From: harry@cv.hp.com (Harry Phinney)
Subject: Re: Cyling [sic] and Doping
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 23:22:43 GMT

tomk@netcom.com (Thomas H. Kunich) writes:
: What I believe is that caffeine is commonly in virtually every beverage
: available.

You might want to figure out what "virtually every beverage available"
means.  From my perspective I have to go out of my way to get a beverage
containing caffeine.  Certainly the following:  water, many soft drinks
(e.g.  root beer, orange soda, 7-Up, Slice, etc.), fruit juices, mineral
water, milk, most alcoholic beverages, ERG/Gatorade/Exceed/Hydra-Fuel
contain no caffeine.  That's a lot to virtually not exist.


: If someone drinks a couple of double espressos and then is
: disqualified we're talking major stupidity on the part of the rules.

If someone takes _one_ tablet of Winstrol V  it won't affect their
performance either, so why disqualify them?  In fact, the "couple of
double espressos" will most certainly have a greater impact than will
the single Winstrol V tablet.


: And BTW, did _you_ read the original paper on caffeine performance 
: enhancment or are you just shooting from the hip as usual?

I have read Ed Jer###Burke's stuff, but have not read the original
paper.  In what way have I usually been "shooting from the hip"? 


: And here's where it stands: it's already been noted that people who
: regularly drink coffee and other caffeine containing products develop
: a fast and high tolerance for it. THerefore there are plenty of riders
: out there that could have virtually no effect from the caffeine near
: the IOC limits.

The same is true for many, many other drugs.  Should we have an
amphetamine addict rule, so that those who are unaffected by low
doses can pop a few cross tops?


: This is already agreed on and accepted and is the
: reason that that particular limit was set.

Note that the limit has not been a constant.  It has been reduced at
least once.  It does not seem at all unreasonable to ask if it should
perhaps be reduced again or even eliminated.


: Another point, when I was young and in the Air Force we lived on
: coffee. I _typically_ consumed over a gallon a day. At the same time
: I smoked two or more packs of cigarettes. At this time I had no 
: trouble whatsoever with sleeping. So there are plenty of people who
: do not drink coffee, even in double espressos for it's performance
: enhancing effects.

So what?  There are plenty of people who take steroids, amphetamines,
and other "banned" drugs for reasons other than their "performance
enhancing" (in endurance sporting terms) abilities also.  Should we
also throw the doors open for them?


: This mentality that says that caffeine somehow tilts the playing field
: but money doesn't is just about as stupid as can be.

Where did money come into this argument?  I would certainly agree that
it's valid to question what qualities we wish to test in sports.  Most
people will say that cycling tests one's innate (or genetic) ability,
one's coordination/skill, one's determination and dedication, and one's
intelligence.  But the willingness to take potentially harmful drugs
could be lumped into the determination and dedication area as are
not-so-healthy training procedures.  Who is more foolish/unfair, the
athlete willing to risk their health with drugs, or the athlete willing
to risk their health doing heavy squats, or riding in the dark and rain,
or training 600 miles a week?

What many of us are complaining about is the lack of consistency of the
IOC/UCI/USCF drug rules.  I must admit that they have recently gotten
much better, with the quantitative tests for cold remedies.  As I said
earlier, it still seems reasonable to question the allowed levels for an
otherwise useless stimulant such as caffeine.

Harry Phinney   harry@hp-pcd.cv.hp.com
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.racing