*** edited by mod***
http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/news?slug=ap-wada-2012dopinglist
Too many pseudo-scientists working for WADA, obviously. But stay tuned, this threshold debate will continue.
From the WADA site (Q & A on the 2012 list):
The second bolded statement has been my view all along. If evidence accumulates that CB contamination in food and/or water is increasing to the point where very low levels can be detected in much of the population, then I think a threshold could be in order. But again, the level Bert exhibited is well above what such a threshold would need to be.
So here, Python, is a summary of your position on the threshold, as stated in this thread:
So when you don’t agree with a WADA decision, it’s because of their “idiotic political adherence”. But when I might not agree with a CAS decision (we don’t even know yet what it will be), it’s because I’m a pseudo-scientist. We are supposed to wait and let CAS in their wisdom decide about Bert—for which the case is really quite simple, and the evidence clear-cut-- but we can call WADA politically-motivated idiots because they don’t agree with your position on a contentious and complex issue for which the most relevant evidence has not been obtained (and you are on record in this forum of ridiculing suggestions that we try to obtain it).
And btw, zero-tolerance is of course incorrect, as recent cases have made it clear that there is a tolerance for CB if the rider makes a case it came from contaminated food.
Also of interest from WADA is there is no change in the status of actovegin, which has been discussed here before:
LONDON (AP)—The World Anti-Doping Agency’s updated list of banned substances offers no change to its evaluation of clenbuterol, the drug that could strip Alberto Contador of his third Tour de France victory.
Contador blamed contaminated meat for his positive test on route to winning the 2010 Tour.
WADA’s 2012 list released Tuesday allows for asthma drug formoterol when inhaled in “therapeutic doses,” while beta blockers have been allowed in such sports as wrestling, sailing and modern pentathlon.
Nicotine was not added to the prohibited list but has been placed on WADA’s monitoring program going into the Olympic year.
http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/news?slug=ap-wada-2012dopinglist
Too many pseudo-scientists working for WADA, obviously. But stay tuned, this threshold debate will continue.
From the WADA site (Q & A on the 2012 list):
Clenbuterol is a prohibited substance and there is no threshold under which this substance is not prohibited.
At present, and based on expert opinions, there is no plan to introduce a threshold level for clenbuterol.
It is possible that under certain circumstance the presence of a low level of clenbuterol in an athlete sample can be the result of food contamination. However, each case is different and all elements need to be taken into account, along with the context of the case.
Under the World Anti-Doping Code, result management of cases foresees the opportunity for an athlete to explain how a prohibited substance entered his/her body
WADA is working closely with countries, International Federations and event organizers to help minimize the risk of contamination through the monitoring of meat to official hotels and restaurants. This is a government issue and not a WADA issue.
The second bolded statement has been my view all along. If evidence accumulates that CB contamination in food and/or water is increasing to the point where very low levels can be detected in much of the population, then I think a threshold could be in order. But again, the level Bert exhibited is well above what such a threshold would need to be.
So here, Python, is a summary of your position on the threshold, as stated in this thread:
in your infinite intrenched ignorance passed here as some kind of serious scientist you again deliberately ignore the fact that the infinite testing sensitivity of athletes (not limited by the reasonable threshold accounting for legal limits allowed in cattle) will always detect clen.
so what we essentially have is that the cattle can be doped (to a limit of course), but the human athletes can't have any because of wada's idiotic political adherence to zero tolerance.
So when you don’t agree with a WADA decision, it’s because of their “idiotic political adherence”. But when I might not agree with a CAS decision (we don’t even know yet what it will be), it’s because I’m a pseudo-scientist. We are supposed to wait and let CAS in their wisdom decide about Bert—for which the case is really quite simple, and the evidence clear-cut-- but we can call WADA politically-motivated idiots because they don’t agree with your position on a contentious and complex issue for which the most relevant evidence has not been obtained (and you are on record in this forum of ridiculing suggestions that we try to obtain it).
And btw, zero-tolerance is of course incorrect, as recent cases have made it clear that there is a tolerance for CB if the rider makes a case it came from contaminated food.
Also of interest from WADA is there is no change in the status of actovegin, which has been discussed here before:
It has not changed from last year and Actovegin is not prohibited in sport under the WADA List except if it is used by intravenous infusion.
Intravenous infusions are prohibited according to section M2 (Chemical and Physical Manipulation) of the List.
Intravenous injections with a simple syringe are permitted if the injected substance is not prohibited, the volume does not exceed 50 mL, and the intravenous injections are given at intervals equal or greater than six hours.
(Additional information can be found in the Medical Information on Intravenous Infusion, available here.)
Actovegin is a deproteinized ultrafiltrate of calf serum and does not contain blood cells susceptible to increase oxygen transport. It was tested by anti-doping laboratories and no growth hormone or prohibited hormones were found.
However, WADA is aware of its use in some sports, possibly in conjunction with other substances that may be prohibited. WADA will therefore continue to closely monitor Actovegin.