IOC's decision: (clean) Russian athletes can compete under neutral flag at PyeongChang Olympics

@Zemgirl "allegedly contributed" and "may have caused" are scientific paper speak for "we're pretty sure that's the cause because no other cause that happens in this demographic would occur so frequently but maybe there's some wild or weird thing we don't know about yet that could be the cause." In fact, pretty much the only things scientists have linked 100% causally thus far is cigarettes and lung cancer and HPV and cervical cancer. While media aimed at the general public will assert causality more freely, more academically inclined media is much more cautious because so many factors go into diseases that it's hard to say A causes B.
EPO is known to contribute to thrombotic events. Again, there's other factors at play here (individual body responses to the hormone, frequency of use, dose, etc.), but it certainly contributes. Basically, thrombotic events mean there's a clot or blockage of some sort preventing blood flow to a specific area. While we typically think of thrombotic events as being related to platelets (as most cases typically are), if you have too many red blood cells or improperly formed red blood cells, they can also clot and lead to a thrombotic event. EPO increases the number of red blood cells, which leads to more red blood cells in the blood stream, which can easily lead to more clotting.


As for your assertion that anything that isn't proven to be performance enhancing or a masking agent shouldn't be banned, I think that's a very dangerous assertion. Yes, there are many relatively safe medications they can take, but no ethical doctor will prescribe these to healthy individuals. And over the counter stuff? Tylenol can easily kill if you overdose - and that's more common than you'd think. Cough medicine can get you high or be used to make illicit drugs (or kill you). Nasal decongestants can increase blood pressure. Aspirin use can cause ringing in your ears. Yes - all of these medications have adverse events that are fairly rare or require overdosing, but they may interact with something else that makes the adverse effect much more likely: oral contraception with smoking can cause strokes, most medications can lead to anaphylaxis if the patient is allergic, patients may have undiagnosed conditions making some medications dangerous, etc. etc. These things have a warning label and pages of instructions for a reason and you should not be taking them if you do not need them.
And just because people take them to deal with jetlag with no issues (I'm sure physicians themselves do this) doesn't mean that's an appropriate or safe use of the medication.
 
I'm wondering what would happen if the athletes affected by any of these sanctions switched countries. For eg, if Stepanova and Bukin start representing Ukraine, will they be free forever from the IOC scrutiny? If the athletes cleared by CAS switch allegiance, will their troubles go away?
 
@Zemgirl "allegedly contributed" and "may have caused" are scientific paper speak for "we're pretty sure that's the cause because no other cause that happens in this demographic would occur so frequently but maybe there's some wild or weird thing we don't know about yet that could be the cause." In fact, pretty much the only things scientists have linked 100% causally thus far is cigarettes and lung cancer and HPV and cervical cancer. While media aimed at the general public will assert causality more freely, more academically inclined media is much more cautious because so many factors go into diseases that it's hard to say A causes B.
I have a PhD in a different field (not STEM). "Allegedly contributed" is not what we'd use when we are confident about identifying an effect or a predictor. And not citing a source in-text is sloppy, no matter the subject.

I'm not sure if you think that every substance in existence is too dangerous to be given to athletes (even if it's standard OTC stuff), or whether your concern is that something might potentially be performance enhancing. Either way, we clearly disagree on what the best approach is towards this issue.
 
I'm wondering what would happen if the athletes affected by any of these sanctions switched countries. For eg, if Stepanova and Bukin start representing Ukraine, will they be free forever from the IOC scrutiny? If the athletes cleared by CAS switch allegiance, will their troubles go away?
:D nobody is switching countries. S/B were not expected to medal in these Olympics, and they will be #1 Russian Team once B/S retire at the end of the season. Bukin's father is an Olympic Russian medalist, his son is not going anywhere.. :lol:

Guys, don't worry about the 13 athletes which were cleared and did not receive invitation. They realistically did not expected to go. They wanted to restore their status and reputation, and keep the medals.
 
I have a PhD in a different field (not STEM). "Allegedly contributed" is not what we'd use when we are confident about identifying an effect or a predictor. And not citing a source in-text is sloppy, no matter the subject.

I'm not sure if you think that every substance in existence is too dangerous to be given to athletes (even if it's standard OTC stuff), or whether your concern is that something might potentially be performance enhancing. Either way, we clearly disagree on what the best approach is towards this issue.
In medical fields this is how we do it, because as I said, we want to give room for as many confounders as possible - because there are a lot we can't test for.
As for not using an intext citation, it because this is patient education materials. In patient education materials we typically don't use in-text citations because they are written at a 3rd-5th grade level - the reading level most effective. It should also be noted that having them in patient education materials is useless as 99% of patients have no access to scientific papers and/or cannot comprehend them which would further confuse the patients. As you have seen here, even people with PhDs in other fields can't always understand papers produced for an audience in a different field (a problem affecting lots of science and discouraging interdisciplinary collaboration), so how can you expect your average patient with maybe a bachelor's or associate's degree to read one? They do have articles at the bottom you can look at, or you can look for "erythropoietin thrombotic events" on PubMed to find articles.

I don't think it's too dangerous to be given, just that it should not be used unless you have a specific and real medical reason to use any medication. If an athlete has a cold or narcolepsy, let them use medications for that. If they're using medications for that to get over jetlag, they should not be doing so. Jetlag is not a medical reason to use a medication.
 
:D nobody is switching countries. S/B were not expected to medal in these Olympics, and they will be #1 Russian Team once B/S retire at the end of the season. Bukin's father is an Olympic Russian medalist, his son is not going anywhere.. :lol:

Guys, don't worry about the 13 athletes which were cleared and did not receive invitation. They realistically did not expected to go. They wanted to restore their status and reputation, and keep the medals.

Not every athlete that completes in the Olympics is a medal contender. This would have been a good experience for S&B as a stepping stone in their career, but they were denied that, without a reason. Whether they become Russia's number one in the future, or whether his father won the OGM is irrelevant in the present.
 
In medical fields this is how we do it, because as I said, we want to give room for as many confounders as possible - because there are a lot we can't test for.
I've been involved in research projects related to public health. This does not strike me as a standard way to report results. Obviously you qualify statements because there can be other contributing factors, but the phrasing is odd to say the least. Also, plenty of sites use footnotes to refer to sources, even when communicating with laypeople. It's certainly more helpful than telling people to look things up on PubMed.

Let's agree to disagree. I doubt anyone else is interested in this tangent.
 
I maintain they were medal contenders :shuffle:
I honestly believe they would likely have been skating the SD in the team event.
Medal contenders here I don't think so. As of next season : definitely. And I'm hoping that they won't get dropped because of this. Because I already had them on the Beijing Olympic podium - definitely on the World podium. This situation might get everything messed up, because if they might not go again in the Olys, what's the point ? (POV of a federation of course).
 
Medal contenders here I don't think so. As of next season : definitely. And I'm hoping that they won't get dropped because of this. Because I already had them on the Beijing Olympic podium - definitely on the World podium. This situation might get everything messed up, because if they might not go again in the Olys, what's the point ? (POV of a federation of course).
Not medal contenders in the team event?
 
Oh, in the team event yes. Like you said they could have skated the SD - but they "need" to split Ladies and maybe Men too because when Russian Men are on, they are GOOD.
True - but since Kolyada and Aliev are both equal liabilities, it's pretty much impossible to predict which one will be useful.
Whereas B/S have a pretty weak SD and S/B a particularly strong one which has consistently been received well by the judges... It's more of a sure bet.
 
I do wonder if switching countries would help. Maybe not to a former Soviet republic (especially Ukraine), but maybe to another country without Russian political influence. The Russian skaters who have switched to further afield countries (Lubov in Canada, Ekaterina Alexandrovskaya in Australia) are not facing heightened scrutiny as far as we know.

I've been involved in research projects related to public health. This does not strike me as a standard way to report results. Obviously you qualify statements because there can be other contributing factors, but the phrasing is odd to say the least. Also, plenty of sites use footnotes to refer to sources, even when communicating with laypeople. It's certainly more helpful than telling people to look things up on PubMed.

Let's agree to disagree. I doubt anyone else is interested in this tangent.
This site did use footnotes, as I pointed out to you. This phrasing is not exactly what I see but very similar to that I see used in nursing and medical journals (and epidemiology papers) - I haven't read public health articles in a good 3-4 years. Again, this is a patient education website - so the reading level is 3rd-5th grade. I've worked on a couple projects in the past year reviewing and creating patient education materials and everything on this site is very standard for them - a summary and then references at the bottom.
But yes, we can agree to disagree.
 
Not every athlete that completes in the Olympics is a medal contender. This would have been a good experience for S&B as a stepping stone in their career, but they were denied that, without a reason. Whether they become Russia's number one in the future, or whether his father won the OGM is irrelevant in the present.
The issue was not about the benefits for S/B to participate in the Olympics, but reasons why they would not likely switch countries.
 
There’s no evidence at all this banning of s/b from Pyeongchang will not be carried over Into Beijing! They aren’t going to be Russia’s number one not being allowed in any Olympics. Even if they switched to some other country his ban from Olympics could be permanent and very transparent evasive moves even more punished.
 
The issue was not about the benefits for S/B to participate in the Olympics, but reasons why they would not likely switch countries.

Perhaps training in another country which does not have the reputation of doping and not the same access to dope would help them. ie: if they have a red flag against their name then if there are frequent drug tests and they are all clean...making sure any TUE's are submitted.etc....
 
Perhaps training in another country which does not have the reputation of doping and not the same access to dope would help them. ie: if they have a red flag against their name then if there are frequent drug tests and they are all clean...making sure any TUE's are submitted.etc....
But who is going to accept them now really ... ? The Olympic ban is a bit more than "No Olympics" now that I think about it : are they going to be dropped for a non-drama team (they ere supposed to be the only one without drama litterally) ? If they wanted to switch coaches or go overseas, who is willing to take them because of this ? The reputation game is not pretty in this situation :scream:
 
But who is going to accept them now really ... ? The Olympic ban is a bit more than "No Olympics" now that I think about it : are they going to be dropped for a non-drama team (they ere supposed to be the only one without drama litterally) ? If they wanted to switch coaches or go overseas, who is willing to take them because of this ? The reputation game is not pretty in this situation :scream:
Some countries aren't really bothered about reputation and red markers *cough Froome* *cough Wiggins* *cough Farah*
 
As for your assertion that anything that isn't proven to be performance enhancing or a masking agent shouldn't be banned, I think that's a very dangerous assertion. Yes, there are many relatively safe medications they can take, but no ethical doctor will prescribe these to healthy individuals. And over the counter stuff? Tylenol can easily kill if you overdose - and that's more common than you'd think. Cough medicine can get you high or be used to make illicit drugs (or kill you). Nasal decongestants can increase blood pressure. Aspirin use can cause ringing in your ears. Yes - all of these medications have adverse events that are fairly rare or require overdosing, but they may interact with something else that makes the adverse effect much more likely: oral contraception with smoking can cause strokes, most medications can lead to anaphylaxis if the patient is allergic, patients may have undiagnosed conditions making some medications dangerous, etc. etc. These things have a warning label and pages of instructions for a reason and you should not be taking them if you do not need them.
And just because people take them to deal with jetlag with no issues (I'm sure physicians themselves do this) doesn't mean that's an appropriate or safe use of the medication.

I see. So aspirin and tylenol are ok to use for general public, they are easily bought in any shop, but not good enough for athletes because they could overdose? I am sorry, that’s ridiculous! Whatever is considered safe for general public must be safe for athletes. That includes even something so dangerous as cough medicine and nasal decongestants. Yes, of course all medications have some level of risks involved, but based on balance they were approved as safe. In fact, everything in life has some level of risk.

Not sure if you ever have done risk assessment, but there are many risks in day to day life that include being run down by a car, being struck by lightning, falling down the stairs, being bitten by a dog that you accidentally pass on your way to work, being attacked by suspicious individual because he/she wanted your purse, being injured or killed in terrorist attack, drowning, and many others. And yet it doesn’t mean that you are going to be stuck at home to keep yourself safe. Even at home there are many risks, such as falling down the stairs, gas explosion, carbon monoxide gas poisoning, fire, being injured/killed during robbery, tripping and hitting a sharp corner of your furniture... So considering all the risks, taking a tablet that was approved as safe is actually pretty safe matter, relatively.
 
@hanca That's not what I'm arguing at all.

One of the things we talk about in any medical field is that no healthy person (ie having no pain) should take any treatment or medication (ie tylenol) for a condition they do not have, because some treatments and medications are inherently risky. The benefit outweighs the risk if you are taking a medication to treat a condition (ie taking tylenol to treat pain); if there is no benefit, there's only risk on the scale. Take meldonium - if you had a heart attack, the benefit of taking it (improved recovery from the heart attack) outweighs the risk for many patients (arrhythmia, heart failure). For an athlete, there's no physiological benefit, so when taking it they only have the risk of arrhythmia and heart failure. So, if an athlete is taking tylenol to treat pain, go for it. But if an athlete is using tylenol for some doping purpose whatever that may be, I think they should not be allowed to take it.
This is what I'm arguing. I don't think anyone, athlete or not, should take medications they don't need.
 
Last edited:
But how do you know that the Meldonium didn’t work preventively? To recover normal heart function if they are pushing themselves too hard? Or any other preventative purpose? Some medications are commonly used by doctors for other purposes than they were initially intended and they work, for example, my husband was prescribed a very low dose of antidepressants to use for migraines. You decided that the athletes were taking it without any purpose, or for doping, without you knowing all the facts (unless you are a scientist who have done some serious research on this drug, which I doubt).
 
Last edited:
@hanca Because I've read a good 20+ peer reviewed articles about it whenever debates on this medication because it comes up on FSU a good amount, including many that came out after it was revealed it had been used in doping that evaluated the claims that it would help prevent heart problems. Of all those studies and meta analyses the only statistically significant thing it helps with is recovery in individuals who have had a heart attack (by heart attack they mean MI - Myocardial Infarction).

To prevent Myocardial Infarction the best way is usually a healthy diet, exercise, and if at high risk blood pressure meds and maybe some low dose aspirin as recommended by a physician. Other than aspirin and medications for blood pressure/clotting I haven't learned of any class of medications useful for preventing MI. And even those medications are only used in people at high risk and have issues - ie high blood pressure medication is only given if your blood pressure is high.
 
I'm wondering what would happen if the athletes affected by any of these sanctions switched countries. For eg, if Stepanova and Bukin start representing Ukraine, will they be free forever from the IOC scrutiny? If the athletes cleared by CAS switch allegiance, will their troubles go away?
So the athletes that were banned & had their Sochi results stripped by the IOC"s Oswald Commission and that CAS overturned would not have been helped by switching to another country because they IOC believes they are guilty of doping offences. It's hard to say whether Bukin's fate would have been changed had he competed for another country since we don't know why he hasn't been invited as a Russian athlete.
 
True - but since Kolyada and Aliev are both equal liabilities, it's pretty much impossible to predict which one will be useful.
Whereas B/S have a pretty weak SD and S/B a particularly strong one which has consistently been received well by the judges... It's more of a sure bet.

Aliev has the most impressive free skate. Remember the recent Euros.

Agree that S/B have the stronger FD among the Russians. Z/G have a great SD, by the way.
 
@hanca That's not what I'm arguing at all.

One of the things we talk about in any medical field is that no healthy person (ie having no pain) should take any treatment or medication (ie tylenol) for a condition they do not have, because some treatments and medications are inherently risky. The benefit outweighs the risk if you are taking a medication to treat a condition (ie taking tylenol to treat pain); if there is no benefit, there's only risk on the scale. Take meldonium - if you had a heart attack, the benefit of taking it (improved recovery from the heart attack) outweighs the risk for many patients (arrhythmia, heart failure). For an athlete, there's no physiological benefit, so when taking it they only have the risk of arrhythmia and heart failure. So, if an athlete is taking tylenol to treat pain, go for it. But if an athlete is using tylenol for some doping purpose whatever that may be, I think they should not be allowed to take it.
This is what I'm arguing. I don't think anyone, athlete or not, should take medications they don't need.

In a perfect world this would be true. But on the streets of average human life people take all sorts of things for all sorts of unintended reasons. People take Tylenol for pain to save themselves a trip from going to a doctor, painkiller opiates for calmness instead of pain, Adderalls to enhance performance on exams among other things, definitely not whatever it says it does, and any teenager knows Nyquil gets you high. I can see from a medical point of view these are all punishable offenses. But people are people. They do what they think they want and need. If Meldonium, a drug previously not on the ban list makes them feel better, they would take it. I don't for a minute think they thought it really was a heart medicine. It just wasn't banned, so they thought it was okay to take them, just like it's okay to drink energy drinks and take vitamins.
 
@hanca Because I've read a good 20+ peer reviewed articles about it whenever debates on this medication because it comes up on FSU a good amount, including many that came out after it was revealed it had been used in doping that evaluated the claims that it would help prevent heart problems. Of all those studies and meta analyses the only statistically significant thing it helps with is recovery in individuals who have had a heart attack (by heart attack they mean MI - Myocardial Infarction).

To prevent Myocardial Infarction the best way is usually a healthy diet, exercise, and if at high risk blood pressure meds and maybe some low dose aspirin as recommended by a physician. Other than aspirin and medications for blood pressure/clotting I haven't learned of any class of medications useful for preventing MI. And even those medications are only used in people at high risk and have issues - ie high blood pressure medication is only given if your blood pressure is high.
That’s not a very strong argument. So you read a number of articles. Not sure if I am supposed to be impressed, but what I learned is that medical opinion often vary among medical professionals quite significantly. So for example, if you have a court proceeding and opposed side invites a medical expert, often it is quite easy to find another medical expert who will disagree with his colleague. You haven’t done the research yourself, to be able to see how the drug works in various animals and later on people, you didn’t review the actual research available, so you actually just read other people’s opinion and decided that they are right. Charming! And now you expect us to take your word for it, while you based your opinion on assumptions that they are right?
 
That’s not a very strong argument. So you read a number of articles. Not sure if I am supposed to be impressed, but what I learned is that medical opinion often vary among medical professionals quite significantly. So for example, if you have a court proceeding and opposed side invites a medical expert, often it is quite easy to find another medical expert who will disagree with his colleague. You haven’t done the research yourself, to be able to see how the drug works in various animals and later on people, you didn’t review the actual research available, so you actually just read other people’s opinion and decided that they are right. Charming! And now you expect us to take your word for it, while you based your opinion on assumptions that they are right?
Not a very strong argument. Who are your sources that it can be used in prevention? Where are your peer reviewed studies?

Medical experts in courts use peer-reviewed research aka "research articles" or "articles." These are not opinions - these are write-ups of studies and statistics. Opposing experts will present the best data they have. As I said, there are no peer reviewed good research articles that state it can be used in this way. Opinion differs when data is sketchy or unclear or where articles contradict each other. In the case of Meldonium there appears to be little contradiction.

ETA: Here is a good editorial from the BMJ of current research and what it means for athletes - basically low doses do nothing (and can even harm athletic performance due to increasing exercise intolerance), but if an athlete takes too much it can easily kill them.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information