From: les@SAIL.Stanford.edu (Les Earnest)
Subject: Re: Cycling and Doping
Reply-To: les@cs.stanford.edu
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
	<1992Dec22.160230.18662@cbnews.cb.att.com> <hhgra-k@lynx.unm.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 22:52:44 GMT

Despite the logical arguments in favor of quantitative drug control
presented by Bruce Hildenbrand, John Ampe and others, jim warsa
continues to refuse acceptance of their views, which also happen to be
mine.  Inasmuch as jim is not usually so hard-headed, I suspect that
his social involvement with this issue has affected his judgement.
Though others have done a good job of stating the arguments, I will
make one more attempt to persuade jim and any others who oppose
quantitative testing.

Jim writes:
   [.  .  .]
   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.

As has already been pointed out, she did not test positive because of
drinking 3-4 cups of coffee.  It was because she ingested massive
amounts of caffeine, apparently in an attempt to enhance her performance.

   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. 

Any quantitative rule is somewhat arbitrary.  So what?  The purpose of
drug testing rules is to inhibit use of substances that are both
dangerous to health and that enhance performance.  Taking small
amounts of coffee or other substances containing caffeine is not
dangerous.  Taking massive doses *is* dangerous.  The only way to
distinguish between these cases is to establish a quantitative limit.

  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's remark that he has strong feelings on this issue helps explain
his apparently odd assessment of the evidence.  While it is true that
a very small amount of a steroid is probably not dangerous, there is
also no reason to be using such substances routinely, unlike coffee or
tea.  Inasmuch as the cost of quantitative drug tests is much higher
than tests for presence or absence of a substance and the costs of
qualitiative analyses are already quite high, outright bans have been
applied to dangerous substances that have no valid applications in
small quantities.

When the medical control regulations were first introduced in the late
'60s, all tests were binary (i.e. "detected" or "not detected") and
the use of caffeine was permitted in any quantity.  Some athletes
chose to exploit that loophole.  For example, in the early '80s in
certain parts of Colorado, some riders could be seen gobbling a
handful of caffeine tablets just before the start of a race.  Many of
them acted a bit crazy but performed well, at least for a time.

In 1984 the medical control regulations were modified to prohibit
"caffeine in large amounts," with the definition of "large" being left
up to the testing lab.  That naturally led to big arguments.  Finally,
in 1987 the regulations were changed to include the specific limit
that we have today.  That was the same year that a specific limit was
on testosterone was introduced in place of just prohibiting its
presence "in excess."

Another problem that showed up in the "binary" era was that athletes
sometimes tested positive as a result of using modest amounts of cold
remedies or decongestants that probably did not enhance performance
above "normal."  In order to avoid this problem as much as possible,
there are now six substances with quantitative limits.  Over time,
I expect that more of the currently prohibited substances will be
given quantitative limits even though this will further increase
the cost of the tests.

In summary, the use of quantitative limits for at least some
prohibited substances benefits athletes in that it reduces the
frequency of penalties for inadvertent and innocuous use of medical
remedies.
--
Les Earnest           Phone:  415 941-3984    Fax: 415 941-3934
Internet: Les@cs.Stanford.edu              USMail: 12769 Dianne Drive
UUCP: . . . decwrl!cs.Stanford.edu!Les         Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.racing