The Meldonium Mess

WADA's chosen term is "substances." It's substances that are banned. And methods. 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. Seems that way. 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

In today's New York Times: The action was taken by the IAAF (International Association of Athletics Federations). Russian track and field athletes have been barred from all international competition for the past seven months, even those who have never failed a test. The association argues that Russian efforts at concealing drug use mean that clean test results have no value. This violates any presumption of innocence and is more evidence that world sports governing bodies need to be reigned in.The decision will be reviewed next week by the International Olympic Committee.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

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

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

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. That's why there is both in-competition and out-of-competition testing. 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. And it is also unfair to punish those who did nothing. How do we balance these opposing goals?--Percy

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: In my industry we used to call this "testing quality in," as opposed to designing and implementing it in.--Percy

Yes, reasonable explanations have been so effective for athletes. That wasn't about a "pre-scheduled drug test." I explained the scenario: I also mentioned the "daily 60-minute window" in one of the excerpts I provided.--Percy

No one would think your phrase "pre-scheduled drug test" refers to the 60-minute daily window. World-class athletes must submit this information each quarter for each and every day of that quarter for the purpose of establishing their availability for out-of-competition tests. Athletes rightfully complain that this is an undue and unfair burden. I was trying to make this more clear by describing how easily and unintentionally an athlete might miss a 60-minute window. My example was a hypothetical trying to make the problem more clear to you. But are you arguing that because the level of detail of my knowledge can go only so far that therefore it doesn't happen? Do you think that composing unanswerable detailed questions is an argument? You've already asked this question and the answer hasn't changed. This is a very difficult problem with no easy solutions, but just saying, "Let's put all the burden on the athletes," is not a fair answer.--Percy

Given the refusal of WADA and national sports federations to accept any excuse for a failed test, the same strict approach would be expected for 60-minute window failures, would it not? You have no grounds for thinking they're pussycats when it comes to missed tests. I'll investigate for you anyway.The details of the rules regarding the 60-minute window can be found here: WADA Announces Significant Changes to Code. It says that 3 Whereabouts Failures (failure to file paperwork or missing the 60-minute window) in 18 months is "subject to one of more of the following: disqualification, ineligibility, or a provisional suspension."And here's a list of Sanctions from the USADA going back to 2001. All the Whereabouts Failures are after 2010 because the rules only began in 2008. Some names are familiar (Lance Armstrong), most are not. Naturally this list includes only US athletes. Each country would have their own list. On this US list there are 16 athletes with Whereabouts Failures resulting in suspensions for 1 to 2 years, and 5 athletes with Missed Tests resulting in either ineligibility (1) or suspension (4).This means that it is not easy to find acceptable excuses for Whereabouts Failures and Missed 60-minute windows. So you're wrong again. If next you ask how many athletes successfully provided excuses then I will grant your ability to ask questions for which no publicly available data exists.You could look this stuff up yourself before going off on flights of fancy. In both the Deflategate thread and this one, you're getting all your information from me, but you could find this information yourself, or in many cases just read the links I provide. This isn't discussion. This is like facing a wannabe courtroom lawyer who is asking as many insinuating questions as possible and hoping something sticks. You don't have an actual position, just a hope to find things wrong.The burdens placed on the athletes by WADA look substantial and unfair to me. Many athletes think so, too. I've detailed a number of the reasons. If you disagree then you need your own positive reasons, not just expressions of accusatory skepticism.--Percy

Sharapova's two year drug suspension has been reduced to 15 months upon appeal. The Court of Arbitration for Sport's 28-page decision said that Sharapova was at "no significant fault" and that "...under no circumstances ... can the player be considered to be an 'intentional' doper." Sharapova can return to tournament play in April of next year.In other news, defensive lineman Rob Ninkovich returned to the New England Patriots today after serving his 4-week PED (Performance Enhancing Drug) suspension.--Percy

I mentioned Ninkovich because of the disparity in the length of suspensions for drug use.--Percy

It shouldn't pass without notice that Sharapova returned to tournament play a couple weeks ago at Stuttgart where she reached the semifinals. She's playing at the Italian Open in Rome this week. She's submitted applications for wild-card entries into the French Open and Wimbledon while she rebuilds her ranking. Without wild-card entries she will have to go through qualifying.--Percy

Interesting. Since the Court of Arbitration for Sport is the ultimate authority, I'm not sure they can do that. There may be work for lawyers here, but I'm not sure. The Grand Slams have a great deal of autonomy when it comes to deciding about wildcard entries, even to qualifying.--Percy

Here's a good article summarizing the issues brought about by the French refusal to offer Sharapova a wildcard based upon their own interpretation of how her drug appeal should be handled: Shutting Sharapova out of the French Open could create future headaches--Percy

During the 2022 U.S. Open Simona Halep, a Romanian tennis star, a former French Open and Wimbledon champion and a former world #1, tested positive for a banned substance, roxadustat. She hasn't played since. The ruling body of tennis still hasn't ruled on her appeal where she argued that the substance was in a contaminated supplement, one which is approved. The ITIA (International Teniis Integrity Agency) has since added a second doping charge, one which sounds so bizarre and complex that I'll just quote from the ITIA press release:

ITIA:

---

“The ABP programme, developed by the World Anti-Doping Agency and incorporated into the TADP under the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC), is a method by which anti-doping organisations monitor various blood parameters over time, to identify potential Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs). The additional charge of an Adverse Passport Finding was based on an assessment of Ms. Halep’s ABP profile by an independent ABP Expert Panel."

---

Whether Halep is guilty or not should not take 10 months to figure out. Athletic careers are short. This echos what happened to Sharapova, another older athlete and the original subject of this thread who attempted a comeback after her lengthy doping ban, but at her age it was too much and she retired. Halep is 31 and was ranked #7 in the world when she was hit with the doping ban. The 10 month delay in reaching a ruling is both typical and inexcusable. I hope it's also open to civil suits, because this degree of ineptness deserves to be sued. Justice delayed is justice denied.Roxadustat is used to treat anemia in patients with renal failure. It has an athletic side-effect of stimulating the production of red blood cells.--Percy