PDA

View Full Version : Finally: Guilty athletes names released


TheBoiledEgg
Dec 31st, 2003, 11:47 AM
US athletes fail tests


White won 100m and 200m gold at the world championships in Paris
Kelli White is one of six American athletes to have tested positive for the stimulant modafinil, the US Olympic Committee has confirmed.
Her first positive test came at June's USA Track and Field Championships.

Hammer thrower John McEwen, sprinter Chryste Gaines and hurdlers Sandra Glover, Chris Phillips and Eric Thomas also tested positive for modafinil.


McEwen also tested positive for designer steroid THG.

Modafinil, which stimulates the nervous system and combats tiredness, is not on the banned list but is related to drugs that are prohibited.

It is likely to be forbidden at next year's Olympic Games.

White faces losing her gold medals from Paris but no decision has yet be taken over whether or not to strip them from her.

Meanwhile, a sample provided by cyclist Adham Sbeih at the US Cycling Federation's Elite Track National Championships contained the illegal endurance-boosting drug EPO.

All seven athletes dispute the findings and will now argue their case to the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA).

jrm
Dec 31st, 2003, 12:22 PM
They will try to cover up other names ... i'm sure there are plenty ore athletes involved in a doping scandal.

Monica_Rules
Dec 31st, 2003, 03:16 PM
Its really annoying that the USA hides all the scandall away and then about 5 years later we find out.Like that 400m runner.

every other country announces the thing straight away.

Vass22
Dec 31st, 2003, 03:32 PM
It is no wonder why USA athletes always win then.

selesfan1
Dec 31st, 2003, 07:37 PM
::eek:: at Chryste Gaines

Lord Chips
Dec 31st, 2003, 07:39 PM
Now just to ban the cheats for life...

Jarrett
Dec 31st, 2003, 07:47 PM
US athletes fail tests


White won 100m and 200m gold at the world championships in Paris
Kelli White is one of six American athletes to have tested positive for the stimulant modafinil, the US Olympic Committee has confirmed.
Her first positive test came at June's USA Track and Field Championships.

Hammer thrower John McEwen, sprinter Chryste Gaines and hurdlers Sandra Glover, Chris Phillips and Eric Thomas also tested positive for modafinil.


McEwen also tested positive for designer steroid THG.

Modafinil, which stimulates the nervous system and combats tiredness, is not on the banned list but is related to drugs that are prohibited.

It is likely to be forbidden at next year's Olympic Games.

White faces losing her gold medals from Paris but no decision has yet be taken over whether or not to strip them from her.

Meanwhile, a sample provided by cyclist Adham Sbeih at the US Cycling Federation's Elite Track National Championships contained the illegal endurance-boosting drug EPO.

All seven athletes dispute the findings and will now argue their case to the US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA).

I don't understand. If it is not banned then why would they be banned themselves.

~ The Leopard ~
Jan 1st, 2004, 12:29 AM
^Exactly. How can you punish someone for taking a *non-prohibited* substance? It doesn't make sense.

If it can be used to mask steroids, or something, then ban it for the future, but if it wasn't banned at the time then I don't see how someone can be punished for using it, or why their name should be besmirched.

OTOH, what about all these other athletes who were suspected of taking THG? So far only one has been named.

I'm more confused than ever.

Cassius
Jan 1st, 2004, 12:42 AM
Modafinil itself isn't on the banned list, but a sustance doesn't have to be on the banned list for it to be banned.
Modafinil is 'related' to other banned sustances, and is their not allowed to be used.

It's silly I know, but if they put EVERY illegal sustance on the banned list, the list would be too long to read.

rated_next
Jan 1st, 2004, 12:59 AM
:bounce: :bounce:

CondiLicious
Jan 1st, 2004, 01:11 AM
Modafinil itself isn't on the banned list, but a sustance doesn't have to be on the banned list for it to be banned.
Modafinil is 'related' to other banned sustances, and is their not allowed to be used.

It's silly I know, but if they put EVERY illegal sustance on the banned list, the list would be too long to read.

But it should be there anyway. It doesn't matter if it would be too long to read. For legal reasons it should be there. It should be codified. The lawyer in me would sue their asses for dragging my name through the mud when I havent taken a listed substance.

However, the athletics fan in me says... That any substance that assists performance is wrong whether it is on a list or not. I'm glad they are named and shamed. Should have happened sooner.

~ The Leopard ~
Jan 1st, 2004, 01:53 AM
It is either banned or it isn't (well, the third possibility is that there is legal doubt about it, and the position needs to be clarified). I assume that there is a list of substances that are specifically named. There will also be substances that are referred to generically, such as "anabolic steroids" or "substances derived from X" or "substances closely related chemically to X".

If the stimulant concerned falls into such a generic category, fair enough. In that case, it is just a li'l misleading for a journalist to describe it as not being on the banned list.

But if it is *already* banned because it falls into a generic category like that, why are people talking about banning it for future Olympic Games? Is the point that it is already banned, but people now want to clarify this by naming it specifically? If that *is* the point, why doesn't the writer say so? :confused:

I'm still confused. The article doesn't seem to add up to me.

~ The Leopard ~
Jan 1st, 2004, 02:07 AM
However, the athletics fan in me says... That any substance that assists performance is wrong whether it is on a list or not. I'm glad they are named and shamed. Should have happened sooner.

Not really. People take all sorts of substances and use all sorts of artificial aids. We don't make athletes perform naked. In particular, they use high-tech running shoes. We don't prevent them from wearing glasses or contact lenses. We let them use all kinds of vitamin supplements, sports drinks with special mixes of electrolytes, etc, etc. Pale-skinned athletes can negate the disadvantage that they would otherwise be under when performing in the sunlight by wearing caps and sunblock.

Steroids (and some other substances) are banned for a very simple reason: they have dangerous side effects. If we let some athletes use substances that are believed to improve performance but also have dangerous side effects, then *all* athletes will come under pressure to use those substances which can harm their health. To protect everyone from that quasi-coercive effect, we ban steroids. Once that regime is in place, anyone who evades it is cheating.

We then ban other substances that can be used to help athletes mask steroid use and thus evade the ban on steroids.

There is no principle in sport that all substances (or devices such as running shoes) that can enhance your performance must be banned. We don't claim that runners and tennis players are cheating unless they at least go barefoot.

starr
Jan 1st, 2004, 03:04 PM
I think there is a distinction there, Leopard. Shoes, clothing, etc. can fall under the broad category of equipment. Athletes are allowed to use equipment to enhance their performance within certain limits set by each sport.

Mariah Scary said that she was against substances that enhanced performance. A fair understanding of substance as it is used today is something that is injested and more commonaly a drug that is injested.

I don't think that drugs are banned only because they are dangerous, but also because it seems basically unfair and unnatural. For example, I think comtemporary baseball has been degraded by the use of drugs. Baseball is an historic kind of sport where records and statistics are take very seriously. Artificial enhancement of performance of current players is actually debasing the achievements of past players.

I think that athletics does not name every single substance because substances can be altered slightly and called different names. Certain categories of substances are prohibited and examples of those drugs are given. Stimulants have long been banned.

THG was not specifically banned either, but anyone who was taking it knew they were doing wrong.

starr
Jan 1st, 2004, 03:05 PM
Anyway, I find it somewhat ironic that the U.S. is now being seen as the nation who has dopped atheletes when for decades the U.S. was complaining about Eastern Bloc countries. :)

DutchieGirl
Jan 1st, 2004, 03:53 PM
Anyway, I find it somewhat ironic that the U.S. is now being seen as the nation who has dopped atheletes when for decades the U.S. was complaining about Eastern Bloc countries. :)

The US has also been complaining about the Dutch swimmers in the past couple of years... more specifically in the lead up to and during the Sydney Olympics! They should keep their mouths shut till they had proof! ;)

~ The Leopard ~
Jan 1st, 2004, 11:17 PM
I think there is a distinction there, Leopard. Shoes, clothing, etc. can fall under the broad category of equipment. Athletes are allowed to use equipment to enhance their performance within certain limits set by each sport.

Mariah Scary said that she was against substances that enhanced performance. A fair understanding of substance as it is used today is something that is injested and more commonaly a drug that is injested.



Exactly right. We are prepared to consider some performance-enhancing things "equipment", even if they are not standardised. However, we are also prepared to allow all sorts of high-tech things to be ingested to try to enhance their bodies (vitamin cocktails, etc), combat fatigue (sports drinks of various kinds) etc, as well as allowing people to drink coffee or coca cola as stimulants (though not to use very high, possibly dangerous, doses of caffeine).

My point is that what is considered to be "equipment", what is considered to be a "drug", etc, etc, are all (to a large extent) socially constructed. It depends on things like tradition in the particular sport, but more especially on whether certain substances are dangerous, or could mask substances that are dangerous. I suppose there may be other considerations, but I honestly can't think what they are right now. I expect that we would never have banned steroids and steroid-masking agents if we'd been convinced that they were safe. Anyway, it's certainly not as simple as whether or not something enhances performance.

You make a fair point, though. Whatever the original and underlying rationale for banning steroids (and masking agents), the culture of sports fans (though perhaps not that of the athletes themselves) has moved along over the past few decades. Many people now forget about the underlying rationale for banning steroids in particular, and believe that anything that would be intuitively recognised by the person in the street as a "drug" should not be used by athletes.

We even make a fuss when athletes use non-performance-enhancing drugs such as marijuana or cocaine, though that fuss is irrational. I think it shows a misunderstanding of the fundamental objections to drugs in sport (i.e. the one I stated, which combines the danger of the substance to health combined with the semi-coercive effect if (1) it is genuinely performance-enhancing and (2) even one person uses it). But that is the way we are going, or at least one element in the picture. The demonisation of "drugs" in the general culture has a lot to do with this, I think.

arn
Jan 1st, 2004, 11:26 PM
When the test are taken, the athletes also have to fill out some fields asking if or not they take ANY kind of drugs at the moment.

If they said no, and it was found out they took something as serious as modafinil, it's only normal they are banned.

~ The Leopard ~
Jan 1st, 2004, 11:34 PM
I'm assuming that modafinil cam be used as a steroid-masking agent, but I don't really know. Does anyone know the answer? If it can be, it certainly should be a banned drug.

Cassius
Jan 3rd, 2004, 12:19 AM
No, Modafinil is used to help against narcolepsy.
It basically stops you falling asleep by giving the user a boost of adrenaline. Obviously, Kelli White taking that the morning of the 100m final and not declaring it beforehand is (at least), dodgy.
When she was asked how long she's has been taking it for she replied "only for a couple of months". That counts as dodgy thing number 2.

So, she's been taking an adrenaline booster for only a couple of months before the World Championships, and then on the day of the 100m final - how can she expect that people will believe her story?
Especialy since another few American athletes have also been found guilty of using Modafinil - is there a narcolepsy epidemic in American sport or something?:rolleyes: