[flagged]
Fighting an anti-doping finding
41–50 of 76 posts
Re: Fighting an anti-doping finding
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's a comment: we need doping leagues. There should be athletes doped up on 10 different steroids looking like Arnie in the '80s.
that's not even a league of "who is the best athlete" it's a league of "who is the best athlete willing to destroy their body"
The goal becomes "dope the athlete the exact amount to win the final and drop dead immediately afterwards".
Re: Fighting an anti-doping finding
#43I geniunely think "anti doping" as a policy practice stands against everything that makes human as a speicies progress as a physcially being. 'Doping' should proudly inducted biomedical research, regulated and commercialized. Because anti-doping is fundamentally a flawed concept, it does not surprise it's application is marred with corruption, negligence and incompetence.
Any kind of regulated doping has the same problems as the current anti-doping regimes. Whatever regulations you have, some people are going to try to get an advantage by breaking them. You need to catch some of those people or you don't really have regulations.
Re: Fighting an anti-doping finding
#44[flagged]
Nothing of the sort was glossed over, I'm not sure how you failed to read so spectacularly. Quotes from the article:
> Formoterol is a medication I take for asthma. I have been taking it for years well below the anti-doping threshold
> I refused the use of a nebuliser for asthma when I was so unwell I couldn’t walk upstairs because I knew I would need to apply for a TUE (Therapeutic Use Exemption).
It sounds like you skimmed over the part above at least, but misread it to mean the opposite
> My sample tested positive for 2.9ng/ml of formoterol. Formoterol is a medication I take as part of an inhaler called Symbicort. I have been taking this medication since summer 2020. It is listed by WADA as a threshold substance, meaning that it is allowed to be present in urine up to a concentration of 40ng/ml on the basis that it was likely the result of permitted therapeutic use.
> Although the WADA rules state that formoterol is allowed up to 40ng/ml [30], the problem is that the WADA rules also state in conjunction with a diuretic that ANY LEVEL of formoterol is considered an AAF [31].
And for extra credit, if you were to do one web search (or citation check) worth of "research" you can corroborate the last bit with info direct from WADA:
> Inhaled formoterol is permitted to a maximum delivered dose of 54 micrograms over 24 hours. The presence in urine of formoterol in excess of 40 ng/mL is presumed not to be a therapeutic use of the substance and will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding unless the Athlete proves, through a controlled pharmacokinetic study, that the abnormal result was the consequence of the use of no greater than 54 micrograms delivered over 24 hours. If a dosage in excess of 54 micrograms over 24 hours is required by the athlete, then a TUE must be requested
Re: Fighting an anti-doping finding
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Let's have a league where athletes drop dead all the time.
If it's all happening above the table, I think you'd actually get better management of the drugs and far fewer adverse side effects.
And what if something is harmful yet enhances your performance? Do we ban and test for that?
Re: Fighting an anti-doping finding
#46[flagged]
Nothing of the sort was glossed over, I'm not sure how you failed to read so spectacularly. Quotes from the article: > Formoterol is a medication I take for asthma. I have been taking it for years well below the anti-doping threshold > I refused the use of a nebuliser for asthma when I was so unwell I couldn’t walk upstairs because I knew I would need to apply for a TUE (Therapeutic Use Exemption). It sounds like you…
Do you really believe a world-class athlete has such dehabilitating asthma?
Re: Fighting an anti-doping finding
#47I really hope people comment on this. It's absolutely fascinating to me how a private organization can ruin someone's life or completely jerk them around like this. With no recourse.
Here's a comment: we need doping leagues. There should be athletes doped up on 10 different steroids looking like Arnie in the '80s.
So we replace doping in one competition with doping in two?
Re: Fighting an anti-doping finding
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing of the sort was glossed over, I'm not sure how you failed to read so spectacularly. Quotes from the article: > Formoterol is a medication I take for asthma. I have been taking it for years well below the anti-doping threshold > I refused the use of a nebuliser for asthma when I was so unwell I couldn’t walk upstairs because I knew I would need to apply for a TUE (Therapeutic Use Exemption). It sounds like you…
Do you really believe a world-class athlete has such dehabilitating asthma?
It’s irrelevant to the story. She stayed under the limit allowed by UKAD.
Re: Fighting an anti-doping finding
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you really believe a world-class athlete has such dehabilitating asthma?
It’s irrelevant to the story. She stayed under the limit allowed by UKAD.
She did not because she tested positive for a diuretic.
> Diuretics affect the way the body metabolizes and excretes beta-2 agonists. If you are on a diuretic medication (or on any other substance in the S5 category of the Prohibited List) for any reason and you are using an inhaler that contains salbutamol (albuterol) or formoterol, then you may need a TUE. Please see the TUE section below.
Re: Fighting an anti-doping finding
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s irrelevant to the story. She stayed under the limit allowed by UKAD.
She did not because she tested positive for a diuretic. > Diuretics affect the way the body metabolizes and excretes beta-2 agonists. If you are on a diuretic medication (or on any other substance in the S5 category of the Prohibited List) for any reason and you are using an inhaler that contains salbutamol (albuterol) or formoterol, then you may need a TUE. Please see the TUE section below.
You’re changing the subject now. The TUE would be for the asthma medication, not the diuretic. She was below the limit for asthma medication, so didn’t need a TUE.
Edit: if you’re about to talk about how it affected the ruling for the asthma medication, then you’re just repeating the article and should just read that instead of arguing in the comments.