Is This Electronic Doping?

IMHO, electrons being a fundamental particle, do not fall within the definition of a controlled or regulated substance. That would be a slippery slope to step out on if someone did.

If these electrons are waking up dormant synapses, that is nothing particularly unfair. Hey the other team's coach could just slap the players on the cheek, and get about the same result (if he didn't get smacked back).

Welllll, I don't know. Let's see - Floyd Landis tested a bit high for testosterone after winning a stage of the 2006 Tour de France, and was disqualified, and his overall win nullified. (Americans seem to have a problem with this, don't they Lance, Floyd, Levi, George....?) Testosterone is a basic human steroid hormone, definitely not controlled if you make it naturally. They suspect he didn't and that was good enough to can his win. Still looks like the same concept to me.

And concerning the "fair" thought, if all athletes in a certain sport are doping, does anyone have an unfair advantage? Doesn't matter, as this argument has been tried and failed - it is still cheating. Note that the Tour de France has no winners listed for 7 years in a row, because they figure at least 75% of the riders, and 100% of the GC contestants were doping.

I don't think, as a coach, I'd ever try to slap a pro athlete in football or basketball. Now there are a few baseball players and a host of cyclists that are below 130 pounds and fair game, as they couldn't reach high enough to slap you back. Of course they do have a lower target...

What's you talking about li'l fella.

No steroid use there. Hey - that almost looks like Lance. Has he found a new sport?

The point of contention is that performance enhancement of certain types is not okay even if it was made naturally within the athlete's own body. Blood doping, involving removing and storing the athletes own blood for later reintroduction prior to competition is also seen as cheating.

I do not know, might be a hoax. GSW simply has more excellent players than the other team. Do you believe in human skill, even gets better with more time of practice and the harder the challenge or its with the DNA thing.

Though it will be a different story, getting a set of fans around and electronically doped then let them play instead of GSW, only if they would win the game.

Google Halo Neuroscience - they certainly think their product works.

Yes, skill gets better with practice. I am proof of that, as I could barely catch a ball let alone hit it when I was in 7th grade. I played / practiced baseball every day during summer vacation for the next 5 years and as a senior, made the starting line up on the local VFW team. However the best athletes have that DNA edge from birth. With little or no practice in between seasons, most of the starting line up were still better than I was. (yeah - I was the last batter in the line up and stuck in right field until a lefty came to the plate)

Had a friend at various governmental agencies. And he then went on his own that basically developed and marketed projects for the military and the like.

One of the projects was basically looked like Sunglasses that were blocked out. And what this did (or supposable did was to change your moods. (Which you could select.) The military was interested for the soldiers that were returning from war and showed sighs of PTSD.

One of the selections was supposable for a calming effect to battle against anxiety and/or depression.. I tried them. In the shaded blacked out lenses there were LED that flashed in different patterns and intensity depending on your selection.

I had tried them, but I don't believe its for more sever cases, maybe milder ones. Of course it was only a proto type. And it wasn't tested on humans yet. But the military wanted to fast track it into production.

I own one of those "sunglasses" machines; it also has headphones and plays music and other sounds in concert with the light show. It works best when I'm tired and a bit drowsy.

Electronic doping? Maybe.

When I first tried them, they give a different flash on each eye, depending on what you have it set at. When I plugged the cord in on each eyeglass screen, I had the cords mixed. as I was wearing them, I had to take it off because I got the sense of being really pissed off. I looked and notice I had the wire for the right eye screen in the left eye screen socket and vise-a-versa. I looked at the chart and instead of relieving stress and anxiety, it actually jack me up.

When I switched the correctly, I never really noticed anything. except I was still PO'd.

One has to wonder what long term effects this might have.....I'm old enough not to care, but young users I would steer clear until more is known....(and the prices drop)....The first ones to dive in will tell you if the water is deep enough....

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/26/halo-neuroscience-brain-stimulation-424829.html

Oh very good - a link. Thank you. I was quoting the details from an industrial newsletter I received and trying not to commit plagiarism.

Is it not a product (apparatus) to test the effect of the make belief phenomena of users?

"On sale now 50% off, the changes take effect once you are about to buy it." Oh great, hypnotism really works.

If this, does work scientifically, this is a very dangerous signal if broadcast at a GigaWatts power (all the mutants will be revealed)

How is this concept any different from any other training method used to increase performance?

The way in which athletes have trained over the years has steadily increased in sophistication and results obtained. I see this as just another step in the evolution.

Could not the same be said of steroids or EPO? Why do some methods bring down wrath on athletes and others are acceptable? So the modern athlete can excel over his predecessors with the use of steroids, but that is not acceptable, and the general argument followed is the heroes of the past did not have them. Don't even go to the "dangerous" argument. Just consider the hundreds of cyclists in the early 2000's taking EPO without any side negative side effects, and the drugs were coming from physicians - this cancels that argument. Or how about Big Mac, Sammy and Barry - any apparent negative side effects?

The modern athlete can use vastly improved equipment compared to his predecessors, and that is fine. The cycle the Oylmpians will use this year is several pounds lighter, stiffer, and much more aerodynamic than those used in the 1984 Olympics. Ride a Trek Madone sometime and then get on that Colnago from 1983 right after that - feel the difference. Pick them up and then decide which you'd rather ride for 100Km. But that's okay - no problem with that. Just let one of them take a banned OTC drug by accident for a cold or what ever and see what happens to them. Lance said it is not about the bike - well, I think it is.

We are allowed to improve the equipment, but not to tamper with the body. This new electronic method seems to be a form of tampering with the body.

IMHO... the difference is quite simply the fact that nothing is being introduced to the body in this method.

Steroid use grows muscle tissue and causes other impacts and it does so by the ingestion of a foreign substance that promotes the muscle growth and causes those other effects. This technology does nothing similar.

I put it to you that this is not "tampering" with the body, it is training the body to achieve an enhanced result. Ban this... and we had better think about banning any workout routine where the body is exercised to achieve a given result.

The equipment issue is not relevant as all may use the same level of equipment available. I do not get or understand the reference to "Big Mac", "Sammy" or "Barry".

Interesting topic...

Big Mac, Sammy, and Barry - Canadians really aren't into baseball, are they? (okay - one little area around Toronto excluded)

That's Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, and Barry Bonds. While they never paid the price a cyclist or an Olympian would have, they pretty much are assumed to have taken steroids to get the home run number way above the Roger Marris level. Mark admitted to it, and others say Bonds definitely used them. Maybe I should have left Sammy out and put in Jose instead. (Jose Canseco)

But they will. When their organs starts shutting sown, then they'll expect the league (or someone else other then themselves) to take that responsibility and compensate them.

This may be getting ahead of oneself, but it would be an example of "Poor Life Choices" by them.

I am seeing a LOT of over reaction to something that does not amount to a hill of beans! What balderdash.

Hell, if 1 V zap works, then why not try 600-700 V (AC) intracranial, but be sure not to forget the salty sponge. You would not want to catch on fire on your way to Nirvana.

I think all athletes should be demoted until they can recite the entire United States Constitution, all the amendments, and all bills passed by Congress in the last year, oh snap, they didn't pass any.

I think engineers and power generation plant workers need to be making several million USD per annum.

That's way after the fact and any athlete has to expect some repercussions from years of doing some abnormal feats. Look at the heart attack rate amongst football linemen. Worn out knees, elbows, or what ever is an expected price for a chance at glory.

Let's hope steroids don't cause organ shut down. There are many who must take them daily for their medically intended purpose.

Then there is poor Ali - terrible to see him waste away like that, but that is a part of his chosen profession. But, I can't see athletes coming back on a league for using drugs by their own choice.

The football concussion - now that's an entirely different thing. They were sent back in to play by those in charge. But that was the norm then - I couldn't even use it as an excuse for a day or 2 off from an oil field job. The company sent a driver with me to get me to site safely, but then I had to run the well logging truck recording equipment, concussion and all. Run those radioactive sourced tools 5000' into a 4" hole and pull them out - Little bit dizzy - get over it.

I agree, Steroids are an antibody. I used it for a bacterial infection. There are advancements on the refinement of steroids for more direct reactions. I had a lung bacterial infection last spring, that the doctor gave me a steroid inhaler (sample they he got)

I didn't care for Ali, I still believe Jimmy Young beat him. but I can't take away that Ali was a pretty decent person.

yep, walk it off was the first remedy.

Steroids are not typically antimicrobial. Steroids are often anti-inflammatory and are sometimes used in combination with antibiotics for infections in the lungs.

When I went in, my doctor mentioned that, but also that there was a run of lung infections and the like. He also gave me a prescription for if it didn't clear up by the following week, unfortunately I lost it, and it did clear up. A few weeks after.

Gotcha... no, I have to admit baseball is not high on my watch list. Though I do know of those gents and the issues around them.

Clearly... the cheat involved was the ingestion of the foreign material. There would be no issue if they had not done so yet achieved the record setting performance by the training of what they had in the way of physical assets. Hence... my thoughts on this.

No comment - i responded to the wrong post - deleted.

The equipment issue is not relevant

I missed this earlier.

Think so? Maybe not in basketball, but in other sports...Check out the USA cycling teams bikes and aero skinsuits for the Olympics. They are NOT what most competitors will be using. In the Olympics and cycling, different and not necessarily equal is allowed.

In 1989 Greg Lemond added aerobars to his cycle and won a TDF by 8 seconds in the final stage after making up 52 seconds of deficit on the leader in a 50 minute time trial. That was so shocking, if it occurred today, a very thorough drug test would be called for. Fortunately we know Greg was the last clean racer for several decades.

Equipment does matter and the biggest changes in the last decade have been to the aerodynamics of the cycles and the clothing. It matters enough that a top notch sprinter will wear the hot and uncomfortable aero skinsuit through a 200Km stage just to have that advantage in the sprint in the last 200 meters, or rather not lose that advantage if his competitors opt to wear it. I've seen time trials where the leader is forced to wear a general skinsuit with the races sponsors on it, not their own skinsuit, and they figure the time losses due to that to be in the 3 second range in a 40 KM race, where the winner is decided by a few seconds. Yeah Lance Armstrong - book or no book - the bike does matter, as does the aero wheel set, the tire compound, the skinsuit and helmet, and gloves, and shoes....

While I agree with you fully that equipment does make a difference and a rather large one, my response is... so what.

Everyone has the same ability to make whatever legal changes to their equipment as they are able to. Or are you proposing a standard model configured in one way for all riders?

I guess my position is if aero skinsuits make that much of a difference, then I guess everyone needs to wear aero skinsuits.

But to force no one to be allowed to wear such a suit because all cannot afford them, that is wrong as well don't ya think?

My point is that in some sports, such as cycling, and to a lesser degree, pole vaulting, and swimming, the equipment is an advantage, and no, everyone does not have an opportunity to make the changes because they involve MONEY. Unfortunately, in the Olympic cycling events, the richer countries can afford the wind tunnel testing to get their riders properly fit, while poorer countries have to do with the "off the shelf" brand. Yes - these high end suits are tailored to wind tunnel tests for the individual riders, if you have the money to buy that option. In the pro ranks, you again have a disparity between teams and what their sponsors can afford to give them in capital. They are also locked into a particular brand of bike and of skinsuit. This is not about athletes, it is a MONEY driven system.

So, yes, to make sports that are equipment based like cycling fair, they should mandate a set manufacturer and model for each item. Can you hear the manufacturers screaming NO now? Unfortunately that does lead to a lack of development by bike and gear manufacturers and a loss of revenue for them. At least half would shutter their doors. It is for the general public that they develop these technologies as much as the racers, because they can sell a new bike every year or 2 this way. Like NASCAR used to say - win on Sunday and sell on Monday. Money is the root....

No I have no problem personally with mandating what you can or can't use, especially the clothing. So anyone with a tailored skinsuit can go faster, but is that what it is about? No! It is supposed to be about human against human, not human and his high tech against human and some other high tech. Let the winners manufacturer sell his product.

So, again, if you can accept teching out your bikes, poles, skinsuits, swim suits, and so on to achieve a better advantage, then why not your body with medical enhancements. Now I'm not in favor of this, but it just begs an answer to the question - what is the difference? Could it be the drug companies are making way too much already, so they have no impetus to pressure the governing bodies to allow their technologies in sports????

I think the bottom line here is there any deleterious health effects incurred by the method proposed...If the answer is yes or we don't know, then that method should be off limits.....If the answer is no, then it should be allowed....Then of course we get into the question of how much is too much...

I think you've got basically the same idea I do - if it's bad for a person, or may be - ban it. We don't know yet if it is safe - be safe and ban it.

That seems to be the thought by governing bodies on any other artificial aid. The doping is banned because it may be bad for the athlete, although several of them have not produced bad results, and I really don't see EPO or blood doping (adding extra red cells) to be future problems - they are immediate problems due to the blood being too thick. To condone any of them would open the governing body up to future lawsuits if deterioration of bodily functions occurred as the athlete aged.

Interesting topic but I have a quick question? Are all major winners of these sporting events tested for drugs simply because they won or do they test the losers too? Couldn't aspirin or ibuprofen be considered a performance-enhancing drug if you've got pain from training too hard?

its a line you have to draw. with that as a path of an example, one more step and electrolytes or even water could also be considered 'doping'.