Cortisone (sp?)

I don't think it is completely banned. I seem to hear about riders using it
for saddle sores.

"Krusty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Is this substance completely banned? If so, why? I understand the
dangers of long term use and the potential for abuse, but there are
occasions, such as in 2002 where an american rider (can't remember
who) got stung on the eyelid by a bee and was unable to continue.
This seems like a case where cortisone could have been used in a
reasonable manner. Also, many other sports allow the use of this
substance.

I'm sure this topic came up back in 2002, but I wasn't reading this NG
at the time, so any thoughts would be appreciated.

Krusty said:

Is this substance completely banned? If so, why? I understand the
dangers of long term use and the potential for abuse, but there are
occasions, such as in 2002 where an american rider (can't remember
who) got stung on the eyelid by a bee and was unable to continue.
This seems like a case where cortisone could have been used in a
reasonable manner. Also, many other sports allow the use of this
substance.

That was Jonathon Vaughters when he was riding for Credit Agricole. I don't know why riders are
prevented from using such basic medicine.

Quoted message said:

I'm sure this topic came up back in 2002, but I wasn't reading this NG
at the time, so any thoughts would be appreciated.

Krusty said:

Is this substance completely banned? If so, why? I understand the
dangers of long term use and the potential for abuse, but there are
occasions, such as in 2002 where an american rider (can't remember
who) got stung on the eyelid by a bee and was unable to continue.
This seems like a case where cortisone could have been used in a
reasonable manner. Also, many other sports allow the use of this
substance.

I'm sure this topic came up back in 2002, but I wasn't reading this NG
at the time, so any thoughts would be appreciated.

This came up in an Armstrong post--that he'd tested positive for
steroids supposedly because of a cortisone saddle sore cream.
There is no logical reason I can think of for a glucocorticoid to be
banned, but they may be. A practical reason is I don't know if the
commonly used tests can distinguish them from anabolic steroids.
In any case, I think antihistamines are likely more appropriate for a
bee sting, but you have to watch out you don't use one that will make
you drowsy. For that matter, I'm not certain that all antihistamines
are allowed--you can't be too careful!

Steve

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

"gwhite" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Krusty said:

Is this substance completely banned? If so, why? I understand the
dangers of long term use and the potential for abuse, but there are
occasions, such as in 2002 where an american rider (can't remember
who) got stung on the eyelid by a bee and was unable to continue.
This seems like a case where cortisone could have been used in a
reasonable manner. Also, many other sports allow the use of this
substance.

That was Jonathon Vaughters when he was riding for Credit Agricole. I

don't know why riders are

Quoted message said:

prevented from using such basic medicine.

Quoted message said:

I'm sure this topic came up back in 2002, but I wasn't reading this NG
at the time, so any thoughts would be appreciated.

If I remember an article written by Vaughters correctly, it was approved for
specific uses only (treating saddle sores is approved). Vaughters problem
was that it had not be approved for the treatment of a wasp sting. They
told him they understood his predicament, but they wouldn't change the rules
in the middle of the race. The only danger he would have faced if he used
it was to test positive for a banned substance. He said he could have lied
and said he used it to treat a saddle sore, but decided his word was worth
more than a tour finish. Pretty upstanding if you ask me.

Bestest Handsander said:

it was to test positive for a banned substance. He said he could have lied
and said he used it to treat a saddle sore, but decided his word was worth
more than a tour finish. Pretty upstanding if you ask me.

Not entirely accurate. From
<URL:http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php? id=news/2004/mar04/mar19news3>

"Anyhow, I see now that it wasn't necessary that I drop out. I could have
finished, and apparently had a shot at winning the next stage too! However,
at the time, this was not one of the options I was given. the team doctor at
Credit Agricole, Hervé Stoicheff, and team director Roger Legeay both knew
that the testing wouldn't be able to tell the difference between authorized
use of cortisone (I could have faked a knee injury), and unauthorized.
However, they felt it was best to follow the rules to the letter and to the
spirit, and chose against this course of action.

At the time this was very upsetting to me, as I was so close to finishing a
race I never would. I would have rather broken the rules than quit, no
question. But looking back on it now, I see that in the greater picture,
perhaps it was best that I wasn't allowed to break the rules. "

--
Stig Are M. Botterli
[email hidden]

Bestest Handsander said:

it was to test positive for a banned substance. He said he could have lied
and said he used it to treat a saddle sore, but decided his word was worth
more than a tour finish. Pretty upstanding if you ask me.

Not entirely accurate. From
<URL:http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2004/mar04/mar19news3>

"Anyhow, I see now that it wasn't necessary that I drop out. I could have
finished, and apparently had a shot at winning the next stage too! However,
at the time, this was not one of the options I was given. the team doctor at
Credit Agricole, Hervé Stoicheff, and team director Roger Legeay both knew
that the testing wouldn't be able to tell the difference between authorized
use of cortisone (I could have faked a knee injury), and unauthorized.
However, they felt it was best to follow the rules to the letter and to the
spirit, and chose against this course of action.

At the time this was very upsetting to me, as I was so close to finishing a
race I never would. I would have rather broken the rules than quit, no
question. But looking back on it now, I see that in the greater picture,
perhaps it was best that I wasn't allowed to break the rules. "

[attempt to supersede]

--
Stig Are M. Botterli
[email hidden]

Krusty <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Is this substance completely banned? If so, why? I understand the
dangers of long term use and the potential for abuse, but there are
occasions, such as in 2002 where an american rider (can't remember
who)

Jonathan Vaughters

Quoted message said:

got stung on the eyelid by a bee and was unable to continue.
This seems like a case where cortisone could have been used in a
reasonable manner. Also, many other sports allow the use of this
substance.

Jonathan's problem was, during that particular Tour the organizers
were so touchy about ANY drugs they went overboard and refused to let
him be properly treated. They have since softened that approach, not
that it does JV any good, now.

Quoted message said:

I'm sure this topic came up back in 2002, but I wasn't reading this NG
at the time, so any thoughts would be appreciated.

The UCI says one thing, the national cycling federations (e.g.:French
Cycling Federation) say another, then WADA weighs in with it's
opinions, then the ASO (owners of the TdF) say further. One of the
greatest challenges in fighting doping is getting all these parties on
the same page.

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS said:

Krusty said:

Is this substance completely banned? If so, why? I understand the
dangers of long term use and the potential for abuse, but there are
occasions, such as in 2002 where an american rider (can't remember
who) got stung on the eyelid by a bee and was unable to continue.
This seems like a case where cortisone could have been used in a
reasonable manner. Also, many other sports allow the use of this
substance.

I'm sure this topic came up back in 2002, but I wasn't reading this NG
at the time, so any thoughts would be appreciated.

This came up in an Armstrong post--that he'd tested positive for
steroids supposedly because of a cortisone saddle sore cream.
There is no logical reason I can think of for a glucocorticoid to be
banned, but they may be. A practical reason is I don't know if the
commonly used tests can distinguish them from anabolic steroids.
In any case, I think antihistamines are likely more appropriate for a
bee sting, but you have to watch out you don't use one that will make
you drowsy. For that matter, I'm not certain that all antihistamines
are allowed--you can't be too careful!

Steve

IIRC Sudafed is banned. Even if I'm wrong in the case of cycling, it
is many other sports...especially the Olympic sports such as
gymnastics. It's a goddamn cold medicine. Sure it's a synthetic
version of ephedrine, but even that drug has valid medical uses, e.g.,
for asthma. You can buy it at CVS, Walgreens, and even my local 7/11
without any problem. So it wouldn't surprise me if anit-histamines
were banned either.

Very few drugs should be banned. I would agree that those that have
very little use other than performance enhancement require punishment
if not used for a purpose other than performance enhancement.
However, there are many substances that have been banned for no reason
that is rationally related to cycling.

Case in point: The fact that Jan was suspended in 2002 for XTC was
ridiculous. If anything they would have hurt his performance.

Krusty <@4ax.com>...

Quoted message said:

Is this substance completely banned? If so, why? I understand the
dangers of long term use and the potential for abuse, but there are
occasions, such as in 2002 where an american rider (can't remember

It has changed -- you can now treat bee stings during a race if you
bring it up and seek attention.

That was one of the most ABSURD things ever happened when Vaughters
was denied relief.

-Ken

Quoted message said:

who) got stung on the eyelid by a bee and was unable to continue.
This seems like a case where cortisone could have been used in a
reasonable manner. Also, many other sports allow the use of this
substance.

I'm sure this topic came up back in 2002, but I wasn't reading this NG
at the time, so any thoughts would be appreciated.

"Stig Are M. Botterli" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bestest Handsander said:

it was to test positive for a banned substance. He said he could have

lied

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and said he used it to treat a saddle sore, but decided his word was

worth

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

more than a tour finish. Pretty upstanding if you ask me.

Not entirely accurate. From
<URL:http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?

id=news/2004/mar04/mar19news3>

Quoted message said:

"Anyhow, I see now that it wasn't necessary that I drop out. I could have
finished, and apparently had a shot at winning the next stage too!

However,

Quoted message said:

at the time, this was not one of the options I was given. the team doctor

at

Quoted message said:

Credit Agricole, Hervé Stoicheff, and team director Roger Legeay both knew
that the testing wouldn't be able to tell the difference between

authorized

Quoted message said:

use of cortisone (I could have faked a knee injury), and unauthorized.
However, they felt it was best to follow the rules to the letter and to

the

Quoted message said:

spirit, and chose against this course of action.

At the time this was very upsetting to me, as I was so close to finishing

a

Quoted message said:

race I never would. I would have rather broken the rules than quit, no
question. But looking back on it now, I see that in the greater picture,
perhaps it was best that I wasn't allowed to break the rules. "

I stand corrected. Thanks

Krusty said:

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS said:

Krusty said:

Is this substance completely banned? If so, why? I understand the
dangers of long term use and the potential for abuse, but there are
occasions, such as in 2002 where an american rider (can't remember
who) got stung on the eyelid by a bee and was unable to continue.
This seems like a case where cortisone could have been used in a
reasonable manner. Also, many other sports allow the use of this
substance.

I'm sure this topic came up back in 2002, but I wasn't reading this NG
at the time, so any thoughts would be appreciated.

This came up in an Armstrong post--that he'd tested positive for
steroids supposedly because of a cortisone saddle sore cream.
There is no logical reason I can think of for a glucocorticoid to be
banned, but they may be. A practical reason is I don't know if the
commonly used tests can distinguish them from anabolic steroids.
In any case, I think antihistamines are likely more appropriate for a
bee sting, but you have to watch out you don't use one that will make
you drowsy. For that matter, I'm not certain that all antihistamines
are allowed--you can't be too careful!

Steve

IIRC Sudafed is banned. Even if I'm wrong in the case of cycling, it
is many other sports...especially the Olympic sports such as
gymnastics. It's a goddamn cold medicine. Sure it's a synthetic
version of ephedrine, but even that drug has valid medical uses, e.g.,
for asthma. You can buy it at CVS, Walgreens, and even my local 7/11
without any problem. So it wouldn't surprise me if anit-histamines
were banned either.

That's true. But drugs of this class (actually decongestants, not
antihistamines) have at least the potential to be somewhat stimulating.
This is what nailed Grewal in the '84 Pan Am games with his Chi powder.

Steve

Quoted message said:

Very few drugs should be banned. I would agree that those that have
very little use other than performance enhancement require punishment
if not used for a purpose other than performance enhancement.
However, there are many substances that have been banned for no reason
that is rationally related to cycling.

Case in point: The fact that Jan was suspended in 2002 for XTC was
ridiculous. If anything they would have hurt his performance.

--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001

"Krusty" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Is this substance completely banned? If so, why? I understand the
dangers of long term use and the potential for abuse, but there are
occasions, such as in 2002 where an american rider (can't remember
who) got stung on the eyelid by a bee and was unable to continue.
This seems like a case where cortisone could have been used in a
reasonable manner. Also, many other sports allow the use of this
substance.

Cortisone is approved for some uses such as knee problems and saddle sores.

The rider you're talking about is Jonathan Vaughters. He said that he wanted
to claim the shot was for his knee but his French team said nothing doing -
follow the rules or die. Sort of disproves Lafferty's theory that everyone
is doping....

Krusty said:

IIRC Sudafed is banned. Even if I'm wrong in the case of cycling, it
is many other sports...especially the Olympic sports such as
gymnastics. It's a goddamn cold medicine. Sure it's a synthetic
version of ephedrine, but even that drug has valid medical uses, e.g.,
for asthma. You can buy it at CVS, Walgreens, and even my local 7/11
without any problem. So it wouldn't surprise me if anit-histamines
were banned either.

Sudafed (pseudoephedrine) is a sympathomimetic decongestant. Neither it or
ephedrine have any legitimate use in asthma. Sympathomimetics are banned in
athletic competition because they have an amphetamine-like stimulant effect,
although the restrictions have recently been relaxed. They have been used
in an attempt to increase performance. This has also been associated with
deaths in this context, in weight lifters as I recall. They are definitely
dangerous drugs taken in overdose and/or in combination with athletic
efforts. Pseudoephedrine is the only decongestant that is still on the
market in the US. I am not really sure why because it shares the same side
effects as the other formerly available decongestants; phenylpropanolamine
and ephedrine which have been removed form the market because of adverse
risk profiles.

Antihistamines are not banned. Information on what drugs are allowable and
under what circumstances can be found at:
http://www.wada-ama.org/docs/web/standards_harmonization/code/list_standard_2004.pdf

Mike Murray MD

Krusty said:

Is this substance completely banned? If so, why? I understand the
dangers of long term use and the potential for abuse, but there are
occasions, such as in 2002 where an american rider (can't remember
who) got stung on the eyelid by a bee and was unable to continue.
This seems like a case where cortisone could have been used in a
reasonable manner. Also, many other sports allow the use of this
substance.

Cortisone as well as other corticosteroids are allowed for use if applied
topically (to the skin), inhaled or injected into a joint. They are not
allowed if taken orally or by intravenous or intramuscular injection. This
is true not only for cycling but for all sports with WADA controls.
Corticosteroids have been abused because of perceived or imagined
performance enhancement. It is likely they have no such properties but
chronic use has significant risk and so they stay on the list.

Much has been made about Vaughters "need" for steroids to treat a bee sting
which forced him to retire from the TdF. Steroids may have helped but
certainly it was not a life threatening issue and it is not certain that he
would have been able to continue even if treated with injectable or oral
steroids.

Info on what drugs are allowed, when and by what route can be found at:

http://www.wada-ama.org/docs/web/standards_harmonization/code/list_standard_2004.pdf

Mike Murray MD

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS said:

A practical reason is I don't know if the
commonly used tests can distinguish them from anabolic steroids.
In any case, I think antihistamines are likely more appropriate for a
bee sting, but you have to watch out you don't use one that will make
you drowsy.

Properly done testing will distinguish anabolics from corticosteroids.
Generally this is done using mass spectrometry which will identify the
specific single agent as long as the profile for that agent is in the list
being compared to. A nonspecific test for "steroids" is not acceptable
since it would not differentiate endogenous from exogenous steroids. This
is also the reason why there is much fuss about the "designer" steroids.
These are generally modifications of existing anabolic steroids that will
not trigger positive tests because they are not in the database of drugs
tested for. These substances may not have undergone any type of testing for
toxicity as they have only been brought to the market illicitly.

As for the comment about antihistamines for bee sting, I agree. This should
be the first line of treatment and systemic corticosteroids should be
reserved for severe cases.

Mike Murray MD

Mike Murray said:

Quoted message said:

Neither it or
ephedrine have any legitimate use in asthma.

Got a citation?

Mike Murray said:

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS said:

A practical reason is I don't know if the
commonly used tests can distinguish them from anabolic steroids.
In any case, I think antihistamines are likely more appropriate for a
bee sting, but you have to watch out you don't use one that will make
you drowsy.

Properly done testing will distinguish anabolics from corticosteroids.
Generally this is done using mass spectrometry which will identify the
specific single agent as long as the profile for that agent is in the list
being compared to. A nonspecific test for "steroids" is not acceptable
since it would not differentiate endogenous from exogenous steroids. This
is also the reason why there is much fuss about the "designer" steroids.
These are generally modifications of existing anabolic steroids that will
not trigger positive tests because they are not in the database of drugs
tested for. These substances may not have undergone any type of testing for
toxicity as they have only been brought to the market illicitly.

As for the comment about antihistamines for bee sting, I agree. This should
be the first line of treatment and systemic corticosteroids should be
reserved for severe cases.

Mike Murray MD

Thanks, Doc. Of course, the exception would be in anaphylaxis, in
which in any case passing a drug test is the least of the problems.

Steve

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2004 00:32:41 GMT, "Mike Murray" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Krusty said:

IIRC Sudafed is banned. Even if I'm wrong in the case of cycling, it
is many other sports...especially the Olympic sports such as
gymnastics. It's a goddamn cold medicine. Sure it's a synthetic
version of ephedrine, but even that drug has valid medical uses, e.g.,
for asthma. You can buy it at CVS, Walgreens, and even my local 7/11
without any problem. So it wouldn't surprise me if anit-histamines
were banned either.

Sudafed (pseudoephedrine) is a sympathomimetic decongestant. Neither it or
ephedrine have any legitimate use in asthma. Sympathomimetics are banned in
athletic competition because they have an amphetamine-like stimulant effect,
although the restrictions have recently been relaxed. They have been used
in an attempt to increase performance. This has also been associated with
deaths in this context, in weight lifters as I recall. They are definitely
dangerous drugs taken in overdose and/or in combination with athletic
efforts. Pseudoephedrine is the only decongestant that is still on the
market in the US. I am not really sure why because it shares the same side
effects as the other formerly available decongestants; phenylpropanolamine
and ephedrine which have been removed form the market because of adverse
risk profiles.

Antihistamines are not banned. Information on what drugs are allowable and
under what circumstances can be found at:
http://www.wada-ama.org/docs/web/standards_harmonization/code/list_standard_2004.pdf

Mike Murray MD

You have to take a [censored] of sudafed to produce a significant
stimulant type effect...less so with ephedrine...but speaking from
personal experience with both...IMHO neither would increase
performance.

They might be good for weight loss, but they make you feel like [censored].

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Krusty said:

Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS said:

Krusty wrote:

>Is this substance completely banned? If so, why? I understand the
>dangers of long term use and the potential for abuse, but there are
>occasions, such as in 2002 where an american rider (can't remember
>who) got stung on the eyelid by a bee and was unable to continue.
>This seems like a case where cortisone could have been used in a
>reasonable manner. Also, many other sports allow the use of this
>substance.
>
>I'm sure this topic came up back in 2002, but I wasn't reading this NG
>at the time, so any thoughts would be appreciated.

This came up in an Armstrong post--that he'd tested positive for
steroids supposedly because of a cortisone saddle sore cream.
There is no logical reason I can think of for a glucocorticoid to be
banned, but they may be. A practical reason is I don't know if the
commonly used tests can distinguish them from anabolic steroids.
In any case, I think antihistamines are likely more appropriate for a
bee sting, but you have to watch out you don't use one that will make
you drowsy. For that matter, I'm not certain that all antihistamines
are allowed--you can't be too careful!

Steve

IIRC Sudafed is banned. Even if I'm wrong in the case of cycling, it
is many other sports...especially the Olympic sports such as
gymnastics. It's a goddamn cold medicine. Sure it's a synthetic
version of ephedrine, but even that drug has valid medical uses, e.g.,
for asthma. You can buy it at CVS, Walgreens, and even my local 7/11
without any problem. So it wouldn't surprise me if anit-histamines
were banned either.

That's true. But drugs of this class (actually decongestants, not
antihistamines) have at least the potential to be somewhat stimulating.
This is what nailed Grewal in the '84 Pan Am games with his Chi powder.

Steve

Quoted message said:

Very few drugs should be banned. I would agree that those that have
very little use other than performance enhancement require punishment
if not used for a purpose other than performance enhancement.
However, there are many substances that have been banned for no reason
that is rationally related to cycling.

Case in point: The fact that Jan was suspended in 2002 for XTC was
ridiculous. If anything they would have hurt his performance.

pseudoephedrine (Sudafed) is NOT banned buy the UCI, WADA or the IOC
it is thresholded, as is Caffine. Cortical Steriods would never be
confused for an Anabolic steriod in a drug test. The reason you would
use a Cortical Steriod for a bee sting is to reducing the inflamation.

Please do some research before pretending you know something...