In all seriousness I think somebody at USADA has a major hard-on against track and field and is doing this on purpose. All the names could have been leaked at once, but this way the story stays in the news making headlines far longer.
Either that or the Washington Post's Amy Shipley, who seems to to be breaking all the stories, is milking her Deep Throat for all its worth.
Maybe USADA is leaking the names on purpose, but, if so, I think they are right. I still have a feeling that if they didn't, USATF, which is normally responsible for publishing test results, would find a way to cover it all up.
> I still have a
>feeling that if they didn't, USATF, which is
>normally responsible for publishing test results,
>would find a way to cover it all up.
While I agree that the leaking of names in advance of B sample testing is a little excessive, to say nothing of blatantly against accepted procedures, I don't see how people can still think USATF could find a way to "cover it all up".
Perhaps someone (Powell?) could explain how they can do this when many articles, including statements from USADA, say that the names of those who've tested positive have been passed on not only to USATF and the athletes themselves, but also to the IAAF.
This has nothing to do with leaked names to the media, but the passing on of relevant information to the proper parties. Are people really of the belief that the IAAF, with all their bashing of the US over drugs, would be keen to joining them in covering this up?
Very different tests. EPO vs. anabolic steroid tests are supposedly miles apart in difficulty. Not that false positives don't happen with steroids but Catlin said in a USA Today piece that the EPO test was not a simple procedure.
>That is not correct. She was able to establish
>that she had not taken it knowingly. That was the
>basis on which she was cleared.>>
Not true: she was cleared a year later when an IAAF arbitration panel ruled--and I quote TF News September 2000--".....the lab had improperly tested the Jamaican sprinter's sample, relative to a specific-gravity measurement." The IAAF News later suggested that the arbitration panel had made some mathematical errors in its calculations but ruled that it couldn't overrule the panel (apparently even though they wanted to). So Ottey got off by being lucky, nothing else. Nobody has ever been cleared with an "I didn't know it was there" defense.
That makes even more sense. Remember Butch Reynolds' 1990 sample, which most people believe belonged to a runner in another lane? The IAAF swore upon its labeling and testing procedures, and wouldn't budge on its ruling.
I'm wondering if the World Sport status is ready to "loose" athletes because they used a drug (modafinil) which was not listed thetime they took it and the relation of this drug with stimulants is speculated because of the wide use of it and not on research and scientific evidence.
This is one thing. The THG story is even more complicated.
The related substance rule reminds me Tom Cruise on Minority Report...
>I'm wondering if the World Sport status is ready
>to "loose" athletes because they used a drug
>(modafinil) which was not listed thetime they
>took it and the relation of this drug with
>stimulants is speculated because of the wide use
>of it and not on research and scientific
Who is the "World Sport status" and where has anyone pretending to be them stated athletes would be loose or lost?
Although I can't quote chapter and verse, I would say there is extensive research and scientific evidence for Modafinil being a stimulant given that it has been approved by the FDA to keep people awake and 'up'. Anyone who couldn't make an educated guess that a substance claiming to do that would likely not be allowed, whether stated explicitly or not, probably shouldn't be allowed to travel overseas to meets on their own.
This is one thing. The THG story is
>even more complicated.
Actually, THG is even simpler. There is scientific evidence it is an anabolic agent. Anti-doping rules EXPLICITLY state that anabolic agents are banned. What's so comlex?
The related substance
>rule reminds me Tom Cruise on Minority Report...
Wierd plotline in that movie, but I don't see the parallels. Have you read the exact words of the related substance rule?
> I would say there is extensive research and scientific evidence for Modafinil being a stimulant
Do you know how many substances stimulate the CNS out there but are not listed ? Can you provide any scientific research that Modafinil has performance enhancing abilities ? Opposite caffeine , amphetamines etc have plenty proof, but different punishment if used. Modafinil was added as a mild stimulant, so what's the cut off limit for using it (what does "mild and strong stimulants" mean is that there are some limitations in using the first, right?)
> Actually, THG is even simpler. There is scientific evidence it is an anabolic agent.
Because THG has similarities in it's molecule with two known anabolic agents doesn't necessarely give this substance anabolic properties, unless scientific research proof this.
The related substance
>...Minority Report... Wierd plotline in that movie, but I don't see the parallels. Have you read the exact words of the related substance rule?
What I would like to say is that "related" is a meaning too wide open. Try 3000mg Vitamin C and you will find it stimulated as well.
>Can you provide any scientific research that
>Modafinil has performance enhancing abilities ?
The question I have been trying to get answered from all of the apologists is why are laws being broken(assuming they are taking it without a scrip) and why are they paying good money(if all the money laundering stuff is to believed) to ingest this stuff if it isn't performance enhancing? Is the Walking Fish that good of a salesman? Please don't give me the jet lag and narcolepsy nonsense either.
Tony you are not correct either. It went to arbitration and it was determined that the method of calculating the amount of nandrolone was incorrect and that if the correct procedure had been followed it would not have been over the allowable limit. In other words the A (and B) samples should have initailly been reported as negative. I know a little more of what happened but will not say as it will get the post pulled