A Clean Apology: That's Dope!?!

A comfortable place for anyone and everyone to talk about running

User avatar
jonovision_man
Bill Crothers
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 5:42 pm
Location: Whitby, ON

Re: A Clean Apology: That's Dope!?!

Postby jonovision_man » Tue Oct 04, 2016 4:40 pm

ian wrote:
jonovision_man wrote:15 months vs 18 months... I guess those 3 months are important though since a lot of tennis is played in them.

Also whether she was "transparent" or not depends on whether you believe her IMO ridiculous story that she wasn't taking the drug for performance enhancement. Clearly she was - although she may have intended to remain compliant and missed the deadline for it.

jono

15 vs. 24, i.e. a 9 month reduction. In particular, those 9 months include almost every important tournament in the year (French Open, Wimbledon, US Open, WTA championships).

Of course the drug was for performance enhancement. By definition, any prescribed medication is performance enhancing in some way and it's just a (usually hypothetical) question of whether the performance is enhanced beyond the level it would have reached without both the condition and the medication.


Sorry yeah 2 years, 24 months.

Most prescribed medication is to get you back to health, not to enhance your performance beyond what you'd normally/naturally be capable of - you're just playing semantic games. There really wasn't a legitimate therapeutic use for this that she'd have needed to get back to "normal", and it was widely abused by Russian athletes especially to enhance performance. She was trying to gain an edge by using prescription medication she didn't actually need and if she wasn't a tennis player she wouldn't have been taking - it's cheating in my books.

jono
Visit my blog!

"If you want to be functional at 80, you better damn well pay attention at 40" -- Lew Hollander

User avatar
ian
Jerome Drayton
Posts: 5973
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 4:44 pm

Re: A Clean Apology: That's Dope!?!

Postby ian » Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:16 pm

jonovision_man wrote:Most prescribed medication is to get you back to health, not to enhance your performance beyond what you'd normally/naturally be capable of - you're just playing semantic games. There really wasn't a legitimate therapeutic use for this that she'd have needed to get back to "normal", and it was widely abused by Russian athletes especially to enhance performance. She was trying to gain an edge by using prescription medication she didn't actually need and if she wasn't a tennis player she wouldn't have been taking - it's cheating in my books.

I don't disagree with most of this. I think it just comes down to two different perspectives on the clarity of rules vs. punishments. In your case, you seem to see the rules as being gray-shaded (i.e., an athlete can be following the letter of the law but still be cheating if you don't agree with their motives) but the punishments as being black and white. I seem to be the other way: the rules define what's allowed and what's disallowed but the punishments for breaking them might need some subjectivity. Both ways are evidently defensible (insofar that we're both sane) and it's an open question as to which strategy would be a more effective deterrent against other athletes cheating in the future.

User avatar
jonovision_man
Bill Crothers
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 5:42 pm
Location: Whitby, ON

Re: A Clean Apology: That's Dope!?!

Postby jonovision_man » Thu Oct 06, 2016 8:28 am

ian wrote:
jonovision_man wrote:Most prescribed medication is to get you back to health, not to enhance your performance beyond what you'd normally/naturally be capable of - you're just playing semantic games. There really wasn't a legitimate therapeutic use for this that she'd have needed to get back to "normal", and it was widely abused by Russian athletes especially to enhance performance. She was trying to gain an edge by using prescription medication she didn't actually need and if she wasn't a tennis player she wouldn't have been taking - it's cheating in my books.


I don't disagree with most of this. I think it just comes down to two different perspectives on the clarity of rules vs. punishments. In your case, you seem to see the rules as being gray-shaded (i.e., an athlete can be following the letter of the law but still be cheating if you don't agree with their motives) but the punishments as being black and white. I seem to be the other way: the rules define what's allowed and what's disallowed but the punishments for breaking them might need some subjectivity. Both ways are evidently defensible (insofar that we're both sane) and it's an open question as to which strategy would be a more effective deterrent against other athletes cheating in the future.


Just to be clear... I think what she was doing before it was banned was cheating, but not punishable as she wasn't breaking the rules. Reminds me a lot of this:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-26/w ... ks/7876350

Cross-country skiing - I remember reading that something like 50% of them claim they have asthma, presumably most of them falsely so they can gain access to performance enhancing drugs "legally".

Ultimately even this grey-area compels good athletes to have to play along and get into the grey area, potentially compromising their health to not fall behind the performance enhancers. Best to crisp up the rules to prevent this kind of misuse, like they did when they banned meldonium...

jono
Visit my blog!

"If you want to be functional at 80, you better damn well pay attention at 40" -- Lew Hollander

User avatar
ian
Jerome Drayton
Posts: 5973
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 4:44 pm

Re: A Clean Apology: That's Dope!?!

Postby ian » Thu Oct 06, 2016 11:01 am

jonovision_man wrote:Ultimately even this grey-area compels good athletes to have to play along and get into the grey area, potentially compromising their health to not fall behind the performance enhancers. Best to crisp up the rules to prevent this kind of misuse, like they did when they banned meldonium...

Given the vast amounts of money and fame available to successful athletes in certain sports, perhaps it is worth questioning why exemptions exist at all — no matter what the rules are, there will always be substantial gray areas. Is it a human rights violation to bar an asthmatic from certain occupations for which efficient breathing is essential? As a color-blind guy with 20/300 vision, I'm pretty sure that I would never be allowed to be a fighter pilot.

User avatar
jonovision_man
Bill Crothers
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 5:42 pm
Location: Whitby, ON

Re: A Clean Apology: That's Dope!?!

Postby jonovision_man » Thu Oct 06, 2016 12:03 pm

ian wrote:
jonovision_man wrote:Ultimately even this grey-area compels good athletes to have to play along and get into the grey area, potentially compromising their health to not fall behind the performance enhancers. Best to crisp up the rules to prevent this kind of misuse, like they did when they banned meldonium...

Given the vast amounts of money and fame available to successful athletes in certain sports, perhaps it is worth questioning why exemptions exist at all — no matter what the rules are, there will always be substantial gray areas. Is it a human rights violation to bar an asthmatic from certain occupations for which efficient breathing is essential? As a color-blind guy with 20/300 vision, I'm pretty sure that I would never be allowed to be a fighter pilot.


It's a good question. Harkens back to when "blade runner" wanted to run in the Olympics, to what extent is the treatment bringing you to the level playing field vs giving you an advantage over it?

Although I find it unlikely that 50% of x-country skiiers are actually asthmatic... so maybe it's more a question of objective diagnosis for most of the cases.

jono
Visit my blog!

"If you want to be functional at 80, you better damn well pay attention at 40" -- Lew Hollander

User avatar
ian
Jerome Drayton
Posts: 5973
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 4:44 pm

Re: A Clean Apology: That's Dope!?!

Postby ian » Thu Oct 06, 2016 12:24 pm

jonovision_man wrote:Although I find it unlikely that 50% of x-country skiiers are actually asthmatic... so maybe it's more a question of objective diagnosis for most of the cases.

"Exercise-induced asthma" arises in many otherwise healthy individuals when breathing in cold or dry air at high rates. On the occasions that I have tried to do intense speedwork in winter or indoors, I have often found myself coughing for much of the next day. As a result, I'm surprised that it's only 50% in XC skiing, and rather than fretting over the fine details of what constitutes a valid diagnosis, it seems that this particular sport could benefit from a uniform approach (i.e., allow a couple of "safe" medications without exemptions or remove the exemptions entirely).

tayken
Tom Longboat
Posts: 207
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2016 7:16 pm
Location: 401 corridor, ON

Re: A Clean Apology: That's Dope!?!

Postby tayken » Thu Oct 06, 2016 2:13 pm

In a separate news ...Cocaine found in a test carried out on Canadian Olympian who took part in Rio
On the books for 2017

Winterman 10km - (1st in age group) - Feb 19,
Chilly Half Marathon - Mar 5 (Done)
Around the bay 30k - Mar 26, (Done)
Limestone 1/2 - Apr 30,
Ottawa race weekend Voyager Challenge - May 27-28,
Spring Fling Toronto - June?
World Record Kilt Run Perth - June 24
Foam Fest 5k Ottawa - Jul 22
Pure Protein Night Race - Aug 12
Army Run Vimy Challenge - Sep 17
Marathon Du P'tit Train Du Nord Quebec - Oct 22

User avatar
ian
Jerome Drayton
Posts: 5973
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 4:44 pm

Re: A Clean Apology: That's Dope!?!

Postby ian » Thu Oct 06, 2016 2:39 pm

tayken wrote:In a separate news ...Cocaine found in a test carried out on Canadian Olympian who took part in Rio

Whoa... this one's going to be way more controversial (to us, at least) than the Sharapova story:
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/summer/trackandfield/shawn-barber-cocaine-1.3793974

User avatar
Jwolf
Kevin Sullivan
Posts: 37476
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:02 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: A Clean Apology: That's Dope!?!

Postby Jwolf » Thu Oct 06, 2016 2:58 pm

ian wrote:
tayken wrote:In a separate news ...Cocaine found in a test carried out on Canadian Olympian who took part in Rio

Whoa... this one's going to be way more controversial (to us, at least) than the Sharapova story:
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/summer/trackandfield/shawn-barber-cocaine-1.3793974


He claims it was accidental ingestion, which seems hard believe (second-hand cocaine?).
Either way he seems to have leaned bad judgment from his father. I'm glad he didn't win a medal in Rio.
Support me in my fundraising for the Boston Marathon, Boston Public Library team:
https://www.crowdrise.com/o/en/campaign ... iferwolf11

User avatar
jonovision_man
Bill Crothers
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 5:42 pm
Location: Whitby, ON

Re: A Clean Apology: That's Dope!?!

Postby jonovision_man » Fri Oct 07, 2016 8:58 am

ian wrote:
jonovision_man wrote:Although I find it unlikely that 50% of x-country skiiers are actually asthmatic... so maybe it's more a question of objective diagnosis for most of the cases.

"Exercise-induced asthma" arises in many otherwise healthy individuals when breathing in cold or dry air at high rates. On the occasions that I have tried to do intense speedwork in winter or indoors, I have often found myself coughing for much of the next day. As a result, I'm surprised that it's only 50% in XC skiing, and rather than fretting over the fine details of what constitutes a valid diagnosis, it seems that this particular sport could benefit from a uniform approach (i.e., allow a couple of "safe" medications without exemptions or remove the exemptions entirely).


Sounds fair.

jono
Visit my blog!

"If you want to be functional at 80, you better damn well pay attention at 40" -- Lew Hollander

User avatar
jonovision_man
Bill Crothers
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 5:42 pm
Location: Whitby, ON

Re: A Clean Apology: That's Dope!?!

Postby jonovision_man » Fri Oct 07, 2016 9:00 am

Jwolf wrote:
ian wrote:
tayken wrote:In a separate news ...Cocaine found in a test carried out on Canadian Olympian who took part in Rio

Whoa... this one's going to be way more controversial (to us, at least) than the Sharapova story:
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/summer/trackandfield/shawn-barber-cocaine-1.3793974


He claims it was accidental ingestion, which seems hard believe (second-hand cocaine?).
Either way he seems to have leaned bad judgment from his father. I'm glad he didn't win a medal in Rio.


Does cocaine help someone jump higher?

jono
Visit my blog!

"If you want to be functional at 80, you better damn well pay attention at 40" -- Lew Hollander

User avatar
ian
Jerome Drayton
Posts: 5973
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 4:44 pm

Re: A Clean Apology: That's Dope!?!

Postby ian » Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:01 am

jonovision_man wrote:Does cocaine help someone jump higher?

There's like thousands of giant spiders on the ground, man...

The high jump WR holder had a cocaine incident and there's an American jumper currently under suspension for this, so there might be something to it.

User avatar
turd ferguson
Ben Johnson
Posts: 28512
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:11 am
Location: It's a funny name
Contact:

Re: A Clean Apology: That's Dope!?!

Postby turd ferguson » Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:20 am

I just don't care about cocaine (or weed) in athletes. IMO the WADA shouldn't be in the business of policing recreational drugs. Just because they're easy to test for and it gets headlines for WADA as they catch "cheaters".
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." - Douglas Adams

User avatar
Jwolf
Kevin Sullivan
Posts: 37476
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:02 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: A Clean Apology: That's Dope!?!

Postby Jwolf » Fri Oct 07, 2016 10:32 pm

Recreational use vs. intentional performance-enhancing use isn't relevant- cocaine is a powerful stimulant and would definitely be performance-enhancing if used that way. Which means the ban is valid and athletes should avoid "accidental" exposure. Which I still don't believe anyway.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/shawn ... t-1.379501
Support me in my fundraising for the Boston Marathon, Boston Public Library team:
https://www.crowdrise.com/o/en/campaign ... iferwolf11

User avatar
turd ferguson
Ben Johnson
Posts: 28512
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:11 am
Location: It's a funny name
Contact:

Re: A Clean Apology: That's Dope!?!

Postby turd ferguson » Sat Oct 08, 2016 2:06 pm

Jwolf wrote:Recreational use vs. intentional performance-enhancing use isn't relevant- cocaine is a powerful stimulant and would definitely be performance-enhancing if used that way. Which means the ban is valid and athletes should avoid "accidental" exposure. Which I still don't believe anyway.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/shawn ... t-1.379501


Its completely relevant if the metabolites stay in your system for any period of time. If an athlete uses cocaine or weed recreationally on a Friday and competes on a Monday, he or she isn't cheating but will likely test positive. I don't see the point, unless we're enforcing morals on our athletes.
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." - Douglas Adams

User avatar
jonovision_man
Bill Crothers
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 5:42 pm
Location: Whitby, ON

Re: A Clean Apology: That's Dope!?!

Postby jonovision_man » Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:07 am

turd ferguson wrote:
Jwolf wrote:Recreational use vs. intentional performance-enhancing use isn't relevant- cocaine is a powerful stimulant and would definitely be performance-enhancing if used that way. Which means the ban is valid and athletes should avoid "accidental" exposure. Which I still don't believe anyway.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/shawn ... t-1.379501


Its completely relevant if the metabolites stay in your system for any period of time. If an athlete uses cocaine or weed recreationally on a Friday and competes on a Monday, he or she isn't cheating but will likely test positive. I don't see the point, unless we're enforcing morals on our athletes.


Remember Ross Rebagliati? :)

Ross Rebagliati is a firm believer that cannabis is a performance enhancer, and that usage can be helpful for some activities such as extreme sports, as it improves muscle relaxation, reduces anxiety, and extincts fear memories (e.g., negative experiences) leading to enhanced performance. It also improves sleep time and recovery, which may favour performance when an athlete is facing multiple competitions in a short period of time


:lol:

I guess you could find performance enhancing qualities in just about anything if you look hard enough.

jono
Visit my blog!

"If you want to be functional at 80, you better damn well pay attention at 40" -- Lew Hollander

User avatar
turd ferguson
Ben Johnson
Posts: 28512
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:11 am
Location: It's a funny name
Contact:

Re: A Clean Apology: That's Dope!?!

Postby turd ferguson » Tue Oct 11, 2016 11:45 am

jonovision_man wrote:
turd ferguson wrote:
Jwolf wrote:Recreational use vs. intentional performance-enhancing use isn't relevant- cocaine is a powerful stimulant and would definitely be performance-enhancing if used that way. Which means the ban is valid and athletes should avoid "accidental" exposure. Which I still don't believe anyway.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/shawn ... t-1.379501


Its completely relevant if the metabolites stay in your system for any period of time. If an athlete uses cocaine or weed recreationally on a Friday and competes on a Monday, he or she isn't cheating but will likely test positive. I don't see the point, unless we're enforcing morals on our athletes.


Remember Ross Rebagliati? :)

Ross Rebagliati is a firm believer that cannabis is a performance enhancer, and that usage can be helpful for some activities such as extreme sports, as it improves muscle relaxation, reduces anxiety, and extincts fear memories (e.g., negative experiences) leading to enhanced performance. It also improves sleep time and recovery, which may favour performance when an athlete is facing multiple competitions in a short period of time


:lol:

I guess you could find performance enhancing qualities in just about anything if you look hard enough.

jono


Can you tell me with a straight face that the nonsense with Michael Phelps or Nick Diaz or Dustin Johnson is about anything other than morals.
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." - Douglas Adams

User avatar
jonovision_man
Bill Crothers
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 5:42 pm
Location: Whitby, ON

Re: A Clean Apology: That's Dope!?!

Postby jonovision_man » Tue Oct 11, 2016 7:38 pm

turd ferguson wrote:
jonovision_man wrote:
turd ferguson wrote:
Jwolf wrote:Recreational use vs. intentional performance-enhancing use isn't relevant- cocaine is a powerful stimulant and would definitely be performance-enhancing if used that way. Which means the ban is valid and athletes should avoid "accidental" exposure. Which I still don't believe anyway.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/shawn ... t-1.379501


Its completely relevant if the metabolites stay in your system for any period of time. If an athlete uses cocaine or weed recreationally on a Friday and competes on a Monday, he or she isn't cheating but will likely test positive. I don't see the point, unless we're enforcing morals on our athletes.


Remember Ross Rebagliati? :)

Ross Rebagliati is a firm believer that cannabis is a performance enhancer, and that usage can be helpful for some activities such as extreme sports, as it improves muscle relaxation, reduces anxiety, and extincts fear memories (e.g., negative experiences) leading to enhanced performance. It also improves sleep time and recovery, which may favour performance when an athlete is facing multiple competitions in a short period of time


:lol:

I guess you could find performance enhancing qualities in just about anything if you look hard enough.

jono


Can you tell me with a straight face that the nonsense with Michael Phelps or Nick Diaz or Dustin Johnson is about anything other than morals.


No, of course it is, and I agree with you they shouldn't be in the morality policing business. They should limit their drug policing to maintaining a level playing field, nothing more.

That's really why I asked if cocaine helps you jump higher - if not, then it shouldn't be a policed substance. It's why I brought up Ross - he smoked up at a party, had nothing to do with his performance at the Olympics, and he was rightfully allowed to keep his medal IMO.

jono
Visit my blog!

"If you want to be functional at 80, you better damn well pay attention at 40" -- Lew Hollander

User avatar
Double Bellybuster
Bill Crothers
Posts: 2867
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 10:34 am
Location: Udora, Ontario
Contact:

Re: A Clean Apology: That's Dope!?!

Postby Double Bellybuster » Thu Dec 08, 2016 2:12 pm

jonovision_man wrote:Does cocaine help someone jump higher?

Cocaine gets you real high from what I've been told.
I am fortunate to have Running Free as a sponsor. I like to keep silly stats and maps of my Daily Neighbourhood Tours, Races and Marathons run in a Silly Yellow Shirt.

User avatar
jonovision_man
Bill Crothers
Posts: 2336
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 5:42 pm
Location: Whitby, ON

Re: A Clean Apology: That's Dope!?!

Postby jonovision_man » Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:01 pm

Double Bellybuster wrote:
jonovision_man wrote:Does cocaine help someone jump higher?

Cocaine gets you real high from what I've been told.


You have cooler friends than I do apparently. ;)

jono
Visit my blog!

"If you want to be functional at 80, you better damn well pay attention at 40" -- Lew Hollander


Return to “General Running Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests