Grab Bag

Here are some things that have been on my mind as of late that do not merit full posts:

Ryan Braun admits to PED use in MVP season

Surprising no one, Ryan Braun admitted last week that he was using testosterone in 2011, the year in which he won the National League MVP.   For those unaware, Braun was able to get his positive test nullified by claiming that his sample was handled incorrectly, or more specifically, that it was left out of a refrigerator for too long.  Of course, a non-refrigerated sample would lead to quicker degradation of his sample and should, in theory, be beneficial to him.  Upon testing positive, Braun proceeded to attack the sample handler, ultimately costing him his job, and state with conviction that he had never taken a performance enhancing drug.

Braun's teammates have recently said that they will welcome him back into the clubhouse and that the past is past.  I'm obviously not a professional baseball player, but I think the best thing they could have done would have been to not to speak to the media about the issue.  Other Brewers players cannot publicly shame Braun, but he is a cheater who defiantly stated otherwise--I don't think publicly welcoming him back with open arms is exactly the best example.  Other athletes have previously done what Braun his done (read: Lance Armstrong) and they've gotten killed for it.  I'm not sure why Braun isn't getting the same treatment.

Breaking news: Track and field has a doping problem

Okay, so it's not really breaking news.  Athletics has a long history of doping problems; one simply needs to glaze over the list of doping busts in athletics to realize this, and then remember that these only the ones who got caught.  Regardless, last Friday, the New York Times ran a front page story stating that roughly 29% of athletes participating in the 2011 IAAF World Championships in Athletics (WC) had doped in the year running up to the championships.  This conclusion was the result of an anonymous, randomized response survey conducted at the World Championships and the 2011 Pan Arab Games.  The researchers reported over 2000 responses--to break that down, there were 295 T&F athletes at the Pan Arab Games and 1867 participants at the IAAF World Championships.  Based on these numbers, we can infer that most, if not all, of the WC athletes were surveyed.

Who's clean?

Twenty-nine percent is not a stunning result.  It's also most assuredly an underestimation of the actual number of athletes doping.  Despite guaranteed anonymity, some athletes could have motivation to lie about their use, either as a way of lying to themselves to make them think they aren't doing anything wrong or just to protect themselves in case the anonymity of the survey was compromised (note that dopers are notorious liars).  There is not, however, any conceivable motivation that would cause a clean athlete to say that they were dirty.

The article also states that WADA labs found less than 2% of its samples to be dirty.  It's unclear whether this was 2% of the samples from the athletes surveyed or 2% of all WADA samples; regardless, it's clear that whatever WADA is doing isn't doing a whole lot to curtail doping in sports.  Not that we'd ever see the data, but I'd love to know what percent of the 29% advanced out of their heats at the WC (and out of semis, etc.).  It would of course be interesting to see how many finalists are dirty, but I think that many people would be surprised at the number of dirty athletes who don't advanced out of their first rounds.  It would give a nice illustration to the depth of the problem.

Misc.

BOOM.

• Love watching Mariano Rivera pitch.  Always have.  I do my best to catch the end of Yankee games in hope that he might come onto the mound.  Truly a once-in-a-generation player and by all accounts, an even better man.
• With all the drama surrounding Johnny Manziel, I can only notice how screwed up the NCAA is.  The NCAA is supposed to protect its student-athletes when often times it seems like it's out to get them.  There is no easy solution.  Somewhat related, but it's also time to remove football from Title IX funding consideration.  Title IX is literally killing men's collegiate sports (and it hits close to home because often times it's track teams that get cut) and it's time for amendment to address the anomaly that is college football.
• I want Jadeveon Clowney on the Patriots.  Not that it'll ever happen, but  I can't think of many things more frightening than a defensive line of Chandler Jones, Vince Wilfork, and Clowney.  Christ.  Speaking of Clowney, here's a great New York Times piece on him.  Also, because it happened against Michigan, the Hit.
• As a sports fan, the fall might be my favorite season of the year.  Baseball pennant races and playoffs, college and pro football, and cross country are all underway and then in the middle of it all, basketball and hockey start back up again.  Gotta love it.
• Haven't watched a 30 for 30 that I haven't enjoyed.  One of the best things ESPN has done as of late.
• What's the deal with Tim Lincecum?  His arm has bipolar disorder or something--someone tell the Giants' team doctors to give it lithium injections.  Or maybe he just needs his long hair again.
• Alex Rodriguez's suspension hearing has been pushed to November.  Oh well.
• Go Buckeyes.

A Dose in Doping Theory

Why do athletes take performance enhancing drugs?

Recovery.

Why do athletes take performance enhancing drugs?

Recovery.

Why do athletes take performance enhancing drugs?

Recovery.

Got that?  If you take nothing else out of this blog, remember that athletes use PEDs for recovery.  That should be drilled into your head.

Let me first dispel the notion that dopers are lazy and would rather shoot up than work hard.  Simply not true.  Athletes dope so they can do more.  In ESPN's 30 for 30: 9.79* documentary, Ben Johnson said that when he was on anabolic steroids, he could max in his lifts twice a day as opposed to once every 3 days when he was clean.  Ask anyone who has tried to max-out a lift: it isn't easy, and it sure as hell isn't lazy.

You might be able to see where this is going.  Drugs do not immediately lead to more strength, endurance, etc., with the end goal being better performance.  Rather, they enable the user to have a higher workout volume to achieve higher levels of strength or endurance.  The impetus is still on the athlete to work harder than ever, as his/her body is literally incapable of the work naturally.

So, here's how it works, the very crux of doping in non-skill sports (i.e., track and field, cycling, Nordic skiing, swimming...basically sports that don't involve a ball): say you have a 3 month long competition period.  That means you have a 9 month out of competition period where 7 or 8 of those months are spent actually training.  Testing is much more stringent in competition season--out of competition testing is largely lax (or sometimes doesn't happen at all; see end of article).  The probability of getting caught out of season is on the order of magnitude of a fraction of a percent (I can't immediately recall anyone who's gotten busted for an out of season test).  So, you dope up on whatever is the rage of the day, be it anabolic steroids back in the 80s, or EPO, HGH, and testosterone now.  You know how long it will be in your system.  You almost have to be stupid to get caught, seeing as anyone who can consult a calendar will know when to dose and when not to.

Let's take the case of a male distance runner.  The bulk of off-season training consists of running a ton of miles.  Run too much though and his body breaks down, he'll get fatigued and start displaying diminishing marginal returns on his training.  But, take some PEDs (in this case, the big 3 of the modern day: EPO, HGH, and testosterone) and his body can handle more.  Instead of running 90 mile weeks he can tackle 105 mile weeks like no problem.  He can do his long runs a little bit faster.  Instead of lifting twice a week he has the energy to lift three times a week.  Pile this on for six-odd months and this athlete is going to be in the best shape of his life.  By the time workouts start rolling around, he'll be able to handle higher volume and higher intensity in those as well.

Now it's time to race.  Our athlete is what I'll call "currently clean"--that is, his urine won't trigger any positive tests nor is he on any sort of in-season doping regime--I hesitate to call him clean for reasons I'm about to explain.  Nothing can take away the training that this runner has accomplished over the past year.  All those extra miles, faster miles, extra lifting sessions, higher quality workouts, longer workouts are in his legs, his muscles, and his lungs.  Because of this, he'll be able to smash his PRs in a drag race and be able to close like a freight train (this is what a freight train looks like) off of paces where he was previously hanging on for dear life.  When asked how was able to improve so much, all he has to say is that he had a quality year of training at the highest level.  And he isn't even lying. 

Pretty simple, isn't it?  Cycle on the drugs, train your tail off, cycle off, and reap the rewards.  Now, the "currently clean" term I dubbed: the runner in my example is still dirty as all sin.  His fitness level is a result of his drug use.  Without the drugs, his year of training would have been marginally successful instead of wildly successful, all other things being equal.  I would say that his fitness is dirty, even though his pee-cup is saying otherwise.  Thus, he is currently clean, but he sure is not clean.  It's hard to do much about it, except something along the lines of weekly testing out of season, which is near impossible to facilitate (find me the following in rural Kenya: a drug lab, means of sample preservation, certified testers who want to go to Kenya, etc.).

-------------

Recovery is not only important for higher quality training (or in the TDF and others, racing), but also in dealing with injuries.  Rodney Harrison was suspended by the NFL in 2007 for using HGH, which he said he used to accelerate the healing process from various injuries and not to gain a competitive edge (of course, an accelerated healing process is a competitive edge, but that's neither here nor there).  Whenever I hear a report on ESPN that such and such player is making a miraculous recovery from an injury and is months ahead of where doctors thought he would be, I just shake my head and wonder when anyone is going to question why these recoveries are being made so quickly (I'm not making accusations, but here's an example of what I'm talking about).  It just doesn't line up.

Shifting gears a little bit, when baseball's "Steroid Era" was outed in the early 2000s, many pundits said that they didn't think pitchers were doping because they didn't need to be huge in the same way hitters did.  While the part about being huge might be true--you can be as strong as you want, but if your fastball isn't moving, you're going to get hit--the part about them not doping is absolute baloney.  We've established what doping is about (hopefully you remember), and a starting pitcher is a prime candidate for someone who needs to recover quickly.  Every five days, a starter is charged with the task of throwing basically until his arm falls off.  If his arm starts falling off in the third inning, his bullpen is in for a long night his team will be at a disadvantage for the next couple of games.  Come the dog days of August when the pennant races are heating up, a pitcher might need a little help to be at his best each start.  PED use would allow him to be effective through the late summer months and into the fall when the playoffs begin.

-------------

In the five months preceding the 2012 London Olympics, Jamaican track and field athletes were subject to one out of competition drug test.  Not one test each.  Just one athlete was tested once in those five months by Jamaica's anti-doping agency, which is responsible for upholding WADA and IAAF codes.  I'll let the readers make their own conclusions about this, but I will say that mine is not a particularly good one.

Asafa Powell, a 2012 Jamaican Olympian, was recently whacked for doping

Why do athletes take performance enhancing drugs?

Record-Board Loitering

Record are made to be broken.

Koch and Bonds: they have more in common than you might think.

That's the underlying assumption that I'm making in this post and, to be honest, it seems like a fairly safe one. Technology and equipment advance over time, training methods are refined, and -- if nothing else -- the greater number of athletes participating in sports should lead to higher performance ceilings. Take a peek at most any record progression (thanks for the link, Bryan) and you'll see what I mean. So what happens when we notice that certain records are starting to look a little old up there on the board? Or better yet, how do we respond when modern athletes -- for all of their advantages -- can't even come close?

To me, the most obvious cases of 'record-board loitering' (as I hereby dub this phenomenon) in sports are in the women's sprint events on the track, where all of the current world records hail from the 1980s. These cases are particularly noticeable because track is a sport where record turnover is generally near-constant. Let's take a look at these records (I'm throwing in the women's 800m because it's that ridiculous), and at how close the world's best times from recent championship years have been to surpassing them:

So yea, it's bad. Which gets us to the central point of this post: drugs. Most followers of track and field have at this point decided to disregard these old records -- in theory if not in practice -- because of the blight of performance-enhancing drugs which tarnishes the accomplishments of Griffith-Joyner, Koch and Kratochvilova.

Or at least they say that's why they're doing it. My point is that I don't think people would be nearly so quick to dismiss these records were they not so out-of-reach to track and field's current generation of stars. This is an interesting thought, but it's fairly intuitive. We don't denigrate these tainted athletes just because they cheated; we do it because they were so good at cheating.

For a deeper look into just how insurmountable these marks have proven to be, consider a new table:

Thank you, summer internship, for the Excel expertise.

Before I launch into any kind of statistical analysis, I need to cover my tracks here. The world record is not a random sample, so we can't statistically prove anything about the validity of these marks. Based on my rough approximation of a typical rate of record-breaking, though, we could expect a Z-score (difference divided by standard deviation, or how many standard deviations away from the average world-leading time the world record is) in the 1-2 range. Clearly that is not the case. The world-record marks are all more than two standard deviations less than the recent average. In short, this confirms what we already knew: the record times are really fast and nobody has been close to them.

One interesting thing that this table reveals, though, is just how much Griffith-Joyner's 10.49 and Koch's 47.60 stand out. At nearly six standard deviations off the average, Koch's mark is particularly untouchable. But is it the most outrageous record in sports? Just for fun, I ran a comparison of that record to another controversial sports record that isn't going to be broken any time soon: Barry Bonds' 73 home runs in a single season.

Wow. In this battle of chemically-assisted heavyweights, the embattled slugger comes out on top. It's like the Cold War all over again...

While marks like this represent the upper end of the spectrum of unbreakable records, they are part of a trend of record-board loitering that can be seen wherever PEDs have left their mark on a sport's past. And this trend has consequences, namely a decrease in interest going forward as fans become disheartened by the seemingly-disappointing performances of their generation's stars. Women sprinters have been feeling this crunch for years, and the effect will only become more pronounced in baseball as Bonds' record starts to look older and older.

So there you go. It's called record-board loitering, and the next time you find yourself unimpressed by a 49-second dash or a 50-home run season, you'll know what I'm talking about.

Photos courtesy of The Washington Post and Wikipedia

The Case for Usain Bolt

Usain Bolt after capturing 100m gold in Moscow

The IAAF World Championships concluded on Sunday with Usain Bolt claiming his third gold medal of the championships, leading his Jamaican 4x100m relay to victory.  Bolt now has the impressive haul of 6 Olympic gold medals, 8 World Championship golds, and 2 World Championship silvers.  Since his rise to stardom in 2008, Bolt's only championship blemish is his false start in the Daegu 100m final in 2011 (his two silvers were from 2007).

Another GOAT

Bolt is, with little debate, the GOAT (Greatest Of All Time) of sprinting.  Sports fans are quick to anoint athletes as the GOAT, but usually there is some room for debate--there's a short list of athletes whom the general public will not say anything about if they are claimed to be the GOAT.  Off the top of my head, Michael Phelps is the GOAT of swimming and Mariano Rivera is the GOAT of closers.  Beyond that, things get a little dicey: Jordan or Russell?  Was Lemieux more talented than Gretzky?  Don't even get started on the greatest hitter of all time.

So now we're talking about a GOAT on a doping blog.  This is not good news.  What I am going to attempt to do is make a case for why Bolt is not doping.  I am not saying that he isn't, but I'm going to try give some reasons why he might be natural.  Despite these reasons, I'll say that I won't be surprised if he were to get busted, and that there is nothing that would be more catastrophic for track and field right now than a positive drug test for Usain Bolt.

Let's start with the sheer absurdity that is Bolt's athletic career.  He has run 9.58 for 100m and 19.19 for 200m, both of which are world records.  The 19.19 was run as his 8th race of the Championships.  A fresh Bolt, at that time, could scare the 19 second barrier, which is more than I can wrap my mind around.

Ben Johnson: the first man under 9.80

Here's the list of athletes who have run under 9.80s for 100m:
Usain Bolt
Tyson Gay
Yohan Blake
Asafa Powell
Nesta Carter
Justin Gatlin
Maurice Greene
Ben Johnson

Here's the list of athletes who have run under 9.80s for 100m who have not been associated with the use of PEDs:
Usain Bolt

Oops.  In fact, you have to go down to 9.84 before you find someone other than Bolt on the all-time list who hasn't been immediately associated with drugs.  So if we say that the "clean" non-Bolt WR is 9.84, we're thus saying that Bolt is naturally 0.26s faster than anyone in history.  That's nearly a 3% difference in performance (for reference, a 10s 100 decided by 0.01s is a 0.1% difference).  Hardly adds up, right?

Tyson Gay on his way to 19.58.  One of the coolest track pictures I've seen.

Now let's look at the absurdity of the 200m.  On Saturday, Bolt ran 19.66 to win gold.  At first glance, that performance did nothing for me.  Then I remembered that, until recently, anything under 19.60 was hallowed ground.  Five men--Bolt, Yohan Blake, Michael Johnson, Walter Dix, and Tyson Gay--have broken 19.60.  So, in reality, this 19.66 is in itself a fairly spectacular performance, but the point I'm trying to get at is that Bolt's excellence has led us to expect times in the 19.3s or faster and anything slower is a poor day.  But, if anyone else, save Blake and his freakish 19.26, were to run that fast, he'd gather some attention.

We've now established that Bolt is an extreme outlier and that people who are even remotely close to him doped to do so.  Let's defend Bolt a bit.

Bolt has been a sensation in the track world long before he burst onto the scene in 2008 with his 9.72 WR in New York.  For example, here's his 200m progression since 2001:

There's nothing too fishy about that other than the drop from 21.73 to 20.58 between 2001 and 2002, but when you realize that he was 14 in 2001 and 15 in 2002, it makes a little more sense (i.e., puberty happened).  In 2004 as a 17 year old he ran a still standing world junior record at 19.93.  The kid was a star from the moment he stepped on a track.  As a WJR holder, it would follow that maybe someday he would approach the WR.  My point is, he didn't pull a Rashid Ramzi going from a 3:39 guy to 3:30 in one year at age 24.

Athletic freak

Bolt is also a straight up freak (kind of like how Michael Phelps is a freak, although obviously Bolt's characteristics are different).  There is no other way to describe him physically.  He stands 6'5" and weighs a slender 207 pounds.  There's not much on his frame that doesn't need to be there, which means he doesn't have to expend extra energy carrying that stuff around (dear distance runners reading this: eat.  Bolt could put on 20 pounds of muscle in a month but he doesn't need to; that is a whole different league than trying to take off 5 pounds from a 100 pound frame by starving yourself).  His 6'5" stature means his steps are ridiculously long.  The Guardian reported that he took 41 steps in the London 100m final while the average elite 100m runner takes 44.  But, speed is a combination of stride length and turnover (how quickly the legs cycle through between steps).  Traditionally, taller athletes have slower turnover because it takes longer for their long legs to cycle through.  Bolt, on the other hand, has the turnover of a 5'10" guy.  As such, he has a lethal combination of stride length and turnover that makes him the best ever.

Much has been said about the poor quality of Bolt's start.  While his start is certainly not perfect, let's take a moment to dispel the myth that he has a terrible first 30m of his 100m.  The WR for the 60m is 6.39 held by Maurice Greene.  When Bolt ran 9.58 in 2009, the first 60m of that race was timed at 6.31 (w=+0.9).  Even more frightening is that in his 9.69 run in 2008, he had his first 60m timed at 6.32 with no wind (w=±0).  So, he's covering 60m faster than Maurice Greene, who is of a traditional short-sprinter build (5'9.5", 170lbs).

En route to 9.69 and his first Olympic gold

Bolt also has the best technique I've ever seen.  I remember my jaw being on the floor the first time I saw him run--and it wasn't because he was running 9.69 celebrating for 30m.  The whole reason why he's such a clown before races isn't for the attention; he does it to keep his body relaxed.  This optimizes his stride length and allows him to conserve energy.  Without going into the finer details of technique that only I will enjoy reading, the positioning of all parts of his body is worlds better than anyone else.  Sprinters of all ages should spend hours watching his race videos and looking at pictures of him at various phases of his races.  Even having half the technique that Bolt does would improve an athlete's speed tremendously.
(Post-publication clarification: I should note that Bolt's form isn't perfect.  There are certain areas where he could improve, most notably, how he runs the turn in the 200.  His top-end technique, though, is out of this world.)

So there you have it.  Bolt has been an age-group superstar turned senior-level megastar who won the genetic lottery and was born with incredible natural technique.  He's a borderline once-in-a-lifetime athlete.  And let's hope he's done it cleanly.

Why Biogenesis is not a big deal

The Biogenesis scandal is not a big deal.

Read that again.

On August 5th, Major League Baseball suspended 13 players (in addition to Ryan Braun who had been suspended two weeks earlier) for their relationships with Florida anti-aging clinic Biogenesis (particularly, use of HGH).

Source: Wikipedia

Melky Cabrera, Bartolo Colón, and Yasmani Grandal were also named in the report but were not punished because they had been previously suspended for failing tests for drugs provided by Biogenesis.  Gio Gonzalez and Danny Valencia were named in the report but were later cleared of PED use.

On the surface, this looks great (if you want PEDs out of sports, that is).  Thirteen players were suspended!  This is the nail in the coffin of the Steroid Era in baseball!  But it isn't, and here's why.

Nelson Cruz: Body by Bosch

1. None of the suspensions were the result of a positive test.  MLB's testing didn't catch any of these guys; rather, a disgruntled Biogenesis employee leaked company records detailing its clientele.  The fall of the players was a result of legal and investigative prowess, not brilliant drug testing.  MLB did not in any way demonstrate improvements to their testing procedures through this case--the lesson for potential users is, "Don't deal with shady people," when the lesson we want to see from drug-busts is, "The testing is better, don't try to get around it because we will catch you."

2. It's only fourteen players.  At any one time, there are 750 players on Major League rosters.  There are currently 1200 members of the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA).  That is to say, slightly less than 2% of players on rosters were caught and a shade over 1% of due-paying players were caught.  I think most people can agree than more than 2% of baseball players are doping.  Is it a step?  Yes.  But to call it a watershed moment is a little overstated.  For comparison, last week the Turkish Athletics Federation banned 31 of its athletes for doping.  I'm going to hazard a guess and say that there are fewer elite level track athletes in Turkey than there are MLB players, and I'm still not even sure I'd classify the Turkish bans as overly meaningful (more like funny, really).

3. It's only 50 games.  That's a slap on the wrist, although it's fairly consistent with the other major sports' bans.  Clearly the risk of suspension isn't harsh enough to discourage players from using PEDs.  In the case of Cruz and Peralta, they'll be able to join their respective teams for the final week of the regular season in what could be the heat of a pennant race (although the Tigers are sitting comfortably ahead of the Indians at this time).  What's more, they've already been helping their teams throughout the season getting to where they are--WAR aside, it's hard to know where the Tigers and Rangers would be without their All-Stars.  From the financial standpoint, the players do lose money from not playing these games, but they'll still get bonuses if their teams make the playoffs.

So, what do we do?  The first thing I'd advocate for would be stricter penalties.  The punishments need to be severely detrimental to the career of the player, if not career ruining.  Lifetime bans are a pipe dream, but I don't think a 2 year ban inline with current WADA code is unreasonable.  The IAAF just moved from two year bans to four year bans, and that's in a sport that has a much shorter window of performance than baseball (unless you're Justin Gatlin or Dwain Chambers, a four year ban is basically career-ending).  If stiffer penalties are going to be introduced, MLB must begin taking A and B samples to account for false positives.

2012 All-Star Game MVP Melky Cabrera

Teams should also be able to negotiate voiding clauses into players' contracts.  If a player gets suspended, the team should have the option to relieve themselves of that contract, or at least be able to renegotiate.  In some cases, a player could be rewarded with a larger contract due to increased production from PED use.  Look at how Melky Cabrera dropped off from 2012 to this year when he is, presumably, off the juice.  In my mind, it's not much different than a regular person lying on their résumé to a potential employer.  In the "real world," if you get busted for lying on your résumé, you get fired--no questions asked.  Why that isn't the case in baseball (or all sports) is rather baffling.

I'm now going to take a minute to talk about Alex Rodriguez, who has been catching a lot of flak in the media for his decision to appeal his suspension.  There are many, many reasons to dislike A-Rod, and people call him selfish for his appeal, but I can kind of see where he's coming from.  Look at it from his perspective: he's 38 and has a suspension looming that bans him from the game in 2014.  By the time Spring Training rolls around in 2015, he'll be 39 going on 40.  He's due $25 million in 2014, $21 million in 2015, and $20 million in each 2016 and 2017.  What does he have to lose by appealing?  He's getting paid $28 million this year, so every day he isn't suspended is another day where he makes more money (not like he needs it).  I'm not saying I agree with what he's doing, but I get it.

Ryan Braun: fraud

Also, Ryan Braun is the biggest fraud ever.  Everyone knows that his failed test for elevated levels of testosterone in the fall of 2011 was legit (wait, sorry, I forgot that leaving a sample at room temperature instead of in the freezer will cause testosterone levels to increase!  The test must be wrong!) and then in Spring Training the following year he had the audacity to hold this press conference.  He sounds like Lance Armstrong, and that's not a good comparison.  What a clown.

Doping Policies in the Four Major Sports

The four major sports leagues in the US--Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Associate, the National Hockey League, and the National Football League--all have their own banned substance lists, punishments, and testing methods.  This post will summarize the important parts of each sport's policy and highlight important differences between them.

Major League Baseball

The MLB instituted its testing policy for steroids in 2002.  Today, a first positive test results in a 50 game suspension, a second means is a 100 game suspension, and a third leads to a lifetime ban from the game.  The MLB banned substance list includes 8 recreational drugs, 70 drugs it classifies as "steroids" (including testosterone, epitestosterone, etc.), and 55 stimulants.  EPO is not on the list, although baseball players don't do a whole lot of running or anything cardio related, so this is not entirely surprising.  The Player's Association only agreed to start testing for HGH and testosterone, two of the drugs baseball players would benefit most from, this year.

Jose Canseco: noted steroid user turned whistle-blower

The MLB uses urine tests to check for banned substance use (except in the case of HGH, which will be covered later).  All players are tested twice a year: once when they report for spring training and once, unannounced, at another randomly selected point in the season.  Additionally, the MLB will conduct a total of 1,400 other random tests during the year.  A small number (which changes year to year but is published in the Joint Drug Agreement) of these will be in the offseason.

Regarding HGH, each player is subjected to an unannounced blood test during spring training and that sample will be tested for HGH only (so go wild with the other drugs undetectable by urine but detectable by blood).  There is also unannounced, random blood testing for HGH during the offseason that will be conducted in tandem with the aforementioned offseason urine collections.

Failure of a test, in addition to the requisite suspension, results in increased testing (three tests) over the year following the positive test.

There does not appear to be any sort of backup sample or "B sample" to confirm a positive test.

The MLB Joint Drug Agreement can be found here (PDF).

The National Basketball Association

Similar to baseball, the NBA tests for recreational drugs, SPEDs (steroids, PEDs, masking agents, and diuretics), and marijuana (yes, marijuana has its own category in the NBA).  For our purposes, we are really only concerned about the SPEDs.  One failed test results in a 20 game suspension, a second is a 45 game punishment, and a third failure leads to "dismissal" from the league.  I could not find a banned substance list for the NBA, but it probably looks fairly similar to the MLB's.

O.J. Mayo was suspended in 2011 for DHEA use

The NBA tests on a random basis and a "reasonable cause" basis.  Reasonable cause testing occurs when, "the league or players association provides the program's independent expert with information about a player's use, possession or distribution of prohibited substances, and the expert believes that reasonable cause exists to order testing. If reasonable cause is found to exist, the player can be tested without notice up to four times in a six week period."  In terms of random testing, players are tested up to four times in the regular season and up to two times in the offseason.

There is no mention of what kind of testing is done, so I'll assume that it's a simple urine test.  The League and Player's Association are currently "convening a panel to determine whether there is a valid test for Human Growth Hormone (HGH), and if so, to recommend testing procedures. If a valid test exists, the league may commence HGH testing 60 days afterward, up to two times during each season, and once during each offseason."  We'll see what comes of it.

In the event of a failed test, the NBA allows for players to request their B sample to be tested at a different lab from where their A sample was tested. 

I do think it's rather funny how much the NBAPA fought to get marijuana legislated separately from everything else.

Information on the NBA doping policy can be found here.

The National Hockey League

As part of the new CBA in 2005, the NHL adopted an anti-doping policy for drugs on a banned substance list that they agreed to agree upon, noting that the list would be basically the same as that maintained by WADA.  One failure is a 20 game suspension, a second is 60 games, and a third is permanent suspension from the league with the option to apply for reinstatement after two years.

Testing (no mention of what kind; probably urine) occurs twice a year, any time in the year, at random.  One of those tests will occur on a team-wide basis.  Players can appeal a test result but there does not appear to be any mention of B samples.

There is no specific mention of HGH, but HGH is banned by WADA.  Blood testing would be needed though, and there is no mention of that.

The press release regarding the NHL's drug policy can be found here.

The National Football League

Shawne Merriman was suspended in 2006
for violating the NFL's steroid policy

The NFL began its testing program in 1987, many years before any of the other major sports started their testing.  Finding solid information on the League's drug policy is difficult, but a first positive test results in a four game suspension and a second leads to a six game ban.  Only two players have been caught twice, and they both retired.

NFLers can be tested up to six times during the year, regardless of time of the year.  Each player is tested at least once.  The NFL uses A and B samples.

The NFL seems to escape scrutiny for drug use.  Players take their four game suspensions and no one thinks twice when they return to the field.

Chris Davis and the Culture of Assumed Guilt

A familiar sight to baseball fans
over the past four months.

On Saturday afternoon in sunny San Francisco, Orioles slugger Chris Davis hit a baseball 466 feet. Let's just appreciate that for a minute. 466 feet. Damn.

And before the ball had returned from the upper stratosphere to land halfway up the center-field bleachers at AT&T Park, before Davis had stopped watching the thing sail through the cloudless August sky, my viewing partner muttered something under his breath, a word that has buzzed around Davis this season like a swarm of bees chasing an ice cream truck.

"Steroids."

For reasons that should be pretty clear to even the most casual baseball fan, the ever-looming specter of the Steroid Era (a term which means less and less every time Bud Selig hands out another 50-game suspension) has made it impossible for us to look upon a mid-career power surge without cringing. We run through career stats to see whose slugging percentage is up, whose OPS+ has gone through the roof. The bigger the forearms, the more our suspicion grows. And Chris Davis -- with his square jaw and fastball-devouring 33-ounce bat -- is just the culprit we've trained ourselves to look out for.

I say we because I've been thinking it too.

Davis told the Baltimore Sun the power boost is from a revised plate approach and a strict diet. The cynic in me says that everyone has an excuse, be it spinach or dental work, and the general consensus (if that's what we're calling Rick Reilly nowadays) seems to agree. We listened to Big Mac deny it, and Braun and A-Rod, and we've just about run out of goodwill to beam in the direction of sluggers who've let us down time and time again. Sorry, Chris.

But hold on just one second: did I just say excuse? Since when did we start requiring an excuse for
being good at what you do? For giving us exactly what we're looking for?

Call it ironic. Call it a feedback loop. But it's a part of the game now, and not just for the players.

Davis said it himself: the single-season home run record he's chasing is the one set by Roger Maris in 1961. It's as if we all collectively decided that the 1994 strike just stretched on out for the better part of the next decade. It all just never happened. I'm not here to campaign for Roger Clemens' Hall of Fame candidacy or try to humanize Barry Bonds, but I think that it's dangerous to make the jump from punishing proven PED users to vilifying anyone who hits 40 home runs, and that the most dangerous thing about that jump is that it seems perfectly reasonable given the trajectory of the game over the past 20 years.

Call me crazy, but it seems like the only thing worse than a game where everybody is cheating is a game where everybody is suspected of cheating. The 'S' word has become a defense mechanism for fans to engage when we feel the familiar inkling that what we're experiencing is too good to be true, but the flipside of that is that it's also become a blanket rejection of anybody who accomplishes anything unexpectedly great.

In short, we've taught ourselves to hate the very heroes that we catch ourselves longing for.

And that's bad, but not because it's unfair to the players. It's bad because it's undermining our ability to experience baseball as we always have. Every time Chris Davis smacks a ball into the seats -- as he has done a majors-best 42 times this year through Sunday's games -- and our reaction is not one of joy (if you're an Orioles fan) or irritation (everybody else in the AL east) but of speculation as to whether or not Davis has taken drugs, we get farther and farther away from the game, sucked away into a storyline that ultimately goes nowhere. We have no way of knowing if Davis has taken PEDs, so we might as well believe him when he says he hasn't.

That doesn't mean that league official can't or shouldn't take steps to keep PEDs out of the game. The MLB's substance-abuse policy can be tightened. The testing mechanism can be improved. Needless to say, it will all be a lot easier if the Player's Association makes more than a perfunctory effort to make these changes happen. My point is simply that these sidebars should not distract us from the actual game that, believe it or not, still takes place out on the field, far from the speculative minds that haunt the sports-talk airwaves and blogosphere.

If Rick Reilly and others are eventually proven right and Chris Davis is somehow tied to PEDs, then fine. Be as merciless as your instincts tell you you should be. Until then, how about some admiration? The guy can flat-out hit.

Photograph courtesy of ESPN

EPO: Injection to Detection

A few weeks ago a poster on a track forum I frequent started a thread titled "EPO: injection to detection in elite athletes".  This is the text of the original post:

Popular media has suggested there are 80-100 undetectable substitutes for EPO. I know EPO is a naturally occurring hormone in the body but know next to nothing beyond that. I am wondering if someone with a solid background in chemistry, physiology, bio-genesis, etc. can take the time and explain how it all works, injection to detection. For instance, I can't imagine a 3:42.7 guy takes EPO or a substitute the night before and all of a sudden magically runs 3:28.81 on race day.
Unless everyone here is a PhD in biochemistry or a laboratory scientist of the sort I am guessing others are in similar positions. They know what EPO is but not how it works and enhances performance. It would help if examples were catered to the running perspective (ex: effects on training) and wasn't overly loaded with jargon. I am also personally very interested in:

• "gene doping" vs "traditional doping"
• intricacies of testing methods
• why "substitutes" are undetectable

Article: Doping-Undetectable new blood boosters available says expert

For some reason, I decided to write a response to this poster, and I think that it would be worth posting again here.

EPO

As has been previously stated, erythropoietin, or EPO, is a signalling molecule (cell signaling) that eventually leads to the production of more red blood cells (erythrocytes). EPO binds to a receptor on the outside of the cell, causing that receptor to change shape (known as conformation; the change here is a dimerization). The newly changed receptor can then bind and activate another protein (a protein kinase), and then after several more steps, molecules (transcription factors) reach the DNA and causes more production of proteins that are necessary for red blood cell maturation (transcription factors cause increased synthesis of mRNAs that code for proteins required for erythrocyte maturation; this is an example of a JAK-STAT system). Source: Lehninger 443-4.

1. Regarding substitutes.
In chemistry, molecules can be analogues of one another. That is to say, they are structurally basically the same, but have a minor difference that may or may not affect function. An example of this would be sucrose (table sugar) vs. sucralose (Splenda).

Sucrose (sugar) vs. sucralose (Splenda)

These two molecules have the same basic backbone and differ only in three functional groups (they are circled). The hydroxyls (OH) on sucrose are changed to chlorides (Cl) on sucralose. As most of you know, sugar and Splenda taste basically the same but Splenda has no caloric value. Why? The slight structural change leads the body to not uptake sucralose and instead you just poop it out. However, it serves the same function as sucrose.

Now, what does this have to do with EPO? Proteins, as they are molecules as well, can have analogues much in the same way small molecules can. These analogues can have essentially the same structure and function, but small variations in the structure (amino acid sequence) can change their detectability. This is similar to how your body does not "detect" Splenda--you reap the benefits of sucralose, but you don't pay the caloric price of sugar because your body doesn't have the receptors. When you mention that there are 80-100 "substitutes" for EPO, they are undetectable insofar as they have subtle differences that prevent them from being picked up by the test but do not change their overall function. I don't know how synthetic EPO is tested for (other than way back when they would test for plastics found in the bags they were stored in), so I can't give any more insight into where and what these changes are.

2. How EPO affects performance.
As we have said, EPO leads to the increased production of red blood cells. I'm not sure the time between injection and RBC production, but I would guess that it's on the order of hours, and I think I've read that RBC levels normalize after about 3 days. So, one would benefit from shooting up the night before, but it isn't going to take you from 3:42 to 3:29, no way, no how. The strength of EPO, and any PED, comes from what they allow you to do in training. If you have more RBCs, you're going to able to run faster and longer in your workouts, do more miles per week, etc. If you're on the juice for 9 months and your training load is exceeding what you're body can naturally handle, when you come off it, you're going to be in ridiculous shape. You come off the juice, ramp down your training, and race. You'll pass your in-season tests because you're off the stuff, but you've already reaped the benefits of the PEDs because you were able to have higher quality and quantity of training over the previous nine months. The competition season becomes about doing maintenance work to keep that level of fitness. Your body can also probably now handle a higher level of training, but not as high as when you were on the juice. A program like this is probably what lead to Ramzi's stupid drop in time between 2003 and 2004.

It is also worth mentioning that young RBCs are more efficient oxygen carriers than are older RBCs (RBCs have a life cycle of ~120 days). It is thus beneficial to induce the production of RBCs because your body will have a higher percentage of newer and more efficient cells delivering oxygen to the muscles (source). Tyler Hamilton talks about the use of EPO between stages on the Tour in his book (which is worth reading).
See also: http://www.sportsscientists.com/2007...mance-who.html

3. Gene doping vs. traditional doping.
WADA defines gene doping as "the non-therapeutic use of cells, genes, genetic elements, or of the modulation of gene expression, having the capacity to improve athletic performance". EPO abuse is a form of gene doping; as I previously explained, EPO increases the expression of genes important in RBC production. Read more here.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "traditional doping", but if you provide an example of what you mean, I'll try to expand.

4. Intricacies of testing methods.
I don't know too much about how EPO is tested for--I don't think that information is out there. Here are some general testing methods:
-Biologic levels: some PEDs alter the levels of certain naturally occurring compounds in the body. So, while the drug itself isn't being tested for, the effects of the drug are. An example of this is the testosterone/epitestosterone ratio (although this is a little more direct). In normal humans, these are produced in roughly the same amounts (an Australian study found the mean T/E ratio to be 1.15:1). But, when Mary Slaney pops a T/E of greater than 6:1, you know something's up. Sometimes epitestosterone is administered as a masking agent for synthetic testosterone to keep the T/E ratio down. A second example is measuring hematocrit (% RBC in blood) for blood doping. Back in the late 90s and early 2000s, the UCI allowed hematocrit levels of up to 50. As long as you were under that number, you were good to go. If you tested higher, you got popped, as you basically had to be on something to get that level of RBCs.
-Testing for the compound itself: not sure how often this is done, but in the case of a synthetic compound that has a long half-life, a chemist could design a test to look for the presence of the molecule.
-Testing for carrying devices: as I previously mentioned, tests used to be done for the plastics in blood bags. Those aren't supposed to be in your body.

Post by AJ Acosta in the same thread:
Doping programs are incredibly sophisticated and the new rage these days is "microdosing."The idea is that by using a patch or fast acting cream, the steroids or whatever drug you are using is out of the system fast. Remember, the half life of EPO is something ridiculously short like 5 hours, so by microdsoing you significantly decrease your chances of being caught. And as other and smarter posters have laid out, the chemists will change chemical compositions of the drugs to make it even harder for hte drugs to be detected.

My response: Yes. Tyler Hamilton talks about this.

Another post by AJ:
You dont "use" up blood cells technically, although i suppose when you dig in the well a little too deep you start using your iron storage levels a bit.

My response: This sounds about right. My understanding is that stressful exercise can lead to RBC destruction due to depletion of protectants (eg antioxidants).

WC Preview - Mens Track

Disclaimer: I am not good at track predictions.  I always finish middle to back-of-the-pack in the Massachusetts All-State Prediction contest.  Anyways...

100m
Gold: Usain Bolt (JAM)
Silver: Justin Gatlin (USA)
Bronze: Nesta Carter (JAM)
The only way Bolt loses this is if he false starts.  Hard to think that'll happen after 2011.  The other big boys, Yohan Blake (injury) and Tyson Gay (PEDs) are out.

Bolt on his way to victory in the 200m in London

200m
Gold: Usain Bolt (JAM)
Silver: Warren Weir (JAM)
Bronze: Wallace Spearmon (USA)
Again, the only person who can beat Bolt is himself.  Weir, the 2012 bronze medalist, will take silver with easy.  I don't even know who to pick for bronze because it could be anyone but I'll go with Spearmon for his experience.

400m
Gold: Kirani James (GRE)
Silver: LaShawn Merritt (USA)
Bronze: Luguelín Santos (DOM)
James is the defending Olympic and World champion and the only non-American to break 44.00.  I don't think Tony McQuay is quite ready to medal after the rounds.  That will come in 2015.

Aman topping Rudisha in 2010

800m
Gold: Mohammed Aman (ETH)
Silver: Nick Symmonds (USA)
Bronze: Duane Solomon (USA)
Yes.  You read that right.  Two Americans are going to medal.  A year after the greatest 800m ever, in which the world record was broken, 7 of 8 athletes set PRs, 5 people broke 1:43, the entire field broke 1:44, and 3 national records were set, this race will be a little different.  Rudisha and Amos are out with injury and Athletics Kenya decided not to send last year's bronze medalist, Timothy Kitum.  That means Americans Solomon and Symmonds are the top two returners.  Still, I'm picking Aman for the victory--he ran 1:42.53 in Zurich last year and is the last person to beat Rudisha back in 2011.  This year, he sports a best of 1:43.33 and has been winning a handful of races on the European circuit.  Solomon beat Symmonds at USAs but Symmonds has had the upper hand as of late; if he can make sure he has good position in the final 300m, Symmonds will beat Solomon.  Apparently Yuriy Borzakovskiy is out due to "illness".

1500m
Gold: Asbel Kiprop (KEN)
Silver: Silas Kiplagat (KEN)
Bronze: Ayanleh Souleiman (DJI)
Kiprop ran 3:27.72 in Monaco a couple of weeks ago.  If it's a kicker's race, he wins.  If he wants a drag race, he wins.  He was banged up pretty badly last year in London when he limped in to a 12th place finish.  That said, he's the defending World champion and was crowned Olympic champion in 2008 after Rashid Ramzi was DQed for doping, so Kiprop's no stranger to the big stage.  Behind him is kind of a mess.  Americans Leo Manzano (2nd in London) and Matt Centrowitz (4th in London, 3rd in Daegu) haven't shown much to indicate that they'll be able to snag any hardware.  Also note that Charlestown High (Massachusetts) graduate and UMass Lowell runner Omar Abdi got an exemption to compete for Somalia.

5000m
Gold: Edwin Soi (KEN)
Silver: Mo Farah (GBR)
Bronze: Yenew Alamirew (ETH)
A combination of Farah blowing a goat a little too early with his 3:28 in Monaco plus the prelims of the 5k and the 10k final before having to run here means he'll get outkicked by Soi.  Farah's got the wheels if it's slow, but the East Africans should know better than to let that happen--if they let it go 13:41 like they did last year, Farah will blow them out of the water.  I also think this is the end of the line for Bernard Lagat.

Jeilan ousting Farah in 2011.  Don't expect a repeat.

10000m
Gold: Mo Farah (GBR)
Silver: Dejen Gebremeskel (ETH)
Bronze: Kenenisa Bekele (ETH)
Farah is fresh and will want some redemption after getting shocked by Ibrahim Jeilan in Daegu.  Bekele's a longshot, but even the shell of a 12:37/26:17 runner can contend.

110m hurdles
Gold: Aries Merritt (USA)
Silver: David Oliver (USA)
Bronze: Orlando Ortega (CUB)
Oliver looks to be back near 2010 form after his atrocious 2012 season.  Merritt has been a little banged up but should be good to go when it's time.

400m hurdles
Gold: Javier Culson (PUR)
Silver: Michael Tinsley (USA)
Bronze: Felix Sanchez (DOM)
After two silvers at the WCs and bronze in London, it's Culson's year.  I don't think Tinsley has the requisite championship experience to pull out the win.

Why not finish in lane 8 for a 7.5 lap race?

3000m steeplechase
Gold: Ezekiel Kemboi (KEN)
Silver: Paul Kipsiele Koech (KEN)
Bronze: Conseslus Kipruto (KEN)
The steeple is the Kenyan national pastime.  The biggest question here is how outrageously will Kemboi celebrate.

4x100m relay
Gold: Jamaica
Silver: USA
Bronze: Great Britain
Both Jamaican and American relays got hit hard by the recent doping bans, and Jamaica was already without Blake due to injury.  Still, it's hard to bet against Bolt, and it's equally hard to bet on the US getting the stick around.

4x400m relay
Gold: USA
Silver: Bahamas
Bronze: Trinidad and Tobago
The US will not lose this after they got ravaged by injuries in London.  A 3-4 finish punch of McQuay and Merritt will be too much for anyone to deal with.