NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/bicycles/racing/983

Text File | 1992-12-22 | 2.8 KB | 61 lines

Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.racing
Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!gatech!destroyer!fmsrl7!lynx!vesta.unm.edu!warsa
From: [e-mail] (j warsa)
Subject: Re: Cyling and Doping
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 17:12:49 GMT
Organization: Universidad de Nuevo Mexico, Alburquerque
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Lines: 50

[e-mail] (john.e.ampe), in rec.bicycles.racing, writes:
=> In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (sery) writes:
=> >Bruce Hildenbrand writes:
=> >>>Sery writes:
=>
=> How can you make such a claim when you admit that you have no idea how
=> much caffeine is contained in an Uptime?  Nor do you know her body
=> weight.  But you're right, Paul, she wasn't even close -- she was OVER
=> the limit, 6.5 hours after her event.  That's guilty by anyone's
=> standards.
=>
=> [e-mail]


Alot is being assumed by everyone responding to my original post. And we
all know what happens when we assume!

So, let me explain (yet again) why I posted this anecdote and what my purpose
was in posting. Bruce Hidenbrand probably already knows what I'm going to
say, as I have already e-mailed him on several occasions regarding this
issue.

Firstly, I described this scenario since the limit of 12 mcg/ml of urine
was posted by someone (I think it was Les Earnest) as being an unreasonable
amount caffeine to ingest. I beleive it is not at all unreasonable, and as
evidence for this I presented Janelle's situation so we could all see that
even with the equivalent of 3-4 cups of coffee, someone can test positive
for this performance enhancing drug. I did not post in order to start a
a discussion regarding her guilt, innocence, motives, or fair treatment. She
tested positive after ingesting about 300 mg of caffeine, and that's that.

Secondly, I posted because I wanted to point out that a quantitative limit
on a performance enhancing drug is somewhat arbitrary, because such a limit
does not take into account the variability of humans to rid their bodies
of ANY substance, such as body size, level of hydration, etc.

Finally, I have strong feelings regarding this issue, and I simply wanted
to point my rationale for having an all or nothing test for substances on
the banned list. Because caffeine, in whatever form, is a socially acceptable
drug you, as an athlete, are allowed to have SOME in your system. This is
also indicative of the arbitrary nature of quantitative drug testing. I can
point this out (at the risk of starting another debate, which I hope to
avoid) by asking rhetorically, "Why SOME caffeine? Why not SOME steroids?"
I suggest that if it's on the banned list, you should not be allowed any in
your system. This appears the most simple and fair policy for drug testing.


--
jim warsa
albuquerque