Athletics Weekly

Doping news

Drug-related news and topics. Note - this is not a place to make idle speculations.
Forum rules
Note - this is not a place to make idle speculations. Anyone doing so will face a warning and/or a ban.

Re: Doping news

Postby readtherules » Sat Jul 02, 2011 6:47 pm

fangio wrote:It's not burdensome at all. If you don't know it's safe don't use the supplement or drug. It's only budensome if you are takign a large number of these substnaces to try to find a shortcut to the top.

If the GP wants to give you a drug I beleive there is a list available of allwed drugs that combat most effects, and as the Jamaican tooth ache drug case showed, if there is a legal alternative you don't get to use the illegal one (although you get off with a completely pointless 3 months ban despite deliberately taking something that wasn't prescribed for you). My GP is aware that I will not take banned substances, and knows the legal alternatives.

As to the "normal foods" argument, they don't, or at least not in quantities that make the consumption of enoguh of the banned substance viable purely from a logisitcla point of view of being able to eat it all.

You really are scraping the barrel with your arguments here.

Why is it that you seem to want to provide any excuse for people to take whatever they want?



Clearly from your previous comments about what arrived in Mark Edwards post with his notification of his ban you are personally connected with an established drug cheat.



UKA claim over 250000 particpants and they are all bound by doping rules that can be said to be demanding and then when you add in related compounds with no defintion then they become impossible.
I know of no list for the GP.Can you make reference to it please ?.Does your GP know about related compounds.All medics I have asked laugh about it.

What do you mean by "As to the "normal foods" argument, they don't, or at least not in quantities that make the consumption of enoguh of the banned substance viable purely from a logisitcla point of view of being able to eat it all."

I want WADA to define what would make a related compound banned.What is wrong with that.

How does having a passing contact with ME invalidate my points.
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Doping news

Postby readtherules » Sat Jul 02, 2011 7:01 pm

Fangio.

Glycerol is banned as a masking agent yet is a common ingredient in many many foods.Happy dieting.

And there are bound to be other related products that do the same if you manage to avoid glycerol.
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Doping news

Postby fangio » Sat Jul 02, 2011 7:10 pm

Of spare me the ridiculous diatribes.

Glycerol is found in many foods, yes, at what levels? Seriously you would need to eat what sort of quantity to fail a test?

Your constant pretence that the rules are in some way difficult is ridiculous. If you don't know it's menat ot be safe don't take it Reall really really simple. Afterall we are talkign about drugs and supplements here.

Every time there is a failure you pop up with some ridiculous ecse that turns out to have nothign at all to do witht h case concerned. If the rules banned things that are are conatined in such quantities that normal human consumption of ordinary foods caused test failures we wouldhave heard about it by now. I do not know of a single test failure that came about from the consumtpions of ordinary foods. I know of lots wehre people have claimed it was int eh supplements that they were taking wihtout having checked the supplements out, and a couple where the supplements were approved but contaminated (and the sportsmen were let off having taken all necessary precautions).

So please stop wioth this ridiculous excusing people, just becuase you got caught out it doesn't make the rules wrong, cumbersome, dodgy etc. Seriously who doesn't know that the banned list is not exhaustive and that there is strict liability?
fangio
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:39 pm

Re: Doping news

Postby Kermit » Sat Jul 02, 2011 7:14 pm

fangio wrote:It's not burdensome at all. If you don't know it's safe don't use the supplement or drug.


It's not a simple as that.

You can fail a drugs test from simply taking more than 1 nutritional supplement
Kermit
 
Posts: 5327
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Essex

Re: Doping news

Postby fangio » Sat Jul 02, 2011 7:36 pm

Kermit, They would need to contain a banned substance. For example If you are goign to take a substnace such as creatine, you will be aware that the subtance has a threshold you cannot breach. If you are then stupid enough to take a second supplement with such a substnace in then you will go over the limit. The thing is the threshold is set at a level which allows a normal diet to contain that much. You are taking the supplement instead of using normal dietary methods, and you are compeltely at fault for going over the limit. If you know there is a limit then you know takign the supplement is not safe, don't take it then. It is that simple.
fangio
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:39 pm

Re: Doping news

Postby Kermit » Sat Jul 02, 2011 7:51 pm

Wrong fangio they don't have to contain a banned substance, but when combined they can make a banned substance and that is the major dilemma. Normal dietary methods are never enough 1 because of how the food is manufactured and 2 how the food is cooked.

To get the right amount of creatine from food you would end up being super obese. Dependant on how much your crockery costs also depends on how much of the vitamins & minerals are kept within the food.
Kermit
 
Posts: 5327
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Essex

Re: Doping news

Postby fangio » Sat Jul 02, 2011 9:05 pm

Kermit

Can you give an example, never heard of this before. Has anyone actually been caught by this or is it just a theory?
fangio
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:39 pm

Re: Doping news

Postby TheRealSub10 » Sat Jul 02, 2011 9:44 pm

readtherules wrote:Perhaps you can explain how you can determine a banned related compound from a non banned related compound.
Anything not explicitly named on the banned list is illegal if it binds to the androgen receptor or it has not been approved for human use or is in clinical trials. Examples may include designer steroids (androgen receptor), SARMS S1 (androgen receptor + not approved for human use yet) and the peptide hormones like CJC-1295 (still in preclinical trials). Even something like Melotan II is banned (still not approved for human use) so anyone using it to top up their tan is committing a doping offence if they compete in a WADA tested sport.
TheRealSub10
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 11:00 am

Re: Doping news

Postby readtherules » Sat Jul 02, 2011 9:46 pm

fangio wrote:Of spare me the ridiculous diatribes.

Glycerol is found in many foods, yes, at what levels? Seriously you would need to eat what sort of quantity to fail a test?

Your constant pretence that the rules are in some way difficult is ridiculous. If you don't know it's menat ot be safe don't take it Reall really really simple. Afterall we are talkign about drugs and supplements here.

Every time there is a failure you pop up with some ridiculous ecse that turns out to have nothign at all to do witht h case concerned. If the rules banned things that are are conatined in such quantities that normal human consumption of ordinary foods caused test failures we wouldhave heard about it by now. I do not know of a single test failure that came about from the consumtpions of ordinary foods. I know of lots wehre people have claimed it was int eh supplements that they were taking wihtout having checked the supplements out, and a couple where the supplements were approved but contaminated (and the sportsmen were let off having taken all necessary precautions).

So please stop wioth this ridiculous excusing people, just becuase you got caught out it doesn't make the rules wrong, cumbersome, dodgy etc. Seriously who doesn't know that the banned list is not exhaustive and that there is strict liability?


How can you be held by strict liability when it is hidden what you are liable for.
You say we are talking about drugs and supplements.These are concepts that differ from time to time and place to place as is the concept of normal food.
Clycerol ? Perhaps if the rules are clear I may be able to provide you with an answer as what would give a positive and clear out times.But that is not the point.It is banned as a non threshold product.

Have you heard of mr Contador and have you heard of the Vetinary Residues Committee in this country / a google search will show how it deals with steriods in the food chain.

However;can you please tell me how you tell a non banned related compound from one that is not and can you explain with confidence that WADA will never ban for the use of the many androgens that they seem to allow;so far.

Can you please tell me you have confidence in the drug advice line when it says it cant be held responsive for advice given.
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Doping news

Postby readtherules » Sat Jul 02, 2011 9:50 pm

TheRealSub10 wrote:
readtherules wrote:Perhaps you can explain how you can determine a banned related compound from a non banned related compound.
Anything not explicitly named on the banned list is illegal if it binds to the androgen receptor or it has not been approved for human use or is in clinical trials. Examples may include designer steroids (androgen receptor), SARMS S1 (androgen receptor + not approved for human use yet) and the peptide hormones like CJC-1295 (still in preclinical trials). Even something like Melotan II is banned (still not approved for human use) so anyone using it to top up their tan is committing a doping offence if they compete in a WADA tested sport.


Check out the many androgens that are not banned.

Love the tanning bit.

Very helpful post.Where did the key bit come from please.
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Doping news

Postby TheRealSub10 » Sat Jul 02, 2011 9:56 pm

If it has been approved for human use and is not on the banned list then it is ok. But nothing that is approved and binds isn't on the list... if it's been approved you know it works so it will be banned.

The key bit is in the new 2011 code under Non Approved Substances:

"A new section -- 'Non-Approved Substances' -- has been added to the 2011 list. This 'open' section addresses the issue of the abuse of pharmacological substances for the purpose of performance enhancement that are not included in other sections of the List and that are not approved by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (i.e. drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued). These substances will be prohibited at all times (in and out-of-competition)."

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/977 ... bited.html
TheRealSub10
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 11:00 am

Re: Doping news

Postby Kermit » Sat Jul 02, 2011 11:49 pm

fangio wrote:Kermit

Can you give an example, never heard of this before. Has anyone actually been caught by this or is it just a theory?


I did already - any supplement with nandrolene will, when absorbed in the body, convert to nandrolone.

If a supplement has a male ingredient and then another has the female equivalent the female becomes male when the two supplements are taken. This is one of the reasons why I tell all of my clients that they should never take the prescribed (as recommended on the labels) amount, but to judge according to their body weight and the intensity of the training schedule. It is not a theory.

As Stephen Francis said a few years ago, it is ok to take an athlete to the legal limit and that is what he does with his athletes.
Kermit
 
Posts: 5327
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Essex

Re: Doping news

Postby fangio » Sun Jul 03, 2011 12:34 am

Kermit

So you are talking about nandrolone, my point was if it is on the banned list don't take it. Yours is take it but try not to go over the limit. That's where we differ.

Readtherules

Of course I have heard of Contador, and his case is utter garbage. There was one failed test for the whole of the EU in 2008-9, and none of the 19,000+ Spanish tests failed. There is absolutely no evidence that his beef contained clenbuterol, seriously are you suggesting that it is more likely that the individual steak that was flown in from Spain that happended to be on the plate of Alberto Contador contained clenbuterol which is not even legal for use on cattle in the EU, than Alberto Contador toook a banned substance to help him win cycle races.

What's more he started off balming his supplements and came up with this excuse only after it was uncheckable. You really will believe any excuse given.
fangio
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:39 pm

Re: Doping news

Postby Kermit » Sun Jul 03, 2011 12:57 am

Fangio please don't put words into my mouth. Where did I say it's ok to take banned substances. I used nadralone as an example to your question that presumed that I was theorising. I knew it wouldn't take you long to try to twist people's words - you just can't help yourself can you?
Kermit
 
Posts: 5327
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Essex

Re: Doping news

Postby fangio » Sun Jul 03, 2011 7:11 am

Kermit

I am not putting words into your mouth you said "As Stephen Francis said a few years ago, it is ok to take an athlete to the legal limit and that is what he does with his athletes." This was to back up your own recommendations that "I tell all of my clients that they should never take the prescribed (as recommended on the labels) amount, but to judge according to their body weight and the intensity of the training schedule."

From what you said they needed to judge the amount of supplement to take based on weight and intensity so as to stay within the limit, so as to gain as much advantage from nandrolone in their system as pssible without going over the legal limit. What other interpretation is there of these two quotes together? If there is another intepretation tell me what it is I am stumped, unless the first quote ie meant to be entirely separate to the second (although the words "As Stephen Francis said clearly links the second quote to the first). Seriously no attemtpt o tweist your words, they came from you and I do not see any other possible interpretation of your stance when you advise people to take a substance that you know will result in nandrolone in their bodies but advise them to do it in such a way that they do not go over the limit.

I did not presume you were theorising, I clearly asked for more information and whether it was just a theory or had examples, why pretend that was a presumption that you were theorising?
fangio
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:39 pm

Re: Doping news

Postby d pickup » Sun Jul 03, 2011 7:29 am

'UK anti-doping: an athlete's testing reality'

The journalist, Tom Fordyce, accounts things well; good sunday morning reading, and a refreshing change.

BUT
I wonder
and in all seriousness
readtherules (& other vigilant ones presently active)
(& good morning to you)
is there any smallest or significant aspect he's missed out?

(There were 19 comments when I read the article - I gave them a miss)

see
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tomfordyce/2 ... oping.html
d pickup
 
Posts: 3943
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:59 am

Re: Doping news

Postby readtherules » Sun Jul 03, 2011 9:32 am

TheRealSub10 wrote:If it has been approved for human use and is not on the banned list then it is ok. But nothing that is approved and binds isn't on the list... if it's been approved you know it works so it will be banned.

The key bit is in the new 2011 code under Non Approved Substances:

"A new section -- 'Non-Approved Substances' -- has been added to the 2011 list. This 'open' section addresses the issue of the abuse of pharmacological substances for the purpose of performance enhancement that are not included in other sections of the List and that are not approved by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (i.e. drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued). These substances will be prohibited at all times (in and out-of-competition)."

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/977 ... bited.html


I am not sure if I am with you and as you have raised an interesting point esp about androgen receptor sites I would like you to provide some more help.
This is the sec(s) from banned list.


S0. NON-APPROVED SUBSTANCES
Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the
subsequent sections of the List and with no current approval by any
governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (i.e.
drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued) is
prohibited at all times.
PROHIBITED SUBSTANCES
S1. ANABOLIC AGENTS
Anabolic agents are prohibited.
1. Anabolic Androgenic Steroids (AAS)
a. Exogenous* AAS, including:
1-androstenediol (5α-androst-1-ene-3β,17β-diol ); 1-androstenedione (5α-
androst-1-ene-3,17-dione); bolandiol (19-norandrostenediol); bolasterone;
boldenone; boldione (androsta-1,4-diene-3,17-dione); calusterone;
clostebol; danazol (17α-ethynyl-17β-hydroxyandrost-4-eno[2,3-d]isoxazole);
dehydrochlormethyltestosterone (4-chloro-17β-hydroxy-17α-methylandrosta-
1,4-dien-3-one); desoxymethyltestosterone (17α-methyl-5α-androst-2-en-
17β-ol); drostanolone; ethylestrenol (19-nor-17α-pregn-4-en-17-ol);
fluoxymesterone; formebolone; furazabol (17β-hydroxy-17α-methyl-5α-
The 2011 Prohibited List
18 September 2010
3
androstano[2,3-c]-furazan); gestrinone; 4-hydroxytestosterone (4,17β-dihydroxyandrost-4-en-3-one); mestanolone; mesterolone; metenolone; methandienone (17β-hydroxy-17α-methylandrosta-1,4-dien-3-one); methandriol; methasterone (2α, 17α-dimethyl-5α-androstane-3-one-17β-ol); methyldienolone (17β-hydroxy-17α-methylestra-4,9-dien-3-one); methyl-1-testosterone (17β-hydroxy-17α-methyl-5α-androst-1-en-3-one); methylnortestosterone (17β-hydroxy-17α-methylestr-4-en-3-one); methyltestosterone; metribolone (methyltrienolone, 17β-hydroxy-17α-methylestra-4,9,11-trien-3-one); mibolerone; nandrolone; 19-norandrostenedione (estr-4-ene-3,17-dione); norboletone; norclostebol; norethandrolone; oxabolone; oxandrolone; oxymesterone; oxymetholone; prostanozol (17β-hydroxy-5α-androstano[3,2-c] pyrazole); quinbolone; stanozolol; stenbolone; 1-testosterone (17β-hydroxy-5α-androst-1-en-3-one); tetrahydrogestrinone (18a-homo-pregna-4,9,11-trien-17β-ol-3-one); trenbolone; and other substances with a similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s).
b. Endogenous** AAS when administered exogenously:
androstenediol (androst-5-ene-3β,17β-diol); androstenedione (androst-4-ene-3,17-dione); dihydrotestosterone (17β-hydroxy-5α-androstan-3-one); prasterone (dehydroepiandrosterone, DHEA); testosterone
and the following metabolites and isomers:
5α-androstane-3α,17α-diol; 5α-androstane-3α,17β-diol; 5α-androstane-3β,17α-diol; 5α-androstane-3β,17β-diol; androst-4-ene-3α,17α-diol; androst-4-ene-3α,17β-diol; androst-4-ene-3β,17α-diol; androst-5-ene-3α,17α-diol; androst-5-ene-3α,17β-diol; androst-5-ene-3β,17α-diol; 4-androstenediol (androst-4-ene-3β,17β-diol); 5-androstenedione (androst-5-ene-3,17-dione); epi-dihydrotestosterone; epitestosterone; 3α-hydroxy-5α-androstan-17-one; 3β-hydroxy-5α-androstan-17-one; 19-norandrosterone; 19-noretiocholanolone.

Can you help me with the androgen receptor matter again please.
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Doping news

Postby readtherules » Sun Jul 03, 2011 9:39 am

d pickup wrote:'UK anti-doping: an athlete's testing reality'

The journalist, Tom Fordyce, accounts things well; good sunday morning reading, and a refreshing change.

BUT
I wonder
and in all seriousness
readtherules (& other vigilant ones presently active)
(& good morning to you)
is there any smallest or significant aspect he's missed out?

(There were 19 comments when I read the article - I gave them a miss)

see
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/tomfordyce/2 ... oping.html


There are a few editions /timelines of fordcyce within the BBC site and links to them.And other comments etc. I think his comments are very fair and you get a good feeling of whereabouts.As a journo he will be fully upto speed on laptops,routers dongles etc and keeping all his communication skills fully working.For those less clever I think they may have a more trying time.All in all "exellent".

If you want to discuss any matter he raised then I am happy.
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Doping news

Postby readtherules » Sun Jul 03, 2011 9:47 am

fangio wrote:Kermit

So you are talking about nandrolone, my point was if it is on the banned list don't take it. Yours is take it but try not to go over the limit. That's where we differ.

Readtherules

Of course I have heard of Contador, and his case is utter garbage. There was one failed test for the whole of the EU in 2008-9, and none of the 19,000+ Spanish tests failed. There is absolutely no evidence that his beef contained clenbuterol, seriously are you suggesting that it is more likely that the individual steak that was flown in from Spain that happended to be on the plate of Alberto Contador contained clenbuterol which is not even legal for use on cattle in the EU, than Alberto Contador toook a banned substance to help him win cycle races.

What's more he started off balming his supplements and came up with this excuse only after it was uncheckable. You really will believe any excuse given.


I do not believe his excuse or anyones elses excuse.We just do not know.However it is as about as likely as him taking Clen when he is saturation tested !
I fully understand that seroid doping etc is illegal BUT that is why we have such as the Vet Residues Comm to control breaches in the law etc.
It is easy to get someone doped,they cant prove it but it does not mean that it could and will not happen.(diff point from Contador) DMSO and metabolites ,simples.
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Doping news

Postby readtherules » Sun Jul 03, 2011 9:54 am

What is really interesting is that UKA has 250000 particpants with all those who support in addition.
All are to be fully conversant with the banned list and yet here are we lot still stuggling.

The contract between UKA and the athlete could be defined as an unfair contract as it is clearly impossible to be discharged by the athlete esp without any training given to the vast majority of athletes and only a restriced minimal to a selected few.(see UKA drug educ site)
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Doping news

Postby readtherules » Sun Jul 03, 2011 9:59 am

fangio,

I asked earlier if you can have any confidence in a drug advisory site that says it cant be held responsible.
I also asked for some evidence of a list you claim that GP's have as to what can be taken.Checked with a couple of consultants and they certainly know of nothing.
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Doping news

Postby Kermit » Sun Jul 03, 2011 11:59 am

fangio wrote:Kermit

I am not putting words into your mouth you said "As Stephen Francis said a few years ago, it is ok to take an athlete to the legal limit and that is what he does with his athletes." This was to back up your own recommendations that "I tell all of my clients that they should never take the prescribed (as recommended on the labels) amount, but to judge according to their body weight and the intensity of the training schedule."

From what you said they needed to judge the amount of supplement to take based on weight and intensity so as to stay within the limit, so as to gain as much advantage from nandrolone in their system as pssible without going over the legal limit. What other interpretation is there of these two quotes together? If there is another intepretation tell me what it is I am stumped, unless the first quote ie meant to be entirely separate to the second (although the words "As Stephen Francis said clearly links the second quote to the first). Seriously no attemtpt o tweist your words, they came from you and I do not see any other possible interpretation of your stance when you advise people to take a substance that you know will result in nandrolone in their bodies but advise them to do it in such a way that they do not go over the limit.

I did not presume you were theorising, I clearly asked for more information and whether it was just a theory or had examples, why pretend that was a presumption that you were theorising?


Where did I say I give my clients Nadrolone? once again you are twisting my words. You asked for an example, I gave you an example of the nadralone explosion from the late 90's. If you want ANY MORE examples why don't you do your homework via google or some other search engine rather than try to besmirch me and my business.
Kermit
 
Posts: 5327
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Essex

Re: Doping news

Postby fangio » Sun Jul 03, 2011 8:22 pm

Where di I say you gave your clients nandrolone? I referred to your advice regarding taking supplements that woudl induce nandrolone not you givign anyone nandolone. Seriously if you are going to accuse me of putting words in your mouth.....
fangio
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2007 9:39 pm

Re: Doping news

Postby LiamRiley » Sun Jul 03, 2011 9:11 pm

I don't think we need to personalise this issue - thanks Kermit for the knowledge of supplements (separately legal) causing positives when used in conjunction. I had no idea that could happen. It further bolsters my opinion that athletes shouldn't take supplements at all.

I was just reading last week's IAAF Newsletter and noticed Sammy Mutahi got a doping reprimand and was disqualified from January's Glasgow International Match. Does anyone know what happened there?
LiamRiley
 
Posts: 538
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 12:07 am

Re: Doping news

Postby Kermit » Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:01 pm

Liam the problem is this, our body cannot absorb enough vitamins and minerals from food without BCAA (branch chain amino acid) it acts as binding allowing us to absorb amino acids and other vitamins/minerals. The way that food is now grown, packaged and supplied to us through our supermarkets kills the nutrients that we need. Add to that the way the food is cooked and we have very little that we can extract from it.

When Paula Radcliffe broke the World Marathon record she was eating organic food and taking specially prepared nutritional supplements in tablet form that contained everything she needed - if I remember correctly one of the newspapers did a full page spread on her secrets.

Sportsmen cannot do without nutritional supplements if they are to continue to train the way they do or recover from injuries quickly. As I said before, the problem is that most athletes rely on what is recommended by the makers and not according to their weight & intensity of their training.
Kermit
 
Posts: 5327
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Essex

Re: Doping news

Postby Guto Nyth Bran » Mon Jul 04, 2011 5:44 pm

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/04072011/ ... andal.html

"A third member of India's 2010 Commonwealth and Asian Games gold medal winning relay team has tested positive for banned anabolic steroids, the Athletics Federation of India (AFI) said on Monday.

Ashwini Akkunji, part of the women's 4x400m relay quartet which won India's first Commonwealth Games track title since 1958, has been provisionally suspended, AFI director M L Dogra told reporters hours before she was to fly out for this week's Asian Championships in Japan.

Another quarter-miler, Priyanka Panwar, has also been provisionally suspended after she also tested positive. "
Guto Nyth Bran
 
Posts: 599
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 12:27 am
Location: Mid Wales

Re: Doping news

Postby Kermit » Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:13 pm

The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) is not in the business of endorsing dietary supplements. There are no “WADA-approved” supplements in the world.


http://www.thehindu.com/sport/athletics ... 162429.ece
Kermit
 
Posts: 5327
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Essex

Re: Doping news

Postby readtherules » Wed Jul 06, 2011 8:44 am

Tauasi.

Her defense doc.

http://www.euathletes.info/uploads/media/defense.pdf

Incorrect monitoring of diagnostic ions and chain of custody.It was the former that Cowen got wrong in the Hylton case.
And, dare I say it, in the M Edwards case the sample could not be accounted for for 3 days.

How many false positives are there but without the money to expose.But there are also false negatives.

WADA needs lots and lots of money invested to be the system we would wish.Without that investment it could be unfit for purpose.
readtherules
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 7:05 pm

Re: Doping news

Postby d pickup » Thu Jul 07, 2011 4:33 pm

'Good that drug cheats are being caught: Powell'

' “I think if you are using drugs, you should be banned for life,” he [Powell] stated.'

see
http://www.thehindu.com/sport/article2158616.ece

###

'Indian officials fired over doping cases'

see
http://www.universalsports.com/news-blo ... 40990.html
d pickup
 
Posts: 3943
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:59 am

Re: Doping news

Postby LiamRiley » Thu Jul 07, 2011 8:29 pm

Kermit - I understand that mass produced food is often highly processed and comparatively low in nutrients, but it doesn't often seem that athletes blame failed tests on the "dietary/vitamin" side of supplements.

It is almost always the "muscle mass building/gym recovery" style ones that are claimed to be tainted. Certainly this has been the case with geranamine. Any pro athlete who uses a combination of products made for body builders (and expects there to be no problems) needs their head examined.
LiamRiley
 
Posts: 538
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 12:07 am

PreviousNext

Return to Doping

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

 

Athletics Weekly Limited © 2010. Terms of use

Design by The Church of London