Doping in XC skiing

[Rider]

Very interesting (though 3 years old) interview with Anatoly Akentyev who was FIS VP for 27 years, http://www.skisport.ru/articles/read/85861/ .

About doping:
- Why did you decide to quit (from the FIS VP position)?

- You know, I lost interest. I do not want to watch ski competition, they became vapid, the romance of struggle disappeared from them.

- You mean the internal Russian competition?

- No, international! Running for the money, only three people competes for the first place.

- But they are the strongest.

- Listen, let's call a spade a spade: why Mäntyranta suddenly lost his hearing and died? Why Swede Pettersson who won all evening races suddenly lost his health? He died! The strongest skiers are there where you have the strongest laboratory. Norway, Sweden, Germany, France. Italy. In skating, cycling - Netherlands. Sometimes leaks happen but they are covered up.

 

[Rider]

Another good one from the interview. when Egorova was banned:

And at the very end (of the dinner) FIS general secretary Sarah Lewis and FIS President Jean-Franco Kasper came to me: "Well, do not take offense at us." I said: "I do not take offense, but I am not going to be a scapegoat. We need to handle it seriously." They told me: "Tolia, well you know what's the matter - the others are able to cover up but you (russian team) - don't."

 

[Kokoso]

Re:

the 'asthma panel' is set to release their report later this week. i haven't found any preliminary details

Let me speculate a bit. I expect they will find out that no banned substance was used, for example salbutamol (which many here incorrectly believed was substance in question becuase of poor understanding the articles involved; but no salbutamol was mentioned there and it was even stressed they don't use it).

They will find out that they used Atrovent, but that is not banned substance, even though it dilates airways. To me it's mystery why this is not on list of banned substances. Reasoing probably is that healthy individuals wouldn't have any benefit from using Atrovent since their airways are naturaly dilated (then why are Norwegians using it for healthy individuals?) So it will be put as ethical matter; of using allowed medicament for healthy athletes. And maybe it won' even be put as ethical matter, maybe they will rule everything is ok. But as far as I know even healthy individuals airways can react to cold and/or performance load by constriction; it all boils down to definition what asthma is or isn't.
Saline used in combination with nebulizers is even less questionable, neither is forbidden and saline is just solution of Natrium and water so it somehow moisturize airways, that of course can help, but no direct impact on performance, at least evidence-based. Maybe more questionable is use of nebulizers, but these are not forbidden, so what.

I would be very surprised if using banned substances is involved. Anf if it is, they will diagnoze those in question with asthma and that would be it.

To me, problem stays USE of any kind of medical treatment for healthy individuals. That I call doping, no matter whether substance or method is or isn't banned. But I fear commition won't have such opinion and if so, there will be no punishments, perhaps they will forbid use of such methods and substances for future (which of course is at least some positive outcome).

 

[ToreBear]

A translation of the Johaug verdict to English is available here:
https://www.idrettsforbundet.no/tema/lov-og-forskrifter/informasjon-om-therese-johaug-saken/

 

[ToreBear]

About the Asthma issues. I think it all started with a TV2 article where No Asthma diagnosis= Healthy while actually there were health reasons for using the Astma drug.

The Norwegians to my understand use it to avoid further injuries to the airways if there is a sign of injury that if untreated over time could lead too asthma.

This is standard practice in several other countries as well.(Right monsieur Manificat? :lol: ) I think they have stopped using asthma drugs with the nebulizer due to the commotion. But any Salbutamol use would have been stopped anyway since the Sundby case made it impossible to use Salbutamol in a nebulizer without a TUE.

What I find most concerning in this case is the discovery that they had done research, and published without correct approval from the ethics board. This speaks to Norwegian Sports scientists thinking paperwork is done by their invisible secretary, as well as selective reading of ethics board rulings. The Sundby and Johaug cases IMHO underline this even more.

It will be interesting to read the commissions findings, to see if my understanding is correct.

 

[python]

as i wrote several times before, i cant help it but being a deep skeptic re. the 'asthma' panel. it was commissioned primarily, but not only, to absorb a huge shock that most norwegians experienced following the sundby doping case.

the shock had to be absorbed b/c it was the 1st ever doping case in the norwegian xc ski sport. i lived through many commissions and panels. the higher those who appointed a review, the more political the panel was.

those selected are no doubt a respectable bunch, but their findings will predictably follow a well used template - a,b,c strengths; d,e,f 'areas for improvement'....1,2,3 recommendations. it will contain just the right proportions and have enough fodder for all sides to claim whatever fit their line.

one of the compounding issues is that for a wide public to make sense of their findings will require a considerable technical acumen. it is my opinion that even the majority of journos don't quite grasp the complicated subject.

in the heart of the asthma 'problem' is whether certain meds are performance enhancing, in what dozes and under what method of administration. i doubt the panel will add anything to that.

and by the next year everyone will forget about it.

 

[Kokoso]

Re:

About the Asthma issues. I think it all started with a TV2 article where No Asthma diagnosis= Healthy while actually there were health reasons for using the Astma drug.

The Norwegians to my understand use it to avoid further injuries to the airways if there is a sign of injury that if untreated over time could lead too asthma.

This is standard practice in several other countries as well.(Right monsieur Manificat? :lol: ) I think they have stopped using asthma drugs with the nebulizer due to the commotion. But any Salbutamol use would have been stopped anyway since the Sundby case made it impossible to use Salbutamol in a nebulizer without a TUE.

What I find most concerning in this case is the discovery that they had done research, and published without correct approval from the ethics board. This speaks to Norwegian Sports scientists thinking paperwork is done by their invisible secretary, as well as selective reading of ethics board rulings. The Sundby and Johaug cases IMHO underline this even more.

It will be interesting to read the commissions findings, to see if my understanding is correct.

It began with TV2 article, yes, but other than that your either your memory is deceiving you.

It really was about healthy athletes given asthma medicine; athletes with no signs of injury. This part you've completely made up. Vidar Lofshus only said it's prevention. Prevention of what he did not say.

In other article, where Johaug admitted she used asthma medicaments (without asthma diagnose), it was explained by doctor Bendiksen (yeah, THAT docter Bendiksen that they use asthma medicaments in case of infection. IMHO such treatment is arguable from medical point of view. You don't treat airways and/or pulmonary infection with asthma medication, unless it's serious one requiring hospitalization and that wasn't Johaug's case of course. That is

No Norwegian doctor said they use it "if there is a sign of injury that if untreated over time could lead too asthma.", you've completely made that up. And it's logical; healthy people don't use antiepileptics preventively when you go to the disco or whatever. Helathy people don't use acetylsaliylic acid before athletic performance because you fear myocardial infarction. And so on.

This is standard practice in several other countries as well.(Right monsieur Manificat? :lol: )

This is blatant lying, Torebear. Since when Manificat, one person, represents "standard practice in several other countries?
And that mocking "Monsier Manificat lol" wasn't necesarry, really, especially given the circumstances.

P.S. for one who wasn't following this thread because of NFL you seem quite in the picture

 

[ToreBear]

Re: Re:

About the Asthma issues. I think it all started with a TV2 article where No Asthma diagnosis= Healthy while actually there were health reasons for using the Astma drug.

The Norwegians to my understand use it to avoid further injuries to the airways if there is a sign of injury that if untreated over time could lead too asthma.

This is standard practice in several other countries as well.(Right monsieur Manificat? :lol: ) I think they have stopped using asthma drugs with the nebulizer due to the commotion. But any Salbutamol use would have been stopped anyway since the Sundby case made it impossible to use Salbutamol in a nebulizer without a TUE.

What I find most concerning in this case is the discovery that they had done research, and published without correct approval from the ethics board. This speaks to Norwegian Sports scientists thinking paperwork is done by their invisible secretary, as well as selective reading of ethics board rulings. The Sundby and Johaug cases IMHO underline this even more.

It will be interesting to read the commissions findings, to see if my understanding is correct.

It began with TV2 article, yes, but other than that your either your memory is deceiving you.

It really was about healthy athletes given asthma medicine; athletes with no signs of injury. This part you've completely made up. Vidar Lofshus only said it's prevention. Prevention of what he did not say.

In other article, where Johaug admitted she used asthma medicaments (without asthma diagnose), it was explained by doctor Bendiksen (yeah, THAT docter Bendiksen that they use asthma medicaments in case of infection. IMHO such treatment is arguable from medical point of view. You don't treat airways and/or pulmonary infection with asthma medication, unless it's serious one requiring hospitalization and that wasn't Johaug's case of course. That is

No Norwegian doctor said they use it "if there is a sign of injury that if untreated over time could lead too asthma.", you've completely made that up. And it's logical; healthy people don't use antiepileptics preventively when you go to the disco or whatever. Helathy people don't use acetylsaliylic acid before athletic performance because you fear myocardial infarction. And so on.

This is standard practice in several other countries as well.(Right monsieur Manificat? :lol: )

This is blatant lying, Torebear. Since when Manificat, one person, represents "standard practice in several other countries?
And that mocking "Monsier Manificat lol" wasn't necesarry, really, especially given the circumstances.

P.S. for one who wasn't following this thread because of NFL you seem quite in the picture

Not lying, Manificat is just a funny example of someone talking before thinking. I don't know which countries practise this way. But IIRC there was a symposium where the Norwegian practise was explained, and it was apaerently followed by others too.

I Know France because of Manificat.

As for health. Vidar Løvshus is the head of the national team, he is not a doctor.
Here is a link about the Juniors, with an actual doctor explaining the process in that situation.
https://www.nrk.no/sport/norske-juniorer-hadde-ikke-astma-_-fikk-astmamedisin-i-vm-1.13211144

Since I followed the NFL I only followed this case enough to figure out whether there is any real issue here, I don't remember many of the details, but the ghist of it. I filed this under tabloid overraction.

You are right no Norwegian doctor said xxx. They were mostly interviewed in Norwegian. As for following this thread. You might find it hard to believe, but I I prefer getting my news about Norwegian issues in Norwegian rather than through google translate.

This should be covered in the upcoming report. Then we can all have access to the same source of information.

 

[Blaaswix]

@ Tore Bear.

The explanation given in the article for giving asthma medicine to non-asthmatic juniors, is that there were 'special climatic condition', (maybe a temperature inversion)? which because of fuel burned for heating in the area, produced an unusually high amount of 'kullos', or monoxide, presumably carbon monoxide. This lead to 'irritation of the airways, 'and so asthma medication was given. If 'kullos' was building up to a level that it was causing symptoms, surely other irritants, like particles, would also be present, from the burning of whatever fuel was producing the CO.

So why give a medication that opens the airways and thus exposes the subject to more of the irritant?

 

[sworks]

Very interesting (though 3 years old) interview with Anatoly Akentyev who was FIS VP for 27 years, http://www.skisport.ru/articles/read/85861/ .

About doping:
- Why did you decide to quit (from the FIS VP position)?

- You know, I lost interest. I do not want to watch ski competition, they became vapid, the romance of struggle disappeared from them.

- You mean the internal Russian competition?

- No, international! Running for the money, only three people competes for the first place.

- But they are the strongest.

- Listen, let's call a spade a spade: why Mäntyranta suddenly lost his hearing and died? Why Swede Pettersson who won all evening races suddenly lost his health? He died! The strongest skiers are there where you have the strongest laboratory. Norway, Sweden, Germany, France. Italy. In skating, cycling - Netherlands. Sometimes leaks happen but they are covered up.

Mäntyranta died 76 year old. Normal imho. Which Pettersson do you mean???

 

[ToreBear]

@ Tore Bear.

The explanation given in the article for giving asthma medicine to non-asthmatic juniors, is that there were 'special climatic condition', (maybe a temperature inversion)? which because of fuel burned for heating in the area, produced an unusually high amount of 'kullos', or monoxide, presumably carbon monoxide. This lead to 'irritation of the airways, 'and so asthma medication was given. If 'kullos' was building up to a level that it was causing symptoms, surely other irritants, like particles, would also be present, from the burning of whatever fuel was producing the CO.

So why give a medication that opens the airways and thus exposes the subject to more of the irritant?

Perhaps the problem was not the substance, but the bodys response to it. I'm really only guessing. Hopefully this will be cleared up for everyone, including me when the report comes later this week IIRC.

 

[Discgear]

Very interesting (though 3 years old) interview with Anatoly Akentyev who was FIS VP for 27 years, http://www.skisport.ru/articles/read/85861/ .

About doping:
- Why did you decide to quit (from the FIS VP position)?

- You know, I lost interest. I do not want to watch ski competition, they became vapid, the romance of struggle disappeared from them.

- You mean the internal Russian competition?

- No, international! Running for the money, only three people competes for the first place.

- But they are the strongest.

- Listen, let's call a spade a spade: why Mäntyranta suddenly lost his hearing and died? Why Swede Pettersson who won all evening races suddenly lost his health? He died! The strongest skiers are there where you have the strongest laboratory. Norway, Sweden, Germany, France. Italy. In skating, cycling - Netherlands. Sometimes leaks happen but they are covered up.

Mäntyranta died 76 year old. Normal imho. Which Pettersson do you mean???

I did try to read the article on Google translate. Kind of moving read. Former succesful skier and 27 years as high rank official but now Akentyev is living under very modest conditions in a faded community.

I do agree with the odd remark about Mäntyranta, however there was a history told about a Fourcade-like behavior by Mäntyranta against the Russian team at Grenoble 1968.

He must have got it wrong with Pettersson, can't recall any Swedish skier strong in the evenings with that name who had to quit because of poor health. I'm guess he's mixing up nationality and is pointing on the Norwegian Øystein Pettersen. The death remark must be a google translate misunderstanding.

 

[Aragon]

Re:

Old topic, but slightly relevant on the 1989 rEPO-mystery and on the character of Tapio Videman.

After searching what has been written about him, I noticed this old post about the film Sinivalkoinen Valhe (aka "When Heroes Lie"), about the doping culture of the Finnish cross country skiing circles from 1970s until 2000s. This allegation made in the movie that portrays Videman as a shadowy figure caught my attention:

Just a comment of the swedish version of the finnish docu... Anyway when I have time ill go deeper into the film, because there is a lot of interesting info there. Like Tapio Videman experimenting on young Finns with doping in the 70s and 80s.

This is a reference to the hormone allegations by the Finnish cross country skier Kaija Härkin, that were widely reported as a new information in 2012 when the movie was released. The story actually starts in 1981 when after becoming a born-again christian, she pretty much dismissed her earlier skiing career and admitted not only winning a national championship medal under influence of stimulants but also claimed that she had participated into a hormone program some ten years earlier under the guidance of the Finnish Ski Federation.

Härkin revealed also publicly that Tapio Videman was the doctor who delivered her the hormone, which Videman admitted. But Videman insisted that it was a scientific research project and the substance wasn't even anabolic steroid but a substance known as "HX", a code name for dehydroepiandrosterone-sulphate (DHEAS), a prohormone that wasn't banned until some twenty years later.

While going through some publicly available archives of the Finnish Athletics Federation a year or two ago, I stumbled upon the original material of the "HX"-project and it is pretty much in line in what Tapio Videman told in 1981:

- There was a lot of worry about the prevalent use of anabolic steroids and Finnish researchers started in 1973 a project with a rationale to end the use of anabolic steroids by administering DHEAS to athletes. It was speculated that body would convert only the amount it needed to androgens if exercise caused androgen depletion. As a part of the project, some male participants received anabolic steroids, but not those under supervision of Videman. The project was an honest scientific endeavor and the DHEAS was supplied by the Swiss pharmaceutical company Hoffmann-La Roche.
- There were several groups on which HX was administered and the coordinators delivered urine samples to the laboratories for analysis, but the group of Videman (female XC skiers) dropped out of the project for time schedule issues.
- In the end, the project was a failure, but the results from the remaining participants were combined, analyzed and published in a peer-reviewed journal in 1977.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/00365517709100649

 

[Kokoso]

Re: Re:

About the Asthma issues. I think it all started with a TV2 article where No Asthma diagnosis= Healthy while actually there were health reasons for using the Astma drug.

The Norwegians to my understand use it to avoid further injuries to the airways if there is a sign of injury that if untreated over time could lead too asthma.

This is standard practice in several other countries as well.(Right monsieur Manificat? :lol: ) I think they have stopped using asthma drugs with the nebulizer due to the commotion. But any Salbutamol use would have been stopped anyway since the Sundby case made it impossible to use Salbutamol in a nebulizer without a TUE.

What I find most concerning in this case is the discovery that they had done research, and published without correct approval from the ethics board. This speaks to Norwegian Sports scientists thinking paperwork is done by their invisible secretary, as well as selective reading of ethics board rulings. The Sundby and Johaug cases IMHO underline this even more.

It will be interesting to read the commissions findings, to see if my understanding is correct.

It began with TV2 article, yes, but other than that your either your memory is deceiving you.

It really was about healthy athletes given asthma medicine; athletes with no signs of injury. This part you've completely made up. Vidar Lofshus only said it's prevention. Prevention of what he did not say.

In other article, where Johaug admitted she used asthma medicaments (without asthma diagnose), it was explained by doctor Bendiksen (yeah, THAT docter Bendiksen that they use asthma medicaments in case of infection. IMHO such treatment is arguable from medical point of view. You don't treat airways and/or pulmonary infection with asthma medication, unless it's serious one requiring hospitalization and that wasn't Johaug's case of course. That is

No Norwegian doctor said they use it "if there is a sign of injury that if untreated over time could lead too asthma.", you've completely made that up. And it's logical; healthy people don't use antiepileptics preventively when you go to the disco or whatever. Helathy people don't use acetylsaliylic acid before athletic performance because you fear myocardial infarction. And so on.

This is standard practice in several other countries as well.(Right monsieur Manificat? :lol: )

This is blatant lying, Torebear. Since when Manificat, one person, represents "standard practice in several other countries?
And that mocking "Monsier Manificat lol" wasn't necesarry, really, especially given the circumstances.

P.S. for one who wasn't following this thread because of NFL you seem quite in the picture

I don't know which countries practise this way.

So you were blatantly lying.

But IIRC there was a symposium where the Norwegian practise was explained, and it was apaerently followed by others too.

You recall wrong, there was no such symposium.

I Know France because of Manificat.

Manificat doesn't represent France. And I don't understand why are you mocking him, he didn't say anything that yould contradict itself. No "unny example of someone talking before thinking".

As for health. Vidar Løvshus is the head of the national team, he is not a doctor.

And what's the point? I know that. He can understand and repeat what doctor tells him, can't he?

Here is a link about the Juniors, with an actual doctor explaining the process in that situation.
https://www.nrk.no/sport/norske-juniorer-hadde-ikke-astma-_-fikk-astmamedisin-i-vm-1.13211144

In that article doctor states that it wasn't intention to prevent asthma. That directly contradicts what you have stated "The Norwegians to my understand use it to avoid further injuries to the airways if there is a sign of injury that if untreated over time could lead too asthma". The doctor states clearly they've treated athlets who had no asthma with with asthma medication

Also that article states they've used PULMICORT for treatment. That is GLUCOCORTICOID; PROHIBITED IN COMPETITION AT ALL TIMES. So according to the article Norwegians BREACHED THE ANTI-DOPING RULES.

Any yet another thing is juniors in Rasnov aren't only Norwegian athletes who received anti-asthmatic medication and certainly Bransdal wasn't competing in Rasnov.

Since I followed the NFL I only followed this case enough to figure out whether there is any real issue here, I don't remember many of the details, but the ghist of it. I filed this under tabloid overraction.

As for what you do or don't remember, it's interesting that if you remember something wrong, you remember it the way that makes it look better for Norge. Your memories and way of thinking are working according what you want to believe or where your emotions are.

As for the ghist of it, I wonder why you fail to recognize that it's wrong to treat healthy people. That's the ghist of it.

And, what's new, it's breach of WADA rules to treat people in-competition with glucocorticoid. That's quite a game-changer. That's doping.

I think you have false hopes in that upcoming report, too. You clearly don't know who members of the comittee are; they are in no way independent. It's sad.

 

[python]

guess what...johaug decided not to appeal to cas

https://www.nrk.no/sport/johaug-anker-ikke-domsutvalgets-avgjorelse-1.13378915

some in wada and the fis would absolutely love if she made the foolish step, but her lawyes know better.

today, the fis council is decideding the appeal. according to several scandinavian article, the fis decision is largely dependent on the recommendation of their doping panel. the 19-member council still has to approve the recommendation by a simple majority vote. according to one of the posts above that quoted a former fis vp, the real power in such matters belongs to the fis president and his 4 vps.

according to the earlier statements by the council member from finland, he expected an appeal. i still doubt it, b/c i believe the norwegian verdict was preceded by a nod from someone in fis (or a minimum they'd go along with). which for anyone reading the code is 12 month as an absolute minimum.

 

[bambino]

Re:

guess what...johaug decided not to appeal to cas

https://www.nrk.no/sport/johaug-anker-ikke-domsutvalgets-avgjorelse-1.13378915

some in wada and the fis would absolutely love if she made the foolish step, but her lawyes know better.

today, the fis council is decideding the appeal. according to several scandinavian article, the fis decision is largely dependent on the recommendation of their doping panel. the 19-member council still has to approve the recommendation by a simple majority vote. according to one of the posts above that quoted a former fis vp, the real power in such matters belongs to the fis president and his 4 vps.

according to the earlier statements by the council member from finland, he expected an appeal. i still doubt it, b/c i believe the norwegian verdict was preceded by a nod from someone in fis (or a minimum they'd go along with). which for anyone reading the code is 12 month as an absolute minimum.

FIS council already did talk about the matter today and decided to postpone the decision of the appeal and hear what the Medical Committee recommends first. The Medical committee is a fair bunch of close to 40 people (if you calculate experts and honorary members), most of them individual doctors from different countries I assume. The committee is led by German Hurbert Hörterer and the Vice-Chair is certain Inggard Lereim

The FIS council also stated that they will consult with WADA and their view of the matter before making decision to appeal or not.

I'm heavily leaning to the suspicion of python, I think Norwegians have already made their politics behind the curtains and both WADA and FIS will rule to not appeal.

 

[ToreBear]

@Aragon
Thanks for setting the record strait! I had thought of him as someone who was making penance for his sins by focusing on anti-doping. But this makes much more sense. I also think it's good that they published the research even though it was deemed a failure.

That's the thing about documentaries I guess. You get some of the picture but not the whole picture.

 

[BullsFan22]

Re: Re:

guess what...johaug decided not to appeal to cas

https://www.nrk.no/sport/johaug-anker-ikke-domsutvalgets-avgjorelse-1.13378915

some in wada and the fis would absolutely love if she made the foolish step, but her lawyes know better.

today, the fis council is decideding the appeal. according to several scandinavian article, the fis decision is largely dependent on the recommendation of their doping panel. the 19-member council still has to approve the recommendation by a simple majority vote. according to one of the posts above that quoted a former fis vp, the real power in such matters belongs to the fis president and his 4 vps.

according to the earlier statements by the council member from finland, he expected an appeal. i still doubt it, b/c i believe the norwegian verdict was preceded by a nod from someone in fis (or a minimum they'd go along with). which for anyone reading the code is 12 month as an absolute minimum.

FIS council already did talk about the matter today and decided to postpone the decision of the appeal and hear what the Medical Committee recommends first. The Medical committee is a fair bunch of close to 40 people (if you calculate experts and honorary members), most of them individual doctors from different countries I assume. The committee is led by German Hurbert Hörterer and the Vice-Chair is certain Inggard Lereim

The FIS council also stated that they will consult with WADA and their view of the matter before making decision to appeal or not.

I'm heavily leaning to the suspicion of python, I think Norwegians have already made their politics behind the curtains and both WADA and FIS will rule to not appeal.

Yeah, I am hoping that FIS and WADA appeal, but you are right, there are plenty of Norwegians at the high end of both FIS and WADA and they'll probably be generous.

 

[ToreBear]

@Kokoso
"Also that article states they've used PULMICORT for treatment. That is GLUCOCORTICOID; PROHIBITED IN COMPETITION AT ALL TIMES. So according to the article Norwegians BREACHED THE ANTI-DOPING RULES."

You LIE!

Or are you just misinformed? See how that works?
http://www.felleskatalogen.no/medisin/pulmicort-astrazeneca-563104

Just curious why you say the committee is not independent? Is it because all the members are Norwegian?

 

[ToreBear]

@python, Bambino
You say politics, I say Cas precedent. Your explanation sounds a a lot more interesting though.

 

[Kokoso]

Re:

@Kokoso
"Also that article states they've used PULMICORT for treatment. That is GLUCOCORTICOID; PROHIBITED IN COMPETITION AT ALL TIMES. So according to the article Norwegians BREACHED THE ANTI-DOPING RULES."

You LIE!

Or are you just misinformed? See how that works?
http://www.felleskatalogen.no/medisin/pulmicort-astrazeneca-563104

Just curious why you say the committee is not independent? Is it because all the members are Norwegian?

Maybe I am, but I don't see it. What am I lying about?

On the other hand you've lied and you've acknowledged that now; that's good. May I ask you why did you lie?

Regarding committee - go back in thread it was elaborated there in detail.

Edit: did you read the link? This is interesting:

"Indikasjoner: Bronkialastma, når tilstanden ikke kan holdes under kontroll av korttidsvirkende bronkolytika brukt ved behov. Til bruk for pasienter som ikke kan bruke Turbuhaler eller inhalasjonsaerosol. Svært alvorlig falsk krupp (pseudokrupp, laryngitis subglottica) når innleggelse på sykehus er nødvendig."

 

[bambino]

Re:

@python, Bambino
You say politics, I say Cas precedent. Your explanation sounds a a lot more interesting though.

Not sure what you mean? That there is equal precedent from CAS that is exactly similar with Johaug case? Enlight me. And even if there is, what is the problem then to check it with CAS and validate?

Btw. Johaug's layer said that one of core reasons they won't go to CAS is that they fear longer ban. If there is precedent, why would they be worried about that?

 

[ToreBear]

Re: Re:

@Kokoso
"Also that article states they've used PULMICORT for treatment. That is GLUCOCORTICOID; PROHIBITED IN COMPETITION AT ALL TIMES. So according to the article Norwegians BREACHED THE ANTI-DOPING RULES."

You LIE!

Or are you just misinformed? See how that works?
http://www.felleskatalogen.no/medisin/pulmicort-astrazeneca-563104

Just curious why you say the committee is not independent? Is it because all the members are Norwegian?

Maybe I am, but I don't see it. What am I lying about?

On the other hand you've lied and you've acknowledged that now; that's good. May I ask you why did you lie?

Regarding committee - go back in thread it was elaborated there in detail.

Edit: did you read the link? This is interesting:

"Indikasjoner: Bronkialastma, når tilstanden ikke kan holdes under kontroll av korttidsvirkende bronkolytika brukt ved behov. Til bruk for pasienter som ikke kan bruke Turbuhaler eller inhalasjonsaerosol. Svært alvorlig falsk krupp (pseudokrupp, laryngitis subglottica) når innleggelse på sykehus er nødvendig."

As for the committee. How about a link, since this is a long thread?

Yes I read the link.
I havent lied. If I have written something wrong it is not with intent do deceive, I.E. Lying.

You are Lying about Pulmicort;

"Also that article states they've used PULMICORT for treatment. That is GLUCOCORTICOID; PROHIBITED IN COMPETITION AT ALL TIMES. So according to the article Norwegians BREACHED THE ANTI-DOPING RULES."

Their use of Pulmicort is legal, and doesn't break the antidoping rules.
If you do a little research, you should be able to figure out why that is so.

In your world you are telling a lie. In my world you are misinformed.

 

[ToreBear]

Re: Re:

@python, Bambino
You say politics, I say Cas precedent. Your explanation sounds a a lot more interesting though.

Not sure what you mean? That there is equal precedent from CAS that is exactly similar with Johaug case? Enlight me. And even if there is, what is the problem then to check it with CAS and validate?

Btw. Johaug's layer said that one of core reasons they won't go to CAS is that they fear longer ban. If there is precedent, why would they be worried about that?

http://www.podiumcafe.com/2013/9/20/4752212/stefano-agostini-least-bullshitty-positive-explanation-ever

15 months. He got it from his mother.
13 monts. She got it from her team doctor.
You can't call Cas and validate. That is not how CAS works. You search for similar cases, and you check out wada rules and guidance.

I'm sorry I don't have the time to explain the CAS arbitration system and the legal structures of anti doping.

 

[bambino]

Re: Re:

@python, Bambino
You say politics, I say Cas precedent. Your explanation sounds a a lot more interesting though.

Not sure what you mean? That there is equal precedent from CAS that is exactly similar with Johaug case? Enlight me. And even if there is, what is the problem then to check it with CAS and validate?

Btw. Johaug's layer said that one of core reasons they won't go to CAS is that they fear longer ban. If there is precedent, why would they be worried about that?

http://www.podiumcafe.com/2013/9/20/4752212/stefano-agostini-least-bullshitty-positive-explanation-ever

15 months. He got it from his mother.
13 monts. She got it from her team doctor.
You can't call Cas and validate. That is not how CAS works. You search for similar cases, and you check out wada rules and guidance.

I'm sorry I don't have the time to explain the CAS arbitration system and the legal structures of anti doping.

I thought you'd come with Agostini. His 15 months was UCI verdict, he never appealed to CAS. So CAS precedent does not exist.

http://www.velonews.com/2014/04/news/agostini-gives-cycling-letter-doping-suspension_323757

Other "small" difference is that Agostini took it once in the middle of the night, Therese something like 10-15 days regularly. Strict liability, right?

I'm sorry I don't have time to explain how checking your facts works.