-
The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to
In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.
Thanks!
So now the second fastest 'clean' man ever is either Maurice Greene 9.79 or if he is disqualified due to his Balco links then it's Richard Thompson 9.82.
So the second fastest is a full third of a second slower than Bolt.
So the second fastest is a full third of a second slower than Bolt.
Re:
Usain Bolt in 2007 runs a PB of 10.03
Usain Bolt in 2008 runs a PB of 9.69 and no one bats an eyelid !
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/athletics/2017/01/25/usain-bolt-stripped-olympic-gold-medal-nesta-carter-banned-drugs/
There is no appetite in Athletics to catch the cheats- FFS the 100meters men and women have two of the most insane world records out there. Both freaks have only drug cheats behind them on the list. It should be easy to catch the top guys.
Behind 9.58sec world record holder Bolt, every other man to run under 9.79sec has served a drugs ban at some point in their career with Tyson Gay (9.69sec), Blake (9.69sec), Powell (9.72sec) and Justin Gatlin (9.74sec) all falling foul of anti-doping regulations. The Guardian: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/athletics/2017/01/25/usain-bolt-stripped-olympic-gold-medal-nesta-carter-banned-drugs/masking_agent said:
Usain Bolt in 2007 runs a PB of 10.03
Usain Bolt in 2008 runs a PB of 9.69 and no one bats an eyelid !
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/athletics/2017/01/25/usain-bolt-stripped-olympic-gold-medal-nesta-carter-banned-drugs/
There is no appetite in Athletics to catch the cheats- FFS the 100meters men and women have two of the most insane world records out there. Both freaks have only drug cheats behind them on the list. It should be easy to catch the top guys.
So apparently Nesta Carter's lawyer is convinced the substance wasn't on WADA's banned list in 2008 - Straight off to CAS - I hope the IOC and WADA have got this right - They have been wrong before.
And yet I remember when the exact same arguments were being made in 2012 there was a large number of posters (cough, vickers) claiming, that this was all normal because....
Bolt is talented.
Bolt is talented.
Re:
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/olympics-fourth-place-medal/michael-johnson-says-slavery-descendants-run-faster-because-155858303--oly.html
It must be true, Michael Johnson said so.
Maybe Paula and Froomey should check the family tree.
Talented mixed with genetics from slaveryThe Hitch said:
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/olympics-fourth-place-medal/michael-johnson-says-slavery-descendants-run-faster-because-155858303--oly.html
It must be true, Michael Johnson said so.
Maybe Paula and Froomey should check the family tree.
Christine Brennan asking questions of Bolt.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/brennan/2017/01/25/dont-feel-sorry-for-usain-bolt/97055800/?hootPostID=4c447e31434ff67ccb026464bf6fccc6
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/columnist/brennan/2017/01/25/dont-feel-sorry-for-usain-bolt/97055800/?hootPostID=4c447e31434ff67ccb026464bf6fccc6
Yes that vigilant Jamaican testing program. Do they actually test anyone ? According to a documentary I saw last year there is huge stench about Jamaican success and their lack of adequate testing. It's like the myth about some of the African runners and natural attributes.
Re:
Methylhexaneamine was not named on the WADA list in 2008, however it falls under the related substance clause. The problem with it is it turns up in food supplements all the time. Carter is going to struggle to prove that he unknowingly took it though due to the time lapsed, unless he has kept really detailed records and he happens to strike it lucky with a particular supplement brand.
yaco said:
Methylhexaneamine was not named on the WADA list in 2008, however it falls under the related substance clause. The problem with it is it turns up in food supplements all the time. Carter is going to struggle to prove that he unknowingly took it though due to the time lapsed, unless he has kept really detailed records and he happens to strike it lucky with a particular supplement brand.
Re: Re:
This is a failure of anti-doping when prohibited substances are found in obscure places on the WADA website - You are right about trying to prove what you took 9 years later, though there a few hot shot Anti-Doping lawyers who can run a strong case.
King Boonen said:
This is a failure of anti-doping when prohibited substances are found in obscure places on the WADA website - You are right about trying to prove what you took 9 years later, though there a few hot shot Anti-Doping lawyers who can run a strong case.
Re: Re:
I think you misunderstand. It's not an obscure place, it's how anti-doping works to combat the problem of related compounds.
Many drugs have related compounds that are extremely similar in structure and function. This is most commonly known with opiate pain killers. The design of many drugs involves slight changes to functional groups and testing for efficacy. The problem for anti-doping comes when they try and have a list of banned substances where everything is named. If this were the case all someone would have to do is change a small part of a compound and, hey presto, completely legal doping. The most famous example of this kind of designer drug is tetrahydrogestrinone (THG or "The Clear", thanks Netserk/Hitch/Hog). This is a related compound of androgen, binds the same receptor (along with the progesterone receptor) and has the same effect. It was developed completely in secret. If the related substance clause didn't exist this kind of thing would be completely legal. This is the same cause methylhexaneamine falls under. It has a similar structure and function to listed compounds.
It is this kind of thing that needs to be explained to athletes when they start calling for a better defined Prohibited list without these kind of clauses. Those lists would be fatally flawed.
There are other measures to combat this within the list, such as anything without human approval being banned. This means that if people claim someone can get away with doping because they are using something that is in development (GW501516 for example) they are incorrect. This is S0:
Now, the problem with methylhexaneamine is that it does occur, legally, in some supplements. To combat false positives (false in this sense being accidental ingestion) you have both specified and non-specified stimulants in the WADA list. Non-specified means that there is no known reason why you would have this in your system other than doping (excepting treatment). Specified means that you may accidentally ingest these, but it is still incumbent upon the athlete to prove it was accidental. Non-specified stimulants carry a full term (4 year, life time etc.) suspension, specified stimulants anything from a warning to a full term suspension depending upon the case.
In Carters case it will be up to CAS to decide if he could reasonably have ingested it without knowing, even after taking all sensible precautions. I fear that, in this case, they may side with Carter if he can produce enough evidence that methylhexaneamine was present in supplements around the time and that is likely how it got in his system at the level it is (I have no idea how much was in his sample but that is a massive deal, see Clentador's case for why).
yaco said:
I think you misunderstand. It's not an obscure place, it's how anti-doping works to combat the problem of related compounds.
Many drugs have related compounds that are extremely similar in structure and function. This is most commonly known with opiate pain killers. The design of many drugs involves slight changes to functional groups and testing for efficacy. The problem for anti-doping comes when they try and have a list of banned substances where everything is named. If this were the case all someone would have to do is change a small part of a compound and, hey presto, completely legal doping. The most famous example of this kind of designer drug is tetrahydrogestrinone (THG or "The Clear", thanks Netserk/Hitch/Hog). This is a related compound of androgen, binds the same receptor (along with the progesterone receptor) and has the same effect. It was developed completely in secret. If the related substance clause didn't exist this kind of thing would be completely legal. This is the same cause methylhexaneamine falls under. It has a similar structure and function to listed compounds.
It is this kind of thing that needs to be explained to athletes when they start calling for a better defined Prohibited list without these kind of clauses. Those lists would be fatally flawed.
There are other measures to combat this within the list, such as anything without human approval being banned. This means that if people claim someone can get away with doping because they are using something that is in development (GW501516 for example) they are incorrect. This is S0:
Now, the problem with methylhexaneamine is that it does occur, legally, in some supplements. To combat false positives (false in this sense being accidental ingestion) you have both specified and non-specified stimulants in the WADA list. Non-specified means that there is no known reason why you would have this in your system other than doping (excepting treatment). Specified means that you may accidentally ingest these, but it is still incumbent upon the athlete to prove it was accidental. Non-specified stimulants carry a full term (4 year, life time etc.) suspension, specified stimulants anything from a warning to a full term suspension depending upon the case.
In Carters case it will be up to CAS to decide if he could reasonably have ingested it without knowing, even after taking all sensible precautions. I fear that, in this case, they may side with Carter if he can produce enough evidence that methylhexaneamine was present in supplements around the time and that is likely how it got in his system at the level it is (I have no idea how much was in his sample but that is a massive deal, see Clentador's case for why).
KB - As usual a well thought out, researched and explained post - I am familiar with the different categories and sub categories of prohibited substances - My two concerns are first it's been proven that when you do an online search for some substances on WADA's or a NADO's website they don't come up as prohibited in the first instance. I also worry about WADA and their labaratories correctly labelling substances as prohibited, as evidenced in the Sakho case - Anyway expect a strong battle at CAS.
Re:
The online search is a problem because of the clauses encompassing related compunds, but in reality it is up to the athlete not to take anything they are unsure about. I can see this being a problem for amateurs or low ranking pro athletes who are expected to take care of themselves. Certainly in this case it would be hard for an athlete to see methylhexaneamine, know that is it similar in structure and action to tuaminoheptane (they are extremely similar isomers) and as such not use the supplement. To be honest I wouldn't even expect a doctor to be able to do that and that's where the specified warning can come in. CAS will have to decide if that's enough or if someone of Carter's level had the tools/people available to him at the time where that he would be reasonably expected to find out it was banned and avoided it.
I wasn't aware of the Sakho case so quickly Googled it. You can fill me in if I've missed something but it seems strange to me. He was banned for a beta-2-agonist, Higenamine. All beta-2-agonists are banned apart from three; salbutamol, formoterol and salmeterol and these can only be used within specific concentrations. Wikipedia claims it was because it wasn't named on the banned list while others were, but I have the 2015 WADA prohibited list in front of me and this is what it states:
So Wikipedia is wrong. It is banned and other banned beta-2-agonists aren't listed, only the ones that can be taken are.
I also found this article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/08/23/mamadou-sakho-cleared-of-being-a-drugs-cheat-after-the-world-ant/
This article says that his representation successfully argued it was not performance enhancing, which I'm guessing is the correct details in this case.
However, WADA are quoted with the following:
So this is not incorrectly labelling of substances being performance enhancing when they are not, it's a case of the specified substance type clause (type because it shouldn't really be applied here) being applied because Higenamine is legal within food supplements in the UK, so it's likely he could have ingested it unknowingly so a shorter ban or warning would be an option (his provisional ban).
It's also of note that this was a decision taken by UEFA, not CAS. An appeal to CAS would likely have upheld the provisional suspension but not extended it I would think, hence why they didn't appeal.
yaco said:
The online search is a problem because of the clauses encompassing related compunds, but in reality it is up to the athlete not to take anything they are unsure about. I can see this being a problem for amateurs or low ranking pro athletes who are expected to take care of themselves. Certainly in this case it would be hard for an athlete to see methylhexaneamine, know that is it similar in structure and action to tuaminoheptane (they are extremely similar isomers) and as such not use the supplement. To be honest I wouldn't even expect a doctor to be able to do that and that's where the specified warning can come in. CAS will have to decide if that's enough or if someone of Carter's level had the tools/people available to him at the time where that he would be reasonably expected to find out it was banned and avoided it.
I wasn't aware of the Sakho case so quickly Googled it. You can fill me in if I've missed something but it seems strange to me. He was banned for a beta-2-agonist, Higenamine. All beta-2-agonists are banned apart from three; salbutamol, formoterol and salmeterol and these can only be used within specific concentrations. Wikipedia claims it was because it wasn't named on the banned list while others were, but I have the 2015 WADA prohibited list in front of me and this is what it states:
So Wikipedia is wrong. It is banned and other banned beta-2-agonists aren't listed, only the ones that can be taken are.
I also found this article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/08/23/mamadou-sakho-cleared-of-being-a-drugs-cheat-after-the-world-ant/
This article says that his representation successfully argued it was not performance enhancing, which I'm guessing is the correct details in this case.
However, WADA are quoted with the following:
So this is not incorrectly labelling of substances being performance enhancing when they are not, it's a case of the specified substance type clause (type because it shouldn't really be applied here) being applied because Higenamine is legal within food supplements in the UK, so it's likely he could have ingested it unknowingly so a shorter ban or warning would be an option (his provisional ban).
It's also of note that this was a decision taken by UEFA, not CAS. An appeal to CAS would likely have upheld the provisional suspension but not extended it I would think, hence why they didn't appeal.
Stepanova was last in her comeback race.
http://www.supersport.com/athletics/international/news/170128/Stepanova_last_in_Boston_indoor_comeback
http://www.supersport.com/athletics/international/news/170128/Stepanova_last_in_Boston_indoor_comeback
Re:
Hard to do well now that she isn't packed with PED's. Who will she blame now though?
gooner said:
Hard to do well now that she isn't packed with PED's. Who will she blame now though?
How ignorant can you be, much like any regular idiot. Race fitness needs a few races (unless on high octane).
Re:
The only reason she blew any sort of lid on it was because A.) she thought she was going to get her doping charge cleared and B.) she would eventually get paid. She is no better than the rest of them.
Since she didn't get either, she started talking. Ad hominem attacks aside, you don't need to lecture me on gaining race fitness. I am well aware that one needs optimal training and it takes time to gain fitness, doping or not.
Mr.38% said:
The only reason she blew any sort of lid on it was because A.) she thought she was going to get her doping charge cleared and B.) she would eventually get paid. She is no better than the rest of them.
Since she didn't get either, she started talking. Ad hominem attacks aside, you don't need to lecture me on gaining race fitness. I am well aware that one needs optimal training and it takes time to gain fitness, doping or not.
I just say that pro sports is a doomed microcosmos and you are no better than the regular idiot on TV. Sorry.
Re:
If that's the case, right back at you, because here you are posting in the clinic section of cycling news.
Mr.38% said:
If that's the case, right back at you, because here you are posting in the clinic section of cycling news.
Re: Re:
My understanding is Sakho won his case because of scientific reasons which is in line with what you posted. To take a step back, it is the labaratory which makes a first call as to whether it's a positive test - So then the testing agency which has authority makes the next call - Seems like the authorities acted in haste - Saddest thing is Sakho missed the World Cup and Champion's League, and has been in footballing limbo since.
King Boonen said:
My understanding is Sakho won his case because of scientific reasons which is in line with what you posted. To take a step back, it is the labaratory which makes a first call as to whether it's a positive test - So then the testing agency which has authority makes the next call - Seems like the authorities acted in haste - Saddest thing is Sakho missed the World Cup and Champion's League, and has been in footballing limbo since.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Liege Bastogne Liege-7 hour monument, Sunday, April 21, 2024- Started by topcat
- Replies: 986
-
Paris - Roubaix 2024, one day monument, April 7- Started by Dreginald
- Replies: 2K
-
77th Tour de Romandie (2.UWT) // 23rd - 28th of April 2024- Started by Logic-is-your-friend
- Replies: 798
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 24K
-
De Ronde van Vlaanderen (270.8 km), 2024 March 31 (Sunday)- Started by Netserk
- Replies: 1K
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram