Çakır-Alptekin positive? [second scandal erupts]


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby Daisy » Mon Mar 25, 2013 5:50 pm

Pego wrote:
Daisy wrote:
Pego wrote:Fact #1 - Adderall is highly effective in improving attention deficit.
Fact #2 - There is zero evidence that Adderall is a PED

We'll it could help performance at the start.


For 10 years of the existence of this board, I have been asking for a shred of evidence that stimulants are PEDs. The best I received would be "some people believe," or "may".

Here's my theory. If you're 'day dreaming' at the start, then adderall might help. I have no idea if that's why it's banned.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby Flumpy » Mon Mar 25, 2013 5:57 pm

It's banned because it contains amphetimine.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby Pego » Mon Mar 25, 2013 6:02 pm

Flumpy wrote:It's banned because it contains amphetimine.


I repeat. Give me any shred of evidence that stimulants (including amphetamines) enhance performance in any way.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby Flumpy » Mon Mar 25, 2013 6:50 pm

I have no idea whether they do or not, but if they're on the banned list you should get banned, end of story.

Now whether they should be on the banned list is a whole other argument.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby Blues » Mon Mar 25, 2013 8:45 pm

Flumpy wrote:
When Justin Gatlin was reinstated after the 2001 positive test it was with the understanding that he was being allowed to compete again under the exceptional circumstances rule at the discretion of the IAAF and that his first ban would count as such in the future.

At the time IAAF council member Professor Arne Ljungqvist stated.........

“My proposal to the Council was to reinstate Gatlin with immediate effect whilst making it clear that, as this was considered as a first offence, if he tested positive again, he would be banned for life in accordance with IAAF Rules. Although I recall that some Council Members may have disagreed with me and felt that he should not be reinstated, my advice was followed by the vast majority and the decision was duly taken to reinstate him.”

So as I said he should have received a lifetime ban for a second offense. Why the IAAF went back on their word I have no idea. :? :x


The IAAF panel was convinced that there was no intent to cheat in 2001, which is a major reason why Gatlin was reinstated early. His A sample amphetamine level during the 2001 test was below 200ng/ml, and the level for the B sample was even lower. In most workplace drug testing today, an initial urine level of at least 500ng/ml is required for a positive test for amphetamines. Regardless of the circumstances of Gatlin's 2006 doping violation, it's pretty obvious that the first positive test should qualify as a reduced sanction offense. With the current rules, as I already pointed out in a previous post, Gatlin would NOT face a lifetime ban for the second offense, and would face a ban of between 4-8 years, based on the nature of the first offense as a reduced sanction offense. So at least as far as the current rules go, his 4 year ban for the 2006 offense was within normal sanction parameters.

As far as I'm concerned, I think it's a good thing that the IAAF has at least become a little more sensible over the past few years, and that a first offense that was obviously innocent, with no intent to cheat and with most likely no performance enhancing benefits, no longer forces an unusually harsh punishment (or death penalty) on an athlete for a second offense...
Blues
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby Blues » Mon Mar 25, 2013 8:58 pm

Pego wrote:
Flumpy wrote:It's banned because it contains amphetimine.


I repeat. Give me any shred of evidence that stimulants (including amphetamines) enhance performance in any way.


As much as I'm in favor of not counting Gatlin's first offense for Adderall harshly against him, I'm also not convinced that amphetamines can't improve performance in certain types of events or under certain conditions, so I do agree with the rules that ban them in-competition.
Blues
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby mump boy » Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:48 am

I don't think anyone is arguing that he fist offence should have been treated harshly but that's not the point. He was given fair warning when let off the first time that it would count as a first of offence and future positives would result in a lifetime ban.

The merits of amphetamines or the necessity of Adderal have nothing to do with this argument.
mump boy
 
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby Gabriella » Tue Mar 26, 2013 2:58 am

Flumpy wrote:I have no idea whether they do or not, but if they're on the banned list you should get banned, end of story.


This ^^^^

Is it all about whether a substance is proven to increase an athletes performace? Is it not also about whether they are trying to gain an unfair advantage, about unsportsmanlike behaviour, about trying a variety of drugs that coventional medicine wouldn't necessarily think would aid performace?

Who would have thought that athletes would be taking narcolepsy drugs, but they did.

I don't buy the argument that stimulants do not aid performance. Believe me, I have had my fair share of stimulants in the past and they certainly allowed me to dance all night till dawn; I could not have done that without them.

In my softer moments I do think that everyone is human, it must be very easy to inadvertantly take something that could be banned but then I come to my senses and become hard again. It absolutely infuriates me when an athlete fails a second time. If they do this I would cancel every one of their performances; in the very least I would ban everything between their failed tests.
Gabriella
 
Posts: 1688
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:59 am

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby Pego » Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:25 am

Blues wrote:
Pego wrote:
Flumpy wrote:It's banned because it contains amphetimine.


I repeat. Give me any shred of evidence that stimulants (including amphetamines) enhance performance in any way.


As much as I'm in favor of not counting Gatlin's first offense for Adderall harshly against him, I'm also not convinced that amphetamines can't improve performance in certain types of events or under certain conditions, so I do agree with the rules that ban them in-competition.


This is the usual response I have been getting. No evidence for PEDs, but since they could...As far as I am concerned, simplifying The Index could go a long way to improve PEDs governance. Like the tax code, eh :wink: ?
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby Daisy » Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:15 am

What made WADA take caffeine off the list?
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby lionelp1 » Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:17 am

Blues wrote:
Flumpy wrote:
When Justin Gatlin was reinstated after the 2001 positive test it was with the understanding that he was being allowed to compete again under the exceptional circumstances rule at the discretion of the IAAF and that his first ban would count as such in the future.

At the time IAAF council member Professor Arne Ljungqvist stated.........

“My proposal to the Council was to reinstate Gatlin with immediate effect whilst making it clear that, as this was considered as a first offence, if he tested positive again, he would be banned for life in accordance with IAAF Rules. Although I recall that some Council Members may have disagreed with me and felt that he should not be reinstated, my advice was followed by the vast majority and the decision was duly taken to reinstate him.”

So as I said he should have received a lifetime ban for a second offense. Why the IAAF went back on their word I have no idea. :? :x


The IAAF panel was convinced that there was no intent to cheat in 2001, which is a major reason why Gatlin was reinstated early. His A sample amphetamine level during the 2001 test was below 200ng/ml, and the level for the B sample was even lower. In most workplace drug testing today, an initial urine level of at least 500ng/ml is required for a positive test for amphetamines. Regardless of the circumstances of Gatlin's 2006 doping violation, it's pretty obvious that the first positive test should qualify as a reduced sanction offense. With the current rules, as I already pointed out in a previous post, Gatlin would NOT face a lifetime ban for the second offense, and would face a ban of between 4-8 years, based on the nature of the first offense as a reduced sanction offense. So at least as far as the current rules go, his 4 year ban for the 2006 offense was within normal sanction parameters.

As far as I'm concerned, I think it's a good thing that the IAAF has at least become a little more sensible over the past few years, and that a first offense that was obviously innocent, with no intent to cheat and with most likely no performance enhancing benefits, no longer forces an unusually harsh punishment (or death penalty) on an athlete for a second offense...


Blue's views may of course be influenced by the fact that Gatlin was an OG medallist and kept on denying that he ever cheated. Can't quite make up my mind whether Blues is naive or plain ....
Gatlin should have been banned for life and all the rest is p**s and waffle ,as we say.
Gatlin's so called intent is not the issue, nor is the benefit he may or may not have got from his cheating the real issue.
He cheated and broke the rules and many other athletes from outside the USA would not ,in my opinion, have been treated by the IAAF etc as leniently as Gatlin.
The double standards on this Forum are so sad :(
lionelp1
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 4:48 am

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby Gabriella » Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:54 am

Daisy wrote:What made WADA take caffeine off the list?


From WADA:

Caffeine is part of WADA's Monitoring Program*. This program includes substances which are not prohibited in sport, but which WADA monitors in order to detect patterns of misuse in sport.

The 2010 and 2011 Monitoring Programs did not reveal global specific patterns of misuse of caffeine in sport, though a significant increase in consumption in the athletic population is observed.


*Monitoring Program
WADA, in consultation with signatories and governments, shall establish a monitoring program regarding substances which are not on the Prohibited List, but which WADA wishes to monitor in order to detect patterns of misuse in sport.
WADA shall publish, in advance of any testing, the substances that will be monitored. Laboratories will report the instances of reported use or detected presence of these substances to WADA periodically on an aggregate basis by sport and whether the samples were collected in-competition or out–of-competition. Such reports shall not contain additional information regarding specific samples.

WADA shall make available to International Federations and National Anti-Doping Organizations, on at least an annual basis, aggregate statistical information by sport regarding the additional substances. WADA shall implement measures to ensure that strict anonymity of individual Athletes is maintained with respect to such reports. The reported use or detected presence of a monitored substance shall not constitute an anti-doping rule violation
Gabriella
 
Posts: 1688
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:59 am

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby Master Po » Tue Mar 26, 2013 5:54 am

Gabriella wrote:
Flumpy wrote:I have no idea whether they do or not, but if they're on the banned list you should get banned, end of story.


This ^^^^

Is it all about whether a substance is proven to increase an athletes performace? Is it not also about whether they are trying to gain an unfair advantage, about unsportsmanlike behaviour, about trying a variety of drugs that coventional medicine wouldn't necessarily think would aid performace?

Who would have thought that athletes would be taking narcolepsy drugs, but they did.

I don't buy the argument that stimulants do not aid performance. Believe me, I have had my fair share of stimulants in the past and they certainly allowed me to dance all night till dawn; I could not have done that without them.

In my softer moments I do think that everyone is human, it must be very easy to inadvertantly take something that could be banned but then I come to my senses and become hard again. It absolutely infuriates me when an athlete fails a second time. If they do this I would cancel every one of their performances; in the very least I would ban everything between their failed tests.


agree w Gabriella (and Flumpy, and mump, a few posts above).
Master Po
 
Posts: 2641
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: north coast USA

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby Daisy » Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:22 am

Gabriella wrote:
Daisy wrote:What made WADA take caffeine off the list?


From WADA:

Caffeine is part of WADA's Monitoring Program*. This program includes substances which are not prohibited in sport, but which WADA monitors in order to detect patterns of misuse in sport.

Interesting, so not quite off the list.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Cakir-Alptekin positive?

Postby nevetsllim » Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:26 am

CookyMonzta wrote:
JumboElliott wrote:I hope they don't reassign the medals.

They must. It's not the 4th-place finisher's fault that the winner was dirty.

This is going to kill Istanbul's chances to host the XXXII Olympiad in 2020. I hope South Africa is in the running and fights for it.


Madrid and Tokyo are the other cities in the running and it's not like Spain's all hunky-dory on the anti-doping front. :!:
nevetsllim
 
Posts: 6261
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 2:54 am

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby Blues » Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:05 am

lionelp1 wrote:
Blue's views may of course be influenced by the fact that Gatlin was an OG medallist and kept on denying that he ever cheated. Can't quite make up my mind whether Blues is naive or plain ....
Gatlin should have been banned for life and all the rest is p**s and waffle ,as we say.
Gatlin's so called intent is not the issue, nor is the benefit he may or may not have got from his cheating the real issue.
He cheated and broke the rules and many other athletes from outside the USA would not ,in my opinion, have been treated by the IAAF etc as leniently as Gatlin.
The double standards on this Forum are so sad :(


"Can't quite make up my mind whether Blues is naive or plain ...."

Such a civil and tolerant response, LOL....

If you'll notice, I didn't say I agreed with Gatlin's 4 year ban for the steroid positive, nor did I say that I necessarily respect him or absolve him for testing positive in 2006. I may have a few doubts about his character, but there are quite a few other elite track and field athletes who haven't tested positive who I have doubts about when it comes to PEDs.

My point was solely that I truly believe that his first positive was an inadvertent mistake by a 19 year old college student who'd been on ADHD medication since he was 8 or 9 years old, and that there was no intent to cheat, and almost certainly no advantage from having a small quantity of the substance in his urine. If somebody like SAFP should someday test positive for taking a swig of a drink from a teammate, and the drink contained methylhexanamine for example, should she be banned for life because she took a percocet tablet prior to a race once after a tooth extraction? You guys may vote yes, but I'm voting no. If you've read some of my posts on the issue before, you'd know that I'm not one who's lenient when it comes to PED usage and penalties, nor am I one who favors legalizing PEDs. I just think that the penalty should fit the crime and also that the intent to cheat should be factored in, and a lifetime ban for an athlete having a tiny bit of Adderall in his or her system, when they've taken the drug just about every day of their life for the previous 10 years, shouldn't warrant a death penalty as far as I'm concerned, at least as long as the second offense doesn't warrant a lifetime ban on its own. I'd feel the same way whether the athlete was my favorite athlete or my least favorite athlete. Call me what you will. And generally during a competition, I don't often root for an athlete who's tested positive for a PED in the past, but that doesn't mean I want them banned for life because of a possible additional inadvertent mistake with no intent to cheat.
Blues
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby ldnbloke » Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:18 am

Re J Gatlin ( and SA Fraser-Pryce) - the real issue is why they didn't declare the substances they had taken. Has anyone heard of an explanation? Adderall and opiates require a doctor to prescribe them, explain side effects etc... If Gatlin was taking this since childhood did he really fail to grasp the need to declare it and was submitting samples for some time without mentioning it. If these two do not understand this simple rule of anti-doping procedures, do they need to be moved to compete in a paralympic category? As I doubt this is the case then they should make public statements about the non-declaration.
This is not the same as the non declarations of Andrea Raducan, Alain Baxter, Yohan Blake and Sandra Perkovic who failed tests for substances present in products you can buy with no prescription in a corner shop.
ldnbloke
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 8:37 pm

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby gh » Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:23 am

I think it would be very instructive for some of you to read the original judgment on the Gatlin Adderal case, which contains this (bolds mine):

<<...The CAS Panel specifically found that "Mr. Gatlin's inadvertent violation of the IAAF's rules was at most a 'technical' or 'paperwork' violation" and that "Mr. Gatlin neither cheated nor did he intend to cheat. He did not intend to enhance his performance nor, given his medical condition, did his medication in fact enhance his performance. At most, his mistake was in not raising his medical condition for a review with the appropriate authorities [IAAF] before the race, instead of after it."

In accordance with the IAAF rules, Gatlin was suspended for two years from IAAF sanctioned competition, beginning on May 1, 2002, the day of the CAS Panel's ruling but will receive credit for the period of time that he voluntarily did not participate in sanctioned competition, beginning on July 12, 2001. In addition, Gatlin will forfeit his first-place finishes in the 100 and 200 meters, as well as the 110-meter hurdles at the 2001 USA Track & Field Junior National Championships. In issuing this sanction, the CAS Panel specifically stated that based upon Gatlin's conduct and personal culpability, the CAS Panel would not apply the full two-year suspension and expressly retained jurisdiction of the case pending a satisfactory response by the IAAF Council to Gatlin's request for early reinstatement based on the exceptional circumstances in his case, pursuant to the IAAF rules....>>

Rest of the post here:

http://www.usada.org/files/active/resou ... 202002.pdf
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby Blues » Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:30 am

Pego wrote:
Blues wrote:
Pego wrote:
Flumpy wrote:It's banned because it contains amphetimine.


I repeat. Give me any shred of evidence that stimulants (including amphetamines) enhance performance in any way.


As much as I'm in favor of not counting Gatlin's first offense for Adderall harshly against him, I'm also not convinced that amphetamines can't improve performance in certain types of events or under certain conditions, so I do agree with the rules that ban them in-competition.


This is the usual response I have been getting. No evidence for PEDs, but since they could...As far as I am concerned, simplifying The Index could go a long way to improve PEDs governance. Like the tax code, eh :wink: ?


Pego, I know you've posed the question before asking for any evidence that amphetamines can provide a competitive advantage. Obviously it's a difficult thing to test, as it's virtually impossible to guarantee that different subjects have the same ability at the start of a study, or that many other differing time specific factors not related to amphetamine use won't play a part when comparing the same subject's performance while on amphetamine on one day, to the performance without amphetamine at a different time or on a different day... When I get a few minutes, I'll post some of the evidence that makes me feel that amphetamines can provide an advantage in certain areas. Admittedly, it's usually not the type of evidence that's cut and dried.

Another reason for my belief involves several discussions I had a few years ago with two swimmers who used amphetamines prior to an athletic event, and who improved their PB's significantly and broke school records at the event, and who were subsequently dismissed from the team... They swore that the amphetamines made a difference, although that obviously doesn't prove anything... Anyway, I'll work on coming up with some supportive data...
Blues
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby Pego » Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:54 am

Blues wrote: Anyway, I'll work on coming up with some supportive data...


Thank you.
Pego
 
Posts: 10203
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby eldanielfire » Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:58 am

ldnbloke wrote:Re J Gatlin ( and SA Fraser-Pryce) - the real issue is why they didn't declare the substances they had taken. Has anyone heard of an explanation? Adderall and opiates require a doctor to prescribe them, explain side effects etc... If Gatlin was taking this since childhood did he really fail to grasp the need to declare it and was submitting samples for some time without mentioning it. If these two do not understand this simple rule of anti-doping procedures, do they need to be moved to compete in a paralympic category? As I doubt this is the case then they should make public statements about the non-declaration.
This is not the same as the non declarations of Andrea Raducan, Alain Baxter, Yohan Blake and Sandra Perkovic who failed tests for substances present in products you can buy with no prescription in a corner shop.


I'm fairy sympathetic for tall the cases of above. With Gatlin, I'm sympathetic to his original ADHD medication, it's quite obvious a kid may not clock that and he had been on them for a decade, had he only suddenly been taking ADHD medication I would be less sympathetic to his cause. I'm unsympathetic to him now because he seemed to keep being associated with dodgy individuals.

Shelly-Ann Frazer Price is an even more sympathetic case, she went to the dentist, was in pain after just before a race and took some pain killers a friend/coach gave her. It's easy to slip up in that sort of situation. Certain when I've been at friends and have a headache I'd take any pills I was told were pain killers without regard to what side effects could be. It doesn't excuse her but her coach should know better.

In these cases we need consistent sanctions, though I understand the need for a body to rule what the circumstances are or were.
eldanielfire
 
Posts: 1321
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:07 am

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby gh » Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:59 am

ldnbloke wrote:Re J Gatlin ( and SA Fraser-Pryce) - the real issue is why they didn't declare the substances they had taken. ....


The answer is simple. If you're in your teens/early 20s and an authority figure in your life (Gatlin's doctor, SAFP's coach) says, "here, take this and you'll feel better," you take it. Not many athletes are biochemistry majors.

(we're talking Gatlin 1 here, not Gatlin 2)
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby br » Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:19 am

gh wrote:
ldnbloke wrote:Re J Gatlin ( and SA Fraser-Pryce) - the real issue is why they didn't declare the substances they had taken. ....


The answer is simple. If you're in your teens/early 20s and an authority figure in your life (Gatlin's doctor, SAFP's coach) says, "here, take this and you'll feel better," you take it. Not many athletes are biochemistry majors.

(we're talking Gatlin 1 here, not Gatlin 2)


http://www.usantidoping.org/files/activ ... gatlin.pdf

8. Under the I.A.A.F. definition of doping a doping violation takes place when a prohibited substance (in this case amphetamine) is found to be present within an athlete's bodily fluids, unless a prior medical exemption was given by the I.A.A.F. for the use of the substance. Mr. Gatlin never sought any medical exemption from the I.A.A.F. He did, however, disclose his prescription medicine to his doctor at the University of Tennessee.

9. Based on medical experts' opinion of this case, it is not unreasonable for this panel to assume that, if requested, the exemption would likely have been granted. Rather than to seek a medical exemption, the course of action followed by most athletes with ADD is simply to discontinue their use of their medication in advance of a competition. This is what Mr. Gatlin did. USADA advises athletes after consultation with their physicians to discontinue using the ADD medication to clear their system. Mr. Gatlin's doctor did not know how far in advance of competing Mr. Gatlin should stop taking his medication.
br
 
Posts: 478
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby ldnbloke » Tue Mar 26, 2013 9:45 am

gh wrote:
ldnbloke wrote:Re J Gatlin ( and SA Fraser-Pryce) - the real issue is why they didn't declare the substances they had taken. ....


The answer is simple. If you're in your teens/early 20s and an authority figure in your life (Gatlin's doctor, SAFP's coach) says, "here, take this and you'll feel better," you take it. Not many athletes are biochemistry majors.

(we're talking Gatlin 1 here, not Gatlin 2)

I find it hard to accept that they couldn't write 'ADHD pill'or 'pain killer' on their declaration form. As they had been tested before they should've known to write it down as the form invites you to declare. I really think they should've issued a statement as to why (even if they came up with a lie). Otherwise if they're not of sufficient mental capacity to do so , then they should be accompanied by a responsible adult when being tested.
ldnbloke
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 8:37 pm

Re: Cakir-Alptekin positive?

Postby Flumpy » Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:28 am

nevetsllim wrote:
CookyMonzta wrote:This is going to kill Istanbul's chances to host the XXXII Olympiad in 2020. I hope South Africa is in the running and fights for it.


Madrid and Tokyo are the other cities in the running and it's not like Spain's all hunky-dory on the anti-doping front. :!:


I'm very much looking forward to visiting Tokyo for the first time :P
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby gh » Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:30 am

ldnbloke wrote:
gh wrote:
ldnbloke wrote:Re J Gatlin ( and SA Fraser-Pryce) - the real issue is why they didn't declare the substances they had taken. ....


The answer is simple. If you're in your teens/early 20s and an authority figure in your life (Gatlin's doctor, SAFP's coach) says, "here, take this and you'll feel better," you take it. Not many athletes are biochemistry majors.

(we're talking Gatlin 1 here, not Gatlin 2)

I find it hard to accept that they couldn't write 'ADHD pill'or 'pain killer' on their declaration form. As they had been tested before they should've known to write it down as the form invites you to declare. I really think they should've issued a statement as to why (even if they came up with a lie). Otherwise if they're not of sufficient mental capacity to do so , then they should be accompanied by a responsible adult when being tested.


you've obvioiusly never had a job that involved looking at forms that the common man has filled out! Filling out forms (and reading instructions) just isn't a part of the normal human genome.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby Flumpy » Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:44 am

gh wrote:I think it would be very instructive for some of you to read the original judgment on the Gatlin Adderal case, which contains this (bolds mine):

<<...The CAS Panel specifically found that "Mr. Gatlin's inadvertent violation of the IAAF's rules was at most a 'technical' or 'paperwork' violation" and that "Mr. Gatlin neither cheated nor did he intend to cheat. He did not intend to enhance his performance nor, given his medical condition, did his medication in fact enhance his performance. At most, his mistake was in not raising his medical condition for a review with the appropriate authorities [IAAF] before the race, instead of after it."


But this is all totally irrelevant Gaz. Nobody is arguing that his first offense was intentional or that he gained any unfair advantage but he was reinstated early and both the IAAF Council and the USATF press releases emphasized that he had committed a doping offence and that it would constitute a first offence for the purposes of any subsequent positive result and warned that a lifetime ban could be applied if there was a subsequent doping offence committed by Gatlin.

Knowing that he chose to cheat again so fully deserved to be punished in the manner that was promised.

I have yet to see an explanation as to why this wasn't upheld?
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby mump boy » Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:45 am

Blues wrote: If somebody like SAFP should someday test positive for taking a swig of a drink from a teammate, and the drink contained methylhexanamine for example, should she be banned for life because she took a percocet tablet prior to a race once after a tooth extraction?


This scenario has NOTHING in common with Gatlin's, his 2nd positive wasn't for methylhexanamine, which has only recently been added to the banned list, was certainly in many over the counter remedies and some sports drinks etc. he was caught guzzling steroids supplied to him by the most infamous PED pushing coach in track history, after nearly all his training mates had already been caught !!

If Gatlin's positives had been the other way round you may have a point but at the moment you just come off as an apologist.
mump boy
 
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby gh » Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:53 am

Flumpy wrote:
gh wrote:I think it would be very instructive for some of you to read the original judgment on the Gatlin Adderal case, which contains this (bolds mine):

<<...The CAS Panel specifically found that "Mr. Gatlin's inadvertent violation of the IAAF's rules was at most a 'technical' or 'paperwork' violation" and that "Mr. Gatlin neither cheated nor did he intend to cheat. He did not intend to enhance his performance nor, given his medical condition, did his medication in fact enhance his performance. At most, his mistake was in not raising his medical condition for a review with the appropriate authorities [IAAF] before the race, instead of after it."


But this is all totally irrelevant Gaz. Nobody is arguing that his first offense was intentional or that he gained any unfair advantage but he was reinstated early and both the IAAF Council and the USATF press releases emphasized that he had committed a doping offence and that it would constitute a first offence for the purposes of any subsequent positive result and warned that a lifetime ban could be applied if there was a subsequent doping offence committed by Gatlin.

Knowing that he chose to cheat again so fully deserved to be punished in the manner that was promised.

I have yet to see an explanation as to why this wasn't upheld?


Because CAS, which has the final say, ruled that he was again eligible. CAS exists to arbitrate rulings made by other bodies; it is not bound to uphold them. As it should be.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby Blues » Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:40 am

mump boy wrote:If Gatlin's positives had been the other way round you may have a point but at the moment you just come off as an apologist.



Well, if I had to choose, I guess I'd rather come off as an apologist than as a hanging judge or lynch mob member... :wink:
Blues
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby gh » Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:58 am

supporting the protocols that are in place certainly doesn't make one an apologist.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby mump boy » Tue Mar 26, 2013 1:26 pm

gh wrote:supporting the protocols that are in place certainly doesn't make one an apologist.


It does if your apologising for the protocols :P
mump boy
 
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby Blues » Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:57 pm

Additionally, Gatlin stated that there were no declaration forms at the USATF Junior Championships in 2001 where he tested positive for amphetamine.. He testified to the involved panels that he stopped taking his Adderall several days prior to the competition as was standard procedure at the time. Medical experts agreed that the low urinary amphetamine levels in Gatlin's samples were consistent with a last dose having been taken several days earlier.

The USATF Junior Championship Meet was also Gatlin's first USATF sanctioned meet. His earlier NCAA competitions as a frosh at Tennessee did not consider Adderall a banned substance as long as the athlete had a valid prescription for a legitimate medical purpose.

Even today, the NCAA protocol is that the school just has to keep the athlete's medical information (diagnosis, course of treatment, and current prescription information) on file, and fill out a medical exception form after the fact should an athlete from the school test positive for certain banned substances that they have a legitimate prescription for, including ADHD medications like Adderall... Anabolic steroids and peptide hormones require prior approval, but other substances like ADHD meds don't.
Blues
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby mump boy » Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:09 pm

Blues wrote:Additionally, Gatlin stated that there were no declaration forms at the USATF Junior Championships in 2001 where he tested positive for amphetamine.. He testified to the involved panels that he stopped taking his Adderall several days prior to the competition as was standard procedure at the time. Medical experts agreed that the low urinary amphetamine levels in Gatlin's samples were consistent with a last dose having been taken several days earlier.

The USATF Junior Championship Meet was also Gatlin's first USATF sanctioned meet. His earlier NCAA competitions as a frosh at Tennessee did not consider Adderall a banned substance as long as the athlete had a valid prescription for a legitimate medical purpose.

Even today, the NCAA protocol is that the school just has to keep the athlete's medical information (diagnosis, course of treatment, and current prescription information) on file, and fill out a medical exception form after the fact should an athlete from the school test positive for certain banned substances that they have a legitimate prescription for, including ADHD medications like Adderall... Anabolic steroids and peptide hormones require prior approval, but other substances like ADHD meds don't.


NOBODY CARES ABOUT HIS ADDERALL POSITIVE
mump boy
 
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby gh » Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:12 pm

of course you do.... if you accept it as a fraud (which it was), then there is zero grounds for the life ban you seem to think he should have had. (without getting into whether or not one believes that even a first-time offense should draw life, but that's a different kettle of fish)
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby JumboElliott » Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:25 pm

Even the four year punishment was arbitrary and capricious based on the 2001 "positive test".
JumboElliott
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:46 am

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby ldnbloke » Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:46 pm

Blues wrote:Additionally, Gatlin stated that there were no declaration forms at the USATF Junior Championships in 2001 where he tested positive for amphetamine

If that's correct then why were they even conducting the tests? How many athletes failed tests for Salbutamol etc then? Hard to believe at the whole champ not one athlete had asthma!
BLR and USA have the weirdest doping/antidoping stories to tell...
ldnbloke
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2011 8:37 pm

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby mump boy » Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:52 pm

gh wrote:of course you do.... if you accept it as a fraud (which it was), then there is zero grounds for the life ban you seem to think he should have had. (without getting into whether or not one believes that even a first-time offense should draw life, but that's a different kettle of fish)


He tested positive and accepted whatever sanction was imposed with the understanding that it counted as a first failure and any subsequent ones would mean a life ban, I honestly don't care about the minutiae. There are lots of athletes in the same circumstances who have minor bans for stimulants, recreational drugs etc etc. It's a lesson and you move on ad be more careful in the future. Knowing his situation he chose the most notorious coach in track and the behaviours that went along with it.

Everyone knows i'm a massive fan of TBO and have much sympathy for her missed tests situation but she was rightly banned and if she ever tests positive for a steroid they can throw the book at her as far as i'm concerned. The same stands for Justin Gatlin and anyone else in their situation, if you inadvertently get sanctioned once you better make sure you never chose the PED route in the future as you know what will happen.

No matter the rights and wrongs of amphetamine use, not signing he right forms, being badly advised etc etc it is all irrelevant to the choice he made 5 years later being fully aware of the consequences.
mump boy
 
Posts: 5637
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby gh » Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:06 pm

One reason civilized nations have a checks & balances legal system is to protect people from their own stupidity.
gh
 
Posts: 46335
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby bobguild76 » Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:39 pm

This is a great discussion ... I don't think anyone wants to make light of Gatlin's 2006 PED use. It seems the major point in dispute has to do with the human element in this process. And in my opinion there must be a human element when it comes to the sentence. Otherwise, why even have a CAS? We would simply take the lab results, go to the appropriate sanctions chart, and notify the athlete in question of his/her sentence. And in most cases, the sentencing authority does just that.

But there should always be an avenue of appeal. That is where trust comes in ... trust in the process and trust in the people who make the process work. Much has been made of the 2001 warning to Gatlin that any future PED use would be considered a second offense. But the folks who heard his 2006 appeal were aware of the 2001 warning, yet still chose to make his '06 penalty a 4 year ban. They considered the facts of the case, and made a decision that was within their scope of authority to make.

We may disagree on the wisdom of that decision. But no one subverted the process. The folks who made this decision weren't babes in the woods. I may disagree with their judgement, but I acknowledge their authority to make that judgement.
bobguild76
 
Posts: 448
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:39 pm

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests