Big Name Tests Positive

The Rooster

I hear there are strong rumours that a big name athlete who won a medal at this Olympics has tested positive. Details to be announced shortly. Very interesting, and its great to see at least some of the cheats being caught. I couldnt possibly guess at who it might be, but "big name" usually means yank or brit. Time will tell.

Some achievement by the Greek 400m hurdler gold medalist. Shaved over 4 seconds off her personal best in one year. Interesting that not one of her competitors offered congratulations

ecksor

I never understand why vague rumours are allowed to leak like that, it only undermines the testing process in my opinion. The news reports I see are about Robert Fazekas, the Hungarian who won the men's discus, probably what was being talked about.

quarryman

what is the procedure for testing the atheletes? I take it all of the medal winners are tested. Are they observed providing the sample? I remember someone saying an athelete was caught trying to change the samples recently, was it a weightlifter? can't remember. just wondering what the odds are of a doping athelete getting caught.

edit: according to the interweb it was the greek discus thrower caught tampering with the sample

ecksor

quarryman wrote:

what is the procedure for testing the atheletes? I take it all of the medal winners are tested. Are they observed providing the sample? I remember someone saying an athelete was caught trying to change the samples recently, was it a weightlifter? can't remember.

This is all from memory from what I've read a while ago, so I may have some mistakes or things may have changed. iaaf.org probably has full details on its anti-doping section somewhere.
http://www.iaaf.org/antidoping/index.html

In competition they test the first 4 finishers in each event and then select a certain proportion of other athletes at random. In any situation if the athlete breaks a national, area or world record then testing must be carried out or the record cannot be ratified. The athlete is accompanied from the end of the event until they are ready to give a sample, provided with drinks to help this out. When giving the sample they must be stripped from the middle of the back to below the knees at least and the tester must have a clear view of the sample being provided. The sample is then divided into two containers, the A and the B, and each one is sealed. The athlete can have a representative with them while that is happening.

I'm even less sure of the details after that, but the A sample is tested, and if there is a positive test then the B sample must also be tested and must also yield a positive test before the athlete is judged to have failed. I think the athlete and the relevant national federation are notified if the first sample tests positive.

On the drinks thing, there was an interesting case a few years ago where Inger Miller medalled at a world indoor championships and subsequently lost that medal due to testing positive for caffeine. She didn't contest the result, but her coaches did point out that perhaps the iaaf shouldn't be providing coca-cola to athletes in that situation (coca-cola were the sponsors of the event). I notice that the rules now state that the drinks should be non-alcholic. The Ukrainian shot putter who lost his world championship gold a few years ago was famously quoted as appreciating the free beer on offer while waiting to be tested after that competition.

just wondering what the odds are of a doping athelete getting caught.

Depends on a lot of things. Assuming that you mean a medal contender, chances would seem pretty good since they're tested out of competition and regularly in competition at that level. Problems with catching them are introduced with undetectable designer drugs, or even drugs that we know about that reliable tests haven't been developed for yet. There are also charges occasionally of national federations tipping off athletes to impending testing, covering up positive results and scheduling tests to suit the athletes. I haven't heard so much of that sort of carry on for a while (although the USADA and USATF have been involved in a few controversies over the last few years). The practices of introducing an international body for testing, freezing samples over time to facilitate tests that haven't been developed at the time of the competition, raids on coaching facilities and putting more cash into research all help to defeat the cheats.

What the actual odds are is a matter of fairly heated discussion. On the whole, I'd say good. Others would say differently.

edit: according to the interweb it was the greek discus thrower caught tampering with the sample

He's Hungarian.

quarryman

He's Hungarian.

he is indeed. had greek in my head when i was writing it. that's good info there. it seems the chances of getting caught are high. I wasn't aware the athelete was escorted from the event to where the sample was provided.

The Rooster

In track events all the drug taking goes on when in training. They make damn sure they dont test positive in big events. The ones who test positive at Olympics are the ones who make a stupid mistake.

ecksor

Random out of competition testing goes on too. Where did you learn about all this btw?

I've edited out the other stuff from your post as I did with quarryman's post previously. If you're going to discuss drug abuse on the forum then make sure you've read and understood the charter.

ecksor

The Rooster's post deleted. Discussion of the rules is welcome, although it'd be better suited to the posting guideline thread stickied at the top of the forum. However, you managed to successfully phrase the post in such as way that you were basically repeating the stuff I'd edited out previously.

logic1

As Ecksor has said at this level random out of season drug testing combined with drug testing as per IAAF guidelines have pushed the athletes away from use of substances which have long half lifes. Most testosterones and other androgenic anabolics are no longer used, some still are but only those that clear in about 3 to 4 weeks.

Remember atheletes previously used substances such as deca durabolin with a detection time in the blood of about 18months!

The problem with alot of the testing is that some compunds are only detectable by expensive blood tests and not by standard urianalysis.

Most atheletes outside of weight lifting have moved to designer compounds like EPO and HGH to a certain extent. Testing for these is costly and up to recently not very effective.

Personally I think the way most atheletes will be caught is not through track day testing or random testing but rather through previous sample analysis. E.g. When 100% accurate, relatively cheap and effective testing methods are brought about this will give leeway for promoters to push for previously stored samples from atheletes to be regression tested.

It could open a whole can of worms for atheletes.

.logic.

Unpossible

testing positive for caffeine

??? so having a few cups of coffee will lose you your medal?

The Ukrainian shot putter who lost his world championship gold a few years ago was famously quoted as appreciating the free beer on offer while waiting to be tested after that competition

Man Michelle Smith must have been on some wild drinking session.


there seems to be a lot of people caught using this year, or is it just me?

ecksor

logic1 wrote:

The problem with alot of the testing is that some compunds are only detectable by expensive blood tests and not by standard urianalysis.

Even testing urine is an expensive proposition for a small meet or federation. We've had the situation in the last few years were we had a Minister for Sport taking every opportunity he got to make bold statements about fighting drugs (often ridiculous and impractical ones), which successfully got him a lot of newspaper inches but we had the situation where anything more than token testing wasn't feasible due to the cost. I don't recall him mentioning that in his statements ...

Anyway, back on topic, blood testing has arrived in athletics. http://www.iaaf.org/antidoping/downloads/section=4/kind=4194304/index.html

I have yet to find something that confirms 100% that it can be and is being done on a wide scale but it would appear to be based upon those guidelines.

Personally I think the way most atheletes will be caught is not through track day testing or random testing but rather through previous sample analysis. E.g. When 100% accurate, relatively cheap and effective testing methods are brought about this will give leeway for promoters to push for previously stored samples from atheletes to be regression tested.

I wonder how expensive that would be. You could argue that the stasi documents that were found after the fall of the berlin wall put a lot of athletes in that position, but no retroactive action was taken that I'm aware of. A different situation I suppose, so that's not to say that it wouldn't be informative if it was done in future.

Unpossible wrote:

??? so having a few cups of coffee will lose you your medal?

Stimulants are banned in competition. Caffeine is a special case in that a certain amount is allowed, but it's entirely possible to be disqualified if you go a bit overboard with the coffee. Various amounts of cups are quoted from time to time, but as far as I know it's heavily dependent on your metabolism. Daniel Komen successfully appealed a disqualification a few years ago after he was able to produce medical evidence to show that he was unable to properly metabolise it.

Unpossible wrote:

there seems to be a lot of people caught using this year, or is it just me?

I think the new strategies in fighting drugs are paying off. Of course, the more successful you are in fighting the cheats, the worse the reputation of the sport gets, and the sports reporters love to hype it up. I often wonder if the sport would have a better reputation if they didn't bother taking anti-doping seriously and the average punter who doesn't follow the sport outside the major championships wouldn't notice.

logic1

ecksor wrote:

Even testing urine is an expensive proposition for a small meet or federation. We've had the situation in the last few years were we had a Minister for Sport taking every opportunity he got to make bold statements about fighting drugs (often ridiculous and impractical ones), which successfully got him a lot of newspaper inches but we had the situation where anything more than token testing wasn't feasible due to the cost. I don't recall him mentioning that in his statements ...

Yeah I actually wasn't aware of how expensive it was until recently. I was taking to a friend that competes in Irish bodybuilding meets and the organisers told him they can only afford to urine test about two compeitiors at each competition and blood testing for certain substances can cost in excess of €3,500 per sample.

Stimulants are banned in competition. Caffeine is a special case in that a certain amount is allowed, but it's entirely possible to be disqualified if you go a bit overboard with the coffee. Various amounts of cups are quoted from time to time, but as far as I know it's heavily dependent on your metabolism.

It is heavily based on metabolic rate and also the body forms tolerance to substances such as caffeine and ephedrine overtime (due to downregulation of receptors I believe) which can have an effect on the outcome.

I often wonder if the sport would have a better reputation if they didn't bother taking anti-doping seriously and the average punter who doesn't follow the sport outside the major championships wouldn't notice.

I actually wondered the same myself at the outset of this years Tour De France. The publics focus and indeed that of the organisers and press seemed to be zeroed in on Atheletes who tested positive and really gave a very bad general perception of the sport. People don't seem to understand that even if 'supplementing' these atheletes still go through superhuman efforts to finish each stage. It's simply not a case of "dope and win".

.logic.

The Rooster

The Rooster's post deleted.

Christonabike that was unfair. There's no way I accused anyone of taking drugs in the post that was deleted. Ah well

I often wonder if the sport would have a better reputation if they didn't bother taking anti-doping seriously and the average punter who doesn't follow the sport outside the major championships wouldn't notice.

Might explain some things.

Its hard to believe the sport is clean when so few are caught taking drugs. Balco was a pure fluke, but hopefully it will be the catalyst that will clean up the sport, and especially get the US in order and stop them covering up for their athletes as they have done for years. Its just that if you think of the number of athleletes that have now been caught through Balco, but who had all passed countless tests while obviously on drugs, you have to believe that the athlete and his pharmacist is one step ahead.

One of the things drugs hit hardest is the true fan of the sport. The cycling fanatics defend their sport and their champions to the hilt, but the rest of us know they are kidding themselves. Michelle Smith never tested positive and most us hoped and believed she was clean. Unfortunately for her she was mostly beating yanks, and they cry louder than anyone, resulting in Michelle being the most tested swimmer in the world at that time. Funny thing is Michelle broke no Olympic records when she won her golds - meaning swimmers (again mostly yanks) going 4 or 8 years prior were faster than her!!

The Rooster

Wow, it turns out Fani, the Greek 400m hurdler, ran quicker in the hurdles to win her gold, than she did in the 400m flat last season. Incredible.
Here's what she says:

http://www.rte.ie/sport/2004/0826/halkia1.html?OLYSTORY

FROM RTE.IE:
Greek Fani Halkia's first couple of hours as an Olympic champion were spent largely fending off questions about how she could possibly have run the 400 metres hurdles faster this year than she raced the same distance on the flat in 2003.

Rather than by any foul means, Halkia has hailed her coach's techniques as the secret to her Games success.

She said: "In order to have great success, you must have someone do a good job laying the groundwork. In this particular case, that person is Giorgos Panagiotopoulos. He helped me tremendously and all this is his own doing."

"The only thing I could do was bow to his coaching brilliance after the race. I wanted to show the world that Giorgos Panagiotopoulos had the leading role in the race."

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Pherekydes

The Rooster wrote:

Wow, it turns out Fani, the Greek 400m hurdler, ran quicker in the hurdles to win her gold, than she did in the 400m flat

Our own Susan Smith ran faster over the Hurdles than she did on the flat. It don't mean squat, especially while she's still developing.

I think she'll break the world record next year.

Her PB at age 18 was 59.17, so she had some talent, and she's a big leggy girl, perfect for the one-lap hurdles.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

mike65

I dunno if this is the shock horror story -

USA in drug admission


Capel had been due to run for the US in the relay
John Capel was left out of the USA's 4x100m relay team in the semi-finals after testing positive for marijuana, the team's head coach has revealed.

Capel tested positive for the drug at a meeting on 9 August, and coach George Williams only heard about it 90 minutes before the race on Friday.

"I did not want to risk anything for him or the other three on the relay," said Williams.

A positive test for the drug, however, only carries a public warning.

As a result, Capel would have been eligible to run and will not face any ban.

He's only a dope head!

Mike.

ecksor

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

Because they were entirely within their rights at the time to judge whether or not it was a doping offense due to the concentration found. The rules were changed a short while later so that the judgement factor was removed altogether and anyone with the concentration he had was automatically considered not to have committed a doping offense.

There's a statement about it here: http://www.iaaf.org/newsfiles/21076.pdf

There were reports of postive tests in Los Angeles during the track and field that were covered up and also recurring similar scandals in recent years with athletes being allowed to compete under circumstances that were found to be questionable. The current newsworthy example being Jerome Young.

The man himself is quoted as saying in November 2003 - 'Who cares I failed drug test?' when talking about the fact he failed a drug test at the US trials before Seoul

Source?

ecksor

mike65 wrote:

He's only a dope head!

Bad news for him and the sport, but I don't think there's any performance enhancing effects from it?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

ecksor

I think there was some artistic paraphrasing going on there rather than a direct quote. Besides, Carl is a bit more articulate than that.

Big Ears

I also recall him saying he and a huge amount of other athlethes at the time were using drugs in a tv interview , but I can't remember the channel or the time , so I guess this counts for nothing .

OFDM

What was it that Linford Christie was found positive for at the end of his career?

Amz

He tested positive for nandrolone.

Big Ears

Amz wrote:

He tested positive for nandrolone.

The same substance a lot of soccer players use .

Amz

Big Ears wrote:

The same substance a lot of soccer players use .

Well it is an anabolic steroid, so presumably these soccer players you refer to shouldn't be using it.

The Rooster

I'm guessing Big Ears is mixing up creatine and nandrolene.

Creatine is legal in most sports and most countries (though banned in a few I believe), and nobody really knows what its long term effects are, but it is understood to be widely used in soccer (and gaelic games for that matter).

Nandrolene on the other hand is most certainly not legal and while you could never rule out 1 or 2 cheats using it for soccer, I would seriously doubt that a lot of soccer players use it (though maybe Big Ears can clarify).

I can't discuss individual cases beyond the actual facts otherwise ecksor will ban me (again), but the facts with Linford Chrisite are, the nandrolene case was not the first time he tested positive, but it was the first time he received a ban.

ecksor

Is the fact in this case the stimulant that was found in his system in the Seoul games?

logic1

The Rooster wrote:

I'm guessing Big Ears is mixing up creatine and nandrolene.

Creatine is legal in most sports and most countries (though banned in a few I believe), and nobody really knows what its long term effects are, but it is understood to be widely used in soccer (and gaelic games for that matter).

There have been hundreds of studies carried out to date on Creatine all largely proving it has no ill long (or short) term effects.

Nandrolene on the other hand is most certainly not legal and while you could never rule out 1 or 2 cheats using it for soccer, I would seriously doubt that a lot of soccer players use it (though maybe Big Ears can clarify).

Depends on what you call legal or not. Nadrolone also commercially known as Deca Durabolin is a class C controlled substance meaning it can be used through prescription and it's not illegal to possess if not held in quantities which would exceed personal usage and lead into sale and supply.

It's a 17aa androgenic anabolic steroid used for muscle building therefore not a good choice for Soccer players, incidentally also not a good choice for sprinters simply due to it's extremly long detection time (around 18months in blood afaik) which is why most athletic users would have discontinued usage. Sprinters these days are much more likely to test positive for Winstrol (Ben Johnson) or a CNS stimulant.

.logic.

logic1

http://www.chemsoc.org/chembytes/ezine/2000/kingston_sep00.htm - Quite an interesting article (some of it dated by now)

.logic.