I just read this article on cycling news and thought some people may find it of some interest.
As someone who has experimented my nutrition with ketones, original through salts and then trialing esters I certainly will be watching with interest as to how it is viewed in regards to doping…
If taking supplemental ketones are banned someday, everyone needs to stop using them.
But there are plenty of currently banned products and practices for the anti-doping authorities to be dealing with. There’s not much reason to be uncomfortable with the things that are not banned while they seem to struggle with enforcing sanctions for the things that are already banned.
If taking supplemental ketones are banned someday, everyone needs to stop using them.
But there are plenty of currently banned products and practices for the anti-doping authorities to be dealing with. There’s not much reason to be uncomfortable with the things that are not banned while they seem to struggle with enforcing sanctions for the things that are already banned.
Exactly. If they are not banned then they are legal to take. The Dutch, and other authorities, either need to ban them or stop moaning about them. Athletes have to deal with a black and white world imposed by doping regulators - strict liability and all that - so it is not right to then introduce a miasma of grey area that athletes have to navigate.
I just read this article on cycling news and thought some people may find it of some interest.
As someone who has experimented my nutrition with ketones, original through salts and then trialing esters I certainly will be watching with interest as to how it is viewed in regards to doping…
https://www.cyclingnews.com/...th-jumbo-vismas-use/
I think the big unknown is whether or not they can act a masking agents in the context of biopassports. Playing around with naturally occurring biocompounds with no proven performance benefit throws up a red flag that anti-doping authorities should be uncomfortable with. At best taking ketones make the life of anti-doping authorities more challenging by shifting athlete blood to a less ‘natural’ composition but provides no benefits. At worst the shifts in blood composition they are being used to cover up serious systematic doping.
No one is going to go out and openly accuse the pro riders of using ketones as a masking agent because there is no evidence this is true. Also there is enough of a history of weird trends in the pro-peloton to believe ketones are just a random fad. The authorities are however correct to be uncomfortable with the use of natural substances which alter blood chemistry but aren’t controlled because history has shown there is always someone looking for a way to beat the system.
Exactly. If they are not banned then they are legal to take. The Dutch, and other authorities, either need to ban them or stop moaning about them. Athletes have to deal with a black and white world imposed by doping regulators - strict liability and all that - so it is not right to then introduce a miasma of grey area that athletes have to navigate.
I disagree. It’s a valid conversation to have. Just like the conversations about Tramadol over the past decade before that substance was banned. Or the conversation about caffeine before it was finally pretty freely allowed.
Valid conversation so that we can decide as a community if ketone esters are safe enough that we’re comfortable with a generation of young athletes using them openly and safely. Or if they may not be safe, and we’d prefer them not to be part of the playing field of nutrition.
And athletes existed in the gray before there was such a thing as anti-doping. There were always substances taken in the shadows. Anti-doping just came along to make it easier on those who follow the rules. Fence off the worst areas.
Exactly. If they are not banned then they are legal to take. The Dutch, and other authorities, either need to ban them or stop moaning about them. Athletes have to deal with a black and white world imposed by doping regulators - strict liability and all that - so it is not right to then introduce a miasma of grey area that athletes have to navigate.
I disagree. It’s a valid conversation to have. Just like the conversations about Tramadol over the past decade before that substance was banned. Or the conversation about caffeine before it was finally pretty freely allowed.
Valid conversation so that we can decide as a community if ketone esters are safe enough that we’re comfortable with a generation of young athletes using them openly and safely. Or if they may not be safe, and we’d prefer them not to be part of the playing field of nutrition.
And athletes existed in the gray before there was such a thing as anti-doping. There were always substances taken in the shadows. Anti-doping just came along to make it easier on those who follow the rules. Fence off the worst areas.
Agreed.
It seems odd to me to suggest we all need to be protected from legitimate debate. I think we can all deal with this perfectly commonplace discussion. What’s the problem with keeping the community in the loop? Whether or not something IS banned may be black and white. However, whether or not something should be banned is it not black and white at all.
Besides, if we heard nothing until a decision to impose a ban, or give something the all clear, was made behind closed doors and without consultation, there would be complaints about transparency and queries as to the reasoning… they can’t win can they?
Pardon my naive question but it’s not something I really thought about before: Are most of the substances banned by WADA restricted because they have other ill effects on one’s health? Another way to ask I guess is, what is the base reason something becomes banned?
…But there are plenty of currently banned products and practices for the anti-doping authorities to be dealing with. There’s not much reason to be uncomfortable with the things that are not banned while they seem to struggle with enforcing sanctions for the things that are already banned.
I honestly don’t know how this logic is supposed to work. Because one thing isn’t all sorted out, you can’t consider another? Are you under the illusion that it’s a big problem for an organisation to try and do two or more things simultaneously?
You are taking two separate activities, discussion of policy/legislation and enforcement, and pretending they are the same thing. That’s ridiculous. Even if they were, so what?
Pardon my naive question but it’s not something I really thought about before: Are most of the substances banned by WADA restricted because they have other ill effects on one’s health? Another way to ask I guess is, what is the base reason something becomes banned?
There are 3 criteria in the the Code. Enhances performance, harms health, or violates the “spirit of sport.”
The last one is a little vague for my taste. Used for party drugs, etc.
…But there are plenty of currently banned products and practices for the anti-doping authorities to be dealing with. There’s not much reason to be uncomfortable with the things that are not banned while they seem to struggle with enforcing sanctions for the things that are already banned.
I honestly don’t know how this logic is supposed to work. Because one thing isn’t all sorted out, you can’t consider another? Are you under the illusion that it’s a big problem for an organisation to try and do two or more things simultaneously?
You are taking two separate activities, discussion of policy/legislation and enforcement, and pretending they are the same thing. That’s ridiculous. Even if they were, so what?
They ***ought ***to be able to do more than one thing at a time.
But currently, they’re like a fire department and they have an entire block of houses on fire, threatening to burn down the rest of the village. They need to concentrate on coming up with methods to put out this fire. Worrying about whether or not people should be allowed to store old newspapers in a garage can wait.
harms health
So is WADA going to ban smoking, drinking beer, eating meat, or what ever “harms health”?
That is a pretty vague criteria.
So is WADA going to ban smoking, drinking beer, eating meat, or what ever “harms health”?
Yeah, yeah. The old smoking is bad and meat is food so we can’t ban anything gambit. That one’s old. I’ve been here since the old Lance days. Try something novel.
…But there are plenty of currently banned products and practices for the anti-doping authorities to be dealing with. There’s not much reason to be uncomfortable with the things that are not banned while they seem to struggle with enforcing sanctions for the things that are already banned.
I honestly don’t know how this logic is supposed to work. Because one thing isn’t all sorted out, you can’t consider another? Are you under the illusion that it’s a big problem for an organisation to try and do two or more things simultaneously?
You are taking two separate activities, discussion of policy/legislation and enforcement, and pretending they are the same thing. That’s ridiculous. Even if they were, so what?
They ***ought ***to be able to do more than one thing at a time.
But currently, they’re like a fire department and they have an entire block of houses on fire, threatening to burn down the rest of the village. They need to concentrate on coming up with methods to put out this fire. Worrying about whether or not people should be allowed to store old newspapers in a garage can wait.
That analogy doesn’t work. The fire is not a natural phenomenon, you can decide what it is. Each banned or potentially banned substance and it’s means of use IS part of the fire. Thus the nature of the fire can be changed, the hoses can be modified, the accelerants, heat sources, and firebreaks can be rearranged.
If there’s an legitimate ethical problem with the use of these substances then that shouldn’t be swept under the carpet because other problems exist, especially when they may be linked.
Exactly. If they are not banned then they are legal to take. The Dutch, and other authorities, either need to ban them or stop moaning about them. Athletes have to deal with a black and white world imposed by doping regulators - strict liability and all that - so it is not right to then introduce a miasma of grey area that athletes have to navigate.
I disagree. It’s a valid conversation to have. Just like the conversations about Tramadol over the past decade before that substance was banned. Or the conversation about caffeine before it was finally pretty freely allowed.
Valid conversation so that we can decide as a community if ketone esters are safe enough that we’re comfortable with a generation of young athletes using them openly and safely. Or if they may not be safe, and we’d prefer them not to be part of the playing field of nutrition.
And athletes existed in the gray before there was such a thing as anti-doping. There were always substances taken in the shadows. Anti-doping just came along to make it easier on those who follow the rules. Fence off the worst areas.
Prior to tramadol being banned there was evidence, even if anecdotal, of the drug being dangerous. Is there any of that with ketones? The evidence preceded the conversation. With ketones the opposite seems to be the case.
Everything that is not prohibited is allowed. That’s different from everything that is not allowed is prohibited! Agree…ban 'em or move on…
Its not novel at all…I didn’t make up that stupid rule.
Of course WADA can ban PED’s but now Ketones??? How about banning sugar? Too much and its harmful and I’m sure too much will throw off some kind of test.
What I’m arguing is something reasonable. What your arguing (emotionally) is “if we can’t ban everything then we can’t ban nothing”.
Whey protein is now on the hot seat too!
Whey protein is now on the hot seat too!
Well I may as well take up EPO… I had ketone salts this morning before my run and drinking a whey protein recovery shake now. Are these now considered gateway drugs like smoking pot?
I’m sending the testers your way mate. You’re a hardened criminal.
I find it pretty rich that the Dutch officials are “uncomfortable” with this. They weren’t too uncomfortable when the obviously doped national Rabobank team ran roughshod through the peloton for 20 years. This isn’t small potatoes comparatively its no potatoes. This is the UCI’s version of virtue signalling, the same as it was banning random small fish riders in years past and letting Lance buy his way out of a positive test. The only benefit is stable blood sugar which you can get from careful nutrition anyway, who cares? Focus on the real stuff.