there’s already been a forum post on this, but that was February 2003 though. so it’s time for a refresher.
I had a professor tell me creatine was on the NCAA’s banned substances list in class. I wanuted to call bullshit on him, but I didn’t really know.
How do I find the NCAA’s list of banned substances. They don’t make it easy to find. I looked on the NCAA website after the professor told me about it being banned. The national olympic committee doesn’t appear to have creatine on their list of banned substances either from the crappy information gathering tactics I have.
How do they test for creatine? Do they look for abnormal levels of creatinine?
Well, if it is banned I’m not an NCAA athlete so I’ll go A2M on those buzzkillers.
It’s too bad though. If I was an NCAA athlete I would want to use creatine because their coaches like to run them into the ground.
It’s a food supplement. And studies show mixed results. Is it just the fact that some people are non responders? If so that’s bullshit because genetics causes you to be a non responder. Speed is genetic. They don’t say people that are fast can’t play because it’s an unfair advantage.
wow, I did no think it was, nor do I know how they would test for it. But, here is a response from John Berardi back in 2006
“Creatine is banned in NCAA because it gives an unfair advantage - not because of safety concerns. I work with NCAA teams, pro teams, and Olympic teams and this is the driving force behind banning some supplements like creatine.”
as for testing “The can’t and don’t - however the NCAA regs simply keep schools from providing their athletes with specific things (creatine and protein are included). And the athletes aren’t supposed to take them either but, as you suggested, they can’t be tested for.”
How in the world could they even begin to ban creatine? It’s naturally occurring in animal proteins and fish. I don’t know, maybe at some point it may be a natural vs synthetic debate but I sure hope not.
I learned from reading the NCAA banned substance list that supplements are often tainted with shit not on the lable and can cause positive drug tests. It also said there is no complete list of banned substances. The list didn’t specifically say creatine is banned, but it might be in that gray area of “no complete list”.
[quote]darkhorse1-1 wrote:
I learned from reading the NCAA banned substance list that supplements are often tainted with shit not on the lable and can cause positive drug tests. It also said there is no complete list of banned substances. The list didn’t specifically say creatine is banned, but it might be in that gray area of “no complete list”.[/quote]
In order to avoid creatine, you’d have to quit eating meat. Unless you are arguing that meat might be in a grey area, this is just dumb.
[quote]darkhorse1-1 wrote:
I learned from reading the NCAA banned substance list that supplements are often tainted with shit not on the lable and can cause positive drug tests. It also said there is no complete list of banned substances. The list didn’t specifically say creatine is banned, but it might be in that gray area of “no complete list”.[/quote]
In order to avoid creatine, you’d have to quit eating meat. Unless you are arguing that meat might be in a grey area, this is just dumb.[/quote]
I would just take this list at face value but I don’t have a scholorship to lose…
As for the testing, I would assume that if such a thing existed it would be similar to a testosterone test where they have figured out what is within normal parameters and what isn’t. Just because it is naturally present in food or made by the body doesn’t mean they can’t figure out who is doping.
[quote]darkhorse1-1 wrote:
I learned from reading the NCAA banned substance list that supplements are often tainted with shit not on the lable and can cause positive drug tests. It also said there is no complete list of banned substances. The list didn’t specifically say creatine is banned, but it might be in that gray area of “no complete list”.[/quote]
In order to avoid creatine, you’d have to quit eating meat. Unless you are arguing that meat might be in a grey area, this is just dumb.[/quote]
I would just take this list at face value but I don’t have a scholorship to lose…
As for the testing, I would assume that if such a thing existed it would be similar to a testosterone test where they have figured out what is within normal parameters and what isn’t. Just because it is naturally present in food or made by the body doesn’t mean they can’t figure out who is doping. [/quote]
When you can get supplement levels in regular food, no, you can’t. You can get 5 grams of creatine in a couple pounds of fish. You can’t test whether I took a scoop or ate a bunch of fish. I don’t think anyone gets a gram of test a week from food. Not to mention “doped” on creatine is something like a 15% increase in levels which is probably much smaller than standard variation in level among people. It would be like running a test for whey protein powder.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Not to mention “doped” on creatine is something like a 15% increase in levels which is probably much smaller than standard variation in level among people.[/quote]
I love running into people on the internet that have it all figured out.
Please tell me more about what is, “Probably much smaller than standard variation.”
Not to mention your theory is based on the idea that the body would digest and excrete creatine within food identically to creatine supplements.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Not to mention “doped” on creatine is something like a 15% increase in levels which is probably much smaller than standard variation in level among people.[/quote]
I love running into people on the internet that have it all figured out.
Please tell me more about what is, “Probably much smaller than standard variation.”
Not to mention your theory is based on the idea that the body would digest and excrete creatine within food identically to creatine supplements. [/quote]
My noting 15% change in levels was only illustrating how retarded your comparison to testosterone testing was. 15% changes in level vs. 800% differences in testosterone doping.
I don’t have it all figured out. I just have it figured out that your assertion is dumb. You are the only that is asserting that 5g of creatine monohydrate in food is somehow magically different than 5g creatine monohydrate in a bottle.
But by all means, edit down my quotes to pieces of sentences you can dispute again and ignore any thing else.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Not to mention “doped” on creatine is something like a 15% increase in levels which is probably much smaller than standard variation in level among people.[/quote]
I love running into people on the internet that have it all figured out.
Please tell me more about what is, “Probably much smaller than standard variation.”
Not to mention your theory is based on the idea that the body would digest and excrete creatine within food identically to creatine supplements. [/quote]
But by all means, edit down my quotes to pieces of sentences you can dispute again and ignore any thing else.[/quote]
I quoted an entire sentence kiddo.
[quote]
My noting 15% change in levels was only illustrating how retarded your comparison to testosterone testing was. 15% changes in level vs. 800% differences in testosterone doping.[/quote]
That comparison was to illustrate that normal parameters can be established and tested even though testosterone is naturally found in the body. Refute the statement if you would like based on percentages but my point still stands.
Nope, never used the word magic. I did however say that it’s possible that there is a difference in how a creatine supplement could be digested and excreted, and that difference could be detected in a lab test.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Not to mention “doped” on creatine is something like a 15% increase in levels which is probably much smaller than standard variation in level among people.[/quote]
I love running into people on the internet that have it all figured out.
Please tell me more about what is, “Probably much smaller than standard variation.”
Not to mention your theory is based on the idea that the body would digest and excrete creatine within food identically to creatine supplements. [/quote]
But by all means, edit down my quotes to pieces of sentences you can dispute again and ignore any thing else.[/quote]
I quoted an entire sentence kiddo.
[/quote]
Kiddo? hah. I’ve been feeling old recently, so I’ll take it.
[quote]
It can be done where doping drives levels ridiculously far outside of normal levels. Something that’s not even possible with creatine supplementation. And even that sort of testing can be faulty and only suggest doping.
Okay. It’s possible you get mugged and raped by a unicorn tonight, but I see no reason to believe or fear horses with horns. It’s the same compound. I have also read about some studies that show read meat (even in normal portions) increasing creatine levels. But whatever, Creatine is a grey area… so I’d stop eating meat.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Okay. It’s possible you get mugged and raped by a unicorn tonight, but I see no reason to believe or fear horses with horns. It’s the same compound. [/quote]
Unicorn rape analogies?
You could have just said, “I see your point”, but you took the high road, I like that.
Creatine is not banned by the NCAA. Schools can’t provide it, but it isn’t a banned substance. This myth has been dispelled all over the internet on various BB forums, and it would thus be idiotic to advise an athlete not to use it. Aside from that, don’t you think you would have heard, just once, of an NCAA athlete testing positive for creatine if it were true?
[quote]darkhorse1-1 wrote:
I learned from reading the NCAA banned substance list that supplements are often tainted with shit not on the lable and can cause positive drug tests. It also said there is no complete list of banned substances. The list didn’t specifically say creatine is banned, but it might be in that gray area of “no complete list”.[/quote]
No, the “gray area” refers to prohormones and the 9342043298 compounds that are out there
