globecanvas

Incorrect.

Doge

Then allow it for everyone if the diabetic taking sufficient levels of insulin also see it " slow down the degradation of muscle tissue".

Ygduf

Doge hates the ADA. His kid attends a college which has an office of accessibility which allows kids with diagnosed anxiety and other disorders to get sweet sweet private rooms, too.

Wylde06

The following hormone and metabolic modulators
are prohibited:

Metabolic modulators:
5.1 Activators of the AMP-activated protein kinase
(AMPK), e.g. AICAR;
and Peroxisome Proliferator Activated Receptor δ
(PPARδ) agonists, e.g. GW 1516;
5.2 Insulins and insulin- mimetics;

gsteinb

we can't allow or disallow anything, and hold no sway over wada.

Doge

If it is true that somehow the diabetic cannot get the same advantages from insulin in sufficient amounts that a non-diabetic can that goes to the side supporting a TUE. But I expect they also get the performance benefits.

There are so many people that can never be not on a professional par from insulin to testosterone, to a whole bunch of other stuff. The argument comes to how inclusive do you want the top professional level to be when it always seems to introduce abuse issues. Pro tour golfer gets a cart while the others must walk level it too inclusive for me.

globecanvas

Honest question, how do you feel about the ADA?

TheKillerPenguin

I think there is a clear difference in someone requiring insulin to prevent their toes from being amputated or dying, and someone taking insulin to expedite recovery. Yes the diabetic may receive some recovery benefit from the insulin but they also have to deal with a lot more day to day bull**** related to diabetes issues that presumably level the playing field back out. I would have a hard time holding a rider's diabetes treatment against him.

Doge

No feelings. I don't like exemptions.

gsteinb

so a diabetic who needs insulin to survive should either not be able to race, or everyone should be able to use insulin?

Hermes

This thread is Doge Mecca.

Ygduf

It has really taken a turn for the better.

Ygduf

pertinent: Sports supplements and accidental doping ? how big is the risk? | CyclingTips

Doge

Yes.
At the UCI level. Just like Vaughters when stung and face swelled up had to retire from the Tdf so he could take his steroids to recover. It was not Vaughters fault he was stung or that he was allergic to the sting. But what he needed to continue was banned (and there were no on the spot TUEs for him). So he abandoned the tour.


There is a cutoff where folks just don't have it. I used to ride 400miles a week and I expect you would have beat me on 100. I don't / didn't have it, you likely do. So if I went to the physician and found out what it was you had that I didn't and all it took was a supplement on the list to make me as good as you - IMO at UCI level - I shouldn't get it. You were born with more of "it" than I was.

beatlebee 

This is a very informative thread btw, thanks everyone!

Ygduf

A beesting is an acute injury. A diabetic taking insulin to have normal function is not a PED, unless you mean enhancing by not dying.

Doge

It is on the list (Section 5.2 Insulins) and not all items are directly PEDs - but they are banned to cyclists and thoght to offer some performance, rest or recovery benefit to be listed.

I don't know if the insulin taken in prescribed dose carries performance benefits as well. If it did it would be a PED as well. Does it become one in a higher dose?
In general, how do the ADAs ensure the TUE athlete:
-Gets none of the other benefits that put the drug on the list - that non TUE athletes don't get
-Does not over use the drug for PED they already are allowed to inject
-The athlete does not use other PEDs as they also have an injection TUE (which are also banned).
-Ensure the athlete is properly diagnosed or faking it (I think many things like diabetes can be diagnosed properly, others can't).

As it is there is now a huge enforcement hole for one group of athletes. Diabetes was just one example. All these TUE athletes are also "clean" but they may also be performing better due to the drugs. I can't think of better way to make it fair.

Here is the list BTW https://www.usada.org/wp-content/uplo...ed-list-en.pdf Several items here are used to make peoples lives normal again. But also may offer those athletes an advantage.

Enthalpic

Type 1 it is a non-issue; they need insulin.

Type 2 could become a grey area as they can usually "get by" without and have no immediate consequences. It would be easy to "trick" a fasted glucose test or even a OGTT and get a diagnosis of type 2 by a lazy doctor. Insulin isn't an absolute requirement for these people and they could be told to get by with diet, exercise and metformin etc.

For stage races the main insulin trick is to do a hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp between stages which rapidly regenerates glycogen.

Wylde06

As someone who used to take insulin regularly..up to 4-5 times a day, I can tell you that in no ****ing way would I take more than needed. I can ask several people on Novonordisk the same thing, I can almost guarantee with 100% certainty that, that given the choice they would throw the insulin pumps away if they didn't absolutely need them. The last thing anyone should have to worry about is a sugar crash, or a severe high, while racing..let alone riding a damned bike. Have you ever had your sugar spike or drop really fast? You feel like absolute **** when it happens and just want to go home and lie in a ball.

Maybe my view is slightly skewed because I've been diabetic for 14 years and know what happens when you take too much insulin. Im sure there are guys out there that use it for performance "enhancement"..but they are ****ing stupid because the wrong amount and you can die.

Luckily I was able to get myself off of having to take inulin at all. One less thing I need to worry about

mike868y

to be fair, that probably applies to a lot of PEDs

echappist

yep. EPO carries a FDA blackbox warning stating that it shouldn't be prescribed except under extraordinary circumstances as it also leads to tumor growth.

As a side note, the one difference between insulin and EPO is that the people who take insulin for true medicinal purposes (viz. diabetes) can engage in physical activities whereas the people who take EPO for true medicinal purposes (e.g. dialysis or cancer) are too frail to engage in any sort of competition.

Doge

I'm not against anaemics either. Bolding s mine. This came out today:
Jeanson told Cyclingnews that she first took EPO in 1998 when she was a 16-year-old junior cyclist, and alleged that Aubut and Duquette, a local doctor, gave her the blood-boosting drug at an appointment that she attended with her father. But she continued to use the drug for eight years until she tested positive for it in 2005.

“The first time that I got it [EPO] it was because I was anaemic, so we brought in my parents, into the thought that, ‘well, your daughter is kind of sick and this is going to help her to continue sport. After that I just continued [to use EPO].

“It’s true that at first my parents, they knew that it [EPO] was a banned substance, and they knew that it would help me get back on my feet.”

gsteinb

for christ's sakes you realize that's not a legit statement

you don't get EPO for being 'kind of sick'

that's a weak justification for doping a kid by people close to her wanting her to excel at a sport.

she started out a cheat, and continued to cheat throughout her career.

if you need EPO you're not racing bicycles.

canuckbelle

This discussion is on the one hand interesting, and on the other hand absurd. It's the wrong contrast class (says the philosopher).

It isn't 'If anyone gets to use x, everyone should be allowed to use x.' That ignores the unfair medical deficit caused by the condition for which the medication is meant to *correct.* Rather, it's, 'If anyone gets to use x for condition y, then everyone should be able to be given condition y in order to use x.' So if we're talking about bladed feet for running, for example, we're not saying everyone can use blades (while keeping their feet): we'd be talking about causing people to have the condition that requires the bladed feet as a corrective measure.

Medicines etc are *corrective.* They're meant to approximate 'normality' for someone with a condition. Conceiving of them (properly, I argue) that way should remove some of Doge's kind of arguments.

caloso

In the testicles, apparently.