Nesta Carter stripped of Bejing gold

robinph · 25-01-2017 3:32pm #1

..and more headline grabbingly, therefore Bolt is now down to a mere 8 golds:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/38744846

764dak · 25-01-2017 8:35pm

Most people don't know who Nesta Carter is. You would be better off saying Jamaica's 4x100m men's team.

robinph · 25-01-2017 8:49pm

It was deliberate. Otherwise otherwise you are effectively naming Bolt in the headline, and he isn't accused of anything.

Pherekydes · 25-01-2017 8:53pm

robinph wrote: »

It was deliberate. Otherwise otherwise you are effectively naming Bolt in the headline, and he isn't accused of anything.

I agree with this. Bolt was named in nearly every other headline, but Carter is the big loser here. And for a pathetic non-offence.

764dak · 25-01-2017 9:02pm

robinph wrote: »

It was deliberate. Otherwise otherwise you are effectively naming Bolt in the headline, and he isn't accused of anything.

Saying "Jamaica men's 4x100m team" doesn't name Bolt.

robinph · 25-01-2017 9:12pm

Well it's unlikely to be a topic about the winner of the Greco-Roman wrestling gold in the Beijing Olympics.

walshb · 25-01-2017 9:31pm

More nonsense. He passed the test in 2008. You look hard enough you'll come up with some crap. Wait for it. 2024 Bolt fails test taken in Rio for something he ate in the Olympic village..

average_runner · 25-01-2017 9:33pm

walshb wrote: »

More nonsense. He passed the test in 2008. You look hard enough you'll come up with some crap. Wait for it. 2024 Bolt fails test taken in Rio for something he ate in the Olympic village..

Why is it nonsense? Did he not have an illegal substance in his system?

Just because the new tests are better for detection.

walshb · 25-01-2017 9:35pm

average_runner wrote: »

Why is it nonsense? Did he not have an illegal substance in his system?

Just because the new tests are better for detection.

Almost ten years later. An absolute nonsense. Athletes clean and not clean may as well give up.

average_runner · 25-01-2017 9:37pm

walshb wrote: »

Almost ten years later. An absolute nonsense. Athletes clean and not clean may as well give up.

But the substance was on the ban list 4 years before that Olympics.

So he was dirty.

walshb · 25-01-2017 9:41pm

average_runner wrote: »

But the substance was on the ban list 4 years before that Olympics.

So he was dirty.

But he passed the test in 2008. How can they even stand over this crap? Almost ten years and we're supposed to have absolute faith that everything as regards storage and management and testing of sample is correct? Fook that. They had their chance in 2008 and he passed, and now in 2017 he fails? How people can't see the nonsense in having faith in a system like this is beyond me.

average_runner · 25-01-2017 9:44pm

walshb wrote: »

But he passed the test in 2008. How can they even stand over this crap? Almost ten years and we're supposed to have absolute faith that everything as regards storage and management and testing of sample is correct? Fook that. They had their chance in 2008 and he passed, and now in 2017 he fails? How people can't see the nonsense in having faith in a system like this is beyond me.

So if they cheat and get away with that should be it?

Samples kept for 10 years is a good idea so we can improve the methods of testing and encourage clean performance.

Otherwise everyone will be cheating if they know there is no way to detect a certain drug.

Macy0161 · 25-01-2017 9:48pm

Retro testing is a way of catching those dopers that are ahead of the current tests. It should be the standard, as it is a potential deterrent. They can still only ban based on substances that were banned at the time.

If there's question marks over the storage, that's grounds for appeal.

Pherekydes · 25-01-2017 10:20pm

average_runner wrote: »

But the substance was on the ban list 4 years before that Olympics.

So he was dirty.

It's in many dietary supplements:

It was reclassified in 2011 as a "specified substance", meaning one that is more susceptible to a "credible, non-doping explanation".

Sold as a nasal decongestant in the United States until 1983, methylhexanamine has been used more recently as an ingredient in dietary supplements.

This substance is not named on the current banned list, but is a specified substance, that is, one which is not banned by name, but by "a similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s)."

So Nesta Carter (and any other athlete) is supposed to be a chemist now.

average_runner · 25-01-2017 10:32pm

Pherekydes wrote: »

It's in many dietary supplements:

This substance is not named on the current banned list, but is a specified substance, that is, one which is not banned by name, but by "a similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s)."

So Nesta Carter (and any other athlete) is supposed to be a chemist now.

He might win on appeal then

walshb · 25-01-2017 11:27pm

The authorities need to quit wasting time busting people for these silly substances, and start catching them for actual PEDs.

Murph_D · 26-01-2017 12:34am

Doped, but innocent. #alternativefacts

764dak · 26-01-2017 1:16am

Pherekydes wrote: »

It's in many dietary supplements:

This substance is not named on the current banned list, but is a specified substance, that is, one which is not banned by name, but by "a similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s)."

So Nesta Carter (and any other athlete) is supposed to be a chemist now.

Athletes should stop taking random drugs and they won't have to worry about chemistry knowledge.

Pherekydes · 26-01-2017 8:14am

Murph_D wrote: »

Doped, but innocent. #alternativefacts

764dak wrote: »

Athletes should stop taking random drugs and they won't have to worry about chemistry knowledge.

If it was doping to take this stuff then it would be banned outright. However, it's only banned in competition. It's quite legal to take it during training cycles. It seems absurd (to me, at least) to take away Olympic gold medals from 5 people based on this.

RayCun · 26-01-2017 9:15am

Pherekydes wrote: »

If it was doping to take this stuff then it would be banned outright. However, it's only banned in competition. It's quite legal to take it during training cycles. It seems absurd (to me, at least) to take away Olympic gold medals from 5 people based on this.

But it is banned in competition, and he was taking it during competition.

pc7 · 26-01-2017 9:18am

Renee Anne Shirley is worth a listen on the off the ball podcast last night. Everything she said makes sense, out of season and comp testing, investigations and monitoring of performance even in youth area, blood testing too.

average_runner · 26-01-2017 9:34am

Pherekydes wrote: »

If it was doping to take this stuff then it would be banned outright. However, it's only banned in competition. It's quite legal to take it during training cycles. It seems absurd (to me, at least) to take away Olympic gold medals from 5 people based on this.

Maybe its absurd, but rules are rules and he knew the rules.

There is always absurd rules in life, but we obey them

walshb · 26-01-2017 9:54am

average_runner wrote: »

Maybe its absurd, but rules are rules and he knew the rules.

There is always absurd rules in life, but we obey them

But that is where the issue is with this drugs in sport. It's comedy and farcical in a lot of places. Common sense and common ground needs to be reached. Usain Bolt and his colleagues being stripped of gold here for this is wrong. When all the factors here are considered it's juts wrong.

Djoucer · 26-01-2017 10:18am

Sounds like cycling fans a few years ago. Identical arguments: "We're cyclists not chemists."

Of course it's fair to take away all gold medals on a relay.

There's almost zero credibility in athletics at the moment and blaming
supplements isn't going to help.

average_runner · 26-01-2017 10:20am

walshb wrote: »

But that is where the issue is with this drugs in sport. It's comedy and farcical in a lot of places. Common sense and common ground needs to be reached. Usain Bolt and his colleagues being stripped of gold here for this is wrong. When all the factors here are considered it's juts wrong.

I don't think its wrong, they all knew the rules, they signed up to the rules, the rules got broken by an athlete breaking a drug rule.

walshb · 26-01-2017 11:07am

There's a whole heap of credibility in athletics. When folks stop constantly focusing on the failed tests alone people may realise this. A small percentage of tests are failing for drugs. That is credible...No amount of effort will eliminate athletes from trying to "cheat." It's part of what makes us human.

Circa 4500 tests carried out in Beijing with 9 athletes found to have cheated or broken the rules. Result if you ask me.

Djoucer · 26-01-2017 11:28am

There is very little credibility in athletics.

Not uncommon to have two medal ceremonies. One immediately after the event and another four years later when doping is discovered.

In 2012, we had the dirtiest race in history with 6 of the first 9 women in the 1500 found to be doping.

The casual sports fan is lost. Olympics was ****. The cross country is a joke. There is very little reason to be tuning into any major athletics
Meet.

Cartman78 · 26-01-2017 12:54pm

Am I the only one who read the thread title as 'Nathan Carter stripped of Beijing Gold' ??

Bolt remains a shining light in the world of athletics but if more stories like this emerge it will erode his credibility rightly or wrongly

walshb · 26-01-2017 1:25pm

Cartman78 wrote: »

Am I the only one who read the thread title as 'Nathan Carter stripped of Beijing Gold' ??

Bolt remains a shining light in the world of athletics but if more stories like this emerge it will erode his credibility rightly or wrongly

If anything it should enhance his reputation, as he has not been found to be cheating, and they are catching those who are "cheating." His legacy suffers due to him possibly losing titles and medals.

26-01-2017 1:52pm

Sad to see really given they won that race by a distance

El Caballo · 27-01-2017 8:17pm

Pherekydes wrote: »

It's in many dietary supplements:

This substance is not named on the current banned list, but is a specified substance, that is, one which is not banned by name, but by "a similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s)."

So Nesta Carter (and any other athlete) is supposed to be a chemist now.

Do you think Athletes like Yohan Blake, Mike Rogers and now Nesta Carter who all failed tests for it just happened to accidentally take it. I don't think so and even though the compound in question might be in a load of supplements, it is a stimulant and even more concerning, a masking agent. WADA released athlete advisories on the product which contrary to the wikipedia quote, was clearly listed as methylhexaneamine and/or products containing granium. It's a simple process, you pick up a supplement, you contact WADA to see if it's ok. If not, you fail the stupidity test.

Exactly wrote: »

Sad to see really given they won that race by a distance

Not really, banned substance driven performance albeit one that falls a little more into the grey area compared to anabolics and such but banned nonetheless. I always thought cycling should implement a similar no tolerance system, if a domestique fails a drug test, the team/leader should also be stripped because the benefit that rider contributed to the team could be the reason they won. Clear cut or not, benefits were gained.

Halloween Jack · 27-01-2017 10:27pm

walshb wrote: »

There's a whole heap of credibility in athletics. When folks stop constantly focusing on the failed tests alone people may realise this. A small percentage of tests are failing for drugs. That is credible...No amount of effort will eliminate athletes from trying to "cheat." It's part of what makes us human.

Circa 4500 tests carried out in Beijing with 9 athletes found to have cheated or broken the rules. Result if you ask me.

This is the sport in which we recently found out some of the top administrators were soliciting bribes to cover up failed tests. Every one of those jamaicans could have failed tests in the past and we'd be none the wiser, it's a moral cesspool at the top of athletics and no different in any other sport.

walshb · 28-01-2017 3:20pm

Halloween Jack wrote: »

This is the sport in which we recently found out some of the top administrators were soliciting bribes to cover up failed tests. Every one of those jamaicans could have failed tests in the past and we'd be none the wiser, it's a moral cesspool at the top of athletics and no different in any other sport.

My main point is that athletics is probably D most credible of all sports as regards its commitment, desire and actual implementation of "cleanness" in sport. There are a whole lot more athletes seen as "clean" compared to "dirty."

PeadarK · 28-01-2017 3:58pm

walshb wrote:

My main point is that athletics is probably D most credible of all sports as regards its commitment, desire and actual implementation of "cleanness" in sport. There are a whole lot more athletes seen as "clean" compared to "dirty."

I'd agree with you on your point
Athletics is not like any other sport. The difference between winning and losing is miniscule and taking drugs could mean the difference in an athlete running an Olympics final compared to not even making the team. I think it's terrible that drugs plays such a big part in athletics but because of the nature of the sport there's very little anyone can do about it

Nesta Carter stripped of Bejing gold

Comments