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 pakillo » Sun Mar 24, 2013 9:42 am

eldanielfire wrote:
mump boy wrote:
European Athletics ‏@EuroAthletics 20 Mar
Congratulations to Nevin Yanit of Turkey - the women's European Athlete of the Month! http://bit.ly/11j8jtY pic.twitter.com/GPCoHBxKbL
View photo Reply Retweet Favorite More


https://twitter.com/EuroAthletics/statu ... 76/photo/1

:lol: :lol: :lol:

That's hilarious. I'm one who tends be critical of people throwing the doping stick at any athlete with out evidence, but I was a bit surprised at that one considering who it was and who else it could have been given to (perri Shakes Drayton; double gold, world lead, championship record) given the fact she also wasn't exactly undeserving of suspicion.

Fans can vote for the European Athlete of the Month. Used to be on EAA website but through Facebook since recently.
pakillo
 
Posts: 690
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 4:05 pm

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby mump boy » Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:05 pm

pakillo wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
mump boy wrote:
European Athletics ‏@EuroAthletics 20 Mar
Congratulations to Nevin Yanit of Turkey - the women's European Athlete of the Month! http://bit.ly/11j8jtY pic.twitter.com/GPCoHBxKbL
View photo Reply Retweet Favorite More


https://twitter.com/EuroAthletics/statu ... 76/photo/1

:lol: :lol: :lol:

That's hilarious. I'm one who tends be critical of people throwing the doping stick at any athlete with out evidence, but I was a bit surprised at that one considering who it was and who else it could have been given to (perri Shakes Drayton; double gold, world lead, championship record) given the fact she also wasn't exactly undeserving of suspicion.

Fans can vote for the European Athlete of the Month. Used to be on EAA website but through Facebook since recently.


It can't all be attributed to fans

At the end of each month, a panel of experts produces a shortlist of the outstanding athletes and performances achieved by European athletes during that month, which is then mailed to the European athletics media and thousands of fans who have signed up to receive news from European Athletics.

The European Athlete of the Month fan voting takes place through our Facebook page, while members of the media can cast their vote on our website.

Fans are also able to vote through the European Athletics mobile applications on iPhone and Android phones.

The public, media and a group of expert statisticians cast their votes for the European Athlete of the Month with each category counting as 33.3 per cent of the vote.


http://www.european-athletics.org/athle ... month.html
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby sl » Sun Mar 24, 2013 1:03 pm

gh wrote:you can't make shit like this up!!!!! Ayhan suing Alptekin for a share of her winnings? See front page.


Particularly humorous since Alptekin, obviously completely tone deaf, credited Ayhan as her inspiration in the post-race press conference in London. Both Alptekin and Bulut were whisked out of that press conference VERY quickly before anyone could start asking pointed questions.
sl
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby Master Po » Sun Mar 24, 2013 1:47 pm

These substances have all sorts of effects, but still no evidence they make the users smarter...
:)
Master Po
 
Posts: 2631
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: north coast USA

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby Tuariki » Sun Mar 24, 2013 11:03 pm

sl wrote:
gh wrote:you can't make shit like this up!!!!! Ayhan suing Alptekin for a share of her winnings? See front page.


Particularly humorous since Alptekin, obviously completely tone deaf, credited Ayhan as her inspiration in the post-race press conference in London. Both Alptekin and Bulut were whisked out of that press conference VERY quickly before anyone could start asking pointed questions.

Do you think Alptekin might have passed on the knowledge gained from when she was attending the Belarus School of Pharmacology?
Tuariki
 
Posts: 1296
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2010 9:39 pm
Location: Rohe o Te Whanau a Apanui

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby lionelp1 » Mon Mar 25, 2013 12:29 am

JumboElliott wrote:
pakillo wrote:Btw, my question is why Justin Gatlin was allowed to compete after his two doping offenses?
I think Josephine Oniya will be eligible to compete also.

Someone gets 6 months ban for psychostimulant, others get 2 years for psychostimulant... :?

Sigh. This again?

I guess since I've taken adderall since I was 10 then I'm a doper too?

You have to have good lawyers and sympathetic authorities to get away with a ban which should have been a life ban and ends up with a bronze medal :lol:
lionelp1
 
Posts: 281
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2012 4:48 am

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby JumboElliott » Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:47 am

Gatlin's adderall ban shouldn't have counted in the first place. He should have sued the USADA for discrimination.
JumboElliott
 
Posts: 2129
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:46 am

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby gh » Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:50 am

I'm surprised USADA doesn't turn up a lot more Adderall positives. Every time I see the figures on the percent of American students who have scrips for it I'm shocked.
gh
 
Posts: 46323
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby JumboElliott » Mon Mar 25, 2013 11:25 am

90% or more of which are completely bullshit. Kids who get to college and realize they need to stay up to study. Justin's case didn't sound like it was BS. I know that if I didn't take it, it would be difficult to sit through one class.
JumboElliott
 
Posts: 2129
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:46 am

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby Flumpy » Mon Mar 25, 2013 11:33 am

JumboElliott wrote:Gatlin's adderall ban shouldn't have counted in the first place. He should have sued the USADA for discrimination.


Oh please. He should have been banned for life.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Cakir-Alptekin positive?

Postby CookyMonzta » Mon Mar 25, 2013 1:10 pm

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.

And why am I not surprised? I smelled it coming the minute she and Bulut crossed the finish line 1-2. Does anyone remember Sureyya Ayhan, who was a big threat to enter Chinese territory until she came up 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.
CookyMonzta
 
Posts: 2392
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby JumboElliott » Mon Mar 25, 2013 3:56 pm

Flumpy wrote:
JumboElliott wrote:Gatlin's adderall ban shouldn't have counted in the first place. He should have sued the USADA for discrimination.


Oh please. He should have been banned for life.

That's discrimination against a person with a disability. I would not be able to make it through college without medication. Forcing someone to be without a legal remedy to their ills is a violation of their civil rights.
JumboElliott
 
Posts: 2129
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:46 am

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby iain » Mon Mar 25, 2013 4:09 pm

JumboElliott wrote:
Flumpy wrote:
JumboElliott wrote:Gatlin's adderall ban shouldn't have counted in the first place. He should have sued the USADA for discrimination.


Oh please. He should have been banned for life.

That's discrimination against a person with a disability. I would not be able to make it through college without medication. Forcing someone to be without a legal remedy to their ills is a violation of their civil rights.


Please tell me you're joking?!?!
iain
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 5:50 am

Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby bobguild76 » Mon Mar 25, 2013 4:21 pm

Flumpy wrote:
JumboElliott wrote:Gatlin's adderall ban shouldn't have counted in the first place. He should have sued the USADA for discrimination.


Oh please. He should have been banned for life.


This is illustrative of how different people can look at the same set of facts and come to different conclusions. Most cases seem to be clear cut ... see Ben Johnson or Ostapchuk.

But a few cases just aren't that easy to decipher. Some people will look at Ohuruogu's case history, for example, and see "innocent" or "guilty" written all over it, and then look at Gatlin and come to the exact opposite conclusion. That is why we have rules as the foundation, but people adjudicate the process. We trust the people judging the case to do so with wisdom, and not fall prey to silly excuses or stories.

By the way, I'm glad both Ohuruogu & Gatlin are back in the sport. They are both class acts and I enjoy watching them compete! :-)
bobguild76
 
Posts: 440
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:39 pm

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby mump boy » Mon Mar 25, 2013 4:43 pm

bobguild76 wrote:
Flumpy wrote:
JumboElliott wrote:Gatlin's adderall ban shouldn't have counted in the first place. He should have sued the USADA for discrimination.


Oh please. He should have been banned for life.


This is illustrative of how different people can look at the same set of facts and come to different conclusions. Most cases seem to be clear cut ... see Ben Johnson or Ostapchuk.

But a few cases just aren't that easy to decipher. Some people will look at Ohuruogu's case history, for example, and see "innocent" or "guilty" written all over it, and then look at Gatlin and come to the exact opposite conclusion. That is why we have rules as the foundation, but people adjudicate the process. We trust the people judging the case to do so with wisdom, and not fall prey to silly excuses or stories.

By the way, I'm glad both Ohuruogu & Gatlin are back in the sport. They are both class acts and I enjoy watching them compete! :-)


The differences are so monumental i don't even know where to start :?
mump boy
 
Posts: 5636
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: saaaaaarf london

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby Flumpy » Mon Mar 25, 2013 4:52 pm

bobguild76 wrote:
But a few cases just aren't that easy to decipher. Some people will look at Ohuruogu's case history, for example, and see "innocent" or "guilty" written all over it, and then look at Gatlin and come to the exact opposite conclusion. That is why we have rules as the foundation, but people adjudicate the process. We trust the people judging the case to do so with wisdom, and not fall prey to silly excuses or stories.


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
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby Pego » Mon Mar 25, 2013 5:04 pm

iain wrote:
JumboElliott wrote:
Flumpy wrote:
JumboElliott wrote:Gatlin's adderall ban shouldn't have counted in the first place. He should have sued the USADA for discrimination.


Oh please. He should have been banned for life.

That's discrimination against a person with a disability. I would not be able to make it through college without medication. Forcing someone to be without a legal remedy to their ills is a violation of their civil rights.


Please tell me you're joking?!?!


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

JumboElliott, getting through college needing Adderall earns my salute to you.
Pego
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby Flumpy » Mon Mar 25, 2013 5:23 pm

Fact #1 - Justin Gatlin has twice been found with illegal PED's in his system
Fact #2 - Who needs a fact #2.
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby Daisy » Mon Mar 25, 2013 5:33 pm

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.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Çakır-Alptekin positive?

Postby Pego » Mon Mar 25, 2013 5:44 pm

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".
Pego
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

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: 3899
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: 10198
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: 3899
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: 1090
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: 1090
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: 5636
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: 1682
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: 10198
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: 1682
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: 2631
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: 1090
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: 46323
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: 1090
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: 10198
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 6 guests