Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-15-2017 4:33 PM
327 online now:
jar, kjsimons, New Cat's Eye, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle, Taq (7 members, 320 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,266 Year: 28,872/21,208 Month: 938/1,847 Week: 313/475 Day: 78/82 Hour: 3/6

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45Next
Author Topic:   The Meldonium Mess
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10123
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 31 of 62 (785858)
06-12-2016 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Percy
06-12-2016 9:04 AM


Re: Sharapova Suspended From Tennis for Two Years
I'm not trying to convince you. I don't think that's possible. If you understand my position I'm happy.

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.

The athlete has no control over the fact that many banned substances are present in over-the-counter medications

By now, athletes know that over the counter medications have to be checked out. Almost none of the stuff that makes the news involves stuff that could not be looked up. Sharapova's situation as she described things involved a combination of not getting a notice and not looking things up.

An alternative position would be to not ban things like pseudoephedrine, because they are commonly in products, despite the fact that people were abusing that substance for performance relate reasons. I don't consider that to be a reasonable approach. Just being in over the counter products alone does not seem a valid reason for allowing things.

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.

can also be present in nutritional supplements and even in contaminated food.

Athletes really cannot take nutritional supplements whose contents they do not know. Is it really that difficult to avoid doing that? Contaminated food would be a problem, and I would ask for believable examples where folks got hammered because they ate contaminated food.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Percy, posted 06-12-2016 9:04 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Percy, posted 06-12-2016 4:14 PM NoNukes has responded
 Message 33 by Percy, posted 06-12-2016 5:08 PM NoNukes has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16327
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 32 of 62 (785869)
06-12-2016 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by NoNukes
06-12-2016 12:52 PM


WADA Policies and Procedures Unfair to Athletes
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by NoNukes, posted 06-12-2016 12:52 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by NoNukes, posted 06-12-2016 7:06 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16327
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 33 of 62 (785871)
06-12-2016 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by NoNukes
06-12-2016 12:52 PM


Re: WADA Policies and Procedures Unfair to Athletes
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by NoNukes, posted 06-12-2016 12:52 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by NoNukes, posted 06-13-2016 2:33 AM Percy has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10123
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 34 of 62 (785876)
06-12-2016 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Percy
06-12-2016 4:14 PM


Re: WADA Policies and Procedures Unfair to Athletes
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. I might say that you are just repeating the whines of those athletes that get caught except for the fact that such a statement would be without basis. The overwhelming majority of folks seem to have no problem avoiding the issues with over the counter medicines. For the record, I have not encountered WADA's statements about who is to blame. I came up with my own opinion based on what little you've told me.

...described the Lem-sip example that can differ in formulation between northern and southern Ireland and yet "look the same"

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. In my view, you have yet to demonstrate that the burden on athletes is too high.

Uh, yes, whether you acknowledge it or not.

My question was meant as an invitation for you to provide some information.

NN writes:

Contaminated food would be a problem, and I would ask for believable examples where folks got hammered because they ate contaminated food.

I accept that banned substances might be found in contaminated food. But that still does not mean that athletes are overly burdened. If athletes are unreasonably being held responsible for food contaminant, I was guessing that might reflect in folks being found to have violated drug policy based on something they ate. There might well be other indications, like athletes having to be overly cautious or having to needlessly avoid harmless food, but you haven't offered any way for me to judge the scope of a problem.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Percy, posted 06-12-2016 4:14 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Percy, posted 06-12-2016 8:35 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16327
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 35 of 62 (785877)
06-12-2016 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by NoNukes
06-12-2016 7:06 PM


Re: WADA Policies and Procedures Unfair to Athletes
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by NoNukes, posted 06-12-2016 7:06 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10123
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 36 of 62 (785881)
06-13-2016 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Percy
06-12-2016 5:08 PM


Re: WADA Policies and Procedures Unfair to Athletes
denying athletes access to nutritional supplements (in the sense that they could only take them at their own risk) is not reasonable.

I'm not sure I agree with that for reasons I will get to, but your solution to have an approved list of supplements seems workable. I might modify it a bit, but maybe it would work as you suggest.

Here are my reservations... Is it actually supplements that are banned or is it specific chemical substances? 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. 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.

In my opinion, the best solution would be for someone, not necessarily the government agency, to step up and provide a service for athletes and to do the monitoring, testing, etc. for them at the risk of their own reputation (for a respectable remuneration of course). It may not be practical for the USADA or WADA to be in the supplements business but perhaps they could be in an inspection business if someone stepped up and did this. 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?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Percy, posted 06-12-2016 5:08 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Percy, posted 06-17-2016 3:30 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16327
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 37 of 62 (786159)
06-17-2016 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by NoNukes
06-13-2016 2:33 AM


Re: WADA Policies and Procedures Unfair to Athletes
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by NoNukes, posted 06-13-2016 2:33 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16327
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 38 of 62 (786160)
06-17-2016 3:45 PM


Russian Track and Field Barred from Olympics
In today's New York Times:

Russia’s Track and Field Team Barred From Rio Olympics

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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Percy, posted 06-17-2016 9:55 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16327
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 39 of 62 (786173)
06-17-2016 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Percy
06-17-2016 3:45 PM


Re: Russian Track and Field Barred from Olympics
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:
Anticipating legal challenges to the ban -- and perhaps trying to preempt a power move by the International Olympic Committee -- the IAAF attempted to define conditions under which some individual Russian track and field athletes could apply for an exception and compete. The criteria are bewildering for anyone who has followed doping issues and jurisprudence. A central feature is that athletes can apply to compete as "neutral" entrants if they can prove they were out of the country for an undefined period, or subject to "fully compliant" drug testing, or both.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 06-17-2016 3:45 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by NoNukes, posted 06-18-2016 6:29 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16327
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 40 of 62 (786198)
06-18-2016 6:01 PM


IOC Backs Ban of Russian Track and Field
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


    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10123
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 41 of 62 (786199)
06-18-2016 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Percy
06-17-2016 9:55 PM


Re: Russian Track and Field Barred from Olympics
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

Warning. What follows is a defense of a rigorous appeal process that burdens athletes. Contents may inspire anger and may prompt accusations of shilling. Proceed at your own risk.

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. 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. 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.

The IAAF has had its own problems, including possible complicity in Russian cheating.

That is indeed a major problem. But no matter who is to blame, it is ultimately unfair for the cheaters to compete against non-cheaters. Punish the IAAF; even remove them from the process. But the problem of what to do with folks who broke the rules still remains.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Percy, posted 06-17-2016 9:55 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by xongsmith, posted 06-18-2016 6:50 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 06-19-2016 7:22 AM NoNukes has responded

    
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1825
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 42 of 62 (786200)
06-18-2016 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by NoNukes
06-18-2016 6:29 PM


Re: Russian Track and Field Barred from Olympics
The Russian Athletes may be very lucky they won't have to compete in the feces-strewn beaches of Rio this year, along with the Zika mosquitos.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by NoNukes, posted 06-18-2016 6:29 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16327
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 43 of 62 (786232)
06-19-2016 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by NoNukes
06-18-2016 6:29 PM


Re: Russian Track and Field Barred from Olympics
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by NoNukes, posted 06-18-2016 6:29 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by NoNukes, posted 06-20-2016 12:21 AM Percy has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10123
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 44 of 62 (786306)
06-20-2016 12:21 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Percy
06-19-2016 7:22 AM


Re: Russian Track and Field Barred from Olympics
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.

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?

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.

Yes, it is true that any testing program at all will catch more cheaters as they cheat. But the number of caught cheaters is not a goal. The goal should be that the level (percentage or fraction) of cheaters that manages to compete is low.

Accordingly, I'm talking about the probability of catching an individual athlete that is cheating, and the effectiveness of a random sampling program at establishing a percentage of drug-free individual athletes. If cheating is rare, then we can achieve a high level of compliance by doing no or almost no testing. Higher rates of defects (cheating) require higher levels of verification to achieve similarly high drug free ratios. You can play around with the numbers, but the process is exactly analogous to using sampling to detect defects in a factor. As the defect rate increases, the sampling rate must also increase if the goal is to ship a constant level of defect free product.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : Answer remaining question, fix punctuation.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 06-19-2016 7:22 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Percy, posted 06-20-2016 10:39 AM NoNukes has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16327
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 45 of 62 (786320)
06-20-2016 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by NoNukes
06-20-2016 12:21 AM


Re: Russian Track and Field Barred from Olympics
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:
If you are subject to out-of-competition testing, you may be responsible for keeping USADA, the IAAF and USATF informed of your most current address as well as your daily 60-minute window.
...
An unexcused failure to provide a sample could result in the sample being considered "positive" for a prohibited substance, resulting in a 2-year penalty.

Other answers in this FAQ are disturbing:

quote:
Should I be concerned about positive test if the medication I'm taking isn't on the Prohibited List?

Yes, you should be concerned because there is no complete list for prohibited substances. New names and new products are available daily, and foreign drugs may not appear in U.S. drug reference books. The list of prohibited substances is subject to change without notice. In addition, drugs not listed or different formulations of the same brand name may not be allowed. For any of these reasons, a "complete" or "safe" list is not available for distribution. You should call USADA's Drug Reference Hotline at 800-233-0393 to find out the current status of any substance you may consider taking.
...
What about "all-natural" supplements; can they cause a positive test?

Yes. Some substance that are banned are also derived from plants and are therefore consider natural. There is no guarantee that there are not ingredients in the product that are not listed on the package. It is important to remember that the use of ALL nutritional products is completely at your own risk.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by NoNukes, posted 06-20-2016 12:21 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by NoNukes, posted 06-20-2016 12:06 PM Percy has responded

    
Prev12
3
45Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017