OT: Insight re: punishment for deer antler spray since it can't be detected

Submitted by iawolve on

I will not admit to being any sort of an expert and would welcome some further information regarding any potential punishment for the deer antler spray incident in the SEC. It is a banned substance, but it cannot be detected by drug tests so to me it seems that a person could be named in a document as a purchaser and face absolutely no punishment since there is no failed drug test. I assume you simply deny having actually used it (I didn't inhale!, maybe that is too old for the board). 

Is this the correct way to view the situation as one more thing some guys in the SEC got away with?

 

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8897280/deer-antler-sale…

 

 

 

MGoBoard
Football

Swazi

January 30th, 2013 at 10:15 PM ^

From what I've gathered, the amount of the chemical in question is so minimal in this antler spray, that the stuff is practically a placebo.

Joined: 08/13/2010

MGoPoints: 11892

XM - Mt 1822

January 30th, 2013 at 10:23 PM ^

in college there were some michigan ball players on juice (and some wrestlers) but it wasn't illegal.  they developed a test for that.  then guys switched to growth hormone, which they likewise made illegal but there wasn't a test for that.   then they developed a test.   with medicine doing what it does, they will almost certainly develop a test for red deer antler spray. 

 

and mongoose when they do, you might be thrown out of your basketball/softball/bowling league, a phariah like lance armstrong....  

Joined: 12/21/2011

MGoPoints: 104450

aratman

January 30th, 2013 at 10:35 PM ^

If true they are going to dock them a weeks pay and put LaTech on two year bowl ban and a loss of 5 scholarships for 3 years. Damn you LaTech letting Alabama take band substance in your state.

Joined: 10/02/2010

MGoPoints: 3942

Sopwith

January 30th, 2013 at 10:51 PM ^

I assure you, non-human proteins can be detected in humans using relatively straightforward ELISA assays on serum.  Maybe not in deer.

The only reason you wouldn't be able to pick it up is if the use was too long ago or it was never absorbed in the first place, which is quite reasonable, because sublingual administration of non-human proteins is not a good way to deliver them.  And that's good news, because let's just take the company at its word (the company with no scientists, just ex-cons selling crap)-- let's assume it's just loaded with IGF-1 that can (1) be absorbed (2) is bioavailable to cells expressing human IGF-1 receptor.

The BEST outcome is that it does nothing.  The more likely outcome is that elevated IGF-1 levels over an extended period of time are likely to cause prostate cancer.  

Holy crap, I can't believe this is still a story. 

 

 

Joined: 06/29/2010

MGoPoints: 61200

BiSB

January 30th, 2013 at 11:19 PM ^

a) Is cervine IGF-1 the same thing as human !GF-1

2) If we assume the spray is loaded with IGF-1, would we expect that to actually increase !GF-1 in a human if administered in this fashion?

d) Just because deer antlers grow quickly, can we therefore assume that deer antler spray is necessarily loaded with IGF-1?

Joined: 08/15/2009

MGoPoints: 46071

Not Just A Shooter

January 31st, 2013 at 1:54 AM ^

a) Cervine IGF-I and Human IGF-I have slightly different sequences, but are similar enough that the Cervine form is recognized by the human receptor for IGF-I. Both are protein "homologs" and are likely derived from a common ancestor.

2) The spray would not increase human IGF-I. If anything, the presence of exogenous deer IGF-I would likely cause a negative feedback for the production human IGF-I. The same phenomena happens when roiders take testosterone and their balls shrink - their body stops making its own testosterone and the testes get smaller because of less demand.

d) There have studies that have identified IGF-I in deer antler (yes, people have time and money to do this for a living) using similar methods to the ones the Sopwith described. Here's a quick reference:

http://joe.endocrinology-journals.org/content/121/2/351.short

Joined: 01/29/2013

MGoPoints: 1985

blueandmaizeballs

January 30th, 2013 at 10:58 PM ^

It doesn't work n if it did don't u think more people would use it? It has micrograms of igf1 which is what makes it illegal.. n the banned substance list for the NCAA is a joke. You can't buy a certain protein if it has to much per serving or it doesn't have the right carb to protein ratio.. What a joke... so in the end nothing should happen to them. Theyjust wasted money.. But maybe the placebo affect worked though

Joined: 01/10/2013

MGoPoints: 3802

vbnautilus

January 30th, 2013 at 10:58 PM ^

This stuff has to be the closest thing we have to modern day snake oil.  I mean, its an inert animal extract sold by charlatans who claim it was used by the Chinese.  The ruse hasn't even been improved in a hundred years. 

I have a strong suspicion that the reason this stuff is so rampant is that Danny Hope is no longer around to protect us from it.  

Joined: 10/04/2010

MGoPoints: 3580

Tater

January 31st, 2013 at 12:11 AM ^

Any of us can buy it legally.  Why are those who need it the most punished and labeled as "cheaters" for taking it?  As usual, the pendulum has swung too far in the wrong direction.

Joined: 08/13/2008

MGoPoints: 30584

LSAClassOf2000

January 31st, 2013 at 9:30 AM ^

The Baltimore Sun article had a some more details regarding IGF-1 that were intriguing as well - (LINK)

In addition to stating that there was no effective way to deliver IGF-1 orally (per Dr. Salvatori, at Johns Hopkins, who is mentioned in both the ESPN and Baltimore Sun article), there was this as well: "IGF-1, short for insulin-like growth factor, is used to treat a rare form of dwarfism known as Laron syndrome and in other cases where children fail to produce or process growth hormone."

The reading on the studies attempting to find other applications for IGF is fascinating really. It has been tested as a treatment possibility for things as diverse as ALS and severe burns. As for the testing angle, I am not sure how it would play out in the NCAA, but according to this piece, in the NFL (referencing the Ray Lewis story), they only have to submit to a urine test, not a test for hormonal imbalance, which I assume, if I am reading this right, would be far more effective in detecting if one may have used IGF-1.

Joined: 01/07/2011

MGoPoints: 130776

Bb011

January 31st, 2013 at 12:04 PM ^

While your right about the law, they couldn't prove they took it even if they bought it and had it in their locker room. However, the NCAA is different. If they found out it was bought and was held at the athletic facilities, then they could definitely have sanctions, even if they couldn't detect it on the players.

Joined: 09/02/2010

MGoPoints: 4721

TLock

January 31st, 2013 at 12:25 PM ^

They’re not getting away with anything because deer antler velvet doesn’t do anything.  IGF-1 cannot be taken orally, and even it could be taken orally there’s not enough of it in deer antler velvet to do anything. I’m surprised no one remembers this from the last time the media made this a big story, because the NFL and MLB banned it even though there was really no reason to.

Joined: 01/29/2013

MGoPoints: 37