8 ms·

A Drug Hits Cycling Before It Hits the Market

47 points by lemaudit 11y ago

amelius 11y ago
> Athletes have gotten banned drugs from websites in China, he said, but what they receive is not always what they tried to order. I guess this happens to millions of people every day, ordering drugs online through the internet.
- Lio 11y ago
  Also, leaving aside the scumbaginess of doping to cheat in the first place, since neither of the accused is based in the USA FDA approval seems somewhat irrelevant. I'm assuming this is just an NY Times shorthand for saying the drug isn't approved for human use anywhere and wasn't made in pharmaceutical grade facility.
- nwatson 11y ago
  Actually, apparently those who order [medically purposed] drugs online through spam solicitations generally end up getting what they order. NPR has done a couple of stories on this, and I can't find the best link now, but here's one NPR story (from Planet Money) about online spam drug stores largely meeting their commitments: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/01/11/168967999/black-market-pharmacies-and-the-big-business-of-spam http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/01/11/168967999/black... edit: qualified for "medical" drugs (those meant for medical conditions) instead of enhancement-performing drugs
jug5 11y ago
You have to be a very amateur athlete to try doping with old compounds.
dummy7953 11y ago
Follow the money.
at-fates-hands 11y ago
It looks as though the UCI has finally caught up wit the dopers. For decades, the cycling teams were always two or three steps ahead of UCI testing methods. Good to see they're developing the means to uncover these new drugs before they become widely used.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- fartbrain 11y ago
  bahahahhahaha no.
Cantremeber 11y ago
I'm not too surprised at this. Recreational drug users have been doing this for years. I'd guess they are likely getting any number of not yet illegal stimulants like this too.
angdis 11y ago
Blood samples, I believe, can be stored cryogenically for some period of time and evaluated at a future date using tests/techniques not yet developed at the time the sample was originally drawn. The efficacy of all this depends on having a rock-solid chain-of-custody for the blood samples-- just like evidence used for a criminal court. Not easy.
- tswartz 11y ago
  ^ This can become one of the best deterrents to doping. Put a rigorous system in place and notify athletes that their samples will be re-tested for 'new' drugs every 5 years for the next 20 years. Some athletes may be too focused on the immediate fame and wealth to care, but if enough high profile athletes, like Armstrong, eventually get busted, then perhaps that will help deter the younger generation from trying new drugs.
  - at-fates-hands 11y ago
    The interesting thing about Armstrong wasn't the testing that got him - it was Floyd Landis. The scary thing is had Armstrong not tried to come back to cycling the last time he would've been in the clear. The reason Landis turned him in was Armstrong refused to let him on his team.
    - tswartz 11y ago
      Yes, it's true that Armstrong didn't get admit doping because by of the retesting of old samples. It all unraveled with Landis. But Armstrong is a good example of how people will eventually get caught. In 2005, L'Équipe reported that 6 of his urine samples from the 1999 Tour de France that had been frozen had tested positive for EPO. But since it was part of a research project and had not been properly controlled it couldn't be used against Armstrong. It did add fuel to the speculation that he used drugs.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - solutionyogi 11y ago
Nexxxeh 11y ago
I'd be nervous about the 98% purity. What makes up the other 2%? I mean if they're making stuff that is designed to alter your production of red blood cells, is that 2% of stuff likely to be inert or be stuff that has an effect on you? What's the usual purity percentage of say, OTC aspirin?
- supercanuck 11y ago
  the chemical that makes the pill a dissolvable solid?
  - gonzo 11y ago
    aka "binder"
    - task_queue 11y ago
      Binder is not 2% of the mass of the pill.
- task_queue 11y ago
  By products of the process, left over reagents, whatever was used to extract or separate the product in question. Think heavy metals, intermediates and a lot of mystery chemicals. It's not FDA approved and probably made in lab with the same stringent quality controls as the clandestine ones in China pumping out similar things. The 98% purity thing shows that they weren't willing to put in the extra investment to run enough solvent washes / whatever to not poison their customers.
  - Thriptic 11y ago
    A research compound doesn't need to be 100% pure. It's not meant for human use.
    - phkahler 11y ago
      >> A research compound doesn't need to be 100% pure. It's not meant for human use. Then why does it come in pill form? And why do they only sell it to researchers - including those doing clinical trials?
profinger 11y ago
How do these drug tests work? I was under the impression that drug tests only found things that they were looking for. How did they know to be looking for this new drug? I'm googling to try to figure it out but maybe someone is familiar with this process?
- pge 11y ago
  I don't know the details in the case of this new drug, but in the last few years there has been a lot of collaboration between drug manufacturers and anti-doping testers. For example, when CERA was introduced, the manufacturer worked closely with WADA to develop tests before the drug even hit the market. Here's an article from that time - I assume a similar collaboration was at work with this new drug: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/manufacturer-helped-wada-with-cera-test/ http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/manufacturer-helped-wada-wit...
- jdietrich 11y ago
  The World Anti-Doping Agency constantly update their list of prohibited substances and develop new tests on a proactive basis. FG-4592 (and a number of similar compounds) have been on the prohibited list since the beginning of 2015. The list can be seen at the list below, and it is extremely comprehensive. Several other substances are not currently prohibited, but are monitored for their possible use as performance enhancing drugs. Alongside track and field athletes, cyclists are the most tested athletes in any sport, and are subject to three core testing regimes. Firstly, cyclists are subject to in-competition testing. The winner of any race (or the stage of a race) and a random sample of other riders will be subject to blood or urine tests. Secondly, the whereabouts program requires cyclists to notify the authorities of their location every day to facilitate out-of-competition testing. Athletes are randomly sampled, with extra scrutiny paid to the strongest performers. Thirdly, the biological passport scheme creates a long-term profile of a rider's physiology, to track changes in markers like testosterone/epitestosterone ratio and hematocrit that may indicate the use of performance enhancing drugs or methods. A sudden change in any of these markers or deviation outside normal ranges is grounds for sanctioning. In all tests, two samples are taken to safeguard against anomalous measurements or failures in the chain of custody. A portion of both samples is stored indefinitely, to facilitate retroactive testing if new drugs or methods are discovered. https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/wada-2015-prohibited-list-en.pdf https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/wada...
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
roymurdock 11y ago
This is another reason why I've stopped watching baseball and will probably never follow competitive cycling, even though I enjoy cycling myself. What's the point of the competition when a good portion of the top athletes are doping? It's not a pure contest of man, willpower, carbon-fiber, and asphalt. The real spectacle is now between the athletes, regulators, lawyers, coaches. I see no romance/art in watching them chase money and evidence around.
- amyjess 11y ago
  > What's the point of the competition when a good portion of the top athletes are doping? It's not a pure contest of man, willpower, carbon-fiber, and asphalt. I'm a transhumanist, so I just want to see the most impressive things the human body can pull off, and that includes the use of chemical enhancement..
  - joshuapants 11y ago
    > I just want to see the most impressive things the human body can pull off This may be a ship-of-theseus sort of question with no widely agreed upon answer, but at some point doesn't it stop being what the human body can pull off if you modify it enough?
- Retra 11y ago
  Personally, I don't see any reason to be bothered by doping; it's just another form of performance technology. To me, it isn't any different from eating a high-protein diet. Or having a genetic anomaly that makes your muscles slightly more efficient. They chase money and evidence around precisely because people like you will stop caring if they can't prevent doping. You draw a (very arbitrary) line between 'natural' and 'unnatural' athletes, and you create a market for goon squads to hunt down the unnaturals to preserve the purity of the culture. It never was a pure contest of man, willpower, carbon-fiber, and asphalt. It's also a contest of means, luck, money, food, biology, and genetics. Even without the doping.
  - grogen 11y ago

47 points by lemaudit 11y ago

> Athletes have gotten banned drugs from websites in China, he said, but what they receive is not always what they tried to order. I guess this happens to millions of people every day, ordering drugs online through the internet.

Lio 11y ago
Also, leaving aside the scumbaginess of doping to cheat in the first place, since neither of the accused is based in the USA FDA approval seems somewhat irrelevant. I'm assuming this is just an NY Times shorthand for saying the drug isn't approved for human use anywhere and wasn't made in pharmaceutical grade facility.
nwatson 11y ago
Actually, apparently those who order [medically purposed] drugs online through spam solicitations generally end up getting what they order. NPR has done a couple of stories on this, and I can't find the best link now, but here's one NPR story (from Planet Money) about online spam drug stores largely meeting their commitments: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/01/11/168967999/black-market-pharmacies-and-the-big-business-of-spam http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/01/11/168967999/black... edit: qualified for "medical" drugs (those meant for medical conditions) instead of enhancement-performing drugs

jug5 11y ago

You have to be a very amateur athlete to try doping with old compounds.

dummy7953 11y ago

Follow the money.

at-fates-hands 11y ago

It looks as though the UCI has finally caught up wit the dopers. For decades, the cycling teams were always two or three steps ahead of UCI testing methods. Good to see they're developing the means to uncover these new drugs before they become widely used.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
fartbrain 11y ago
bahahahhahaha no.

Cantremeber 11y ago

I'm not too surprised at this. Recreational drug users have been doing this for years. I'd guess they are likely getting any number of not yet illegal stimulants like this too.

angdis 11y ago

Blood samples, I believe, can be stored cryogenically for some period of time and evaluated at a future date using tests/techniques not yet developed at the time the sample was originally drawn. The efficacy of all this depends on having a rock-solid chain-of-custody for the blood samples-- just like evidence used for a criminal court. Not easy.

tswartz 11y ago
^ This can become one of the best deterrents to doping. Put a rigorous system in place and notify athletes that their samples will be re-tested for 'new' drugs every 5 years for the next 20 years. Some athletes may be too focused on the immediate fame and wealth to care, but if enough high profile athletes, like Armstrong, eventually get busted, then perhaps that will help deter the younger generation from trying new drugs.
- at-fates-hands 11y ago
  The interesting thing about Armstrong wasn't the testing that got him - it was Floyd Landis. The scary thing is had Armstrong not tried to come back to cycling the last time he would've been in the clear. The reason Landis turned him in was Armstrong refused to let him on his team.
  - tswartz 11y ago
    Yes, it's true that Armstrong didn't get admit doping because by of the retesting of old samples. It all unraveled with Landis. But Armstrong is a good example of how people will eventually get caught. In 2005, L'Équipe reported that 6 of his urine samples from the 1999 Tour de France that had been frozen had tested positive for EPO. But since it was part of a research project and had not been properly controlled it couldn't be used against Armstrong. It did add fuel to the speculation that he used drugs.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - solutionyogi 11y ago

Nexxxeh 11y ago

I'd be nervous about the 98% purity. What makes up the other 2%? I mean if they're making stuff that is designed to alter your production of red blood cells, is that 2% of stuff likely to be inert or be stuff that has an effect on you? What's the usual purity percentage of say, OTC aspirin?

supercanuck 11y ago
the chemical that makes the pill a dissolvable solid?
- gonzo 11y ago
  aka "binder"
  - task_queue 11y ago
    Binder is not 2% of the mass of the pill.
task_queue 11y ago
By products of the process, left over reagents, whatever was used to extract or separate the product in question. Think heavy metals, intermediates and a lot of mystery chemicals. It's not FDA approved and probably made in lab with the same stringent quality controls as the clandestine ones in China pumping out similar things. The 98% purity thing shows that they weren't willing to put in the extra investment to run enough solvent washes / whatever to not poison their customers.
- Thriptic 11y ago
  A research compound doesn't need to be 100% pure. It's not meant for human use.
  - phkahler 11y ago
    >> A research compound doesn't need to be 100% pure. It's not meant for human use. Then why does it come in pill form? And why do they only sell it to researchers - including those doing clinical trials?

profinger 11y ago

How do these drug tests work? I was under the impression that drug tests only found things that they were looking for. How did they know to be looking for this new drug? I'm googling to try to figure it out but maybe someone is familiar with this process?

pge 11y ago
I don't know the details in the case of this new drug, but in the last few years there has been a lot of collaboration between drug manufacturers and anti-doping testers. For example, when CERA was introduced, the manufacturer worked closely with WADA to develop tests before the drug even hit the market. Here's an article from that time - I assume a similar collaboration was at work with this new drug: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/manufacturer-helped-wada-with-cera-test/ http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/manufacturer-helped-wada-wit...
jdietrich 11y ago
The World Anti-Doping Agency constantly update their list of prohibited substances and develop new tests on a proactive basis. FG-4592 (and a number of similar compounds) have been on the prohibited list since the beginning of 2015. The list can be seen at the list below, and it is extremely comprehensive. Several other substances are not currently prohibited, but are monitored for their possible use as performance enhancing drugs. Alongside track and field athletes, cyclists are the most tested athletes in any sport, and are subject to three core testing regimes. Firstly, cyclists are subject to in-competition testing. The winner of any race (or the stage of a race) and a random sample of other riders will be subject to blood or urine tests. Secondly, the whereabouts program requires cyclists to notify the authorities of their location every day to facilitate out-of-competition testing. Athletes are randomly sampled, with extra scrutiny paid to the strongest performers. Thirdly, the biological passport scheme creates a long-term profile of a rider's physiology, to track changes in markers like testosterone/epitestosterone ratio and hematocrit that may indicate the use of performance enhancing drugs or methods. A sudden change in any of these markers or deviation outside normal ranges is grounds for sanctioning. In all tests, two samples are taken to safeguard against anomalous measurements or failures in the chain of custody. A portion of both samples is stored indefinitely, to facilitate retroactive testing if new drugs or methods are discovered. https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/wada-2015-prohibited-list-en.pdf https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/wada...

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

roymurdock 11y ago

This is another reason why I've stopped watching baseball and will probably never follow competitive cycling, even though I enjoy cycling myself. What's the point of the competition when a good portion of the top athletes are doping? It's not a pure contest of man, willpower, carbon-fiber, and asphalt. The real spectacle is now between the athletes, regulators, lawyers, coaches. I see no romance/art in watching them chase money and evidence around.

amyjess 11y ago
> What's the point of the competition when a good portion of the top athletes are doping? It's not a pure contest of man, willpower, carbon-fiber, and asphalt. I'm a transhumanist, so I just want to see the most impressive things the human body can pull off, and that includes the use of chemical enhancement..
- joshuapants 11y ago
  > I just want to see the most impressive things the human body can pull off This may be a ship-of-theseus sort of question with no widely agreed upon answer, but at some point doesn't it stop being what the human body can pull off if you modify it enough?
Retra 11y ago
Personally, I don't see any reason to be bothered by doping; it's just another form of performance technology. To me, it isn't any different from eating a high-protein diet. Or having a genetic anomaly that makes your muscles slightly more efficient. They chase money and evidence around precisely because people like you will stop caring if they can't prevent doping. You draw a (very arbitrary) line between 'natural' and 'unnatural' athletes, and you create a market for goon squads to hunt down the unnaturals to preserve the purity of the culture. It never was a pure contest of man, willpower, carbon-fiber, and asphalt. It's also a contest of means, luck, money, food, biology, and genetics. Even without the doping.
- grogen 11y ago