When is blood doping not blood doping?

[smutchin]

Why? Do you have a problem with overweight mice?

 

[rich p]

Why? Do you have a problem with overweight mice?

Love your mycyclinglog rank!

 

[Crackle]

Why? Do you have a problem with overweight mice?

Do you mind if I don't answer that in case she reads it

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

I just read out to MrsC what Telmisartan does in Mice and she reckons she should get some prescribed!

I think @Mice has some explaining to do!

 

[smutchin]

It took 5 years to ban the UV light therapy

Well, it's not really UV light therapy per se that's banned, is it? The 2011 rule change seems to have been to clarify the position on any procedure that involves autologous transfusion.

It seems questionable whether the therapy was really in the spirit of the rules in the first place, because of the transfusion aspect of it, but slipped through the net only because its performance-enhancing credentials were questionable.

Oxygen tents are a non-invasive, non-medicinal procedure, so hardly in the same category.

 

[smutchin]

Love your mycyclinglog rank!

Eh? What? Oh... I should probably update my sig now I don't use mcl any more.

I should also get out and ride more and spend less time on here discussing yet another bloody doping story, but that's another matter.

 

[rich p]

Eh? What? Oh... I should probably update my sig now I don't use mcl any more.

I should also get out and ride more and spend less time on here discussing yet another bloody doping story, but that's another matter.

nevertheless 302nd out of 231 is no mean achievement!

 

[smutchin]

nevertheless 302nd out of 231 is no mean achievement!

Sounds a bit fishy to me. If I didn't know me better I'd say it was grounds for Reasonable Suspicion that I'm up to no good. Let me just put those numbers through my Highly Scientific Spreadsheet and get back to you...

 

[400bhp]

I fairness to Kittel, when this first came out he explained that he was naïve and only 18. It wasn't illegal then and he has been vehemently and vocally anti-doping ever since. I will, therefore, cut him some slack and send him a Christmas card.

If that's true then I think it's fair enough.

We all make mistakes - it's how we deal with the mistakes that define us.

 

[zizou]

I fairness to Kittel, when this first came out he explained that he was naïve and only 18. It wasn't illegal then and he has been vehemently and vocally anti-doping ever since. I will, therefore, cut him some slack and send him a Christmas card.

Agree with that.

He had a really good interview after the news broke last year and came across very well in it and seemed very genuine too. Perhaps that it just me being naive but some riders (Kittel in this case but also the likes of Cavendish and his missed test) deserve the benefit of the doubt over what are isolated mistakes.

 

[ufkacbln]

Well, it's not really UV light therapy per se that's banned, is it? The 2011 rule change seems to have been to clarify the position on any procedure that involves autologous transfusion.

It seems questionable whether the therapy was really in the spirit of the rules in the first place, because of the transfusion aspect of it, but slipped through the net only because its performance-enhancing credentials were questionable.

Oxygen tents are a non-invasive, non-medicinal procedure, so hardly in the same category.

It is interesting that CAS have previously stated that a case of UV blood treatment constituted doping and this was 10 years before the present declaration. In 2002 this was their decision [url=http://jurisprudence.tas-cas.org/sites/CaseLaw/Shared Documents/389-393.pdf]Link[/url]

In the present case, the UV Blood Transfusions were administered in a private place
by a coach with no medical support and without supervision of, or disclosure to, the
team doctor, the IOC Medical Commission or the team management. The UV Blood
Transfusions were not even documented by proper records. Consequently, the test for
legitimate medical treatment was not met and the blood transfusion must be considered as blood doping.

 

[ufkacbln]

Oxygen tents are a non-invasive, non-medicinal procedure, so hardly in the same category.

They were chosen to present an "ethical dilemma" it is on record as being an enhancement and against the spirit of sport.

The bloods capacity to carry oxygen is deliberately enhanced by an intervention.............. is it a morally valid choice?

 

[BJH]

medication or drugs to enhance performance, including removal of blood for treatment then re infusing it, is nothing like the use of oxygen tents or training at altitude in any way shape or form.

The firstexa,ples are deliberate cheating. Given comments on here around Kittels age and subsequent comments, I would be happy to give him te benefitif the doubt. But, you cannotvsaybthat a missed test by Cavendish is the same. Completely different, both may be potentially youth and stupidity but only the blood treatment is a straight case of trying to cheat.

Just ban needles in any way shape or form from the sport.

 

[smutchin]

It is interesting that CAS have previously stated that a case of UV blood treatment constituted doping and this was 10 years before the present declaration.

Well, the key words in that statement are "legitimate medical treatment".

I'm not saying I necessarily agree with it as an excuse but in Kittel's case the procedure was ostensibly used as treatment for a cold and was administered by a proper doctor. But I presume the appeal against the Kittel ruling is questioning the legitimacy of the treatment on the same grounds as that earlier case.

 

[smutchin]

Just ban needles in any way shape or form from the sport.

I think that's what the 2011 rule change did.