WADA confirm insufficient evidence against nearly all Russian athletes implicated in drug scandal

[sam-skwantch]

Venus Williams has an auto-immune condition - Sjorgren's Syndrome. I can't find the list of medical exemptions that were released for Serena Williams, but many of them were for medications taken while she suffered a life threatening blood clot in her leg.

One has to wonder about competing in an elite tennis match with or shortly after a life threatening blood clot. My point is if we aren't going to let others take them then maybe an athlete who has to take them should sit out until they can consistently pass tests for a certain amount of times. 1/2 year to a year of clean weekly testing seems fair to me. Life happens.

 

[bardtoob]

One has to wonder about competing in an elite tennis match with or shortly after a life threatening blood clot. My point is if we aren't going to let others take them then maybe an athlete who has to take them should sit out until they can consistently pass tests for a certain amount of times. 1/2 year to a year of clean weekly testing seems fair to me. Life happens.

One has to think that you don't know anything about clinical trials based on that statement.

 

[znhurston]

https://www.insidethegames.biz/arti...l-russian-athletes-implicated-in-drug-scandal



I hope they pay up for this mess. Meanwhile Russian cyclist are planning to sue WADA after missing the Rio games.

https://www.insidethegames.biz/arti...-and-mclaren-after-being-banned-from-rio-2016

The lawsuit has to be filed in freaking Canadian courts, fat chance of them getting justice.

Oh my goodness, what a freakin mess!

 

[znhurston]

From the NY Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/12/sports/olympics/russian-doping-wada.html?_r=0

It doesn't mean they aren't guilty - just that the Russian Govt refused to cooperate & destroyed evidence.

Whatever the reason, I think the biggest casualty of this inquiry is WADA.

 

[sam-skwantch]

One has to think that you don't know anything about clinical trials based on that statement.

You think someone facing what is being called a life threatening illness who has to take banned substances to survive should be allowed to compete with the banned substance in their system?

I think you missed my point.

Personally I think WADA is a waste of time and a political front but I'm just a cynical American who has no faith that my own country's athletes are cleaner than others.

Feel free to disagree and enlighten me but insulting me doesnt really help advance the discussion IMO.

 

[bardtoob]

You think someone facing what is being called a life threatening illness who has to take banned substances to survive should be allowed to compete with the banned substance in their system?

The question I quoted above by you, @sam-skwantch, is nonsense built on nonsense.

I think your statement about the time a person should be tested repeatedly after taking a substance that they are already telling regulators they are taking is nonsense. It shows your complete ignorance about biomed and makes your opinion worthless.

Here is a clue. The time length of a drug ban is an arbitrary punishment for using unsanctioned drugs, and have nothing to do with what actually happens to a drug after it is processed by a person's body. If a person is using a sanctioned drug, then what is allowed does not have to be either arbitrary or punishing.

The reason you question this at all is that you have no respect for transparency. Furthermore, you would use any form of sophistry, absent of any form of morality, to get your way.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sophistry

 

[misskarne]

I'm floored people think it's ok to sue WADA because their federation destroyed evidence.

I think WADA should get their asses sued off because they published the names of athletes as dopers without having evidence that they were. There's no way it's anything but slander and defamation. WADA also prevented many of these athletes from competing (and earning money), again, without any actual hard evidence. You shouldn't even have to be a good lawyer to win this one.

It doesn't matter a damn that supposedly there was evidence destroyed, just like it doesn't matter a damn that WADA aren't doing their fcuking jobs in the first place. A reasonable person would see a name on a published WADA list like that and assume that they were doping, and WADA had no evidence of that. It's damaging.

 

[sam-skwantch]

I think your statement about the time a person should be tested repeatedly after taking a substance that they are already telling regulators they are taking is nonsense. It shows your complete ignorance about biomed and makes your opinion worthless.

Of course I would agree with this in principle and even practicality but I don't think the rules are being applied fair and evenly to all countries across the board. Feel free to continue to make assumptions about me all you like.

When you take a banned substance, even with permission, gathering information regarding the levels in an athletes bloodstream and time it takes to leave the athletes bloodstream, seems to me like something that could be useful when looking at other athletes test results/levels. Not sure why you find information like that worthless. It may have helped WADA from looking so foolish during the Meldonium disaster.

 

[bardtoob]

When you take a banned substance, even with permission, gathering information regarding the levels in an athletes bloodstream and time it takes to leave the athletes bloodstream, seems to me like something that could be useful when looking at other athletes test results/levels. Not sure why you find information like that worthless. It may have helped WADA from looking so foolish during the Meldonium disaster.

Clearly you did not actually think that information even existed earlier because your previous statements indicated you did not consider it. You invented a politically convenient arbitrary time argument. Records of comments is one of the benefits of being on a forum. See below:

One has to wonder about competing in an elite tennis match with or shortly after a life threatening blood clot. My point is if we aren't going to let others take them then maybe an athlete who has to take them should sit out until they can consistently pass tests for a certain amount of times. 1/2 year to a year of clean weekly testing seems fair to me. Life happens.

You think someone facing what is being called a life threatening illness who has to take banned substances to survive should be allowed to compete with the banned substance in their system?

I think you missed my point.

Personally I think WADA is a waste of time and a political front but I'm just a cynical American who has no faith that my own country's athletes are cleaner than others.

Feel free to disagree and enlighten me but insulting me doesnt really help advance the discussion IMO.

It is interesting talking to you, however. It gives me experience talking to somebody full of *it in an inconsequential environment, including appropriating ideas out of convenience. Your dishonesty is so gross that I actually am developing the sense that I should have no need to even consider your feeling as worth protecting because you would exploit that as a weakness. By *it, I, of course, mean sophistry

BTW, the Meldonium problem would have still occurred because some sports federations at the Euro Games incident actually openly used Meldonium in a legal way without any problems; it was listed as part of their team doctor's medicine kit without any problem.

It was the large number of top athletes that used Meldonium without listing it on their drug screenings during the Euro Games incident that caused a problem for those using it legally.

All the athletes using Meldonium without listing it on their drug screening at the Euro Games incident should have been individually warned/sanctioned/banned/punished, but a deal was cut where Meldonium was banned in the future so a large number of top performing athletes were not warned/sanctioned/banned/punished at the same time. This was probably the result of trying to not cause embarrassment to the Olympics movement.

 

[skatingguy]

One has to wonder about competing in an elite tennis match with or shortly after a life threatening blood clot. My point is if we aren't going to let others take them then maybe an athlete who has to take them should sit out until they can consistently pass tests for a certain amount of times. 1/2 year to a year of clean weekly testing seems fair to me. Life happens.

Serena didn't compete for almost a year - and she wasn't competing at the time that she took these medications and underwent life saving surgery for the blood clot. She, as a registered athlete, competing or not, is required to submit to out of competition tests and so any drug or product that she took that contained banned ingredients had to be approved. I don't think we should penalize athletes for having an illness or injury that requires medications available to the public that are otherwise performance enhancing drugs. The idea in using these drugs in these circumstances is that they are providing a means that brings the athlete back to 'normal' and then allowing them to compete on a level playing field.

 

[sam-skwantch]

Serena didn't compete for almost a year - and she wasn't competing at the time that she took these medications and underwent life saving surgery for the blood clot. She, as a registered athlete, competing or not, is required to submit to out of competition tests and so any drug or product that she took that contained banned ingredients had to be approved. I don't think we should penalize athletes for having an illness or injury that requires medications available to the public that are otherwise performance enhancing drugs. The idea in using these drugs in these circumstances is that they are providing a means that brings the athlete back to 'normal' and then allowing them to compete on a level playing field.

Thanks for the info. I admit that I follow tennis casually at best and read your post to mean that Serena was taking TUE's while competing. I'm fine with the concept of TUEs if it's fairly applied even and fairly to all athletes.

What I took concern with was just the overall notion of competing with a "life threatening" illness or more specifically as I read it to be an immediate threat such as a blood clot. My reaction was to ponder the basic practice of just allowing such a thing.

How do you feel about drugs that treat non life threatening illness such as ADHD medications?

 

[bardtoob]

What I took concern with was just the overall notion of competing with a "life threatening" illness or more specifically as I read it to be an immediate threat such as a blood clot. My reaction was to ponder the basic practice of just allowing such a thing.

Maybe you should get an undergraduate professional nursing degree or some postgraduate education on the subject so you don't have to ponder it. Even some vocational training would be good.

 

[sam-skwantch]

I think WADA should get their asses sued off because they published the names of athletes as dopers without having evidence that they were. There's no way it's anything but slander and defamation. WADA also prevented many of these athletes from competing (and earning money), again, without any actual hard evidence. You shouldn't even have to be a good lawyer to win this one.

Honestly this fascinates me the most about the whole story. There are some who believe that WADA could face a class action lawsuit for lack of due process. That their two out of three criteria when placing a substance on the banned list including "appearance against the spirit of fair play" has opened themselves up to the possibility. That the banning of athletes without sufficient evidence and the athletes right to see and challenge it is opening themselves up to legal challenges.

I think we can all agree that we want clean sports to ensure the safety of the athletes and fair play but I think it's also vital that WADA is going to have to do better in in many areas. If for nothing more than their own integrity. WADA should have the authority to put any substance they have evidence is performance enhancing or dangerous for athletes but the athletes also have a right to due process. There are several involved with sports law who are questioning if the athletes have a fair representation in the process. So maybe a lawsuit is inevitable and maybe it will move the process of anti doping control into a better place. One in which the authority of WADA isn't compromised by their own policies.

I found an interesting opinion piece on the legal aspects regarding Meldonium released last year.

When asked about this call for evidence, WADA’s Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel, Olivier Niggli, dismissed it as unreasonable: “The Code’s wording has been put so that we would not have to justify why a substance is on the list. We have experts who look at it, they have three criteria. It has to meet two of the three and we never disclose nor discuss the specifics of a substance because otherwise, every time you have a positive case, there would be a challenge.”

Niggli’s claim that WADA does not release evidence in order to limit the ability of athletes to challenge anti-doping violations raises some deeply troubling questions regarding due process rights for athletes.

Roger Pielke Jr. is professor and director of the Sports Governance Center at the University of Colorado-Boulder

I'm inclined to think we will not see legal challenges on slander but there certainly are sports attorneys looking into this and taking it seriously although the Maclaren report may have opened doors too in how it was handled. That is a different situation than the Meldonium mess but still procedural in nature.

 

[skatingguy]

How do you feel about drugs that treat non life threatening illness such as ADHD medications?

My perspective is that if someone has a legitimate medical condition, like ADHD, that requires medication prescribed by a doctor that that should not prevent them from competing in international sports at a high level. These medications may have a performance enhancing effect when taken by a healthy person or in higher doses but often the medication does not produce the same effect because the dosage and usage are targeted to the condition/illness.

 

[hanca]

My perspective is that if someone has a legitimate medical condition, like ADHD, that requires medication prescribed by a doctor that that should not prevent them from competing in international sports at a high level. These medications may have a performance enhancing effect when taken by a healthy person or in higher doses but often the medication does not produce the same effect because the dosage and usage are targeted to the condition/illness.

Can you prove that by research? The dosage and usage may be targeted to the condition, but at the same time it can have the enhancing effect on their performance. So it is unfair advantage. I believe that if someone with legitimate conditions needs to use drugs that are forbidden, they should not be competing. It is harsh, but it would make it more fair for all athletes. There are certain conditions that prevent you from doing certain jobs, so why this should be any different?

 

[Maofan7]

This scandal is about athletes sending information to the Russian sports ministry that allowed the sports ministry to switch dirty samples with clean samples. So why would Russia have stored dirty samples? They were storing clean samples. The athletes and the sports ministry should have tons of communications detailing doping control form numbers. This is not about Urine samples but email and text records. So if no one in wada is collecting the athletes phones and computers they aren't targeting the proper thing.

Complete garbage, as is the McLaren Report. I hope all of the athletes who have been exonerated sue WADA for every penny they have got.

The following provides an excellent analysis as to just how thoroughly discredited the McLaren Report is:-

PROBLEMS WITH THE MCLAREN REPORT

The McLaren Report, released on July 16, has strongly influenced media reports, public opinion and official decisions regarding Russian participation in the Olympics.

The purpose of Mr. McLaren’s (named an “independent person” in the official documents) investigation was to establish whether there has been Russian manipulation of the doping control process, how it was done, which athletes might have benefited, whether it was happening in the Moscow Laboratory somewhere else.

Following are significant problems with McLaren’s report:

* The report relies primarily on the testimony of the chief culprit, Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov. While it is possible that Rodchenkov was indeed telling the truth when answering McLaren’s questions, it is also possible that he was lying or misleading to redirect responsibility away from himself. Rodchenkov has a strong interest in portraying himself as ‘just following orders’. The report says there is extensive documentation that corroborate Rodchenkov’s claims, but these “documents” have never been shown to the public, so believing or not believing Rodchenkov is a matter of faith. Where is the evidence?

* The report concludes that Rodchenkov is credible and truthful with little demonstrated proof. In contrast, the November 2015 Independent Commission report concluded that Dr. Rodchenkov was not credible. The fact that Rodchenkov knew techniques of manipulating test results is not evidence of “state controlled doping program,” especially since he was the main culprit. The information spread in previous reports on Russian doping that Rodchenkov was involved in extorting money from athletes – this information suggests opportunism on his part rather than integrity. The former director of Moscow Laboratory has admitted his involvement in urine sample swapping, design of a steroid cocktail not easily traced, and more. He was instrumental in helping some athletes cheat the system. He is also the person with most motivation to implicate others, even if unjustly. His testimony obviously needs careful scrutiny and cross-checking.

* The investigation did not hear the factual corrections or counter-arguments of Russian authorities. McLaren says: “The IP did not seek to interview persons living in the Russian Federation …. I did not seek to meet with Russian government officials and did not think it necessary…” Since the Russian Ministry of Sport and other agencies are accused of serious violations in this report, such words provide strong evidence of bias on Mr. McLaren’s part. It is a basic standard of fairness to hear from the accused.

* The investigation excluded a written rebuttal supplied by one of the accused Russian individuals. McLaren says: “I also received, unsolicited, an extensive narrative with attachments from one important government representative described in this report. In the short span of 57 days that I was given to conduct this IP investigation it was simply not practical and I deemed such interviewing would not be helpful.” (Page 21) Since one of the main purposes of the investigation was to determine the truthfulness of Rodchenkov’s accusations, this decision to not consider the ‘unsolicited’ information is shocking. It should have been mandatory to evaluate the arguments and information coming from al sources, including the Russian side.

* There are inconsistencies in the description of how urine sample bottles were associated with an individual athlete. As reported by Sports Integrity Initiative, “The IP report appears to contain two different versions – both from Rodchenkov – about how ‘protected’ Russian athlete samples were made recognizable at the laboratory.”

* There are inconsistencies in the description of how ‘protected’ Russian athlete samples were identified, separated and then delayed in shipping to the laboratory. As identified by Sports Integrity Initiative, “The IP Report and IO Report contain conflicting accounts of how samples taken at the Sochi 2014 Olympics were consolidated for shipment to the laboratory.” One of the descriptions stretches credulity. In a tightly monitored environment, under supervision of international authorities, would it really be possible to identify Russian test samples among the hundreds being processed, separate them out, then delay their shipment till the end of the day? All of these actions would be necessary if the plan indeed was to make a manipulation in the middle of the night.



* The western media and McLaren report put the blame on all Russian athletes instead of the guilty ones (which could be very few). For example, the “Sixty Minutes” story claims that “numerous Russian athletes were doped at Sochi, including 4 gold medalists that were using steroids.” If we accept that this accusation is true, the next question should be: Why are you not identifying who these 4 athletes are? It would make sense to reveal the culprits’ identities for two reasons: first, to identify and punish the guilty parties, and second, not to punish those Russian athletes who were clean. With pairs and team events, there were 25 Russian gold medal winners at Sochi. Why are all of the athletes being smeared because of the wrongdoing of a few?

* The report claims to have evidence but does not reveal it. For example, on page 14 the report states “Dr. Rodchenkov provided credible evidence that the A and B bottles would pass through the ‘mouse hole’ … into an adjacent room, outside the security perimeter.” We are left to wonder where is this “credible evidence.”

* The investigation was neither thorough nor comprehensive. The McLaren investigation had a mandate to carry out a “thorough and comprehensive investigation” which would corroborate or refute the public allegations of Dr. Rodchenkov. Prof. Mclaren summarizes the situation as follows: “The compressed time frame in which to compile this Report has left much of the possible evidence unreviewed. This report has skimmed the surface of the data… However, we are confident that what we have found meets the highest evidentiary standard and can be stated with confidence.” McLaren thus acknowledges that the investigation was hasty and he did not even review all the evidence, but at the same time he demands absolute trust in his conclusions. By relying primarily on the testimony and evidence provided by Rodchenkov, and excluding testimony and data from Russian Ministry of Sports officials, Mr. McLaren invalidates himself from providing a balanced story. So, his investigation cannot be called neither thorough nor comprehensive.

* McLaren’s description of the “disappearing positive methodology” (his own term), presumably used by the Russians, does not describe a realistic way to hide positive results of anti-doping tests. Here is how this methodology is supposed to work, in McLaren’s view. The culprits would have to:

– conduct an ‘initial analytical screen’ of the athlete;

– if it is a positive result, match the screen with the athlete;

– communicate the information to the Russian Deputy Minister of Sports;

– the Deputy Minister responds with coded message indicating either “save” or “quarantine”;

– if the response is “save”, the test result should be manipulated to become negative;

– if the response is “quarantine” the test can proceed normally.

This description raises questions. Can an officially mandated test be delayed to conduct an ‘initial analytical screen’? Can a scientifically determined positive result be manipulated and later put on record as a negative result? The report does not explain the time limits during which the presumable illegal operations were conducted. IN this situation a very substantial doubt – could the culprits operate fast enough not to arouse suspicions? – that doubt is left unanswered.

*The McLaren report makes strong assertions propped up by weak or incomplete evidence. For example, the report says: “It can be made to appear that the laboratory was acting alone. However, given the examination and the insights obtained from evidence available to the IP investigation, it is correct to place the Moscow Laboratory within the ambit of state control.” (P30) This assertion goes to the core of the case. Unfortunately, McLarren seems to think it is adequate to make this assertion without providing the evidence that is the basis of his “insights”. The primary evidence of state control of the process seems to be the alleged presence of “save” and “quarantine” directives as described in the “disappearing positive methodology.” How do the Russian authorities explain or contradict the description of this “save-quarantine” business given in the McLaren report? This is why an objective investigation needs to hear the Russian authorities’ explanation before coming to conclusion.

* The McLaren report casts suspicion on all Russian athletes instead of identifying specific cheaters. The mandate of the investigation was to “Identify any athlete that might have benefited from those alleged manipulations to conceal positive doping tests.” (P3) Instead of doing that, the McLaren report fails to identify any specific athletes who benefited and instead casts suspicion on all Russian athletes. The report does this in many places. The McLaren report says “The IP investigative team has developed evidence identifying dozens of Russian athletes who appear to have been involved in doping. The compressed time-line of the IP investigation did not permit compilation of data to establish an anti-doping rule violation.” By failing to identify the athletes suspected of benefiting, they cast a cloud of suspicion over all Russian athletes. If we assume that McLaren’s claim is correct, that means “dozens” of cheaters compared to hundreds of clean athletes. Not very fair or sporting.

Questions for WADA and the IOC

For WADA: It is claimed that tamper evident urine sample bottles were opened and ‘dirty’ urine exchanged with ‘clean’ urine. Mr. McLaren says that he was witness to a demonstration of this. Meanwhile the bottle manufacturer has effectively challenged this claim and stands by its product which has been in use for 20 years. What has been done to verify that the bottles can be opened as witnessed by Mclaren? What has been done to improve the bottles so that this is not possible?
For WADA: It is claimed that select urine samples were matched to an individual athlete, separated from other samples, then delayed in shipment to the laboratory, then smuggled out of the holding area so that ‘dirty’ urine could be replaced with ‘clean’. Assuming that McLaren report description is true, what has been done to prevent this from happening in future?
For WADA: Fundamental principle #2 of the Olympic Charter is to promote a “peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity”. Does it not damage this important goal to single out one nation’s athletes and impose collective punishment on all?
For the IOC: Fundamental principle #6 of the Olympic Charter speaks against “discrimination of any kind”. Are you not discriminating against clean Russian athletes by imposing special conditions and requirements based on nationality? Isn’t the IAAF violating this principle by banning all Russian track and field athletes from competing at the Olympics including a world record holder who has been tested hundreds of times internationally and never tested positive?
Conclusion

Following WADA’s Independent Commission report in late 2015, Russian athletes have been tested through international certified laboratories. The frequency of testing has increased in an effort to demonstrate compliance with anti-doping rules and regulations. If there was still concern that Russian athletes were somehow cheating, the testing regime at the Rio Olympics could have been escalated even more. Instead, WADA and the Mclaren Report have recommended banning all Russian athletes from the Olympics, presumably to embarrass and punish Russian authorities.

Instead of fighting doping in athletics, this looks like a politically motivated action. We are all the losers as it will increase international tension while decreasing the inclusiveness and quality of the Rio Olympic Games. We all lose, except those who want to demonize Russia.

 

[bardtoob]

. . . There are certain conditions that prevent you from doing certain jobs, so why this should be any different?

@hanca I will not say I agree, but this certainly is an interesting argument that deserves serious consideration

. . . I am not necessarily agreeing because there is another more inclusive philosophical approach that could be taken. The extreme example is what if there was an * next to every award now that lists every substance an athlete is on, so there is transparency with not shame. The technology is certainly available now to document stuff that way.

Simone Biles: Olympic AA WAG Champion * ADHD - Ritalin
Maria Sharapova: US Open Champion * Meldonium - Pre-Diabetes

I still think certain drugs, like steroids, should be banned given the experience of the East German women that were irreparably physically harmed.

 

[hanca]

@hanca I will not say I agree, but this certainly is an interesting argument that deserves serious consideration

. . . I am not necessarily agreeing because there is another more inclusive philosophical approach that could be taken. The extreme example is what if there was an * next to every award now that that lists every substance an athlete is on, so there is transparency with not shame. The technology is certainly available now to document stuff that way.

Simone Biles: Olympic AA WAG Champion * ADHD - Ritalin
Maria Sharapova: US Open Champion * Meldonium - Pre-Diabetes

I still think certain drugs, like steroids, should be banned given the experience of the East German women that were irreparably physically harmed.

The difference between Sharapova and Biles is that Biles is taking medication which no one can prove that she is not getting extra advantage against her competitors. With Meldonium they did not bother to do any research whether it helps or not, and banned it just in case. So even though according to the current system Biles is doing nothing wrong and Sharapova has done something wrong, I believe the system is not right and as I see it, Biles should not be competing while taking the medication. If she needs the medication, than maybe she shouldn't be in her sport. In regards to Sharapova, yes, she is wrong to take something that is forbidden, but at the same time they should review why it is forbidden and they shouldn't ban drugs without having a proof that it is bringing advantage.

 

[MacMadame]

The dosage and usage may be targeted to the condition, but at the same time it can have the enhancing effect on their performance.

Can you prove that by research?

 

[bardtoob]

With Meldonium they did not bother to do any research whether it helps or not, and banned it just in case.

A deal was cut after the Euro Games incident where Meldonium was banned instead of individually warning/banning/punishing/sanctioned the high percentage of high performance medal winning athletes that were taking Meldonium but not listing it during their drug screenings because it would have embarrassed the Olympic movement, particularly in Europe.

Personally, I think all the athletes caught during the Euro Games incident should be warning/banning/punishing/sanctioned retroactively "for not listing Meldonium during their drug screen", not doping per se, and Meldonium should just be subject to the more general rules that:

1) It must be listed during a drug screening
2) It must be taken under the supervision of a physician
3) It must be taken for the purposes regulatory agencies have approved it

 

[hanca]

Can you prove that by research?

No, but at the same time you can't prove that she doesn't get advantage from the drugs. So she is legally taking drug from which she may or may not have advantage over her competitors. That's unfair.

 

[VGThuy]

Here's an article that may prove helpful to inform people of ADHD and adolescents in sports.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4060024/

People who can't perform certain jobs due to conditions even with medication and treatment are not the norm but exceptions. And not every condition would be included and usually those in charge of making that determination are careful to not be overly discriminatory if they don't need to be. That determination is usually based research, discussion, and expert reports.

 

[hanca]

A deal was cut after the Euro Games incident where Meldonium was banned instead of individually warning/banning/punishing/sanctioned the high percentage of high performance medal winning athletes that were taking Meldonium but not listing it during their drug screenings because it would have embarrassed the Olympic movement, particularly in Europe.

Personally, I think all the athletes caught during the Euro Games incident should be warning/banning/punishing/sanctioned retroactively "for not listing Meldonium during their drug screen", no doping, and Meldonium just be subject to the more general rules that:

1) It must be listed during a drug screening
2) It must be taken under the supervision of a physician
3) It must be taken for the purposes regulatory agencies have approved it

Do you think that listing drug which treats some legitimate conditions, and being under the supervision of a physician takes away the fact that it may give you advantage over your competitors? Especially when the drug is banned and ther must be a reason why it is banned? I think it is wrong that some drugs are allowed for some athletes and not for others. Yes I understand that some athletes need it to survive, but then they shouldn't compete.

 

[bardtoob]

Do you think that listing drug which treats some legitimate conditions, and being under the supervision of a physician takes away the fact that it may give you advantage over your competitors? Especially when the drug is banned and ther must be a reason why it is banned?

I think it improves transparency and tries to right a situation that went completely in the wrong direction for political and monetary purposes.

Do you think it is right that some list all the drug they take during a drug screening while others do not?

Yes I understand that some athletes need it to survive, but then they shouldn't compete.

It is an interesting idea. However, I do not think it is the only solution.

Especially when the drug is banned and ther must be a reason why it is banned? I think it is wrong that some drugs are allowed for some athletes and not for others.

Your argument goes in an illogical direct in the end. The logical progress seems to be a "no bans, everything is legal" argument, but you seem to want to go in a "bans when it is convenient for my side" argument, and I think that is wrong.

I wish you would move to a "no bans, everything is legal" argument.

 

[hanca]

Here's an article that may prove helpful to inform people of ADHD and adolescents in sports.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4060024/

People who can't perform certain jobs due to conditions even with medication and treatment are not the norm but exceptions. And not every condition would be included and usually those in charge of making that determination are careful to not be overly discriminatory if they don't need to be. That determination is usually based research, discussion, and expert reports.

There are some health standards to be a pilot, or to have some positions within army, and for firemens... excluding athletes who have certain conditions is not overly discriminatory. It is making the field fair. If someone bans certain drugs, then those drugs should not be taken by anyone. The drug was banned because it is giving advantage to whoever it takes it. If you need to use medication that is forbidden, then you shouldn't compete against those who are not taking the drug. it is not fair for anyone within the competition take it.

 

[bardtoob]

There are some health standards to be a pilot, or to have some positions within army, and for firemens... excluding athletes who have certain conditions is not overly discriminatory. It is making the field fair. If someone bans certain drugs, then those drugs should not be taken by anyone. The drug was banned because it is giving advantage to whoever it takes it. If you need to use medication that is forbidden, then you shouldn't compete against those who are not taking the drug. it is not fair for anyone within the competition take it.

See, this argument would typically cause me to conclude, you are for a "no bans, everything is legal" argument, but you just do not seem to want to go there.

 

[VGThuy]

There are some health standards to be a pilot, or to have some positions within army, and for firemens... excluding athletes who have certain conditions is not overly discriminatory. It is making the field fair. If someone bans certain drugs, then those drugs should not be taken by anyone. The drug was banned because it is giving advantage to whoever it takes it. If you need to use medication that is forbidden, then you shouldn't compete against those who are not taking the drug. it is not fair for anyone within the competition take it.

I recognized that as I mentioned that in my post, but not every condition existing prevents someone from being a pilot, fireman, joining the military, etc. Plus, not those things are not analogous to one another in every way and may not be exactly analogous to gymnastics. And many conditions are allowed so long as they receive treatment. There are also issues where blanket bans with no consideration of rational medical backing is over-inclusive and needlessly discriminatory towards entire groups of people. The idea usually is to not be so needlessly discriminatory which is why these things are handled in a case-by-case basis and there is a reason why it was determined that those with ADHD can receive an exemption so long as proper strict procedures and reports and updates are given.

I also find this whole conversation to be a successful diversion to put Simone and possibly other Americans on the defense as payback for what WADA did.

 

[bardtoob]

I also find this whole conversation to be a successful diversion to put Simone and possibly other Americans on the defense as payback for what WADA did.

Simone should be discussed as an athlete that followed the rules.

 

[Alilou]

Complete garbage, as is the McLaren Report. I hope all of the athletes who have been exonerated sue WADA for every penny they have got.

The following provides an excellent analysis as to just how thoroughly discredited the McLaren Report is:-

Thank you for this excellent article. It's so easy to get swept up in the hype. I really appreciated being able to read the other side of the story.

 

[Tinami Amori]

Complete garbage, as is the McLaren Report. I hope all of the athletes who have been exonerated sue WADA for every penny they have got.

The following provides an excellent analysis as to just how thoroughly discredited the McLaren Report is:-

Thank you for posting this link. I am very glad there is such analysis of McLaren Report, as i see a lot of witch hunting against Russia in many areas.

However, just to be a devil's advocate (about the report, not you posting it), if i was on the opposite site, i would say "but just because logistical and technical errors which make McLaren Report inadmissible, and personal reasons of the whistle blower to expose it, there is still an indication that SOME cheating took place".....