Kelli White's 200m test sample....


This Forum was created to divert traffic from Current Events at the height of the BALCO scandal. It comes and goes as "needed"; it's back to being locked.

Kelli White's 200m test sample....

Postby Jon » Sun Aug 31, 2003 9:51 am

....has come back clear! So it's only her 100m sample which failed the test. Puts an interesting slant on things, but the IAAF are saying that this won't change things - if she's going to get banned, she will be banned.
Jon
 
Posts: 9231
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Kelli White's 200m test sample....

Postby JRM » Sun Aug 31, 2003 9:58 am

Just because a sample comes up negative doesn't "negate" the previous positive result. This doesn't really mean anything.
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Re: Kelli White's 200m test sample....

Postby tafnut » Sun Aug 31, 2003 10:00 am

Except for the fact that if she had only run the 200, there would be no 'news' at all. I think it clearly demonstartes that drug testing is merely a craps shoot.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Re: Kelli White's 200m test sample....

Postby JRM » Sun Aug 31, 2003 10:07 am

Perhaps. If Ben Johnson's Seoul sample hadn't come back positive, history would have been different too.

The fact of the matter is that it only takes one positive sample to raise red flags that something may be going on. The fact that there are so few positive tests is not indicative that only a small handfull of athletes are using substances (be they banned or not). Moreover, it is reflective of the fact that people know how to hide them.

Look, White claimed that this was medication for a long-term condition. You're supposed to advise the testers of any medication you have knowingly injested in advance of giving a sample. It stands to reason that if you don't tell them about it, it's because you don't want to bring it to their attention.

I'm tired of hearing world class athletes claim ignorance of rules which even I knew as an age class competitor!
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Re: Kelli White's 200m test sample....

Postby MJD » Sun Aug 31, 2003 10:08 am

>I think it
>clearly demonstartes that drug testing is merely
>a craps shoot.

In other words, a negative means nothing as far as whether or not an athlete is on drugs.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am


Re: Kelli White's 200m test sample....

Postby Guest » Sun Aug 31, 2003 10:33 am

Agree all the way. We point fingers at everybody else, but when it's us, we always have an excuse. BS.


>Moreover, it is reflective of the fact that
>people know how to hide them.

Look, White
>claimed that this was medication for a long-term
>condition. You're supposed to advise the
>testers of any medication you have knowingly
>injested in advance of giving a sample. It
>stands to reason that if you don't tell them
>about it, it's because you don't want to bring
>it to their attention.

I'm tired of hearing
>world class athletes claim ignorance of rules
>which even I knew as an age class competitor!
Guest
 

Re: Interesting comments on Kelli, UT perspective

Postby Guest » Sun Aug 31, 2003 10:36 am

TRUTH is of no matter to the IAAF...only their pocketbooks. Drug testing to keep so-called "cheats" out of the sport has never been the goal of the IAAF. The only reason it is done is to keep the IOC happy so as to keep the money rolling into the IAAF's officials pockets. This is a business, folks, pure and simple, on the part of the IAAF. They are the biggest hypocrites in the sport. Get rid of the money, get rid of the IAAF, and let's pull the USATF out of the IAAF. Tell them to take socialist-European "guilty-till-proven-innocent" system and SHOVE IT! Bunch of damned hypocrites. Makes me sick.

Kurt
Guest
 

Re: Interesting comments on Kelli, UT perspective

Postby JRM » Sun Aug 31, 2003 10:56 am

"Tell them to take socialist-European "guilty-till-proven-innocent" system and SHOVE IT!"

This isn't a legal system. It's a sport with rules. If you don't follow the rules, you don't get to play.

White's guilt is show by the positive test result, an undeclared substance presence in her system. Chemical reactions don't lie. There are procedures in place for this eventuality, and they are being executed.

If it really is medication for a family history condition, that will be easily verifiable and then appropriate steps can be taken by White and her camp.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is oft misquoted, because the proper phrase is "Innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW", which the World Championships is not.
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Re: Interesting comments on Kelli, UT perspective

Postby tafnut » Sun Aug 31, 2003 11:05 am

Carol Lewis quoted a doctor saying there was NO stimulant in the drug. So where's the beef?
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Re: Interesting comments on Kelli, UT perspective

Postby MJD » Sun Aug 31, 2003 11:13 am

>Carol Lewis quoted a doctor saying there was NO
>stimulant in the drug. So where's the beef?

Now this board is quoting Carol Lewis. Nice to add a little levity to the thread.


"It could be an ideal replacement for amphetamine in short-term operations in which fatigue might threaten the successful completion of a mission."

http://www.modafinil.org/modafinil/moda ... lant-3.htm


http://www.modafinil.org/
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Interesting comments on Kelli, UT perspective

Postby JRM » Sun Aug 31, 2003 11:30 am

"Carol Lewis quoted a doctor saying there was NO stimulant in the drug."

I see. Was it Dr. Nick Riviera from the Simpsons, by chance? (Hi, everybody!)

MJD has offered a few links to articles on modafinil (by physicians), and if you go to google.com you will find numerous more.

When I was researching it this morning, the one which caught my eye was titled "Modafinil: the unique properties of a new stimulant".
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Re: Interesting comments on Kelli, UT perspective

Postby tafnut » Sun Aug 31, 2003 11:41 am

For right now, I'll take the word of a doctor over youse guyz and what Google says. We'll see. Let's keep the cynicism down to a dull roar, OK?
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Re: Interesting comments on Kelli, UT perspective

Postby JRM » Sun Aug 31, 2003 11:57 am

"I'll take the word of a doctor over youse guyz and what Google says"

A few points:

(1) The links provided are to peer-refereed journal articles written by medical researchers and practicioners -- i.e., the opinion of *many* doctors!

(2) Modafinil is allegedly going to be on the banned list for Athens '04 (or so the rumor goes on these boards).

(3) In White's defense, the impression I get is that knowledge of its physiological effects is somewhat inconclusive. However (and perhaps unfortunately for her), that hasn't stopped drug testing procedures yet.
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Re: Interesting comments on Kelli, UT perspective

Postby MJD » Sun Aug 31, 2003 12:06 pm

>For right now, I'll take the word of a doctor
>over youse guyz and what Google says.

In actual fact your source is Carol Lewis. Nuff said:

http://www.trackandfieldnews.com/tfn/di ... ssage=6206
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Interesting comments on Kelli, UT perspective

Postby Guest » Sun Aug 31, 2003 12:09 pm

If you go to www.modifinil.com you`ll get a little insight into what Modifinil does. I posted a response to this on this site under another title. But I`ll repeat again from the site.....Modifinil 1:"Is a memory-improving and mood -brightening psychostimulant"
2:" Modifinil proved clinically useful in the treatment of narcolepsy"
It also mentioned being used with those who might be diagnosed with A.D.D. ( attention deficit disorder)...It also said it was a stimulant . Very interesting turn of events. We`ll have to wait and see how this turns out..I like Kelli White, powerful sprinter with a lot left in the tank.
Guest
 

Re: Interesting comments on Kelli, UT perspective

Postby Randy Treadway » Sun Aug 31, 2003 12:12 pm

This morning's L.A. TImes quoted White as saying that she DID list a whole slew of stuff on the declaration form- a veritable warehouse of supplements and you-name-its.
She supposedly didn't put down the modafinil because it wasn't specifically called out on the banned list.
(an IAAF spokesman said she didn't test positive for anything she wrote on the list!!)

Well if she's taking all that stuff that she DID list she's an idiot anyway, in this day and age.
Just another typical American I suppose, who thinks the answer for everything is a pill or a powder. I'm an American and I'm disgusted.
People who insist on training on a warehouse of supplements are a walking time bomb of test positives- it's only a matter of time before your face is gonna be in front of a microphone trying to 'explain'.
I tend to have a little bit of sympathy for life-critical medications (which are actually few and far between- life critical is not the same as 'quality of life'- but at the same time I agree that the doping authorities CANNOT allow somebody with a 'special need' to be allowed to take substances which give them advantages over other athletes.
If you have such a special case that you have to take steroids, maybe you shouldn't be allowed to compete in IAAF events. That's life, sorry.

It's a similar situation as the guy who wanted to ride a golf cart at the PGA tour. Did riding a cart (with a bad leg) give him an advantage over other golfers? U.S. courts in that case said no.

But I'm not sure about major ban-list doping in track & field athletes. I lean toward saying 'no exceptions unless the level of medication is too low to provide an advantage (and SHOULD be too low to produce a positive, right?)
Randy Treadway
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Interesting comments on Kelli, UT perspective

Postby Guest » Sun Aug 31, 2003 12:12 pm

Say, JRM, I've got NEWS for you. The USOC and the USATF came about as a result of a CONGRESSIONAL ACT. They exist LEGALLY at the behest of Congress. Try learning something for a change JRM.

As far as drug tests not "lying", I can show you how any system can be mis-read, mis-used, and how people like you can be mis-lead. As an engineer, I KNOW how to work a sample if I want to. I'm not explicitly claiming they did this. Personally, I'm against drug testing as a principle. It is a violation of privacy, as far as I'm concerned. I don't give a damn whether you or the rest of the world submit to such indignities. However, I do have great concern that USATF and other US organizations seem to give deferrence to systems in the hands of European authorities. Personally, I despise European authorities. They are socialist by nature in most countries, and socialism with Europe brought us the bloodiest century (20th) in the last 2 millenia. My ancestors left Europe for a damned good reason, and I'm damned glad that they did. I spit upon European "rules" and "justice".

Do I make myself clear, JRM?

Kurt
Guest
 

Re: Interesting comments on Kelli, UT perspective

Postby tafnut » Sun Aug 31, 2003 12:22 pm

Um, no, it is not Carol's word. It is a Texas neuro-endocrinologist's (sp?) word. She did make that up.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Re: Interesting comments on Kelli, UT perspective

Postby tafnut » Sun Aug 31, 2003 12:23 pm

Oh crap! I meant to say she did NOT make it up, but it did make me laugh out loud to read what I wrote, after all that has been said about her here.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Re: Interesting comments on Kelli, UT perspective

Postby MJD » Sun Aug 31, 2003 12:34 pm

>Um, no, it is not Carol's word. It is a Texas
>neuro-endocrinologist's (sp?) word. She did make
>that up.

Given her journalist abilities that have aleady been dissected ad nauseum on this list, who really knows what this doc said. There is another thread on here where someone with just as much credibility as CL said that he would NEVER prescribe this drug for nacrolepsy.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Interesting comments on Kelli, UT perspective

Postby Guest » Sun Aug 31, 2003 1:26 pm

"Well if she's taking all that stuff that she DID list she's an idiot anyway, in this day and age.
Just another typical American I suppose, who thinks the answer for everything is a pill or a powder. I'm an American and I'm disgusted.
People who insist on training on a warehouse of supplements are a walking time bomb of test positives- it's only a matter of time before your face is gonna be in front of a microphone trying to 'explain'"

There are just so many things wrong with this statement. First, what is so WRONG with taking supplements that are allowed? What you obviously fail to realize is that the overwhelming majority of athletes at this level take supplements. Whether you, as an average American do or not, has no significance. You probably aren't out there training your body day in and day out to perform at an optimal level like elite athletes do.

When you fill out your forms at a doping test you are asked to list absolutely everything...phosphate, glucosamine, glutamine, creatine, birth control, advil, etc....anything you have put in your body over the last three days. Is there a risk involved when you take supplements? Of course. You can never be 100% certain of the things you injest but you do your best and try to be as careful as possible. Taking supplements however, is not a substitute for hard work and training, not in the least, and whether you do or not does not make you an idiot.

And since when is being an elite athlete who strives to be the very best and trains their body to its limits a "typical American". There isn't anything "typical" about that. Of course you don't need supplements to help replenish your muscles and aid your recovery from workouts if all you do is sit in an office all day. Why would you? But how you could be disgusted by an athlete who chooses to is beyond me. I am extremely opposed to people who cheat and take drugs that are banned. But something that is acceptable is a different story.

This post didn't have too much to do with Kelli's incident in that I don't know all the facts and I can't pretend that I do. All I was doing was commenting on the attack made on people who take supplements period because I thought it was very absurd.
Guest
 

Re: Interesting comments on Kelli, UT perspective

Postby MJD » Sun Aug 31, 2003 1:32 pm

>Say, JRM, I've got NEWS for you. The USOC and
>the USATF came about as a result of a
>CONGRESSIONAL ACT. They exist LEGALLY at the
>behest of Congress. Try learning something for a
>change JRM.

For the life of me, I can't figure out what part of JRM's post this US civics lesson was supposed to be responding to. He said that if you want to play, you play by the rules.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Not the first time?

Postby Guest » Sun Aug 31, 2003 1:49 pm

Interesting other news:

White had drug problems last year in France?

http://fr.sports.yahoo.com/030317/1/33nag.html
Guest
 

Re: Interesting comments on Kelli, UT perspective

Postby michael lewis » Sun Aug 31, 2003 1:56 pm

"Bunch of damned hypocrites. Makes me sick."

Let's stage a barf-in at IAAF headquarters. I couldn't agree with you more. Ask GH about the letter discovered when East Germany ceased to exist, written by 400 WR holder Marita Koch, in which she bitched to authorities about Barbel Wockel getting better drugs than she was receiving. What was discovered combing through state files was so damning that there is no question that the DDR was one big cheat maching. They still have that 400 record and the women's 4x100. WHY?? WHY?? Fuck them.
michael lewis
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Interesting comments on Kelli, UT perspective

Postby michael lewis » Sun Aug 31, 2003 1:57 pm

make that a cheat "machine". Full of Fraudleins.
michael lewis
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Not the first time?

Postby MJD » Sun Aug 31, 2003 2:17 pm

>Interesting other news:
>White had drug
>problems last year in France?

>http://fr.sports.yahoo.com/030317/1/33nag.html


Doesn't everyone know that? Asthma. Narcolepsy. It's a wonder this person can get out of bed in the morning unless, of course, she really isn't sick and taking the stuff for some other reason.
What that would be-I have no idea.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Interesting comments on Kelli, UT perspective

Postby Guest » Sun Aug 31, 2003 3:47 pm

kelli white's positive test for a perscription medication should not even be news. the medication is NOT even banned even though they are considering for next year to put it on the long list of banned substance (some of them could be natural). the medication she had been taking called midafinil (trade name provigil) is NOT a stimulant at all. it is being used for excessive somnolense and/or it is more severe form narcolepsy and it is recently new in the us market. according to the report it was given to her by a doctor (they even included his name and i am sure he is not happy about that due to confidentiality issues). As far as studies have showed provigil or midafinil has no performance enhansing properties. i have perscribed a few times too and none of those people improved their 100 meter times lol ! it is ironic that the iaaf released a neutral statement and did not want to resolve this during the meet. it is unclear what will happen, but this is not a doping violation even by their (iaaf and usatf) standards.
dr thanos mihas
Guest
 

Re: Interesting comments on Kelli, UT perspective

Postby Guest » Sun Aug 31, 2003 3:56 pm

carol is right tafnut, just as much people on this board dont like her i think she did her research on this one. provigil or modafinil is NOT a stimulant nor does it have any stimulant properties, in fact that is the early information i have received too. i have perscribed to a few patients with excessive somnolence with limited results. certainly did not make thew sprint team. and by the way carol did a good job in this meet, much better than ever before.
dr mihas
Guest
 

Re: Interesting comments on Kelli, UT perspective

Postby JRM » Sun Aug 31, 2003 5:27 pm

"provigil or modafinil is NOT a stimulant nor does it have any stimulant properties"

This seems somewhat confusing. Why is it then classified as a CNS stimulant? Also, when taken in combination with, say, asthma medication, there *can* be exaggerated CNS stimulation.
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Re: Interesting comments on Kelli, UT perspective

Postby Guest » Sun Aug 31, 2003 5:42 pm

How many of you find it ironic that Kelli tested positive(supposedly) in France? Didn't she have some kind of positive there last year or the year before? Something smells! Isn't it funny that she has never tested positive anywhere else? Plus if they strip her of her 200 gold after she tested negative they have no guts or balls.
Guest
 

Re: Interesting comments on Kelli, UT perspective

Postby Guest » Sun Aug 31, 2003 5:54 pm

"they have no guts or balls."

We ARE talking about the French, aren't we? Doh!
Guest
 

Re: Kelli White's 200m test sample....

Postby Guest » Sun Aug 31, 2003 6:10 pm

>>I think it
>clearly demonstartes that drug
>testing is merely
>a craps shoot.

In other
>words, a negative means nothing as far as whether
>or not an athlete is on drugs.>

Eggsactly.

Which is why the testing is a waste of time.
Guest
 

Re: Kelli White's 200m test sample....

Postby Guest » Sun Aug 31, 2003 8:28 pm

Thank you, Michael Lewis. Yes, I AM accusing the IAAF of blatant hypocrisy in their apparent unwillingness to not address there own backyard with the PROVEN drug use in the DDR during the '60-'80s. Anyone ever heard of State Plan 1425???? A big expose was done on a major US media outlet a few years ago. I still have a copy of it. I've also read umpteen zillion newsbriefs of the trials that went on during the '90s of former DDR officials who administered steroids to CHILDREN as young as 11-12. Many women's lives have been permanently damaged by these officials. Does the IAAF say a word publicly???? HELL NO! It would upset their little applecart if the true history of MASSIVE, STATE-SPONSORED drug use were to become widely known throughout the general public. It would cause sponsors to ditch their little sponsorship deals. The sport, particularly in Europe, would tank if the IAAF were to publicly reveal what they know, when they knew it, and the pervasiveness of drug use for decades throughout all countries, particularly those in Europe where state-sponsored programs have been common in the past few decades.

The words TRUTH and IAAF should never, NEVER be used in the same sentence together unless to point out that the IAAF knows the TRUTH but will never reveal the TRUTH. Damned hypocrites. I spit on them.

Kurt
Guest
 

Re: Kelli White's 200m test sample....

Postby Randy Treadway » Sun Aug 31, 2003 8:44 pm

Hey Kurt, what are you taking to stimulate saliva production?---You've been doing a lot of spitting lately!

...just kidding :)))
Randy Treadway
 
Posts: 1907
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Kelli White's 200m test sample....

Postby Guest » Sun Aug 31, 2003 9:28 pm

Natural hormones, man, natural hormones :)
Guest
 

Re: Interesting comments on Kelli, UT perspective

Postby JRM » Sun Aug 31, 2003 9:37 pm

>How many of you find it ironic that Kelli tested >positive(supposedly) in France? Didn't she have >some kind of positive there last year or the >year before? Something smells!

I find it more interesting that she tested positive for a substance which, when mixed with the more recent "non-banned" positive, will allegedly produce overstimulation of the central nervous system.
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Re: Interesting comments on Kelli, UT perspective

Postby MJD » Mon Sep 01, 2003 3:25 am

>I find it
>more interesting that she tested positive for a
>substance which, when mixed with the more recent
>"non-banned" positive, will allegedly produce
>overstimulation of the central nervous
>system.

I think that we may have just have hit on the key here. Didn't somone once say that the chemists will alwys be able to stay ahead of the testers?
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Kelli White's 200m test sample....

Postby michael lewis » Mon Sep 01, 2003 5:24 am

Hey Kurt I'd love to get a copy of that from you if you'd be willing. Let me know and maybe we could exchange emails and/or numbers.

Thanks
michael lewis
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Interesting comments on Kelli, UT perspective

Postby MJD » Mon Sep 01, 2003 7:30 am

>according to the report it was given to
>her by a doctor (they even included his name and
>i am sure he is not happy about that due to
>confidentiality issues

The privilege protects the PATIENT not the doctor
and it would appear that she waived that privilege. This guy and his "research" is allegedly at the centre of this so let's shine a little light on him. Unless, of course, she is not telling the truth.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest