|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 45 (9208 total) |
| |
anil dahar | |
Total: 919,513 Year: 6,770/9,624 Month: 110/238 Week: 27/83 Day: 3/3 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Meldonium Mess | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22954 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1
|
Mario Sharapova this week announced that she had tested positive for the banned drug meldonium, dubbed a performance enhancer by the World Anti-Doping Agency as of January 1st. Originally prescribed meldonium years ago by her family doctor, Sharapova failed to check the list at the beginning of this year and tested positive during the Australian Open in January. The 28-year old will likely be banned for at least two years, effectively ending her career as a tennis star of the top rank. Many of her major sponsors have already ceased or suspended their relationship with her, Nike and Porsche among them.
But Maria is not alone. More Than 60 Athletes Have Tested Positive for Meldonium, reports the New York Times. This calls attention to a flawed process. When a drug is first added to the list of banned substances there should be a grace period. During the first year, or perhaps some portion of the first year, the first positive test should draw only a warning, after which the normal penalties would take effect. Other affected stars:
I will miss watching Sharapova on the court. She is a fierce and tenacious competitor, winning each of the four Grand Slams at least once. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22954 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
Just responding kind of generally, I never said anything hinting that I believed Maria didn't receive adequate warning or that she wasn't responsible. She received an email on December 22nd, it contained a link she could have clicked, and she didn't. About other notices it's been claimed she received, Maria responds here.
I do think suspensions of two years or more for a first time drug test failure are draconian. Suspensions should be divided into two parts: a punishment proportional to the seriousness of the offense, and an additional period to allow for the advantageous effects of the drug to wear off. Some drugs like steroids add muscle that last a long time, while amphetamines are out of the system in a day or two. Sometimes the suspensions make no sense. A few years ago a tennis player was suspended for taking a substance provided by an ATP doctor (ATP is the Association of Tennis Professionals), the explanation being that the player is responsible for what he takes into his body. Another time a player took a cold medication whose list of ingredients was wrong, a fact that wasn't in question, and was suspended anyway. It often seems that there are too many long drug test suspensions. Every so often I see a good player on TV that I hadn't seen in a while and had forgotten about, and the explanation is often that they had served a long drug suspension. Athletes are human, they make mistakes, and they should pay for those mistakes, but not with substantial portions of their already short careers unless the abuses are truly persistent. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22954 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
Today's New York Times reports that a Wave of Positive Tests for Meldonium Adds to Doping Crisis:
quote: But the numbers aren't unprecedented:
quote: The article describes many details of the drug evalutation and banning process, including assessments of how widespread use was:
quote: WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) relies upon the help of partners like "national antidoping agencies and international sports federations" to notify atheletes, but most reasonable people would conclude that over a 100 drug test failures in less than 2½ months suggest lack of effective notification. WADA already has a position on this possibility:
quote: But notice that he's describing the great care taken to notify WADA's *stakeholders*, not athletes. After they notify stakeholders the notification task is out of their hands. For example:
quote: Here's hoping that at a minimum the sheer number of test failures influences sanctioning bodies to avoid extreme penalties. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22954 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
Recent sentiment has turned strongly against Sharapova. While support within her home country of Russian remains strong, Scot Andy Murray, currently #3 in the world in the men's game, has strongly criticized her and expressed his hope that she be banned quickly. John McEnroe, a former world #1, has expressed skepticism about her explanations. Other lesser players on both the women's and men's side have also been strongly critical, the strongest words coming from Frenchwoman Kristina Mladenovic (#29), and not even about tennis: "She wasn't really liked. I respected her for her career, but she wasn't really nice nor polite. Let's be honest." Ouch!
Coverage in the tennis media is tending toward the view that her explanations are more excuses than anything else, and the United Nations has suspended her status as a goodwill ambassador. I've learned a little bit more about the process. Sharapova is provisionally suspended pending a hearing. There's an arbitration panel (not sure how it reaches that point) that can classify the test failure as: significant (16-24 months), normal (8-16 months) or lite (0-8 months). There must be other details to the process, but I haven't come across them yet. In the meantime Sharapova is lawyering up and has added "renowned lawyer Aaron Fleischer" (as described by Mary Carillo on the Tennis Channel, but a Google search turned up nothing - spelling?) to her legal team already led by John Haggerty. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22954 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
Maria Sharapova's hearing before the International Tennis Federation's Tennis Integrity Unit (TIU) is scheduled next week in London on Wednesday, May 18th. The TIU is same group that recently investigated reports of illegal betting on tennis matches. Rulings could be made public in as little as two weeks. Story: Sharapova Hearing on Meldonium Use Scheduled for Next Week
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22954 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
"Maria Sharapova’s Tennis Suspension Is for Two Years," announces the headline in today's New York Times. She is eligible to return on January 25, 2018. Sharapova says she will appeal the suspension to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
A two year suspension for a first time offense that was inadvertent and that involves more than 300 other athletes is absurdly harsh. Sharapova is 29, so unless she wins her appeal, and quickly, her career as an elite tennis player is effectively over. Interesting how tennis works - you're suspended while you appeal. Some players have successfully challenged drug testing failures, but they can never recover the lost earnings or tournament points. Marin Cilic, the 2014 U.S. Open champion, was suspended for 12 months by the ITF in 2013, later reduced to 4 months by the CAS after he had already served almost 6 months. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22954 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
NoNukes writes: One possible conclusion is that these folks have been using the drug as a performance enhancing substances for years. Meldonium is believed to improve blood flow to the organs of the body, particularly the heart, and thereby increase athletic performance, so yes, it can be safely assumed that that's why most were taking it.
Sharapova is not in a similar position to Cilic, as she is not challenging the test failure, nor is she denying all responsibility. Does it make sense to delay a suspension if what you are arguing about is the length of the suspension? Maybe not. That paragraph wasn't comparing Sharapova's case to Cilic's. It was about the unfairness of suspending first and going through the appeal process later. Cilic was noted because upon appeal his suspension was shortened to less time than already served.
In my opinion, a two year suspension sounds harsh even for a deliberate offense. Yes. The average tennis career is probably around 10 years, so 2-year suspensions are 20% of the average career. Sharapova is already wealthy, but what if you're a Victor Troicki, in 2013 suspended for 18 months, reduced upon appeal to 12 months. His $6 million in lifetime prize money might seem like a lot, but at 30 he's nearing the end of his careeer, and a huge portion of any tour player's winnings are eaten up by coaches, trainers, practice partners, hangers-on, travel, hotels, etc. Tennis players aren't like athletes in baseball, basketball and football where all those expenses are picked up by the team - in tennis each player pays those expenses out of their own pocket, with sports management companies handling all the details and, of course, taking a cut. The top players get lucrative promotion contracts with sports companies, but this benefit doesn't penetrate very far down the ranking chart. Almost all professional tennis players through the top few hundred are sponsored with respect to equipment like rackets, strings, shoes and often clothing, but it can be very tough financially on the tour for lower ranked players, though it is a great advantage to be number 80 in the world from a small country because you'll be famous and beloved and showered with economic opportunities at home. Being number 80 from the US won't buy you a cup a coffee. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22954 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
kjsimons writes: The aim should be to stop the athletes from using them not see how many can be tripped up and suspended at least IMHO. Right. I think the international agency responsible for drug testing in sport (WADA - World Anti-Doping Agency) has lost sight of the important goal. When hundreds of athletes fail drug tests within a month or two then the problem is clearly process. Hundreds of athletes didn't suddenly get careless and stupid, especially in an Olympic year. WADA defends its procedures. A policing agency with the power to take away careers needs oversight. WADA has a ramshackle notification process for drugs newly added to the list that involves throwing the information over the wall to more than a hundred national sports agencies who are responsible for translation (including the drug names) and notifying their athletes. With such draconian punishments involved, WADA should be required to prove, not just assume, their notification process effective. There are online signature processes available (DotLoop is one), and probably other approaches exist. WADA and the national sports agencies need ways of insuring that unread attachments don't just fall through the cracks. Another issue not mentioned yet is that WADA failed to consider that it might take meldonium some time to clear from an athlete's system. Evidence is gathering that the time period is not short. Many athletes who failed for meldonium are claiming they stopped taking it before the end of 2015. WADA amended the guidelines for meldonium in April to a higher level for tests before March 1, but they're obviously winging it because conclusive research data doesn't yet exist. Considering what's at stake, the meldonium mess demonstrates that WADA has a great deal of power but isn't taking much responsibility for how well it wields that power and isn't being held accountable. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22954 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
NoNukes writes: I'm not convinced that a fair way of policing performance enhancing drugs exists. The reason is that it seems to be accepted that it is okay take performance enhancing drugs until the specific concoction becomes illegal. If this implies that you don't believe the existing prohibited list creates the bigger problems then I agree. About the view that there's an athletic culture that misguidedly believes performance enhancing drugs are okay until banned, I think it's a complicated issue. The athletes themselves are a diverse group and don't have uniform opinions about PEDs. And the WADA list is of "substances and methods," not just drugs. The availability of a substance can vary widely internationally, legal in some countries and not others. And the classification of a legal substance can also vary widely internationally, from hospital use only to prescription use only to over-the-counter. Avoiding substances that have been on the list for years seems easy, but some of these substances are included in over-the-counter medications, the label may use an unfamiliar name for the substance, and in some cases the substance isn't even on the label. This seems a knotty problem that should involve better rules and more discretion (for example, a first-offense failure for an over-the-counter substance that now results in a suspension could instead yield a warning with more intensive testing for a year), but instead full responsibility is placed on the athlete. There are also problems with banned prescription PEDs that have legitimate purposes. WADA already allows for exceptions for some drugs with legitimate uses, like insulin and salmeterol (asthma), and athletes can obtain a TUE (Therapeutic Use Exception) for them. But another name for salmeterol is serevent, and serevent isn't on the list. And that's just in English. Imagine you're a poor asthmatic Laotian athlete who only speaks Lao. Good luck. Another problem is PEDs with legitimate purposes that aren't well understood yet. WADA bans all oral beta-blockers with no exceptions, but there is gathering evidence that beta-blockers can be very helpful with a genetic condition called hypertrophic cardiomyopathy that can result in diastolic dysfunction. This thickening of the ventricle walls affects about 1 in 500 people. Athletes with this condition experience it as exercise intolerance (dyspnea - the thickened ventricle walls do not allow a sufficient amount of blood to be pumped on each beat). Should treatment for a genetic condition like hypertrophic cardiomyopathy be allowed just like treatment for the genetic (or at least congenital) condition of type I diabetes is allowed? Jay Cutler, quarterback for the Chicago Bears, is the diabetic athlete who comes to mind. I'm trying to think of a world-class athlete with exercise intolerance issues, and the only one I can think of is Rocco Baldelli. He was a Tampa Bay and Red Sox outfielder whose exercise intolerance issues were actually diagnosed as mitochondrial channelopathy, and it ended his career early at age 29. But although he didn't have hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, his is a good example of the damaging effects of exercise intolerance on an athlete's career, and this was in a sport that is not aerobically demanding. Athletes with exercise intolerance issues don't normally rise above the "casual athlete" level, but they could if the condition were diagnosed and treated early. What if Rocco Baldelli had had early-diagnosed hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and been in a sport covered by WADA?
As a result athletes and sporting authorities are involved in an arms race in which the sporting authorities are always chasing the science. Yes, but they should be "chasing the science" in both directions. There's the need to continually identify new performance enhancing substances and methods, but also to identify legitimate needs for them.
They most important reason for legitimate reason for limiting drug use in sports, in my opinion, is the trickle down effect to young users entering the sport who may feel compelled to take short cuts that will physically damage them. Yes. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22954 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
I'm missing your meaning here to the extent that I cannot tell what it is we are agreeing on. Is the list a problem or not? It sounded like we agreed that items newly added to the banned list have the potential to cause more problems than items already on the list.
With respect to meldonium, I suspect that there are very few players who can justify a legitimate medical use. But there is no good evidence linking meldonium to athletic performance. All the cited literature in the Wikipedia article is laboratory studies, which are not a reliable indicator of actual effects in the body. A PubMed search revealed only a single Russian paper whose abstract reads more like an advertisement. Could the meldonium "craze" be the result of encouragement of athletes and labs by Eastern European meldonium manufacturers looking to increase sales when it actually does nothing, finally to the point that it caught WADA's unfortunate attention?
If we are not talking about notice, then whose fault is it other than the athletes? There are no hard answers to that question. The reality is that it is complex with distributed responsibility. However we got to this point, the current situation that places ultimate responsibility on the athlete and gives them all the blame and punishment denies this reality. The urgency regarding drug testing began years before with concerns about drugs like certain steroids that have obvious short term beneficial and long term negative effects, but today we find ourselves with a bewilderingly long list of substances with a multiplicity of names and (I'll wager) often with undemonstrated short or long term effects.
And what is the effect on folks that have competed, and must continue to compete with those folk if in many cases, we cannot even say when the effects will diminish? We also cannot often say with certainty what the athletic effects are, if any.
I think WADA is likely guilty of exactly the kinds of excesses you cite. But I don't think it is because they are power hungry mad men. I don't either. I think they've jumped at the easy and obvious answer to a complex question.
I have a ball handling deficiency that does not allow me to dribble a basketball with the proficiency of say Steve Nash, or Stephen Curry and I have never been motivated enough to even try to improve. I have always believed that to be a problem that prevented me from playing basketball at the Div I level. Not everybody can be a professional athlete. Maybe there is no answer for folks like Baldelli. I could live with that. Outside of any actual competition world class athletes can already be said to have won the genetic lottery. To what extent must those of us lesser winners in that lottery (as you and I must be classed) be their victims? (And the question can be repeated down the ladder of decreasing inherent athletic gifts.) Near and farsightedness can have congenital and genetic origins. Novak Djokovic, tennis's current male #1, wears contacts. Where do we draw the line at overcoming shortcomings that have congenital or genetic origins? Do we draw it at mechanical interventions like contacts and eyeglasses (or maybe running blades) while disallowing chemical solutions? What is the argument for drawing that distinction, especially when there are already exceptions? If a ball handling deficiency drug were developed, by what argument would its sufferers be denied the right to compete at the top levels but not the sufferer of type I diabetes. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22954 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
NoNukes writes: There are no hard answers to that question. The reality is that it is complex with distributed responsibility. Distributed among whom? I didn't mean that responsibility should be spread among the athlete, their management group and their entourage. I meant that sports ruling bodies also have a responsibility to create sane, consistent and reliable processes that can be followed with reasonable effort. I alluded to one possible improvement in this area in my prior post when I mentioned better rules and discretion for inadvertent violations involving over-the-counter medications.
To what extent must those of us lesser winners in that lottery (as you and I must be classed) be their victims? Victims? Perhaps we have a fundamental difference about how we see things. I'm not saying that your view is invalid, but I don't see not being a world class athlete as being victimized or cheated in some way. I don't either. My choice of the word "victim" was only in the sense of losing or getting used, as in facing competitors who have worked no harder and and want it no more, but who fared better in the genetic lottery and so end up schooling you.
We may disagree on where the line is to be drawn, but we agree in principle that there should be a line. Yes, agreed, and the rest of your paragraph that I didn't quote poses some good questions, but I don't think it's important and probably not possible anyway that we reach agreement on where that line should be drawn. What I do think important is that sports governing bodies have rational and fair policies and procedures, and that they have research data establishing the relationship between the substance and athletic performance and other important data such as the time it takes to clear from the human body. There are 59 substances currently on the list - it's amazing they can even test for that many (though there are groups of very similar substances). As the list continues to grow so will compliance problems. I was wondering about research data for common medications that athletes might want to take but can't, so I looked up Sudafed. Research seems conclusive but sparse that it provides an athletic advantage, for instance see Muscular and cardiorespiratory effects of pseudoephedrine in human athletes. If a drug as common as Sudafed has this little research then one might suspect that less common medications have even less research.
I can recall some fairly goofy science fiction stories based on this stuff. I vaguely recall a story where gifted people were forced to wear inhibitors (for example, extra weights, and earphones playing static to disrupt thinking) in order to not have daily advantages against normal folk. Vonnegut maybe? Cannot remember much else about the story. That one's not familiar to me, but maybe Robert Sheckley is another possibility? --Percy Edited by Percy, : Word choice typo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22954 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
NoNukes writes: I didn't mean that responsibility should be spread among the athlete, their management group and their entourage. No, you didn't. That was my idea. Sometimes it seems like you and I are speaking different dialects of English.
I meant that sports ruling bodies also have a responsibility to create sane, consistent and reliable processes that can be followed with reasonable effort. I'm asking you for more detail about this. I need some convincing. I'm not trying to convince you. I don't think that's possible. If you understand my position I'm happy.
For items that are already on the list, and for which notice is not an issue, I don't see any additional responsibility to place on the sports ruling bodies when an athlete deliberately or inadvertently breaks the rules. Perhaps an example showing how the sports ruling body bears some responsibility would be helpful. I've already answered this question several times. The athlete has no control over the fact that many banned substances are present in over-the-counter medications, sometimes with no mention on the label, and can also be present in nutritional supplements and even in contaminated food. Product formulations, labeling and substance names keep changing. On The Ground - A Team Medical Officers Problems describes the problems of adhering to the WADA banned substance list from a team manager perspective, and it's even worse for the athlete forced by circumstances to go it along. This isn't uncommon, even at the top levels. Going back to my own sport of tennis again, Victoria Azarenka, currently #6 in the world but a former #1, left Belarus as a young junior and moved to the United States because her federation didn't believe she was promising enough. Gilles Simon, currently #13, largely goes it alone with little support from the French federation. Yulia Putintseva, currently #35 in the world, changed citizenship to Kazakhstan because of lack of support from the Russian federation. Adhering to the WADA banned substance list was simple when it was short and the drugs largely illegal anyway. Banning athletes for steroid use raises no objections. But in a few number of years the list of banned substances has grown, including substances widely and easily available, sometimes with no indication of their presence, and often with insufficient scientific justification. It's a difficult problem, and WADA's solution of putting all the responsibility for compliance on the athlete is not fair or rational or reasonable. Making it fair and rational and reasonable is WADA's responsibility. If you want a detailed solution, I don't have it. The WADA annual budget is only $30 million, so they're inadequately funded to do much of anything other than throw substance lists over the wall to national sports federations and hope for the best in dissemination, then conduct testing. Even if they had a lot more money I don't have an answer. But just recognizing that change is needed is the necessary first step, and once WADA officials recognize that rationality and fairness of rules and procedures is an important goal then they should be able to find solutions.
If a drug as common as Sudafed has this little research then one might suspect that less common medications have even less research. I don't think you have made the case that the Sudafed research is insufficient. Yes, your honor.
And I'm not going to take the leap about how little less research there might be on some other substance without looking at the details. Well, then look at the details. You can set yourself up as judge and jury if you like, but this is a discussion board, not a courtroom, and you're a participant, not a judge. I've presented evidence supporting my position and you haven't. The best you can seem to do is say, "I'm not convinced." How about doing some of your own legwork? I called the evidence for the effects of Sudafed on athletic performance "sparse" and cited Muscular and cardiorespiratory effects of pseudoephedrine in human athletes, which was back in 2000. The study mentions a lack of research. But looking into it a bit more I found another study conducted a couple years later in 2002 that found no effect, A Moderate Dose of Pseudoephedrine Does Not Alter Muscle Contraction Strength or Anaerobic Power. Then here's a 2006 study that reports that Sudafed had been removed from the banned list and placed on the monitoring list, the motivation for the study, and reports that it does confer an advantage, Pseudoephedrine enhances performance in 1500-m runners. But the study was of only 7 athletes. My conclusion from these conflicting studies remains that Sudafed provides an advantage, but at best the research must be deemed equivocal. If this is typical of the lack of strength of scientific foundation of the drugs on the list then severe penalties cannot be justified. Now you can continue to run on and on about how you're not convinced, and you're well within your rights to not be convinced, but I'm the only one presenting evidence for their side, the side that isn't just going, "Nope nope nope nope."
But surely for sudafed, that are substitutes that can be used. Well, then look it up. Doing your work for you again, the recommended substitute for Sudafed (pseudoephedrine) is Sudafed PE (phenylephrine), which is in the Monitoring Program and expected to be banned by 2018. Ephedra contains ephedrine, also banned, not just by WADA but by the FDA. Your turn, look something up. WADA has only been around since 2003. Their goals are good, their implementation still has a ways to go. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22954 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
NoNukes writes: I think I understand your position, but it appears to me that your position is not defensible. I understand that you don't owe me a defense. My position has been supported with evidence and argument. I don't think convincing you is possible.
By now, athletes know that over the counter medications have to be checked out. As I said earlier, product formulations, labeling and substance names keep changing. The reference I gave (On The Ground - A Team Medical Officers Problems) described the Lem-sip example that can differ in formulation between northern and southern Ireland and yet "look the same". The problems in complying with the WADA list are obvious. You're just echoing the same mindless WADA position: Deny there's a problem, put the entire burden on the athlete.
Almost none of the stuff that makes the news involves stuff that could not be looked up. If you look down the WADA list, very few of them make the news.
Sharapova's situation as she described things involved a combination of not getting a notice and not looking things up. Right, so why bring her up in a context where her situation doesn't apply? In case it's because Sharapova's name is in the subtitle, I've changed it.
Just being in over the counter products alone does not seem a valid reason for allowing things. Right. So what to do? "Put all the burden on the athlete" is not reasonable or fair.
There is plenty of information out there and in cases where notice is not an issue, there appear, to me anyway, to be adequate ways for an athlete, one who knows that he can be tested at any time, to check stuff out. Yes it does require some level of being proactive. It requires an incredible level of being proactive, to the point of paranoia.
Athletes really cannot take nutritional supplements whose contents they do not know. There's not really much difference between over-the-counter medications and nutritional supplements regarding the problem of differing formulations over time and geography, and the potential presence of substances not on the label. There have been suspensions where unlisted substances were involved. Even something as innocent as energy drinks can be a problem, check out this article from a couple years ago: WADA banned substance discovered in dietary supplements and energy drinks Is it really that difficult to avoid doing that? Uh, yes, whether you acknowledge it or not.
Contaminated food would be a problem, and I would ask for believable examples where folks got hammered because they ate contaminated food. "Hammered" is your term, but just as I said, food contamination is one of the possible inadvertent sources of banned substances. Click here. Athletes in general *want* a fair playing field where they don't face opponents who are gaining an unfair advantage through substance abuse. They *want* a banned drug list and drug testing (and the same for methods like doping, too, of course). But they also want and deserve a fair and rational process. Continued rhetorical questions along the lines of, "How hard could it be for athletes?" isn't much of a rebuttal. I've offered plenty of evidence supporting my position, all you've offered is stubborn skepticism. How about a little "substance?" --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22954 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1
|
Here's an article about an example of a nutritional supplement with an unlisted banned substance: Yoel Romero Lawsuit Against Supplement Manufacturer In Process
Ibutamoren was not listed on the supplement label, the USADA verified that an unopened container of the supplement provided by Romero contained the unlisted ibutamoren, yet Romero was still suspended for 6 months. This is better than the 2 years such a violation normally receives, but how is this fair? How can an athlete protect himself other than conducting his own substance testing, which is clearly unreasonable? Denying athletes access to nutritional supplements (in the sense that they could only take them at their own risk) is not reasonable. One solution might be to shift some of the responsibility to the national sports federations. Each sports organization in each country would be responsible for providing its own list of approved over the counter medications and nutritional supplements, and if athletes go off that list then that's their problem. But if they test positive for a substance that's found to be from a supplement or medication that's on the approved list, they're absolved. Each sport has to have it's own list because different sports have different nutritional requirements. Sports that require world travel could use the approved list of each country's national sports organizations, so that athletes don't have to travel with their own health store and pharmacy. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22954 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
NoNukes writes: You're just echoing the same mindless WADA position: Deny there's a problem, put the entire burden on the athlete.
That's an incredibly easy tone to take. But your position *is* the same as WADA's. I'm just stating the obvious. Neither you nor WADA have justified placing the entire burden on the athlete. You just declare it's a reasonable burden.
The overwhelming majority of folks seem to have no problem avoiding the issues with over the counter medicines. You don't really know how much of a problem it is for them, you're just making a bald declaration again, that most athletes have "no problem." Anyone who follows a lot of sports has heard interviews where athletes mention the problems of WADA compliancy. The key issue isn't the number of athletes treated unfairly but whether the policies and procedures are fair and reasonable. If they're unfair then you don't justify them by saying, "Well, not that many athletes are affected, so it isn't of concern."
For the record, I have not encountered WADA's statements about who is to blame. Congratulations on your information avoidance strategy.
I came up with my own opinion based on what little you've told me. I've told you a great deal, but you have avoided addressing much of it.
Athletes subject to testing cannot go by things looking the same. They have to take special precautions that the rest of us do not, and often that means not taking stuff for which they do not have complete information. No doubt WADA agrees with you.
In my view, you have yet to demonstrate that the burden on athletes is too high. You keep saying that instead of addressing my actual arguments.
Uh, yes, whether you acknowledge it or not. My question was meant as an invitation for you to provide some information. My comment was meant as an invitation for you to finally acknowledge and address all the information and arguments already provided.
I accept that banned substances might be found in contaminated food. But that still does not mean that athletes are overly burdened. An athlete who eats food contaminated with a banned substance will be suspended (probably appealed down), and you're defending that? Unbelievable. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024