VDB admits doping...?

From: "Kurgan Gringioni"

From:
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/geno...ity/alike.html

Humans don't appear to have much in common with mice and worms. Yet within
the cells of each are genes, operating instructions made of DNA. Despite the
differences among organisms-wings, leaves, feet or fins-most share a
surprising number of genes. Humans and one species of worm, for example,
share 21% of their genes; humans and mice share 90%. Scientists compare the
genes of plants, animals and humans primarily to learn more about ourselves.

Fruit fly36%
Mouse90%
Roundworm21%
Yeast23%
Thale cress15%
Zebrafish85%
E coli7%
Chimp98%
Rat90%


When you stop and think about it, misuse of this technology is going to be
some scary ****. I think that there are going to be some real disasters among
the more desperate/slightly less well funded riders.
Bill C

"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote in
message

Dumbass -

I wasn't talking about super-athletic flies, persay, just that it will be
possible to morph humans into beings that most of us may consider to be
non-human.

They can change genes in your body, system-wide, on the go, with those
techniques. The genes of a chimpanzee differ from a human by 2%.

BTW, genetic vaccines have been the subject of talk among the pro racers.
Of
course, they're generally not happy about the prospect, although it
doesn't
seem like anyone is suspected of it (yet).

As if we now know how to write DNA? Right, just do a little cut and paste. I
don't think so! There is a long way to go on that. The first objective is to
create remedies for disease. That is where the potential for revenue is.
Creating finely tuned athletes will only come along as a by-product (if at
all).

These articles are deliberately optimistic in order to create interest and
therefore funding. If you beleive them, put your money where your mouth is
and start investing in genetic engineering. Applications are in the distant
future and may be disappointing. In fact, the first "article" you pointed to
was an advertisement. Did you notice?



here's mo

From:
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/geno...ity/alike.html

Humans don't appear to have much in common with mice and worms. Yet within
the cells of each are genes, operating instructions made of DNA. Despite
the
differences among organisms-wings, leaves, feet or fins-most share a
surprising number of genes. Humans and one species of worm, for example,
share 21% of their genes; humans and mice share 90%. Scientists compare
the
genes of plants, animals and humans primarily to learn more about
ourselves.

Fruit fly36%
Mouse90%
Roundworm21%
Yeast23%
Thale cress15%
Zebrafish85%
E coli7%
Chimp98%
Rat90%

snipend

"Nick Burns" wrote in message
m...

As if we now know how to write DNA? Right, just do a little cut and paste.
I
don't think so! There is a long way to go on that. The first objective is
to
create remedies for disease. That is where the potential for revenue is.
Creating finely tuned athletes will only come along as a by-product (if at
all).

These articles are deliberately optimistic in order to create interest and
therefore funding. If you beleive them, put your money where your mouth is
and start investing in genetic engineering. Applications are in the distant
future and may be disappointing. In fact, the first "article" you pointed
to
was an advertisement. Did you notice?


Dumbass -

What the **** are you talking about?

The athletes themselves will start experimenting with it. Did you read the
mice part in the first article?

http://sport.guardian.co.uk/athletic...609912,00.html

Researchers at London's Royal Free hospital and UCL's medical school recently
tested muscle-building engineered vaccines on mice. Dubbed mechano-growth
factor (MGF), a protein which makes muscles grow and repair themselves, the
vaccines were found to increase muscle mass by as much as 60% within a month
and with no exercise.

"We call them the Schwarzenegger mice," said a Harvard medical school
professor, Nadia Rosenthal, who has run similar experiments. "I'd be totally
surprised if it was not going on in sports. Those with terminal cancer and
Aids want to know 'What will keep me alive?' Athletes want to know 'What will
help me win?'"

snipend


The reason I made the comment about deer mitochondria is that deer
mitochondria are 4 times larger than a human's. It probably wouldn't be that
difficult for a state of the art lab to narrow down what gene that is related
to, then create a vaccine to change that gene (in humans) to match the deer.

The problem of course is the unknown side effects. What else will be affected
by changing that one gene?

As for your point about creating remedies for disease: duh. that should also
be the first objective of drugs too. So what happened? Drugs found their way
into the athletic world, unsurprisingly. So will genetic vaccines - they're
very similar to drugs - the difference is that the genetic vaccines cause the
human body to change itself, permanently.

Finally, Dumbass, I'm not advocating the use of genetic vaccines in sports. I
am saying that it will happen and someday some of the side effects have the
potential to be shocking.

"TritonRider" wrote in message
...
From: "Kurgan Gringioni"

From:
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/geno...ity/alike.html

Humans don't appear to have much in common with mice and worms. Yet within
the cells of each are genes, operating instructions made of DNA. Despite
the
differences among organisms-wings, leaves, feet or fins-most share a
surprising number of genes. Humans and one species of worm, for example,
share 21% of their genes; humans and mice share 90%. Scientists compare
the
genes of plants, animals and humans primarily to learn more about
ourselves.

Fruit fly36%
Mouse90%
Roundworm21%
Yeast23%
Thale cress15%
Zebrafish85%
E coli7%
Chimp98%
Rat90%


When you stop and think about it, misuse of this technology is going to be
some scary ****. I think that there are going to be some real disasters
among
the more desperate/slightly less well funded riders.


Agreed.

We don't know enough about how the genes interact to be able to predict all
of the unwanted side effects (similar to how our limited knowledge of the
human body isn't able to predict the side effects of drugs without clinical
trials).

Thanks for being open-minded enough to actually think about this peek into a
potential future out of hand, like a few other posters.

"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote in
message

As for your point about creating remedies for disease: duh. that should
also
be the first objective of drugs too. So what happened? Drugs found their
way
into the athletic world, unsurprisingly. So will genetic vaccines -
they're
very similar to drugs - the difference is that the genetic vaccines cause
the
human body to change itself, permanently.

Finally, Dumbass, I'm not advocating the use of genetic vaccines in
sports. I
am saying that it will happen and someday some of the side effects have
the
potential to be shocking.

Yeah, as long as you understand we may be talking about 50 or 100 years from
now and maybe never. That was my point. Look at how long it took medicines
to develop from snake oil, to decent efficacy disease to some modest
ergonomic benefits. It is not likely to happen in your lifetime.

"Nick Burns" writes:

I think the reason the war was lost was that the definition of victory was
unrealistic.

Agreed.

Let's look at a an example or two:

Gert-Jan Theunisse, in his day was a great rider. It was commonly
presumed that he was ''taking'' something, namely testosterone.

People even called him ''Mr. Testo''

He was tested on numerous occasions. And came up clean, except, I
believe, for the one time at the Tour de France for testosterone.
Several years later, queried on the subject, Gert-Jan asserted
that he did not use Testosterone. Asked what he did use, he
replied ''Speed''. (Amphetamines - Davey)

His bosom buddy Steven Rooks, if I remember, was never positive
but in 2000 admitted to the use of Amphetamines and Testostrone
throughout a 13 year career.

Those were the halcyon PDM years, when Kelly abandoned the Lemonade
merchants and quit winning sprints on those junky aluminium frames
that no self respecting first year rookie would ride in the local
Thursday Night criterium.

There was the ''bad batch of intra-lipid'' I seem to remember, but
for a squad where doping was ''de rigeur'' the lads seemed to be
troubled hardly at all by the doping controls.

Then let's look at Deutsche Telekom.

They settled out of court a few years back several claims for
damages by former riders. These claims were based on the
continuing deleterious effects of Telekom's mandatory doping
programme.

And then again there was the ''Der Spiegel'' allegations
against Telekom which seemed to be impeccably sourced and
which stated that doping was compulsory from 1994 on.

''Der Spiegel'' also cited Ullrich as having spent a night
alone in another hotel separate from the team after the squad
had been forewarned of a ''Surprize'' doping test to take place
sometime during the night.

Further cited was Walter Godefroot's order to the lads to
jettison their ''goodies'' after a certain mountain top finish
at the Tour because he had ''heard'' that there might be a search.

OK, so what about Rumsas? Everyone, including VDB's pet pooch,
seem to think that he was ''on something''.

But did he ever test positive?

And my point in this diatribe?

Doping controls are not worth the time, effort and expense.

SCRAP THEM.

And screw Dick Pound (Dick by name; Dick by nature) and his
WADA ******z.

I bet he only started that gig because me was miffed at not
getting Juan-Antonio's job, and figured out how to kill two
birds with one stone.

Firstly he needed to find a new trough in which to firmly plant
his snout and both trotters after being somewhat cut off from the
IOC pork barrel. And secondly he figured that by dissing the TDF
he could get even with the ''Froggies'' whom he is sure somehow
put in the fix that denied him the IOC presidency and installed
a Francophone, Jacques Rogge, even though he's a Walloon from
Belgium.

--
le vent a Dos

Davey Crockett

Yeah, as long as you understand we may be talking about 50 or 100 years from
now and maybe never. That was my point. Look at how long it took medicines
to develop from snake oil, to decent efficacy disease to some modest
ergonomic benefits. It is not likely to happen in your lifetime.


Chris do you really expect racers to wait until there are good documented
studies to use these techniques? They are going to shoot up whatever they think
will give them an advantage, no matter if it's tested or not.
The ugly results are not 50-100 years away. They are tomorrow's headlines.
Henry is right on the money on this one.
Bill C

"TritonRider" wrote in message
...
Yeah, as long as you understand we may be talking about 50 or 100 years
from
now and maybe never. That was my point. Look at how long it took
medicines
to develop from snake oil, to decent efficacy disease to some modest
ergonomic benefits. It is not likely to happen in your lifetime.


Chris do you really expect racers to wait until there are good documented
studies to use these techniques? They are going to shoot up whatever they
think
will give them an advantage, no matter if it's tested or not.
The ugly results are not 50-100 years away. They are tomorrow's
headlines.
Henry is right on the money on this one.
Bill C

No, but I think it may take that long to get results.

From: "Nick Burns"

No, but I think it may take that long to get results.



If you are talking about safe positive controlable results I think your may be
right, but the curve is almost a geometric progression. The negative stuff is
going to be immediate.
Bill C

Kurgan Gringioni wrote:

"Clovis Lark" wrote in message
...

I think you just one a "dumbass" (intentional lower cese) for that
ridiculous portrayal of genetics.



Goddamm, you're stupid.

No, YOU are gullable. My family has been involved in molecular gnetics
for over 50 years. Wanna play? YOU said
"deer mitochondria" I believe. When was the last time a deer ran full out
for 4-5 hours? Other errors all over the place, but, we could go back to
music....

From:
http://sport.guardian.co.uk/athletic...609912,00.html

The gene genie is out of the bottle

It is sport's doomsday scenario: a new wave of performance-enhancing drugs
whose use is utterly undetectable. And, according to the scientists and world

doping experts who met at a special conference in London yesterday, that
doomsday is already nigh.

The key, they say, is genetic manipulation. By the Athens Olympics in 2004,
dozens if not hundreds of athletes are expected to have experimented with the
rapidly emerging range of gene-altering drugs. Unfettered by fears of being
caught they will, according to the experts, shatter the accepted limits of
human performance.

"I think genetic engineering may have already started," said the former
Norwegian speed-skating champion Johann Olav Koss, a doctor and member of the
International Olympic Committee's World Anti-Doping Agency. "We can't be
naive. We must be realistic."

In recent years geneticists have made major advances in gene therapy. This
involves injecting the body with artificial genes which then produce
therapeutic proteins that can limit the spread of disease and ease chronic
pain. The technique, while still being tested experimentally on humans, has
already been used successfully on animals. But that is not the end of the
story.

"While the information from genetic science will lead to better disease
treatments," said Bruce Lynn, a neurophysiologist at University College
London and one of the organisers of yesterday's conference on genetics and
their role in sport. "It will also present the sports industry with a
Pandora's box."

snip

Researchers at London's Royal Free hospital and UCL's medical school recently
tested muscle-building engineered vaccines on mice. Dubbed mechano-growth
factor (MGF), a protein which makes muscles grow and repair themselves, the
vaccines were found to increase muscle mass by as much as 60% within a month
and with no exercise.

"We call them the Schwarzenegger mice," said a Harvard medical school
professor, Nadia Rosenthal, who has run similar experiments. "I'd be totally
surprised if it was not going on in sports. Those with terminal cancer and
Aids want to know 'What will keep me alive?' Athletes want to know 'What will
help me win?'"

But there is a cost, and not just the potential disintegration of sport as we
know it. Many drugs have dangerous, or even toxic, side-effects. Use of
human-growth hormone leads to enlarged organs and uncontrollable bone growth
in the face and hands; inserted genes could spin out of control, leading to
thickening blood, strokes, heart attacks and death.

snipend