The v2 Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

The controversial CVAC

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty The controversial CVAC

Post by hawkeye Thu 04 Feb 2016, 10:43 pm

First topic message reminder :

This recent article about players at the Australian Open using Oxygen chambers is referring not to the CVAC that Djokovic claimed to have used but the less controversial hyperbaric oxygen pods. The article states that Djokovic and other players used these hyperbaric devices whilst at the AO this year.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/tennis-players-get-an-oxygen-fix-1454023796

The article is more than a little confusing however as it appears to imply that these hyperbaric pods are the same as the CVAC and that any controversy over their use is misplaced. But there has been little controversy over the use of hyperbaric pods. They are very different to the CVAC.

---

Unlike the increasingly trendy $5,000 hyperbaric chambers many professional athletes use to saturate the blood with oxygen and stimulate healing, the CVAC is a considerably more-ambitious contraption. It uses a computer-controlled valve and a vacuum pump to simulate high altitude and compress the muscles at rhythmic intervals.

The company claims that spending up to 20 minutes in the pod three times a week can boost athletic performance by improving circulation, boosting oxygen-rich red-blood cells, removing lactic acid and possibly even stimulating mitochondrial biogenesis and stem-cell production.

CVAC Systems chief executive Allen Ruszkowski says the treatment seems to have many of the same effects on the body as intense exercise. He claims that the technology may be twice as effective at helping the body absorb oxygen as blood doping—a banned form of performance enhancement.

CVAC's Ruszkowski says a slew of other high-profile athletes use the Pod but often insist the company doesn't tell anyone, "because they feel it's a competitive advantage."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111904787404576532854267519860#articleTabs%3Darticle

Of course the CVAC isn't banned but if the claims are correct it may be more advantageous to athletes than banned blood doping

---

As the body is tested to its limits, the endurance athlete’s muscles hunger for oxygen, which is carried from the lungs to the muscles by red blood cells.

The more red blood cells available to deliver that oxygen, the higher an athlete’s aerobic capacity becomes, which leads to increased endurance and reduced physical effects of fatigue.

For decades, professional athletes have pursued ways to increase the amount of red blood cells in their bodies, both through methods considered acceptable, and through methods that are banned, including blood doping.

The CVAC chamber, instead of simply simulating a higher altitude, cycles through different altitudes. This has shown to maximize the benefits of altitude training, appearing to provide benefits that not only outweigh traditional altitude training, but also require significant less time spent in the chamber to obtain those benefits.

Indeed, a study conducted at the University of Hawaii showed convincing evidence of increased arterial oxygen saturation in athletes using CVAC for just a few hours per week, as opposed to the many hours traditional altitude training requires to see tangible benefits.

And because of this difference between CVAC and other altitude devices, CVAC walks a fine ethical line.

The World Anti-Doping Agency classifies altitude training in hypoxic chambers as violating the “spirit of sport,” although they are not banned.

In 2006, the WADA considered banning altitude training chambers, but ultimately decided not to add it to their list of banned methods, partly in light of their inability to find a reliable way to test for the usage of those chambers.

“It doesn’t mean we approve it,” head of the WADA, Dick Pound, said at the time.

Despite the WADA’s ongoing concerns about altitude training chambers, testing for usage of these chambers remains virtually impossible, particularly since there is no way to tell whether the increased VO2 max is as a result of training at a high altitude or as a result of sitting in an altitude training device.

And despite CVAC’s differences with traditional altitude training, there is no evidence that CVAC usage can be specifically detected in an athlete.

Even more sophisticated tests are likely incapable of detecting the usage of CVAC, including the biological passport, a test of biological markers over time used in other endurance sports.

There are a lot more athletes using CVAC than people know about. None of these athletes have ever been suspected of doping after they did the urine and blood tests. Before they did the urine and blood tests, their performance improved so much they were suspected, but after they did the blood tests, there was never any concern.”

http://www.dropshotdispatch.com/2011/10/13/djokovics-cvac-conundrum-djokovics-controversial-training-method-examined/

---

I have a few questions. First of all the difference between hyperbaric pods and hypoxic pods (the CVAC) should be made clear. They are very different and it's the latter that is controversial. If this device is more effective than blood doping and has been judged to be against the spirit of the sport then it's difficult to understand why it's use is not banned. The only reason why it's not being banned appears to be because it's impossible to detect. If the CVAC can improve performance more than banned procedures or drugs then blood and urine tests are now obsolete.

NB. Please read the full articles I have provided links to. They are interesting.

hawkeye

Posts : 5425
Join date : 2011-06-12

Back to top Go down


The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by lydian Sun 07 Feb 2016, 8:42 am

Socal, my argument with these devices never changes and if Nadal, Federer or Murray used them I'd say the same thing.

You try to divert the argument by saying CVAC is a) easily available which it isn't b) it's cheap which CVAC certainly isn't and c) that it isn't a drug but what does it matter if it's drug or device when the result is a similar level of artificial EPO boost with subsequent significant and in my mind unfair performance enhancement???

The use of these devices should be banned because they are NOT commonly accessible, are only affordable as a personal performance aid to the very top players and yes they enhance performance (just like a drug). I'm frankly amazed WADA continue to sit on the fence and don't ban these devices.

But socal your staunch defence of these devices is idiosyncratically linked to the support of just one player. I presume you see the irony in that singular defence?
lydian
lydian

Posts : 9170
Join date : 2011-04-30

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by Belovedluckyboy Sun 07 Feb 2016, 9:35 am

PRP - healing from injury. CVAC - not for healing from injury. How can we equate the two?

Belovedluckyboy

Posts : 1389
Join date : 2015-01-30

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by kingraf Sun 07 Feb 2016, 10:40 am

Would anybody happen to know what Djokovic's (or any normal person I suppose) new EPO levels are after CVAC?
kingraf
kingraf
raf
raf

Posts : 16167
Join date : 2012-06-06
Age : 26
Location : To you I am there. To me I am here.... is it possible that I'm everywhere?

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by JuliusHMarx Sun 07 Feb 2016, 10:49 am

I'm not a Djoko fan, but I'm with socal on this. I don't see any difference between a CVAC and any other technology/healing procedures that people use - is Djoko really the only player in the top 100 that can afford it?

Should we ban altitude training because some players can't afford it? Ban the top players from having personal nutritionists because some players can't afford them? If top players get injured should we allow them to pay for the best surgeons to ensure faster recovery - or should all players use the same surgeons to prevent things being unfair?

Some experts aren't even convinced CVAC actually does much good anyway - nowhere near the claims of the manufacturers.

JuliusHMarx
julius
julius

Posts : 20115
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Paisley Park

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by Born Slippy Sun 07 Feb 2016, 11:39 am

I have a few questions on this:

1. Is there any suggestion Novak is using this currently? The only articles I can see say that he used it a few times in 2010-11.

2. The cost seems to be about $100,000 to buy one? Obviously that's not cheap but it's well within the price range any top tennis academy or top 50 player could afford.

3. I can see no evidence Phelps used CVAC. Any source for that statement?

Born Slippy

Posts : 4409
Join date : 2012-05-05

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by hawkeye Sun 07 Feb 2016, 12:04 pm

I don't think the reason doping in sport isn't allowed is because of the cost? The CVAC can't be compared to a diet, work in a gym or surgery to treat injuries?

Djokovic has admitted to using the CVAC but that hardly means he is the only athlete to do so.

The definition of blood doping

Blood doping is defined as the use of illicit products (i.e. erythropoietin (EPO), darbepoetin-alfa, hypoxia-inducible factor (HIF) stabilizers) and methods (i.e. increase aerobic capacity by maximizing the uptake of O2) in order to enhance the O2 transport of the body to the muscles.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_doping

Whats the difference between the CVAC and banned methods of doing this? The CVAC is more efficient and although it has been judged by WADA as not being in the spirit of the sport it has not been banned.

If the CVAC is allowed why ban other forms of less effective treatments. Makes no sense. Funny to see people outraged about one method or artificially increasing VO2 max and not another more effective way.

hawkeye

Posts : 5425
Join date : 2011-06-12

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by It Must Be Love Sun 07 Feb 2016, 12:11 pm

I think CVAC is a really abhorrent procedure, and can't see why anyone would use it.

Anyway on an unrelated note, Socal how did you access these CVAC pods in LA ? Can you also find where CVAC can be used in London. Just asking for a friend.

It Must Be Love

Posts : 2686
Join date : 2013-08-14

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by JuliusHMarx Sun 07 Feb 2016, 12:50 pm

If anyone can point to the artificial, illicit or dangerous substances that CVAC uses, then I may change my opinion of it. If it is simply, as stated, is a replacement for altitude training, then if we ban CVAC, we would have to ban altitude training, or any other less effective simulations (surely it is not logical to argue that a less effective artificial method is OK, but a more effective one isn't - because isn't the principle argument against it's artificial nature, more than the effectiveness?)

If the objection is the cost i.e. unfair to lower players, then we'd have to ban a truckload of other stuff.

If it's about the spirit of the game - again there's a lot of stuff that currently goes on that is against that. Paying prize money could be one of them, for example.

Again, I can't help but think socal is right - the only outrage against CVAC seems to be from some fans of players whose records are now under threat from Djokovic.

JuliusHMarx
julius
julius

Posts : 20115
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Paisley Park

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by It Must Be Love Sun 07 Feb 2016, 12:54 pm

Yes, in all seriousness I agree with Socal here; and if anyone is to blame it isn't Djokovic or any player who uses it (completely legally), but the authorities.

It Must Be Love

Posts : 2686
Join date : 2013-08-14

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by JuliusHMarx Sun 07 Feb 2016, 1:03 pm

But a big role of the authorities is to protect athletes, or aspiring athletes, from harm. Steroids, blood doping, new medical treatments all carry risks, some of them potentially fatal. Can anyone explain the risks in CVAC? If there were obvious risks, then I would be against it.

JuliusHMarx
julius
julius

Posts : 20115
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Paisley Park

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by Born Slippy Sun 07 Feb 2016, 1:04 pm

Agree with that completely JHM.

Born Slippy

Posts : 4409
Join date : 2012-05-05

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by bogbrush Sun 07 Feb 2016, 3:10 pm

I think it's dodgy, and part of a dodgy sport. It might be just as useful as camouflage for other illegitimate means.

As for cynicism about posters motivations, I'd remind JHM that some in here were against it many years ago, when a certain players success acted to protect another players records from a recently-waning 3rd player.
bogbrush
bogbrush

Posts : 11169
Join date : 2011-04-13

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by laverfan Sun 07 Feb 2016, 5:24 pm

hawkeye wrote:Whats the difference between the CVAC and banned methods of doing this? The CVAC is more efficient and although it has been judged by WADA as not being in the spirit of the sport it has not been banned.

Since this is clear, it is allowed to anyone who can afford it and has access to it.

hawkeye wrote:If the CVAC is allowed why ban other forms of less effective treatments. Makes no sense. Funny to see people outraged about one method or artificially increasing VO2 max and not another more effective way.

It is the same as PRP, why PRP was illegal in 2010, but became legal in 2011 - https://www.wada-ama.org/en/questions-answers/prohibited-list ?

From the same link...

11. ARE HORMONE RELEASING FACTORS PROHIBITED UNDER S2?

Yes, factors acting on the release of peptide hormones, growth factors and related substances comprised in section S2 are prohibited at all times. They comprise natural and synthetic products.

Examples of Growth Hormone releasing factors include peptidyl and non-peptidyl synthetic growth hormone secretagogues like hexarelin, alexamorelin, GHRP-1, GHRP-2 (pralmorelin), GHRP-4, GHRP-5, GHRP-6, ghrelin and ghrelin mimetics like ipamorelin, anamorelin and macimorelin as well as natural Growth Hormone Releasing Hormone (GHRH) and GHRP mimetics like sermorelin, CJC1295 and tesamorelin.

Examples of gonadotrophin releasing factors include leuprolide, buserelin, nafarelin, histrelin, goserelin and deslorelin.  Examples of corticotrophin releasing factors include corticotrophin releasing hormone (corticoliberin) and corticorelin acetate.

This list is by no means exhaustive and athletes should be mindful of the existence of other releasing drugs for peptide hormones, growth factors and related substances that are covered by section S.2 of the Prohibited List.


It is very clear that chemical methods (synthetic or natural) are banned explicitly, but mechanical methods (like a CVAC or HypoBaric chambers) to get to the same result are not, despite the fact that the mechanical method(s) are much more efficient and effective (based on claims).


From http://www.dropshotdispatch.com/2011/10/13/djokovics-cvac-conundrum-djokovics-controversial-training-method-examined/

Using a hypobaric chamber that simulates a high altitude is a common training method for athletes. Spending time in these chambers simulates the benefit an athlete might get from living at a high altitude and training at a lower altitude, a proven way to improve endurance. The higher altitude forces the body to produce more red blood cells.

But the CVAC chamber is different from traditional altitude training chambers.

The CVAC chamber, instead of simply simulating a higher altitude, cycles through different altitudes. This has shown to maximize the benefits of altitude training, appearing to provide benefits that not only outweigh traditional altitude training, but also require significant less time spent in the chamber to obtain those benefits.


The same thing is also possible using a set of HypoBaric chambers which the athlete can spend 10-minutes each which simulate varying altitudes. The end result will be the same.

laverfan
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 11155
Join date : 2011-04-07
Location : NoVA, USoA

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by hawkeye Sun 07 Feb 2016, 6:06 pm

laverfan wrote:
hawkeye wrote:Whats the difference between the CVAC and banned methods of doing this? The CVAC is more efficient and although it has been judged by WADA as not being in the spirit of the sport it has not been banned.

Since this is clear, it is allowed to anyone who can afford it and has access to it.

hawkeye wrote:If the CVAC is allowed why ban other forms of less effective treatments. Makes no sense. Funny to see people outraged about one method or artificially increasing VO2 max and not another more effective way.

It is the same as PRP, why PRP was illegal in 2010, but became legal in 2011 - https://www.wada-ama.org/en/questions-answers/prohibited-list ?

From the same link...

11. ARE HORMONE RELEASING FACTORS PROHIBITED UNDER S2?

Yes, factors acting on the release of peptide hormones, growth factors and related substances comprised in section S2 are prohibited at all times. They comprise natural and synthetic products.

Examples of Growth Hormone releasing factors include peptidyl and non-peptidyl synthetic growth hormone secretagogues like hexarelin, alexamorelin, GHRP-1, GHRP-2 (pralmorelin), GHRP-4, GHRP-5, GHRP-6, ghrelin and ghrelin mimetics like ipamorelin, anamorelin and macimorelin as well as natural Growth Hormone Releasing Hormone (GHRH) and GHRP mimetics like sermorelin, CJC1295 and tesamorelin.

Examples of gonadotrophin releasing factors include leuprolide, buserelin, nafarelin, histrelin, goserelin and deslorelin.  Examples of corticotrophin releasing factors include corticotrophin releasing hormone (corticoliberin) and corticorelin acetate.

This list is by no means exhaustive and athletes should be mindful of the existence of other releasing drugs for peptide hormones, growth factors and related substances that are covered by section S.2 of the Prohibited List.


It is very clear that chemical methods (synthetic or natural) are banned explicitly, but mechanical methods (like a CVAC or HypoBaric chambers) to get to the same result are not, despite the fact that the mechanical method(s) are much more efficient and effective (based on claims).


From http://www.dropshotdispatch.com/2011/10/13/djokovics-cvac-conundrum-djokovics-controversial-training-method-examined/

Using a hypobaric chamber that simulates a high altitude is a common training method for athletes. Spending time in these chambers simulates the benefit an athlete might get from living at a high altitude and training at a lower altitude, a proven way to improve endurance. The higher altitude forces the body to produce more red blood cells.

But the CVAC chamber is different from traditional altitude training chambers.

The CVAC chamber, instead of simply simulating a higher altitude, cycles through different altitudes. This has shown to maximize the benefits of altitude training, appearing to provide benefits that not only outweigh traditional altitude training, but also require significant less time spent in the chamber to obtain those benefits.


The same thing is also possible using a set of HypoBaric chambers which the athlete can spend 10-minutes each which simulate varying altitudes. The end result will be the same.

I know the CVAC isn't banned but I'm questioning it's use when it replicates the effects of substances and methods that are banned. In fact it is meant to be more effective than treatments that are banned.

I don't think you understand the difference between the two types of chambers. It's impossible to replicate the actions of the CVAC with hypobaric pods. Maybe this will help?

A. The primary difference between the CVAC Pod and a Hyperbaric Chamber lies within the use of low and high pressure. Hyperbaric chambers provide high-pressure environments to flood the body with oxygen. In theory by flooding the body with oxygen, one finds that the body may become somewhat reliant on this process, forcing it to become lazy and increase the inability to properly utilize oxygen in all of its mechanisms. On the other hand, the CVAC Pod utilizes a low-pressure (vacuum) environment to rhythmically and dynamically vary the density of air, stimulating the body’s natural adaptation response.
Using composed proprietary patterned sequences; pressure is increased and decreased. These changes in pressure set up waves of tension and relaxation that act in concert with the pulsatile nature of breathing, muscle contraction and blood flow that occur during exercise. By momentarily depleting the body of oxygen, the body begins to adapt and become conditioned to utilize the oxygen more efficiently; hence our mechanisms and all their moving parts start to improve. Not only is CVAC taking pressure away and then reintroducing it into the atmosphere but it is also changing the temperature and the density of air. This all works synergistically to create what we understand to be the CVAC process.

http://www.ascentadaptation.com/faqs/

PRP was removed from the list of banned treatments because studies showed they only had a therapeutic effect and were not performance enhancing. This from the WADA site.

1. What is the status of platelet derived preparations (PRP)?
Up

Despite the presence of some growth factors, platelet-derived preparations were removed from the List as current studies on PRP do not demonstrate any potential for performance enhancement beyond a potential therapeutic effect.

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/questions-answers/prohibited-list

hawkeye

Posts : 5425
Join date : 2011-06-12

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by hawkeye Sun 07 Feb 2016, 6:07 pm

Also from the WADA site

9. Why may there be a delay in determining the status of some substances on the Prohibited List?
Up

The WADA Prohibited List endeavours to capture as many known substances and methods that satisfy any two of the following three criteria:

   1. Potential to enhance or enhances sports performance
   2. An actual or potential health risk to the athlete
   3. Use violates the spirit of sport (outlined in the Code)

WADA has already judged CVAC use to be against the spirit of the sport. It certainly appears to have the potential to enhance sports performance. So it looks like it satisfies two of the three criteria. So why hasn't it been banned? NB I have no idea what health risks it may or may not cause to users but even if it is risk free a treatment only needs to satisfy 2 criteria.  

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/questions-answers/prohibited-list

hawkeye

Posts : 5425
Join date : 2011-06-12

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by JuliusHMarx Sun 07 Feb 2016, 6:15 pm

"Hyperbaric chambers provide high-pressure environments to flood the body with oxygen. In theory by flooding the body with oxygen, one finds that the body may become somewhat reliant on this process, forcing it to become lazy and increase the inability to properly utilize oxygen in all of its mechanisms."

Seems to fit criteria 1 and 2. Yet not banned either.

JuliusHMarx
julius
julius

Posts : 20115
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Paisley Park

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by socal1976 Sun 07 Feb 2016, 6:31 pm

lydian wrote:Socal, my argument with these devices never changes and if Nadal, Federer or Murray used them I'd say the same thing.

You try to divert the argument by saying CVAC is a) easily available which it isn't b) it's cheap which CVAC certainly isn't and c) that it isn't a drug but what does it matter if it's drug or device when the result is a similar level of artificial EPO boost with subsequent significant and in my mind unfair performance enhancement???

The use of these devices should be banned because they are NOT commonly accessible, are only affordable as a personal performance aid to the very top players and yes they enhance performance (just like a drug). I'm frankly amazed WADA continue to sit on the fence and don't ban these devices.

But socal your staunch defence of these devices is idiosyncratically linked to the support of just one player. I presume you see the irony in that singular defence?


No it is not based on my support for Djokovic it comes from my abhorrence of hypocrisy. There were many of these threads used to smear Nadal and I was just as vociferous in defending Nadal. So much so that on ole 606 they would denounce me as a Nadal fanboy. My standard is the same for Nadal, Djoko, or the guy ranked 222. If you want to smear them then first show me dirty test, since this procedure is not even alleged to be illegal, and is not chemical I am even more hostile to it. 

I think we should agree to disagree, because I cited my own experience and a third party site showing CVAC is not expensive and it is no more expensive than a massage or chiro adjustment but you simply ignore it. If the technology is so earthshaking it will naturally advance beyond the areas that have them first that is how tech has always been. But if we can't even agree on something objective like that arguing ad nauseum passed each other is all that is left us on this topic.

socal1976

Posts : 14212
Join date : 2011-03-18
Location : southern california

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by socal1976 Sun 07 Feb 2016, 6:37 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:Yes, in all seriousness I agree with Socal here; and if anyone is to blame it isn't Djokovic or any player who uses it (completely legally), but the authorities.
Thank you IMBL appreciate your support. Here is my problem though with those that say it should be banned by the authorities. They can't test for it, so the rest of all this talk about outlawing is moot. Since no chemical is introduced you can't conduct a chemical test for indicators or trace amounts. You can't drug test for it because it isn't a drug. What would you do to ban it put every athlete under 24 hour surveillance?

Before you guys decide to ban it you first half to be able to test for it which you can't. It's like the two farmers arguing over who should milk the cow before checking underneath and realizing it's a bull.

socal1976

Posts : 14212
Join date : 2011-03-18
Location : southern california

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by socal1976 Sun 07 Feb 2016, 6:42 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:If anyone can point to the artificial, illicit or dangerous substances that CVAC uses, then I may change my opinion of it. If it is simply, as stated, is a replacement for altitude training, then if we ban CVAC, we would have to ban altitude training, or any other less effective simulations (surely it is not logical to argue that a less effective artificial method is OK, but a more effective one isn't - because isn't the principle argument against it's artificial nature, more than the effectiveness?)

If the objection is the cost i.e. unfair to lower players, then we'd have to ban a truckload of other stuff.

If it's about the spirit of the game - again there's a lot of stuff that currently goes on that is against that. Paying prize money could be one of them, for example.

Again, I can't help but think socal is right - the only outrage against CVAC seems to be from some fans of players whose records are now under threat from Djokovic.
 Excellent post CVAC treatments are way cheaper than many of the expensive costs top players have to pay it is actually pretty affordable. Cheaper than a massage or chiro care. I am not going to cast aspersions on the motivations of all those who disagree but it is quite clear that the OP is trying to create the perception that Novak beats Nadal because he has an UNFAIR advantage not that he is better. This whole thread is an attempt to paint Novak as the equivalent of an admitted doper although CVAC is totally legal and involves taking no drugs.

socal1976

Posts : 14212
Join date : 2011-03-18
Location : southern california

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by hawkeye Sun 07 Feb 2016, 6:42 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:"Hyperbaric chambers provide high-pressure environments to flood the body with oxygen. In theory by flooding the body with oxygen, one finds that the body may become somewhat reliant on this process, forcing it to become lazy and increase the inability to properly utilize oxygen in all of its mechanisms."

Seems to fit criteria 1 and 2. Yet not banned either.

That theory is explaining why hyperbaric chambers may not be so effective at enhancing sports performance. It isn't claiming that hyperbaric chambers pose a risk to health. But of course if they are proved to be a health risk then they should be banned.

hawkeye

Posts : 5425
Join date : 2011-06-12

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by socal1976 Sun 07 Feb 2016, 6:44 pm

HE what should be done with Djokovic now that in your mind he is the equivalent of an admitted blood doper, I mean you stated CVAC and blood doping should be treated the same, should he banned and have all his slams stripped?

socal1976

Posts : 14212
Join date : 2011-03-18
Location : southern california

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by JuliusHMarx Sun 07 Feb 2016, 6:49 pm

"the body may become somewhat reliant on this process, forcing it to become lazy and increase the inability to properly utilize oxygen in all of its mechanisms."

That isn't a potential health risk?

JuliusHMarx
julius
julius

Posts : 20115
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Paisley Park

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by It Must Be Love Sun 07 Feb 2016, 7:18 pm

SoCal how did you access CVAC, and is it also accessible to public in London ?
May have to 'investigate' this for myself Cool

It Must Be Love

Posts : 2686
Join date : 2013-08-14

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by socal1976 Sun 07 Feb 2016, 8:02 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:SoCal how did you access CVAC, and is it also accessible to public in London ?
May have to 'investigate' this for myself Cool
 Like how you find anything Google search. But I don't think they have any outside USA. Oddly, my area is a hotbed in Southern California, there are like four within fifty miles of me. I guess that isn't surprising most of these new trends and tech start in California. Sheet baby, that is why we are known as the Golden state.

socal1976

Posts : 14212
Join date : 2011-03-18
Location : southern california

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by It Must Be Love Sun 07 Feb 2016, 8:25 pm

socal1976 wrote:
 Like how you find anything Google search.
I tried that and all I got was Canada Visa Application Centre.

socal1976 wrote:
But I don't think they have any outside USA. Oddly, my area is a hotbed in Southern California, there are like four within fifty miles of me. I guess that isn't surprising most of these new trends and tech start in California. Sheet baby, that is why we are known as the Golden state.
I'm jealous. Although I'll be slightly less jealous this November when Donald rules over your lands.

It Must Be Love

Posts : 2686
Join date : 2013-08-14

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by socal1976 Sun 07 Feb 2016, 8:37 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:
socal1976 wrote:
 Like how you find anything Google search.
I tried that and all I got was Canada Visa Application Centre.

socal1976 wrote:
But I don't think they have any outside USA. Oddly, my area is a hotbed in Southern California, there are like four within fifty miles of me. I guess that isn't surprising most of these new trends and tech start in California. Sheet baby, that is why we are known as the Golden state.
I'm jealous. Although I'll be slightly less jealous this November when Donald rules over your lands.
No chance Donald becomes president or any Republican clown. Europeans over estimate the strength of the hard right in America because of some structural advantages the republicans have in non- presidential off year elections. Democratic voters unfortunately; minorities and the young don't vote in the low turnout midterms. When turnout is high in a presidential the Dems in recent years kick arse. Nostrafreakingdamus predicts any Democrat wiping the floor with the any Of these GOP cast of clowns in 2016. Not only will the Dems win look for around 330 plus delegates and for cutting the lead the Gop has in both houses to a smaller number. Bookmark it and remind me come November

socal1976

Posts : 14212
Join date : 2011-03-18
Location : southern california

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by It Must Be Love Sun 07 Feb 2016, 8:42 pm

socal1976 wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:
socal1976 wrote:
 Like how you find anything Google search.
I tried that and all I got was Canada Visa Application Centre.

socal1976 wrote:
But I don't think they have any outside USA. Oddly, my area is a hotbed in Southern California, there are like four within fifty miles of me. I guess that isn't surprising most of these new trends and tech start in California. Sheet baby, that is why we are known as the Golden state.
I'm jealous. Although I'll be slightly less jealous this November when Donald rules over your lands.
No chance Donald becomes president or any Republican clown. Europeans over estimate the strength of the hard right in America because of some structural advantages the republicans have in non- presidential off year elections. Democratic voters unfortunately; minorities and the young don't vote in the low turnout midterms. When turnout is high in a presidential the Dems in recent years kick arse. Nostrafreakingdamus predicts any Democrat wiping the floor with the any Of these GOP cast of clowns in 2016. Not only will the Dems win look for around 330 plus delegates and for cutting the lead the Gop has in both houses to a smaller number. Bookmark it and remind me come November
You better be right, I want another Hannity breakdown on election night like 2012.

It Must Be Love

Posts : 2686
Join date : 2013-08-14

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by socal1976 Sun 07 Feb 2016, 9:10 pm

It will happen it's going to be an butt kicking trust me.

socal1976

Posts : 14212
Join date : 2011-03-18
Location : southern california

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by Jahu Sun 07 Feb 2016, 10:21 pm

So are we in a collective agreement that Djoko should be stripped of at least 10 slams due to egg chambers, gluten imaginations, magic doctors, tax evasion, etc?

I think that's enough reasons Laugh

Jahu
Jahu

Posts : 6747
Join date : 2011-03-29
Location : Egg am Faaker See

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by TRuffin Sun 07 Feb 2016, 10:26 pm

in itself the procedure prp isn't a problem- it's the fact that it's been proven to be used as a mask for doping. Some of its most famous doctors, innovators of the procedure have been caught doping their patients, smuggling ped's across borders. Is it a coincidence that may multiple athletes from major sports who have been caught, suspended for Peds have all had prp procedures? Are we that naive to not see a correlation? The procedure itself is no longer banned because if done properly it's not doping, but people are using it to help dope and wada has put their head in the sand over it.

No where have I seen that Cvac has been used as a masking procedure. If it is shown then that's a new issue that should cast suspicion on those who use it, but as of now- we know it to create a natural boost and haven't seen any practitioners or athletes caught doping having used it.

SoCal is right- no one is stopping others from using it and frankly- for all we know most tennis players are. Djoko caught flak for mentioning it so maybe others just aren't bringing it up. It's a slippery slope if cutting edge approved training methods are suddenly disallowed because some guys who have access to it are getting an advantage. Should fed, djoko, nadal not be allowed to have a private physio while others have to use some stranger the tournament provides. Should the top guys not be allowed to pay priority one $100,000 a year to string their racquets during tournaments because other players can't afford that. these guys have earned that right. People forget- they came up through the ranks too- at some point there were guys ahead Of them that had better training, better equipment, better doctors- but hard work and skill put them in a position to where it's their turn to reap those rewards. That's the way the word in general and sports especially works.

So long as it's legal and approved.


TRuffin

Posts : 630
Join date : 2012-02-02

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by hawkeye Sun 07 Feb 2016, 11:50 pm

TRuffin wrote:in itself the procedure prp isn't a problem- it's the fact that it's been proven to be used as a mask for doping.   Some of its most famous doctors, innovators of the procedure have been caught doping their patients, smuggling  ped's across borders.  Is it a coincidence that may multiple athletes from major  sports who have been caught, suspended for Peds have all had prp procedures?   Are we that naive to not see a correlation?  The procedure itself is no longer banned because if done properly it's not doping,  but people are using it to help dope and wada has put their head in the sand over it.

No where have I seen that Cvac has been used as a masking procedure. If it is shown then that's a new issue that should cast suspicion on those who use it, but as of now- we know it to create a natural boost and haven't seen any practitioners or athletes caught doping having used it.  

SoCal is right- no one is stopping others from using it and frankly- for all we know most tennis players are.  Djoko caught flak for mentioning it so maybe others just aren't bringing it up.  It's a slippery slope if cutting edge approved training methods are suddenly disallowed because some guys who have access to it are getting an advantage. Should fed, djoko, nadal not be allowed to have a private physio while others have to use some stranger the tournament  provides.  Should the top guys not be allowed to pay priority one $100,000 a year to string their racquets during tournaments because other players can't afford that.  these guys have earned that right.  People forget- they came up through the ranks too-  at some point there were guys ahead Of them that had better training, better equipment, better doctors- but hard work and skill put them in a position to where it's their turn to reap those rewards.   That's the way the word in general and sports especially works.

So long as it's legal and approved.


Why use CVAC to mask another procedure? It's more effective than anything it could mask. It's not banned any player can use it but WADA have said that using it violates the spirit of the sport. That's a pretty damming criticism coming from a body with responsibility for keeping the sport clean. It may be legal but it isn't approved. I very much doubt that the criticism comes because of the cost involved. Doping in sport isn't banned because of its expense. Check the criteria WADA uses to determine what substances and procedures should be banned. No doubt the criticism of this procedure and of Djokovic when he admitted using the CVAC has lead to the secrecy over who is using the CVAC to aid their performance. Doubt anyone would want to shout about doing something that goes against the spirit of the sport. If it's use wasn't controversial why the silence?

hawkeye

Posts : 5425
Join date : 2011-06-12

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by laverfan Mon 08 Feb 2016, 3:22 am

If anyone is watching the US NFL Super Bowl, pay close attention to a plethora of oxygen tanks on the side lines that players are sucking on.

laverfan
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 11155
Join date : 2011-04-07
Location : NoVA, USoA

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by socal1976 Mon 08 Feb 2016, 5:35 am

TRuffin wrote:in itself the procedure prp isn't a problem- it's the fact that it's been proven to be used as a mask for doping.   Some of its most famous doctors, innovators of the procedure have been caught doping their patients, smuggling  ped's across borders.  Is it a coincidence that may multiple athletes from major  sports who have been caught, suspended for Peds have all had prp procedures?   Are we that naive to not see a correlation?  The procedure itself is no longer banned because if done properly it's not doping,  but people are using it to help dope and wada has put their head in the sand over it.

No where have I seen that Cvac has been used as a masking procedure. If it is shown then that's a new issue that should cast suspicion on those who use it, but as of now- we know it to create a natural boost and haven't seen any practitioners or athletes caught doping having used it.  

SoCal is right- no one is stopping others from using it and frankly- for all we know most tennis players are.  Djoko caught flak for mentioning it so maybe others just aren't bringing it up.  It's a slippery slope if cutting edge approved training methods are suddenly disallowed because some guys who have access to it are getting an advantage. Should fed, djoko, nadal not be allowed to have a private physio while others have to use some stranger the tournament  provides.  Should the top guys not be allowed to pay priority one $100,000 a year to string their racquets during tournaments because other players can't afford that.  these guys have earned that right.  People forget- they came up through the ranks too-  at some point there were guys ahead Of them that had better training, better equipment, better doctors- but hard work and skill put them in a position to where it's their turn to reap those rewards.   That's the way the word in general and sports especially works.

So long as it's legal and approved.

It's even more absurd this tempest in a teacup when you actually analyze the opposition to this device's critics.  The argument goes like this, CVAC is not a masking agent Ruffin, the critics claim it is twice as effective as chemical blood doping. So we have a non chemical tool available to athletes that results in recovery and pain management better than a dangerous drug, it is cheap, and helps athletes perform better and have pain relief. In short CVAC could be the cure to illegal blood doping that has more dangerous consequences but for some reason they are against it. Why? What is wrong with athletes having a non drug form of pain relief. I mean anyone of us can go to a pharmacy or get over the counter pain relief yet these guys can't use air pressure.
 
If what you guys say is true and it is twice as good as blood doping, as a pain management tool, and is non chemical than it sounds like the cure to more dangerous blood doping, and we should be applauding the discovery instead of trying to stigmatize it and strangle it in its infancy. Cheap, non chemical, pain relief that could end a less effective, more dangerous, more expensive need for EPO; someone alert the media and the authorities something must be done to avert this tragedy.

What is hilarious is that in their haste to paint CVAC as the greatest cheating since peaking during hide and seek was invented, they actually make a better case for encouraging its use than banning. After listening to them explain how CVAC is twice as effective as EPO, and it's not drug induced; I think major events should buy them and make them free to all athletes. Hawkeye is the best saleswoman for CVAC ever. A device that is twice as effective as EPO, is not a drug, can't be tested for, and has won an inferior Djokovic ten extra slams; hell sign me up.


Last edited by socal1976 on Mon 08 Feb 2016, 8:17 am; edited 1 time in total

socal1976

Posts : 14212
Join date : 2011-03-18
Location : southern california

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by socal1976 Mon 08 Feb 2016, 8:08 am

Unfortunately, one can not separate this thread from the history of the OP and her incredible bias that is far beyond a normal fan's typical lunacy.  The most vocal critic Hawkeye is a Nadal worshiper who dislikes Murray, Djokovic, and basically the entire tennis playing world except for Nadal,  and to a lesser extent fed who she loves. For years she has been claiming Novak has upended the Spanish Adonis only because of CVAC, or because Nadal was hurt, or Nadal was depressed because Mommy and Daddy broke up. Right now the bizarre Universe she inhabits is in a tail spin, she must grasp at excuses and anyways to question Novak's superiority to Nadal. And what has caused this OP to have this recent episode of derangement represented by her comments on this thread, well it has to do with the fact that Nadal hasn't even been able to win a single set against Novak in like the last twelve. In planet Hawkeye this has to be unfair it has to be CVAC, which is worse than blood doping.

socal1976

Posts : 14212
Join date : 2011-03-18
Location : southern california

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by socal1976 Mon 08 Feb 2016, 8:13 am

laverfan wrote:If anyone is watching the US NFL Super Bowl, pay close attention to a plethora of oxygen tanks on the side lines that players are sucking on.
According to HE they are all blood doping in front of an audience of hundreds of millions, no check that they are worse than blood doping. Has someone asked WADA how they feel this impacts the spirit of fairplay? Seriously, what is scary is not Hawkeye's fanciful WADA nonsense on this thread but how many people partly agree with her.

socal1976

Posts : 14212
Join date : 2011-03-18
Location : southern california

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by hawkeye Mon 08 Feb 2016, 8:35 am

laverfan wrote:If anyone is watching the US NFL Super Bowl, pay close attention to a plethora of oxygen tanks on the side lines that players are sucking on.

What has that to do with the CVAC? You are still getting confused with hyberbaric chambers. The CVAC is a process that increases an athletes ability to utilize oxygen it doesn't simply feed them oxygen. In fact athletes breath common or garden fresh air whilst being treated in the CVAC. Read back the descriptions of the process if you still don't understand. The effects are long term so treatment takes place away from competition.

hawkeye

Posts : 5425
Join date : 2011-06-12

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by laverfan Mon 08 Feb 2016, 2:12 pm

hawkeye wrote:
laverfan wrote:If anyone is watching the US NFL Super Bowl, pay close attention to a plethora of oxygen tanks on the side lines that players are sucking on.

What has that to do with the CVAC? You are still getting confused with hyberbaric chambers. The CVAC is a process that increases an athletes ability to utilize oxygen it doesn't simply feed them oxygen. In fact athletes breath common or garden fresh air whilst being treated in the CVAC. Read back the descriptions of the process if you still don't understand. The effects are long term so treatment takes place away from competition.

If HypoBaric chambers are akin to a bicycle, a CVAC is a Ferrari F12 TRS. The entire feeding oxygen, by method 1 or 2 or n... is against the spirit of the sport. A CVAC is a better/more efficient version of a HypoBaric chamber.

I recall this - http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/28/sport/tennis/gluten-free-diet-djokovic-murray-tennis/ - also being dissected ad infinitum ad nauseam.

I have seen discos in 70-80s release a mix of oxygen and nitrogen (and other ingredients around 2am) when the floor did not have enough feet.

Djokovic is winning now, it his peak, and unless otherwise someone finds any banned substances in his system, he is perfectly above the board. His coach Becker was controversial as well - http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/14/sports/14iht-socc.t.html .

Down the years he has stood by such luminaries as Boris Becker, who rushed to Muller-Wolfahrt's clinic at the merest twinge. At times we have seen Becker, on the brink of exhaustion, sip from a tiny capsule during a tennis match and recover to make one of his phenomenal comebacks. The potion, prepared in Munich, is a trade secret, though there do not appear to be any ethical or legal doubts over the ingredients.

laverfan
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 11155
Join date : 2011-04-07
Location : NoVA, USoA

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by bogbrush Mon 08 Feb 2016, 2:30 pm

I'm confused; socal seems to be saying this sort of thing is available down any decent gym at a token cost.
bogbrush
bogbrush

Posts : 11169
Join date : 2011-04-13

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by hawkeye Mon 08 Feb 2016, 3:27 pm

laverfan wrote:
hawkeye wrote:
laverfan wrote:If anyone is watching the US NFL Super Bowl, pay close attention to a plethora of oxygen tanks on the side lines that players are sucking on.

What has that to do with the CVAC? You are still getting confused with hyberbaric chambers. The CVAC is a process that increases an athletes ability to utilize oxygen it doesn't simply feed them oxygen. In fact athletes breath common or garden fresh air whilst being treated in the CVAC. Read back the descriptions of the process if you still don't understand. The effects are long term so treatment takes place away from competition.

If HypoBaric chambers are akin to a bicycle, a CVAC is a Ferrari F12 TRS. The entire feeding oxygen, by method 1 or 2 or n... is against the spirit of the sport. A CVAC is a better/more efficient version of a HypoBaric chamber.

I recall this - http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/28/sport/tennis/gluten-free-diet-djokovic-murray-tennis/ - also being dissected ad infinitum ad nauseam.

I have seen discos in 70-80s release a mix of oxygen and nitrogen (and other ingredients around 2am) when the floor did not have enough feet.

Djokovic is winning now, it his peak, and unless otherwise someone finds any banned substances in his system, he is perfectly above the board. His coach Becker was controversial as well - http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/14/sports/14iht-socc.t.html .

Down the years he has stood by such luminaries as Boris Becker, who rushed to Muller-Wolfahrt's clinic at the merest twinge. At times we have seen Becker, on the brink of exhaustion, sip from a tiny capsule during a tennis match and recover to make one of his phenomenal comebacks. The potion, prepared in Munich, is a trade secret, though there do not appear to be any ethical or legal doubts over the ingredients.

laverfan. You still don't understand. The CVAC does not work by providing an oxygen rich environment like the common hypobaric chambers or even the oxygen tanks you mentioned in your previous post. What it does is make individuals more effective at taking in and utilizing oxygen in the long term. By any accounts this must be performance enhancing.

I don't see how disco's, gluten free diets and whatever capsules a long retired player may or may not have taken have anything to do with the CVAC. There are plenty of links in this thread explaining in simple terms how the CVAC works and WADA has enough concerns about it to consider it's use to be against the spirit of the sport.

hawkeye

Posts : 5425
Join date : 2011-06-12

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by Jahu Mon 08 Feb 2016, 3:29 pm

Yes, and is just making this whole thing a child's play and derailing the thread to defend Djoko.

We need HMM to come here and make some sense, but he is avoiding this thread for obvious reasons, at least he ain't playing it dumb like some Laugh

Jahu
Jahu

Posts : 6747
Join date : 2011-03-29
Location : Egg am Faaker See

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by JuliusHMarx Mon 08 Feb 2016, 3:38 pm

bogbrush wrote:I'm confused; socal seems to be saying this sort of thing is available down any decent gym at a token cost.

No, only that if you live near a place that has one, it is a token cost. Perhaps part of the issue with it being not as widespread as the manufacturers had hoped is that some experts don't really think it does what it says on the tin.

JuliusHMarx
julius
julius

Posts : 20115
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Paisley Park

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by JuliusHMarx Mon 08 Feb 2016, 3:44 pm

Hyperbaric chambers (or even breathing pure oxygen) are performance enhancing - that's why they are used! The only real difference is that CVAC is more effective (if it works as the claim).

CVAC simulates altitude training. Is altitude training against the spirit of the sport? If we are going to take WADA as the bible on this, then it's fine to use - if it wasn't, then why haven't they banned it? Because there is no test? No, because they have previously banned things for which there is no test.

Perhaps some people think that getting 2 weeks' worth of altitude training in 2 hours is against the spirit of the sport, but improving recovery time with PRP is apparently OK - despite the fact that both are artificial aids.

JuliusHMarx
julius
julius

Posts : 20115
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Paisley Park

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by hawkeye Mon 08 Feb 2016, 3:54 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
bogbrush wrote:I'm confused; socal seems to be saying this sort of thing is available down any decent gym at a token cost.

No, only that if you live near a place that has one, it is a token cost. Perhaps part of the issue with it being not as widespread as the manufacturers had hoped is that some experts don't really think it does what it says on the tin.

Or perhaps because it has been judged by WADA as violating the spirit of the sport. Makes it difficult to advertise when they can't get athletes to openly admit to using it let alone allow themselves to be used to advertise it. What player in their right mind would publicly endorse anything with that tag attatched to it? The truth is we don't know how widespread it's use is. I haven't heard of any experts saying that it doesn't do what it's reported to do?

hawkeye

Posts : 5425
Join date : 2011-06-12

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by JuliusHMarx Mon 08 Feb 2016, 4:37 pm

http://www.outsideonline.com/1930416/secret-science-novak-djokovics-training-pod

WADA haven't banned it have they? They tend to ban a lot of stuff - why not this?

JuliusHMarx
julius
julius

Posts : 20115
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Paisley Park

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by temporary21 Mon 08 Feb 2016, 4:54 pm

Prp is an outside aid to cure INJURY. The other is an aid in endurance, I personally feel that's a big difference. Also let's not get too personal there is of course personal bias in all this which makes it hard to assess

temporary21

Posts : 5092
Join date : 2014-09-07

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by JuliusHMarx Mon 08 Feb 2016, 5:02 pm

Why is there a difference between injury and endurance - do we let nature takes it's course or not? If a player puts too much strain on his body e.g. over-training, should we allow miracle cures, or should we accept that there should be a price to pay for that error of judgement? Do we ban altitude training? Luxilon strings? Hyperbaric chambers? All of those improve performance.

JuliusHMarx
julius
julius

Posts : 20115
Join date : 2011-07-01
Location : Paisley Park

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by laverfan Mon 08 Feb 2016, 6:14 pm

hawkeye wrote:laverfan. You still don't understand. The CVAC does not work by providing an oxygen rich environment like the common hypobaric chambers or even the oxygen tanks you mentioned in your previous post. What it does is make individuals more effective at taking in and utilizing oxygen in the long term. By any accounts this must be performance enhancing.

You can peel an orange by hand or use a knife (or any other available tool). You can use HypoBaric chambers to flood oxygen and allow the body to absorb it at an individual rate, or enhance the rate by using a CVAC. You can walk or run, they just change the dynamics of absorption.

Why are such technical differences relevant when the end-state is the same - oxygen-rich blood cells?

As I recommended earlier, each slam can install CVACs and allow each one of the 128 main draw players (ATP and WTA - they can also add qualifiers, if they wish) and allow 30-minutes each day and level the playing court. Reduce the prize money by the cost of CVACs over an annual schedule. Amortization can also help. I wonder if MahIsner had access to one. chin

laverfan
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 11155
Join date : 2011-04-07
Location : NoVA, USoA

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by temporary21 Mon 08 Feb 2016, 6:35 pm

I don't accept the idea that injuries are something someone deserves to get through what they do. They ruin careers through bad luck or genetics. We want people to be playing. Even people with more defensive games don't deserve Injury

On he other hand we all accept that managing your energy levels and negotiating tournaments with little energy loss is an integral part of the challenge. It's here where getting an advantage using these expensive methods is a concern

temporary21

Posts : 5092
Join date : 2014-09-07

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by socal1976 Mon 08 Feb 2016, 7:22 pm

bogbrush wrote:I'm confused; socal seems to be saying this sort of thing is available down any decent gym at a token cost.
No I am saying if it is as earth shattering the cheap technology that is now available will expand. You know free market actually working for once. But yes any bloke can pay for it is less than a massage can only the super rich afford a half hour massage?

socal1976

Posts : 14212
Join date : 2011-03-18
Location : southern california

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by Belovedluckyboy Mon 08 Feb 2016, 7:31 pm

Tem21 gets it right.

Everyone is putting strain on one's body doing sports and more so for top sportsmen.

Really, is Murray or Fed to be blamed for their back injuries? Or Nalby or Gonzo be blamed for causing their own hip injury and the subsequent hip surgery? This is just ridiculous if we expect sportsmen putting so much stress on their bodies to not get injuries along the way.

PRP is for healing of injuries, NOT for recovery of energy, unlike the CVAC.

Belovedluckyboy

Posts : 1389
Join date : 2015-01-30

Back to top Go down

The controversial CVAC - Page 2 Empty Re: The controversial CVAC

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum