Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
U.S. Triathlon Athlete Lisa Roberts Accepts Public Warning for Anti-Doping Rule Violation
Quote | Reply
Just shocked no one has posted about this?! Or maybe I missed it.

https://www.usada.org/lisa-roberts-accepts-public-warning-doping-violation/

“To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift.” – Steve Prefontaine | http://www.kirstyjahntriathlon.com | twitter: @kirstyjahntri
Quote Reply
Re: U.S. Triathlon Athlete Lisa Roberts Accepts Public Warning for Anti-Doping Rule Violation [KirstyJahn] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Just a few facts I've found:

- USADA misspelled the name of the substance. It's apparently "vilanterol trifenatate."
- The product of the brand name "Breo Ellipta" also contains "fluticasone furoate" that I believe would be banned in-competition because it's an inhaled glucocorticoid (as far as I can tell from Google-fu, someone correct me if I'm wrong). Not sure why that's not mentioned in the press release. Maybe because she didn't test positive for a glucocorticoid? Surprised that this fact also isn't mentioned in the linked "specific advice" for Breo Ellipta.

Veering from fact to opinion, I really don't understand the velvet glove "public warning.". She's a pro. There's specific advice on what she's taking. This isn't a contamination issue. She knew what she was taking. This seems to erode the doctrine that athletes (and particularly pros) take full responsibility for what's in their bodies. USADA seems to have considered the fact that she declared the substance while giving her test very much as an ameliorating factor. If you're aware enough of the possible doping implications to declare a substance while being tested, you're probably aware enough to spend about 1 minute researching it as soon as your Dr. prescribes it.

For a variety of reasons I've been recently disappointed by USADA for their almost apologetic approach to sanctioning athletes for what appears to be completely transparent violations of "the code."










"
Quote Reply
Re: U.S. Triathlon Athlete Lisa Roberts Accepts Public Warning for Anti-Doping Rule Violation [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
Just a few facts I've found:

- USADA misspelled the name of the substance. It's apparently "vilanterol trifenatate."
- The product of the brand name "Breo Ellipta" also contains "fluticasone furoate" that I believe would be banned in-competition because it's an inhaled glucocorticoid (as far as I can tell from Google-fu, someone correct me if I'm wrong). Not sure why that's not mentioned in the press release. Maybe because she didn't test positive for a glucocorticoid? Surprised that this fact also isn't mentioned in the linked "specific advice" for Breo Ellipta.

Veering from fact to opinion, I really don't understand the velvet glove "public warning.". She's a pro. There's specific advice on what she's taking. This isn't a contamination issue. She knew what she was taking. This seems to erode the doctrine that athletes (and particularly pros) take full responsibility for what's in their bodies. USADA seems to have considered the fact that she declared the substance while giving her test very much as an ameliorating factor. If you're aware enough of the possible doping implications to declare a substance while being tested, you're probably aware enough to spend about 1 minute researching it as soon as your Dr. prescribes it.

For a variety of reasons I've been recently disappointed by USADA for their almost apologetic approach to sanctioning athletes for what appears to be completely transparent violations of "the code."


Fluticasone furoate is not banned in competition as inhalation according to Global DRO. Off subject, I always get a kick out of the top 5 searches on Global DRO, #1 Cannabis, #2 Caffeine... anyway, stopping the digression, you are making a very good point. Global DRO is a great resource for us athletes and we are made well aware of it. There should almost be some length of ban just because the athlete failed to visit Global DRO and check if the medication was banned or not. - I guess this is where the forfeit of prize money comes in.


Save: $20 on Air Relax Recovery Boots| $100 on Normatec| 15% on The Most Absorbable Magnesium | Best $50 Indoor Cycling Desk | NEW HED JET 6+
Wheelset - $1049 or less


Blogs: QUICK Air Relax Travel Case Review | Q2 Blood Test Results | Why Latex Bikes Tubes | Vittoria Corsa Speed Aero Data | Best Cheap Aero Sunglasses | 10 Reasons To Consider HED JET+
Last edited by: Thomas Gerlach: Nov 11, 17 20:21
Quote Reply
Re: U.S. Triathlon Athlete Lisa Roberts Accepts Public Warning for Anti-Doping Rule Violation [Thomas Gerlach] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thomas Gerlach wrote:
Fluticasone furoate is not banned in competition as inhalation according to Global DRO.

Ah, my mistake was assuming that inhalation was "oral." Turns out they're apparently different things. Thanks for the correction.
Quote Reply
Re: U.S. Triathlon Athlete Lisa Roberts Accepts Public Warning for Anti-Doping Rule Violation [KirstyJahn] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
KirstyJahn wrote:
Just shocked no one has posted about this?! Or maybe I missed it.

https://www.usada.org/lisa-roberts-accepts-public-warning-doping-violation/

So with a 'slap on the wrist' they take away her results from Roth but not the win from Louisville?
Quote Reply
Re: U.S. Triathlon Athlete Lisa Roberts Accepts Public Warning for Anti-Doping Rule Violation [KirstyJahn] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
How do you feel about such a sanction/violation as a fellow professional?
Quote Reply
Re: U.S. Triathlon Athlete Lisa Roberts Accepts Public Warning for Anti-Doping Rule Violation [hadukla] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
hadukla wrote:
KirstyJahn wrote:
Just shocked no one has posted about this?! Or maybe I missed it.

https://www.usada.org/lisa-roberts-accepts-public-warning-doping-violation/

So with a 'slap on the wrist' they take away her results from Roth but not the win from Louisville?

Don't pros do blood tests for Roth?
Quote Reply
Re: U.S. Triathlon Athlete Lisa Roberts Accepts Public Warning for Anti-Doping Rule Violation [KirstyJahn] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Did they test her at Challenge Madrid she won in September?

" Roberts has since obtained a TUE for use of the inhaler" - when?


WTF is a "public warning"? She used a banned substance without a TUE - doesn't that have real consequences?
Quote Reply
Re: U.S. Triathlon Athlete Lisa Roberts Accepts Public Warning for Anti-Doping Rule Violation [DrTriKat] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
DrTriKat wrote:
Did they test her at Challenge Madrid she won in September?

" Roberts has since obtained a TUE for use of the inhaler" - when?

WTF is a "public warning"? She used a banned substance without a TUE - doesn't that have real consequences?

can i be the party pooper?

i don't sense that USADA goes easy on dopers. i have had my disagreements with USADA in the past, usually over process questions, sometimes over the lightness of sentences (postal team riders not named lance), but i've generally found USADA to be among the most solid, ethical, honest, transparent, even-handed among all testing authorities. and, if you look at our history of publishing on doping and anti-doping i think you'll find that we get way more into the tall weeds of this than most, to the point where our readers yawn and roll their eyes and say, "enough already!" we've interviewed, and written about, USADA a lot. i fear that when we start losing trust in USADA then it's game over.

about this particular issue, correct me if i'm wrong, this is a beta-2-agonist that is available for use with a TUE? the only beta-2-agonist i can think of that has been used with any regularity by cheaters is clenbuterol, which is what you give a horse with breathing issues, and which has some (questionable) anabolic properties.

again, i'm guessing, but the threshold amounts attached to allowable drugs like salmeterol, salbutamol, albuterol are simply to keep athletes from the oral use of these drugs (i don't suspect you could hit a threshold through inhaled use only).

so, in lisa's case (and i don't know lisa and have no particular feeling about her one way or the other) she's taking a beta-2-agonist that doesn't deliver anabolic benefits; she's inhaling it (not orally taking it); it's a drug that is subject to a TUE; and where she's a candidate for a TUE (if in fact she got one); and is exactly the kind of case where, if she were an age-grouper, she would have been granted a retroactive TUE by USADA and there would have been no public warning, rather it would have been considered by USADA entirely proper for that AG athlete to use that drug. again, correct me if you think i'm wrong with any of what i'm assuming are facts.

in other words, there's a big difference between arguing "but my doctor prescribed it" in this case versus in a testosterone case.

i'm not arguing that lisa's behavior was righteous, nor that she shouldn't have this addressed by USADA; and addressed publicly. i'm making a case that USADA is the one testing authority worldwide that has earned the right to be afforded some benefit of the doubt, and i can see how in this case they might have come to the decision they did.


Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: U.S. Triathlon Athlete Lisa Roberts Accepts Public Warning for Anti-Doping Rule Violation [KirstyJahn] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote Reply
Re: U.S. Triathlon Athlete Lisa Roberts Accepts Public Warning for Anti-Doping Rule Violation [jkhayc] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I’m upset that she only was disqualified from Roth. The public warning as a penalty doesn’t make logical sense. She took a banned substance without a TUE. That is doping. It shouldn’t matter if she later received a TUE. IMO, she should’ve received a more severe penalty, such as a two year ban.

“To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift.” – Steve Prefontaine | http://www.kirstyjahntriathlon.com | twitter: @kirstyjahntri
Quote Reply
Re: U.S. Triathlon Athlete Lisa Roberts Accepts Public Warning for Anti-Doping Rule Violation [KirstyJahn] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Agree, she should have been banned for all for a period of time. It was a similar story in Rio last year, when hacked records indicated some of the elite athletes on asthma and attention disorder medication (Ritalin). Then suddenly when they retire, they immediately heal and no longer take these medications. What a surprise.
Quote Reply
Re: U.S. Triathlon Athlete Lisa Roberts Accepts Public Warning for Anti-Doping Rule Violation [KirstyJahn] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Edit: I just read her website.

get comfortable being uncomfortable
Last edited by: stevej: Nov 12, 17 13:56
Quote Reply
Re: U.S. Triathlon Athlete Lisa Roberts Accepts Public Warning for Anti-Doping Rule Violation [SnappingT] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
SnappingT wrote:
Here’s the other side of this story:

http://www.lisajroberts.com/blog/personal-statement

Hope this helps

Tim

Excessive use of underlining.

Also a bit much at the end where she pontificates about hoping "this serves as a reminder to all of us competing to be vigilant" when she's the one who effed up.
Quote Reply
Re: U.S. Triathlon Athlete Lisa Roberts Accepts Public Warning for Anti-Doping Rule Violation [KirstyJahn] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm curious as to your association with this woman and all the races you are complaining she should be DQ'ed form. Did you do any of them, would you move up in $$, friends of yours in that position? You seem quite passionate on this one particular case, even though it sounds very low level.

And yes, I heard where you pointed out any positive test on anything ought to be penalized the same, I think most of us who react rationally don't think that, so just want to see where you stand in all of this, it is your OP after all.

I too was a pro for a lot of years and felt that drug testing was inadequate, but I also did not believe if someone had one extra cup of coffee, or got severely dehydrated and thus raised the testing numbers, that it was the same as EPO, testosterone, or steroids. To me there is a class of hugely beneficial drugs that require premeditation, the category that mask those drugs, and the accidental over the counter cough medicine you may have taken and really thinking about it at the time.

If she has since actually gotten a TUE for this, seems like this would be in the very low category and losing money from one of the biggest races of the year might be punishment enough, along with the public shaming of course..
Quote Reply
Re: U.S. Triathlon Athlete Lisa Roberts Accepts Public Warning for Anti-Doping Rule Violation [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
DrTriKat wrote:
Did they test her at Challenge Madrid she won in September?

" Roberts has since obtained a TUE for use of the inhaler" - when?

WTF is a "public warning"? She used a banned substance without a TUE - doesn't that have real consequences?

can i be the party pooper?

i don't sense that USADA goes easy on dopers. i have had my disagreements with USADA in the past, usually over process questions, sometimes over the lightness of sentences (postal team riders not named lance), but i've generally found USADA to be among the most solid, ethical, honest, transparent, even-handed among all testing authorities. and, if you look at our history of publishing on doping and anti-doping i think you'll find that we get way more into the tall weeds of this than most, to the point where our readers yawn and roll their eyes and say, "enough already!" we've interviewed, and written about, USADA a lot. i fear that when we start losing trust in USADA then it's game over.

about this particular issue, correct me if i'm wrong, this is a beta-2-agonist that is available for use with a TUE? the only beta-2-agonist i can think of that has been used with any regularity by cheaters is clenbuterol, which is what you give a horse with breathing issues, and which has some (questionable) anabolic properties.

again, i'm guessing, but the threshold amounts attached to allowable drugs like salmeterol, salbutamol, albuterol are simply to keep athletes from the oral use of these drugs (i don't suspect you could hit a threshold through inhaled use only).

so, in lisa's case (and i don't know lisa and have no particular feeling about her one way or the other) she's taking a beta-2-agonist that doesn't deliver anabolic benefits; she's inhaling it (not orally taking it); it's a drug that is subject to a TUE; and where she's a candidate for a TUE (if in fact she got one); and is exactly the kind of case where, if she were an age-grouper, she would have been granted a retroactive TUE by USADA and there would have been no public warning, rather it would have been considered by USADA entirely proper for that AG athlete to use that drug. again, correct me if you think i'm wrong with any of what i'm assuming are facts.

in other words, there's a big difference between arguing "but my doctor prescribed it" in this case versus in a testosterone case.

i'm not arguing that lisa's behavior was righteous, nor that she shouldn't have this addressed by USADA; and addressed publicly. i'm making a case that USADA is the one testing authority worldwide that has earned the right to be afforded some benefit of the doubt, and i can see how in this case they might have come to the decision they did.

Sorry,

Tell that to a few of the recent cases in other countries (NZ) where AG athletes have received 2-4 years for terbutaline sulfate (basically the wrong inhaler)

I will respectfully disagree with you on this one.

http://www.multisportsolutions.com
Quote Reply
Re: U.S. Triathlon Athlete Lisa Roberts Accepts Public Warning for Anti-Doping Rule Violation [KirstyJahn] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
KirstyJahn wrote:
I’m upset that she only was disqualified from Roth. The public warning as a penalty doesn’t make logical sense. She took a banned substance without a TUE. That is doping. It shouldn’t matter if she later received a TUE. IMO, she should’ve received a more severe penalty, such as a two year ban.
I hate dopers/cheaters in any form but I don't really understand all the indignation directed at this pro. From what I understand she has asthma, she used a certain brand of medication and asked twice if she needed an exemption. They told her not needed. Twice. Then her doctor changed the brand of the same medication and she didn't ask for third time (her bad she made an assumption). But she just changed the brand-like changing from Jiff to Skippy peanut butter.
The question I ask is did this person seek to gain and advantage? I think not. I just can't work up the anger at cases like this as I do with a Julie Miller et all athlete.
Quote Reply
Re: U.S. Triathlon Athlete Lisa Roberts Accepts Public Warning for Anti-Doping Rule Violation [mauricemaher] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mauricemaher wrote:
Slowman wrote:
DrTriKat wrote:
Did they test her at Challenge Madrid she won in September?

" Roberts has since obtained a TUE for use of the inhaler" - when?

WTF is a "public warning"? She used a banned substance without a TUE - doesn't that have real consequences?


can i be the party pooper?

i don't sense that USADA goes easy on dopers. i have had my disagreements with USADA in the past, usually over process questions, sometimes over the lightness of sentences (postal team riders not named lance), but i've generally found USADA to be among the most solid, ethical, honest, transparent, even-handed among all testing authorities. and, if you look at our history of publishing on doping and anti-doping i think you'll find that we get way more into the tall weeds of this than most, to the point where our readers yawn and roll their eyes and say, "enough already!" we've interviewed, and written about, USADA a lot. i fear that when we start losing trust in USADA then it's game over.

about this particular issue, correct me if i'm wrong, this is a beta-2-agonist that is available for use with a TUE? the only beta-2-agonist i can think of that has been used with any regularity by cheaters is clenbuterol, which is what you give a horse with breathing issues, and which has some (questionable) anabolic properties.

again, i'm guessing, but the threshold amounts attached to allowable drugs like salmeterol, salbutamol, albuterol are simply to keep athletes from the oral use of these drugs (i don't suspect you could hit a threshold through inhaled use only).

so, in lisa's case (and i don't know lisa and have no particular feeling about her one way or the other) she's taking a beta-2-agonist that doesn't deliver anabolic benefits; she's inhaling it (not orally taking it); it's a drug that is subject to a TUE; and where she's a candidate for a TUE (if in fact she got one); and is exactly the kind of case where, if she were an age-grouper, she would have been granted a retroactive TUE by USADA and there would have been no public warning, rather it would have been considered by USADA entirely proper for that AG athlete to use that drug. again, correct me if you think i'm wrong with any of what i'm assuming are facts.

in other words, there's a big difference between arguing "but my doctor prescribed it" in this case versus in a testosterone case.

i'm not arguing that lisa's behavior was righteous, nor that she shouldn't have this addressed by USADA; and addressed publicly. i'm making a case that USADA is the one testing authority worldwide that has earned the right to be afforded some benefit of the doubt, and i can see how in this case they might have come to the decision they did.


Sorry,

Tell that to a few of the recent cases in other countries (NZ) where AG athletes have received 2-4 years for terbutaline sulfate (basically the wrong inhaler)

I will respectfully disagree with you on this one.

you disagree with me in what respect? my thesis is that i'm placing faith in my NADO, and i don't see any red flag here, suggesting that my NADO acted in an arbitrary or corrupt fashion. so, are you disagreeing with my decision to give USADA the benefit of the doubt?


Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: U.S. Triathlon Athlete Lisa Roberts Accepts Public Warning for Anti-Doping Rule Violation [SnappingT] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Well, well

SnappingT wrote:
Here’s the other side of this story:

http://www.lisajroberts.com/blog/personal-statement

Hope this helps

Tim
Quote Reply
Re: U.S. Triathlon Athlete Lisa Roberts Accepts Public Warning for Anti-Doping Rule Violation [Herbert] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
seems like a fair outcome
Quote Reply
Re: U.S. Triathlon Athlete Lisa Roberts Accepts Public Warning for Anti-Doping Rule Violation [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:
mauricemaher wrote:
Slowman wrote:
DrTriKat wrote:
Did they test her at Challenge Madrid she won in September?


" Roberts has since obtained a TUE for use of the inhaler" - when?

WTF is a "public warning"? She used a banned substance without a TUE - doesn't that have real consequences?


can i be the party pooper?

i don't sense that USADA goes easy on dopers. i have had my disagreements with USADA in the past, usually over process questions, sometimes over the lightness of sentences (postal team riders not named lance), but i've generally found USADA to be among the most solid, ethical, honest, transparent, even-handed among all testing authorities. and, if you look at our history of publishing on doping and anti-doping i think you'll find that we get way more into the tall weeds of this than most, to the point where our readers yawn and roll their eyes and say, "enough already!" we've interviewed, and written about, USADA a lot. i fear that when we start losing trust in USADA then it's game over.

about this particular issue, correct me if i'm wrong, this is a beta-2-agonist that is available for use with a TUE? the only beta-2-agonist i can think of that has been used with any regularity by cheaters is clenbuterol, which is what you give a horse with breathing issues, and which has some (questionable) anabolic properties.

again, i'm guessing, but the threshold amounts attached to allowable drugs like salmeterol, salbutamol, albuterol are simply to keep athletes from the oral use of these drugs (i don't suspect you could hit a threshold through inhaled use only).

so, in lisa's case (and i don't know lisa and have no particular feeling about her one way or the other) she's taking a beta-2-agonist that doesn't deliver anabolic benefits; she's inhaling it (not orally taking it); it's a drug that is subject to a TUE; and where she's a candidate for a TUE (if in fact she got one); and is exactly the kind of case where, if she were an age-grouper, she would have been granted a retroactive TUE by USADA and there would have been no public warning, rather it would have been considered by USADA entirely proper for that AG athlete to use that drug. again, correct me if you think i'm wrong with any of what i'm assuming are facts.

in other words, there's a big difference between arguing "but my doctor prescribed it" in this case versus in a testosterone case.

i'm not arguing that lisa's behavior was righteous, nor that she shouldn't have this addressed by USADA; and addressed publicly. i'm making a case that USADA is the one testing authority worldwide that has earned the right to be afforded some benefit of the doubt, and i can see how in this case they might have come to the decision they did.


Sorry,

Tell that to a few of the recent cases in other countries (NZ) where AG athletes have received 2-4 years for terbutaline sulfate (basically the wrong inhaler)

I will respectfully disagree with you on this one.


you disagree with me in what respect? my thesis is that i'm placing faith in my NADO, and i don't see any red flag here, suggesting that my NADO acted in an arbitrary or corrupt fashion. so, are you disagreeing with my decision to give USADA the benefit of the doubt?


I disagree based on the punishment. When other NADO's are assigning 2 years for the wrong inhaler then I don't see why this athlete and team Sky get a free pass.

Basically she fucked up, I'll take her on her word and the report that USADA released...I feel a little bit (very tiny) sorry for her. But we keep going back to precedent in these cases, and basically that was set (internationally) sometime ago.

This case being one of a few:

http://sportstribunal.org.nz/news/news/cyclist-suspended-for-2-years-for-prednisone-and-terbutaline-anti-doping-violation


On a side note the Bricanyl Turbo inhaler is commonly the first assigned by doc's in commonwealth countries but not typically assigned in the U.S.


Perhaps the above case I cited is different than this one.

http://www.multisportsolutions.com
Quote Reply
Re: U.S. Triathlon Athlete Lisa Roberts Accepts Public Warning for Anti-Doping Rule Violation [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Slowman wrote:


in other words, there's a big difference between arguing "but my doctor prescribed it" in this case versus in a testosterone case.


Where the words, though? Read pages 61-63 of the The Code. The way I read it is cheaters get 4 years. People who didn't intentionally cheat can get 2 years. People who show "No Fault or Negligence" can get less than two years. Did Lisa show "no fault or negligence?" I have a real hard time coming to that conclusion. I could see that with forum member MTM, who plausibly took a contaminated supplement. I don't see that here. Failing to check the DRO for a new prescription drug? That's a form of negligence for a professional athlete. It just is.

Your argument is based on your subjective interpretation of the relative effectiveness of Prohibited Substances. The Code attempts no such interpretation. There are Prohibited Substances. And that's it. There's a very good reason for this. Because it's just impossible in reality to do all the testing to determine which substances are truly effective and which aren't. Particularly since many aren't legally (FDA, etc) approved for any human consumption.

So a bunch of unnamed NADA personnel making this decision seems to be a bit cowboyish to me. Not corrupt or incompetent. Just cowboyish. I completely understand your rationale. If your argument were to add a section for light sentences somewhere in between "no fault or negligence" and the two years for "unintentional doping" then I could support that. But you've described yourself as a "process guy" in the past, and I'm not seeing the process here.

Now, admittedly, I could be wrong. I got "inhaled" vs "oral" wrong above. But that's just the way I read it.

Quote:
a case that USADA is the one testing authority worldwide that has earned the right to be afforded some benefit of the doubt


I agree except the retroactive TUE given to Floyd Mayweather. That was fishy as all hell. I'm sure Lisa here would have signed up for the opportunity to apply for a TUE two weeks after submitting a sample for testing.
Last edited by: trail: Nov 12, 17 18:36
Quote Reply
Re: U.S. Triathlon Athlete Lisa Roberts Accepts Public Warning for Anti-Doping Rule Violation [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
Slowman wrote:


in other words, there's a big difference between arguing "but my doctor prescribed it" in this case versus in a testosterone case.


Where the words, though? Read pages 61-63 of the The Code. The way I read it is cheaters get 4 years. People who didn't intentionally cheat can get 2 years. People who show "No Fault or Negligence" can get less than two years. Did Lisa show "no fault or negligence?" I have a real hard time coming to that conclusion. I could see that with forum member MTM, who plausibly took a contaminated supplement. I don't see that here. Failing to check the DRO for a new prescription drug? That's a form of negligence for a professional athlete. It just is.

Your argument is based on your subjective interpretation of the relative effectiveness of Prohibited Substances. The Code attempts no such interpretation. There are Prohibited Substances. And that's it. There's a very good reason for this. Because it's just impossible in reality to do all the testing to determine which substances are truly effective and which aren't. Particularly since many aren't legally (FDA, etc) approved for any human consumption.

So a bunch of unnamed NADA personnel making this decision seems to be a bit cowboyish to me. Not corrupt or incompetent. Just cowboyish. I completely understand your rationale. If your argument were to add a section for light sentences somewhere in between "no fault or negligence" and the two years for "unintentional doping" then I could support that. But you've described yourself as a "process guy" in the past, and I'm not seeing the process here.

Now, admittedly, I could be wrong. I got "inhaled" vs "oral" wrong above. But that's just the way I read it.

Quote:
a case that USADA is the one testing authority worldwide that has earned the right to be afforded some benefit of the doubt


I agree except the retroactive TUE given to Floyd Mayweather. That was fishy as all hell. I'm sure Lisa here would have signed up for the opportunity to apply for a TUE two weeks after submitting a sample for testing.

i take your point about mayweather. but i don't know what deal USADA cut with pro boxing's governing bodies (if you can call them that). frankly i'm surprised and pleased that doping has teeth in pro boxing (and the major professional sports). i also note that mayweather's TUE is for something athletes routinely got after every hawaiian ironman (a rehydration IV). i'm not exactly happy about it. but i'd feel much worse if he wrangled a retro TUE for cocaine.


Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: U.S. Triathlon Athlete Lisa Roberts Accepts Public Warning for Anti-Doping Rule Violation [mauricemaher] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I have learned that feigning ignorance and deflecting blame is getting you very far, farther than "I am sorry" and almost as far as the proverbial 'get out of jail free' card.
I see it pulled every day. Aside from it being ethically and morally wrong, the success of this strategy in our society is worrisome.

Also, many people seem to forget that there was considerable WADA pressure on USADA to do something about US cycling at that time.
I do not see that USADA "earned" anything granting it special status in that regard.
Unless one wanted to play on Russian level.
Last edited by: windschatten: Nov 12, 17 20:32
Quote Reply
Re: U.S. Triathlon Athlete Lisa Roberts Accepts Public Warning for Anti-Doping Rule Violation [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
Slowman wrote:


in other words, there's a big difference between arguing "but my doctor prescribed it" in this case versus in a testosterone case.


Where the words, though? Read pages 61-63 of the The Code. The way I read it is cheaters get 4 years. People who didn't intentionally cheat can get 2 years. People who show "No Fault or Negligence" can get less than two years. Did Lisa show "no fault or negligence?" I have a real hard time coming to that conclusion. I could see that with forum member MTM, who plausibly took a contaminated supplement. I don't see that here. Failing to check the DRO for a new prescription drug? That's a form of negligence for a professional athlete. It just is.

Your argument is based on your subjective interpretation of the relative effectiveness of Prohibited Substances. The Code attempts no such interpretation. There are Prohibited Substances. And that's it. There's a very good reason for this. Because it's just impossible in reality to do all the testing to determine which substances are truly effective and which aren't. Particularly since many aren't legally (FDA, etc) approved for any human consumption.

So a bunch of unnamed NADA personnel making this decision seems to be a bit cowboyish to me. Not corrupt or incompetent. Just cowboyish. I completely understand your rationale. If your argument were to add a section for light sentences somewhere in between "no fault or negligence" and the two years for "unintentional doping" then I could support that. But you've described yourself as a "process guy" in the past, and I'm not seeing the process here.

Now, admittedly, I could be wrong. I got "inhaled" vs "oral" wrong above. But that's just the way I read it.

In America our Justice system is based on one critical element: reasonableness. Would a reasonable person in the same situation do the same thing. I think if this athlete's story is true and she was told twice by USADA that she did that need a TUE for the type of inhaler she got, a reasonable person probably wouldn't call a third time. Now, if she's being interpretive with her memory and she was actually just told that she didn't need a TUE for that specific drug (as opposed to not needing one for that type of drug), then the situation probably does change to negligence.

Powertap / Cycleops / Saris
Quote Reply

Prev Next