IV drips

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ed073
Bump

Bump? You must have some kind of colloquialism down under that I am not familiar with. I'm way up north here where the moose and brown bears run free right here in town. Things are different here, and the language is too.

What am I missing?

LOL....😄
It means "I agree" or "you make a good point" it brings the thread back to the top of the forum page so more people view it.

You can also bump a thread that has no responses to try again...

BTW, you can keep those bears mate.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ed073
LOL....😄
It means "I agree" or "you make a good point" it brings the thread back to the top of the forum page so more people view it.

You can also bump a thread that has no responses to try again...



BTW, you can keep those bears mate.

Heh, heh. By the way, I think Paul Hogan is hilarious. I know he distorts a lot of things to get laughs, but he is a great guy. So I have a favorable opinion of Aussies.

Thanks for the tip on bumping--very clever.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by gntlmn
Heh, heh. By the way, I think Paul Hogan is hilarious. I know he distorts a lot of things to get laughs, but he is a great guy. So I have a favorable opinion of Aussies.

Thanks for the tip on bumping--very clever.

Cheers. 🙂

[edit]-please don't base your opinion of Aussies on Hoges...he's a bit out of date these days. Wait for the Tour de France...there'll be Aussies winning the prologue, green jersey etc etc...

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by mitosis
I would be interested in the numbers of infections treated during these types of races as a result of IV rehydration (they occur in hospitals so why not elsewhere?).

The risk of infection is generally related to the time in which you have the IV drip in your vein. Most infections occur after having the drip for more than 2 - 3 days. As these guys would have theirs in for less than 12 hours, the infection rate would be very low (but not zero).

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by patch70
The risk of infection is generally related to the time in which you have the IV drip in your vein. Most infections occur after having the drip for more than 2 - 3 days. As these guys would have theirs in for less than 12 hours, the infection rate would be very low (but not zero).

Brisbane Lions mid-fielders were playing Aussie Rules football with IV insertions under a plaster at the ready for 1/2 time rehydration....until the AFL banned them.
Not good for the image of the game, apparently.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ed073
Brisbane Lions mid-fielders were playing Aussie Rules football with IV insertions under a plaster at the ready for 1/2 time rehydration....until the AFL banned them.
Not good for the image of the game, apparently.

Perhaps not good for the image of cycling either.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by mitosis
Perhaps not good for the image of cycling either.

Neither are empty protein powder containers full of used syringes containing traces of eGH hidden in wardrobes.

IV drips are small beer.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Ted B
Your conclusions about this are based upon your personal perception of IVs, the use of which is nothing new. I respect what you're saying here, but realize that between the end of one race or stage and the start of the next, the athletes are on their own time. They can do whatever they want with their own bodies just like any other time outside of a race...short of taking banned substances.

Not personal perception at all.

http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/6399.0.html

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by ed073
Cheers. 🙂

[edit]-please don't base your opinion of Aussies on Hoges...he's a bit out of date these days. Wait for the Tour de France...there'll be Aussies winning the prologue, green jersey etc etc...

I figured you'd probably say that about Hogan. As for cycling, I have a feeling cycling is more popular among Australians than it is among Americans, in spite of the Yanks' success in the Tour. Is this true?

I probably ought to mention something about IV's, since this thread is about them. I think they are probably beneficial for the riders compared with the risk of infection, but I agree that the public will probably misunderstand them. And if you try to hide the fact that the riders use them, anticipating that they will not be well received by the general public, then this will make matters worse. The public will certainly conclude that something unethical is happening. So I don't think that's a good approach.

I suspect that a few studies comparing accident rates with and without rehydration with IV's ought to be done and the results provided and vigorously puclicized to the general public. I have a strong hunch that riders are more alert after IV's, and this reduces the accident rate and consequently, rider injuries. But at this point, it's only a hunch. If the results do not show a strong correlation, I would probably rethink my acceptance of IV's. Heat stroke studies might be another study. I'm not sure how easy it would be to arrange these studies.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by gntlmn
I figured you'd probably say that about Hogan. As for cycling, I have a feeling cycling is more popular among Australians than it is among Americans, in spite of the Yanks' success in the Tour. Is this true?

Infamous is probably a better word than popular at the moment....our elite track racing program is embroiled in a drug controversy at the moment, so everyone I know is offering their opinion that "all bike riders are on drugs" and "did you ever take drugs when you were racing".

Tour de France is the only race that get's real attention in the mainstream media each year....and even then the knowledge of the commentators/journalists is woeful. Case in point, in today's Herald-Sun (biggest circulation paper in Aust) there is a picture of Brad McGee winning a pursuit with the caption, "Shane Kelly celebrates winning Olympic bronze."......[sigh]

Sorry if this is a bit OT....but it makes mad! 🙁

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by mitosis
Not personal perception at all.

http://www.velonews.com/race/int/articles/6399.0.html

I'm not sure what IV rehydration has to do with taking illegal substances (as per the article). Rehydration via IV is not banned.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Ted B
I'm not sure what IV rehydration has to do with taking illegal substances (as per the article). Rehydration via IV is not banned.

Yeah, that was an excellent article about continually better testing methods in the Tour de France, but it mentioned absolutely nothing about IV's which is an entirely different subject.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Ted B
I'm not sure what IV rehydration has to do with taking illegal substances (as per the article). Rehydration via IV is not banned.

I thought I had put the wrong story up.

Instead you choose to ignore my point.

Most athletes who die on the job, unfortunately, do so because of a preexisting condition. IV rehydration will not alter that.

Meanwhile, since you've got me going again, infections from IV drips are not a matter of opinion, but a fact; nor is that IV drips are not natural.

Breathing pure oxygen isn't 'natural'. Neither are B12 and iron injections. Fortunately, the UCI and other governing bodies don't see things the way you do. With exception to banned substances, the athlete is in control of his own body. It has always been that way and hopefully always will be. Not every athlete 'plugs in' after a stage race, but in some cases it may make the difference between being able to continue or not, in which case it is the discretion of the athlete to do whatever he can within the specified bounds to keep himself in raceworthy condition. The freedom to do whatever one can to get an edge (within limits) is and has always been part of the competition.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Ted B
Breathing pure oxygen isn't 'natural'. Neither are B12 and iron injections. Fortunately, the UCI and other governing bodies don't see things the way you do. With exception to banned substances, the athlete is in control of his own body. It has always been that way and hopefully always will be. Not every athlete 'plugs in' after a stage race, but in some cases it may make the difference between being able to continue or not, in which case it is the discretion of the athlete to do whatever he can within the specified bounds to keep himself in raceworthy condition. The freedom to do whatever one can to get an edge (within limits) is and has always been part of the competition.

Again, you choose to not argue the point.

It is reassuring from the feedback that not everone thinks like you either. There has been plenty of support expressed among informed cyclists for the ideas I put up for discussion.

I don't remember expressing an opinion regarding vitamins and oxygen - just *plugging in*.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mitosis
Again, you choose to not argue the point.
[/quote]

Excuse me, but I just didn't see much that was worthy of a discussion...only babbling about what's 'natural' and a reference to a cyclist who died as a result of a congenital heart defect.

Quoted post said:

I don't remember expressing an opinion regarding vitamins and oxygen - just *plugging in*.

So why do you bother to respond when it is obvious all you want is to berate someone because they don't share your views.

The idea was put up for discussion. So far you'r the only one who has not added something constructive to the debate.

Thanks to everyone else.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by mitosis
So why do you bother to respond when it is obvious all you want is to berate someone because they don't share your views.

The idea was put up for discussion. So far you'r the only one who has not added something constructive to the debate.

Thanks to everyone else.

*SNIP*

Quoted post said:

Tedb:
in some cases it may make the difference between being able to continue or not, in which case it is the discretion of the athlete to do whatever he can within the specified bounds to keep himself in raceworthy condition. The freedom to do whatever one can to get an edge (within limits) is and has always been part of the competition.

I am surprised that there aren't many posters here who see that this is a very thin line between doping.

I am vehemently against IV drips as in the end it will harm the cyclists. "Plugging in" is imho a big step. I would be quitye hesistant to let a doctor plug me in every day. Now if that same doctor can add some intralipid, for calories, Vitamins for "health" etc etc, where does it end? If you go that far (and I feel that you are going quite far if you are at that stage), why not add some extra juice, esp. when the stakes are up so high?

Gntlmns comment about the team-Doc are amusing to say the least. There wouldn't be a team doc that allows second party's substances being injected in his subjects. So you have to trust your Team Doc... he will be the one you have to deal with in the TdF.

Another factor to come into this discussion is that although some procedures are not legal they are frowned upon by cycling bodies.

In the aftermath of the recent Australian drug scandal, Cycling Australia (afiliated with UCI) stated, specifically, that they were against vitamin injections despite the fact that they were not illegal.