|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9200 total) |
| |
Allysum Global | |
Total: 919,278 Year: 6,535/9,624 Month: 113/270 Week: 26/83 Day: 0/12 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Meldonium Mess | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22903 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
NoNukes writes: Here are my reservations... Is it actually supplements that are banned or is it specific chemical substances? WADA's chosen term is "substances." It's substances that are banned. And methods.
Is there any substance, that someone might not put into a supplement? How can there be an approved list if there is no oversight over production? I can't answer these specific questions, but I can say that in the US dietary supplements do not require FDA approval, and that the companies themselves are responsible for compliance with all FDA and other federal regulations. Drugs do require FDA review and approval, but the companies do all the research and testing.
The composition of any of this stuff could change in an instant, with the only impact being that you can point your finger at the authority if they are involved. Under the current circumstance, an approved list simply cannot work. Seems that way.
But either plan, yours or mine, would likely cost some money if the plan was to be anything other than blame shifting. I wonder whose money would be involved? I don't know where the money would come from, but it makes sense that a more fair process would require much more money. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22903 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
In today's New York Times:
The action was taken by the IAAF (International Association of Athletics Federations). Russian track and field athletes have been barred from all international competition for the past seven months, even those who have never failed a test. The association argues that Russian efforts at concealing drug use mean that clean test results have no value. This violates any presumption of innocence and is more evidence that world sports governing bodies need to be reigned in. The decision will be reviewed next week by the International Olympic Committee. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22903 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
I missed the signficance of a short paragraph in the NYT article, but ESPN described it in better detail (IAAF stands firm, but plenty of obstacles ahead). There's an appeal process:
quote: That there's an appeal process is an improvement over my initial impression, but even in that all the burden has been placed on the athlete. In an upside down system, athletes must prove they had submitted to valid drug testing or were out of the country (when and for how long is undefined). Russia's state-run cheating scheme deserves the strongest sanctions, but that doesn't nullify the presumption of innocence for individuals. Appeals will be to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (the same court Maria Sharapova is appealing to), which will be flooded soon. Eventually I see lawsuits. The IAAF has had its own problems, including possible complicity in Russian cheating. They might view the harsh decision as a defense against further suspicion of misbehavior, but regardless have discredited and disqualified themselves. They shouldn't be passing judgment on anyone or anything. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22903 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
Well, that was fast. Today the IOC (International Olympic Committee) backed the IAAF decision to ban the Russian track and field team from the Rio games, as reported in the New York Times.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22903 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
NoNukes writes: Generally speaking, all testing programs are sampling programs that are proxies for an exhaustive, impractical, intrusive, and nigh impossible monitoring of what an athlete does. Granted "exhaustive" testing isn't practical, but as to "intrusive," testing procedures have already reached that point. It varies from sport to sport, but generally the top so many athletes in a given sport or event are subject to both out-of-competition and in-competition testing. For out-of-competition testing they're required to provide their address and a 60-minute window for each day for where they'll be for the coming quarter. They have to file every quarter. Let's say an athlete said they be at the Smith High School track doing wind sprints every day at 10 AM, but that one week it's closed for repairs and the athlete switches to the Jones High School track, or they pull up with a sore muscle and cut the workout short, or an injury causes the track work to be dropped temporarily. If the drug tester arrives for the test and the athlete isn't there then the test could be considered positive with a 2-year ban.
Testing programs are not 100% with respect to catching folks for many reasons, one of which is that for some substances, improvements can be gained even if the substances/practices are not detectable during competition. That's why there is both in-competition and out-of-competition testing.
Sampling programs are effective only when we can assume that folks by and large are complying with the rules. Such assumptions cannot be maintained after it is shown that most athletes are cheating. If by cheating you mean an athlete taking banned substances or using banned methods, then it's the opposite. The more athletes cheating the more will be caught. But if by cheating you mean things like the Russian state-sponsored testing nullification effort, then yes, that can result in fewer athletes caught cheating while the true numbers are rising.
But no matter who is to blame, it is ultimately unfair for the cheaters to compete against non-cheaters. And it is also unfair to punish those who did nothing. How do we balance these opposing goals? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22903 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
NoNukes writes: You say "could be considered positive". What is sufficient reason for the test to not be considered positive? If it is simply the athlete explaining what happened, then the issue is what? Any vagueness is consistent with what I was able to find on-line. For example, check out this USA Track and Field FAQ:
quote: Other answers in this FAQ are disturbing:
quote: I had to smile at this:
As the defect rate increases, the sampling rate must also increase if the goal is to ship a constant level of defect free product. In my industry we used to call this "testing quality in," as opposed to designing and implementing it in. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22903 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
NoNukes writes: I think a key word here is "unexcused". Probably for an athlete without a reputation for ducking scheduled drug tests, a reasonable explanation excusing his absence is probably going to be sufficient. Yes, reasonable explanations have been so effective for athletes.
On the other hand, is an injury really a great excuse for missing a pre-scheduled drug test? That wasn't about a "pre-scheduled drug test." I explained the scenario:
Percy in Message 43 writes: For out-of-competition testing they're required to provide their address and a 60-minute window for each day for where they'll be for the coming quarter. They have to file every quarter. I also mentioned the "daily 60-minute window" in one of the excerpts I provided. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22903 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
NoNukes writes: Percy writes:
We are talking about a test during a scheduled time period, and supposedly an injury or some other understandable reason prevented attendance. You appear to be speculating that an athlete being somewhere else, maybe due to injury provides some risk, and your later suggest that it is not reasonable that the athletes excuse would be accepted. That wasn't about a "pre-scheduled drug test." I explained the scenario: No one would think your phrase "pre-scheduled drug test" refers to the 60-minute daily window. World-class athletes must submit this information each quarter for each and every day of that quarter for the purpose of establishing their availability for out-of-competition tests. Athletes rightfully complain that this is an undue and unfair burden. I was trying to make this more clear by describing how easily and unintentionally an athlete might miss a 60-minute window.
Are you aware of instances where an injured athlete missed a test because he got hurt and some testing agency then sanctioned the athlete? My example was a hypothetical trying to make the problem more clear to you. But are you arguing that because the level of detail of my knowledge can go only so far that therefore it doesn't happen? Do you think that composing unanswerable detailed questions is an argument?
How would you run a drug testing program so that it 1) does not burden athletes "excessively" and so that 2) the program details are not merely a blueprint for how to evade testing? You've already asked this question and the answer hasn't changed. This is a very difficult problem with no easy solutions, but just saying, "Let's put all the burden on the athletes," is not a fair answer. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22903 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
NoNukes writes: I stated the obvious or something which should have been obvious; namely that whether or not that policy was problematic depended on whether excuses were difficult to come by. Given the refusal of WADA and national sports federations to accept any excuse for a failed test, the same strict approach would be expected for 60-minute window failures, would it not? You have no grounds for thinking they're pussycats when it comes to missed tests. I'll investigate for you anyway. The details of the rules regarding the 60-minute window can be found here: WADA Announces Significant Changes to Code. It says that 3 Whereabouts Failures (failure to file paperwork or missing the 60-minute window) in 18 months is "subject to one of more of the following: disqualification, ineligibility, or a provisional suspension." And here's a list of Sanctions from the USADA going back to 2001. All the Whereabouts Failures are after 2010 because the rules only began in 2008. Some names are familiar (Lance Armstrong), most are not. Naturally this list includes only US athletes. Each country would have their own list. On this US list there are 16 athletes with Whereabouts Failures resulting in suspensions for 1 to 2 years, and 5 athletes with Missed Tests resulting in either ineligibility (1) or suspension (4). This means that it is not easy to find acceptable excuses for Whereabouts Failures and Missed 60-minute windows. So you're wrong again. If next you ask how many athletes successfully provided excuses then I will grant your ability to ask questions for which no publicly available data exists. You could look this stuff up yourself before going off on flights of fancy. In both the Deflategate thread and this one, you're getting all your information from me, but you could find this information yourself, or in many cases just read the links I provide. This isn't discussion. This is like facing a wannabe courtroom lawyer who is asking as many insinuating questions as possible and hoping something sticks. You don't have an actual position, just a hope to find things wrong. The burdens placed on the athletes by WADA look substantial and unfair to me. Many athletes think so, too. I've detailed a number of the reasons. If you disagree then you need your own positive reasons, not just expressions of accusatory skepticism. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22903 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
Sharapova's two year drug suspension has been reduced to 15 months upon appeal. The Court of Arbitration for Sport's 28-page decision said that Sharapova was at "no significant fault" and that "...under no circumstances ... can the player be considered to be an 'intentional' doper." Sharapova can return to tournament play in April of next year.
In other news, defensive lineman Rob Ninkovich returned to the New England Patriots today after serving his 4-week PED (Performance Enhancing Drug) suspension. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22903 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
I mentioned Ninkovich because of the disparity in the length of suspensions for drug use.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22903 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
It shouldn't pass without notice that Sharapova returned to tournament play a couple weeks ago at Stuttgart where she reached the semifinals. She's playing at the Italian Open in Rome this week. She's submitted applications for wild-card entries into the French Open and Wimbledon while she rebuilds her ranking. Without wild-card entries she will have to go through qualifying.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22903 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
Interesting. Since the Court of Arbitration for Sport is the ultimate authority, I'm not sure they can do that. There may be work for lawyers here, but I'm not sure. The Grand Slams have a great deal of autonomy when it comes to deciding about wildcard entries, even to qualifying.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22903 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.8
|
Here's a good article summarizing the issues brought about by the French refusal to offer Sharapova a wildcard based upon their own interpretation of how her drug appeal should be handled: Shutting Sharapova out of the French Open could create future headaches
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22903 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
During the 2022 U.S. Open Simona Halep, a Romanian tennis star, a former French Open and Wimbledon champion and a former world #1, tested positive for a banned substance, roxadustat. She hasn't played since. The ruling body of tennis still hasn't ruled on her appeal where she argued that the substance was in a contaminated supplement, one which is approved. The ITIA (International Teniis Integrity Agency) has since added a second doping charge, one which sounds so bizarre and complex that I'll just quote from the ITIA press release:
ITIA: Whether Halep is guilty or not should not take 10 months to figure out. Athletic careers are short. This echos what happened to Sharapova, another older athlete and the original subject of this thread who attempted a comeback after her lengthy doping ban, but at her age it was too much and she retired. Halep is 31 and was ranked #7 in the world when she was hit with the doping ban. The 10 month delay in reaching a ruling is both typical and inexcusable. I hope it's also open to civil suits, because this degree of ineptness deserves to be sued. Justice delayed is justice denied. Roxadustat is used to treat anemia in patients with renal failure. It has an athletic side-effect of stimulating the production of red blood cells. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024