Why would an average marathon runner such as Claire Squires take drugs to...

To be honest it shouldn't really be a running story. It would need to be a science story, as to give any insight it would need to be substance plus exercise and the outcome of the combination of those over a balanced group to provide any real detail.

Given the deadline is tomorrow night I expect this is nothing more than a Dave from London said "SIS gels gave me the trots". Science journalism has always been poor, mostly as the time it takes to get the actual facts from the story tend not to be sensationalist and take an age to gather.

If you really want to see what substances do and report anything with meaning you'd need to look at academic and scientific journals.

Dave The Ex- Spartan wrote (see)

And that told you KK

You would think that people putting foward  'an opinion on behalf of a national broadsheet', wouldn't stoop to being 'slightly sore up the personal anal passage' if people disagree or offer a different perspective...

Maybe she should run more? Or at all...

Or scared off by genuine debate.. She can't be a journalist, arsed needs wiping much?

I love how we all attacked Amelia without even seeing what she was going to write.

To be fair Kitten you made a whole bunch of assumptions without letting Amelia get on with it. Perhaps she may well have made some valid points.

I have more time for Guardian journalists than those at the Mail, thats why Im forever on the Mail site writing rebuttals in their comments section all the time. (oh and the Telegraph who have it in for the RSPCA, the bastards - thats the telegraph, not the RSPCA)

 I for one am willing to hold judgement till we see what Amelia comes up with.

Keyboard_Worrier wrote (see)

Oh the irony.

I see no irony in what Ive written .......... I am willing to debate any point Ive made

Back on-topic: my mum has an irregular heartbeat. She was told that the risk wasn't actually heart attack it was stroke because it can lead to clotting. She's on warfarin as a result.

Back off-topic: whatever Amelia decides to write I'm sure the piece will be open for comment. We are all free to post on the Guardian website if we disagree with her  angle on the story. I suggest we withhold judgement for now and wait and see.

Agreed re Amelia and her piece. Pity about KK's behaviour towards her.

Keyboard_Worrier wrote (see)

I for one am willing to hold judgement.

Compare and contrast that to the OP

Cool story bro.

Amelia Hill wrote (see)

 I came to Runner's World because I took it to be a hub of rational, fair debate. 

I guess then; as a journalist, you could regard this as research.

Or crypto-zoology.

Body building type stuff/supplements come under food laws, medicines come under the remit of the MHRA ( Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency).  The pharmaceutical industry is said to be one of the two most highly regulated industries there are (alongside the airline industry).  This is quite right given the potential for harm from new medicines or poor quality medicines.

I think the story is the lack of proactivity with the MHRA in identifying products which should really come under their remit but which are 'got round' by claiming they are foods.  I remember at the time of the banning of Jac3d that there was a bit of an outcry about how long the MHRA had taken to do anything about it and that people had died because of this delay.  I don't know about the Claire Squires story but it would be tragic if her death could have been prevented with more forceful and proactive stance from the MHRA.  They need to be much more proactive about seeking out products that should be classed as medicines (and not foods or food supplements) and prosecuting people who are essentially getting round the regulations for medicinal products.

Eggyh73 wrote (see)

If you really want to see what substances do and report anything with meaning you'd need to look at academic and scientific journals.

Sadly I don't think this is true and makes my point.  Because these things are marketed as foods/supplements there is no requirement to carry out any R&D, safety reporting or similar.  Any studies they do fund will simply be to show how their product improves performance/aids weight loss or whatever* but no requirement to show any side effects or proper pharmacokinetics.  There is little/no money in doing those studies, so there is no substantive literature to refer to.

*And even then, the science is often ropey! 

cougie wrote (see)

Why would people risk their health in this way ?

You know how women want to be thin? Well young lads want to be muscley ....... its all about body shape, but the mens aspect of it is completely forgotten by society as everyone worries about women are 'fat or not' and the effect it has on young girls.

Meanwhile youve got young lads in the gym injecting themselves with Sustanon 250 and Deca durabalin.

David Falconer 3 wrote (see)

I love how we all attacked Amelia without even seeing what she was going to write.

To be fair Kitten you made a whole bunch of assumptions without letting Amelia get on with it. Perhaps she may well have made some valid points.

I have more time for Guardian journalists than those at the Mail, thats why Im forever on the Mail site writing rebuttals in their comments section all the time. (oh and the Telegraph who have it in for the RSPCA, the bastards - thats the telegraph, not the RSPCA)

 I for one am willing to hold judgement till we see what Amelia comes up with.

 

I was in assumption mood, as I always am on the last Wednesday of the month. The first piece (in The Guardian) this morning is fine, we'll see if there are any follow up articles.

Muttley wrote (see)

Agreed re Amelia and her piece. Pity about KK's behaviour towards her.

Like she's going to lose sleep about what's said on an Internet forum. *rolls eyes*

I'm sure she's made of sterner stuff!

When I was at school there was some publication in the careers room that outlined the attributes best suited to a variety of professions. All quite dull until I came across 'Journalism'

Now I might now get every word spot on but here goes.

'Journalism', 'A form of professional based authorship; employment by particular publication, sometimes freelance. An environment where honesty and integrity are not considered to be assets.

I'm just listening to the BBC talking about 'joggers' and supplements.