Doping in XC skiing

Page 198 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
That's what TUEs are for, so that legitimate conditions can be treated. Now, not everything that can be used to treat conditions will be available under a TUE, because some substances are banned outright, but for the majority of the time, legitimate conditions can be treated with medication including banned substances subject to TUE.

The main issue in this case is abuse of the TUE system; the percentage of asthmatics in the Norwegian team has long been a topic of some discussion (the number of endurance athletes who suffer from asthma compared to the incidence of the condition in the general population is absurdly high when you consider that the condition should be a disadvantage in these competitions, hence the debate over the incidence of 'exercise-induced asthma' and the various medications for it), as has the method of administering the substances that are acceptable under the terms of TUEs.

As has also been the case with the board's focus on Team Sky and British Cycling, the attitudes of the Norwegian team and its fans has also led to a disproportionate amount of focus on them, almost as disproportionate as the amount of asthma sufferers in their XC squad compared to the general population of the country. In many cases it is more the sanctimoniousness and perceived hypocrisy of their attitudes (less so the individual athletes admittedly) that leads to this; shouting loudest about others' indiscretions while simultaneously being perceived as taking advantage of the TUE system raises the ire more than if they were just winning the races, no matter how easy they make the dominance look. Dominating the field so brutally while fingers are being pointed at easy scapegoats like the Finns and Russians doesn't help. And some of the excuses made in order to absolve them of blame on the occasions there are cracks in the veneer, they don't help either. I mean, the amount of leaps that have been taken in logic to try to absolve the Norwegian team in general, and Therese Johaug in particular, of blame for her situation have resulted in some arguments being presented that credit her with so little intelligence one wonders if she'd not rather just be called a cheat as it's less insulting.

Since Therese's problems with ulcers are documented, and the substance she took was a legitimate course of treatment for this, then unless other alternative treatments which are of equal effectiveness and without banned substances were similarly available, then a TUE should have been viable, in which case the whole sorry saga could have been avoided. Especially as it was out of season so an emergency treatment shouldn't have been necessary.

The Alain Baxter case is well documented, but I don't think you can use that as a counterbalance to strict liability in the Johaug case. The packaging clearly had a label stating it was doping, and with a crossed red circle in the universal format for "forbidden". Strict liability may have some flaws, sure, but if she was so stupid as to not recognize this sign on the packaging or even look for guidance on the medication, then was absolved of blame for not having known, then it really opens up the floodgates to all manner of "inadvertent" abuse of anti-doping legislation regardless of whether or not Johaug's actual intention was performance-enhancing, which is debatable in this instance given the comparatively weak effect of clostebol and her documented problems with the conditions the cream was apparently purchased for.
 
"Since Therese's problems with ulcers are documented, and the substance she took was a legitimate course of treatment for this, then unless other alternative treatments which are of equal effectiveness and without banned substances were similarly available, then a TUE should have been viable, in which case the whole sorry saga could have been avoided. Especially as it was out of season so an emergency treatment shouldn't have been necessary."

This was not the same problem she had before IIRC. The substance she took was not optimal. The doctor who bought it, gave it to her and cleared it, could not understand why a steroid was included in the cream. He was focused on another substance which was an antibiotic of some type.

This has nothing to do with TUEs. The doctor simply bought the wrong stuff, and gave it to her saying it was ok. Neither of them noticed the warning on the packaging.
 
Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
I mean, the amount of leaps that have been taken in logic to try to absolve the Norwegian team in general, and Therese Johaug in particular, of blame for her situation have resulted in some arguments being presented that credit her with so little intelligence one wonders if she'd not rather just be called a cheat as it's less insulting.
:) Spot on
 
Seems ADN and FIS accepted the argument too, since they are not disputing what happened. Damn so many unintelligent fools.

Probably Cas will be unintelligent too since they will also believe the events. It's also interesting that the doctor got through med school with being so unintelligent. I mean he couldn't even see a doping warning label.

Oh wait, perhaps errors in perception are unrelated to intelligence? Perhaps they are something human beings live with everyday?

Like car drivers don't "see" and notice a cyclist in their rear view mirror.
 
Re:

ToreBear said:
Seems ADN and FIS accepted the argument too, since they are not disputing what happened. Damn so many unintelligent fools.
ADN - Antidoping Norway accepts Johaug's version. Yeah, that was a shocker! FIS appealed to CAS.

ToreBear said:
Probably Cas will be unintelligent too since they will also believe the events. It's also interesting that the doctor got through med school with being so unintelligent. I mean he couldn't even see a doping warning label.
Some intricate reasoning here ... :D

ToreBear said:
Like car drivers don't "see" and notice a cyclist in their rear view mirror.
Or like a fanboy not seeing the obvious.
 
Re:

ToreBear said:
Seems ADN and FIS accepted the argument too, since they are not disputing what happened. Damn so many unintelligent fools.

Probably Cas will be unintelligent too since they will also believe the events. It's also interesting that the doctor got through med school with being so unintelligent. I mean he couldn't even see a doping warning label.

Oh wait, perhaps errors in perception are unrelated to intelligence? Perhaps they are something human beings live with everyday?

Like car drivers don't "see" and notice a cyclist in their rear view mirror.
Hey, it's not me that's presenting the argument that credits them with little intelligence.

Even so, we have a number of errors on top of each other that take us once more back to the Team Sky/suspicious package problem: the Norwegian team runs a successful professional sporting operation that runs roughshod over all comers (apart from the occasional Finn or Russian who is obviously suspicious, mind) and puts more money into research and development than anybody else in the sport. It is hard to square such elementary, basic errors going unchecked as those that have led to the Johaug case with an operation that is otherwise as slick and professional as they are. How can their guard have slipped so badly, and the apparent innocent mistake by the doctor (to make nothing of the confusing timeline where Therese couldn't just go to the shops, but instead had to have the doctor fly in and go and get it for her a few days later) be compounded because both a doctor for whom these patients are his livelihood and an elite athlete at the pinnacle of her sport with both her reputation and livelihood at stake conveniently failed to notice a clear label on the outer packaging of something they'd bought? It's not like they were even required to do any small print reading, it's a clear sign using the universal red crossed circle for "forbidden"?

You talk about errors of perception, but it's not an error of perception is it? And besides, the perception is elementary. Not looking at the packaging (with the "forbidden: doping" label on it) isn't a error of perception, it's an error of omission. Failing to take the appropriate duty of care on the part of the doctor, and an abject failure in taking responsibility for her own actions on the part of Johaug. Now, if they'd looked at the packaging (with the "forbidden: doping" label on it) and failed to recognize that this meant it was not a substance that an elite athlete subject to WADA's regulations should be taking, then that is an error of perception, but if both the doctor and Johaug looked at the packaging and failed to make the connection then I feel justified in saying that that error credits them with very little intelligence.

Personally, if a doctor prescribes me something, I want, even if just out of a basic human sense of curiosity, to know what it is and what it will do. If I was an elite athlete whose career is on the line if they make a mistake, I'm going to at least look at what they've given me. If Therese, as you suggest, is stupid enough (and yes, in her position this would be stupid) to just blindly take anything handed to her without even a cursory glance at it, and compared to the overuse of asthma medication and other issues (remember, this came at the same time as the Norwegian team was on the hop about that issue, which meant their twisting and turning to justify it was treated more harshly than had it been an isolated incident along the lines of Mick Rogers' clenbuterol positive or the Costa brothers) this is relatively believable then it's hard to have any sympathy for her.
 
@Discgear
They only apealed the sentence. And of course since I don't agree with you I must be a fanboy. :D

@Libertine
The reason she was supposed to wait was because the "safety routine" was for the doctor to come down, and find the correct remedy. (She is not allowed to go to the shop and buy medications AFAIK) When the doctor got there, the medbox the team travels with did not contain what it was supposed to. So he had to buy something abroad, something I don't think is a usual occurrence.

Had this been an elaborate plan to cover something up, he would not have testified that Therese(she confirmed this as well) received the Box with the label, and not just the tube which does not contain a label.

Not seeing/perceiving something which is objectively there is an error of perception.
In this case there are contributing factors that made this error possible. What you expect to see/not see guides what you see. This is how our perception works.

I'm sorry I can't elaborate more, Right now I'm also whatching a Lions preseason game and el classico. The Cas ruling is supposed to come this week, so it might be more iluminating for both of us to read their ruling instead of me rehashing the arguments I made two months ago. Also I'm not sure how much PC time I can get in the next few days.

Ps. Therese and the doctor should have spotted the label. But their lack of doing so is not related to intelligence because the IQ needed for that is negligeble. But for all I know Therese might be dumb as a doorbell. But being able to notice a label is not relevant to the concept of intelligence.
 
Of course, but then we don't always mean "stupid" in the sense of "low IQ" or capacity for information retention. Not all learned behaviour is directly related to academic or vocational intelligence, and trying to frame it like that is disingenuous and deflecting. When we call a tactical decision "stupid" we aren't suggesting that the person undertaking it is low in IQ, but that they have made a poor judgement. The poorer that judgement or the more at risk when that poor decision is made, the "stupider" it is. You or I do things on a daily basis in our job that are just part of the general conducting of our business. They don't necessarily require high brainpower to do, but they're part of what we have to do. Simultaneously, there are things in general society that don't require great intelligence to do, but are so ingrained that they become automatic. Lock your house when you leave. Red means stop, green means go. Red circle with a bar through it means forbidden. Basic logic.

Therese here has failed to do both of these. She has failed to conduct due diligence within her job, and she has failed to spot a warning sign that should have been obvious to anybody with a modicum of common sense. Just a general member of the public, let alone an elite professional athlete who actually has something on the line. If she didn't look, that's a monumental oversight that suggests she has yet to comprehend her responsibilities under anti-doping regulations and needs to be led by the hand through everything to prevent her making all manner of similar errors whenever she gets a runny nose or a cough, in which case it's remarkable she's got as far as she has before an incident like this (Lizzie Deignan says hi, btw). This would at least explain why she had to wait for the team doctor. If she did look and failed to spot the warning, which again wasn't hidden in the small print but printed explicitly and logographically in a universally-recognized sign for 'forbidden', then it suggests she is either in need of an urgent trip to the optician or unable to make the logical jump from "this tube has a sign saying "forbidden: doping" on it" to "this tube probably has a forbidden doping product in it".

I'm not convinced that the life of such a successful and dedicated professional sportswoman can be squared with the ignorance and disorganization required for the "did not look" definition, and I feel that the "did look but didn't recognize" definition credits her with too little intelligence to be realistic. At the same time, I'm also far from convinced that clostebol's comparatively low performance-enhancing effects are sufficient for it to be considered worthwhile by many dopers today compared to many other similar products, especially given the scale of the resources available to the Norwegian team, and the whole case is just bizarre on all sides. And given the perceived sanctimoniousness of the Norwegians, pointing fingers at the occasional challengers from outside their borders while waving away speculation about their own practices skirting the boundaries of what's legitimate, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a bit of the Mick Rogers Japan Cup Clenbuterol Blues about the responses too.
 
Apr 22, 2012
3,570
0
0
GreasyChain said:
Kokoso said:
ToreBear said:
An anabolic steroid is a powerful performance enhancer. But it still needs a big enough dosage to have any affect.
Not even you belive this. Of course steroids enhance performance in ANY amount. You've made me really laugh. Amount of lying you do to defend your Norwegian fellas is ridiculous :)

The idiot mistake was by the Doctor who didn't do his job, and the medical apparatus of the national team which didn't have any routines to prevent one human error to have such an effect. It's all in the Antidoping judgement,
which I suspect Tygart has read: https://www.idrettsforbundet.no/tema/juss/informasjon-om-therese-johaug-saken/
The mistake was both doctor and Johaug. She is responsible for what she takes, isn't she?

Bizarre! I was given steroid cream by my doctor for some contact- eczema caused by my skin reacting to wearing gloves all the time.

According to you and the other cultists,had I been any sort of professional athlete, I would have failed a drugs test and should be banned therefore losing my livelihood because there are no levels of steroids which don't enhance performance.

Also the idea of strict liability as enforced by WADA is in complete conflict with any idea of Human Rights or the normal concept of Natural Justice. Try justifying Alain Baxter losing his medal for using a standard Vicks nasal inhaler. Just go on and try. You can't. It is absolutely impossible to justify that punishment.

Especially when the same gang think that it's perfectly fair to allow men to run against women.
You've certainly managed your answer better than ToreBear, who avoided to answer simple quetion and thus confirmed he isn't exatly telling what he really thinks.

But yeah, your answer is: bizzare! (Just using your words). You've missed one very, very imporant thing: Johaug is professional athlete, you are not. That makes huge difference. Yes, when "ordinary" person is prescribed some treatment, often such person doesn't think about what it is. Because there is no doping in ordinary life. Contrary to this, doping is part of the proffesional athlete's life. They are responsible for what they take. To know anti-doping rules is professional athletes'd obligation, they all agree to stick to anti-doping rules.

Regarding steroids - yeah, any amount you take acts in your body, even the tiniest bit. There is nothing "cultist" there.

Regarding Alain Baxter, I don't know the case, so I won't comment on it.

Who is allowing men to run against women and where?
 
Apr 22, 2012
3,570
0
0
Re:

ToreBear said:
"Since Therese's problems with ulcers are documented, and the substance she took was a legitimate course of treatment for this, then unless other alternative treatments which are of equal effectiveness and without banned substances were similarly available, then a TUE should have been viable, in which case the whole sorry saga could have been avoided. Especially as it was out of season so an emergency treatment shouldn't have been necessary."

This was not the same problem she had before IIRC. The substance she took was not optimal. The doctor who bought it, gave it to her and cleared it, could not understand why a steroid was included in the cream. He was focused on another substance which was an antibiotic of some type.

This has nothing to do with TUEs. The doctor simply bought the wrong stuff, and gave it to her saying it was ok. Neither of them noticed the warning on the packaging.
So you saying doctor and Johaug are mentally *** person's who overlooked, or did not looked properly on the tube AND box (at least I believe the symbol was on both box and tube), where there was sign stating doping?

And you want us to believe that? And YOU want to believe that? (certainly it appears you do, for unexplainable reason).

P.S. comparing car driver overlooking cyclist and doctor and athlete overlooking mark on the box and tube is not really comparison. Two very, very different situation.
 
Since you guys seem to have the most trouble with my arguments regarding perception error, I'll try to start you off understanding it a little better:


This video should be seen in full screen mode for optimal accuracy.

Questions that I would like answers to by you are:

1) Did you count the correct number of passes?___yes/no

2) Did you learn something new?______________ yes/no

3) Would you like to learn more about this?______ yes/no

And don't write down how many passes you counted etc, since then you will ruin the test for everyone else.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo

@Kokoso
The marking was on 1 of the 4 sides on the box only. No marking on the tube.
 
Re:

ToreBear said:
Since you guys seem to have the most trouble with my arguments regarding perception error, I'll try to start you off understanding it a little better:


This video should be seen in full screen mode for optimal accuracy.

Questions that I would like answers to by you are:

1) Did you count the correct number of passes?___yes/no

2) Did you learn something new?______________ yes/no

3) Would you like to learn more about this?______ yes/no

And don't write down how many passes you counted etc, since then you will ruin the test for everyone else.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo

@Kokoso
The marking was on 1 of the 4 sides on the box only. No marking on the tube.

Failed a test for a STEROID that's deemed to be a PED by WADA. Other athletes from different sports have been suspended for the same offense. Why should Johaug be any different?
 
Re:

ToreBear said:
Since you guys seem to have the most trouble with my arguments regarding perception error, I'll try to start you off understanding it a little better:


This video should be seen in full screen mode for optimal accuracy.

Questions that I would like answers to by you are:

1) Did you count the correct number of passes?___yes/no

2) Did you learn something new?______________ yes/no

3) Would you like to learn more about this?______ yes/no

And don't write down how many passes you counted etc, since then you will ruin the test for everyone else.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo

@Kokoso
The marking was on 1 of the 4 sides on the box only. No marking on the tube.
I have to give you Torebear that this clip was a funny example of how the human brain makes errors. But it also raises quite a few questions about your general attitude towards antidoping work in sports.

Is your conclusion then that, not noticing doping marks on a medicin which is named ....bol, forgetting to personally examine the medicin, as you're obliged by the Wada Code, are all valuable arguments of defense that should free the sportsman or at least give a significant lower punishment?

If so, is that valid for all athletes or only Norwegians?

If freeing Johaug now, due to such arguments, how should WADA handle older verdicts where the ahtletes have been punished according to the CODE?
 
Re: Re:

Discgear said:
ToreBear said:
Since you guys seem to have the most trouble with my arguments regarding perception error, I'll try to start you off understanding it a little better:


This video should be seen in full screen mode for optimal accuracy.

Questions that I would like answers to by you are:

1) Did you count the correct number of passes?___yes/no

2) Did you learn something new?______________ yes/no

3) Would you like to learn more about this?______ yes/no

And don't write down how many passes you counted etc, since then you will ruin the test for everyone else.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo

@Kokoso
The marking was on 1 of the 4 sides on the box only. No marking on the tube.
I have to give you Torebear that this clip was a funny example of how the human brain makes errors. But it also raises quite a few questions about your general attitude towards antidoping work in sports.

Is your conclusion then that, not noticing doping marks on a medicin which is named ....bol, forgetting to personally examine the medicin, as you're obliged by the Wada Code, are all valuable arguments of defense that should free the sportsman or at least give a significant lower punishment?

If so, is that valid for all athletes or only Norwegians?

If freeing Johaug now, due to such arguments, how should WADA handle older verdicts where the ahtletes have been punished according to the CODE?
I thought it was important to illustrate how a doctor and an athlete could fail to notice such a sign.

Don't think the wada code has any obligation to personally examine medicine, but it's usually the smart thing to do. Also, Johaug did say the instruction leaflet in the box was in Italian, so she threw it away. Seems like she did examine it. She like the doctor just failed to notice the warning label on one of the four sides of the box.

Had she gone to the shop herself when her problem got painfull, and got popped for cream containing steroids, then I dont see any attempts to guard against contamination. (full 24 months ban)

Had she gone to a local doc and got a prescription it's a little better, but really hardly adequate.
Had she asked this doctor whether it was safe and he said yes, thats a little bit better. But why would this doc be aware of what is go/nogo according to Wada?

The fact that she waited for several days for the Doctor who in the Norwegian team is employed to treat athletes and keep forbidden substances from being taken, adds another hoop she went trough in order to not be contaminated.

That she asks the team doc if it was safe upon being given the cream, and he confirmed it was safe, says in my mind she has done enough to ensure her compliance. If the doctor says it's safe and the manual is in Italian could we expect her to examine the cream/box/leaflet even more?

And here is another Issue: Application. I believe there should be a differentiation with the means of ingestion. Taking a needle for treatment should require extra vigilance. Taking pills a little less vigilance. And applying cream on the skin a little less vigilance again.

So I can't easily answer your question due to the different circumstances in different cases. But as I think I argued 2 months ago, I think in this case she should be freed.

Ps. That she is Norwegian should also be taken into account due to the quality of the Norwegian anti doping system.
 
OK, the last sentence confirms that you're just playing wind-up, as I pointed out in the first post in this most recent spate of discussion, the Norwegian team's smug self-perception and sanctimoniousness with regards the Russians and Finns, allayed with its' now well-documented willingness to play in the grey areas, mean that this particular justification has literally no merit other than as a wind-up and you know it, and the same perceptions I mention definitely contribute to a feeling among some of wanting to see the team cut down to size for their self-righteousness, which continuing to plough your Betonkopf furrow of justification and defence will only perpetuate.

If she examined the packaging and didn't see a label with a universally recognized sign for "forbidden" on it and the word "doping" clearly stated, then I'm afraid that's an error of such enormous proportions that I can't see any real way of defending it. No, the WADA code may not explicitly state that an athlete must examine the medication they use personally, but the fact that the ultimate responsibility lays with the athlete is enough that you would have thought it would justify at least taking a little time to consider it.
 
Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
OK, the last sentence confirms that you're just playing wind-up, as I pointed out in the first post in this most recent spate of discussion, the Norwegian team's smug self-perception and sanctimoniousness with regards the Russians and Finns, allayed with its' now well-documented willingness to play in the grey areas, mean that this particular justification has literally no merit other than as a wind-up and you know it, and the same perceptions I mention definitely contribute to a feeling among some of wanting to see the team cut down to size for their self-righteousness, which continuing to plough your Betonkopf furrow of justification and defence will only perpetuate.

If she examined the packaging and didn't see a label with a universally recognized sign for "forbidden" on it and the word "doping" clearly stated, then I'm afraid that's an error of such enormous proportions that I can't see any real way of defending it. No, the WADA code may not explicitly state that an athlete must examine the medication they use personally, but the fact that the ultimate responsibility lays with the athlete is enough that you would have thought it would justify at least taking a little time to consider it.

The point is, there were no grey areas. They were a construction of a narrative. ALL countries except Sweden used the same Asthma treatment policy.

This smug self perception by the Norwegian team regarding the Russians and the Finns I don't see either. I suspect it's either you projecting or having mistranslated something or having been mislead by the medias rush for clickable headlines.

In short the premiss you put is something I don't agree exists.

As for the last sentence. I admit I was hesitant in including it since I know how some in the clinic could react to it. But the fact remains, not all anti-doping systems are created equal. Some are better than others. And I felt I needed to say it.

The video is 1 minute and 21 seconds long. It might help you understand the problem you write about in the second paragraph.
 
So why is the incidence of asthma in the elite sporting population of a country so much higher than its incidence in the general population? You know full well that you're being disingenuous and blaming the outside media is too easy. Other people using the same grey areas doesn't stop it being use of the grey areas. And you are incredibly willing to not just buy but propagate official stories that require some fantastical logical leaps. What was your stance on Evi Sachenbacher-Stehle's positive at Sochi, why weren't you going to the same lengths to defend Evi?

Also, can I ask how you know the Norwegian anti-doping system is so good? What are the features of the Norwegian anti-doping system that set it apart and show it as so superior to, say, the Finnish or the Canadian ones? Since this is presented as if universally accepted truth, and if true may change some people's stances on the issue, I would like to know what the unique features of the Norwegian anti-doping system that justify it being lauded as one of the best.

Help, I'm turning into blackcat. What's Norwegian for "Gordonstoun" and "Wildean drollery"?
 
Apr 22, 2012
3,570
0
0
Re:

ToreBear said:
Since you guys seem to have the most trouble with my arguments regarding perception error
Biggest trouble for me is yourargumentation being to funny :razz: Another big trouble for me is you saying athlete is not responsible for what he takes.

I have no problem with perception error, since I don't really think it's an issue here. Doctor has to be too damn aware of possible forbiden substance, so I expect him to be really meticulous. Athlete has to be aware of possible forbiden substance presence, so I expect him to be really meticulous, too. If they were so careless not to care about what is inside the tube, they should ne punished anyway. Every athlete proffesional athlete's agree's to follow anti-doping rules. To take care what's inside any tube is his/her responsibility.

You have more steps of control here: first is doctor, second Johaug. I hold my stance that it is not thing of wrong perception at all. First step Ok, so doctor is mentally *** or whatever and doesn't care about what is inside the tube (which is not only about seeing the DOPING inscription and red sign, but also check composition, so that makes another step of control where you can notice mistake). That is minus two steps of control. You have thid one and that is athlete, who asks: "what is inside the tube? Isn't forbidden substance there? Shom me/tell me, doc". Now doctor says "I didn't check, use it." Athlete uses it. :) That is at least three, or four steps of control. Definitely not thing of wrong preception. If athletes doesn't care of what he/he uses and only relied on doctor, it's athlete's fault anyway, cause he/she obligued to follow anti-doping rules.

P.S. do you really think that was good example how Johaug and doctor fail to notice that sign? Do you think it's comparable? Do you think that four pharmacologists at pharmacy were passing the box with tube inside and doctor or Johaug had to catch it and unwrap it while pharmacologists were trying to take that away from them? :) Totally ridiculous example.
 
Apr 22, 2012
3,570
0
0
Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
So why is the incidence of asthma in the elite sporting population of a country so much higher than its incidence in the general population?
Maybe because they are too damn disingenous with themselves for some reason. :) That can induce asthma (that is truth). You know, too maintain stance that is wrong and you know it on subconscious level always costs something.
 
Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
So why is the incidence of asthma in the elite sporting population of a country so much higher than its incidence in the general population? You know full well that you're being disingenuous and blaming the outside media is too easy. Other people using the same grey areas doesn't stop it being use of the grey areas. And you are incredibly willing to not just buy but propagate official stories that require some fantastical logical leaps. What was your stance on Evi Sachenbacher-Stehle's positive at Sochi, why weren't you going to the same lengths to defend Evi?

Also, can I ask how you know the Norwegian anti-doping system is so good? What are the features of the Norwegian anti-doping system that set it apart and show it as so superior to, say, the Finnish or the Canadian ones? Since this is presented as if universally accepted truth, and if true may change some people's stances on the issue, I would like to know what the unique features of the Norwegian anti-doping system that justify it being lauded as one of the best.

Help, I'm turning into blackcat. What's Norwegian for "Gordonstoun" and "Wildean drollery"?
The higher incidence(I don't remember how much higher) is likely due to the airways being heavily used and/or a large portion of the training is conducted in an unhealthy environment, XC(cold air), cycling(polution) and swimming(klorine). Also there might be a lot of people not needing their airways at 100% who have asthma but don't know about it in the general population.

I'm not being disingenuous in the least relating to the media.

The point is that the Norwegian and others use of asthma treatment is not a grey area. This is likely another media driven misunderstanding.

I don't see the fantastical logical leaps you see. If you see fantastical logical leaps, then perhaps you don't understand what is actually logical/reasonable, whatever.

I don't remember my stance regarding Evi. And why should I go to the same leaps to defend Evi?

How I know they are so good is because they say they are good. And information keeps coming up indicating that they are not lying.
- Wada has frequently requested ADN assistance to establish anti doping systems.
- They seem to be in the forefront of key technological advancements.(I.E bloodprofiling, "random" testing, whereabouts system.)
- They have a former police investigator employed.(She also went to Italy in regards to the Johaug case)
- It was organized as a foundation back in 2003. This is recommended by WADA IIIRC. Meaning it's not as tied to sporting bodies or the government itself.
-In the 90s the most powerful man in Norwegian sports was a bureaucrat who just happened to be an anti doping pioneer, and he made sure his pet project received extra funding. So it has been a well funded system for many years.
- Trafficking in doping products has been illegal for years, and recently the act of doping itself has been criminalized.

I'm not well informed on Finland and Canadas system. I assume the Finnish one was majorly upgraded post 2001. The Canadian system is culturally part of the anglo-saxon model. In this I mean that this model has had a reluctance to add government into private matters like sport. Hence they got off to a slower start than countries where government intervention is not as controversial, and where the health aspect of sport is seen as government business.

WADA does not set grades on doping systems, but in light of the Russia/RUSADA scandal they should.

I think it's only universally true for people in the business. Outside I doubt many people have taken much interest to have any opinion based on reality.

I have no idea what "Gordonstoun" and "Wildeandrollery" mean, so I really can't translate it into anything. Sorry :redface:
 
Re: Re:

Kokoso said:
ToreBear said:
Since you guys seem to have the most trouble with my arguments regarding perception error
Biggest trouble for me is yourargumentation being to funny :razz: Another big trouble for me is you saying athlete is not responsible for what he takes.

I have no problem with perception error, since I don't really think it's an issue here. Doctor has to be too damn aware of possible forbiden substance, so I expect him to be really meticulous. Athlete has to be aware of possible forbiden substance presence, so I expect him to be really meticulous, too. If they were so careless not to care about what is inside the tube, they should ne punished anyway. Every athlete proffesional athlete's agree's to follow anti-doping rules. To take care what's inside any tube is his/her responsibility.

You have more steps of control here: first is doctor, second Johaug. I hold my stance that it is not thing of wrong perception at all. First step Ok, so doctor is mentally *** or whatever and doesn't care about what is inside the tube (which is not only about seeing the DOPING inscription and red sign, but also check composition, so that makes another step of control where you can notice mistake). That is minus two steps of control. You have thid one and that is athlete, who asks: "what is inside the tube? Isn't forbidden substance there? Shom me/tell me, doc". Now doctor says "I didn't check, use it." Athlete uses it. :) That is at least three, or four steps of control. Definitely not thing of wrong preception. If athletes doesn't care of what he/he uses and only relied on doctor, it's athlete's fault anyway, cause he/she obligued to follow anti-doping rules.

P.S. do you really think that was good example how Johaug and doctor fail to notice that sign? Do you think it's comparable? Do you think that four pharmacologists at pharmacy were passing the box with tube inside and doctor or Johaug had to catch it and unwrap it while pharmacologists were trying to take that away from them? :) Totally ridiculous example.
I don't see many of the premises of arguments being grounded in facts, and there seems to be a lot of confusion here. I can't correct it all because I don't have the time or the patience.

First the Doctor:
He arrived at the pharmacy needing a cream that could replace the one that was supposed to be in the medical box. The cream he needed would need to contain antibiotics.

He arrived wearing XC national team atire and explained to the pharmacist that he was from the national team, and what Johaugs problem was and that she needed cream or something for the problem.
- Here the doctor is likely to assume that she might have a general idea that doping= bad. He might then assume he is steered clear of such products especially since...

He was not expecting a cream for the purposes he needed to contain steroids since that would be pointless to treat her with that.

- Hence he lets his guard down, and starts looking at ingridient lists to look for a cream containing antibiotics. Trofodermin contains Neomycin.

However it was his job to make sure, and he failed in that. He said himself that he had a lot on his plate at that time with an athlete having dislocated an elbow or something, and needing to prepare for a lecture on asthma(related to the Sunby mess).

The fact that he did not double check when Johaug asked if it was safe is also a failure. When an ahtlete asks that question, saying it's safe out of habit(since you checked earlier, which you usually do), is another professional error.

Then Johaug:
Johaug assumed since it came from the team doctor, and she had asked for confirmation that she had done the required dilligence. Since she found out the instruction leaflet in Italian she might have concluded that any further investigation of the tube/package etc was pointless.

It does not seem like you watched the whole video.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
danielovichdk2 The Clinic 3

ASK THE COMMUNITY