I'm sure that's true, but I think this is a case of not being as smart as we think.

This thread is interesting in that the consensus seems to change as people actually gather facts and educate themselves.

Perhaps a lesson for us all (me included).

Gather all the facts available.

Consider the facts without regard to the particular athlete (whether we “like” the athlete should be ignored).

Arrive at conclusion.

I want to assume that something went wrong behind the scenes, but I can’t see it.

I honestly be more worried if he’d been told behind the doors that it would be fine.

That’d imply corporate and institutional stupidity, which worries me more than the individual variety.

yep, i'm with you on that.

---

____________________________________
https://lshtm.academia.edu/MikeCallaghan

http://howtobeswiss.blogspot.ch/

Isn't this product similar to Salbutamol? Isn't like 80% of the pro cycling peloton "asthmatic"?

This looks similar to Schoeman's case in Rio, athlete gets really sick, gets a TUE and then he is back performing at same or even better level.

Yes.

Only salbutamol wasn't banned. (within limits)

I am with you on this one, when I first read Starky's post I came to a certain conclusion. But after reading the actual arbitration report and reading a bit more about this substance, I have come to a different conclusion.

As others have mentioned, there is indeed a double standard, as Schoeman and Froome should have been sanctioned too.

Of course the real problem is professional dopers, and the need to have such stringent rules and procedures so real dopers can be called out. Starky is a victim of the system that is needed to catch real dopers like He who shall not be named. A system that has to have stringent procedures and strict guidelines, and unfortunately cannot be flexible enough to make exceptions in this instance. I feel sorry for Starky, and believe this is a stupid mistake and could easily have been avoided. I don't consider Starky a doper or a cheat. If you make exceptions for one athlete you have opened the door for other athletes to chance doping. I feel Starky is a victim here, but don't see an easy solution if sport is to remain as clean as possible.

---

He who understands the WHY, will understand the HOW.

Starky should know the rules just like everyone else. I treat a few high level athletes and we have to be careful. After all the fuss he has been banned through Jan 2021. No races anyway. Whoop, Whoop.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

Sigh...

Andrew Starykowicz is not a victim... he is a professional athlete with agency and free will and the powers of reason. He had all the tools and information necessary to make a good choice and he didn't.

He did not make "a stupid mistake that could easily have been avoided", he made a very bad deliberate choice.

The only thing AS is a victim of is his own stupidity or chutzpah.

---

Eric Reid AeroFit | Instagram Portfolio
Aerodynamic Retul Bike Fitting

“You are experiencing the criminal coverup of a foreign backed fascist hostile takeover of a mafia shakedown of an authoritarian religious slow motion coup. Persuade people to vote for Democracy.”

What was the point of naming Sanders in the article?

Did he do something similar?

The only people more rabid than Starky fans (and detractors) are Sanders fans. That's all the reference is to.

Note: front page story -- https://www.slowtwitch.com/...arky_s_Ban_7828.html

---

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

I found this an interesting part that was missed from Starykowicz's timeline

Something that might be called 7.1 That he raced on the 27th of October. When he knew he didn't have a TUE.

Below...

7) Oct 25, 1pm I called USADA to confirm they received the fax from Oct 23 and ask for status update since WADA Code ISTUE standard 6.7 states
USADA discussed with me that “I could race, but would do so without an active TUE.” Five hours after that phone conversation I received an email that the TUE form was submitted to the TUE committee for review. Of note, this is 10 days after initially faxing the TUE for an acute illness. At this point the only sign showing hope was starting to feeling relief with the use of these medications.
<7.1>
8) Nov 2, 2019. I felt well enough to race and Ironman Florida and got drug tested. I clearly documented on the declaration form that I was taking a Breo inhaler.

This article is like Trump's behaviour.

Awful.

How standards have fallen.

That analogy is flimsy at best.

Fundamentally: Starky was wrong to race. Period. Deserves a ban for it. The problem comes with 1.) attempting to assign a 4-year ban when you a.) knew he had been sick, b.) knew he had applied for a TUE, and c.) had disclosed on his form what he was taking, and then 2.) WADA's also removing the drug that caused the sanction in the first place from the banned list.

At the end of the day, this probably should have been 6 or 9 months for Starky not following procedure for the TUE and for choosing to race.

If you can't parse the difference between a case like this, and say your run of the mill EPO/testosterone/insert drug of choice here case, then there's more problems here.

---

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

oh boy.

(38) 2019 Breakfast with Bob from Kona: Andrew Starykowicz - YouTube

---

@rhyspencer

.
.
These days the court of public opinion serves far more devastating judgements than the real courts passing judgement on actual laws or rules.Often that public "punishment" can be far more devastating that that imposed by the courts.Some are happy to waive away rule breaking due to fan bias and some will call out "hang'em high" for the same reason.Like you,I believe that the term of the ban should have been minimal but I can't get past his own,holier than thou judgement of all athletes in the Breakfast with Bob during Kona week last year.He is a polarizing figure for sure with very strong opinions that he isn't afraid to share,the thing is,when you lecture your peers, condemning then for certain behaviour and then proceed to do exactly what you were condemning them for then you have to expect the backlash to be swift and harsh.

I think it has more to do with intent. He raced with a banned substance in his body knowing full well that his TUE had not been granted and that he was advised not to race. If someone puts themselves above the rules and the process that's the alarming part. Doesn't matter what kind of drug it is. The process is what it is largely to minimize the risk of people taking advantage of the system with medications and TUE's.

---

---

BA coaching http://www.bjornandersson.se

My reading is that he was advised his TUE was under review, and he chose to race, not that his TUE had been denied.

---

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

I edited my wording to "not granted" but the point remains the same.

---

---

BA coaching http://www.bjornandersson.se

This happened im 2019, these drugs were very much on the banned list and not about to be removed any time soon. He took banned drugs, his sanction pretty much only covers"the year that wasn't" so pretty mild really considering there has been minimal racing for him to miss out on anyway. He is free to race again next year, which is very soon. He got off lightly and is not hard done by at all.

What didn't you like about the article?

That is exactly what I meant. But with a caveat, the other guy was also caught, only he got a different treatment.

yes. he rode his bike very hard. almost a suicide pace. knowing he was going to potentially suffer in the run more than others who rode a more conservative pace. which is exactly what you understood if you read the article.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Strictly my opinion which ain't worth much, but I didn't care for the following, and wonder if lesser known/favorite athletes would have gotten the same leeway....



But we think it’s pretty clear that Andrew is not a doper in the sense of seeking an unfair advantage through the ingestion of banned substances. The banned drug Andrew took is set to come off the banned list at the end of this year. Had Andrew intended to gain an advantage he’d have taken a much more obviously advantageous drug.


As has been mentioned over and over, he raced knowing full well he wasn't supposed to, because of having a banned substance in his system.........and took some prize money as well, no?........



Haven't other athletes received much worse bans for accidentally ingesting banned substances that they didn't even know were in a product? And they get skewered by folks here!