PDA

View Full Version : U.S. drug cover-ups including Mary Joe Fernandez


Lelu
Apr 17th, 2003, 12:03 AM
This is an article from The Globe and Mail (April 16)

Documents reveal U.S. doping cover-up

Associated Press

London — Documents purporting to show that a number of American athletes were allowed to compete in the Olympics after failing drug tests prove long-held suspicions of U.S. drug cover-ups, the head of the World Anti-Doping Agency said Wednesday.

Dr. Wade Exum, the former USOC director for drug control from 1991 to 2000, released more than 30,000 pages of documents to Sports Illustrated and the Orange County Register, and he says they show that athletes such as Carl Lewis and Mary Joe Fernandez tested positive but were allowed by the U.S. Olympic Committee to compete anyway.

WADA head Dick Pound said the documents reinforce what some critics believed all along.

“It’s what many people suspected about the U.S. Olympic Committee, that it was being covered up,” he said in a telephone interview from Montreal. “There were lots of rumors around.”

The USOC called Exum’s accusations baseless. In October 2000, the USOC handed over drug-testing responsibilities to a new organization, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency.

Exum claimed more than 100 positive drug tests for U.S. athletes who won 19 Olympic medals from 1988-2000, but that many of them were allowed to compete.

Exum said Lewis was among them, testing positive three times for small amounts of banned stimulants found in cold medications at the 1988 Olympic trials. The USOC first disqualified him, then accepted his appeal on the basis of inadvertent use. Lewis went on to win gold at Seoul in the long jump — and in the 100 meters after Ben Johnson himself was disqualified for using steroids.

Pound dismissed the claims of “inadvertent” drug use.

“At the time this happened, Carl Lewis already had four gold medals from the Olympics,” he said. “You know perfectly well you’ve got to be very careful what you take. The offense is the presence of the substance in your body.”

Pound also criticized USA Track & Field for its record on performance-enhancing drugs. He said he would like to get all the details from the files.

“The more we know the better it is,” Pound said. “The more the world knows and the U.S. public knows what the USOC was doing, the more likely they are to fix the problem.”

Exum had planned to use the documents in his racial discrimination and wrongful termination suit against the USOC, but the case was dismissed in federal court last week because of lack of evidence.

“I never wanted to out athletes,” Exum told Sports Illustrated in its April 21 issue. “I never wanted to name names. Can these names help settle the issue and change the system? We’ll see.”

Lewis, the winner of nine Olympic gold medals and an outspoken critic of doping, could not be reached for comment, but his longtime manager, Joe Douglas, told SI that Lewis had not taken anything to enhance his performance.

The documents show that Joe DeLoach, Lewis’ training partner, tested positive for the same three stimulants as Lewis and was let off for the same reason. He won the 200 meters in Seoul.

Andre Phillips tested positive for pseudoephedrine at the ’88 trials, was cleared on appeal and won the 400-meter hurdles at the games.

Fernandez tested positive for pseudoephedrine before the 1992 Olympic tennis competition, but was not disciplined and won gold and bronze medals. She told SI the positive result was caused by a cold medication.

Pound pointed out letters purportedly written by then-USOC executive director Baaron Pittenger, advising Lewis, DeLoach and Phillips they had tested positive but were being cleared to compete in Seoul.

“It’s got to be pretty embarrassing to the USOC to have their secretary general writing in the letter where he advises an athlete of a positive A sample, ‘I have to send you this, but we already decided this was inadvertent.”’ Pound said. “That whole process turned into a joke.”

Arne Ljungqvist, chairman of the medical commissions of the IOC and the International Association of Athletics Federations, said the documents “fit a pattern” of failure to report on positive drug cases.

“The USATF should have reported to the IAAF,” he said. “That’s what we asked them to do repeatedly. We were aware they didn’t do it. The rules were changed in ’89 to make that clear.”

Havok
Apr 17th, 2003, 12:17 AM
LMAO. Mary Jo :rolleyes:

Brian Stewart
Apr 17th, 2003, 12:23 AM
So, that's where Mary Joe got all that bulk. :)

King Lindsay
Apr 17th, 2003, 12:23 AM
Before you crucify her, she could be telling the truth, you know.

Also remember, this is Mary Joe we're talking about. She's skinny as hell. Not exactly a prime candidate for PED abuse.

And yeah, I remember Korda. But still, look at the woman!

SJW
Apr 17th, 2003, 12:27 AM
oh dear...

ico4498
Apr 17th, 2003, 12:33 AM
Again ... "REAL SPORTS END, where competitive sports begin."

Believe the best about your favs. Some get more mention than others regarding drug boosters. The truth is all are probably culpable in differing degrees. Folks denying the allure and prevalence of enhancers, especially in big money sports, are blind to human nature.

Smart dopers are years ahead of the testing agencies. Getting caught requires ignorance, stupidity & backward physicians.

CJ07
Apr 17th, 2003, 12:41 AM
Mary Joe!!!

but seriously, you cant take ANYTHING in sports

Lelu
Apr 17th, 2003, 01:20 AM
Perhaps, Mary Joe was innocent in this whole affair, however, the cover-up was not right. Her test results should have been made public and only then, she could have been expected to appeal or provide an explanation.

This new revelation just confirms a long-held belief that Ben Johnson was used as a scape goat. Carl Lewis was not clean but what makes him the biggest hypocrite was the fact that he was very vocal against illegal drugs in sports. I am also surprised that Flo-Jo was not mentioned in this article, although, apparently, she got caught after the Seoul olympics and immediately retired as part of a deal to keep her gold medals and world records. Incidentally, in the 15 years since she posted her incredible time of 10.49 sec to break the 100 m world record, no one got even close to this time.

anton
Apr 17th, 2003, 01:25 AM
so thats where mary jo got that cute baby face. :D

G-Ha
Apr 17th, 2003, 01:33 AM
pseudoephedrine? We're talking a Sudafed cold tablet here. Now I understand a banned substance is a banned substance, so Mary Joe shouldn't have taken it, or at least she should have received prior approval, but I doubt Sudafed was really giving her a leg up on the competition.

Cybelle Darkholme
Apr 17th, 2003, 01:36 AM
Innocent? If you have a banned substance in your system you are not innocent. How in the world could an olympic athelte not know what was banned and what was not? And if they did not know then ignorance is no excuse for breaking the rules. Learn the rules.

fammmmedspin
Apr 17th, 2003, 01:48 AM
Why is it impossible to have a drug testing regime that does not trap every athlete who uses cough mixture (and its in most cough mixtures if you don't stop at "lemon and honey") and still lets other athletes consume EPO or whatever by the packetload?

King Lindsay
Apr 17th, 2003, 02:00 AM
Innocent? If you have a banned substance in your system you are not innocent. How in the world could an olympic athelte not know what was banned and what was not? And if they did not know then ignorance is no excuse for breaking the rules. Learn the rules.

Because Mary Joe is not an Olympic athlete.

~ The Leopard ~
Apr 17th, 2003, 03:12 AM
Why is it impossible to have a drug testing regime that does not trap every athlete who uses cough mixture (and its in most cough mixtures if you don't stop at "lemon and honey") and still lets other athletes consume EPO or whatever by the packetload?

Exactly. There is no suggestion that these people were on steroids. Can't some of you read?

Ted of Teds Tennis
Apr 17th, 2003, 03:34 AM
Lelu:

The fact that nobody's come close to FloJo's 100m record in 15 years doesn't automatically mean she was using banned substances. Remember that it took 17 (IIRC) years for Michael Johnson to break Pietro Mennea's record in the 200m. And I don't think anybody's going to come close to Johnson's 19.32 for quite some time to come.

decemberlove
Apr 17th, 2003, 04:06 AM
there are ways of synthesizing methcathinone [a schedule 1 drug in the states, its up there with heroin n LSD... highly addictive... like crank basically] from pseudoephedrine...
thou i DOUBT that's what they were doing with it.

i do think the olympics take it too far when it comes to drug testing. and i wonder if they ignore the positive for cannabis when it comes to snowboarders...

spokenword73
Apr 17th, 2003, 04:07 AM
Lelu:

The fact that nobody's come close to FloJo's 100m record in 15 years doesn't automatically mean she was using banned substances. Remember that it took 17 (IIRC) years for Michael Johnson to break Pietro Mennea's record in the 200m. And I don't think anybody's going to come close to Johnson's 19.32 for quite some time to come.

thank you!!! as far as Flojo, she was never "caught" testing postive for anything, though there were lots of rumors...so will Mary Joe and Carl Lewis be allowed to keep their medals even thought they broke the rules?? What hypocrites and how embarressing for both of them :o

Dawn Marie
Apr 17th, 2003, 04:35 AM
Lmao!! At Mary Jo! Please Pammy Mention This During The Commentating..

Lol!!!

~ The Leopard ~
Apr 17th, 2003, 04:49 AM
What amazes me is the way people come out with these wild statements such as that Carl Lewis should give back his medal.

I agree with d-love that some of the regime goes too far in some ways. However, I should also point out that the regime is very complex and it does actually take some of these issues into account. It is not totally inflexible as many of you seem to think. Nor is it something simple to understand: athletes cannot be expected to master it without legal and medical advice.

For example, as I read the rules, it is *not* automatically a doping offence to have pseudoephedrine in a blood sample. It creates only a prima facie presumption of doping that could be rebutted it if it turned out to be just a Sudafed. It is understandable if some bodies do not even bother to pursue cases of a small presence of pseudoephedrine consistent with use of cold tablets, since these would almost always be demonstrably *not* doping. Even if we think all cases should be pursued, it is not surprising if sporting bodies were less rigorous (fanatical?) in the past.

If someone has a better knowledge of the law in this area I'll defer to them. However, a lot of you sound to me like you're talking through your hats. You're making pronouncements, even though you actually know nothing about it, have never studied it, and are not legally or medically qualified.

To claim that someone who has taken a Sudafed is the same as a steroid abuser is just wrong. If there are any sports lawyers here, correct me, but that, to the best of my knowledge, is not the legal position and never has been. It is also an absurd thing to say, just as a matter of common sense.

spokenword73
Apr 17th, 2003, 05:14 AM
What amazes me is the way people come out with these wild statements such as that Carl Lewis should give back his medal.

I agree with d-love that some of the regime goes too far in some ways. However, I should also point out that the regime is very complex and it does actually take some of these issues into account. It is not totally inflexible as many of you seem to think. Nor is it something simple to understand: athletes cannot be expected to master it without legal and medical advice.

For example, as I read the rules, it is *not* automatically a doping offence to have pseudoephedrine in a blood sample. It creates only a prima facie presumption of doping that could be rebutted it if it turned out to be just a Sudafed. It is understandable if some bodies do not even bother to pursue cases of a small presence of pseudoephedrine consistent with use of cold tablets, since these would almost always be demonstrably *not* doping. Even if we think all cases should be pursued, it is not surprising if sporting bodies were less rigorous (fanatical?) in the past.

If someone has a better knowledge of the law in this area I'll defer to them. However, a lot of you sound to me like you're talking through your hats. You're making pronouncements, even though you actually know nothing about it, have never studied it, and are not legally or medically qualified.

To claim that someone who has taken a Sudafed is the same as a steroid abuser is just wrong. If there are any sports lawyers here, correct me, but that, to the best of my knowledge, is not the legal position and never has been. It is also an absurd thing to say, just as a matter of common sense.

the point is these athletes were ingesting BANNED substances-whether steroids or not!! And didn't Ben Johnson have his medals taken away from the same offense??

Dawn Marie
Apr 17th, 2003, 05:20 AM
If Sudafed helped Mary Jo got over a cold and that substance helped her to win at that time then she is WRONG!

decemberlove
Apr 17th, 2003, 05:29 AM
the point is these athletes were ingesting BANNED substances-whether steroids or not!! And didn't Ben Johnson have his medals taken away from the same offense??

no im pretty sure his were taken away for doing Winstrol... a veterinary anabolic steroid

~ The Leopard ~
Apr 17th, 2003, 05:34 AM
the point is these athletes were ingesting BANNED substances-whether steroids or not!! And didn't Ben Johnson have his medals taken away from the same offense??

Not at all. That is *not* the point; that is not what the regulations say. The regulations actually allow you to take pseudoephedrine if you can show (you bear the onus) that it was just a cold tablet or whatever. At least that is how I read them. Although the onus is on the athlete, it would be an easy onus to discharge.

The only criticism that might be able to be made is that Lewis was never even asked to justify his pseudoephedrine reading. However, the people involved probably had good reason to believe that he'd have no trouble doing so. You and I don't know the precise circumstances but I can easily imagine an administrator forming that judgment quite reasonably.

Now I don't want to pull rank here. I am a lawyer who has some interest in sport, but I have never practised sports law. Perhaps I am misreading the regulations. However, I get the impression that you haven't read them them at all. You are making assumptions about what they might say, based on reading newspapers. The last thing you should do is rely on what journalists say, since they always sensationalise. You need to read the regulations themselves.

Ideally, you should also read the case law that applies them, but I have to admit I haven't done that either. :) To repeat, I don't claim to be an expert but I do object to simplistic statements such as the one that you have just made and which I have quoted above.

King Lindsay
Apr 17th, 2003, 06:34 AM
the point is these athletes were ingesting BANNED substances-whether steroids or not!! And didn't Ben Johnson have his medals taken away from the same offense??

Robrich, some of the banned substances are ridiculous. Or at least, can be ingested in completely innocent ways. Just deciding that the athletes are immediately in the wrong without asking any of the relevant questions is stupid.

I think that the US organization was wrong not to disclose the offences, though. But perhaps they were quickly cleared up (the doper-in-question found to have a valid excuse) and they wanted to spare the athlete the embarassment.

Anyhow, I don't believe Mary Joe Fernandez took any PEDs. And it's not because I'm a huge fan, which I'm not, it's because that just doesn't seem to make any sense. She tested positive for something found in a cold medication. She was probably sick in the weeks leading up to the Olympics and wasn't aware what was in what she took. sadly, there are people who will see this, not recognize the substance in question, and decide that she's a doper and a cheater. Such as Dawn Marie. So maybe that's why they didn't release the information when they had it.

1jackson2001
Apr 17th, 2003, 07:41 AM
Mary Jo should still have known better nonetheless..

Dava
Apr 17th, 2003, 09:26 AM
Hey what about Andrea Raducan, Mirjana Lucic and that Scottish Skiier! They all failed there drugs tests on cold medication!

Jakeev
Apr 17th, 2003, 09:34 AM
King Lindsay And G-ha Outstanding Posts!!!!!!!!!!!

potty
Apr 17th, 2003, 09:47 AM
Also I believe the athlete's can get a list of medication for such things as cold etc that are legal, how much effort would it have been for Lewis, Fernandez etc to contact the IAAF or WTA to get the list. I would have thought as a professional sports person it would be one of the things you took great care over.

irma
Apr 17th, 2003, 10:10 AM
don't athletes mostly get the stuf from their doctors and just trust them?

~ The Leopard ~
Apr 17th, 2003, 10:36 AM
I'm sure they do, Irma. And my understanding is that the lists are pretty confusing. They were probably even more so at the time we are talking about.

The point about Raducan is a good one, I must admit. I'm currently at a loss to see why she didn't get off, so perhaps I have, indeed, misunderstood something.

OTOH, most people I know feel that Raducan was an unfortunate victim of the fanatical and inflexible application of the rules. How many people think of her as a doper? If Mary Joe or Carl Lewis had been treated like Raducan, it would be the same. To compare any of these people to people using growth hormones or anabolic steroids to build muscle bulk is just crazy.

irma
Apr 17th, 2003, 10:45 AM
in raducan's case there was even prove that it didn't benefit her at all since it tired her out. that made it even more stupid :rolleyes:

Volcana
Apr 17th, 2003, 10:58 AM
An athlete can never take anything that imporves performance, and still test positive for banned substances. Some things are on the list because they mask the presence of performance enhancing drugs, not because they themselves are performance enhancers. And virtually every Olympics some athlete or another gets a positive result from medications they cleared with their national committee.

That said, the offence is the presence of the substance in the body, not how it got there.

The question is, ultimately, are you willing to walk up to Mary Joe Ferenandez and say 'you're a cheat'.

Is this the same as the Tour de France, where an entire team was thrown out of the race?

maccardel
Apr 17th, 2003, 11:09 AM
well that is why mary dominated the tennis world. I think we should take back her grandslams and titles and while we are at it...I think we should have her removed from the commentating booth at espn...she is a disgrace to this sport....and should be removedd right away. How dare she embarrass this sport...now we have to test Capriati and davenport,Henin, and williamses and even shaughnessy has to be test...just in time for fed week.....I think that hantuchova has been taking da shit though...she always looked suspicious to me...skinny as hell and hitting the ball like a madwoman......well everyone need to get in line with the cup in their hands.....LET'S GO!!!!!!!!

~ The Leopard ~
Apr 17th, 2003, 11:53 AM
lol @maccardel. Yeah let's rub them all out! ;)

Volcana, I have never heard of pseudoephedrine being used as a steroid masking agent. Are you seriously claiming Mary Joe was using it in that way, as opposed to taking some Sudafeds for a cold. PPOSTFU, coz that is a very serious allegation.

spokenword73
Apr 17th, 2003, 04:55 PM
Not at all. That is *not* the point; that is not what the regulations say. The regulations actually allow you to take pseudoephedrine if you can show (you bear the onus) that it was just a cold tablet or whatever. At least that is how I read them. Although the onus is on the athlete, it would be an easy onus to discharge.

The only criticism that might be able to be made is that Lewis was never even asked to justify his pseudoephedrine reading. However, the people involved probably had good reason to believe that he'd have no trouble doing so. You and I don't know the precise circumstances but I can easily imagine an administrator forming that judgment quite reasonably.

Now I don't want to pull rank here. I am a lawyer who has some interest in sport, but I have never practised sports law. Perhaps I am misreading the regulations. However, I get the impression that you haven't read them them at all. You are making assumptions about what they might say, based on reading newspapers. The last thing you should do is rely on what journalists say, since they always sensationalise. You need to read the regulations themselves.

Ideally, you should also read the case law that applies them, but I have to admit I haven't done that either. :) To repeat, I don't claim to be an expert but I do object to simplistic statements such as the one that you have just made and which I have quoted above.

well, we could do all the research you suggest, but it wouldn't change the point of the article which is that the USA alledgedly hid positive test results to protect their athletes. If MJF results were as harmless as you suggest, why didn't the US just come clean about it??? It's amazing to me that people are so willing to bend the rules and make excuses...

Lelu
Apr 17th, 2003, 05:48 PM
While I do believe that Mary Joe was an innocent victim of the circumstances, I have no doubt that Carl Lewis took steroids and so did Flo-Jo and just about any world class sprinter. You may be a lawyer, jouissant, and are more familiar with the legal aspect of doping, but I have direct experience in high performance sports, competing internationally a few years back. And, although not directly involved, I've been following track and field since my very early years, starting with the Tokyo Olympics (now, some of you may even now what year that was). I have friends who were olympic track athletes and they know a thing or two about banned substances. If anyone of you believe that Carl Lewis or Flo-Jo were clean, then, that is good for you (my kids believe in Santa Claus and I don't attempt to change that). The truth however is that in order to compete at the Olympic medal level, the athletes in many sports have no choice but take performance enhancing drugs. The cheaters, supported by their doctors and medical labs, are always a step ahead of anti-doping testing. The reason the East German athletes dominated many sport disciplines was because their drug using was government sponsored, whereas, someone like Ben Johnson relied on his coach and a Jamaican-based doctor. That he was caught only twice just shows how ineffective the system was. I followed closely the public inquiry proceedings following the Ben Johnson fiasco in 1988. The evidence presented there was overwhelming. The defending side did not try to prove that Ben Johnson was innocent. Rather, it showed that drug use in sports was more widespread than commonly believed. That only confirmed what I had known since the 70's. Well, I should stop here. This post is getting too long...

spokenword73
Apr 17th, 2003, 05:53 PM
While I do believe that Mary Joe was an innocent victim of the circumstances, I have no doubt that Carl Lewis took steroids and so did Flo-Jo and just about any world class sprinter. You may be a lawyer, jouissant, and are more familiar with the legal aspect of doping, but I have direct experience in high performance sports, competing internationally a few years back. And, although not directly involved, I've been following track and field since my very early years, starting with the Tokyo Olympics (now, some of you may even now what year that was). I have friends who were olympic track athletes and they know a thing or two about banned substances. If anyone of you believe that Carl Lewis or Flo-Jo were clean, then, that is good for you (my kids believe in Santa Claus and I don't attempt to change that). The truth however is that in order to compete at the Olympic medal level, the athletes in many sports have no choice but take performance enhancing drugs. The cheaters, supported by their doctors and medical labs, are always a step ahead of anti-doping testing. The reason the East German athletes dominated many sport disciplines was because their drug using was government sponsored, whereas, someone like Ben Johnson relied on his coach and a Jamaican-based doctor. That he was caught only twice just shows how ineffective the system was. I followed closely the public inquiry proceedings following the Ben Johnson fiasco in 1988. The evidence presented there was overwhelming. The defending side did not try to prove that Ben Johnson was innocent. Rather, it showed that drug use in sports was more widespread than commonly believed. That only confirmed what I had known since the 70's. Well, I should stop here. This post is getting too long...

why if Flo Jo used drugs did the autopsy report (the "ultimate drug test") showed there was no evidence of steroid use???

Volcana
Apr 17th, 2003, 06:05 PM
lol @maccardel. Yeah let's rub them all out! ;)

Volcana, I have never heard of pseudoephedrine being used as a steroid masking agent. Are you seriously claiming Mary Joe was using it in that way, as opposed to taking some Sudafeds for a cold. PPOSTFU, coz that is a very serious allegation.

Exactly the opposite. My point was that just becasue you have a banned substance in your system doesn't mean your performance has been enhanced, or that you were trying to enhance it. That is, you can test positive, and still NOT be a cheat. That doesn't mean the rule is unfair. It's still on the athlete to know what's in the medications they take. But my post was in response to the comment,

If you have a banned substance in your system you are not innocent.

Having a banned substance in your sytem does NOT make you guilty of taking performance enhancing drugs.

Lelu
Apr 17th, 2003, 06:08 PM
why if Flo Jo used drugs did the autopsy report (the "ultimate drug test" ) showed there was no evidence of steroid use???

First of all, Flo-Jo's untimely death occurred years after she retired from competing, so, the effects of steroid use were not as evident. Secondly, the sole objective of the autopsy was to determine the direct cause of death, which could but didn't have to be related to the drug use. On other words, it was explicitly stated that the autopsy did not attempt to determine whether Flo-Jo had ever taken steroids.

This is an excerpt from an investigative report on the subject:
The Orange County Coroner's Office could not determine whether Joyner had ever used steroids or other drugs, says Chief Deputy Coroner Berndt, although tissue and organ tests revealed none of the changes associated with recent steroid use. "She had no microscopic changes in organs or pathological information to prove" recent use of steroids, Berndt said. Whether she used steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs during her track career, "We couldn't say," Berndt told Salon.

Dr. Mauro Di Pasquale, author of numerous books on anabolic steroids and athletic performance, said certain changes in Joyner's heart could indicate the use of steroids or other banned substances. The autopsy report showed that Joyner suffered from "mild cardiac hypertrophy" and "occasional interstitial fibrosis" of the heart muscle, which "could be from the use of one or more of testosterone, anabolic steroids" or growth hormones, Di Pasquale told Salon. "Although both can be caused by other factors, these findings help strengthen the sense that Flo-Jo used these compounds when she was competing and more recently." But without access to toxicology reports and other documents, no firm conclusion can be drawn, he added.

The results of toxicology and certain other tests were not included in the documents released to Salon. A letter from Berndt indicated that some records were exempt from release, including "law enforcement investigatory records" and "all records prepared solely for presentation to the Orange County Grand Jury, which are exempt from public disclosure."

JonBcn
Apr 17th, 2003, 06:31 PM
I agree with what Vocana was saying; its a minefield, and the presence of a banned substance means very little unless you find out the reasons for it. If you're curious, take a look at the list of banned substances below, and the reasons for their prohibition (and this is not even the complete list!):

(source: ITF Anti-doping programme - http://www.itftennis.com/html/rule/frameset.html)

Class I:
Anabolic Agents and Related Substances (as defined in Section (D) 1 of the Programme).
Diuretics and Related Substances (as defined in Section (D) 1 of the
Programme).
Peptide Hormones, Mimetics and Analogues.
Agents with anti-oestrogenic activity
Masking Agents
Prohibited Methods
Enhancement of oxygen transfer
Pharmacological, Chemical and Physical Manipulation of urine
Gene Doping.

Class II:
Stimulants and Related Substances (as defined in Section (D) 1 of the
Programme).
Narcotics and Related Substances (as defined in Section (D) 1 of the
Programme).

Class III:
The following compounds are subject to certain restrictions:

Caffeine
Glucocorticosteroids
Local Anaesthetics (injectable)


CLASS I SUBSTANCES
ANABOLIC AGENTS
Androstenediol
Androstenedione
Bambuterol
Bolandiol
Bolasterone
Boldenone
Calusterone
*Clenbuterol
Clostebol (Chlorotestosterone)
Danazol
Dehydrochloromethyltestosterone
Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA)
Dihydrotestosterone
Drostanolone (Dromostanolone)
Ethylestrenol
Fenoterol
Fluoxymesterone
Formebolone
Formoterol
Furazabol
Gestrinone
Mestanolone
Mesterolone
Metandienone (Methandrostenolone)
Metenolone (Methenolone)
Methandriol
Methyltestosterone
Mibolerone
Nandrolone
19-Norandrostenediol
19-Norandrostenedione
Norbolethone
Norethandrolone
Oxandrolone
Oxymesterone
Oxymetholone
Quinbolone
Reproterol
**Salbutamol
****Salmeterol
Stanozolol
Stenbolone
Sternabol
***Testosterone/Epitestosterone ratio
****Terbutaline
Trenbolone
and related substances

DIURETICS
Acetazolamide
Altizide (Althiazide)
Amanozine
Ambuside
Amiloride
Aminometradine
Azosemide
Bemetizide
Bendrofluazide(Bendroflumethiazide)
Benzthiazide
Benzlyhydrochlorothiazide
Bumetanide
Butizide (Buthiazide)
Canrenone
Chloazanil
Chloraminophenamide
Chlorothiazide
Chlorthalidone
Clofenamide
Clopamide
Clorexolone
Cyclopenthiazide
Cyclothiazide
Diclorphenamide
Disulfamide
Epitizide (Epithiazide)
Ethacrynic Acid
Ethiazide
Ethoxzolamide
Etozoline
Fenquizone
Flumethiazide
Furosemide
Hydrochlorothiazide
Hydroflumethiazide
Indapamide
*Mannitol
Mebutizide
Mefruside
Methazolamide
Methyclothiazide
Meticrane
Metolazone
Mersalyl
Paraflutizide
Penflutizide
Piretanide
PolythiazideQuinethazone
Spironolactone
Teclothiazide
Triamterene
Trichlormethiazide
Trometamol(Tromethamine)
Xipamide
and Related Substances

STIMULANTS
Amfeclorol (Amphecloral)
Amfepramone (Diethylpropion)
Amfetaminil
Aminorex
Amiphenazole
Amfetamine (Amphetamine)
*Bambuterol
Bemegride
Benflurex
Benzfatamine (Benzphetamine)
Bromantan
Carphedon
**Cathine
Chlorphentermine
Clobenzorex
Cloforex
Cocaine
Cropropamide
Crothetamide
Dimetamfetamine
**Ephedrine
Etamivan (Ethamivan)
Etilamfetamine (Ethylamphetamine)
Etilefrine
Fenbutrazine
Fencamfamin
Fenetylline
Fenfluramine
*Fenoterol
Fenozolone
Fenproporex
*Formoterol
Furfenorex
Heptaminol
Mazindol
Meclofenoxate
Mefenorex
Mephentermine
Mesocarb
Metamfetamine (Methamphetamine)
l-Methamphetamine (Desoxyephedrine)
Methoxyphenamine
Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA)
**Methylephedrine
Methyphenidate
Modafinil
Morazone
Nikethamide
Norfenfluramine
Parahydroxyamphetamine
Pemoline
Pentetrazol (Pentylenetretrazol)
Pentroex
Phendimetrazine
Phenmetrazine
Phentermine
**Phenylpropanolamine
Pholedrine
Pipradol
Prolintane
**Pseudoephedrine
Propylhexidrine
Pyrovalerone
*Reproterol
*Salbutamol
*Salmeterol
Strychnine
*Terbutaline

NARCOTICS
Alfentanil
Allyprodine
Alphamethylthiofentanyl
Alphaprodine
Anileridine
Benzylmorphine
Bezitramide
Betaprodine
Bezitramide
Buprenorphine
Butorphanol
Clonitazene
Desomorphine
Dextromoramide
Diamorphine(heroin)
Diampromide
Diethylthiambutene
Dihydromorphine
Dimenoxadol
Dimethylthiambutene
Dipipanone
Ethoheptazine
Ethylmethylthiambutene
Etorphine
Fentanyl
Hydrocodone
Hydromorphone
Hydroxypethidine
Isomethadone
Ketabemidone
Levomethorphane
Levomoramide
Levophenacylmorphine
Levorphanol
Metazocine
Merperidine
Methadone
Metopon
Morpheridine
Morphine
Myrophine
Nalbuphine
Nicomorphine
Norlevorphanol
Normethadone
Normorphine
Norpipanone
Opium
Oxycodone
Oxymorphone
Pentazocine
Pethidine
Phenadoxone
Phenampromide
Phenazocine
Phenomorphane
Phenoperidine
Piminodine
Proheptazine
Properidine
Propiram
Sufentanil
Thebaine
Tilidine
Trimeperidine
and Related Substances

Note: Codeine, Dextromethorphan, Dextropropoxyphene, Dihydrocodeine,
Diphenoxylate, Ethylmorphine, Pholcodeine and Propoxyphene and Tramadol are permitted.

CLASS III SUBSTANCES
Caffeine: Levels greater than 12 mcg/mL.



Are you sure you wouldnt test positive today?

WhatTheDeuce
Apr 17th, 2003, 06:38 PM
mary joe is a great person. she wouldnt do that. and i beleive it had everything to do with her cold medicine...

Maajken
Apr 17th, 2003, 07:26 PM
i think its a little naive to assume someone didnt take forbidden substances just cause theyre "a great person". personally i believe every competitive sportsperson who performs at the highest level takes some sort of substances, whether its to increase their performances or to speed up recuperation.
the itf's anti-dopinglist means next to nothing considering the most effective drugs used these days cant even be traced yet :rolleyes:

spokenword73
Apr 17th, 2003, 07:38 PM
First of all, Flo-Jo's untimely death occurred years after she retired from competing, so, the effects of steroid use were not as evident. Secondly, the sole objective of the autopsy was to determine the direct cause of death, which could but didn't have to be related to the drug use. On other words, it was explicitly stated that the autopsy did not attempt to determine whether Flo-Jo had ever taken steroids.

This is an excerpt from an investigative report on the subject:
The Orange County Coroner's Office could not determine whether Joyner had ever used steroids or other drugs, says Chief Deputy Coroner Berndt, although tissue and organ tests revealed none of the changes associated with recent steroid use. "She had no microscopic changes in organs or pathological information to prove" recent use of steroids, Berndt said. Whether she used steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs during her track career, "We couldn't say," Berndt told Salon.

Dr. Mauro Di Pasquale, author of numerous books on anabolic steroids and athletic performance, said certain changes in Joyner's heart could indicate the use of steroids or other banned substances. The autopsy report showed that Joyner suffered from "mild cardiac hypertrophy" and "occasional interstitial fibrosis" of the heart muscle, which "could be from the use of one or more of testosterone, anabolic steroids" or growth hormones, Di Pasquale told Salon. "Although both can be caused by other factors, these findings help strengthen the sense that Flo-Jo used these compounds when she was competing and more recently." But without access to toxicology reports and other documents, no firm conclusion can be drawn, he added.

The results of toxicology and certain other tests were not included in the documents released to Salon. A letter from Berndt indicated that some records were exempt from release, including "law enforcement investigatory records" and "all records prepared solely for presentation to the Orange County Grand Jury, which are exempt from public disclosure."

and?? It clearly states that the Coronor could not establish if there was steroid use or not, indicating there was no proof from his scientific examination...people who say she used steroids however, are adament
that she used banned substances while she competed. What proof do they have??

NJjeff
Apr 17th, 2003, 07:50 PM
The difference between Mary Joe and Raducan, is that passed her tests at the Olympics. The cold medicine was found in her body in March of 1992, well before the Olympics.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030416/ap_on_sp_ol/oly_usoc_doping_3

Fernandez tested positive for pseudoephedrine at a professional tournament in Miami early in 1992, but she said it was due to a cold medicine she took beforehand. She said she passed two drug tests during the Olympics and another after winning gold and bronze medals.

"I'm obviously disappointed that a story like that would come out without any truth to it," Fernandez said. "I think the doctor is bitter and is lashing out now because he didn't win his case. I've always tried to live an upright and morale life and for something to come out that's not true is disappointing. People just look at the headline and look at the picture and they'll be like, 'Oh, she's associated with this,' and I didn't do anything wrong. It's very unfair."

The difference between Mary Joe and Raducan, is that passed her tests at the Olympics. The cold medicine was found in her body in March of 1992, well before the Olympics.

minboy
Apr 17th, 2003, 08:00 PM
mary joe is a great person. she wouldnt do that. ...

lol. funniest post i've read in months!!!!

come on people!! How many of you are really surprised by this!!! THis is PROFESSIONAL sportsmen we're talkin' about!! AS soon as there's money involved, there are "cheaters" . I' m pretty sure that most top tennis-players are actually using performance enhancing drugs. What about Agassi, he's 33 and runs faster than ever! WHat about GUillermo Canas, it seems like this guy could play for 24 hours non-stop.

welcome to the real world

Lelu
Apr 17th, 2003, 08:03 PM
The evidence is circumstancial but convincing, nevertheless. How can someone toward the twilight of her career transform herself from just an average sprinter (as indicated by the results from the LA Olympics) to a powerhouse shattering world records four years later without any "help"? What about changes in her physique? Why would she stop competing whilst being on top of the world, giving up a huge potential in lucrative earnings from the Grand Prix circuit?

It is so refreshing knowing that there are adults out there still believing in Santa Claus.....

ico4498
Apr 17th, 2003, 08:11 PM
Pseudoephedrine is similar to the hormone epinephrine (adrenaline). It's popular among drug cheaters for its ability to prolong intense practices.

No King Lindsay, it does not build bulk, improved stamina is the expected end result.

Some poster earlier pulled rank by "revealing" legal expertise. Unfortunately, that post was filled with more misinformation than others that just displayed naiveté. For the record ... The ITF does allow tennis players to use pharmaceuticals from the banned list IF there's a medically sound/proven reason. The idea isn't to deny athletes the care of their physicians. It's to keep the playing field level, in the unlikely event a clean competitor materializes.

I'll never underestimate the ability of fans to construct unbelievable scenarios to explain their fav's shortcomings. But I've gotta ask why this cough medicine excuse hasn't met, after all this time, harsher scrutiny?

spokenword73
Apr 17th, 2003, 08:14 PM
The evidence is circumstancial but convincing, nevertheless. How can someone toward the twilight of her career transform herself from just an average sprinter (as indicated by the results from the LA Olympics) to a powerhouse shattering world records four years later without any "help"? What about changes in her physique? Why would she stop competing whilst being on top of the world, giving up a huge potential in lucrative earnings from the Grand Prix circuit?

It is so refreshing knowing that there are adults out there still believing in Santa Claus.....

the "evidence" is unconvincing, in fact the so-called "evidence" is really just a product of gossip, rumors, and jealousy
obviously you choose to believe that Flojo, the greatest female sprinter to live cheated to attain her success, but that's only your belief and that doesn't make it fact. Her records stand in the record books (until someone breaks them)without astericks-like "yes she won, but she cheated to do it!" Ha!

ico4498
Apr 17th, 2003, 08:51 PM
the "evidence" is unconvincing, in fact the so-called "evidence" is really just a product of gossip, rumors, and jealousy
obviously you choose to believe that Flojo, the greatest female sprinter to live cheated to attain her success, but that's only your belief and that doesn't make it fact. Her records stand in the record books (until someone breaks them)without astericks-like "yes she won, but she cheated to do it!" Ha!

It's not really whether Flojo cheated. I doubt that there was a clean athlete in that final. It's the triumph of a superior drug regimen.

Feel free to ignore the spikes in her performance. Feel free to dismiss the sudden and unheralded improvements in performance, at an age where marginal speed boosts bend credulity. Nah, the question isn't whether she cheated ... but how.

Helen Lawson
Apr 17th, 2003, 08:53 PM
These athletes have nothing on me, Neely O'Hara, Jennifer North, and Anne Welles. I take the yellow ones, Neely takes the red ones, Jennifer took the blue ones before overdosing, and Anne took the green ones. Give us a few drugs tests (especially Neely), the results would blow the testers' minds!

WhatTheDeuce
Apr 17th, 2003, 09:26 PM
i really dont see mary joe fernandez taking that...i mean, i do admit that my post was kinda dumb...but i just dont see her doing it...and many medicines have banned ingredients in them...so i wouldnt be at all surprised if that were the real reason she tested positive...

Lelu
Apr 17th, 2003, 09:44 PM
As clearly seen in my previous posts, I totally agree with ico: it's not a question whether Flo-Jo was on the juice, it is who wasn't? In fact, a likely scenario was that througout most of her career, Flo-Jo competed clean and when she finally realized sho couldn't compete with the elite, she started doing what everyone else was doing: "helping" herself with doses of steroids, growth hormones and other concoction of enhancing and masking agents. Still, this does not take away from her achievements, because she competed on a level playing field with the others. What really gets me is people like Carl Lewis who hypocritically goes on a crusade against drugs in sports, while it turns out he got caught himself. He felt confident though as, evidently, he had a backing of his own governing organization. Only in America......

G-Ha
Apr 17th, 2003, 10:30 PM
Pseudoephedrine is similar to the hormone epinephrine (adrenaline). It's popular among drug cheaters for its ability to prolong intense practices.

No King Lindsay, it does not build bulk, improved stamina is the expected end result.


Pseudoephedrine does have similar properties and side effects as the hormone epinephrine, but I'm curious as to your source for it being popular among athletes or that it provides improved stamina. Pseudoephedrine and the closely related ephedrine are alkaloid derivatives of ephedra. Both alkaloids are used as bronchidilators and nasal decongestants. However, unlike its more powerful cousin ephedrine, pseudoephedrine is actually only a mild stimulant. Its limited effect on the central nervous system explains why pseudoephedrine (and not ephedrine) is found in common cold remedies.

http://www.fda.gov/OHRMS/DOCKETS/98fr/95n-0304-bkg0003-ref-07-01-index.htm

King Lindsay
Apr 18th, 2003, 12:52 AM
Pseudoephedrine is similar to the hormone epinephrine (adrenaline). It's popular among drug cheaters for its ability to prolong intense practices.

No King Lindsay, it does not build bulk, improved stamina is the expected end result.

Some poster earlier pulled rank by "revealing" legal expertise. Unfortunately, that post was filled with more misinformation than others that just displayed naiveté. For the record ... The ITF does allow tennis players to use pharmaceuticals from the banned list IF there's a medically sound/proven reason. The idea isn't to deny athletes the care of their physicians. It's to keep the playing field level, in the unlikely event a clean competitor materializes.

I'll never underestimate the ability of fans to construct unbelievable scenarios to explain their fav's shortcomings. But I've gotta ask why this cough medicine excuse hasn't met, after all this time, harsher scrutiny?

And no, Ico, I never said that it did build bulk.

And no, Mary Joe fernandez is not my favorite player, she's not even somebody I feel strongly about either way. But i truly don't believe that she used PEDs and I don't believe that one positive test for Pseudoephedrine shows that.

As for the decision for this positive test not be released to the public, can you all see why? because it was nothing. It was not evidence of cheating, it was nothing. The organization knew by releasing this test they would do irrepairable damage to Mary Joe's reputation and for no reason. How many people, JUST ON THESE BOARDS, do you think have glanced at this thread title, maybe the first post, and branded Mary Joe as a cheater in their minds forever? One hundred? Two hundred? And that's just on these boards. And I think that's a shame.

Of course, that doesn't change the fact that they are obligated to release those results, but you have to understand that there is a very valid reason why they would not want to do that. Why would you want to destroy somebody's life because she took a cold medication?

Shane54
Apr 18th, 2003, 01:33 AM
MJF probably took the same thing that Andrea Raducan took, an over the counter cold medication. I think it is a disgrace what happened to Raducan, the TRUE all around champ. In no, way did it affect her performance

~ The Leopard ~
Apr 18th, 2003, 01:33 AM
Sorry for the misunderstanding, Volcana. :)

~ The Leopard ~
Apr 18th, 2003, 01:50 AM
Ico, I'm not sure what you're accusing me of. I repeatedly said that I'm not expert in this area of law. I may well not be reading specific provisions correctly, as I said in an earlier post.

What I do say with confidence - and the whole debate on the thread is bearing me out - is that the rules are complex, the use of pseudoephedrine is not treated anything like the abuse of anabolic steroids (or considered as serious), that the rules allow some flexibility where the issue is pseudoephedrine, and that posters who simply say that Mary Joe is a drug cheat or that Carl Lewis should give his medals back based on these pseudoephedrine readings that have now been made public are being hopelessly naive. It is worth pointing out to them that it is a complex area, not one that is best dealt with by journalistic platitudes.

spokenword73
Apr 18th, 2003, 02:59 AM
It's not really whether Flojo cheated. I doubt that there was a clean athlete in that final. It's the triumph of a superior drug regimen.

Feel free to ignore the spikes in her performance. Feel free to dismiss the sudden and unheralded improvements in performance, at an age where marginal speed boosts bend credulity. Nah, the question isn't whether she cheated ... but how.

whatever...so are you saying any athlete who shows "unheraled" improvements in performance is using banned substances??? Cynical and inaccuate. Case in point: about Barry Bonds, the homerun king :) Maybe someone with more knowledge about baseball than I can elaborate on how Bonds improved his power and is now hitting 50+ homeruns a year!! I would call that "unheraled"

King Lindsay
Apr 18th, 2003, 03:15 AM
There's a lot of speculation that Bonds is a doper. He might be, he might not be.

Add in the fact that the ball's so much more livelier in today's game than it was even at the beginning of Barry's career.

Add in the fact that the stadiums continue to shrink.

Add in the fact that the league has expanded, meaning pitching has become watered-down even further.

Bingo, 73 homers.

Lelu
Apr 18th, 2003, 11:19 PM
whatever...so are you saying any athlete who shows "unheraled" improvements in performance is using banned substances??? Cynical and inaccuate. Case in point: about Barry Bonds, the homerun king Maybe someone with more knowledge about baseball than I can elaborate on how Bonds improved his power and is now hitting 50+ homeruns a year!! I would call that "unheraled"

How can you even compare the two sports? In sprint running, incredible world records, like the ones posted by Flo-Jo, are not shattered suddenly. Progress of a sprinter is measured by years and hundreths of a second. When you look at the history of world records in sprints, the curves show a very steady and almost flat incline without significant spikes until Flo-Jo decided to sign a pact with the devil. She burst to stardom from relative obscurity basically overnight and just as fast disappeared. Incidentally, she retired four months after random drug testing was approved and implemented worlwide. A coincidence? Perhaps. However, ask any world-class track and field athlete and she/he will tell you that it is a common belief in that community that Flo-Jo got caught. These new revalations only add credibility to this old speculation ... and to the resentment toward some of the American star athletes.
However, clean or dirty, Flo-Jo was still the fastest woman in the world. Carl Lewis cannot say that about himself no matter how hard he tries.

spokenword73
Apr 19th, 2003, 01:31 AM
How can you even compare the two sports? In sprint running, incredible world records, like the ones posted by Flo-Jo, are not shattered suddenly. Progress of a sprinter is measured by years and hundreths of a second. When you look at the history of world records in sprints, the curves show a very steady and almost flat incline without significant spikes until Flo-Jo decided to sign a pact with the devil. She burst to stardom from relative obscurity basically overnight and just as fast disappeared. Incidentally, she retired four months after random drug testing was approved and implemented worlwide. A coincidence? Perhaps. However, ask any world-class track and field athlete and she/he will tell you that it is a common belief in that community that Flo-Jo got caught. These new revalations only add credibility to this old speculation ... and to the resentment toward some of the American star athletes.
However, clean or dirty, Flo-Jo was still the fastest woman in the world. Carl Lewis cannot say that about himself no matter how hard he tries.

every sport experiences a so-called "flat" period until an outstanding athlete takes it to the next level the way Flojo did...throughout her lifetime Flojo was accused of using banned substances and she always emphatically denied it and to my knowledge she never tested positive ...the "Today" show even went so far as to have her alleged drug dealer on TV confronting Florence, but he was just a burned-out loser :mad: On the contrary, Flojo didn't "burst" on to stardom...we here in L.A. knew about her from her days at UCLA and didn't she win a silver medal during the 1984 Olympics?? People started to notice her because of her flashy outfits and daring style...

It seems soooo unsavory and mean-spirited to accuse a deceased person of "making a deal with the devil" WITHOUT ANY PROOF and when they are no longer here to defend themselves :o

Shane54
Apr 19th, 2003, 03:44 AM
We can only speculate and we will never know about Flo Jo. But what strikes me, is that out of no where she starts blowing people off the track at the 1988 Trials in times that not even Marion Jones has been able to come near (10.49, 10.62). I think Flo Jo was pretty much a mediocre performer( a bronze here and there) then voila we get her performances that are out of this world in 88.

empiremaker03
Apr 19th, 2003, 03:52 AM
wow what a list...and who really knows what is in what?...i tested positive once for morphine resulting from eating too many poppy seed muffins...so many tests can show things that a second test won't reveal b/c of many statistical anomalties...on the other hand diuretics can mask many banned substances also