ISU confirms more positive doping tests

[VGThuy]

That's kind of extreme. It's like saying "well everything is performance enhancing so why not just allow all PEDs and not have any sort of ban." That will also hurt athletes from smaller countries as well as they won't have the resources and access that those with more money do.

 

[MsZem]

That's kind of extreme. It's like saying "well everything is performance enhancing so why not just allow all PEDs and not have any sort of ban." That will also hurt athletes from smaller countries as well as they won't have the resources and access that those with more money do.

That's true already, but there's been no suggestion that we do away with the many inherent advantages that athletes from richer countries have (not that this would be desirable).

If WADA were to focus on what is harmful rather than what is performance enhancing, perhaps some of the funding allocated to doping enforcement could be used to provide financial support and training opportunities for athletes from smaller/developing countries. That would probably be a greater contribution to fair play and a level playing field than some of WADA and the various national bodies are currently doing.

 

[VGThuy]

Just putting this out there, but then wouldn't one have to deal with the supposed arbitrariness of considering what's harmful and what's not since almost everything will have side effects, especially if abused? If we deregulated PEDs so that there's no more monitoring based on performance enhancement, wouldn't there be a new worry about abuse of those drugs? Or is that just something individuals and their teams need to deal with, even if a lot of athletes may be under duress or face undue influence to take what they are given, based on a number of factors.

 

[snoopy]

I used to not care about PEDs either but here is an argument against them that I find compelling.....the issue isn't the elite athletes in professional baseball or the Olympics. The issue is the millions of kids who just play high school ball or kids who aren't going to go beyond a triple toe. If the elite athletes are given card blanche to dope, then that opens the door to 12 year olds all over the world to doping. The issue is the example it sets.

 

[gkelly]

This is not something I have thought about at length in the past, so I have no preconceived opinions one way or another. Just trying to understand the reasoning: What is the purpose of banning certain drugs or other interventions?

*The intervention is harmful to the athlete who uses it, so the main purpose of banning it is to protect the athlete from long-term harm in pursuit of a short-term goal

*The intervention enhances athletic performance and is not equally available to all athletes (because of expense, different laws in different countries, etc.), so using it gives those athletes who can use it an unfair advantage

*The intervention does not enhance performance per se but protects against negative effects of athletic exertion or promotes healing from those negative effects, and it is not equally available to all athletes, so using it gives those athletes who can use it an unfair advantage

What if none of the above are true -- i.e., there is no evidence that the intervention itself causes harm to those who use it, and it's equally available to all so there is no unfair competitive advantage?

Would there still be reason for a ban?

*The intervention allows athletes to perform feats that are not possible for the unaided human body. Sport should be about pushing the limits of what the human body can do, not the human body + interventions.

Where would that line be drawn and what kind of interventions would cross it -- they're safe and readily available, but they change the nature of the competition from who has the best talent and skill to who has the best technological boosts?

 

[MsZem]

I used to not care about PEDs either but here is an argument against them that I find compelling.....the issue isn't the elite athletes in professional baseball or the Olympics. The issue is the millions of kids who just play high school ball or kids who aren't going to go beyond a triple toe. If the elite athletes are given card blanche to dope, then that opens the door to 12 year olds all over the world to doping. The issue is the example it sets.

I don't find this argument at all compelling. Should adults not be allowed to do adult things because kids might look at them as something desirable? If some PEDs are un-banned, it's still possible to restrict who can (legally) use them and how. Which would allow for regulating how they are used in a transparent matter.

I do agree that what elite athletes are doing can inspire kids in undesirable ways; I just don't feel that this in itself is a reason to ban, rather than regulate/restrict, certain activities.

 

[snoopy]

It's not the kids who will make the decision to take the drugs but their parents. If the pros do it, why can't my kid? I used to not believe in the power of example either but I am warming to it. I think it is a real thing. We are social beings and cop behavior off of others.

 

[MacMadame]

Noone knows what the long-term effect of this drug is; maybe nothing, maybe something.

The drug was invented in the 70s and has been in widespread use as a PED for at least two decades. So how can it be that "no one" knows the long-term effects?

 

[Vagabond]

It appears that the long-term effects include foolhardiness, scheming, and a refusal to take responsibility for one's own actions.

 

[Coquelicot14]

The drug was invented in the 70s and has been in widespread use as a PED for at least two decades. So how can it be that "no one" knows the long-term effects?

If there were any indications of harsh side effects, there would have been a study, this shows that there were no causes for alarm.

What I am conserned about however, if an athlete took it for an extended period of time, how long does this (if at all) remains detectable in their sample. We are not talking one time uses. This is something that should be investigated.

 

[WildRose]

Each person has to make his/her own choice about what kind of life they want to live. Elite sports is not something that I would do, but I don't worry too much about those who do. In life, eventually the body is going to deteriorate. If they want a shorter but more exciting life, it's OK because that's what they want. They are not hurting anyone else.

Elite athletes start training when they are very young and often start taking drugs before they have the maturity to understand that they could be ruining their lives forever. Some are given no choice. According to the USADA here are just some of the side effects of performance enhancing drugs:
http://www.usada.org/substances/effects-of-performance-enhancing-drugs/
Steroids: liver damage, premature closure of the growth centers of long bones (in adolescents) which may result in stunted growth, stunted growth and disruption of puberty in children, increased aggressiveness and sexual appetite, sometimes resulting in abnormal sexual and criminal behavior. Withdrawal of use can lead to depression & in some cases suicide.
Peptide Hormones, Growth Factors, and Related Substances: hypertension, blood cancers/leukemia, Anemia, strokes, heart attacks, Pulmonary embolism, thyroid problems, Severe headaches, Loss of vision, High blood pressure and heart failure, Diabetes and tumors, Acromegaly (Protruding or enlarged jaw, brow, skull, hands and feet), Crippling arthritis.
Blood doping: Increased stress on the heart, blood clotting, stroke

 

[Coquelicot14]

Elite athletes start training when they are very young and often start taking drugs before they have the maturity to understand that they could be ruining their lives forever. Some are given no choice. According to the USADA here are just some of the side effects of performance enhancing drugs:
http://www.usada.org/substances/effects-of-performance-enhancing-drugs/
Steroids: liver damage, premature closure of the growth centers of long bones (in adolescents) which may result in stunted growth, stunted growth and disruption of puberty in children, increased aggressiveness and sexual appetite, sometimes resulting in abnormal sexual and criminal behavior. Withdrawal of use can lead to depression & in some cases suicide.
Peptide Hormones, Growth Factors, and Related Substances: hypertension, blood cancers/leukemia, Anemia, strokes, heart attacks, Pulmonary embolism, thyroid problems, Severe headaches, Loss of vision, High blood pressure and heart failure, Diabetes and tumors, Acromegaly (Protruding or enlarged jaw, brow, skull, hands and feet), Crippling arthritis.
Blood doping: Increased stress on the heart, blood clotting, stroke

That's all very scary but where are the side effects of the medicine in question? As far as I know there are no studies conducted, nor does it fall into above categories...

Also, there are arguments that it is not, in fact, performance enhancing.

 

[LarrySK8]

Why split any hairs? Taking a medicine for purposes other than it was intended is the definition of substance abuse. To abuse a substance to enhance your training and performance and obtain cardiovascular function beyond what would be obtained without the substance is cheating.

Whether the substance is legal or not legal or whatever ... it is pointless to go on a semantic rampage about. These athletes, coaches and doctors abused and cheated.

F'n QED.

 

[Kasey]

Hmmmm....
Metformin: meant for diabetes, used for polycystic ovary syndrome.
Gabapentin: meant for seizures, used for neuropathic pain.
Topiramate: meant for seizures, used for migraines.
Clonidine: meant for hypertension, used as calming agent in ADD/ADHD children
Trazadone: meant for depression, used for insomnia.

I guess all who are on any of these meds for anything other than their initial, designed purpose, is a substance abuser. According to King QED, of course.

Oh, and you'd be surprised (although I'm not) at the number of people who take medications their doctor prescribes for them without many questions at all; because we are still somewhat of a patriarchal society in the land of medicine, and most people assume that a doctor knows what they are talking about, and is right. So it is indeed possible that some of these people simply trusted the physician treating them. Innocent until proven guilty and all.....

 

[VGThuy]

All the points about whether this drug in question is harmful and enhances performances should have been answered once it was in consideration to be put on the ban list. That's why I wondered if WADA has a notice and comment period where the pro and con groups and various other groups can make their case before WADA makes the decision.

If there was, then all of these things were in consideration and WADA decided to ban it. Plus, whether or not it should be banned is a separate from the fact that it was banned and athletes have given test samples that tested positive for the banned substance.

 

[Coquelicot14]

All the points about whether this drug in question is harmful and enhances performances should have been answered once it was in consideration to be put on the ban list. That's why I wondered if WADA has a notice and comment period where the pro and con groups and various other groups can make their case before WADA makes the decision.

If there was, then all of these things were in consideration and WADA decided to ban it. Plus, whether or not it should be banned is a separate from the fact that it was banned and athletes have given test samples that tested positive for the banned substance.

This reminds me of an interesting tid bit, apparently, the WADA decision to ban this substance, was not unanimous.

An we cannot say with 100% certainty exactly how long this remains in the system after prolonged use...

 

[sk9tingfan]

Hmmmm....
Metformin: meant for diabetes, used for polycystic ovary syndrome.
Gabapentin: meant for seizures, used for neuropathic pain.
Topiramate: meant for seizures, used for migraines.
Clonidine: meant for hypertension, used as calming agent in ADD/ADHD children
Trazadone: meant for depression, used for insomnia.

I guess all who are on any of these meds for anything other than their initial, designed purpose, is a substance abuser. According to King QED, of course.

Oh, and you'd be surprised (although I'm not) at the number of people who take medications their doctor prescribes for them without many questions at all; because we are still somewhat of a patriarchal society in the land of medicine, and most people assume that a doctor knows what they are talking about, and is right. So it is indeed possible that some of these people simply trusted the physician treating them. Innocent until proven guilty and all.....

I think that you're taking this way beyond the use of medications for other than their initial intended purpose, i.e. off-label use, which may or may not be approved by the FDA and goes through a strict approval process. All of these have FDA clearance, not only for these conditions but other. BTW, I spend a good time of my day "mucking around" in the National Drug Codes as well as Therapeutic Classes, creating health care quality metrics and predictive algorithms, among other health care analytic vehicles.

Use of Meldonium should not be prescribed for other than individuals with ischemic heart disease and its other manifestations, i.e. angina and post myocardial infarction. It is more than highly unlikely that athletes of this caliber even remotely have a "whiff" of angina, let along an MI. To prescribe it for a healthy individual is reprehensible because it has some adverse side effects like causing an irregular heart beat which can lead to death and an increase in blood pressure, also not too swift.

 

[VGThuy]

This reminds me of an interesting tid bit, apparently, the WADA decision to ban this substance, was not unanimous.

Of course. I'm sure not everything on the banned list was unanimous either if WADA has a system set up where you do not need it to be a unanimous decision for a substance to be added on the banned list.

An we cannot say with 100% certainty exactly how long this remains in the system after prolonged use...

Is there anything giving some sort of estimate of how long it stays in your system? When this first came out, I remember reading that it doesn't stay that long in your body. Either way, I didn't really see this defense raised by Katia or Maria or many others, but I may have missed that defense.

 

[Kasey]

I'm responding inanely to the mundane and inane insistence of one particular poster that using a drug for any use other than what it is designed for is "substance abuse". Trust me, I am well aware of medications, off-label uses, FDA approvals, etc, since I've been a nurse for 20 years.

Meldonium, however, is not something that would even be addressed in the U.S., in terms of proper use, off-label use, or other uses as a PED: it's not manufactured or even available in the U.S.

Of course, useful, worthwhile, and effective treatments for various ailments are also not available in the U.S. or cleared by the FDA.

 

[overedge]

If there were any indications of harsh side effects, there would have been a study, this shows that there were no causes for alarm.

No, it doesn't. A lot of drugs only get studied for "harsh side effects" once those effects emerge, or once those effects seem to be linked to the use of the drug - which drug companies generally will deny as loudly and for as long as possible. Look at the history of thalidomide to see how long it took for that drug to be identified as harmful, and how long it took for drug companies to do something about it.

And studies of side effects might look only at side effects from the recommended use of the drug, not side effects from when it's used for purposes or in dosages other than what's recommended.

 

[dots]

Oh god, I wonder who else was doping. I guess we'll find out when those B samples are tested.

 

[Coquelicot14]

Is there anything giving some sort of estimate of how long it stays in your system? When this first came out, I remember reading that it doesn't stay that long in your body. Either way, I didn't really see this defense raised by Katia or Maria or many others, but I may have missed that defense.

Unfortunately this has not yet been investigated. It should have been, but it's only being done now.
Here is a quote from head of the organization of sport medicine Julia Miroshnikova (sovsport)

– Второе, что должны выяснить наши ученые, – мог ли милдронат депонироваться (то есть отложиться) в специализированных системах организма – печени, жировой ткани – и выбрасываться при определенных условиях, в частности, при повышенных физических нагрузках.

Basically, they will investigate: does it deposit in the body in given conditions and in cases of heavy physical training.

That would not impact Maria's case, as she had admitted to taking it after the ban due to negligence, but may explain the positive test in those who claim to have stopped taking it.

No, it doesn't. A lot of drugs only get studied for "harsh side effects" once those effects emerge, or once those effects seem to be linked to the use of the drug - which drug companies generally will deny as loudly and for as long as possible. Look at the history of thalidomide to see how long it took for that drug to be identified as harmful, and how long it took for drug companies to do something about it.

And studies of side effects might look only at side effects from the recommended use of the drug, not side effects from when it's used for purposes or in dosages other than what's recommended.

This drug was invented in the 70s. So the side effects would have been evident by now.
As for drug companies denying responsibility, that would make sense when they stand to profit, however this was during time of socialism. No one stood to profit at the time. Not to the same extent.

 

[PRlady]

Just posted on NY Times: more than 60 athletes tested positive for this --http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/11/sports/tennis/maria-sharapova-racket-sponsor-head-failed-drug-test.html?_r=0

And btw the aide to Putin who died of a "heart attack" in a DC hotel room in November was found to have died from blunt force trauma to the head. What a surprise.

 

[aftershocks]

Just posted on NY Times: more than 60 athletes tested positive for this --http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/11/sports/tennis/maria-sharapova-racket-sponsor-head-failed-drug-test.html?_r=0

And btw the aide to Putin who died of a "heart attack" in a DC hotel room in November was found to have died from blunt force trauma to the head. What a surprise.

Re the NYTimes article:

Dr. Steven Nissen, chairman of the department of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, said that the drug seemed to be used to treat chest pains from severe heart disease. “There is no way it would be clinically indicated in a healthy young athlete,” he said.

 

[overedge]

This drug was invented in the 70s. So the side effects would have been evident by now.

Not if the side effects weren't seen as being caused by the drug.

As for drug companies denying responsibility, that would make sense when they stand to profit, however this was during time of socialism. No one stood to profit at the time. Not to the same extent.

It's not just an issue of profit. It's also an issue of reputation, credibility, being able to stay in business, etc. There are lots of reasons other than profit why a drug company would deny that its drugs caused harm.

 

[hanca]

Not if the side effects weren't seen as being caused by the drug.

It's not just an issue of profit. It's also an issue of reputation, credibility, being able to stay in business, etc. There are lots of reasons other than profit why a drug company would deny that its drugs caused harm.

Reputation? Credibility? Being able to stay in business? The poster mentioned that this was in 70s, during time of socialism. I don't think that those things you mentioned were at the top of agenda during socialism.

 

[Coquelicot14]

Not if the side effects weren't seen as being caused by the drug.




It's not just an issue of profit. It's also an issue of reputation, credibility, being able to stay in business, etc. There are lots of reasons other than profit why a drug company would deny that its drugs caused harm.

But that's just it. We know nothing for sure, once we have actual data, we can make conclusions. Even the doctor quoted above has no data to back him up. It's all theoretical.

This thread is scary in a sense that in a lot of ways there are posters for whom this is a witch hunt. They are out for blood. If they lived in medieval times, they'd be no women left.

 

[Sylvia]

Just posted on NY Times: more than 60 athletes tested positive for this

Link to Christopher Clarey's article: More Than 60 Athletes Have Tested Positive for Meldonium

“Regarding the number of Meldonium positives, I can tell you that it was at 60 adverse analytical findings (since January 1st) recorded on Monday and that number is growing,” Ben Nichols, a spokesman for the World Anti-Doping Agency, said in an email message.
Most of the athletes who have tested positive have not been publicly identified because all the cases are still being adjudicated.

 

[hanca]

It reminds me the cultures where they stone women for infidelity without even bothering to investigate whether there actually was infidelity. There is so many unknown, not enough research to support anything definitive, but those sportsmen are already convicted? Sad!

 

[analia]

I'm glad, or whatever, that so many posters actually think there is a fine line between good old sportsmanship and cheating. Of course athletes would take anything not on the WADA list to enhance performance. What do you think they are, nuns?