RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - General


Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )


THG ....the designer steroid that may blow sports apart...(25 posts)

THG ....the designer steroid that may blow sports apart...ClydeTri
Oct 20, 2003 11:31 AM
Yall keeping up with this THG story? The designer steroid that has come out of the closet? Multiple US track and field athletes have testified positive...Barry Bonds and Jason Giambi have grand jury supeonas....

In a nutshell THG is a fairly new steroid that the drug enforcers in sports did not know existed, thus tests did not detect, now they know and people are testing positive.
Was on the Today show Saturday AMpitt83
Oct 20, 2003 11:37 AM
The guy was from USA Olympics. He elluded to a huge amount of fall out. Said it's everywhere and especially in the olympic sports and NFL.

This is a synthetic non-native steriod, therefore, wasn't detected since testing looks for exact compound matches. The positive control now exists. Supposedly, an athlete dropped dime and now the hunt is on.
yeah..a syringe...ClydeTri
Oct 20, 2003 11:47 AM
a syringe with some of it still in it was mailed to the testing people.....got to wonder if it found it's way into cycling community also.....

with respect to baseball, no way you cant tell me that many players were not juiced...
Yes, I saw something on this in the newspaper a couple ofbimini
Oct 20, 2003 11:55 AM
days ago. Seems very serious and very wide spread. There are probably going to be a lot of trophys and gold medals yanked.

The artical stated that in track & field they keep the urine sample and a backup for several years and that this drug may have been around and unknown for 2-3 years.

My first thought was of Lance and if he is really the straight arrow we want him to be.
worst case situation....ClydeTri
Oct 20, 2003 12:01 PM
What if UCI retro-checked all those samples of everybody they have tucked away....what would they do if vast numbers of them tested positive? Would they suspend a majority of pro riders bascially shutting down the sport for a couple years? This is a pandora's box..no sports organization really wants to kill their own golden goose. Just read that baseball threw away all the samples they have taken. Wonder if they did that on purpose so that retroactive testing wouln't show the Bondeses, the Sosaes, etc of the game to be juiced. All sports would have a publicity nightmare. Record books being rewritten...not a good scene.
Baseball throws away the samples because................Len J
Oct 20, 2003 1:19 PM
it is required in the collective bargaining agreement.

The players negotiated this clause in the last agreement.

Len
interesting....ClydeTri
Oct 20, 2003 1:29 PM
wonder why baseball gave in on that in negotiations?
Because the owner's are idiots and............Len J
Oct 20, 2003 2:14 PM
the players are well organized.

Len
worst case situation....<- they can't do that... not banned...russw19
Oct 20, 2003 3:50 PM
If the drug is not banned, the UCI can not ban in responce to a positive test for a non-banned substance. They can't even release to the public that an athlete tested positive for a non-banned substance.

So if this drug is not on the banned substance list, all they can do is add it and anyone caught after it is added is in trouble, but nobody before then would be.

Russ
Not exactly correct..Observer
Oct 20, 2003 4:26 PM
What you have not taken into account is that they do not only ban specific drugs by their generic name but also they ban classes of drugs and therfore while this specific drug may not have been on the banned list the class is.

The UCI can therefore not only ban them for up to 2 years, they can go back and test the samples from previous events and strip their medals.

The next few weeks should be interesting.
Not exactly correct..<-You're right, good point! nm.russw19
Oct 21, 2003 6:27 AM
ummmmm.............am i wrongmldphish11
Oct 20, 2003 12:01 PM
or does steroids "bulk" you up? that was my understanding. it increases muscle mass tremendously. which is evident in guys like giambi and bonds, but to even hint at the idea that lance is on steroids is ridiculous. the guy's a twig. albiet a very strong twig, but a twig nonetheless. feel free to correct me if i'm wrong.
-matt
from what I have read..ClydeTri
Oct 20, 2003 12:10 PM
different steroids have different effects and they can be doseage dependent. All steroids do not "bulk up". Some help in muscle recovery. Just read an article about a body builder who had another coma from taking insulin. Wasnt there a cyclist who got caught with insulin about a year ago?
insulin: Frank vandenBroucke? He still may go away for that.nmSpunout
Oct 21, 2003 9:50 AM
you're sorta wrongColnagoFE
Oct 20, 2003 12:23 PM
steroids can (and usually do) result in increased muscle mass, but they also help with recovery from hard efforts and general strength building. Diet is largely responsible for whether you bulk or not. Also people abusing steroids generally are abusing a plethora of other stuff (insulin, growth hormone, testosterone, amphetamines, estrogen blockers, etc.) as well to get desired results and ameliorate side effects of the steroid itself.
Anyone get Outside Magazine (semi-related)Chicago_Steve
Oct 20, 2003 12:07 PM
The November issue of Outside Magazine has a great read on the use of HGH, steriods, and EPO. The author, who is a cyclist, basically tests out each drug in preparation for Paris-Brest-Paris.

http://outside.away.com/outside/bodywork/200311/200311_drug_test_1.html
Yup, it's an interesting read...PT
Oct 20, 2003 1:18 PM
I would have preferred a more objective, less subjective analysis of how well they enhanced (or didn't) his performance. None-the-less, the article made it very clear it's not hard to get hooked up if you're so inclined...

The moralist in me says performance enhancing drugs are evil. The biologist in me says that since we're not really designed to do the things athletes are doing or live as long as we'd like, what really is "natural"? I guess the bottom line is that there should be a level playing field, a field that isn't anymore dangerous than a given sport is inherently (crashing at 50 mph versus stroking out with a 65% hematocrit). And one more point -- it should be a level-field where the non-elite competitor can relate. I'm frankly more interested in the race experiences of the local (presumably non-doping) studs than the (presumably) tanked-up uber-euro-pro.

Finally, the asthmatic in me says thank god for those good inhaled steroids that take my 60% of normal lung capacity up to 90% of normal. Nothing makes me more ticked-off than when someone whines about EPO in racing and lays blame on Amgen for its abuse. There's a reason for a lot of these drugs and it's not about turbo-charging some athlete. In the real world (i.e. - not the "sports world") it's about keeping someone alive or making them nominally "normal" and functional.
Inhaled steroids not .....Observer
Oct 20, 2003 4:32 PM
related to performance inhancing steroids. The inhaled steroids are actually corticosteroids while the performance ones are anabolic steroids and they are not similar in any aspect other than their names.
Not true...Dwayne Barry
Oct 21, 2003 4:50 AM
the connection between the cortico-steroids and anabolic steroids is that they are both derived from the cholesterol molecule. As far as their actions anabolic and corticosteroids have different (often opposite) effects.

As far as performance enhancement. There is no doubt that anabolic steroids increase protein synthesis. Thus they are good for muscle mass gains provided the right stimulus to the body. I think it's somewhat debated whether or not anabolic steroids would benefit an endurance athlete. But i think they probably would even if muscle mass increases don't occur.

Corticosteroids are used by cyclists for two reasons. One, they make you feel good and they take away any aches and pains. Two, supposedly they can provide a glycogen sparing effect by increasing the bodies reliance on proteins and fats during long races.

Another reason I have seen given for cyclists taking the anabolic steroids is to promote muscle mass maintenance/gains because they are losing it due to the catabolic effects of the corticosteroids.
you'd still likely test positive for a banned substance (nm)ColnagoFE
Oct 21, 2003 7:50 AM
I agree it's *potentially* huge, butgeeker
Oct 20, 2003 2:30 PM
expect big-time cover-ups. Maybe USA Track and Field will be forced into doing something by international bodies (I sure hope so), but I wouldn't bet on it. Major League Baseball? Forget it. Too much money involved, too many players are juiced, and I don't think they even have an official anti-doping policy. Did you read the _Sports Illustrated_ article (Ken Caminiti on cover) in May (?) 2002 about doping in baseball? Hilarious. And frankly, I don't think the average American "Joe Six-Pack" sports fan cares whether his baseball or football heroes are juiced.
Is it technically illegal though?Spiderman
Oct 20, 2003 3:51 PM
Is it illegal if it isn't on the banned list? Yeah it may be "performance enhancing" but so is training 10 hours a day. If it is not tested for and not on the banned drug list, how can it be illegal?
baseball fans won't carerussw19
Oct 20, 2003 4:07 PM
Oh, there will be a select and very vocal few, but for the most part people won't care. It's just like the Nike commercials of a few years ago "Chicks dig the long ball"

Baseball has lost much of its popularity because it has become a pitcher's game. People want to see offence. They want the homeruns, they want the long ball. Part of that is the same reason the US doesn't like soccer. It is also why the NBA's popularity skyrocketed once they put in the 3 point line. It boosted offence and scoring and made the game more exciting.

By the way, someone earlier in the thread brought up the question of how this would effect football. It may matter at the college level, but the NFL does not even bother to test for steriods. They know it's a side product of the game and accept that steriod use is going to happen no matter what.

And the last point I want to bring up... for those of you who are outraged by any athlete using drugs to better their performance, you really should look into your own lives and the chemicals you consume on a daily basis. Take a look at all the hormones and steroids you consume in your food, whether you know it or not. Has anyone noticed that children are reaching puberty as much as 5 years sooner in their lives now than during our grandparent's youth? With all the added hormones and steriods in our beef and poultry, it doesn't surprise me. If you all want to be outraged by something, take up issues with those that are drugging you against your knowledge. At least the athlete sticking the needle in his vein knows what they are getting into. It's the invisible needle from what I eat that has me concerned.

Russ
The NFL does test, but randomly. [nm]DIRT BOY
Oct 20, 2003 5:59 PM
yes...i have always assumed that ...marcoxxx
Oct 21, 2003 5:18 AM
track, nfl, baseball were/are big users of something....you can't get muscles and bulk without some unnatural help. I couldn't anyway. Baseball players probably big abusers, look at those guys thae are so huge anymore....

m