And thus far, nobody's melting down. Most people who have weighed in have respectfully disagreed with him (or his advertising partners) claiming the Iron- term. The only people melting down are his apparent fans who can't cope with the slightest pushback on his Amazing Feats of Strength, which as far as I've seen, nobody here has denied.

-Eric

Nearly 8 hrs run today..what happened?

I think we're finally getting somewhere.

We AGREE that taking a prohibited substance = doping.

What you're wrong about is the sentence I've bolded above. No amount of IV taking makes it a prohibited substance. It's always a prohibited method, under WADA code.

Unless/until the Iron Cowboy takes a prohibited substance (i.e., some form of drug, or hormone, or synthetic this or that), it would be wrong to label him a "doper".

No point in arguing the semantics of the word "meltdown". From where I sit, the term fits. 700 posts kinda speaks for itself.

Wrong, still.

You could be convicted of using a prohibited method. The substance inside the IV bag doesn't magically transform from legal to prohibited if you take too much.

And as we agreed a minute ago, "doping" refers to the consumption of a prohibited substance.

Unless/until the Iron Cowboy takes a prohibited substance (i.e., some form of drug, or hormone, or synthetic this or that), it would be wrong to label him a "doper".

----

The moment an athlete gets sanctioned by WADA (for anything) you are very very very likely to be labeled as a "doper" from that point in your career onward from others. That's just the reality of the situation when you are talking about WADA anti-doping measures. You can most certainly stand on that hill that said athlete isnt "doper" but is a "prohibited method breaker", and the rest of the world will likely view said athlete in the similiar eyes of other "dopers". That's just imo the reality we are in.

ETA: So even if you aren't called a doper, you will be looked upon as a doper, which imo is the greater point. Which is why it didn't make a lot of sense to compare IV rules with drafting when it's an WADA anti-doping rule and the rules and more importantly IMPACT are much larger on the athlete.

ETA #2- It's also why I've always used quoatation marks around "doper" when talking about WADA infractions that aren't directly tied to a failed test. Tim Don is one example of being busted by WADA on the whereabout protocol / too many missed tests. He was banned, served his suspension, I've seen him talk about being labeled a doper, etc. and I've seen people call him a doper, etc.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

The penalties are a complete non sequitur.

A race director has no authority or capacity to suspend, and the WADA has no authority or capacity to issue timing penalties or DQs. It's apples and grenades. Trying to extract some sort of meaning from the penalties associated with these violations is frivolous and nonsensical.

Do you think it's fair and accurate to call the Iron Cowboy a doper for taking IVs?

Yes or no.

and the WADA has no authority or capacity to issue timing penalties or DQs

----

WADA can DQ athlete's results (and prize money) if it occurred during the infraction time period. See Starky as the latest athlete who had results scrubbed in '19.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Didn't I already answer that? He's not bound by WADA so therefore he's not bound by any rules so if he took any drug on camera in front of everyone, he could and thus wouldn't be an "doper"....right?

Isn't that the whole premise of "his rules" is all about?

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

You certainly haven't answered it directly, and still haven't.

If he took a PED on camera in front of everyone, he should absolutely be called a doper. At that point he would, in fact, be guilty of taking dope.

That was IC's whole point in regards to the "ST haters" video when he famously said he would do anything he wanted to in regards to IV drips....because he can because he's not bound by an regulations. So by that logic we can't really call out anything can we? He could do anything and you would be able to logically say "his rules" and we'd have to accept it right?

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

If he took a PED on camera in front of everyone, he should absolutely be called a doper. At that point he would, in fact, be guilty of taking dope.

------

Incorrect

There are no PED's in this attempt. Therefore you would be wrong to call him a doper (in that hypothetical instance).


ETA: I'm showcasing the slippery slope that using "his rules" can be. But in the end if he wants to use "his rules" as justification, cool beans. I think from a endurance feat standpoint, it's incredible what he's attempting. I think he's simply making it as easy as possible and I'm going to guess that if/when he makes it those "easy aids" will suddenly be swept under the rug and he'll celebrate like he did 100 IM's etc.

(I'm making that guess on his previous behavior on the 50/50 attempt + media post tour).

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Im just looking forward to him pulling exactly the same thing he did in the 50.50.50.

Saying during the entire attempt that its his rules, his challenge, not an official Ironman, etc. Then once finishing completely changing the narrative of what he did and making it seem in all his interviews, public speaking appearances, articles, etc. that he effectively finished 100 IMs in 100 days.

Conveniently leaving out that he "finished" while pushing less watts every day on the bike than you would have to push on an ebike over the same distance, taking numerous IVs per day and all the other squirrely stuff he is up to.

Been there done that.

---

2x Deca-Ironman World Cup (10 Ironmans in 10 days), 2x Quintuple Ironman World Cup (5 Ironmans in 5 days), Ultraman, Ultra Marathoner, and I once did an Ironman.

The more real world applicable is real wada sanctioned athletes.

Is Mark Fretta a "doper"?

Is Tim Don a "doper"?

Is Starky a "doper"?


All 3 have different WADA sanctions against them (biological passport /whereabout, no show to tests / TUE issue) and I dont think any of them had an actual failed test. By your logic potentially only Starky can be identified as an "doper" since they didn't have a positive doping test.

(and read up on all 3, they've all had to deal with being labeled "doper")


Biological passport allows agencies to detect periods of illegal substance abuse without an actual "positive" because well they'll never be able to test the athletes enough. I believe you get 3 no shows per year and/or whereabout screw ups before your sanctioned. I think Starky's issue was he had to take an prohibited substance, didn't wait or get the approved TUE and thus was then "guilty" of WADA sanctioning and all 3 have had "doper" labels attached to them.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

I would need affirmative evidence of an athlete intentionally and knowingly taking a prohibited substance to enhance performance before I apply the doper label.

Starky, no. He didn't take that drug to enhance performance, he took it because a doctor advised he needed to (as I understand it).

Guy that misses a test, no. That's not affirmative evidence of taking a prohibited substance.

Biological markers too high/low? I'd need to think more on that one. Leaning yes but not sure.

IV usage? Not a prohibited substance, so no.

How about you? What's your standard for labeling someone a doper? And do you, B Doughtie, think the Iron Cowboy one? You still haven't told us your personal opinion on that.

Dave, I've told you my opinion, you just fail to recognize it.

The probaly most accurate answer is Not Applicable

He could never be classified as a doper because he's not an current athlete that is bound by any non-doping standards. End of story


My standard is WADA sanctioning. Once your WADA sanctioned, it's almost irrelevant if your a "doper" or not, you gotta own/carry that mark on your career for the rest of your career. Some can come away good even with WADA sanctioning (Tim Don, George Hincapie), some never really recover from it and always have to deal with it.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

"Not applicable" is sidestepping the question.

I'm not asking you to regurgitate WADA code or speak to IC's status as an athlete. I'm asking what YOU think. Where YOUR line is. And specifically, which side of that line this guy falls on, given the information we have.

But if your asking me if an athlete openly flaunts using as much IV as he wants as "recovery" and ask me if that's "doping"....doping/cheating that's an athlete taking advantage of basic fair play. Who really gives a fuck what we label said athlete at that point....it's against basic spirit of sports.

ETA: It's cheating period....so if we should call an athlete an "cheater" instead of a doper to be the most accurate description, there we go! We good with that compromise?


But again he can do anything he wants.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

USADA calls it an anti-doping rule violation in this case for using a prohibited method. Some may call that doping some wouldn't. Personally I'd call it doping but I'm not in charge.

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

I appreciate that. That certainly tracks with what I've been hearing all along:


You believe he's a doper, but for whatever reason you're bending over backwards to never actually call him a doper.

Which is a bit odd to me, but whatever. He's probably not going to sue.

I think 2 pages ago you said "dont twist my words", I'll ask the same. I've not said he's a doper nor have I said I believe he is a doper. In fact if you read what I've said, Your question makes no logical sense, even though I've repeatedly said "doping" isn't applicable here, yet you keep asking me if it applies here? Troll job? Again you say I’m side stepping for a question that makes zero logical sense as it applies to THIS situation. Like wtf is that? And then you want to talk about lawsuits?

I've said plainly that "doping" is an not applicable to this endurance feat. You can't be accused of doping if you don't have rules against it. I've further said that an athlete behaving in that manner under normal WADA rules would most certainly imo very likely be guilty of WADA doping violations.

But again there's no "rules" here so you can't apply your own words of doping = taking banned substance, and then ask me if that applies here.

Talk about a non sequitor. So asking me if you think he's a doper cus of his actions right now......I can't answer that cus it's not applicable.

If you are asking me if this was done in other circumstances would it imo be "doping"....I would say yes. If an athlete openly flaunts that he's taking god knows what as an IV that in my opinion is "cheating". And that imo is much different than an guy doing a IM race, taking a 300mL post race and forgetting to apply for a TUE. Both are WADA infractions but both are very different in terms of the spirit of "fair play" imo. One athlete is taking "aid" to the benefit of the race/situation/feat while another is taking it to recover and then going home. If said athlete turned around and did another IM the next day, I'd call that out for bullshit fair play as well.

I believe there was an NFL playoff 2 years ago that kept false starting to run down the clock in the 4th qt. While the rules allowed it, it was what we call "bush league" from most pundits. So things can have some black white and gray.


But again if your not having to hold yourself to an standard, than you can't have that standard be put against you. So you can flaunt that you don't have to follow the rules and there can't be standards applied to it.


It's one of the reasons that the IV issue is a big beef with me. We have sports that follow standards and those attempts have to follow those more specific rules, and then we have attempts like this, that kinda turns it into free for alls. So if your telling me it has to be an free for all with IV and drafting to gain that much of an advantage, I dont think it's an endurance feat that I can truly appreciate. I can appreciate that he's exercising for 17 hours a day and grinding it out. But I can then have a line that says, that's as far as I'll give it.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Is he actually a cowboy or is that a misappropriation - neither Ironman nor a cowboy could we think of an alternative moniker ... anyway rather him than me. Looks horrendous lol - best of luck to him.

Day 21:
Swim time: 1:25:46
Bike time: 6:49:40
Run time: 7:07:38

Total time: 16:40:43

Day 22:
Swim time: 1:25:44
Bike time: 6:54:45
Run time: 7:57:34

Total time: 17:50:34

Day 23:
Swim time: 1:25:44
Bike time: 7:23:11
Run time: 7:17:56

Total time: 17:16:44