I asked USA Cycling about a similar issue. USA Cycling regularly reposts the USADA guidance on supplements, with the NSF certification recommendation. USA Cycling recently entered an endorsement deal with product all "AMP Lotion" (baking soda cream) which is not certified by NSF.
And I *did* suggest to USA Cycling that they simply stop repeating the USADA bit about NSF. Or list other sanctioning bodies that are respected.

I got no reply.

I do agree that sanctioning bodies should drink their own Kool-Aid.

If that's true (and I'm inclined to believe you, as I don't really know much about CBD in general)...

...Then the USADA website is very misleading, as it certainly points to CBD as a culprit. They could have written it in such a way to point to the fact that what she claimed is very unlikely... but they didn't.

So not only would another pro be lying, the agency in charge of communicating what is clean sport is isn't doing their job.

Yes. I am confident. I've read many papers on THC elimination rates (or at least what's available... there isn't a ton out there, due to federal bans on THC research), and the resulting metabolite concentrations in urine. The WADA threshold for a positive (150 ng/mL) is extremely high. There is no reasonable way that a CBD cream, alone, could push someone over that threshold.

Her positive was the result of being careless with THC use. Plain and simple.

Is it a dumb rule? Yes. But it also takes an extremely careless athlete to violate that rule.

I don't care if she used weed. Hell, I did, plenty. It's just the lying and scapegoating by her that's objectionable. I suspect she'd find that most sponsors wouldn't care much either, as long as she was honest about it.

Oh, wow... they raised the threshold to 180??? Hahaha, that's even higher.

With the press release, I'd guess there were a lot of lawyers giving input on that one, just to make it as dry and "legally general" as possible. They got their suspension, there's no point in adding insult to injury, right?

It just seems callous to throw another professional athlete under the bus. For a substance that you claim many pros, including yourself use. In light of how hypocritical this new partnership is- and their stance on thc in general- you’d think that would be the sticking point- but yet she lied, she should have known trumps that. ( assuming she lied, and she’s stupid enough to risk massive financial loss...the latter which I doubt) I also doubt sponsors would be supportive regardless. I don’t think they dropped her for “lying” as you said , but bc of optics and a positive test for a banned substance. That just makes the most legal sense....contract terminated etc.
My take because it makes the most sense.
It’s very likely she may have used edibles creams vapes etc- outside what she thought was the safe window. Under the guidance of safe usage outlined by out of competing guidelines bc as you say, many pros do it. So why would she be different- and maybe the cream was the straw that broke the back so to speak.
I doubt a pro with as much at stake would be so careless. It just doesn’t add up. Nor if this were a habit- that someone who raced as much as she did would just finally get caught.

just so i can get my arms around the point here, why is this partnership hypocritical? what is USAT's stance on THC? and why is that stance - whatever it is (i don't know) - in conflict with this new partnership?

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I mean... she threw CBD businesses under the bus, and created doubt about the quality control of many highly responsible business people, in an act of desperate selfishness. Are there CBD companies with poor quality control? Of course. But there are also likely wayyy more who are extremely strict about quality control, if nothing else, because they know the federal gov't is watching.

I have no dog in this fight. I barely know her, and I retired from racing a few months ago. I'm just stating the mostly likely scenario, because it feels wrong for her to scapegoat others for problems that she created on her own.

To imply safe and accepted use around a substance which previously had been taboo. Including bans for athletes using said substance. True or not.
As many have stated: thc is acceptable out of competition- but not in competition- which is why they’ve introduced “thresholds” and apparently have just upped threshold. I assume they’re doing this bc they have no idea what is a reasonable threshold. They should just ban it. Not bc it shouldn’t be legal. But bc there’s no way to test what they claim to test. In use competition of thc.
Coming in 2020: Ironman bike course brought to you by starbuds. Or the like.
Usat will profit from it and yet destroy athletes careers while the claim to be leading the charge into getting rid of outdated policies and serving athletes. That to me is hypocrisy.

CBD is for sale in most bike shops and running shops in my area, so not surprised. It will be interesting (if or when) Floyd sells his company and ends up with more cheddar than Lance and every other pro cyclist on this planet combined.

Being that I have firsthand knowledge- Goss actually owned up to using a cbd product with thc bc she thought it was acceptable and safe. The product has more than it claimed ( 4x) more apparently. Whether people buy that it’s the cause of her positive test, or if that’s true, I can’t speak to. But again- I just come back to the issue with speaking so strongly around something where the details are murky, and we don’t have the facts. Whether that’s testing thresholds( yes we all have google) or what she said to sponsors or dragged cbd through the mud. That to me isn’t scape goating it’s irresponsible and callous to make claims when solid facts are hard to come by.

first, what does taboo have to do with it? i can think of a lot of things that were taboo but now aren't, and the reasons for their taboo status were much weaker than the reasons for their later acceptance. including certain pharmaceuticals.

as to "them" and "they", mostly what you're talking about is USADA. i argued, here, with travis tygart (longtime head of USADA) back in 2011 and 2012, that cannabis was a bad fit for triathlon's PED list. he and i got into a rather strident disagreement on that. i don't see why USAT should be thrown in with USADA on this. and this is beside the fact that CBD is not banned. only THC is, and only in competition.

and finally, yes, there is a way for USAT to test for this. as i wrote higher up, my counsel to USAT was to buy a bottle of its new partner's CBD oil, and test a gel cap, once every few weeks, to make sure CBD is in there and THC isn't in there.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

I'm sure she told you things, and that's fine.

But the concept of testing positive for THC at the WADA threshold from a CBD cream, is akin to testing positive for cocaine from handling cash. It's just so wildly unlikely that it can be dismissed as a reasonable explanation.

I'm sure she was using CBD cream. No one said she wasn't. But there's no way that a CBD cream, alone, could trigger a positive at that threshold.

Totally agree with you there.

The way they test for it now is stupid and ineffective.

The point of the in-competition ban is to make sure that athletes aren't competing while high. But they're not testing to see if someone is high. They're just testing to see if someone has gotten super high recently, which... great? What's the point of that? lolllz

In competition doesn't mean "during" a race. No one in any sport gets tested in the middle of a fight or a race. There is the out of competition window and the in competition window. For Triathlon, the in competition window appears to be 24-48 hours before and 24-48 hours after. No one will draw blood or make you piss the morning of an event.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

Athletes are tested post race. So yes, they make you piss right after the race. ( which probably contributes to concentrations due to severe dehydration caused by an Ironman event) further undermining threshold arguments.
And again: THC metabolizes in your fat, unlike any other substances. Which is why you could smoke weed and it would cause a positive test weeks after use)
So: and this is a fact. There’s no way to test when an athlete consumed or inhaled or whatever- THC.
USADA has defined a threshold allowable amount which if an athlete tests over - they’re hit.
My quarrel is the wording. Banned in competition.
Yet allowed out of competition. But there’s no way to prove when an athlete took THC, especially given what we scientifically know about how THC is metabolized.
So we’re banning athletes for a substance that’s not banned out of competition with a test that can’t prove when they took it.

After a race is completely cool. Where did I say they didn't. I said they wouldn't draw blood or make you go get your meat gazed at the morning of a race because that's just dumb. And no way would I ever compete the day of giving blood.

---

Washed up footy player turned Triathlete.

Did you get a response in your recommendation? After watching and reading about CBD oil I would be concerned about any other contaminants. As I pedal past the fields of cannabis plants in Camarillo, I see they are next to fields that are sprayed via helicopter for pesticides.

---

Team Zoot So Cal

But you could say that about *any* agricultural product

if you want to know really what not to eat from camarillo, it's the strawberries, which from my reading uptake more of the chemicals, pesticides, whatnot, of any fruit or veggie, that is, they're about the best thing to eat organic.

as to the CBD, i do not know what USAT intends to do to activate its deal. i always like to invest some of my partners' money back into my partner, and that's the particular recommendation i made to USAT. i think it would be nice to know that there's CBD in the CBD, because that particular supplement is somewhat known for that not always being the case. i do know that USAT performed some specific due diligence about this company, however, i think it would be a service to the partner to provide this testing, announce the results, which would (in my opinion) cause a lot of people to buy this particular CBD (if they're in the CBD market).

as to the pesticides, i'm just telling USAT it might want to simply test for CBD and THC, not mercury, agent orange, or polonium 210.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Agreed on the strawberries😜

It seems that there is at least some testing in “foods”. On herbal remedies, it seems less so. Let the buyer beware??

I’ll stay agnostic also

---

Team Zoot So Cal

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Pure Spectrum (Evergreen, Colorado) uses Botanacor Laboratories (Denver, Colorado) to do their independent testing. It is hyped as the largest CBD testing facility, but it's an LLC, so it's for profit.

The lab's name is on the files they post under Testing which are supposed to be from every batch that Pure Spectrum produces.

USAT just posted a FAQ on the announcement.


Why is USA Triathlon partnering with a CBD company?
We are committed to helping athletes navigate the crowded CBD space by providing an option that is both safe for their bodies and compliant according to U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) rules and regulations. We are proud to recommend a vetted CBD option, and we look forward to helping educate triathletes of all levels about the direct benefits of CBD and introducing them to Pure Spectrum’s innovative line of products.

I find it interesting that you're essentially a new user who joined the day after the Goss thread was started back in August and as of now has a grand total of 9 posts on Slowtwitch all either on that thread or this one.

So, who are you and what's your connection to this matter?

I’m not sure hypocritical is the best word but I find incredibly odd that in USAT’s FAQ (https://www.teamusa.org/...ources/Pure-Spectrum) they say that “Pure Spectrum never contains THC”. Yet USAT, on the same faq page, links to USADA’s athlete advisory (https://www.usada.org/...020-prohibited-list/) where USADA says “it’s nearly Impossible to obtain a CBD pure extract” which means it’s likely to contain THC. So does USAT think they found a company that defied USADA’s impossible?

Also, I found it incredibly ironic that the faq page says Pure Spectrum athletes have never tested positive.

---

blog