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: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Best CHEAP Zwift / Bike Trainer Desk | Theragun G3 vs $140 Bivi Percussive Massager | Normatec Pulse 2.0 vs Normatec Pulse | Speed Hound vs Normatec | Air Relax vs Normatec | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | Why HED JET+ Is The BEST value wheelset

Ah, my mistake was assuming that inhalation was "oral." Turns out they're apparently different things. Thanks for the correction.

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

---

808 > NYC > PDX > YVR
2024 Races: Taupo

How do you feel about such a sanction/violation as a fellow professional?

Don't pros do blood tests for Roth?

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?

---

Two wheels good. Four wheels bad.

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

Here’s the other side of this story:

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

Hope this helps

Tim

---

http://www.magnoliamasters.com
http://www.snappingtortuga.com
http://www.swimeasyspeed.com

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

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.

Edit: I just read her website.

---

blog

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.

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..

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.

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.

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

Well, well

seems like a fair outcome

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.

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.



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

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.

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

The Code is not American. It's a world body, with no direct ties to U.S. criminal justice. (though both arguably have shared roots)

Also if USADA used mistakes by their own personnel as a mitigating circumstance, then they should state that explicitly. Transparency is a key attribute of trust In a governing body. We shouldn't have to ourselves parse possible mitigating circumstances out of blog entries of the sanctioned party or our own estimates of how relatively innocuous the substance seems.

I still find it odd that a woman in her late 30's finally realizes she has exercise induced asthma and needs this specific inhaler. In fact, her husband raved to my husband at the Panama 70.3 in 2016 while we were racing, that her running performance had improved substantial amounts since she started her new inhaler ... seems too fishy for me.

---

�To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift.� � Steve Prefontaine | http://www.kirstyjahntriathlon.com | twitter: @kirstyjahntri

I fully agree that USADA should give an explanation of why this is a warning and not a suspension. And I certainly wouldn't bet a single dollar on the truthfulness of an athlete facing a doing sanction, people in that position historically have a terrible track record! But you have to admit the unusual (as far as I know) public warning vs a suspension lends credibility to the athlete's claim that there may be extenuating circumstances here which normally don't factor into the decision.

To your first point, it is a WADA code but USADA is making the call, I think they will tend towards the reasonableness standard. I don't know much about the civil and criminal Justice systems in the rest of the world, but I would imagine/hope that most other developed countries have also adopted the reasonableness standard.

And to the OP, it does seem weird to me too that someone would suddenly come down with asthma at 30. Is there any research as to the frequency of adult-onset asthma? Also could it be that most adults who may have it don't actually ever diagnose it because they assume it's normal, and only athletes who push their bodies to the limit will realise there is something wrong? It certainly wouldn't be surprising that someone who had suffered from a respiratory disorder would sudden!y improve when the disorder is corrected.

---

Powertap / Cycleops / Saris

It depends where you draw the line for 'disorder".

My own experiment:
In Spring I get exercise-induced 'respiratory restriction' due to mild seasonal allergies. I do not consider that to be Asthma, but it restricts my maximal breathing depth.
I do not use an inhaler for that as it really is not impacting my daily life.

Out of curiosity, I borrowed a TUE-exempt asthma inhaler from a friend of mine.
My maximal breathing depth was significantly improved and hence also my performance (admittedly totally subjective, and don't get me started on placebo-effects).

Do I 'suffer' from Asthma and have a 'disorder'?

I know this is leading off topic, but at the top level, where 1-5% higher VO2max makes all the difference, the border between 'disorder' and 'performance enhancer' is racer sharp.
In this case, she was aware that she was switching medications, and should have followed up. Especially with the apparent 'improvement'.

I still find it odd that a woman in her late 30's finally realizes she has exercise induced asthma and needs this specific inhaler.


There are way too many "I had no idea" excuses coming out of sports. This has been going on for decades and always a variation on the "my case is special" so I should get a pass.


I'm with you, there is something very fishy here. If USADA and any other organization wants to be taken seriously, they have to start abiding by their own rules without exceptions.

Honestly, yes you do suffer from asthma, allergy induced asthema specifically. Lots of people do. That's why the TUE system exists. Not arguing anything about the legality of this case, but the fact that you're casting aspersions on anyone using an inhalor for such things is just rediculous.

I'd say the border between performance enhancer and medical treatment is pretty clear. Do allergies/exercise/etc cause a respiratory reaction that limits breathing? Disorder. Otherwise, not. It's an actual, quantifiable thing.

I don't believe that breathing depth - in normal, non-asthmatic people - is a limiter for aerobic performance. At all. Otherwise we would all be running around with those stupid gimp masks on like Leanda.



I don't think many people have a sense of the high doses of these drugs (above the non-TUE thresholds) that have ever been associated with performance improvement in studies. It is literally a fuck-tonne. If you've ever had to suck on a dozen puffs of Salbutamol to stop your lips turning blue (like I have) you will understand how amusing the idea is of using an inhaled beta-agonist to improve performance... I'd be that dizzy and nauseated that I would struggle to find the damn bike, let alone clip in to the pedals and ride the thing quickly!

Thank you for a totally rational response.

Like the rest, I despise dopers.

This woman is not a doper.

---

----------------------------
Jason
None of the secrets of success will work unless you do.

Someone with a history of asthma are likely to get a new inhaler because
1. Suddenly uncontrolled symptoms of asthma starts happening more often throughout the week
2. Her insurance suddenly stopped paying for her old inhaler so she has to adopt this new one

The particularly frustrating thing for me is that I just checked Breo Ellipta on globaldro.com and, in less than 30 seconds, discovered it’s banned both in an out of competition. The first step isn’t applying for a TUE- it’s checking to see if the thing you are putting in your body is banned or not. Something I do with every single medication I am prescribed. It’s an incredibly simple process that eliminates any of the “I didn’t think I needed a TUE” excuses.

You can't just impart some made up "reasonableness" standard that doesn't exist in the code.

There are lots of strict liability offences in American law: no matter how "reasonable" one's act may have been, one still ends up guilty in those cases.

Your argument has an appeal to emotion, but is not correct.

It is not uncommon for asthmatics to change meds trying best to dial in what keeps your symptoms at bay. Ideally you never need to take your rescue inhaler. It has taken me 25 years to find the mix that works best for me.

---

Pactimo brand ambassador, ask me about promo codes

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. Transparency is important...not just in doping controls.

Honestly, does that really matter? People are attacking a poster, who rightfully has a legitimate interest in the validity of the ruling, more than the athlete that violated the rules??

If it were money taken out of my pockets, I’d be upset too. I’d say transparency in doping controls is more important.

---

https://twitter.com/mungub

I couldn’t care a less about a race almost two years ago. My main reason for posting originally, is because I’m all for clean sport and fairness in penalties. Perhaps, she truly does have exercise induced asthma and needs this inhaler. It still doesn’t change the fact she took a banned substance without a TUE. As professional athlete, I take extra care to make sure even my my multivitamin and fish oil supplement come from an “NSF” lab. Global DRO is extremely easy to use, and if I ever have to take a medication the first thing I do is check while in the doctor ‘s office before I’m prescribed anything that it is not banned. Not checking a new medication even if it is apparently only a different brand is simply being careless.

---

�To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift.� � Steve Prefontaine | http://www.kirstyjahntriathlon.com | twitter: @kirstyjahntri

Wow. A non-lawyer pretending to be a lawyer who has absolutely no idea what he/she is talking about. How about you do everyone on here a favor and talk to someone who actually knows something about the American legal system before you feel the urge to spout off a bunch of tripe. There are many laws that are entirely UNREASONABLE. Regardless, there USADA isn't a US court of law. It's an entity created to enforce non-law rules in sports and has its own set of standards that have nothing to do with the legal system.

Are you a professional athlete?

Her post doesn't make any sense. She first says that she was diagnosed with asthma in her 30s (in and of itself very sketchy) and then started with x brand of inhaler (OK...). Apparently that brand inhaler wasn't working well so she switched to a different brand with the hope of it better addressing her "asthma." She obviously thought the new inhaler was different from the first one (otherwise why switch?) so it defies logic that she just assumed there was no reason to get a TUE for the new -- and clearly different -- inhaler. She loses more credibility by trying to make it sound like receiving a TUE AFTER getting busted somehow washes away the fact that she was taking a banned substance with NO TUE.

She's a pro, she knows the rules and she should be suspended.

Agreed, 100%.

from there,
"I assumed the prescription for this similar type, but different brand inhaler was still under the USADA threshold limits and did not contain substances that required a TUE."

Assumed ? not a good plan.

Agree with slowman on the general outline though.
I wrote about TUEs and asthma based on my experience and research..

I'm going to use this as my opinion also, and explain it a bit.

Not everyone is born without health issues, fine. But at the same time, elite endurance athletics is a very specific discipline with very specific rules. I don't like the idea of TUE's, but it exists. If you want to use something for a real condition, you ask. Sure, you may be denied. But unfortunately, you don't really own your body. Your sponsor/team/country own it. That's a crappy view point, but the performance and legality of that body is essentially the monetary contract almost like my capacity to ethically do my job as an engineer.

In that sense, the penalties are way way too light. I mean, for pete's sake, sure the guy died but there's a statue on Ventoux of Tom Simpson who died a known doper during a competition in which he was doping.

More multi year bans and lifetime bans are needed.

I dare say for motor-doping on bikes.......immediate lifetime ban. Coordinated ban across all endurance cycling disciplines.......UCI, triathlon, off road......all of it.

Yes yes yes.

I'm not sympathetic here.

I was on Dulera a few years back (totally fine in the amounts I use it).

Dulera stopped working well for me, so I went back to my doctor. He prescribed Breo.

I went home, pulled up Global DRO just to be on the safe side, and....

whadya know - it's banned. But Advair is legal (in the amounts I use it)

Went back to doctor, got a script for Advair instead.

She has no excuse for not acting as I did. If I could figure out that a change in medications meant I had to recheck, then she should have known as well.

I believe there was a sprinter several years back who was in a similar situation. She received a harsher penalty for using Breo. http://mcthrows.com/?p=1511

her respiratory delivery limitation is manifesting as Ashma, her very well developed aerobic muscles demand more than her lungs can deliver ...


I was diagnosed with asthma several years ago, after being examined by a doctor who performed spirometry tests. Based on the testing, this is a condition I will continue to address in my daily life, regardless if I am competing or not.


Considering she is listing only last 5 years of results, it means her entire career is based on doping...Asthma seems to be main prerequisite in endurance sports, without asthma you can't have impressive results.

Well that really sucks for her and I am sure she is even more pissed if she reads this story about Lisa. This all makes it even more interesting as this seems to be inconsistent discipline on the part of USADA. I sincerely hope there are not politics involved.

---

---

Save: $50 on Speed Hound Recovery Boots | $20 on Air Relax| $100 on Normatec| 15% on Most Absorbable Magnesium

Blogs: Best CHEAP Zwift / Bike Trainer Desk | Theragun G3 vs $140 Bivi Percussive Massager | Normatec Pulse 2.0 vs Normatec Pulse | Speed Hound vs Normatec | Air Relax vs Normatec | Q1 2018 Blood Test Results | | Why HED JET+ Is The BEST value wheelset

You're operating under the assumption that bronchodilators improve the breathing of anyone who takes them - that's a fallacy.

Asthma is essentially the muscles of one's lungs clenching up - bronchodilators encourage those muscles to relax. If you don't have asthma to begin with, there's nothing for them to address.

The diagnostic test for asthma is a bronchodilator challenge - you puff into a machine to get a baseline, then inhale a large amount of albuterol using a nebulizer. Then you puff into the machine again and they note the difference in flows, if any.

In order to be diagnosed with asthma, you need to have a significant difference in the before and after. Hopefully that fact illustrates to you that taking albuterol or any other beta-agonist is not going to improve the breathing of a non-asthmatic.

asthma is a catch-all for a number of conditions. that's why the medications differ, not only in brand but in class: bronchodilators versus corticosteroids (to name two classes). your asthma might be caused by muscular spasms or by inflammation. further, bronchodilators might be long-lasting or rescue medication. so, it's not quite as cut and dried as you're saying. an athlete may very well choose to bring rescue medication along for the ride, during a race. and to use it.

if you're saying that bronchodilators aren't great as a prophylactic, okay. but, to add a further class, there's one very good reason why they aren't allowed in oral form. have you ever taken one? because i have, and you feel like you can breathe in the entire atmosphere of the world. they absolutely do work.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

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

Now you've done it, logella. Put on some coffee or tea and find a good comfy chair.

The inhaler appears to be working seeing as she won IM Coz on the weekend... At least now she has a TUE for it, still surprised that she didn't get a ban from the first offense... The only way to eradicate doping is to make the punishments harsh enough such that, the potential costs outweigh the potential benefits. If being sloppy in terms of getting a TUE only cost you one result and a little prize money, that's not a huge deterrent... If it costs you a 2 or 4 year ban, then people will be a lot more careful with what they put in their bodies... We'll have a lot less of this stuff if accidental offences get a 2 or 4 year ban, and non-accidental cases are auto-lifetime bans... and while yes there is the damage to one's image caused by the court of public opinion which will no doubt cost her on sponsor dollars, but when the penalty is a slap on the wrist, it's not going to change behavior...

still surprised that she didn't get a ban from the first offense... The only way to eradicate doping is to make the punishments harsh enough such that, the potential costs outweigh the potential benefits. //

Just to set the record straight here, she did get a ban. It was the race result from Germany and she lost that prize money, sponser bonuses, and any start fees paid. A lot of you seem to be under the impression she lost nothing. It may be a one day ban but it was a day where she made good money, so not the hand slap many are portraying here.


I'm inclined to go along with the USADA stance in this case, it does not seem to be a case of willful doping to gain an unfair advantage. It does seem to be a case of negligence on her part, around a drug that is commonly used and not really a performance enhancer to those without asthma. Besides the cost to her reputation, she did lose money in the final result, so lets keep that in mind in the discussion..

If you believe that there was negligence on her part, with no intent of gaining an unfair advantage, then you must also believe that USADA did not follow their own regulations. In such a case, there is no situation in which they are allowed to hand down anything less than a 1 year ban, even with a lot of mitigating circumstances. Less than one year is only in the case of no fault or negligence.

---

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

developed exercise-induced asthma at 46 with no prior symptoms, now 57 progressed to full-blown asthma attacks, ended up in ER with the last one. Breathing is not overrated..

agree with monty and slowman - Lisa was foolish/careless, got punished, that's enough for me.

then you must also believe that USADA did not follow their own regulations. //

First of all I don't claim to know what the regulations and/or guidelines USADA uses for their internal decisions. Someone posted something earlier that seems to indicate they ruled within their guidelines, you seem to think not. I guess you could enact a class action lawsuit on behalf of all the women that won prize money in this past race in Mexico and see if your stance has any legs to stand on.


I'm just going to go with it was within their purview to do what they did. And I'm not really all that interested in digging further as I do not believe that this case warrants it. I would put more energy into one of the big 4 drugs, or even their maskers. But this common use asthma medication with someone with a know history of the ailment, just does not boil my blood like some here.


It may also be because I actually suffered from the same exact thing, got my asthma at 32 and it got worse and worse over the next decade. It was quite common for people in my demographic to get adult onset exercise induced asthma. Growing up in LA during the Beijing like smog as a kid, in a house with parents that smoked, and then living next to the LA airport sandwiched between the Chevron plant in El (Smell) Segundo where every house had mold from the ocean air. Any one of those things was found to be risk factors for Adult onset asthma, I had the grand slam.


And come to find out later that it was entirely environmental, at least what triggered it in me. I moved to the desert and got rid of all carpets, and over a short period of time I was able to throw away all my inhalers and pills. Dan went through the same exact same thing, only he had it worse than me, think he was taking 3 medications for his..

Uh, just to set the record straight, there was no ban. She had her results nullified for the period when she competed doped. That is a common penalty when athletes are caught doping. Everyone has their results nullified at the event they failed the test up until their suspension begins. At no point was Roberts barred from competition.

She had her results nullified for the period when she competed doped. //

Ok you got me I used the wrong word, congratulations. Did you get my point though?? Now that I agree about the wording, do you have anything to add to that point??

If you don't care what the rules are then fine. The person who indicated this was within the regulations was wrong. The person who earlier posted a correct interpretation of the rules along with a link and the relevant page number to make it easy to read the rules was right. Minimum 1 year ban required. We can't just say that the rules do not apply to this athlete but they do apply to others.

Obviously I cannot (and would not even if I could) start a class action lawsuit. Is this a really egregious doping violation? No. Should we want it handled correctly? Yes.

---

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

Sure, I can add more to my point.
Roberts got off light and USADA didn’t follow their own rules in doling out the appropriate penalty. I think that is BS. Do you really need me to list all the reasons that thats wrong and damages the credibility of both the sport and USADA?

Roberts got off light //

Ok then, that was my point. Many or even most against the ruling seem to have been of the mind that she got off scott free. My only real point was that was not the case, there was a pretty severe financial penalty levied against her. You think it was too light, I think just about right, so degree of punishment seems to be our minor disagreement.

i think the point ed is really trying to make is that what USADA has ultimately done in this decision is remove faith in their system and application of rules. sure, lisa may only "deserve" what she received, but i think less of USADA for not strictly applying the rules throughout their case load.

if lisa had been served with the stated ruling for her case, the outcome at Cozumel would be just one example of how much USADA can matter.

Dude!
That’s the entire point of this thread. That’s the actual topic! What we were/are discussing specifically is why the punishment was inappropriate. You incorrectly “set the record straight”, I corrected you because it was germane to the question of the correct penalty. Whether or not you think the punishment fit the crime, the punishment did not, in fact, fit the crime per USADA rules. That’s a fact.

ultimately done in this decision is remove faith in their system and application of rules.//

So says you and some others here, thats fine. I don't see it that way, as others here, and find the fine tuning on the very low end of violations to be refreshing. I put this in the poppy seed bagel category, or one extra cup of coffee to barley cross the threshold. The lets throw all the cheaters in jail never held well with me. Having been on the testing end at least a few dozen times, and during the years when things were changing quickly all the time, I have a little empathy for athletes caught out in these situations, as it appears USADA does too. When that bagel violation hit or the tainted supplement ones, it was unnerving every time we would take a test. I was always thinking what is going to be the next thing no one has thought of yet that is unavoidable.


I do agree that it is more defined now and it has been part of the culture of pro athletes long enough that they should be on top of everything at all times. Just feel that there should be a sliding scale where there is something at the very bottom and heinous crimes at the very top, with lots in the middle. 2/1 year bans as the lowest punishments doesn't say to me that there are super minor infarctions that just barley cross low hanging lines. To me he financial penalty was in order with the infraction. But like you say, a lot of people seem to agree with you and you have a valid argument to make..

Precedent by other AD bodies, reasonable expectation of universal and fair treatment (from a tax payer funded body), possible blue print or “plausible deniability” for use by others (ie she got away with it)

These are my concerns and how it affects the credibility of USADA. In Canada we aren’t perfect either.

(Not a lawyer so uncertain if the term “plausible deniability” is the correct one to use here)

Maurice,

Yea, just look at how ubiquitous "tainted meat" has become!

(obviously, contador served a ban, so not a direct comparison)

I suspect many find a "fine tuning" as a slippery slope. We have lots of past examples of national testing bodies "fine tuning" positive results so that their nation's athletes can compete on the world stage in direct violation of anti-doping rules (think USA track and field before the 84 Olympics burying positive tests).

When bodies ignore their own rules, it hurts credibility, transparency and introduces a huge element of subjectivity (which inevitably is abused). If WADA et al wants to fine tune its rules, it can do so by changing their rules first, not by ignoring them on a case by case basis.

I suspect many find a "fine tuning" as a slippery slope. //

Or some of us see it as just doing the right thing in the right circumstances. Of course there have been and are abuses, do you think that is what this case of a common asthma medication, in a minor sport of a virtually unknown athlete is? I mean if your slippery slope means that others that got the death penalty for this type of infraction or the proverbial poppy seed bagel will not in the future, then lube up that slope. I was around when Rick DeMont was stripped of a gold medal that was one of the closest races ever in olympic history. We all felt then that it was a pretty harsh penalty, about as bad as it can get actually. Anyone interested this is an old article on his story;

http://articles.latimes.com/...17603_1_olympic-gold


But as in most things in life that are controversial, there is this pendulum swing from one extreme to another. We went from head in the sand to using a hammer on every situation, and now perhaps the swing gets closer to the center where it ought to be..

So now imagine the rules specifically said DeMont's situation required a one year ban and he got one. Then a week later another swimmer does exactly the same thing but USADA doesn't ban swimmer B and says "we think swimmer B didn't mean to do it so we are going to ignore the rules and impose a one meet penalty instead".

Wouldn't that be an issue? It is that sort of thing that giving doping agencies discretion to ignore their own guidelines can cause.