McNair's evidence (Updated)

According to SI's Peter King it's Overtrained athlete's syndrome.


I'm not sure if they thought this one through.....


(The Overtraining syndrome. Mark Jenkins, MD, Rice University)

There have been several clinical studies done on athletes with the overtraining syndrome. Exercise physiologic, psychological, and biochemical laboratory testing have been done. Findings in these studies have shown decreased performance in exercise testing, decreased mood state, and, in some, increased cortisol levels -- the body's "stress" hormone. A decrease in testosterone, altered immune status, and an increase in muscular break down products have also been identified.

I've read pretty much the same thing in every study I've seen (admittedly, not many, or enough to be considered comprehensive. I've currently got requests out to get more), none of which mention hCG at all, much less elevated levels.

Good luck to Mr. McNair, but I can't see how this argument will be sufficient to reduce or overturn the suspension.

Update: There is a chance that Cushing's story could hold water, despite my continued belief that the league is going to do nothing about it.

In this well-sourced article (.PDF) by Dr. Dan Gwartney it's suggested that hCG stimulates production of testosterone. If, as suggested by Dr. Mark Jenkins of Rice University, overtraining syndrome causes a testosterone deficiency then it's plausible that elevated hCG could exist as a countermeasure to lowered hormone levels.

Possible but, not yet proven as near as I can tell. I've got requests out to better researchers (with better research skills and tools than I have) for any information they can find on this issue, if something comes my way I'll be sure to share.

It's important to note that, even if the scenario I outlined above was plausible, or if that's even the defense that Cushing is going to use after all, he hasn't made it totally public yet, that minus peer-reviewed studies backing up those claims there's probably very little the NFL is going to do.


Except...maybe, fight this thing out in court.

Armstrong bunkers down.

No matter your feelings regarding the best Tour de France rider ever, things aren't looking good for Austin's favorite cycling son.

It'd be one thing if the charges of systemic doping were coming from Floyd Landis. After all, the guys a jerk and an admitted liar. I really believe Armstrong could weather that. But with "other cyclists" now jumping on the anti-Lance band-wagon things are looking bleak.



Instead of focusing on Armstrong though, it would be nice if the story would focus more on USADA, whose investigative methods have never been on the up & up. Millions of dollars are spent by the Government every year to fund this agency's witch-hunts against athletes sometimes garnering convictions, but what is gained?

Then there's this: Since cycling entered it's "doping era" Lance Armstrong has NEVER tested positive for a banned substance. Think what you want about Lance, that's a powerful statement for "reasonable doubt" if ever I've seen one.

Unfortunately USADA isn't about reasonable doubt. You're guilty until proven innocent and bargained testimony is often considered damning. Given that, relatively weak, standard of evidence Lance is in for a tougher climb than the Alp D'Huez.

A question of sP(ED)ort

To whom are we supposed to turn for information?

Yes, he's an odd-ball, but SI's Peter King is one of the better NFL sources to turn to for league information and decent commentary on NFL issues of the day. That was why his citing of public encyclopedia Wikipedia when commenting on the Brian Cushing HcG issue has struck a cord with some fans. How much of a cord? Enough that they edited the HcG Wikipedia page twice just to prove a point.

(screenshots taken from Wikipedia page on Human chorionic gnadotropin)

Certainly there are better sources than Wikipedia to judge a man's drug use, but that pales in comparison to Sport's Radio 610 morning host John Lopez' twitter kangaroo trial where Cushing was convicted on heresy and guilt by association.

In short, the information that we're receiving from sports talkers and reporters on Cushing's testing is, for the most part, wrong.

For one thing, it's only 'reported' that Cushing tested positive for HcG we don't know this for a fact. For argument's sake, however, lets assume the reports are true.

HcG is NOT a 'masking agent'. The purpose of masking agents is to cover steroid injection through the use of an agent that (theoretically) won't show up in testing but will alter the body's hormonal composition. HcG doesn't do that. Yes, it does alter the body's hormonal composition, but it's (obviously) not invisible to testing protocols. If anything HcG would fall under the umbrella of "Post cycle therapy" (PCT). The use of PCT compounds is typically undertaken to lessen the effects of steroid side-effects. Medically, it's a fertility drug that stimulates the release of the eggs in women, and increases sperm count for men. There are instances where off-label administration of HcG can be used for weight loss, especially to treat obesity.

Given those facts you either believe that Cushing was trying to lose weight (hard to see from an NFL player) or was trying to have a baby. The other option is that he was on steroids and using HcG in his PCT routine. Casting aside any rare uses, those are the three options that make sense.

A larger question that this brings to the fore is society's feelings toward PED's in sport. In summary: Why do we care what these athletes are taking and are we really prepared to make the changes necessary to root drugs out?

Many observers consider PED's to be the Pandora's Box of athletics, now that it's open it can never be closed. To be sure there will always be those who are unscrupulous and willing to break every rule in order to get to the top. If people are willing to cheat on The Amazing Race to win, why wouldn't they cheat when the stakes are much, much higher?

Removing PED's from sport totally requires three things: 1. Olympic-style testing 2. Public display of results. 3. Long, meaningful bans for rule-breakers.

By Olympic testing I mean random blood tests that can be conducted at any time during the year. When the collector shows up, the athlete has to give a sample. All athletes would be put on a heavy rotation. Displaying drug-test results publicly has met stiff opposition due to HIPA. There would probably need to be adjustments to the law to allow this. Making the suspensions meaningful is not hard at all. The minimum punishment for a first offense should be one year, the second offense should be a lifetime ban. Enact all of these in every sport, and you could get to a point that the games we watch are about 90% clean, with only the top 10% being clever enough to beat the test...for a while.


Or, my preferred option, we can all just accept the fact that sport has always been about pushing the envelope to be faster, stronger etc. and make sure that athletes are provided with the safest environment possible in which to practice their craft, that the NFL takes care of them after the fact, and that the drugs used are taxed to the gills.

Either way something has to change.

The newest player in the supplement industry is...

Amazon.com.

That's right, the on-line supercenter has decided to dive straight into the nutritional supplement market. Word is they even had a booth at the 2008 Mr. Olympia.

Previously Europa Distributors sold supplements through Amazon so this is either a re-branding of the pre-existing agreement, or a full changing of the guard from Amazon in respects to the nutritional supplement industry. Regardless of the inner workings, infusions of cash from large players in retail are a good sign for an industry that's been struggling due to increased pressure from Government regulators. While its too early to say what, if any, impact Amazon's entrance into the market will have for the fitness industry as a whole, its certainly a welcome sight to see such a mainstream interest show interest in the marketplace.

Whether or not promoters and bodybuilders can leverage this interest into sponsorships remains to be seen.

Don't miss this blowout sale.

Received this via e-mail today:





In case you're wondering:

5lb: $3.04 off of $39.99 is 7.60%

10lb: $2.04 off of $76.99 is 2.65%

Be sure to run out and snap up these fine deals while they last!!!

NFL Star sues supplement company

It was bound to happen...

(From Brent Schrotenboer of the San Diego Union-Tribune)

Athletes who fail drug tests these days often give the same excuse:
“It wasn't my fault. I didn't know my vitamins were tainted with steroids.”

To skeptics, it sounds like a schoolboy claiming that his dog ate his homework.

But recently many athletes have been taking their arguments to court to prove they mean it – often with successful results.

The latest attempt came Friday in San Diego Superior Court, where former San Diego State and NFL running back Femi Ayanbadejo filed suit against a Nevada supplement company and local distributor. Ayanbadejo tested positive for a steroidal substance last year, leading to a four-game suspension and his release by the Arizona Cardinals and Chicago Bears.

“I took a supplement that had a banned substance in it that was not listed on the bottle,” Ayanbadejo said yesterday. “I know a lot of guys have been using that excuse. But I said from the beginning that I was going to sue the company and make sure that whoever was responsible would face the music.”

If his claims are true then I hope he wins the suit and the company in question is fined severely. The fight to keep supplements legal is going to involve holding company's feet to the fire regarding accurate label claims.

S.B. 1082 - Consumer protection or Drug Industry hat-tip?

Mike Adams has done a lot of heavy lifting on the pros (and cons) of S.B. 1082 regarding the future of Dietary supplements....

The present concern is that the bill will pass with ambiguous language that could allow its regulatory powers to threaten free access to dietary supplements and functional foods. While the bill's supporters claim there is no such language contained in the bill that would subject foods and supplements to new FDA regulations, they nonetheless refuse to support the food and supplement protection amendments authored by Jonathan Emord (a high-profile attorney specializing in FDA regulatory law) and generally supported by the health freedom movement.

While S.1082 contains some useful provisions that limit advertising for new drugs, it could also ultimately be misused to threaten consumer health freedoms. Furthermore, the bill deepens the financial ties between Big Pharma and the FDA while doing nothing of substance to end corruption at the FDA or to halt Big Pharma's monopolistic trade practices in the United States. Thus, the bill is widely viewed by most people in the health freedom movement as a net loss to consumer safety, which is why grassroots opposition to S.1082 has steadily grown.

What's clear from the Senate's action on the bill is that consumers are not in any meaningful way represented by lawmakers. Rather than fighting to protect consumers' health and hard-earned dollars, the majority of senators have voted in accordance with the wishes of their corporate sponsors -- the drug companies themselves. Thus, the imminent passage of S.1082 is viewed by many as yet one more Senate sellout of the American public to the financial interests of powerful pharmaceutical companies.

Everything that's wrong with the Supplement Industry today

Summed up in one nice, neat package...

(from Danny Robbins of The Ft. Worth Star-Telegram)

Even after five years, Loretta Lewis vividly recalls the day she visited the home of her daughter, Angel Montgomery, to hear a talk by Max Brache, a sales associate for Mannatech Inc.

Much of Brache's presentation was focused on Montgomery, who only months earlier had been diagnosed with a rare form of cancer.

And, in Lewis' view, much of it was frightening, making the case that her daughter could conquer her illness by stopping her chemotherapy and taking Mannatech's dietary supplements instead.

"The thing that still galls me is how you can look somebody that sick in the eye and give them that kind of hope," she said.

For Lewis and others close to Montgomery, who died in November at 31, old emotions have been stirred by the lawsuit Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott filed against Mannatech last month.

Montgomery's experience with Brache is among the incidents cited in the suit, which accuses Mannatech, a Coppell-based multilevel marketer, of allowing its supplements to be sold as cures for cancer and other diseases.

I've seen Mannatech at various bodybuilding competitions in Texas, and they've always seemed to be responsible there, so I think that this story illustrates how one bad apple can spoil the entire barrell.

If supplements are to remain legally available then the industry is going to have to get serious about policing itself and making sure that they aren't allowing hucksters to give the entire industry a bad name.

Supplements linked to steroids.

It's been done quite often in the Main Stream Media, and now, College publications are echoing the same meme that supplements=steroids.

From Stefan Lovelace of the Penn State Collegian:

And unfortunately, steroids and illegal substances have spilled down from our professional leagues to the collegiate level. Many athletes take some sort of supplement while training to see improved results on the playing field. Penn State is no exception.

"It's a problem here, but it's a problem everywhere," said Dr. Kristine Clark, Director of Sports Nutrition for Penn State's athletic department, and an assistant professor of nutrition.

(snip)

"If you took testosterone in low doses, you'll beat the test and still have a performance effect," Yesalis said. "In my opinion, the size of the college [football offensive and defensive] lines, which is underestimated, I can't explain.

"Look at the size of these linebackers that are ripped. Weightlifting doesn't explain it. These drugs are available, affordable, they work and you can circumvent the drug testing process.

"The change in the size of football players, if you take drugs out of the mix, you can't explain it."

According to Clark, within the last decade, the increase of supplements taken among collegiate athletes has risen exponentially. Supplements that have become popular among athletes include protein supplements and shakes, creatine supplements, sports drinks and bars, multi-vitamins, fish oil supplements and the most potentially harmful: dietary supplements.

You should take the time to read the entire article because it is really chock full of factual (and scientifically unproven) claims. The most disturbing part (to me) is that Mr. Lovelace made no attempt to interview or present an opposing side to the argument he was clearly making throughout the piece: steroids=drugs.

Would that nutritionists did a small amount of investigative research they would see that, in the bodybuilding community especially, the tenents of a healthy diet and exercise are considered the first step to a quality physique. Yes, there is steroid use in competative bodybuilding, at least on certain levels, but even the drug tested organizations realize the healthy benefits of smart supplementation taken free of illegal substances. What the nutritionists fail to understand is that most football players need extra macro-nutrients (such as protien) to compete at the high athletic levels that they are constantly performing at. They cannot achieve (or maintain) these levels on a normal Collegiate meal plan, not even an athletes meal plan. It cannot be done.

The answer to this problem is smart, drug-free supplementation, including dietary supplements (which are protien powder, carb drinks and MRP's despite the author trying to seperate them). Creatine has been proven safe, and effective for most young adults over 18 years of age. Protein powder is a safe supplement, as are NO2 supplements, Beta-alanine, glutemine and a host of other compounds including multi-vitamins, the basis for any sensible supplement plan.

The Nutritionists aregument that supplemental micro-nutrients (Vitamin C, A, B and other compounds found in a multi) are "safe" while supplemental macro-nutrients (protein, creatine etc.) are not is simply not based on solid research, for healthy adults over the age of 18, which most College athletes are.

Steroids are illegal in certain professional and most amateur professional sports and should be treated as such. But to equate supplements with illegal substances is a knee-jerk reaction that is not based on any solid scientific evidence and has no place in the debate over what is acceptable in sports.

The fight against Creatine marches on.

Creatine is the most studied, most effective and safest supplements available. Those facts aren't stopping certain groups from continuing the fight to remove it from the marketplace however...

Creatine is a popular supplement among high school athletes, particularly football players. They think it helps them get bigger and stronger.

Doctors who specialize in sports medicine warn that research is lacking into creatine's effects on children. Neither safety nor effectiveness in children has been scientifically proved, they said.

What's missing from the Doctors argument in this case is an adverse event history to hang their hat on. Since they don't have any hard evidence that creatine poses a threat, they are asking the supplement company to prove a negative:

As it stands, "there's essentially no research into these supplements, what they do for kids or how they harm kids," said Dr. Linn Goldberg of the Oregon Health & Science University.

With creatine that's a lie. There are volumes of studies on creatine, how it reacts to the body, and its efficacy in promoting muscle growth. Most have been favorable, and only a few showed side effects that could be termed: "moderate" (gastro-intestinal problems mostly that went away when the subject stopped supplementing).

The funding mechanisms for most of these "no-drug" groups is unclear, as several of them do not operate as non-profits and are not required to list their funding. Dr. Goldberg is a private citizen and has privacy protections prohibiting the general public from see the funding sources for the education programs, or if a material amount of Goldberg's income is derived from those same products. Those factors would, if proven true, have a great impact on Dr. Goldberg and Mr. Uryasz credibility on the matter.

There is not a unanimous front on this issue however:

Professor Richard Kreider, the director of the Exercise and Sport Nutrition Laboratory at Baylor University, thinks creatine gets a bum rap from the medical profession.

"Because it's a very popular supplement, it gets lumped in with steroids and andro and all these other supplements that people are against," he said.

"You even see Blue Cross Blue Shield talking about the dangers of creatine. I think that's unfortunate. More than 1,000 studies have been done on creatine. If there's something hazardous to it, we would have seen it by now."

Several years ago, Kreider said, his study of college football players showed no harmful effects from creatine.

As for high-schoolers, "There's really no reason why somebody that's 16 or 17 years of age can't take creatine. There are no studies showing it's adverse to kids," Kreider said.

Basically, when science is applied, the arguments being made by Dr's and non-scientists begins to fall apart. It's important to note that the support is coming from University Scientists, and the attacks are coming from people with unrevealed motivations.

As the supplement industry increases in size and big Pharmeceutical companies continue to turn their attention to the weight-loss and fitness regions you can expect more articles such as this, and more "concerns" being aired without the evidenciary backup of scientific research. The same thing happened with ephedra, and its happening again with creatine.

Caffeine is next, and then they'll attack protein supplements.

Caffeine the next supplement in the crosshairs?

Not too far of a stretch if you believe the headlines in the media of late...

To get a good kick from caffeine, most people need only drink a 6-ounce cup of coffee, about 100 milligrams. But on a popular pro-drug Web site, a visitor reported taking seven No Doz tablets, or 1,400 milligrams of caffeine, and compared the effects to a bad trip on LSD.

Then, like many who get carried away with the world's most popular drug, the person wondered: "Can caffeine really do this?"

It can. And abuse of the legal stimulant is an emerging problem among young people, according to Northwestern University researchers, who recently analyzed three years' worth of cases reported to the Illinois Poison Center.

Symptoms include everything from nausea, vomiting and a racing heart to hallucinations, panic attacks, chest pains and trips to the emergency room.

In the study that was presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Emergency Physicians, the researchers found more than 250 cases of medical complications from ingesting caffeine supplements. Twelve percent of those cases required hospitalization, including in the intensive-care unit. The average age of the caffeine abusers was 21.

(snip)
"Part of the problem is that people do not think of caffeine as a drug but rather as a food product," said study author Danielle McCarthy.

The move to purge the market of caffeine supplements surely will be the next step. If you don't think there's a problem out there, consider this statement:

The problem, said Michael Wahl, managing medical director for the Illinois Poison Center, is not necessarily in the caffeine but in the dose.

"Everything is a poison, including water, if you have too much," he said. "Caffeine is a stimulant that releases your internal catecholamines [compounds that can serve as hormones] that make you anxious, jittery and create the fight-or-flight response. When the heart beats too fast, bad things happen. It's an emerging trend to keep an eye on and see if it's getting worse."

The problem (as with Ehpedra) lies not with the educated population who are using supplements safely and effectively, but with a small group of abusers who are threatening to ruin the availability of caffeine for everyone. The Government, in its wisdom, seems to think that the best way to cure the patient of cancer is to chop off its head, instead of trying to attack the turmor.

As with any segment of society, the tumor ruins it for the rest of the body and can ultimately lead to the regulation and control of caffeine from the general populace. Right now such a move would cause a severe backlash as caffeine laced coffees and teas have become the liquid du jour for the "hip" set, and there is big money in caffeinated drink sales to be had by some BIG money industries.

And if you don't think an outright elimination of caffeine is the ultimate goal, here's your smoking gun:

"There is a trend in the pro-drug culture toward promoting legal alternatives to illegal drugs, and it can be very harmful," McCarthy said.

We're rapidly nearing the point in America where only food and drink from "approved" Government vendors (large multinational Oligopolies)who process the nutrients out of sub-standard gruel and add artificial flavors and textures designed to taste almost exactly, entirely unlike food and drink.

Share and Enjoy.