Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
Options
Panarama - Allan Wells - Drugs
The materials in this website are in no way intended to replace the professional medical care, advice, diagnosis or treatment of a doctor, qualified personal trainer, therapist, dietitian or nutritionist Runners's World, Part of the Hearst UK well-being network © Copyright 2017
Comments
this is interesting:
5.
Doping Control Documentation
The DCO
/BCO shall use the Doping Control form specific to the ABP, if such a form is available. If an ABP-specific Doping Control form is unavailable, the DCO/BCO shall use a regular Doping Control form but he/she shall collect and record the following additional information on a related form or supplementary report to be signed by the Athlete and the DCO/BCO:
???
Confirm that there was no training or Competition in two hours prior to the blood test.
??? Did the
Athlete train, compete or reside at an altitude greater than 1,500 meters within the prior two weeks? If so, or if in doubt, the name and location of the place where the Athlete had been and the duration of his/her stay shall be recorded. The estimated altitude shall be entered, if known.
??? Did the
Athlete use any form of altitude simulation such as a hypoxic tent, mask, etc. during the prior two weeks? If so, as much information as possible on the type of device and the manner in which it was used (e.g. frequency, duration, intensity) should be recorded.
??? Did the
Athlete receive any blood transfusion(s) during the prior three months? Was there any blood loss due to accident, pathology or donation in the prior three months? What was the estimated volume?
??? The DCO/BCO should record in the
Doping Control form any extreme environmental conditions the Athlete was exposed to during the last two hours prior to blood collection, including any sessions in any artificial heat environment, such as a sauna.
??? Was the
Sample collected immediately following at least three consecutive days of an intensive endurance Competition, such as a stage race in cycling?
Paula cites some of those scenarios specifically.
I read somewhere (it may well have been the original Sunday Times article) that just 1 of 12 experts following up at the time considered the test results to be suspicious. This is a strong part of Paula's defence alongside her easy to substantiate assertion that she was followed up on prudently, counter to the Sunday Times thrust that IAAF were less than diligent.
Of course as time advances new tests and ways of cheating are discovered so there is a generally a case for re-analysing samples. This is probably the way to go in this case to settle it once and for all, taking into account the all important context with the help of multiple experts. Otherwise it descends into a legal adversarial battle in which each side finds experts to bolster their point of view.
Well the links to the guidelines Laurent D has put up above say that part of the expert analysis has to take into account recent training, race conditions, the use of altitude and hypoxic chambers when considering the test results. The information she supplied to the testers at the time was important context and appear to have been sufficient then. Her argument is that the Sunday Times analysis didn't have this context and that therefore the analysis is partial and unfair. Whether she was asked ahead of the analysis about the context is not clear from either account as far as I can see.
While I am happy to take Paula's statement at face value, I am also sure that "Team Paula" will have looked at every legal avenue to enhance her performance.
And looking at Salbutamol, its not proven to enhance performance, but, if it only has a miniscule effect, say 1sec per 1K, that may not be shown up on double blind gold standard tests, but in a 10K would give you a 10sec advantage, i.e. the difference between 1st and nowhere!
So, is Paula's Asthma inhaler a legal performance enhancer(she has a TUES for it) or a vital aid to her health? or both?
I have no idea, I just sense a politicians answer, i.e. never answer the specific question, just a carefully worded reply that sounds good without actually telling the whole story.
Where Salbutamol is concerned I have read in a scientific article that it has a different effect depending on whether it is given by an inhaler or in tablet form. In tablet form it has an anabolic effect. It is considered more effective for relief of asthma when administered through an inhaler, but if for any reason the athlete cannot use an inhaler then tablets can be prescribed as a TUE.
As you say anything that can give a minuscule advantage is going to be of interest! I think it would be cruel to athletes to deny them TUE's as without them athletes could not take off the shelf cough mixture for example. I cannot find the relevant article btw. if I find it I will post it.
Radcliffe has been diagnosed with asthma since the age of 14. I hardly think that at that age, her diagnosis was purely so that she could get drugs that would enhance her athletic performance.
I think her case is completely different to Armstrong's. Armstrong's physio was one of the ones who eventually outed him as a doper. In contrast, Radcliffe's physio has come out today saying that he would bet his life on her being clean.
The fact that Paula's WR stands out so much is partly a result of the very short history of women's marathon running versus mens. It's well known that she put in more miles than most of her contempories but it's probably less interesting to read about that than speculate on the witch hunt that this has become.
Yes but she was diagnosed with asthma at the age of 14. I doubt Team Paula was in place then.
As far as the beneficial effects of Salbutamol you just need to read through the whole thread and you should be able to 'enjoy' a couple of the discussions around this and the subject of TUEs.
To say that Salbutamol is not proven to enhance performance and then suggest that it may have a miniscule positive effect on the speed of a non asthma sufferer is a little bit silly.
A better discussion would be 'Some of the world's greatest endurance athletes are asthma sufferers - why?' (Paula, Mo, Chris Froome, Haile (I think))
EDIT: I was not aware of the differentiation between inhalers and tablets Sideburn - if athletes are looking for TUEs to use tablets then they are doing the sport no favours because I can't think of any good reason why people who breathe for a living couldn't use an inhaler.
Here is the article, page 300. This was news to me and explains why Lance paid Dr Ferrari a £1M retainer
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9JLiJcjdqkcC&pg=PA300&lpg=PA300&dq=salbutamol+anabolic&source=bl&ots=JRFjIx2aiX&sig=qWAtCKLrjyWJ8kkUNuUiLjPMWOA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Vom9VKuXE8vB7AbkiICoCA&ved=0CF4Q6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=salbutamol%20anabolic&f=false
But, as you say a lot of athletes are asthmatic, or have been diagnosed with asthma..... but it may just be an occupational hazard of being an elite athlete!
http://road.cc/content/news/139588-third-team-sky%E2%80%99s-riders-are-asthmatic
You will always run into the risk of a panel member flagging everything as suspicious and refusing to accept any explanation, probably cause it's easier for him to pass the buck than to accept any such explanation (and thus be on the hook should that athlete later be outed as a cheat).
Also, your average Sunday times reader (and indeed Sunday times hack) I'll understand precisely fuck all about whether s given set of data is suspicious or not but at best hone in on the fact that one judge out of 12 might've had an issue with someone's data. On hat basis there have been sensational claims about how a lot of 'suspicious' data were not glowed up on (when they might've been easily dismissed as false positives)
Really wada/iAaf need to be a filter for all this guff and be clean/strong/trusted enough to listen to when they have identified real cheating.
Also I really do have an issue with this MP .even now he thinks he did nothing wrong and didn't basically identify Paula when he harped on about London maraThon winners. He made an error of judgement and now compounds his error by arguing (incorrectly) that he has acted properly.
Thanks although I can't see the bit where it talks about tablets being allowed with a TUE; my reading of it is that inhaler is the only way.
The comments section of the second link has some interesting discussions regarding salbutamol and asthma generally and answers something I wondered earlier in the thread as to whether a cured asthmatic actually had an advantage due to the effort required when not treated.
The article says that tablets are not allowed, but how can you tell if the athlete has taken an inhaler or tablet? This is where the 'magic' happens, Tyler Hamilton's book explains how he, and others got around the most thorough testing regime in sport back in his day. Presumably the tactics have simply moved on. The testers can test the athletes urine, excess values indicate abuse of Salbutamol.
Tyler took the drugs he was given and was told the 'glow' time (how long to avoid testing). He simply used 'speed bags' (a bag of saline solution taped to a wall and put into a vein when the testers knock on the door) or used one of his 'missed tests' (don't answer the door).
He, Lance, other teammates and friends lived in Girona so when the testers arrived the mobiles went off alerting everyone to take precautions if they were 'glowing'.
I have read a lot of stuff about this subject and come to the conclusion that it is 'complicated'. With hundreds (thousands?) of drugs and masking agents I do not understand how anyone can be proven to be clean or dirty; it is just complicated.... And then of course there are new drugs coming on to the market every day
Much as I hate to drag cycling, the sport that has had the most thorough testing regimes for decades. But all the athletes are doing is repeating Lance...
“Finally, the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the skeptics: I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. But this is one hell of a race. This is a great sporting event and you should stand around and believe it. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets — this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it. So Vive le Tour forever!”
On the Champs Elysées podium in 2005 having wrapped up a seventh Tour win and confirmed his retirement
But Willie Nelson nailed it; I think it is just terrible and disgusting how everyone has treated Lance Armstrong, especially after what he achieved, winning seven Tour de France races while on drugs. When I was on drugs, I couldn't even find my bike.
The study that I know of where there was anabolic gains from tablet use seemed to indicate that the effect was due to the dose being 4g per day which is 5x that of normal inhaler use.
Inhaler use can also lead to increased heart rate which is why I don't use mine bless I have a severe allergic reaction, which is what it is prescribed for. Who knows though, increased heart rate may be beneficial in terms of clearing lactate etc:
Fair point about expanding on those bullet point explanations. I guess she's got to provide some more comprehensive data now, to help clear it up.
I continue to think she's very likely stayed within the rules. I also think it quite likely that she'll prove this beyond (fairly) reasonable doubt. Then we add in circumstantial evidence.. which I think is, as illustrated by some excellent posts on here today, pointing to innocence IMO and I think that will be good enough for the majority of interested people..
Unfortunately, that Daily Mirror front page (scandalous IMO) - and similar coverage means that she'll be forever guilty in many eyes.
Nayan, I believe WADA IAAF did filter this stuff which is why it was never raised as a problem at the time. It was only when the 'database' was leaked to the uninformed who couldn't (or probably more likely wouldn't) take the information in context that it became a problem.
The database hasn't ben leaked to the uninformed though it was leaked via the Sunday Times to two of the most high profile respected people in that field. It's not the general public that are saying ooh that blood value looks suspicious it's those experts. Paula has the choice of living with their judgement at her blood values very likely indicate she's a cheat or she can publish them and let people judge her explanations alongside the data.
whilst i think paula is clean and respect her views that she is not going to be bullied into releasing her blood data she should look at the way people backed off Mo when salazar released his evidence.
Salazar went through each issue and gave credible reasons/evidence so the tide turned as suddenly the "google amateur lawyers" who were providing whispers of issues were blown out of the water.
if Paula did release her bloods and agaisnt each one that had an abnormal outcome gave credible evidence then this would go away too. If not she is going to have to live with this hanging over her head. because not releasing blods when other have done just looks like there is something to hide.
She's probably under the mistaken belief that 'stubbornness' is a characteristic that has benefitted her in the past and will continue to do so.
She should look up the definition of the word.
🙂
But she already has been given the all clear.
The 3 tests that were flagged as 'suspicious' by the independent panel of scientists, were again reviewed by WADA IAAF in their context (training cycle regime, time of sample post race etc.) and found to be OK and within boundaries for the context.
If they weren't found to be OK, she would have been pulled up. She wasn't.
It's all because these 'suspicious' tests are simply figures on a piece of paper with no athlete related context applied that everyone is getting aeriated.
Maybe Paula (and others) should do the thing that Lance Armstrong (apparently) refused to do which is state -under oath- that she has never doped?
To make an untrue statement under oath is a criminal offence and you can go to prison. Samples taken from athletes still exist and it is possible that there may in the future be a test that will confirm conclusively that they did/did not dope. It would be a significant a risk to lie under these circumstances
This help to remove some of the black cloud that hangs over any athlete in any sport through the EPO years (2000 to 2009).
But a bit more background;
In 2006 Dr Fuentes' clinic in Madrid was raided 186 blood bags were found belonging to professional athletes, along with other doping products. The Dr offered to name all of the donors of these blood bags. He was told this was not necessary as they had the names of a handful of cyclists and this was enough.
The rest of the bags were destroyed even though it would have been possible to prove the identities of the athletes using DNA. Who were these others? They would have to be well paid, high profile. Tyler Hamilton stated that he paid 10's of thousands of Euro's for the Dr's services. They would be Spanish, residing in Spain or would have had to visit Spain regularly. The Dr made it clear they were not all cyclists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eufemiano_Fuentes
being stupid isn't a crime. And it didn't do Forrest gump any harm as a runner either.
I couldn't care less how she looks in an interview and I am not skilful enough to divine her guilt or innocence that way
If WADA have cleared her - I'm going with their analysis.
Yes you might get dodgy results if you are comparing blood samples from a rested athlete to someone whos just raced a hot half marathon. We need the context of these results that I believe the newspapers experts did not have ?
Shameful investigation really.
so if I understand correctly, she had some readings that were flagged as needing following up, they were followed up and she was cleared by a panel of experts.
then someone leaked the data relating to everything that got flagged as needing follow up, and spun it into a stortyh without due regard to what was cleared as a false positive and what turned into a ban/censure for someone.
If that's what the Sunday Times have sensationalised / tried to bully Paula Radcliffe with they are even worse than the BBC
Stuff all this mucking about,
Take her to the kennels. Set the dogs on her ass. We’ll find out for damn sure what she knows.”
🙂
Just a link to her latest statement;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/11853042/Paula-Radcliffe-says-she-had-no-choice-but-to-respond-to-doping-allegations.html
I do think that it is wrong that she should be singled out. To me the more incompetent she appears the more innocent she is likely to be.
If she is guilty then she would have had a long time to prepare for an allegation like this and would have taken the appropriate precautions.
Maybe she was naive enough to think that her innocence and good name would somehow protect her?
Yes but reading the link 'athletes' were 'such as footballers and tennis players' so not necessarily runners.
Interesting that the judge didn't want him to name all the 'athletes' - perhaps he didn't want Spain to lose the World Cup and does Spain not have quite a good tennis player too?
Looking into whether Paula spent a lot of time in Spain led me to this article.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/athletics/22384668
It would be a spectacular double bluff if her blood bags were part of the 35 and again highlights her ongoing proactive stance against drugs.
Certainly trying to argue that her blood values suspicious or not are in any way relevant is complete tosh.
Lance Armstrong was the worlds most tested athlete; he would have been tested every day during the Tour's of France as well as other races. Then there were numerous out of competition tests... the most thorough in any sport.
He has admitted he was doped up to the gills and did not conclusively fail a test! He was active from 1996 to 2009 the same time that Paula was active.
Surely WADA have tested, re-tested and tested again Lance's samples. So her samples suspicious or not are completely irrelevant.
Again; maybe the fact that they were suspicious is proof of her innocence? A dirty athlete like Lance would have taken the appropriate measures to ensure his numbers were good.
An innocent/naive athlete would not bother?