MPH highway is speeding. That person is not a speeder, and the opinion of the UK person is not relevant.

You could say that if IC was operating under King Dave's personal rules, then IC would not be a doper. Or, if IC was operating under WADA's rules then IC would be a doper. Since IC is operating under IC's rules, IC is not a doper.

Re: IV usage is not doping [exxxviii] [ In reply to ]

Mar 25, 21 13:28

Post #17 of 58 (2477 views)

Nope. Still wrong.

Even if IC was under WADA jurisdiction, he wouldn't be a doper. He hasn't taken any PEDs (that we know of).

For the third and hopefully final time, taking dope (i.e., PEDs) is what makes one a doper.

If/when he takes PEDs, then (and only then) will he be a doper.

Can't make it any clearer, sorry.

Last edited by: davearm: Mar 25, 21 13:36

Re: IV usage is not doping [davearm] [ In reply to ]

Mar 25, 21 13:34

Post #18 of 58 (2462 views)

If you preceded everything you wrote with "in davearm's personal opinion, then you would be right. But what you wrote is not universally true nor even true under WADA's law.

If I follow correctly, I think you are arguing that your personal definition of "a doper" is solely someone who (probably intentionally) uses a performance enhancing substance. And, it seems that you fail to recognize that your position is not a universal truth or absolute. It is merely your opinion based on your value system.

Re: IV usage is not doping [exxxviii] [ In reply to ]

Mar 25, 21 13:37

Post #19 of 58 (2456 views)

It'd be more accurate to say I'm interpreting the term "doper" to mean, a person that takes dope.

Last edited by: davearm: Mar 25, 21 13:37

Re: IV usage is not doping [davearm] [ In reply to ]

Mar 25, 21 13:40

Post #20 of 58 (2440 views)

That is why this what you write is merely your opinion based on your value system. "Dope" sounds like your sliding subjective scale of what you personally dislike and not based on any transparent ruleset.

Re: IV usage is not doping [exxxviii] [ In reply to ]

Mar 25, 21 13:47

Post #21 of 58 (2430 views)

No. I'm not making up my own rules here. I'm not an expert in this stuff. I'm applying WADA's standard. WADA does not classify IV usage as a prohibited substance.

If WADA doesn't consider it dope, then neither do I.

Last edited by: davearm: Mar 25, 21 13:49

Re: IV usage is not doping [davearm] [ In reply to ]

Mar 25, 21 13:57

Post #22 of 58 (2415 views)

davearm wrote:

I'm ... making up my own rules here. I'm not an expert in this stuff.

You are arguing semantics to support your personal value system. WADA Article 2 defines anti-doping rule violations. Section 2.2 says that use or attempted use of a prohibited substance or prohibited method is an anti-doping rule violation. An anti-doping violation becomes a doping case. Someone found guilty of a doping cases is what? A doper. Pretty freaking clear logic in the WADA rule book. You may not like it, but that is the WADA.

Re: IV usage is not doping [exxxviii] [ In reply to ]

Mar 25, 21 14:19

Post #23 of 58 (2375 views)

Now you're expressing your opinion and personal value system. WADA doesn't say "if you commit an anti-doping violation then that makes you a doper". That leap is all you. You're certainly not the only one of course, but we're clearly into the realm of personal opinion/moral judgement.

I happen to take a narrower view. But make no mistake, we're both expressing an opinion here.

Re: IV usage is not doping [davearm] [ In reply to ]

Mar 25, 21 14:24

Post #24 of 58 (2357 views)

davearm wrote:

WADA doesn't say "if you commit an anti-doping violation then that makes you a doper".

If you are convicted of theft, that makes you a thief.
If you are convicted of murder, that makes you a murderer.
If you are convicted of rape, that makes you a rapist.
If you are convicted of embezzlement, that makes you an embezzler.
If you are convicted of doping, that makes you a doper.

Feel free to invent your own language and system of logic if you want to go along with your opinion. Lots of brilliant people invented languages and stories with alternate systems of ethics and morality.

Re: IV usage is not doping [exxxviii] [ In reply to ]

Mar 25, 21 14:26

Post #25 of 58 (2354 views)

Nice try. There are many things that can trigger an anti-doping violation that don't involve/require actually taking dope.

Like, for example, using an IV.

Last edited by: davearm: Mar 25, 21 14:27

Our Partners

transition-DOT-area-AT-slowtwitch-DOT-com

Advertise with us

©1999-2024 Slowtwitch, Inc., and Slowtwitch.com
Reproduction of material from any Slowtwitch.com page
without written permission is strictly prohibited.