Topic: IWF: MORALLY BANKRUPT AND COMPLETELY INEFFECTIVE??

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

So, given at least, the fact that the rules state what they do, we *must* test, regularly and rigorously and punish accordingly, but the tests must be reliable and unimpeachable and the procedures must be foolproof and fully transparent in order to completely prevent false positives, which unfortunately do and have happened.  These must be devastating to the athletes involved.

Danny, other then hearing it from popped athletes that claimed they were innocent and gave excuses, what evidence are you basing the existence of false positives on? I know of no evidence that there have been false positives.

So, I am concerned that, as tests become more sensitive, they don't find people guilty of taking drugs, when perhaps the tests simply find microtraces of things present in foods, supplements etc.  It is easy to state that the athlete is responsible for what they ingest, and I know WADA among others does offer something of a list of safe things to take, but there's much more work to be done here to give athletes confidence if nothing else.

I have heard this rumor before on the internet- that WADA tests some supplements and certifies them as safe for purposes of drug testing. This is not true. ALL supplements are taken at the athlete's risk. And, it is a risk, because a very large percentage of them are tainted with banned substances not found in the ingredient list.

Jim,

I like your ideas to fix the system.

[Danny Cox]

So, given at least, the fact that the rules state what they do, we *must* test, regularly and rigorously and punish accordingly, but the tests must be reliable and unimpeachable and the procedures must be foolproof and fully transparent in order to completely prevent false positives, which unfortunately do and have happened.  These must be devastating to the athletes involved.

Danny, other then hearing it from popped athletes that claimed they were innocent and gave excuses, what evidence are you basing the existence of false positives on? I know of no evidence that there have been false positives.

I think it's fair that you wouldn't accept the word of people who've assured me of their innocence, so to look for some higher profile examples:

Diane Modahl comes immediately to mind.  She was unequivocally exonerated.  There's someone else in my mind, whose name I can't place, so I started to websearch a bit.  Other names I came across while doing so show Dougie Walker, Marion Jones, Lance Armstrong, Bernard Lagat.  There are other cases which are more complicated by the looks of it, and you don't have to look far around the web to see how entangled the whole drugs issue is.

EPO seems to be a common one causing problems at the minute:
http://sportsci.org/jour/05/inbrief.htm#EPO

So, I am concerned that, as tests become more sensitive, they don't find people guilty of taking drugs, when perhaps the tests simply find microtraces of things present in foods, supplements etc.  It is easy to state that the athlete is responsible for what they ingest, and I know WADA among others does offer something of a list of safe things to take, but there's much more work to be done here to give athletes confidence if nothing else.

I have heard this rumor before on the internet- that WADA tests some supplements and certifies them as safe for purposes of drug testing. This is not true. ALL supplements are taken at the athlete's risk. And, it is a risk, because a very large percentage of them are tainted with banned substances not found in the ingredient list.
[/quote]

Another quick websearch shows you're right.  What they do show is what medications you're allowed to take, but that assumes they're pure of course.

http://www.itftennis.com/shared/medialibrary/pdf/original/IO_2559_original.PDF

A bit more looking around WADA's site shows that they strongly recommend against using any supplements at all.  They don't really say anything about natural foods - is it possible for meat, for example, to be tainted?  I don't know, but I do find it rather depressing that it is so easy to be caught out when guilty of ignorance as opposed to blatant, deliberate rule breaking.

Hey ho - that's the world we're in I guess and I accept that the line has to be sharp between what is and is not allowed.  

Danny

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Diane Modahl comes immediately to mind.  She was unequivocally exonerated.  There's someone else in my mind, whose name I can't place, so I started to websearch a bit.  Other names I came across while doing so show Dougie Walker, Marion Jones, Lance Armstrong, Bernard Lagat.  There are other cases which are more complicated by the looks of it, and you don't have to look far around the web to see how entangled the whole drugs issue is.

Yes, Diane Modahl was exonerated but not for any technical failure of the testing process, but a failue of the lab in Portugal to follow the proper chain of command procedures. This is in fact protection built in to the testing system and is a success of the system, not a failure. As far as I can tell, Dougie Walker was busted and was never exonerated. There appears to be no evidence of his innocence beyond his own assertions. Marion Jones never failed a drug test so clearly she is not a case where there was a false positive. Lance Armstrong, likewise, never failed a drug test. Bernard Lagat was exonerated after testing positive on his A sample. But, it was the official B sample which cleared him, another built-in protection within the doping system. EPO may be more problematic to test accurately, but this case is another example of the success of the system. Still, there is no evidence of false positives, even in mind with Bernard Lagat since it was the normal process of testing for him to have the B sample retested. And, that is what cleared him.

Yes, WADA is not going to certify any supplements to be safe since the moment they did so, the company could intenionally taint their product. This would be smart business since the product would then work better and sell more. Once they got a spike in sales, they could reduce again before the next inspection. It could also simply get accidently tainted from another product since they are often made in the same vats. These things are extremely common and there is a study outling such problems which is referenced here: http://weightliftingexchange.com/smf/index.php?topic=2436.0

Thanks.

[Danny Cox]

I don't want to bash this back and forth endlessly, because the basic point is that we agree that drugs do not belong in sport.  I maintain my concern that the cure may be, if not as bad as the disease, certainly no panacea, and I do have some comments back to you.

Yes, Diane Modahl was exonerated but not for any technical failure of the testing process, but a failue of the lab in Portugal to follow the proper chain of command procedures. This is in fact protection built in to the testing system and is a success of the system, not a failure.

Only she's had to spend a fortune - either million pounds or dollars was quoted in one article - to defend herself.  That the lab in Portugal can fail to follow the procedures is most human, but that's the problem

As far as I can tell, Dougie Walker was busted and was never exonerated. There appears to be no evidence of his innocence beyond his own assertions.

He was in part exonerated - not by the IAAF, but was by UK Athletics.  I've seen other cases where the country organisation and the international one disagree on how to handle a given athlete.

http://www.times-olympics.co.uk/archive/athleticsa23o.html

Marion Jones never failed a drug test so clearly she is not a case where there was a false positive.

Bernard Lagat was exonerated after testing positive on his A sample. But, it was the official B sample which cleared him, another built-in protection within the doping system.

Marion Jones tested positive on her A sample as Lagat did as I understand it.  It's good that there is that mechanism in place - do different labs test both samples do you know?  If not, then it's not as reliable a fail-safe as it might be.  In any case, it was precisely a false positive on the A sample, even though the B sample contradicted it.

Lance Armstrong, likewise, never failed a drug test.  EPO may be more problematic to test accurately, but this case is another example of the success of the system.

As I understand it, he precisely did fail a drug test in 1999.  It was overturned after investigations by the cycling union found irregularities in the process - to quote the ICU guy: "testing was flawed and that standard procedures were not observed."

Still, there is no evidence of false positives, even in mind with Bernard Lagat since it was the normal process of testing for him to have the B sample retested. And, that is what cleared him.

I don't follow what do you count as a false positive to be honest.  The examples we're discussing here all had a test register them as positive for taking something, just they were overturned later.  Had they been unable to afford lawyers etc., they would have never had these overturned

Yes, WADA is not going to certify any supplements to be safe since the moment they did so, the company could intenionally taint their product. This would be smart business since the product would then work better and sell more. Once they got a spike in sales, they could reduce again before the next inspection. It could also simply get accidently tainted from another product since they are often made in the same vats. These things are extremely common and there is a study outling such problems which is referenced here: http://weightliftingexchange.com/smf/index.php?topic=2436.0

I hear you - it's cynical (of the manufacturers) but you may be right  :cry:

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Only she's had to spend a fortune - either million pounds or dollars was quoted in one article - to defend herself.  That the lab in Portugal can fail to follow the procedures is most human, but that's the problem

Thats a fair point, but it shouldn't have cost her millions to have the B sample retested and even attend the testing of the B sample, which one is allowed to do under the rules. Whether it did or why would be interesting to hear. The procedures are layed out and if there is a mistake, the results are thrown out. I dont see the problem there.

He was in part exonerated - not by the IAAF, but was by UK Athletics.  I've seen other cases where the country organisation and the international one disagree on how to handle a given athlete.

Dougie Walker was in part exonerated by UK Athletics because he claimed that nandrolone could be ingested through legal supplements. But, thats just a failure of UK athletics to enforce fair sanctions since supplements are known to have this problem and have always been taken at the athlete's risk. I dont think this is a case of a false positive but the use of weak excuses to get a partial legal victory.

I dont see anything anywhere saying that Lance Armstrong or Marion Jones ever failed a test, even just an A sample. But, although I agree it does raise an eyebrow for an A sample to fail and a B sample to pass, it is a built in protection of the system. In cases where this happened, I tend to think the A sample was right and the B sample wrong. We have a problem with false negatives, not false positives in my opinion. So, while an athlete might test positive at 9AM, they may fail at 9:10AM on the same day. Different samples could fail to produce adequate indicators. Still, I do see your viewpoint that the A sample and the B sample should test identically if the testing were 100% accurate. Personally, I just dont think we have a problem with false positives.

Thanks.

[Danny Cox]

Only she's had to spend a fortune - either million pounds or dollars was quoted in one article - to defend herself.  That the lab in Portugal can fail to follow the procedures is most human, but that's the problem

Thats a fair point, but it shouldn't have cost her millions to have the B sample retested and even attend the testing of the B sample, which one is allowed to do under the rules. Whether it did or why would be interesting to hear. The procedures are layed out and if there is a mistake, the results are thrown out. I dont see the problem there.

I don't see why you don't see it.  She didn't get exonerated by the procedures, she got exonerated by the fact that she stood up for herself when the procedures had failed.  If she hadn't had a million to defend herself, she would have been wrongly convicted because of a false positive test.  She wasn't re-instated because the B sample contradicted the A sample.

He was in part exonerated - not by the IAAF, but was by UK Athletics.  I've seen other cases where the country organisation and the international one disagree on how to handle a given athlete.

Dougie Walker was in part exonerated by UK Athletics because he claimed that nandrolone could be ingested through legal supplements. But, thats just a failure of UK athletics to enforce fair sanctions since supplements are known to have this problem and have always been taken at the athlete's risk. I dont think this is a case of a false positive but the use of weak excuses to get a partial legal victory.
[/quote]

Okay - we'll probably not get far discussing this one.   Supplements clearly can cause problems with the testing - but is that a problem with the athlete's honesty?  Of course it isn't.  WADA can, and do, say that they shouldn't be taken, but ulitmately that's because it is impossible to distinguish between tainted supplements and real drug taking, and it's easier to put that responsibility back to the athlete.  I don't actually have any other answer to this either, short of having tested supplements somehow.

I dont see anything anywhere saying that Lance Armstrong or Marion Jones ever failed a test, even just an A sample.

There are plenty of quotes which show that Marion Jones did precisely that.  It was all over the news here, so I imagine it was for you too.  A quick google will bring up plenty of examples.  Lance Armstrong was more confusing - his urine was kept for years and tested after the efficacy of the EPO test improved.  He argued that keeping urine for seven years is nonsense which does seem logical, though I'm not a scientist and can't comment on whether it is right or not.

But, although I agree it does raise an eyebrow for an A sample to fail and a B sample to pass, it is a built in protection of the system. In cases where this happened, I tend to think the A sample was right and the B sample wrong. We have a problem with false negatives, not false positives in my opinion. So, while an athlete might test positive at 9AM, they may fail at 9:10AM on the same day. Different samples could fail to produce adequate indicators.

What do you base your opinion about false negatives on?  You haven't really explained that.  I accept that a lot of tests are likely to be accurate - it was never my contention that they're not - but some of them clearly are not from the examples we're discussing.  Given that these are high profile cases and those people have had money to defend themselves, there's almost certainly other cases who don't succeed in their defence.

I just find it rather sad that because of drugs, we end up with the tail wagging the dog and it is left to something of a lottery to know what we can eat.  I've no interest in breaking the rules, or for that matter, breaking the spirit of the rules, but I am concerned that I can't tell whether what I or others consume may leave me with a positive test and all the finger pointing that goes with it.  For example, there's plenty of meat in the world which has had steroids involved in its creation

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/specials/1616_fastfood/page3.shtml

Do we have to avoid eating meat as well as protein powders, creatine, vitamins or whatever ?

Danny

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Danny,

I think we just disagree, and thats not a big deal. But, I will offer one last round of comments.

I don't see why you don't see it.  She didn't get exonerated by the procedures, she got exonerated by the fact that she stood up for herself when the procedures had failed.  If she hadn't had a million to defend herself, she would have been wrongly convicted because of a false positive test.  She wasn't re-instated because the B sample contradicted the A sample.

The procedures didn't fail in my opinion. She was exonerated by the B sample, which is built in protection of the system. I don't know why it cost her millions for something she is entitled to for free except for attending the testing. I would be curious to hear why it cost her so much as I said. But, I dont see how her spending the money saved her. She was exonerated because she passed the B test, not because she spent millions of dollars. Still, I do think you have a point that it could cost a lot of money to pursue every avenue of defense under the system. Thats life.

As to Lance Armstrong and Marion Jones, I am familiar with those situations and did some searching and found nothing mentioning any positive tests of any kind. There are other reasons they have raised suspicions, but I can't find anything about a positive test. Could you please provide a link?

As to supplements, I do think we simply disagree. I am not in favour of having the IWF or WADA or USADA or any organization which is responsible for policing our sport certifying supplements. I believe it would be a very, very bad idea as I have in part explained above. I don't think there is any reason to take supplements. I think an elite athlete should protect themself by avoiding them since they could easily be contaminated. If they work, they are probably illegal in my opinion. Otherwise, they are a waste of money and time, and contrary in spirit to what I love about sports. I am sure this could be discussed further, but I just want to say thanks for the discussion so far. I have enjoyed it.

Thanks

[Danny Cox]

Danny,

I think we just disagree, and thats not a big deal. But, I will offer one last round of comments.

I don't see why you don't see it.  She didn't get exonerated by the procedures, she got exonerated by the fact that she stood up for herself when the procedures had failed.  If she hadn't had a million to defend herself, she would have been wrongly convicted because of a false positive test.  She wasn't re-instated because the B sample contradicted the A sample.

The procedures didn't fail in my opinion. She was exonerated by the B sample, which is built in protection of the system. I don't know why it cost her millions for something she is entitled to for free except for attending the testing. I would be curious to hear why it cost her so much as I said. But, I dont see how her spending the money saved her. She was exonerated because she passed the B test, not because she spent millions of dollars. Still, I do think you have a point that it could cost a lot of money to pursue every avenue of defense under the system. Thats life.

I don't mind disagreeing with each other - we agree on some parts, and certainly agree that drugs don't have a place in sport.  Opinions are not necessarily going to be resolved, but facts can be so while I'm happy to draw the discussion of opinions to a close because we have different views, I can't leave you the last word saying that Diane Modahl passed the B test because she didn't.  I cite the UK Appeals Court records below which states the fact.  It cost her a million because she had to fight against the system, not be exonerated by it.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd990722/modahl.htm

As to Lance Armstrong and Marion Jones, I am familiar with those situations and did some searching and found nothing mentioning any positive tests of any kind. There are other reasons they have raised suspicions, but I can't find anything about a positive test. Could you please provide a link?

Certainly.  To be honest, type "marion-jones b-sample" into Google, will give you loads of links, but here's one:

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/trackandfield/news/story?id=2576909

Lance Armstrong isn't, to be fair, quite the same.  His tale is described in these links.  Google for "Lance-Armstrong EPO" for lots more links:

http://www.velonews.com/news/fea/8740.0.html
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Lance_Armstrong_accused_of_EPO_doping

As to supplements, I do think we simply disagree. I am not in favour of having the IWF or WADA or USADA or any organization which is responsible for policing our sport certifying supplements. I believe it would be a very, very bad idea as I have in part explained above. I don't think there is any reason to take supplements. I think an elite athlete should protect themself by avoiding them since they could easily be contaminated. If they work, they are probably illegal in my opinion. Otherwise, they are a waste of money and time, and contrary in spirit to what I love about sports. I am sure this could be discussed further, but I just want to say thanks for the discussion so far. I have enjoyed it.

We have a different view here that's true.  I don't think it's entirely logical to say that supplements which work are therefore illegal.   Sure, they CAN be illegal, but they're not forced to be.  Keeping the amount of protein available in the system is helpful for example if you're training hard, and creatine is generally understood to he useful.  These are both quite legitimate.  The philosophical argument of whether they SHOULD be used is a slightly different one and that's interesting.

I would still like to know from WADA -and I suppose I should just email them and let you know the answer- whether meat which has been grown with steroids, or burgers mixed with them etc., can give positive test results.  That prospect worries me more than the supplements as you have to eat something!

Glad you're enjoying the debate.  Me too.  I sharpen my own understanding of these subjects by discussing them and I don't have many people around me who understand the issues.

Danny


Thanks[/quote]