another dirty MF


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.

another dirty MF

Postby Guest » Thu Oct 23, 2003 7:10 pm

Two-time U.S. weight-throw titlist reportedly tests positive for designer steroid
By PHILIP HERSH
Chicago Tribune

CHICAGO - Hammer thrower John McEwen, two-time U.S. indoor champion in the 35-pound weight throw, is said to be among four U.S. track athletes who tested positive this summer for the designer steroid THG, according to Chicago Tribune sources.

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/ ... 088537.htm
Guest
 

Re: another dirty MF

Postby Guest » Thu Oct 23, 2003 7:49 pm

I still don't buy the "4 athlete" theory. There used to be 20. Where'd the rest go?
Guest
 

Re: another dirty MF

Postby Guest » Thu Oct 23, 2003 7:50 pm

i agree i still think USATF is hiding people
Guest
 

Re: another dirty MF

Postby Guest » Thu Oct 23, 2003 9:44 pm

What's with this tired USATF bashing? How many times do you have to be told that USATFno longer has anything to do with the wet end of this process?

All domesatic testing done by USADA, contaminated syringe that started the whole thing was sent to USADA, USADA made the report to the IAAF that led to Chambers test and Paris retest. And USADA has initiated the Stanfrod re-test. USATF only reacts to what it's told by USADA.
Guest
 

Re: another dirty MF

Postby Powell » Thu Oct 23, 2003 10:16 pm

I know USADA does the actual testing, but do they also announce the names of those who tested positive? Or is it still the T&F ruling bodies that do it?
Powell
 
Posts: 9065
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Vanuatu

Re: another dirty MF

Postby Asterix » Fri Oct 24, 2003 3:58 am

>I know USADA does the actual testing, but do they
>also announce the names of those who tested
>positive? Or is it still the T&F ruling bodies
>that do it?

According to earlier articles, the names in this specifica case have been passed on the USATF, USOC and the IAAF, in addition to the athletes themselves. My understanding is that after a B sample positive, the athlete can have an appeal heard by USATF. While this may allow them to "sweep it under the rug", that will be difficult in this case given the outside organizations watching over them who have been rather antagonistic in the past. It is after the appeal is rejected that USATF would announce officially the positives. Although at the rate we're going, there aren't going to be any unleaked names for them to announce.
Asterix
 
Posts: 745
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: another dirty MF

Postby bhall » Fri Oct 24, 2003 4:04 am

From the USATF website:

What happens if a sample tests positive for a prohibited substance?

USADA handles all aspects of the disciplinary process if a sample tests positive either domestically or internationally. If the positive sample was given in a domestic competition sanctioned by USATF, USADA will notify the athlete of the test result. If the positive sample was given in an IAAF-sanctioned competition, the IAAF will notify USATF, and USATF will notify the athlete and inform USADA, which will handle the remainder of the process.

http://www.usatf.org/about/legal/antido ... Q.shtml#Q3
bhall
 
Posts: 1832
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: another dirty MF

Postby bhall » Fri Oct 24, 2003 4:06 am

I'll be cutting the original message in this thread down to a headline and a couple sentences and a link to the full article. Please don't post complete articles on message board.
bhall
 
Posts: 1832
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: another dirty MF

Postby Asterix » Fri Oct 24, 2003 4:30 am

>From the USATF website:

Thanks for clarifying the process (guess I should have confirmed it first).

Also of relevance to those who keep harping on the "it's not on the banned list, therefore it is ok" routine, I notice question 7:
http://www.usatf.org/about/legal/antido ... Q.shtml#Q7 :
"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."
Asterix
 
Posts: 745
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: another dirty MF

Postby Guest » Fri Oct 24, 2003 5:20 am

This last raises thequestion, what if you called teh hotline and said I'm taking THG and they said we've never heard of it. Does that make it OK?
Guest
 

Re: another dirty MF

Postby MJD » Fri Oct 24, 2003 5:44 am

>This last raises thequestion, what if you called
>teh hotline and said I'm taking THG and they said
>we've never heard of it. Does that make it OK?

My guess would be no(even if they said it was ok to take) based on the fact that if you get bad answers from tax department help lines and then act on it-it doesn't make any difference. You still have a problem. Could be different for this though.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: another dirty MF

Postby Jon » Fri Oct 24, 2003 5:54 am

>I still don't buy the "4 athlete" theory.
>There used to be 20. Where'd the rest go?


There's 20 athletes altogether. 5 of them are Track and field athletes. The rest are from Baseball, NFL, etc...
Jon
 
Posts: 9231
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: another dirty MF

Postby Pego » Fri Oct 24, 2003 6:16 am

From T&FN annual list - McEwen
1999 230-6 (70.27)
2000 229-1 (69.84)
2001 235-1 (71.67)
2002 243-4 (74.18)
2003 245-2 (74.73)

Hardly a stunning improvement, is it?!
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: another dirty MF

Postby Guest » Fri Oct 24, 2003 7:52 am

nor world-class threatening
Guest
 

Re: another dirty MF

Postby Guest » Fri Oct 24, 2003 8:02 am

like a lot of addiction things......they are taken to just get back to where you were
Guest
 

Re: another dirty MF

Postby Guest » Fri Oct 24, 2003 9:03 am

Note that in the story on the front page here by Phil Hersh that it says

<<USA Track & Field CEO Craig Masback revealed Wednesday in a news conference that four U.S. athletes so far had been found positive for THG in urine samples from the June national meet.>>

The key is the "SO FAR" part. If the author is right, we haven't seen the end of it.
Guest
 

Re: another dirty MF

Postby Guest » Fri Oct 24, 2003 9:06 am

>From T&FN annual list - McEwen
1999 230-6
>(70.27)
2000 229-1 (69.84)
2001 235-1
>(71.67)
2002 243-4 (74.18)
2003 245-2
>(74.73)

Hardly a stunning improvement, is it?!

....when did he start taking drugs then? maybe before 1999?
Guest
 

Re: another dirty MF

Postby Guest » Fri Oct 24, 2003 9:15 am

>...when did he start
>taking drugs then? maybe before 1999?>>


If he did, he certainly doesn't have much fiscal sense.
Guest
 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests