Any way of (legally) raising my hematocrit?

[[email protected]]

Look at the USADA/WADA's attitude about marijuana. It is clearly not a
performance-enhancing drug, but plenty of people have been nailed for
it. Why? Because the drug policies go beyond trying to make competition
"fair", they also include moral judgements and the enforcement of
societal mass values on the athletes, too.

Utter power trip. Read any interview with **** Pound for further proof.

Zub

 

[Mark Fennell]

"Ronde Chump" wrote:
> Ron,
>
> It all depends on the profile of the athlete, and whether it will make a
> headline. If you read their propaganda well enough, you'll see that it is
> purposfully left ambiguous. That's OK if all they are doing is going
after
> real cheaters, but that's not the case.
> <snip>

I was surprised to hear the following about the Fuentes case... According to
a guy who testified in the case, USADA came down hard on him (Fuentes)
because he had shown a pattern of using *legal* supplements for a long time
before actually testing positive for something illegal. His claim is that he
made a mistake at Redlands, taking something there that contained the banned
substance, and that he did not engage in a systematic doping plan. USADA
didn't believe the story, primarily because he admits to regular use of
Optygen (sp?), Cytomax, vitamins, etc.--totally legal products--to boost
performance. In other words, if you don't stick to bananas and water, you
are exhibiting the beginning patterns of a doper, at least according to
USADA.

Mark
(not taking sides--just reporting what I was told)

 

[Bob Schwartz]

Mark Fennell <[email protected]> wrote:
> I was surprised to hear the following about the Fuentes case... According to
> a guy who testified in the case, USADA came down hard on him (Fuentes)
> because he had shown a pattern of using *legal* supplements for a long time
> before actually testing positive for something illegal. His claim is that he
> made a mistake at Redlands, taking something there that contained the banned
> substance, and that he did not engage in a systematic doping plan. USADA
> didn't believe the story, primarily because he admits to regular use of
> Optygen (sp?), Cytomax, vitamins, etc.--totally legal products--to boost
> performance. In other words, if you don't stick to bananas and water, you
> are exhibiting the beginning patterns of a doper, at least according to
> USADA.

> Mark
> (not taking sides--just reporting what I was told)

That sound plausible except they didn't come down hard on him. ****, the
guy got only a year off the bike, he was supposed to get two.

Here's the AAA decision:

http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/arbitration_rulings/Fuentes AAA Decision & Award.pdf

The judgements make good reading because of the lame ass horseshit that
people come up with. He claims he took some **** after a crash that was
left over from a prescription from a prior injury. **** that was in a
film cannister and not the original prescription bottle. And that he
didn't know exactly what the **** was.

I'd have thrown the full two year book at him for a story like that.

Bob Schwartz
[email protected]

 

[Tom Kunich]

[email protected] Feb 7, 7:54 am
"Look at the USADA/WADA's attitude about marijuana. It is clearly not a

performance-enhancing drug, but plenty of people have been nailed for
it. Why? Because the drug policies go beyond trying to make competition

"fair", they also include moral judgements and the enforcement of
societal mass values on the athletes, too."


BS - it isn't a moral judgement as such. People who feel OK about using
illegal drugs in one place usually feel no compunction about using
illegal drugs elsewhere.

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On 7 Feb 2005 10:33:22 -0800, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>BS - it isn't a moral judgement as such. People who feel OK about using
>illegal drugs in one place usually feel no compunction about using
>illegal drugs elsewhere.

So the person that has a drink or two at the end of the day is
presumed to have no compunction about driving drunk? How do we get
from presumption to anything like a syllogism here?

I doubt that there is any support for the 'usually feel no
compunction' at all, and that there is little correlation between
smoking dope and using drugs to cheat in competition. Some of the
tokers I have known were the least likely to be cheaters, while some
of the track cheaters seen from afar seem way too tightly strung to be
tokers. OTOH, I don't pretend that there is anything like A equals B
in my observations.

I will say that WADA will function a lot better if their mission is as
tightly focused as possible and they will have a better mandate if
they keep to that focus. Testing for cannabis should not be part of
that focus IMO.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

 

[Mark Fennell]

"Bob Schwartz" wrote:
> Mark Fennell <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I was surprised to hear the following about the Fuentes case...
According to
> > a guy who testified in the case, USADA came down hard on him (Fuentes)
> > because he had shown a pattern of using *legal* supplements for a long
time
> > before actually testing positive for something illegal. His claim is
that he
> > made a mistake at Redlands, taking something there that contained the
banned
> > substance, and that he did not engage in a systematic doping plan. USADA
> > didn't believe the story, primarily because he admits to regular use of
> > Optygen (sp?), Cytomax, vitamins, etc.--totally legal products--to boost
> > performance. In other words, if you don't stick to bananas and water,
you
> > are exhibiting the beginning patterns of a doper, at least according to
> > USADA.
>
> > Mark
> > (not taking sides--just reporting what I was told)
>
> That sound plausible except they didn't come down hard on him. ****, the
> guy got only a year off the bike, he was supposed to get two.
>
> Here's the AAA decision:
>
>
http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/arbitration_rulings/Fuentes AAA Decision & Award.pdf
>
<snip>

Thanks for that. Yes, the report makes it look pretty bad.

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005 12:31:25 -0800, "Mark Fennell"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Thanks for that. Yes, the report makes it look pretty bad.

It sure looks like he got all the benefits and USADA even picked up
the bill. He'll miss one racing season and that's pretty much that.
Not even long enough for anyone to forget the excuse of using U/I meds
in a film case.

If an employee used this as an excuse for missing work or something, I
would be vacillating between being insulted by the expectation that I
would believe it and being worried about an employee dumb enough to
say it. The arbitration people seemed to only feel sympathy. Guess I
must be a flawed human being...

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

 

[RonSonic]

On 07 Feb 2005 15:45:53 GMT, [email protected] (Ronde Chump) wrote:

>Ron,
>
>It all depends on the profile of the athlete, and whether it will make a
>headline. If you read their propaganda well enough, you'll see that it is
>purposfully left ambiguous. That's OK if all they are doing is going after
>real cheaters, but that's not the case.
>
>According to their rules, the "training effect" is actually illegal, but
>there's no way (i hope) for them to enforce that. Their definitions are so
>vague that energy drinks and bars should get you suspended, but they
>don't......yet. How many adverts for energy products have your read that don't
>say "improves performance"?
>
>Personally, i don't see any difference between using an altitude tent and using
>anything that is not specifically on the banned list, BUT, should your HCT go
>above 50%, you better watch out. What happens to a guy that has a HCT of 47,
>then goes and lives at altitude for a month......all of a sudden he has
>"irregular blood values", because its not normal for him.....?
>
>To answer your question....i don't know, and USADA won't tell you. It all
>depends on their set of morals and ethics on the day in question.
>
>Why doesn't drinking a can of Mt. Dew get you busted? It gives you an
>advantage over the guy that doesn't drink it (at least for 10-20 minutes). Why
>does a high HCT get you busted even if they don't find anything "illegal"?
>
>The fact is, anything that you do to improve performance is considered
>cheating. Unfortunately, they make no distinction between "improving
>performance" and "maximizing performance". If you drive for 15 hours to get to
>a race and your competitor flys there, who is more likely to have the best
>performance? Did he improve or maximize his performance? If you are training
>above your physical capabilities for a long period of time, you'll start to
>feel run-down and sluggish at some point. A blood test will show a lower HCT
>as well as lowered Iron levels. Is getting an injection of Iron and some B
>vitamins to bring you out of the slump "illegal" or not? USADA says it is.
>
>Is getting an IV after a really hot, tough stage in the Tour "legal" or
>"illegal"? According to USADA it is "illegal", but everyone knows that the top
>teams do it (including the yellow jersey after a well known time trial) so that
>the riders don't get dehydrated. What about the teams that can't afford to do
>that, are they being cheated?
>
>We can go to extremes on this and still not have any clear picture. A guy has
>access to the best medical advice and the latest research. He finds out that
>drinking an imported beer, taking 81mg of aspirin, taking 3 children's Sudafed,
>and eating 2lbs of spinach just before a race will make him go faster. Next
>year, GNC makes a tablet (a really big one) that contains all of these
>ingredients. The FDA then classifys it as dangerous because you can die from
>having really bad *****, so USADA says that this substance is now "illegal".
>Was this guy cheating or not?
>
>Its a really big gray area, but they do have the power to bust you, whether or
>not you are taking anything "illegal". It all just depends on how unreasonable
>they intend to become.
>
>Food for thought.....
>
>-chump

Downright eloquent.

Thanks
Ron

 

[[email protected]]

Ronde Chump wrote:

> One example that I can think of is the suspension of a rider a few
years ago
> for having a high t/e ratio. He was using completely "legal"
supplements to
> raise his level of testerone, but got busted for being a cheater
because his
> t/e got altered, not because they found anything illegal (which they
didn't
> AFAIK).

A high T/E (testosterone/epitestosterone) ratio was already defined
as a positive test in the regs. The rules were in place. They do
this because, IIRC, they can't distinguish between naturally
occurring T and T taken as a pill.

What legal supplements raise the testosterone level?
By factors of several?

 

[[email protected]]

Thanks for the info . . . I think. OK -- the 1st test was at
www.yourfuturehealth.com. The HCT was 42, which, while considered
"normal," is "less than optimal," according to YFH. The next test was
when I attempted to donate blood. (It was down to 32 then.) I should
note that YFH also tesed my iron -- which was 85, I believe, a "great"
result according to them -- BUT my ferretin (sp?) was a nearly anemic
12. I'm also wondering if the fish oil had something to do with it . .
..

 

[[email protected]]

They look like a fairly wobbly outfit. Have you even been down the
regualr doctor/lab route?

 

[RonSonic]

On 7 Feb 2005 16:41:34 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>Thanks for the info . . . I think. OK -- the 1st test was at
>www.yourfuturehealth.com. The HCT was 42, which, while considered
>"normal," is "less than optimal," according to YFH. The next test was
>when I attempted to donate blood. (It was down to 32 then.) I should
>note that YFH also tesed my iron -- which was 85, I believe, a "great"
>result according to them -- BUT my ferretin (sp?) was a nearly anemic
>12. I'm also wondering if the fish oil had something to do with it . .
>

Visit a doctor, that's a regular MD. Hell, a walk-in operation or clinic if you
don't know any and get a regular blood work up. That 32 is skitchy. I'm guessing
you didn't donate.

Ron

 

[Patricio Carlos]

The Iron level in your blood is not really useful as it fluctuates
markedly within the individual. The ferritin is much more useful. At
12, you may well have iron deficiency. Have you had a full blood
examination yet? If yes, what was your mean cell volume (MCV)? If low,
that would also suggest iron deficiency.

However, as stated already, you need to find out why you are anaemic.
It is not enough to say "iron deficiency". You need to find why you are
iron deficient. See a real doctor - not a walk-in blood test place.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Curtis L. Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> On 7 Feb 2005 10:33:22 -0800, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>BS - it isn't a moral judgement as such. People who feel OK about using
>>illegal drugs in one place usually feel no compunction about using
>>illegal drugs elsewhere.
>
> So the person that has a drink or two at the end of the day is
> presumed to have no compunction about driving drunk? How do we get
> from presumption to anything like a syllogism here?

Perhaps you'd like to explain to us where having a drink is illegal? Oh,
yeah, Saudi Arabia. I'm sure that you can come up with a better argument
than that.

> I doubt that there is any support for the 'usually feel no
> compunction' at all, and that there is little correlation between
> smoking dope and using drugs to cheat in competition. Some of the
> tokers I have known were the least likely to be cheaters, while some
> of the track cheaters seen from afar seem way too tightly strung to be
> tokers. OTOH, I don't pretend that there is anything like A equals B
> in my observations.
>
> I will say that WADA will function a lot better if their mission is as
> tightly focused as possible and they will have a better mandate if
> they keep to that focus. Testing for cannabis should not be part of
> that focus IMO.
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...

You may believe anything you wish. That doesn't make it so. And I think that
I have a little history on my side in this case.

 

[Bob Schwartz]

RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 07 Feb 2005 15:45:53 GMT, [email protected] (Ronde Chump) wrote:

>>Food for thought.....
>>
>>-chump

> Downright eloquent.

> Thanks
> Ron

If you consider horseshit eloquent.

Bob Schwartz
[email protected]

 

[Suz]

"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Now add the way that the blood is drawn and from the location from which
> it was drawn and it's easy to get a 10 point reading variation.
>

No, it's not. 10 points is significant.

> The only true test is a centrifuge.

Wrong again.

 

[Suz]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Thanks for the info . . . I think. OK -- the 1st test was at
> www.yourfuturehealth.com. The HCT was 42, which, while considered
> "normal," is "less than optimal," according to YFH. The next test was
> when I attempted to donate blood. (It was down to 32 then.) I should
> note that YFH also tesed my iron -- which was 85, I believe, a "great"
> result according to them -- BUT my ferretin (sp?) was a nearly anemic
> 12. I'm also wondering if the fish oil had something to do with it . .
> .

I don't see how fish oil could have anything to do with ...anything. SEE A
DOCTOR!!!

Ferritin is a more accurate indicator of long term iron storage. IIRC, Iron
levels may be okay, but may only mean that you have enough iron in your
diet, not that you are storing/ absorbing/ using it properly. A ferritin
level of 12 is pretty bad. I recently read somewhere that a ferritin level
of 30-40, while acceptable for the average human, may not be optimal for
athletes, who should consider an iron supplement if ferritin is under 40.
12 is NOT acceptable. This pretty much correlates with the low hct. Again,
see a doctor- and let us know what happens.

Suz
Hct: 39
Ferritin: 34
Taking my Flintstones w/ Iron vitamins

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 03:04:45 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Perhaps you'd like to explain to us where having a drink is illegal? Oh,
>yeah, Saudi Arabia. I'm sure that you can come up with a better argument
>than that.

Its a pain to have to explain something that isn't all that subtle to
begin with.

What is similar is that the moral and ethical context of consumption
changes in each case because of the potential consequences. In each
case, the consumption may be the same, but the ethical and moral
consequences of the consumption vary widely. And most of us are able
to consider the consequences of our actions as part of the context of
the actions themselves. If you wish to disagree, its your bandwidth,
but it isn't worth my time.

FWIW, there are a lot of situations where drinking is illegal. Open
public drinking in PG County, MD is illegal. The state and county
troopers at the University of Maryland tailgate parties in the stadium
parking lot circulate around and tell you that since you are breaking
the law, keep it quiet or they will haul you in. So if you want, move
it to one of the tailgate parties and make yourself happy.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Curtis L. Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 03:04:45 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Perhaps you'd like to explain to us where having a drink is illegal? Oh,
>>yeah, Saudi Arabia. I'm sure that you can come up with a better argument
>>than that.
>
> Its a pain to have to explain something that isn't all that subtle to
> begin with.

Curtis, you're a perfectly intelligent person who made a bad comparison.
That's all there is to this. People who use illegal drugs don't think that
same way about "illegal" as people who don't use illegal drugs. People who
have a beer aren't drunk nor committing any illegal act by driving.

You might as well compare some guy who goes to the rifle range to serial
murderers.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Curtis L. Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 03:04:45 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Perhaps you'd like to explain to us where having a drink is illegal? Oh,
>>yeah, Saudi Arabia. I'm sure that you can come up with a better argument
>>than that.
>
> Its a pain to have to explain something that isn't all that subtle to
> begin with.

Curtis, you're a perfectly intelligent person who made a bad comparison.
That's all there is to this. People who use illegal drugs don't think that
same way about "illegal" as people who don't use illegal drugs. People who
have a beer aren't drunk nor committing any illegal act by driving.

You might as well compare some guy who goes to the rifle range to serial
murderers.