I'm a physician, and this is absolutely not true. Asthma has a very specific definition and medications differ only because different severities warrant different medications or combinations of medications.

Hey now, no need to get angry about it, I'm just trying to shed some light on the mystery of why this athlete didn't get banned. There sure are plenty of Per Se violations in the law, but that's far from the norm. And it's not about the law being unreasonable, it's about the actions of the accused being reasonable under the circumstances.

And regardless of whether or not I claim to be an attorney on an internet forum, you don't have to take my word for it! Look it up yourself, reasonableness is well established as one of (if not the) most important single factors in all forms of law. I like the way it was put on Yale's Law School website, "Law students discover very early in their legal educations that the "reasonable person" is a ubiquitous fixture of the law." ( http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/3713/)

And, relevant to this discussion because we are discussing a form of negligence (can be found verbatim in almost any legal dictionary): "In the law of negligence, the reasonable person standard is the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would observe under a given set of circumstances."

But to your point, you're right, USADA doesn't have laws, they have a code. They aren't subject to due process laws and such, so they are exempt from most of these concerns up front. There is an arbitration process, but I have no experience with that and have no clue if they would consider any factor that isn't explicitly defined in the contract. My point is that USADA made the decision to not ban the athlete, as far as anyone has shown here that is outside the norm. Therefore they made a discretionary decision (as opposed to just applying the standard sanction), and if a decision was made that means they considered other factors, and if they considered other factors then the reasonableness of the athlete's actions were certainly considered.

And out of curiosity I just looked up the WADA code to see where they are allowed to consider other factors, and here you go:
It appears as though this athlete was able to show no significant fault or negligence, so I guess her story about being told such low doses don't require TUEs must have been accepted.

---

Powertap / Cycleops / Saris

Good summary,

Regardless of which side you fall on in this debate, for the sake of argument she presented her side of the story and USADA accepted that.

The conversation here really depends on if a person thinks that USADA exercised their latitude in a fashion which represents their (tax payer) funded mandate.

In my opinion no, intentional doping first offence is four years to lifetime.

If we agree that she just made a really stupid mistake then it is typically 6months (Colorado cyclo cross racer for pot) to two years.

The other side of this is that USADA via their report has just provided a blueprint for doping.

2c

You might want to add that if she were to be DQ'd from that 70.3 Panama race, as you expressed an interest in an earlier post, that you would have moved up from 4th to 3rd.


Well I think she should be banned and am not in her age group and male. None of that changes the fact that an athlete knows perfectly well what they can and cannot do and for people to dismiss this as another oversight is just naive.


In all honesty, if this was an athlete in another sport, or from a different country, would anyone actually believe her?

I think her case is not completely understood by most here:

Slowman you mentioned she was possibly taking a Beta-2-antagonist (for example like the most common asthma-medication used in inhalers Salbutamol). Actually for this substance there is no TUE needed as of current rules! The WADA-code says you can take "a maximum of 1600 micrograms over 24 hours, not to exceed 800 micrograms every 12 hours". If you stay below this threshold levels in a drugtest, but the substance shows up it is perfectly fine, and no TUE needed!

Now Lisa Roberts was obviously taking an inhaler of the kind mentioned above and was trusting in the fact that when she changed the medication with her doctor (as she describes it in her statement) that it was the "same medication" (substance) that is allowed under the terms mentioned above without a TUE.
But this medication now did contain also a substance that is actually prohibited and a TUE is therefor required to take it in and out of competition.

With this she actually missed to do the basic necessary which is her absolute duty as a professional to protect her career and be in the green. She did not research the parameters and cross-check if she needs any TUE for the new medication but "assumed" that it would be the same inhaler and substance (well, just it is an asthma-inhaler it must certainly not be the same substance).
It is her duty as a pro, if she does not make sure all is in perfect order in this regards, she has full responsibility for the finding (it is not a contamination).
Therefor I must say it was a doping violation not out of purpose but out of unprofessionalism. Not knowing does not protect you from punishment. So with that said a "public warning" is a very soft handling of the case. It is not fair to others as there are many in history that have been punished drastically with a 2 year-ban for similar violations.

Wow. You guys are tough! Unprofessional? Couldn't it be a simple mistake/oversight?

Is it her profession or not?
What do you think happens to a doctor or pilot when he makes a "mistake/oversight" while on duty?
The education and clarification about how to verify medication, when and how to get TUEs etc. for athletes (professional and amateurs) have been abundand in the last years. I do believe if somebody earns money professionally with sport, it can be expected that they are fully covering their responsibility to stay within the rules.

Actually USADA was anything else than tough, this is usually a 2-year ban for unintended doping.

When I was running collegiately and in the testing pool, Whenever I would get a new prescription, I'd head home, pull out the WADA banned substances book, and check, before filling it. This was as a student, who couldn't afford to dope, and an amateur. As a professional earning a livelihood from the sport, you could be damned sure I would be doing my due diligence before taking anything. Inadvertent or not, you are responsible for what you put in your body, so there should be a consequence to this (worse than disqualifying one result). As an asthmatic since I was very young, I always had inhalers, and for many years had a TUE for it (Salbutemol), until they modernized things a bit, and removed the requirement to hold a TUE for it. I still check the list every year to ensure that I don't need to request a TUE... This is one case where it's better to ask permission than to beg forgiveness... I give her small points for at least declaring it, but those are negated by the gross negligence of not doing her due diligence... (you know what they say about assumption, it's the mother of all fuck-ups...)
I'm a bit surprised that the power for the suspensions still lies with the national anti-doping agencies. There's a huge potential for conflict of interest with bodies receiving governmental funds to administer these programs (Sochi is a great example of this)... Suspensions should be centralized by a panel with reps from various WADA member nations (but that would sit-out when a case from their country is being discussed). I'm also a fan of much harsher penalties... and while mechanical doping is not a WADA area, the sport federations where this occurs should be throwing the book at those folks. It's not like your bike could drink some tea contaminated with a motor...

When I first read her account of the prescriptions and her actions, I thought I agreed with USADA. But as I read the posts here and thought more about it, not looking up her new medication on GlobalDRO is definitely negligence. I cannot come up with a reasonable argument that it is not. The rules clearly call for at least a 2 year ban in this case, even if she had no intention of cheating.

When I combine that with the oddity that such a high percentage of top endurance athletes have "asthma" I feel it is even more important for USADA to stick to the letter of the law and not be excessively lenient because an accused seems sympathetic.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook

I was looking down the list of recent sanctions to check for consistency. And something that's even more disturbing than this is the complete softball sanctions being handed out to UFC athletes. They're very frequently getting 2-years-or-less for hardcore steroids.

For example here's 2 years for what reads like pure doping with hardcore steroids. No mention of supplement contamination (which apparently happens a lot in UFC)

Here's 1 year for clomiphene. 1 year is "no fault of negligence", right? No mention of any mitigating circumstance in the press release.

I guess 2 years is the new 4 years, and "a year or less or maybe just a public warning" is the new 2 years.

Or did UFC negotiate their own reduced penalties? (but don't think that's allowed under WADA).

Yes strange results. If you don't follow both cycling and UFC it might not register who heads the UFC anti-doping program. When they announced the hire I thought it might really damage their business in the near term because doping was/is probably rampant.

Yeah, it seems similar with the Mayweather debacle. If I had to speculate it's because USADA doesn't want to upset very lucrative customers. If USADA had tried to void the Mayweather-Pacquiao fight ("Fight of the Century") - which would have been what would have happened if they'd followed the letter of the law - there's a real good chance that boxing would have fired USADA as their anti-doping service.

Same with UFC. I'm pretty certain that if a low-level triathlete or cyclist gets popped for "the good stuff", it's 4 years. Like this masters cyclist, recently.

But 4-years is pretty rare in UFC. I count 2-of- 36 (~5%) sanctions in UFC as the 4-year variety.

In weightlifting (a less lucrative sport) it's 17-of-57 (~30%) (very rough counting on my part on both)

I don't want to equate USADA with RUSADA. But I get just the slightest whiff of accomodating corruptive influences (wealthy clients). I could be convinced otherwise if, indeed, UFC has a special contract with USADA that lays it out.

Wow. You guys are tough! Unprofessional? Couldn't it be a simple mistake/oversight?

If you are a professional athlete and given the heightened focus on doping over the last 20 years, do you really believe that athletes make "honest mistakes" when it comes to something like changing medication?

How many times do people have to bury their heads in the sand before common sense takes over and you realize it isn't a mistake?

Of course they don't, even kids these days coming up through the sporting ranks know to check everything. It isn't hard, even 14 yr olds have a smart phone, in less than a minute she could have known she shouldn't use that product. Everyone knows to check EVERYTHING, particularly anything medicinal/script related, even products that an athlete may have taken for years, most would have the common sense to check regularly incase of changes. A change of brand would require a definite new check even if used for the same reason as the first product. No athlete with the smarts to make it to a competitive level is too dumb to know this, maybe just not smart enough to believe they would get caught doping.

That's great.

Can you point me to that specific definition?
How much decrease in lung function?
At what exertion level?

If I have natural bronchoconstriction when going all out for too long and my vegetative nervous system actually slows me down to prevent damage (similar mechanisms that shuts down muscles through lactic acidosis), is that asthma?

I completely agree that people who need medication to function normally should be allowed all the medication they need or can get.
If you can't even jog, you need medication...
But boosting your top level performance by what, 5%?
Is that asthma?

But this gets us into the "leveling the playing field" territory again....so I'll stop right here.

I think we got good and quite generous (if you ask me) rules,,,we should just apply them consistently.

Maybe she just got real sloppy (unprofessional) due to minimal USADA out of competition testing? Maybe took a chance knowing that the chances of getting tagged was minimal, but still...

Its not like US long-course triathletes are getting tested much (there's a list on USADA website) - I recall seeing a well-known pro on a thyroid TUE getting tested twice in 2016 (& once this year so far) & I bet that included an in-comp' at Kona.

Seems like she simply should have applied for a TUE beforehand and would have gotten it since this is an asthma inhaler prescribed to her by her doctor. They stripped her most recent results and gave her a public warning-- I think that was a just outcome.
Edit: I just read through the rest of this thread, as well as her account on her site. Lesson learned for her- assuming the same ingredients and levels in the Breo vs her old inhaler was obviously a mistake. I do think the OP in this thread has a personal issue/vendetta here...

Sure.

Asthma is chronic reactive airways disease with intermittent periods of worsening bronchoconstriction brought on by various triggers.

The diagnosis is made based on response to bronchodilators (often called a bronchodilator challenge). A quick acting bronchodilator is given to a patient and an increase in FEV1 of 12% or more along with an absolute increase in FEV1 of at least 200ml gives us a diagnosis of asthma with reasonable certainty.

I wasn't getting into this conversation to debate asthma meds being used as PED's, so I'll leave the rest of your comments alone. Was just clearing up a misstatement that muddies the conversation.

Nice race today

LOL. You are talking about an organization headed by a guy and his sidekick who go easy on people because the accused are Christians. Those who are not they try to talk into finding Jesus. The letter of the law gets ignored, twisted, and reinterpreted according to Tygart's goals.

I saw that she won and wanting to say something but wasnt sure what. im sorry.

"And to the OP, it does seem weird to me too that someone would suddenly come down with asthma at 30." - at age 37 with zero prior signs i developed asthma symptoms, went to the Doc who after a few discussions told me i has asthma - as i'd had zero prior symptoms, i asked for a second opinion and they sent me to the lab for testing - turns out i have asthma!!

I don't know anything about Tygart but WTF are you talking about?

The rules stipulate that when negligence is involved (ye olde "you should have known better"), a range from public warning to two years is available. This is the letter of the law. They have discretion in punishment.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

No - if negligence is involved but no intention of cheating, standard is two years down to a minimum of 1 year if a lower degree of fault is determined. Less than one year is for no negligence or fault.

---

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook