The controversial CVAC

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.

Does this mean if I put an egg in CVAC I get a runny yolk?

What would an egg hatched by a chicken in cvac be like?

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

There is a natural mechanism for healing injuries, and there is a natural mechanism of increasing oxygen content in the blood-stream.

Anything artificial - PRP or CVAC or HypoBaric tents are man-made inventions. Some are legal, some are deemed illegal, some are defined as illegal by WADA.

We are now into personal preferences and choices and have taken sides based on what our concepts of, and definitions of legal vs illegal vs 'spirit-of-the-sport' issues are.

As it stands, PRP was legalized in 2010-2011. If Players Council and WADA (and other sporting bodies agree), they can make CVAC illegal.

When it is illegal, then we can apply it from that point on, into the future. There is no retrospective implementation possible. There is no need to berate one or more players who currently use it.

There is a sticky for Time Violations. Perhaps this discussion can be stick'ied as well.

Belovedluckyboy wrote: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.  

So if they get out of breath and lose stamina by running a lot, they don't get any artificial help? It's not their fault they have to run a lot. We expect them to run a lot.

Federer is often praised for using his skill to negotiate slams with little loss of energy. Cvac allows a guy who had 3 5 setters to render that advantage and skill moot. Avoiding injury is not a skill, saving energy is. It's that reason alone I would not want cvac used regularly unless it's for injury

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

I don't think he's quite saying that but, if you live in the right place, then it does appear to be pretty cheap to use. I think I recall him doing a full article on his own visit to use one a couple of years back.

Avoiding injury is definitely a skill, barring accidents. Proper training, nutrition, scheduling, playing technique etc. It is absolutely a skill. Perhaps we need an adjudication panel to determine which injuries deserve artificial help to heal better/faster.

laverfan wrote:

Anything artificial - PRP or CVAC or HypoBaric tents are man-made inventions. Some are legal, some are deemed illegal, some are defined as illegal by WADA.

We are now into personal preferences and choices and have taken sides based on what our concepts of, and definitions of legal vs illegal vs 'spirit-of-the-sport' issues are.

As it stands, PRP was legalized in 2010-2011. If Players Council and WADA (and other sporting bodies agree), they can make CVAC illegal.

When it is illegal, then we can apply it from that point on, into the future. There is no retrospective implementation possible. There is no need to berate one or more players who currently use it.

There is a sticky for Time Violations. Perhaps this discussion can be stick'ied as well.

LF

WADA have actually spoken and said that CVAC and hypobaric chambers are against the spirit of sport and have looked at whether there is sufficient scope to ban their use (been discussed plenty with regard to cycling and other primarily endurance sports where EPO use and blood doping has been rife). My suspicion is that no action has been taken because of one practical reason and one 'political' one:
1 - Practically, how do you enforce a ban? For sports with a Biological passport system I guess it is simply about how much the blood composition changes, but for sports with relatively few controls and most of those urine only, it is impossible to enforce.

2 - Politically, is it within the scope of WADA jurisdiction to ban a non-invasive process? Also, if CVAC is banned on the grounds that it is against the spirit of the sport and performance enhancing (because of the mooted enhancement to red blood cell production), does altitude training fall under the same classification? If so, how do you deal with the difference between competitors born and living at altitude and those from near sea level?

Agree though that as it stands, the CVAC process is permitted and so Djokovic or anyone else using it is not running foul of any rules and should not be censured.

I would suggest you tell that to del potro or soderling. Injury is not a good thing under any circumstances. Might I assume we aren't happy about federer not playing by the spirit of things by going under the knife then?

Injuries don't just ruin careers, they ruin lives. Shrugging your head and going they wernt skilled enough is a terrible thing to consider

If I'm not against CVAC obviously I'm not against surgery.
Soderling was an illness, not an injury and his life isn't ruined, nor is Del Potro's as far as I know. Nor am I saying they should be denied any treatment - you seem to be building a massive straw man there temp.

Some injuries can be prevented - there is a skill to it, without doubt, I don't see how anyone can deny that. I have no objection to the best legitimate treatments to heal them, just as I have no objection to the best legitimate treatments to overcome the other detrimental physical factors that professional athletes face.

So why when I talk about recovering your energy and removing lactic acid between matches and a legitimate injury you see no difference in aiding one and not the other? A lot of "skill" won't save you from an accident.

Professional sportsman all get injured no matter what they do. Playing in a pretty looking way doesn't mean it causes no strain, a defensive player of course has the same right to treatment. HOWEVER they should not have access to that sort of powers of recovery

It risks removing the advantage of smoothly going through a slam draw. That kind of thing should be reserved specifically for healing injury

I did specifically exclude accidents. In fact, my original example was over-training. If a player over-trains, i.e. gets it wrong, makes a mistake, error of judgement, then should they get the same fast-healing treatment as a player who has an accident? Should the player who gets it right (but then has an accident) be favoured in some way? If not, why not?

The physical exertion required in sports causes fatigue and injury - why treat the 2 differently when the cause is the same?

Let us take Djokovic as an example, he used to have breathing issues, had surgery (septum), changed his diet (under Dr. Igor), uses CVAC. He has made use of technology to keep himself fit and injury free. He used to be a bundle of tapes on his legs and knees and shoulders. He was constantly berated for retirements, could not handle the 'heat'.

Even the current elder statesman, Federer, has mildly poked fun at Djokovic about his retirements.  

If Federer, Nadal, Murray, Ferrer choose to use CVAC, and they know about it already, there is nothing to stop them.

I recall a certain Robredo playing back-to-back 5-setters (3 IIRC) on the clay of RG. This is probably the most grueling surface for people with fitness issues. He had access to HypoBaric chambers as part of the Spanish Armada. I am not certain he used it in between the said matches. He is yet to win a slam, and has never been discussed so vocally.

OT - Here is a full list of five-setters in OE at slams - http://www.tennis28.com/slams/five_sets_tournament.html . There are some interesting names on this list.

@Dummy_Half - I think a Biological Passport should be implemented within Tennis (a la Cycling). It is an invasive (albeit non-surgical, non-chemical process) by stretching the limits of the human body.

One is the ability to maintain focus and put away an opponent quickly no stupid dropped sets and the like. The consequence is losing a match as you've no gas left which is part of the game they play. Not aiding that with cvac isn't inhetebtly dangerous

The other is either an accident misfortune or pre existing problem. Sportsman can almost never be held responsible for their own injuries they are just part of what they do. If it was 100 their fault somehow it's dangerous and irresponsible to consider not treating them just the same. The consequences can also be terrible

I don't mind Cvac (although I'm still concerned it and chambers in general are used as EPO masking devices), just the access to it is patchy and only top 20-30 players can afford to buy one (75-100k). I'm all for widespread ubiquitous use because then...and to quote a fave line from The Incredibles film...once everyone is special...then no-one is.

There seems to be confusion. I'm referring specifically to using it for between match recovery, if cvac helped his breathing trouble that fair. In fact novaks not in the wrong in any case. just personal taste really

temporary21 wrote:If it was 100 their fault somehow it's dangerous and irresponsible to consider not treating them just the same. The consequences can also be terrible

I never said otherwise. Remember that top ranked players can afford better treatment, and are thus more likely to avoid such consequences.

Temporary there is simply an incredibly thin line between injury and exhaustion. You seem to want to deny athletes pain relief and treatment that would be readily available to any normal person really for no good reason. What reason is there for denying someone pain relief and treatment? Is it unfair to other competitors no it isn't because clearly everyone knows about it and it is not expensive. Does it have health risks for the athletes, well everything probably even CVAC has health risks you could choke to death eating a celery stick. But by the nature of it being a non-chemical process CVAC poses less risks for side effects and health risks to players. So it helps them relieve pain, perform better, is less risky, and cheap. And you want to deny it to them, and for what specific reason I have no idea. How is it anymore unfair than wealthy players having better coaching, trainers, hotels, private planes etc. In fact, in terms of cost and lack of access CVAC is a hundred times more democratic and affordable than a bunch of other advantages top players have over everyone else.

So again ban it for what reason? Do you support player suffering from more pain and being denied treatment, and if you do what is the logic. The difference between injury and tiredness is really a non-starter logically. All of these players a month into the year have some injury that they claim as the reason to CVAC. I doubt any player is going to get an MTO in the middle of the match to go CVAC. All these players have injuries and therefore at anytime they like they could CVAC under your guidelines because they would not be doing it to recover from exhaustion, but instead to rehab an injury like a sore back or twisted ankle. So your drawing the line on a razor thin line that actually really does not exist in reality. Pain management is pain management and the line between exhaustion and injury to a modern athlete, who early on the season 95 percent of them are carrying some niggle or chronic condition is really a silly and virtually non-existant line that would not be practically capable of enforcement.

Again please tell me why something that relieves pain and is not chemically invasive should be denied to players? I have never heard anybody make an argument in favor of more pain and suffering for a certain subsect of people that they claim to be fans of? And lets put this spirit of fairness noncritique to bed of the dozens of advantages top players have this would be far down the list in terms of cost or accessibility. Its not like Novak invented the one and only machine and he keeps it locked up in a dungeon on a mountain in some fortress in Serbia.

JHM, You're comparing running out of breath (well then its the player's poor fitness issue due to poor training perhaps?) to getting injured? A player could hurt his ankle for eg while changing direction to get to the ball, or just tripped and fell and got injured. Some are more injury prone but almost all of them will get injuries now and then. Novak for eg did have his ankle problems and had to skip a tournament or two. Did he overtrain or overuse his ankles ( sliding too often?).

PRP is meant for treating injuries or the subsequent prevention of further injury when healed; its not to help replenish one's energy after each physical exertion (exhaustion is not an injury).

I'm not for or against the use of CVAC; I'm against the comparison of PRP vs CVAC when they are used for different purposes - one for treatment of injury, the other for energy recovery.

The use of one method or the other to mask the issue of doping well that's another topic. Players can use other methods, instead of PRP for eg, to help in their doping. Unless all of them (the players) were checked every day and every moment, who knows what other ways some may use for doping and its cover up during their off season.

I do find it amusing that the people that are most vocally raising this unfairness argument about CVAC are all Nadal fans. IMBL and Haddie haven't really been vocal about raising the unfairness argument and IMBL in fact agrees that it isn't big deal and hell he wants to do it himself. But BLB, Temporary, HE, and Lydian all seem to be super concerned about how unfair CVAC is and all are pretty staunch Nadal supporters. Again, I don't think all of them are suffering from HE level cynicism or a desire to smear the conqueror of their hero. But it is interesting that those that have the most fear and concern are all the fans of the guy that supposedly has been most aggrieved by CVAC. (although frankly that is a stupid idea to hold in ones head it has nothing to do with why Novak is dominating Rafa now)

socal1976 wrote:I do find it amusing that the people that are most vocally raising this unfairness argument about CVAC are all Nadal fans. IMBL and Haddie haven't really been vocal

socal1976 wrote:about raising the unfairness argument and IMBL in fact agrees that it isn't big deal and hell he wants to do it himself. But BLB, Temporary, HE, and Lydian all seem to be super concerned about how unfair CVAC is and all are pretty staunch Nadal supporters. Again, I don't think all of them are suffering from HE level cynicism or a desire to smear the conqueror of their hero. But it is interesting that those that have the most fear and concern are all the fans of the guy that supposedly has been most aggrieved by CVAC. (although frankly that is a stupid idea to hold in ones head it has nothing to do with why Novak is dominating Rafa now)

I haven't really been vocal???            I simply  have made no comment on this issue one way or the other.
I do try to keep out of arguments about things such as this as  I know little or nothing about it.. and whatever my bias Nadal fan or not I have adhered to that... BUT having said that much I am  very very skeptical about the use of this equipment and the reasons it has been favoured by your boy Socal.  Nadal has his own fitness issues and CVAC or not had he not have had then I don't think Novak would have had it quite his own way.

Nope, Socal get it wrong. I said it, I wasn't for or against the use of CVAC; I'm just saying we cant compare the use of CVAC to PRP.

This is not the first or the last time Novak is using the CVAC and I said NOTHING about him using it or not, now or in the past ( which I know he has been using it for some time already). I could care less he uses it or not, just dont claim that its the same as using PRP or other procedures to cure or treat injuries.

Novak dominating Rafa? Well that's after Rafa has his own issues in 2015. I didnt see Novak dominating Rafa from 2012 to 2014; in fact its Rafa dominating Novak at the slams during that period. In fact Rafa is 7-5 vs Novak since AO2012 to FO2014, and Novak was already using the CVAC during that period!

If not for Rafa's own issues in 2015, he would still be beating Novak at the slams, IMO.

temporary21 wrote:There seems to be confusion. I'm referring specifically to using it for between match recovery, if cvac helped his breathing trouble that fair. In fact novaks not in the wrong in any case. just personal taste really

I believe hyberbaric chambers are used to help with recovery (breathing in air with a high concentration of oxygen can help with fatigue) but the CVAC makes the body better able to utilize oxygen in the future. Athletes who use the CVAC do so to enhance their future performance rather than help with recovering. Again this has nothing whatsoever to do with treatments for injury.

lydian wrote:I don't mind Cvac (although I'm still concerned it and chambers in general are used as EPO masking devices), just the access to it is patchy and only top 20-30 players can afford to buy one (75-100k). I'm all for widespread ubiquitous use because then...and to quote a fave line from The Incredibles film...once everyone is special...then no-one is.

At the moment no one will even publicly admit to using a CVAC because if they do so according to WADA they will be acting contrary to the spirit of the sport. Whether the athletes using the devices or anyone else "don't mind" them with this tag their use will be secretive because although they have not been banned they have not been approved either. WADA has said that it needs to investigate further (they have been taking their time...) and have admitted that one of the problems if their use was made illegal would be the difficulty in enforcing a ban.

In the future the CVAC could be banned. Another reason why any professional athlete won't admit to their use. In the future they could also be fully endorsed and we would be told that their use doesn't go against the spirit of the sport. In this case WADA could probably wind up their drug testing program because the most effective form of performance enhancement would be not only legal but celebrated. In fact all pro athletes would have little choice but to artificially enhance their performance because as you say they would all have to be special.

Should we ban altitude training?

Should we ban back braces or ankle supports?

hawkeye wrote:At the moment no one will even publicly admit to using a CVAC because if they do so according to WADA they will be acting contrary to the spirit of the sport.

Any evidence for this? Or just supposition?

hawkeye wrote:Whether the athletes using the devices or anyone else "don't mind" them with this tag their use will be secretive because although they have not been banned they have not been approved either.

Incorrect. They are approved - because they have not been banned.

hawkeye wrote:WADA has said that it needs to investigate further (they have been taking their time...) and have admitted that one of the problems if their use was made illegal would be the difficulty in enforcing a ban.

WADA have previously banned things even though no test is available to enforce the ban. But they have not done so with CVAC.

hawkeye wrote:In the future the CVAC could be banned.

So could lots of things.

hawkeye wrote:Another reason why any professional athlete won't admit to their use.

More guesswork.

hawkeye wrote:In the future they could also be fully endorsed and we would be told that their use doesn't go against the spirit of the sport. In this case WADA could probably wind up their drug testing program because the most effective form of performance enhancement would be not only legal but celebrated. In fact all pro athletes would have little choice but to artificially enhance their performance because as you say they would all have to be special.

All athletes already artificially enhance their performance. You do realise that?

My take on this is that it is deemed legal. If the use of CVAC is so beneficial and giving Novak such a huge advantage do you not think everyone would be at it? Look at swimming when the fad was streamlined wet suits. They were proven to be advantageous and everyone wore them at swimming events until they were banned. Swimmers saw the clear adasntage and took it whilst it was there. That being the case why isnt everyone in CVAC's in tennis? Either tennis players dont see the merits in it or they are being incredibly stupid.

CaledonianCraig wrote:My take on this is that it is deemed legal. If the use of CVAC is so beneficial and giving Novak such a huge advantage do you not think everyone would be at it? Look at swimming when the fad was streamlined wet suits. They were proven to be advantageous and everyone wore them at swimming events until they were banned. Swimmers saw the clear adasntage and took it whilst it was there. That being the case why isnt everyone in CVAC's in tennis? Either tennis players dont see the merits in it or they are being incredibly stupid.

I quote Lydian.. this being the case.. there is your answer


lydian wrote:
I don't mind Cvac (although I'm still concerned it and chambers in general are used as EPO masking devices), just the access to it is patchy and only top 20-30 players can afford to buy one (75-100k). I'm all for widespread ubiquitous use because then...and to quote a fave line from The Incredibles film...once everyone is special...then no-one is.

temporary21 wrote:It risks removing the advantage of smoothly going through a slam draw.

Equating playing more sets with not playing as well is a flawed premise.

In the AO14 QFs, was it less of an achievement for Stan to beat Djoko 9-7 in the 5th than it was for Berdych to beat Ferrer in four sets?

Should a player who gets a killer draw and has to battle through every round be at a disadvantage against a player who has had a cakewalk?

Yes but until it is proven Novak is taking drugs it is unfair to presume that he is. We had this same sort of accusation levelled at Rafa for his blood issues and that was also unfair. Until these players are proven to be on drugs it is a case of innocent until proven guilty.

In the end it's the fault of the people who have steered tennis away from a game that rewarded the game John McEnroe played to the one played today. If endurance and running forever had a lesser value we wouldn't be talking about this. I've never heard of an artificial aid that promotes instinctive volleys or incredible virtuosity. I'm all for a balanced game - I really liked Lendl for example - but it's gone too far and the premium on being able to run forever is on a par with the Tour de France, and look where that went.

None of this, like I said much earlier, could play a part in Djokovic beating top players 6-1 in first sets so this isn't a fanboy rant, except in the sense that I don't like seeing tennis where one player has the option to take the game super-long because the environment leaves that open (which is does on a slow night in Australia, for example).

This isn't a call for raw power to win, it's a lament that a tricky player looks better suited to the Mansoor Bahrami show than a Grand Slam.

After you've made the game this way then whether it's legal or illegal is not that important; physical performance is paramount and all sorts of naughty or nearly-naughty things will happen, and the dividing line will be so grey you can spend three pages of forum trying to draw it and getting nowhere.

I think we're on the same page vs. variety in the game...slow & fast surfaces...which places differing demands on a tennis player's skillset. Back in the day we marvelled at Borg being able to outlast most guys at the French and then also use incredible dexterity and speed at Wimbledon. Now every slam & event uses the same baseline driven approach - which clearly benefits every player who has a conditioning edge. Now don't get me wrong, an edge of that nature is arguably as much a talent as hitting a clean winner down the line...Borg is a point in case. Amazing genetics. However, conditioning is a "talent" that can be - and of course has been - enhanced. This edge will always continue to be a key driver when the game relies more on conditioning vis-a-vis ubiquitous slow surfaces that promote ralleying. That's the bottom line here and we know this situation has a double knock-on effect of squeezing out a (large?) portion of the younger talents too.

But back to CVAC/tents/eggs/chambers - hypo and hyper, etc...they're all actually similar in many respects...just that CVAC is meant to be the best of the best. I'll state again, these devices are dodgy and against the spirit of sport in my opinion. Why? Because Lance Armstrong himself stated in his legal deposition that he was encouraged to use hypoxic chambers/tents (same as CVAC...they are hypoxic too) under Dr. Ferrari's recommendations as a MASK for EPO use. He wasn't really interested in the tent, it just allowed him to illicitly micro-use EPO to achieve the boosts he needed given the authorities would be unable to tell whether his boosted EPO levels were natural or unnatural. This is clearly stated as a key reason in how he got away with EPO boosting for years.

http://www.dropshotdispatch.com/2012/10/11/usadas-lance-armstrong-report-suggests-hypoxic-chambers-can-fool-epo-tests/
In the USADA affidavit is the statement: "Ferrari’s explanation was that ‘the altitude tent would boost the natural production of EPO and throw off the EPO test.’"

So Lord knows how many other cyclists and sportspeople have used this masking method given as mentioned that Lance didn't just learn to do this himself...it was a systematic policy adopted through dodgy doctors and scientists who knew how the altitude devices worked and how you could artificially boost EPO whilst using them. So the problem for sports at large is that every top-end athlete who uses these devices will almost CERTAINLY know they can be used as an OPTION to mask EPO use. Therefore, we simply don't know who has done this.

I guess sometimes you can see when something weird is going on by looking at an athletes track record to observe any clear sea-changes in their results which break them from the pack. Just look at Lance, he started using EPO around mid-90s. His results went from WD (withdrew), WD, 36th, WD - then missed a year - to coming 1st 7 times on the bounce! He used the tents to dodge the EPO tests as they got more sophisticated in the 2000s. So whilst I wish that everyone could use the tents/chambers to make it a level playing field again, I actually fear that it will only allow more athletes to abuse them as EPO masking devices. That's my real beef - each and every athlete who uses has the option of artificial boosting their EPO.

bogbrush wrote:In the end it's the fault of the people who have steered tennis away from a game that rewarded the game John McEnroe played to the one played today. If endurance and running forever had a lesser value we wouldn't be talking about this.

I'm beginning to think that the players themselves are most culpable here.

For a long time it was widely-held opinion that modern conditions did not reward coming to the net.

Then Federer re-introduced it to his game and, at the age of 34, has the regular beating of pretty much everyone except Djokovic. Over best-of-three, even Djokovic doesn't have dominance over him.

Then the argument becomes that Federer is a special talent who has the ability to pull it off.

But then Raonic re-tools his game to attack the net and suddenly he looks a much more effective player too.

I believe that if players bothered to learn and develop skills at the net, they would be rewarded.

Equating altitude training to cvac is extremely silly. The key word is training aka it requires work and anyone can do it. Also remember we may lament that tennis isn't still in the 80,s. But it's not the 80's. All sport moves on, tennis has too. There's a feeling of rose tinted glasses in this one.

It's a simple one I guess. Don't let people use egg chambers or cvac during tournaments, which removes the risk...


The point here isn't nadal vs Djokovic fans. Not one person here is blaming novak for taking a legal advantage where he can, he should do because he's a competitive sportsman,

it's whether or not you feel a well conditioned or rested body should be obtainable, PARTICYLARLY MID TOURNAMENT, by sitting in a machine that does it for you.

Injury is a completely and utterly separate issue to that where the body is ACTUALLY DAMAGED beyond regular fatigue. In that case I'm for most treatments to get our best players up and running


I don't know if I can spell out my thoughts better than this, but I feel it's getting misinterpreted all the same. To which end this is my swan  song on the topic

Best of luck gents

temporary21 wrote:

Best of luck gents

"gents"? I started this thread and I'm female. Without checking I believe there are at least two other female posters contributing...

hawkeye wrote:

temporary21 wrote:

Best of luck gents

"gents"? I started this thread and I'm female. Without checking I believe there are at least two other female posters contributing...

: It wouldn't be the first time ive been ignored on 606v2 HE mostly because Im a Nadal fan.. and lets face it we have an axe to grind according to those in defence of this contraption.. But is that me being cynical ????again

Ladies taking over us

Just a general statement tbh I use it like guys. Sorry if you felt I wasn't including you

Might I also warn people not to disrespect people based on gender, there'll be big trouble

temp, sure but everyone should state their gender here, so we fine tune our responses to be gentler to Females

lydian wrote:I don't mind Cvac (although I'm still concerned it and chambers in general are used as EPO masking devices), just the access to it is patchy and only top 20-30 players can afford to buy one (75-100k). I'm all for widespread ubiquitous use because then...and to quote a fave line from The Incredibles film...once everyone is special...then no-one is.

Actually less, it is possible no one could afford to buy one and move it around. I mean to get the use of this device you can't just train with it for one month early in the season and then all the road trips and tournaments not have it. I am a trained lawyer and practiced but have spent the last ten years of my life in construction and manufacturing industries. To move and install this device in 20 different tournaments on the rush in many cases with just a couple days of installation time would cost you in the hundreds of thousands. Would also be a nightmare in customs and pose huge logistical problems. You would require a full time HVAC technician to set up the air and piping. You would require an electrician as well. Plus the device itself would need possibly multiple transformers to change the electricity between the differing voltages in Asia, Europe, North America and god knows where else. Plus you would need a location for a short period of time in each of these cites that could give you the electrical. The electrical work is not complex but most hotels, houses, and normal places don't have an industrial level outlet just handy for you to plug spaceship pod into. Plus express air freight for something like that is just freaking ridiculous at that weight. To ship this thing around and install it the way the ATP player moves around the world would cost maybe ten fold what the actual machine costs. Not to mention the logistical and time nightmare in setting all this up on rush basis in all these different cities. Its doable, but you guys talk about picking this thing up and moving it around like its and IPAD.

I doubt the benefits are such that Berdych or even Djokovic would want to spend a million or more dollars and the time setting up an entire team of logistics and techs to do this move and installation 20 or 15 times a year. I have used it, it helps but it doesn't help anywhere near that much in my opinion.

Haddie-nuff wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I do find it amusing that the people that are most vocally raising this unfairness argument about CVAC are all Nadal fans. IMBL and Haddie haven't really been vocal

socal1976 wrote:about raising the unfairness argument and IMBL in fact agrees that it isn't big deal and hell he wants to do it himself. But BLB, Temporary, HE, and Lydian all seem to be super concerned about how unfair CVAC is and all are pretty staunch Nadal supporters. Again, I don't think all of them are suffering from HE level cynicism or a desire to smear the conqueror of their hero. But it is interesting that those that have the most fear and concern are all the fans of the guy that supposedly has been most aggrieved by CVAC. (although frankly that is a stupid idea to hold in ones head it has nothing to do with why Novak is dominating Rafa now)

I haven't really been vocal???            I simply  have made no comment on this issue one way or the other.
I do try to keep out of arguments about things such as this as  I know little or nothing about it.. and whatever my bias Nadal fan or not I have adhered to that... BUT having said that much I am  very very skeptical about  the use of this equipment and the reasons it has been favoured by your boy Socal.  Nadal has his own fitness issues and CVAC or not had he not have had then I don't think Novak would have had it quite his own way.

Ok I knew if I gave you the bait our dear Haddie you would snap it up. So virtually all the Nadal fans sans the quite reasonable and impartial IMBL see this CVAC as unfair to some extent. Yet, you hear few fans of other players really get that bent about it. Could it be the fact that Novak has so badly dominated Nadal in recent meetings. I mean I have seen Nadal lay some beat downs on Federer but some of Nadal's recent losses to Novak have looked even worse than that.

lydian wrote:I think we're on the same page vs. variety in the game...slow & fast surfaces...which places differing demands on a tennis player's skillset. Back in the day we marvelled at Borg being able to outlast most guys at the French and then also use incredible dexterity and speed at Wimbledon. Now every slam & event uses the same baseline driven approach - which clearly benefits every player who has a conditioning edge. Now don't get me wrong, an edge of that nature is arguably as much a talent as hitting a clean winner down the line...Borg is a point in case. Amazing genetics. However, conditioning is a "talent" that can be - and of course has been - enhanced. This edge will always continue to be a key driver when the game relies more on conditioning vis-a-vis ubiquitous slow surfaces that promote ralleying. That's the bottom line here and we know this situation has a double knock-on effect of squeezing out a (large?) portion of the younger talents too.

But back to CVAC/tents/eggs/chambers - hypo and hyper, etc...they're all actually similar in many respects...just that CVAC is meant to be the best of the best. I'll state again, these devices are dodgy and against the spirit of sport in my opinion. Why? Because Lance Armstrong himself stated in his legal deposition that he was encouraged to use hypoxic chambers/tents (same as CVAC...they are hypoxic too) under Dr. Ferrari's recommendations as a MASK for EPO use. He wasn't really interested in the tent, it just allowed him to illicitly micro-use EPO to achieve the boosts he needed given the authorities would be unable to tell whether his boosted EPO levels were natural or unnatural. This is clearly stated as a key reason in how he got away with EPO boosting for years.

http://www.dropshotdispatch.com/2012/10/11/usadas-lance-armstrong-report-suggests-hypoxic-chambers-can-fool-epo-tests/
In the USADA affidavit is the statement: "Ferrari’s explanation was that ‘the altitude tent would boost the natural production of EPO and throw off the EPO test.’"

So Lord knows how many other cyclists and sportspeople have used this masking method given as mentioned that Lance didn't just learn to do this himself...it was a systematic policy adopted through dodgy doctors and scientists who knew how the altitude devices worked and how you could artificially boost EPO whilst using them. So the problem for sports at large is that every top-end athlete who uses these devices will almost CERTAINLY know they can be used as an OPTION to mask EPO use. Therefore, we simply don't know who has done this.

I guess sometimes you can see when something weird is going on by looking at an athletes track record to observe any clear sea-changes in their results which break them from the pack. Just look at Lance, he started using EPO around mid-90s. His results went from WD (withdrew), WD, 36th, WD - then missed a year - to coming 1st 7 times on the bounce! He used the tents to dodge the EPO tests as they got more sophisticated in the 2000s. So whilst I wish that everyone could use the tents/chambers to make it a level playing field again, I actually fear that it will only allow more athletes to abuse them as EPO masking devices. That's my real beef - each and every athlete who uses has the option of artificial boosting their EPO.

My problem with the masking argument is this. On one hand you guys argue that it is twice as effective as EPO. We know it is legal and chemically less invasive. It is also cheaper than EPO. So if it is this wonder far superior to EPO with all these benefits and legal and untestable no athlete in his right mind would ever EPO and they would use the CVAC. I mean even if the CVAC gave you 85 percent or 90 percent of EPOs effects then based on the hugely less downside of CVAC an EPO user would be an idiot equivalent to the guy who tries to use a shotgun to open a can of beans instead of a can opener. Both will work but one is hugely less risky. Now you guys say its 200 percent more effective, Ill clue you in I tried it and it is pretty damn good. So if that is the case the could be the cure to chemical EPO that is way shadier. Where you deal with people like gym drug dealers and crooked docs. This thing I went to was in a chiropractors office. And the guy had no business, which is odd if it is quite as good as has been made out to be. But I do agree it does have positive results.

HM Murdock wrote:

bogbrush wrote:In the end it's the fault of the people who have steered tennis away from a game that rewarded the game John McEnroe played to the one played today. If endurance and running forever had a lesser value we wouldn't be talking about this.

I'm beginning to think that the players themselves are most culpable here.

For a long time it was widely-held opinion that modern conditions did not reward coming to the net.

Then Federer re-introduced it to his game and, at the age of 34, has the regular beating of pretty much everyone except Djokovic. Over best-of-three, even Djokovic doesn't have dominance over him.

Then the argument becomes that Federer is a special talent who has the ability to pull it off.

But then Raonic re-tools his game to attack the net and suddenly he looks a much more effective player too.

I believe that if players bothered to learn and develop skills at the net, they would be rewarded.

I think it can be used like you so much more. I think Novak as well has really in recent years increased his net approaches. I was also enthused by the fact that in the final against Novak, Murray the guy who almost never comes in was really making an effort to get to the net. And you are correct Raonic has really improved and made it a big part of his game. You can't blame Milos for not being able to volley at lets say in his teens and early on in his career. I mean with a serve and forehand like that you just don't need to hit many volleys at that age against young opposition.

The issue here is that net approaching will become a bigger part of the game and I think Roger has shown that it can be effective against even the best baseliner ever Novak. But we won't see Serve and Volley or chip and charge comeback in any form other than a variation play and change up here and there. Working your way into net on lets say the third, fourth, or fifth ball will become and should become a bigger part of the game going forward.

In a weird way I think this will happen and Novak will deserve a lot of the credit. I think most players have acknowledge that it is hopeless to beat him from the back of the court. I mean when you look at the total package as a baseliner forehand, backhand, movement, ability to hit on the run, consistency, and change of direction for most guys the matchup is a lose lose on all those fronts. So everyone has to look for other ways of skinning the cat like Federer has. Either that or you just have to be a raw power player who on your day just hits the living pssiss out of the ball for a number of sets in a row over and over again.

socal1976 wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I do find it amusing that the people that are most vocally raising this unfairness argument about CVAC are all Nadal fans. IMBL and Haddie haven't really been vocal

socal1976 wrote:about raising the unfairness argument and IMBL in fact agrees that it isn't big deal and hell he wants to do it himself. But BLB, Temporary, HE, and Lydian all seem to be super concerned about how unfair CVAC is and all are pretty staunch Nadal supporters. Again, I don't think all of them are suffering from HE level cynicism or a desire to smear the conqueror of their hero. But it is interesting that those that have the most fear and concern are all the fans of the guy that supposedly has been most aggrieved by CVAC. (although frankly that is a stupid idea to hold in ones head it has nothing to do with why Novak is dominating Rafa now)

I haven't really been vocal???            I simply  have made no comment on this issue one way or the other.
I do try to keep out of arguments about things such as this as  I know little or nothing about it.. and whatever my bias Nadal fan or not I have adhered to that... BUT having said that much I am  very very skeptical about  the use of this equipment and the reasons it has been favoured by your boy Socal.  Nadal has his own fitness issues and CVAC or not had he not have had then I don't think Novak would have had it quite his own way.

Ok I knew if I gave you the bait our dear Haddie you would snap it up. So virtually all the Nadal fans sans the quite reasonable and impartial IMBL see this CVAC as unfair to some extent. Yet, you hear few fans of other players really get that bent about it. Could it be the fact that Novak has so badly dominated Nadal in recent meetings. I mean I have seen Nadal lay some beat downs on Federer but some of Nadal's recent losses to Novak have looked even worse than that.

Do you know what socal once upon a time I used to believe you were a reasonable, level headed poster on this forum.
But the more success Novak gets the more you bask in reflected glory and massage your own ego.. you are becoming quite sickening and I hope that you will be able to suck up the criticism that you will UNDOUBTEDLY Get when you and he fall off that pedestal you have put yourself on...make hay whilst the sunshine you are becoming quite a joke
YOU  my friend protests too much me thinks why are you going to such great lengths to defend you boy .. IF you genuinely believe there is no truth in the accusations/insinuations  that have been raised.??...

Haddie-nuff wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:

socal1976 wrote:I do find it amusing that the people that are most vocally raising this unfairness argument about CVAC are all Nadal fans. IMBL and Haddie haven't really been vocal

socal1976 wrote:about raising the unfairness argument and IMBL in fact agrees that it isn't big deal and hell he wants to do it himself. But BLB, Temporary, HE, and Lydian all seem to be super concerned about how unfair CVAC is and all are pretty staunch Nadal supporters. Again, I don't think all of them are suffering from HE level cynicism or a desire to smear the conqueror of their hero. But it is interesting that those that have the most fear and concern are all the fans of the guy that supposedly has been most aggrieved by CVAC. (although frankly that is a stupid idea to hold in ones head it has nothing to do with why Novak is dominating Rafa now)

I haven't really been vocal???            I simply  have made no comment on this issue one way or the other.
I do try to keep out of arguments about things such as this as  I know little or nothing about it.. and whatever my bias Nadal fan or not I have adhered to that... BUT having said that much I am  very very skeptical about  the use of this equipment and the reasons it has been favoured by your boy Socal.  Nadal has his own fitness issues and CVAC or not had he not have had then I don't think Novak would have had it quite his own way.

Ok I knew if I gave you the bait our dear Haddie you would snap it up. So virtually all the Nadal fans sans the quite reasonable and impartial IMBL see this CVAC as unfair to some extent. Yet, you hear few fans of other players really get that bent about it. Could it be the fact that Novak has so badly dominated Nadal in recent meetings. I mean I have seen Nadal lay some beat downs on Federer but some of Nadal's recent losses to Novak have looked even worse than that.

Do you know what socal once upon a time I used to believe you were a reasonable, level headed poster on this forum.
But the more success Novak gets the more you bask in reflected glory and massage your own ego.. you are becoming quite sickening and I hope that you will be able to suck up the criticism that you will UNDOUBTEDLY Get when you and he fall off that pedestal you have put yourself on...make hay whilst the sunshine you are becoming quite a joke
YOU  my friend protests too much me thinks why are you going to such great lengths to defend you boy .. IF you genuinely believe there is no truth in the accusations/insinuations  that have been raised.??...

I don't know why you are getting upset frankly, I was just joking around with you. By the way you used to think I was a reasonable poster. Like when I defended Nadal against Veejay and Tenez, I bet then I was a reasonable poster right? Now that I do the same thing for Novak all of sudden I am unreasonable. I would put forward that I have been consistent and reasonable in both occasions because I felt both players were wrongly being persecuted. What Novak is being accused of isn't even illegal so I really don't have to defend him at all. It is you Haddie who are being inconsistent when it favors you and your favorite.

O do grow up socal pleeze .. your defence of Novak would be reasonable if you did not spread it on with a trowel.. it is really quite  
You sound like a love sick school boy
So.. he is the top of the pile, the greatest thing since cut bread, everyone on here recognises he is the No.1. and AT THE MOMENT
untouchable, untoppable....unstoppable and is walking on water..
But it isn't all about what he is doing right, its  about what others.. including Nadal are  doing wrong.

socal1976 wrote:

lydian wrote:I think we're on the same page vs. variety in the game...slow & fast surfaces...which places differing demands on a tennis player's skillset. Back in the day we marvelled at Borg being able to outlast most guys at the French and then also use incredible dexterity and speed at Wimbledon. Now every slam & event uses the same baseline driven approach - which clearly benefits every player who has a conditioning edge. Now don't get me wrong, an edge of that nature is arguably as much a talent as hitting a clean winner down the line...Borg is a point in case. Amazing genetics. However, conditioning is a "talent" that can be - and of course has been - enhanced. This edge will always continue to be a key driver when the game relies more on conditioning vis-a-vis ubiquitous slow surfaces that promote ralleying. That's the bottom line here and we know this situation has a double knock-on effect of squeezing out a (large?) portion of the younger talents too.

But back to CVAC/tents/eggs/chambers - hypo and hyper, etc...they're all actually similar in many respects...just that CVAC is meant to be the best of the best. I'll state again, these devices are dodgy and against the spirit of sport in my opinion. Why? Because Lance Armstrong himself stated in his legal deposition that he was encouraged to use hypoxic chambers/tents (same as CVAC...they are hypoxic too) under Dr. Ferrari's recommendations as a MASK for EPO use. He wasn't really interested in the tent, it just allowed him to illicitly micro-use EPO to achieve the boosts he needed given the authorities would be unable to tell whether his boosted EPO levels were natural or unnatural. This is clearly stated as a key reason in how he got away with EPO boosting for years.

http://www.dropshotdispatch.com/2012/10/11/usadas-lance-armstrong-report-suggests-hypoxic-chambers-can-fool-epo-tests/
In the USADA affidavit is the statement: "Ferrari’s explanation was that ‘the altitude tent would boost the natural production of EPO and throw off the EPO test.’"

So Lord knows how many other cyclists and sportspeople have used this masking method given as mentioned that Lance didn't just learn to do this himself...it was a systematic policy adopted through dodgy doctors and scientists who knew how the altitude devices worked and how you could artificially boost EPO whilst using them. So the problem for sports at large is that every top-end athlete who uses these devices will almost CERTAINLY know they can be used as an OPTION to mask EPO use. Therefore, we simply don't know who has done this.

I guess sometimes you can see when something weird is going on by looking at an athletes track record to observe any clear sea-changes in their results which break them from the pack. Just look at Lance, he started using EPO around mid-90s. His results went from WD (withdrew), WD, 36th, WD - then missed a year - to coming 1st 7 times on the bounce! He used the tents to dodge the EPO tests as they got more sophisticated in the 2000s. So whilst I wish that everyone could use the tents/chambers to make it a level playing field again, I actually fear that it will only allow more athletes to abuse them as EPO masking devices. That's my real beef - each and every athlete who uses has the option of artificial boosting their EPO.

My problem with the masking argument is this. On one hand you guys argue that it is twice as effective as EPO. We know it is legal and chemically less invasive. It is also cheaper than EPO. So if it is this wonder far superior to EPO with all these benefits and legal and untestable no athlete in his right mind would ever EPO and they would use the CVAC. I mean even if the CVAC gave you 85 percent or 90 percent of EPOs effects then based on the hugely less downside of CVAC an EPO user would be an idiot equivalent to the guy who tries to use a shotgun to open a can of beans instead of a can opener. Both will work but one is hugely less risky. Now you guys say its 200 percent more effective, Ill clue you in I tried it and it is pretty damn good. So if that is the case the could be the cure to chemical EPO that is way shadier. Where you deal with people like gym drug dealers and crooked docs. This thing I went to was in a chiropractors office. And the guy had no business, which is odd if it is quite as good as has been made out to be. But I do agree it does have positive results.

This whole post is based on a false premise. CVAC may be effective...100%...200%...vs EPO who knows...but given Armstrong slept in one EVERY night - not for 30 mins per day like the CVAC...then I'm judging the addition of EPO on TOP of the hypoxic tent/benefit means that the artificial intake can seriously boost the amount of EPO created by the chambers. it must have been significant or Armstrong wouldn't have bothered. Likewise with CVAC I'm betting an athlete could still inject a lot of EPO on top and get a massive accumulative benefit. It's not mutually exclusive that they do the tent/chamber/egg and nothing else.

You also mention they can't carry a CVAC around with them...of course not. But do we know what they're doing now...would Djokovic or anyone else admit to sleeping in an hypoxic tent every night or even very regularly if not every night? Of course they wouldn't after all this stuff from Armstrong came out. We simply don't know, and we don't know who uses the tents as a mask for further, and much higher injections of EPO...but you can bet someone will be doing so.

Finally, this isn't about Nadal fans vs. Djokovic fans...I was pushing this angle 2-3 years ago when Djokovic was nowhere near Nadal's slam count. There have been loads of discussions about PEDs and other unfair performance advantages but this device to me is as clear as day a bad thing for sport because of the masking option. After all, and again, even though Armstrong slept in a hypoxic tent every night (as did Phelps pre OG2012 for 12 months...!) why did he also juice on artificial EPO if the nightly tent was enough? The answer is obviously because it wasn't.

That's a good point.

Emulating Armstrong isn't something too many will boast about.

Lydian I get where you are coming from; but I do feel this is slightly unfair against Djokovic.
It is speculation, we can't really prove or disprove whether Djokovic used CVAC alongside a banned substance, or just by itself.
As tennis requires less stamina than long distance cycling, you could logically argue that Djokovic may be perfectly legally be using CVAC regularly and that could be enough to boost his stamina to a high enough level for tennis.

I think it would be fairer to Djokovic if this discussion was based on possible decision ITF could take on this, rather than on what players might or might not be doing alongside this.