Macb's reference to getting banned due to a blue inhaler made me think of the Alain Baxter case and his ban and stripping of his medal due to a Vicks inhaler positive. I've posted a wee bit from his Wiki page which gives most of the details. Some obvious clear differences to the current Froome case (banned stimulant) but some similarities as well. Anyhoo, thought I would post on a cold out of season January night:
Urine tests[edit]
Baxter had provided a urine sample immediately after the race on 23 February.[23] Initial reports were that his urine sample contained a trace amount of methamphetamine, a banned stimulant. The BOA formally asked the IOC to carry out a split test on Baxter's sample on the basis that there are two forms of the drug.[24] The more advanced tests showed that the substance present was levMethamphetamine, a levorotary isomer of methamphetamine, which has no significant stimulant properties. Baxter later proved the source of levMethamphetamine was from a Vicks inhaler that he had used in the United States. He had been unaware that the contents were different from those found in the UK version. The International Ski Federation accepted his explanation and on 2 June announced they would require him to serve a ban him of 3 months,[25][26] on the basis that this was a first offence of unintentionally using a prohibited substance.[27] This sanction meant he would miss the first month of the 2002–3 World Cup season and an appeal was lodged in late June.[27]
International Ski Federation appeal[edit]
The British Ski and Snowboard Federation appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) and the case was heard on 30 September 2002. The appeal was successful and his ban was overturned.[28] This gave the Baxter camp great hope for the next appeal to have his medal returned.
Olympic appeal[edit]
The British Olympic Association assisted with, and publicly funded, an appeal against the loss of his medal. In October 2002 his medal appeal was heard by the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne.[29] The basis of the appeal was that the form of methamphetamine in the USA Vicks levMethamphetamine is an inactive isomer of methamphetamine. The CAS and the IOC agreed that he had not intentionally ingested the substance.[30] Under the strict liability doctrine, athletes are liable if they inadvertently take any form of potentially performance-enhancing substance, and a large number of athletes have lost medals as a result. Cold cures and other over-the-counter medicines are the most common sources of trace levels of amphetamines and other stimulants. His appeal rested on whether levAmphetamine was performance-enhancing, Vicks and other expert witnesses explained that it was a decongestant, and had negligible stimulant properties. Dr Don Catlin maintained that the banned list did not specify isomers so all forms were on the banned list and the strict liability doctrine applied. This was particularly controversial since 100 US athletes who won 19 medals tested positive for stimulants at his laboratory, and were cleared to continue competing, and Dr. Catlin was named as part of a 3-man committee that routinely allowed US Olympians such as Carl Lewis to continue competing despite failing drugs tests.[31][32] The vast majority of athletes named in Wade Exum's papers tested positive for stimulants found in over-the-counter cold medicines. Most were cleared after explaining that they had taken the substances inadvertently.[33][34]
The Baxter Appeal team headed by Professor Arnold Beckett, a former member of the IOC medical commission, thought Dr Catlin's position was "inconsistent". He stated, "The things we are being told about in the USA make me very angry, particularly in relation to Alain Baxter's case. He did not take a banned substance, as levAmphetamine was not on the list, but it was Dr Catlin's evidence which the appeal committee believed."
The court upheld the IOC's decision to disqualify Baxter.[29][35] The CAS judgement found that "The panel is not without sympathy for Mr Baxter, who appears to be a sincere and honest man who did not intend to obtain a competitive advantage in the race."[29]:8 Nevertheless, they found that his offence had been committed and as such would not reinstate the medal.[36] In December 2002, Raich received the bronze medal.[37]
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram