Vijay Singh admits to using banned substance in Sports Illustrated ... - Page 8

On the subject of transparency, if the PGA simply fines a player, we may never hear about it.

But I found the following in the Anti-Doping Program Manual:

"In each case where a period of Ineligibility has been imposed or tournament results have been disqualified, the PGA TOUR will, at a minimum, publish the name of the player, the fact that the player committed an anti-doping rule violation, and the sanction imposed."

So if someone is suspended from competition, they do announce it publicly.

- Dave

Here are some references;

1. "But when it comes to sprays or pills, there’s little evidence that deer antler offers performance enhancing benefits of any kind, says Alan Rogol, M.D., an endocrinologist at the University of Virginia. Rogol is also part of a small team of doctors that assists anti-doping agencies in determining if and when athletes can use certain controversial substances.
   “You can’t eat this stuff in a pill, because the digestive system will destroy it,” Rogol explains of the IGF-1 present in deer antler. As for under-the-tongue sprays, Rogol says some relatively small proteins might be absorbed that way. “But the amounts would be vanishingly small. In humans, I can’t believe it could be effective.”
   Bottom line: Rogol says it’s “extremely unlikely” that deer antler in any form could offer athletes a boost. “Deer antlers do contain growth factors,” he explains. But it’s a huge leap of faith to talk about an extract doing anything beneficial for human beings, whether it’s slowing aging, developing muscle, or repairing tendons, he adds. Opinions like Rogol’s are one reason the FDA and anti-doping agencies haven’t yet taken steps to ban deer antler products that contain IGF-1."
    
2. But endocrinologists say there’s scant research to support these claims. Dr. Martin Miner, co-director of the Men’s Health Center at Miriam Hospital in Providence, said IGF-1 is similar to human growth hormone, which needs to be injected. The body can’t absorb enough of the hormone by mouth since too much gets broken down by the liver during digestion. “I just cannot believe that one could consume high enough quantities of IGF-1 from an oral spray that it would increase healing or enhance athletic ability,” he said.
    
3. Deer antler spray has insignificant amounts of this chemical, but, more importantly, the spray is deactivated by digestive enzymes in the mouth and stomach, does not enter the bloodstream and causes no biologic effect within the body. IGF-1 is chemically related to insulin and for this same reason, insulin cannot be taken by mouth nad must be injected into the body. Any positive benefit received from the use of oral IGF-1would be due to a placebo effect, and likely also the benefit found in the use of stickers and special water.
    

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave67az 
1.  Very true.  And it's also scientifically proven that IGF-1, just like HGH and steroids, is proven to be a PED.

2.  Blood testing should be used, in my opinion.  I'll agree with you there.  HOWEVER, I'm tired of there being different rules for me than there are for you.  I've posted plenty of study results backing up every claim I've made.  How about posting your source that proves that "deer antler spray is known to be completely ineffective."  (and I hope you have something better than the opinions of a bunch of golfers on this website)

 

 

I do agree that blood testing should be necessary.

If ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

 

• " the FDA and anti-doping agencies haven’t yet taken steps to ban deer antler products that contain IGF-1."
   

then why would it be banned on the PGA tour?  Is that guy referring to all anti-doping agencies?  When was that?

Oh, and if what you guys were saying up above is all correct (not sure who said what ;)) then it's interesting because you guys are saying that it's not detectable by any current testing methods, however, admitting you use it is punishable.

So if you didn't realize something was against the rules AND admitted it (similar to what Vijay did) that is punishable, however, if you know that it's against the rules and use it anyway - "but who cares because they can't detect it, and I'm gonna lie if they ask me about it" - and are deceitful then that's A-OK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

Here are some references;

 

1. "But when it comes to sprays or pills, there’s little evidence that deer antler offers performance enhancing benefits of any kind, says Alan Rogol, M.D., an endocrinologist at the University of Virginia. Rogol is also part of a small team of doctors that assists anti-doping agencies in determining if and when athletes can use certain controversial substances.
   “You can’t eat this stuff in a pill, because the digestive system will destroy it,” Rogol explains of the IGF-1 present in deer antler. As for under-the-tongue sprays, Rogol says some relatively small proteins might be absorbed that way. “But the amounts would be vanishingly small. In humans, I can’t believe it could be effective.”
   Bottom line: Rogol says it’s “extremely unlikely” that deer antler in any form could offer athletes a boost. “Deer antlers do contain growth factors,” he explains. But it’s a huge leap of faith to talk about an extract doing anything beneficial for human beings, whether it’s slowing aging, developing muscle, or repairing tendons, he adds. Opinions like Rogol’s are one reason the FDA and anti-doping agencies haven’t yet taken steps to ban deer antler products that contain IGF-1."
    
2. But endocrinologists say there’s scant research to support these claims. Dr. Martin Miner, co-director of the Men’s Health Center at Miriam Hospital in Providence, said IGF-1 is similar to human growth hormone, which needs to be injected. The body can’t absorb enough of the hormone by mouth since too much gets broken down by the liver during digestion. “I just cannot believe that one could consume high enough quantities of IGF-1 from an oral spray that it would increase healing or enhance athletic ability,” he said.
    
3. Deer antler spray has insignificant amounts of this chemical, but, more importantly, the spray is deactivated by digestive enzymes in the mouth and stomach, does not enter the bloodstream and causes no biologic effect within the body. IGF-1 is chemically related to insulin and for this same reason, insulin cannot be taken by mouth nad must be injected into the body. Any positive benefit received from the use of oral IGF-1would be due to a placebo effect, and likely also the benefit found in the use of stickers and special water.
    

The point is that IGF-1 is a proven muscle-builder.  While studies have focused on injected forms, this does NOT discount the fact that IGF-1 does build muscle and thereby improve performance potential.

Let me give you another example.  We know anabolic steroids are a PED, correct?  If I were to buy it in lotion form that I spread on my testicles, you're telling me that I should be able to if there are no studies that prove that testicular anabolic steroid lotions provide any benefit.

Pretty weak argument, since again as many of us have stated, the purpose of the rule is to eliminate PEDs, not to encourage people to find creative new ways to administer the products.

As for the FDA, this is a classic example of someone making moot claims.  The FDA does NOT evaluate these products because they are produced and marketed as "nutrition supplements", NOT food, and NOT drugs.  They are exempt from FDA testing.  The fact that the FDA hasn't acted means NOTHING to anyone who understands the FDA purpose and processes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad 

1. If ...

then why would it be banned on the PGA tour?  Is that guy referring to all anti-doping agencies?  When was that?

 

2. Oh, and if what you guys were saying up above is all correct (not sure who said what ;)) then it's interesting because you guys are saying that it's not detectable by any current testing methods, however, admitting you use it is punishable.

 

So if you didn't realize something was against the rules AND admitted it (similar to what Vijay did) that is punishable, however, if you know that it's against the rules and use it anyway - "but who cares because they can't detect it, and I'm gonna lie if they ask me about it" - and are deceitful then that's A-OK.

1.  The foundation for the banned list comes from the World Anti-Doping Agency and has been modified slightly for the sport of Golf.  (http://www.wada-ama.org/)

2.  Yes...exactly.  If you do it, hide it, lie about it, and don't get caught, you don't get punished.  If you admit to doing it, even if you claim you were ignorant, you are guilty because it states explicitly in the Anti-Doping Program Manual (bolded section is also bolded in the manual to emphasize the point)...

"If you are unsure of a product’s ingredients, you should not take that product until you are sure it does not contain any prohibited substance(s). In addition, the manufacturing and labeling of supplements are not subject to strict regulation, which may lead to a supplement containing a substance that is prohibited under the Program, even though that substance is not listed as an ingredient. In years past, positive test results in other sports have been attributed to the use of mislabeled supplements. Since taking a poorly labeled supplement is not a defense to a violation of the Program, you are urged to exercise caution and conduct appropriate research when using these products."

IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE.

In another paragraph, it says it again:

It does not matter whether you unintentionally or unknowingly used a prohibited substance. It is, therefore, very important for players to understand not only what is prohibited, but also how a prohibited substance may get into your body, potentially causing an accidental violation.

The PGA Tour has simplified this even more.  They, just like MLB and other sports organizations, have contracted with the National Science Foundation (NSF) to conduct testing and maintain a database of products that conform/don't conform to the anti-doping guidelines.  I watched an interview today on the MLB network (I can't find a reference online yet) but one of the MLB players was explaining how simple it was because all you have to do is call a 1-800 number, give them the name of the product, and the NSF will tell you whether the product contains any banned substances.

Sorry, but when the process is that simple to keep in compliance with, there's little excuse for failing to adhere to standards.  We're not talking about Vijay accidentally getting some doped milk that had hormones in it.  We're talking about him buying $9,000 worth of supplements and him failing to even check with the website that lists the ingredients, or the NSF to ensure the products weren't banned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave67az 

 

1.  The foundation for the banned list comes from the World Anti-Doping Agency and has been modified slightly for the sport of Golf.  (http://www.wada-ama.org/)

 

2.  Yes...exactly.  If you do it, hide it, lie about it, and don't get caught, you don't get punished.  If you admit to doing it, even if you claim you were ignorant, you are guilty because it states explicitly in the Anti-Doping Program Manual (bolded section is also bolded in the manual to emphasize the point)...

 

"If you are unsure of a product’s ingredients, you should not take that product until you are sure it does not contain any prohibited substance(s). In addition, the manufacturing and labeling of supplements are not subject to strict regulation, which may lead to a supplement containing a substance that is prohibited under the Program, even though that substance is not listed as an ingredient. In years past, positive test results in other sports have been attributed to the use of mislabeled supplements. Since taking a poorly labeled supplement is not a defense to a violation of the Program, you are urged to exercise caution and conduct appropriate research when using these products."

 

IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE.

 

In another paragraph, it says it again:

 

It does not matter whether you unintentionally or unknowingly used a prohibited substance. It is, therefore, very important for players to understand not only what is prohibited, but also how a prohibited substance may get into your body, potentially causing an accidental violation.

 

 

The PGA Tour has simplified this even more.  They, just like MLB and other sports organizations, have contracted with the National Science Foundation (NSF) to conduct testing and maintain a database of products that conform/don't conform to the anti-doping guidelines.  I watched an interview today on the MLB network (I can't find a reference online yet) but one of the MLB players was explaining how simple it was because all you have to do is call a 1-800 number, give them the name of the product, and the NSF will tell you whether the product contains any banned substances.

 

Sorry, but when the process is that simple to keep in compliance with, there's little excuse for failing to adhere to standards.  We're not talking about Vijay accidentally getting some doped milk that had hormones in it.  We're talking about him buying $9,000 worth of supplements and him failing to even check with the website that lists the ingredients, or the NSF to ensure the products weren't banned.

I get all of that.  And I'm not trying to make excuses for Vijay either.  It makes perfect sense that you punish somebody like Vijay ... what doesn't make sense is NOT punishing those are intentionally cheating.

Of course, that's not really a point of argument, because I'm pretty sure everybody agreed already that better testing - including blood testing - is necessary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad 

I get all of that.  And I'm not trying to make excuses for Vijay either.  It makes perfect sense that you punish somebody like Vijay ... what doesn't make sense is NOT punishing those are intentionally cheating.

 

Of course, that's not really a point of argument, because I'm pretty sure everybody agreed already that better testing - including blood testing - is necessary.

Is it any different with any other rule?  If you don't get caught, you don't get punished.  If you accidentally move your ball at address and don't report it, and nobody catches you, you don't get punished.  If you accidentally ground your club in a bunker at address and nobody notices, and you don't tell anyone, you don't get punished.

We can't fix that problem.  If people are going to be unethical, you can't do anything unless you can catch them.

So how do we catch people who use banned substances that don't show up in urine tests?  Blood testing.  Seems to me it's the ONLY logical answer.

We need to supplement the urine testing program with random blood tests.

I may be going out on a limb, but I'm betting we ALL agree that if a substance is on the banned list, it makes no sense to test for products using a test method that is KNOWN not to detect the substances on the list.

Can we agree on that one at least?

Incidentally, in case anyone was curious, here's the study that was published by the American College of Sports Medicine that is most often quoted.

Broeder, C.E., Percival, R., Quindry, J., Wills, T., Panton, L., Browder, K., Earnest, C., & Almada, A. (2004). New Zealand deer antler velvet and resistance training impact on body composition, aerobic capacity and strength. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 36(5), S284.

Here's a link where you can purchase the entire text.  http://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Citation/2004/05001/New_Zealand_Deer_Antler_Velvet_And_Resistance.1363.aspx

Here's the paragraph describing how the study was accomplished (an oral form was used by the way...NOT injected IGF-1)...

"Thirty-two males between the ages of 18 and 35 with at least 4 years of weight lifting experience, but not regularly participating in an aerobic training program, were recruited. After completing a university approved consent-form, plus the initial screening and testing procedures, subjects were randomly assigned using a double-blinded procedure into either a placebo or NZDAV treatment group. Placebo group members received sugar capsules and the NZDAV group received 1350 mg NZDAV once in the morning and again immediately prior to bed-time. Random assignment was done in matched pairs (1 placebo; 1 NZDAV) to assure a treatment balance for both the placebo and NZDAV capsule assignments at the start of the study. Subjects performed their resistance-training program in a freeliving environment so that the intervention was more representative of how normal supplement use occurs. Periodic checks were made to count the number of capsules in each bottle to ensure that each subject was following the supplement regime as instructed."

Here's the conclusion of the study:

"In conclusion, the results of this study suggest that NZDAV may have positive effects on body composition and strength/power in resistance training men. In addition, these data strongly suggests that NZDAV can significantly improve a person’s maximal aerobic performance. And finally, there was no indication that the short-term use of NZDAV supplementation causes any adverse blood chemistry responses in terms of markers for liver and kidney function, while possibly improving oxygen carrying capacity within blood."

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave67az 

 

IGF-1 is absorbed by digestive tissue (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8932606) and most drugs that can be absorbed in the GI tract also absorb into the mucous membranes under the tongue (sometimes quicker, sometimes slower).

 

As for oral insulin, Biocon created IN-105.  Good news for diabetics out there, but it still has to undergo a little more testing before it can be FDA-approved.  I'm tempted to buy some stock in Bristol-Meyers Squibb since they bought the rights to the new drug.

http://www.biocon.com/biocon_research_discovery.asp

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20590742

With respect, just because something is published doesn't make it a good study. That top one looks dodgy but I'll have to have a look at the full article.

The IN-105 looks interesting an my wife would welcome something that'll mean she doesn't have to inject at some point in the future! Relating to the IN-105, that's obviously a particular preparation of either insulin or an insulin analogue with similar properties. Not quite the same as saying 'natural' IGF-1 can be taken orally.

Anyway, I don't suppose this matters that much as if IGF-1 is banned and that stupid deer antler snake oil has IGF-1 in it, VJ doesn't have that much of a leg to stand on.

N = 32 total subjects (i.e., N = 16 per group) is a pretty small sample size, in my own field at least - why so few subjects?  I would need to be convinced by actual data that the placebo and treated arms of the study were not significantly different with respect to all possible baseline/demographic variables that might affect strength/power etc etc.  Perhaps the paper provides the data - I'm not going to buy it to find out.  In my own papers in oncology, Table 1 usually consists of a detailed comparison of baseline factors between treatment and placebo groups (or between two treatment groups in a drug A vs drug B type of study) showing that the two arms are indeed well balanced.  Without it you have a weak study, one that should not be publishable in a decent journal imo.  Why?  Because any "treatment effect" that is observed might be entirely explained by differences in important baseline factors, i.e. have nothing to do with treatment received.  And just how large are the treatment effects anyway?  Obviously, the smaller they are the more easily confounded.

So no, random assignment does not per se "assure a treatment balance .... at the start of the study", especially with such a small study size.  I'd be more willing to believe it if there were 160 subjects in each arm rather than 16 but I'd still want to see the analysis results.

waidaminit ..... is this a full, peer-reviewed paper or is it a meeting abstract or some such?  The reference you provide and the information in the link make me wonder.

Please provide a text summary of the analysis results at least, if possible.

IMO given the penalties and potential for loss of endorsements I'd think the burden of proof is on the PGA Tour to not only prove a drug is a PED but the delivery method allows the body to properly absorb the PED.  Casein protein contains IGF-1 (serum) which should make it a banned substance in the same way that deer antler spray is, but it's not.  Rather than see Casein added to the banned list, the appropriate decision would be to remove deer antler spray from the list. 

Again I don't like Vijay and usually I don't accept ignorance as an excuse to break the rules or laws but in this case the guy openly admitted to using it.  Vijay is not the guy I'm worried about, the guys I worry about are the ones using PEDs, getting past the drug tests uncaught and would never admit to using a banned substance, like Lance Armstrong, Ryan Braun, Roger Clemons, etc.  Deer antler spray isn't the PED I'm worried about either, not when anyone can use HGH and not get caught by the current testing method in place. 

An analogy would be like a guy going to jail for 20 years because he confessed to jaywalking while others are getting away with committing robberies and murder because the police don't want to expend the resources to catch them.   

Personally I'd find him guilty as charged, fine him a dozen golf balls (personally autographed, thank you very much Vije), and insist that he take and pass an evening course in pharmacology so that he doesn't fall for something as dumb as deer antler spray ever again - ever.  

For pity's sake Vije I'm a true and loyal fan but GMAB ......

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chas 

N = 32 total subjects (i.e., N = 16 per group) is a pretty small sample size, in my own field at least - why so few subjects?  I would need to be convinced by actual data that the placebo and treated arms of the study were not significantly different with respect to all possible baseline/demographic variables that might affect strength/power etc etc.  Perhaps the paper provides the data - I'm not going to buy it to find out.  In my own papers in oncology, Table 1 usually consists of a detailed comparison of baseline factors between treatment and placebo groups (or between two treatment groups in a drug A vs drug B type of study) showing that the two arms are indeed well balanced.  Without it you have a weak study, one that should not be publishable in a decent journal imo.  Why?  Because any "treatment effect" that is observed might be entirely explained by differences in important baseline factors, i.e. have nothing to do with treatment received.  And just how large are the treatment effects anyway?  Obviously, the smaller they are the more easily confounded.

 

So no, random assignment does not per se "assure a treatment balance .... at the start of the study", especially with such a small study size.  I'd be more willing to believe it if there were 160 subjects in each arm rather than 16 but I'd still want to see the analysis results.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chas 

waidaminit ..... is this a full, peer-reviewed paper or is it a meeting abstract or some such?  The reference you provide and the information in the link make me wonder.

 

Please provide a text summary of the analysis results at least, if possible.

I'll work on more of the text when I get back from Vegas.  To answer a few questions, I have a feeling the sample size was so small was because it was a University study led by C. E. Broeder at the Human Performance Lab at East Tennessee State University.  The publication it appeared in, Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, is the journal published by the American College of Sports Medicine.

I agree 100% with the problems of the small sample size, but rather than a lot of people on here who think this means that deer antler velvet definitely provides no benefit, my thought is that it just means further studies with larger sample sizes need to be done.  The first sentence of the study parameters tells me the story of why the sample size was so small.  Finding guys between 18 and 35 with four years of weightlifting experience, but who aren't currently on an aerobic conditioning program who are willing to volunteer for a study of a substance that may contain hormones that are already suspected of greatly increasing cancer risks...that just can't be an easy task.  Know what I mean?

I didn't want to post the entire article since it's kind of (okay, it's totally) a copyright violation.  But I can at least summarize and present the data if you're interested.  (unless someone has better luck than I did finding it for free online)

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

IMO given the penalties and potential for loss of endorsements I'd think the burden of proof is on the PGA Tour to not only prove a drug is a PED but the delivery method allows the body to properly absorb the PED.  Casein protein contains IGF-1 (serum) which should make it a banned substance in the same way that deer antler spray is, but it's not.  Rather than see Casein added to the banned list, the appropriate decision would be to remove deer antler spray from the list. 

 

Again I don't like Vijay and usually I don't accept ignorance as an excuse to break the rules or laws but in this case the guy openly admitted to using it.  Vijay is not the guy I'm worried about, the guys I worry about are the ones using PEDs, getting past the drug tests uncaught and would never admit to using a banned substance, like Lance Armstrong, Ryan Braun, Roger Clemons, etc.  Deer antler spray isn't the PED I'm worried about either, not when anyone can use HGH and not get caught by the current testing method in place. 

 

An analogy would be like a guy going to jail for 20 years because he confessed to jaywalking while others are getting away with committing robberies and murder because the police don't want to expend the resources to catch them.   

The USGA/PGA rely on the World Anti-Doping Agency for the list, just as many sports organizations do.  There's no way they should be in the business of medical research, not to mention that it would be a serious conflict of interest.  Let's leave that stuff to the experts.

I agree that it's sad that gullible people who admit to using things like deer antler velvet end up getting punished while the real threats to the sport get away with it until years later when someone finally comes forward and says "oh yeah, you guys may not know it but he's been doping for 10 years."  Vijay's gonna be lucky if the stuff didn't actually work, though.  After reading all the material, it turns out that the risks from IGF-1 appear to be massive.  It works far better on cancer cells than it does on muscle, which means if you have ANY cancerous cells in your body you just equivalently dumped a bunch of Miracle Grow on them.  I pity anyone foolish enough to go down that road.

Okay, I managed to find what appears to be the full text of the study, republished on a less-than-reputable website (the company, in New Zealand, even slapped an advertisement logo on the last page as though they had something to do with the study...I'd be ticked if I were Broeder).

Again, I'm not saying it's a good study.  It was the first published human study on deer antler velvet, from what it sounds like, so don't be too hard on the researchers.  They did it the right way...they just need more suicidal volunteers.

http://www.hghigf1.com/data/uploads/pdf/broeder-athletics-aspt2.pdf

I agree, but the World Anti-Doping Agency also calls for blood and urine testing, so the PGA Tour isn't following the advice of the experts or is picking and choosing what they use and don't.

As for IGF-1, you're exactly right, you'd have to be insane or 100% certain you're cancer free before messing with it.  I'm pretty certain if IGF-1 was able to be absorbed from oral ingestion, Casein protein would be taken off the shelves by the FDA along with Deer Antler Velvet spray. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf 

I agree, but the World Anti-Doping Agency also calls for blood and urine testing, so the PGA Tour isn't following the advice of the experts or is picking and choosing what they use and don't.

 

As for IGF-1, you're exactly right, you'd have to be insane or 100% certain you're cancer free before messing with it.  I'm pretty certain if IGF-1 was able to be absorbed from oral ingestion, Casein protein would be taken off the shelves by the FDA along with Deer Antler Velvet spray. 

You lost me on the last bit.  Casein has been proven to increase IGF-1 levels already.  Just do a Google search on casein and IGF-1 studies.

As for the IGF-1, the way it's being administered in the spray, it's not an ingestion issue, it's an oral absorption issue (directly into the oral mucosa).

Some interesting posts.  Getting subjects for such a study appears to be almost as difficult as it is for certain Ph 2 oncology trials ..... Yes, all such papers should end with "Further research involving larger sample sizes is necessary to confirm and extend the findings presented here ... yada yada yada".

Casein is a family of phosphoproteins found in high levels in milk, proteins that are unrelated structurally to IGF-1 (at least as far as I know).  Someone please provide actual data on the IGF-1 content of "casein", with details on purity and methods of analysis.  That would be helpful.  

Wiki gives a reference to a paper on dietary proteins (including casein) as elevating IGF-1 mRNA expression in rat liver (see below).  This is an entirely different matter of course, not relevant to the current regulation.  The issue Vijay faces is administration of banned substances, not compounds or formulations that elevate endogenous levels of banned substances.

Miura, Y et al.  Effect of dietary proteins on insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) messenger ribonucleic acid content in rat liver.  Br. J. Nutrition 67:257, 2007.

Vijay might also point out that rats are not competitive on the PGA tour, though some ex-wives may differ :)