Your body makes nandrolone by itself for example. You can only produce very low levels naturally, but say you were just slightly over the limit of 2.0 μg/L of the metabolite in urine, like about 3 or 4, how would the tester know if you injected it or you had naturally high levels?
Because of your prior question about you being hyperadrenal, I am wondering if you are dabbling in steroids?
No Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Just curious after hearing about Chael Sonnen...(MMA fighter...Just tested positive for the shit).
see the Frankenfish thread, apparently myostatin inhibitors put on a massive amount of muscle (I think it regulates the upper limit of muscle growth?). Maybe much better then HGH or steroids? I can see a use for the elderly in retaining muscle mass.
They look at the isotpe ratios in the steroid (or whatever drug/chemical/whatever). All the biomolecules made by your body will have about the same isotope ratios. If you inject or swallow something made in a lab, it will usually have a different isotope ratio. And if you find two different patterns of isotope ratios for the same molecule, that's a huge red flag, because it means you have the same molecules in your body coming from two different sources. Of course, this raises the question of what's really fair in athletics. As you say, many elite athletes have genetic quirks that cause them to naturally have freakishly high levels of various growth hormones etc, often as high or higher than in people who are taking them illegally. Is it fair that they have such an advantage over others simply because they basically won the genetic lottery? Is it really unfair if another, more genetically-normal athlete takes things that only re-create the exact same biochemical conditions that are occurring naturally in their competitors?
Thanks for answer!! And yeah...good points about fairness. I'm not really sure how you'd make a sport 100% fair. I guess you could theoretically have hormone level classes the way contact sports have weight classes...But then you'd have other stuff in the mix, like people's exact morphology.
Yeah, it's fair. Imagine if regulations allowed weaker athletes to to drug up to be equal to the better genetically endowed to the point that they were equal. Well, now they're equal and neither is a better athlete as a result. They keep tying each other--winning or losing by tiny margins that don't reveal either to be better. Then what?
Perhaps the results would be determined by the (gasp!) skill of the athletes, rather than simply which one of them got dealt a better hand of genetic cards?
How do you propose this happen? How do you determine the skill of a sprinter in a manner other than timing them run a certain distance?
Good point Idle Mind. I don't know much about it so can't answer that question, but I assume the result would be determined by other things such as who used what training methods, rather than who had the best physiology.
Sprinting is an extreme example of a sport where very little skill is involved in actually performing the activity. Most sports have a heavy skill component. As for elite sprinting, you might as well just measure the percentage of type IIb muscle fibers rather than running an actual race. Although I guess the race is more interesting to watch.
What if people were modified so they all had the same percentage of those fast twitch fibers? What then would determine who won the race??
