or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Vijay Singh admits to using banned substance in Sports Illustrated ...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Vijay Singh admits to using banned substance in Sports Illustrated ... - Page 9

post #145 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chas View Post

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 :)

 

It actually is relevant if you think about the current list of banned substances.  Consider the case of erythropoietin.  Just like casein, it does nothing by itself other than to increase the body's own production of endogenous substances.  Erythropoietin contains nothing that enhances performance in and of itself.  But it stimulate the marrow to bump up production of hemoglobin which then leads to the increase in performance/endurance.

 

The question is, is an increased level of IGF-1 a boost to performance.  If it is, then any compound which endogenously raises the levels of IGF-1 in the body should also be considered a performance enhancing compound.

post #146 of 212

Wait, I think I get what you're saying when you say it's "not relevant" now.

You mean that casein isn't relevant to the Vijay case because Vijay was accused of taking something that actually has IGF-1 in it, rather than a substance such as casein that merely increases IGF-1 endogenously.

 

This is true.  It's not directly relevant to Vijay's case.

 

I was just saying it's relevant to the banned substance topic, since it would appear that casein ingestion endogenously increases levels of IGF-1.  I posted it earlier, but this is an actual study of humans and the effects of serum IGF-1 levels related to increased casein intake.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19471293

post #147 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave67az View Post

 

It actually is relevant if you think about the current list of banned substances.  Consider the case of erythropoietin.  Just like casein, it does nothing by itself other than to increase the body's own production of endogenous substances.  Erythropoietin contains nothing that enhances performance in and of itself.  But it stimulate the marrow to bump up production of hemoglobin which then leads to the increase in performance/endurance.

 

The question is, is an increased level of IGF-1 a boost to performance.  If it is, then any compound which endogenously raises the levels of IGF-1 in the body should also be considered a performance enhancing compound.

We all know, or should know, the mechanism of action of EPO.  So what?

 

You are missing the point entirely.  EPO is a banned substance, ergo taking it is against the regs - it's as simple as that.  There are undoubtedly many substances and dietary regimes that modulate erythrocyte levels to varying extents - the literature in the field is vast.  As you may know, EPO is a potent hormone that provides a great advantage to athletes taking it through elevated hematocrit.  This is established fact, not hypothesis based on a few experiments.  If the authorities wish to ban other substances with comparable effects on erythrocyte proliferation and athlete performance they are free to do so but this decision should be based on SOUND, WELL-ESTABLISHED SCIENCE.  

 

If you are arguing that casein should be banned because of it enhances performance in humans - through whatever molecular mechanism - please PROVIDE THE DATA.   Thank you very much.

 

Until then you are just blowing smoke .....

post #148 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chas View Post

We all know, or should know, the mechanism of action of EPO.  So what?

 

You are missing the point entirely.  EPO is a banned substance, ergo taking it is against the regs - it's as simple as that.  There are undoubtedly many substances and dietary regimes that modulate erythrocyte levels to varying extents - the literature in the field is vast.  As you may know, EPO is a potent hormone that provides a great advantage to athletes taking it through elevated hematocrit.  This is established fact, not hypothesis based on a few experiments.  If the authorities wish to ban other substances with comparable effects on erythrocyte proliferation they are free to do so but this should be based on SOUND, WELL-ESTABLISHED SCIENCE.  

 

If you are arguing that casein should be banned because of it enhances performance in humans - through whatever molecular mechanism - please PROVIDE THE DATA.   Thank you very much.

 

Until then you are just blowing smoke .....

 

You may have misunderstood something I said to react that way, I think.  Either that or I misunderstood something you said.  I apologize, whichever the case may be.

 

My EPO example was a response to your statement (as I understood) that casein's ability to increase IGF-1 levels was "not relevant to the current regulation" because the rule doesn't regulate "compounds or formulations that elevate endogenous levels of banned substances."

 

Did I misunderstand your statement, or were you just saying it's not relevant to Vijay's case, specifically?  After writing my first response, I wrote a second explaining that I might have misinterpreted your statement and agreed that it's not specifically relevant to Vijay.

 

I provided a link to the data.  I'm not going to pay for the entire text of the study just so you can insult me some more.  The summary is clear and it even provides the data that serum IGF-1 increased by 15% in the casein group.

 

The only question remaining to me is whether there is clear evidence that IGF-1 provides performance boosts, and the only reason I haven't researched it further was because it sounded to me like it's pretty much an accepted fact that increasing levels of IGF-1 in the body will boost performance.  Is that incorrect from what you understand of IGF-1?

post #149 of 212

I am saying that a substance that is not on the proscribed list should not be considered illegal simply because there exist a study or studies suggesting that it elevates endogenous levels of another molecule in the body - even if the latter is on the list.  For any substance to be illegal, USADA would have to deem it so after considering the evidence around the pharmacology of that particular compound and most importantly around its known effects on human performance/endurance.  If the evidence rises to the requisite level, by all means ban the sucker.

 

Sorry, I did not wish to insult.  It is critical that these regulations are clear in their interpretation and practical to implement.  

 

I repeat, compounds on the banned list should be there because of strong and direct supporting data that is well corroborated and widely accepted -  anything else will lead to confusion and indeed chaos.  I'm sure USADA understand that.

post #150 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chas View Post

I am saying that a substance that is not on the proscribed list should not be considered illegal simply because there exist a study or studies suggesting that it elevates endogenous levels of another molecule in the body - even if the latter is on the list.  For any substance to be illegal, USADA would have to deem it so after considering the evidence around the pharmacology of that particular compound and most importantly around its known effects on human performance/endurance.  If the evidence rises to the requisite level, by all means ban the sucker.

 

Sorry, I did not wish to insult.  It is critical that these regulations are clear in their interpretation and practical to implement.  

 

I repeat, compounds on the banned list should be there because of strong and direct supporting data that is well corroborated and widely accepted -  anything else will lead to confusion and indeed chaos.  I'm sure USADA understand that.

 

I see what you're saying.  I agree that well-conducted research is necessary.  Unfortunately, in cases of drugs like IGF-1, human research places a huge risk on the volunteers and I'm not too keen on placing that burden on "innocent" victims.  In the case of IGF-1 (in ALL forms) I'd rather see it on the banned list, even if it's placed in a category along with other dangerous supplements that many athletes are pumping into their bodies because they're buying into the tactics that companies like this one (http://hghinjectable.org/igf-1/) or this one (http://www.igf1plus.com/) are using.

 

I've said it before but I've yet to hear a logical response.  The USGA shouldn't have to list every known or FUTURE administration method of a substance to place it on the banned list.  If it's banned for any method of administration, it should be illegal to purchase it in any form.  I feel like the argument being made is that some right is being taken away if they ban a method that doesn't work.

 

Well, if it doesn't work, why would anyone CARE if it's banned or not?  And if it DOES work, then it should be banned, shouldn't it?  So where's the danger of erring on the side of caution when it comes to anything suspected of being a PED?

post #151 of 212

The risk - and it is very real - is that some over-zealous and scientifically naive regulator will destroy the career of an athlete because of a "suspicion" that something he/she takes provides unfair benefit based on arguable or downright shoddy research.  Many athletes devote their lives to their sport - not a trivial matter.

 

I agree that route of administration doesn't matter - if it's banned, DON'T TAKE IT.  Don't sniff it, spray it, eat it, drink it, smoke it, inject it, smear it or take it as a suppository ..... to name but a few.

post #152 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chas View Post

The risk - and it is very real - is that some over-zealous and scientifically naive regulator will destroy the career of an athlete because of a "suspicion" that something he/she takes provides unfair benefit based on arguable or downright shoddy research.  Many athletes devote their lives to their sport - not a trivial matter.

 

I agree that route of administration doesn't matter - if it's banned, DON'T TAKE IT.  Don't sniff it, spray it, eat it, drink it, smoke it, inject it, smear it or take it as a suppository ..... to name but a few.

 

This is a true risk.  Just look at the argument over baseball records and the "juiced" ball.  Honestly though, I think we're going down that road anyway because we KNOW that PEDs exist, and we KNOW that some of the aren't on lists just because they haven't been thoroughly tested, so any athlete who uses anything (supplements, medications, you name it) risks getting an asterisk next to their name if at some point in the future a study does prove beyond doubt that what he used gives an advantage.

 

Seems to me if I were a pro golfer I wouldn't be putting any chemicals in my body unless they were prescribed by a medical provider...but then again, other than alcohol and nicotine, there's little I've put into my body over the years.  I guess I'm a prude.  a1_smile.gif

post #153 of 212

From a legal standpoint you're 100%, but the organizations have a responsibility to ensure that the list is realistic and manageable.   One could argue that any substance taken in sufficient quantity could be considered a PED. 

 

Creatine could become a banned supplement, it's currently being studied.  It also is contained in beef, chicken and fish.  One would have to eat approximately 500 grams of raw meat or fish to obtain the optimal level of Creatine to promote muscle development. 

 

Now is it healthier for an athlete to take in 500 grams of meat or fish daily or supplement with Creatine?  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dave67az View Post
This is a true risk.  Just look at the argument over baseball records and the "juiced" ball.  Honestly though, I think we're going down that road anyway because we KNOW that PEDs exist, and we KNOW that some of the aren't on lists just because they haven't been thoroughly tested, so any athlete who uses anything (supplements, medications, you name it) risks getting an asterisk next to their name if at some point in the future a study does prove beyond doubt that what he used gives an advantage.

 

Seems to me if I were a pro golfer I wouldn't be putting any chemicals in my body unless they were prescribed by a medical provider...but then again, other than alcohol and nicotine, there's little I've put into my body over the years.  I guess I'm a prude.  a1_smile.gif

post #154 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtogolf View Post

From a legal standpoint you're 100%, but the organizations have a responsibility to ensure that the list is realistic and manageable.   One could argue that any substance taken in sufficient quantity could be considered a PED. 

 

Creatine could become a banned supplement, it's currently being studied.  It also is contained in beef, chicken and fish.  One would have to eat approximately 500 grams of raw meat or fish to obtain the optimal level of Creatine to promote muscle development. 

 

Now is it healthier for an athlete to take in 500 grams of meat or fish daily or supplement with Creatine?  

 

 

It's healthier to do neither, in my opinion.

But the guys that are doping aren't really concerned with health if it means giving up an advantage that they feel "all the other guys" are using.

They think they NEED to do it to compete.

post #155 of 212

I can see that argument for swimming or football but it doesn't hold for golf.  You don't need to have the physique of a power lifter to be competitive.  Likely Vijay was looking for something to counteract the effects of aging.  He should stick to a healthy diet and the right exercise regime.

post #156 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chas View Post

I can see that argument for swimming or football but it doesn't hold for golf.  You don't need to have the physique of a power lifter to be competitive.  Likely Vijay was looking for something to counteract the effects of aging.  He should stick to a healthy diet and the right exercise regime.

 

Like Lance Armstrong?  And Ben Johnson?  

 

The idea that the only effect of PEDs is to increase bulk muscle is not accurate.  

post #157 of 212

Who the heck said that the only effect of PEDs is to increase muscle size?  Certainly not me.  I'm a biochemist with decades long experience in pharma and I would never say that.  Some PEDs, such as erythropoeitin, increase the oxygen carrying capacity of blood by raising hematocrit - a major advantage in cycling, sculling and many other sports but hardly a comparable advantage in pro golf, even for a tour player in his forties if he has a suitable exercise regimen.  So one could, " .... and you don't need blood so thick you're at risk of a vascular accident."  But to get technical, I don't know of any research showing effects of IGF-1 on the vascular system comparable in kind to those of EPO, do you?

 

I suspect that Vijay has learned his lesson and is suitably humbled by his recent experience.  For such a big guy he's gonna try to keep a very low profile .....

post #158 of 212

I don't  know man. I want to be with Vijay on this. It sounds though like if he looked at all into the product and knew the banned substances or even had access to the knowledge about what was banned, then he is at fault. Actually proving it beyond what he said is another issue though...

post #159 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by nututhugame View Post

I don't  know man. I want to be with Vijay on this. It sounds though like if he looked at all into the product and knew the banned substances or even had access to the knowledge about what was banned, then he is at fault. Actually proving it beyond what he said is another issue though...

 

I don't get what needs to be "proven", when the rules are VERY clear that even admitting to using a banned substance is a punishable offense regardless of the circumstances.

 

How is that not black and white?

post #160 of 212

Precisely.  And this is why the idea of banning a substance because of a specified pharmacological effect, rather than banning a substance per se, would be so impractical.  There would be endless disputes about the validity of the pharmacological data (involving people like me, who will argue on and on ..a1_smile.gif) whereas if substance X is banned, it's clear enough:  don't take substance X in any form and by any route.  Of course the list of banned substances should be based on solid and widely accepted data, as in any other sport.  That is USADA's business, to constantly work on that list.

post #161 of 212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chas View Post

Precisely.  And this is why the idea of banning a substance because of a specified pharmacological effect, rather than banning a substance per se, would be so impractical.  There would be endless disputes about the validity of the pharmacological data (involving people like me, who will argue on and on ..a1_smile.gif) whereas if substance X is banned, it's clear enough:  don't take substance X in any form and by any route.  Of course the list of banned substances should be based on solid and widely accepted data, as in any other sport.  That is USADA's business, to constantly work on that list.

 

That's funny, I never saw you as an argumentative-type.  c2_beer.gif

post #162 of 212

Perhaps I am not familiar with their exact policy. I was just thinking that something he said to SI could be construed as hearsay and not proof. Kind of a grey area. Did he say when he did it? What's the policy on punishing someone for simply saying that in the past they tried something that contained an illegal substance? Even though it's not exactly the same, could they really do anything if he stated in an interview that he smoked a doob when he was out one night when he was 25. Sure it happened, but he wouldn't test positive for it now and how do you prove that he's not just telling stories. Don't know why he would, but still...
 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Tour Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Vijay Singh admits to using banned substance in Sports Illustrated ...