Adverse Analytical Finding returned during in-competition test

[V12man]

I will be holding back with my pitchfork. This is not a very hightech PED. Very common in treatment of many conditions - including skinrashes (even saddlesores). Let us just get a bit more info. All will be told.

 

I don't believe it is a PED at all personally - and I take it from time to time to control my Asthma when I am sick. - makes me fat in a couple of days...

 

Interestingly for Prednisone, looks you can use it topically if you look at the restricted administration methods, topically does not seem to be an issue... wonder if that would show up in their test...

 

Guess we will wait and see - can't see the logic of making a public announcement of the finding before the hearing.. that's like pronouncing him guilty in the public eye... because they sure won't make a song and dance about it if he is cleared.

[Daideron]

V12man, there is a great sadness in that very point, yes they reveal the fact that someone has tested positive, and from that point damage is done. Its true, nobody ever goes to equal lengths to apologise or explain should it be found there was an explanation behind the positive test.

Especially if there is debate with regards to this particular substance, surely SAIDS are aware that certain substances should warrant further investigation? Or am expecting too much?

However, for me this is still a positive test, and needs to be clarified both by the rider and SAIDS.

 

As for Eldrons narcississm, I think we should all have this approach to anyone that has tested positive AND been found guilty. There should be such a stigma attached to it that no one would want the shame or indignity attached to them. From my experience and observation of our local pro's, they seem to care less. So there is a few days of slander on the Hub, but then the offending rider is either working at a bike shop or managing a team. There is no sense of "its the end of the world" to any of them. Most of them seem to find it funny. If the 'tar and feather' approach was more widely adopted, maybe riders would think twice? In my opinion, if you test positive and it is proven it was not a TUE medication, you should have to pay a fine regardless of the duration of the ban. It should be a non negotiable consequence of a positive test, that you have to pay a near crippling fine regardless of what the substance was (cannabis, MDMA, Growth Hormone or EPO) The mandatory fine should be so high that nobody will want to take the risk of bankruptcy. Now, riders accept their bans and go and open bike shops, stand behind the counter and tell tales of their racing days.

Am I harsh? Yes, and Eldron I am sure you will agree that the punishments currently do not fit the crimes?

Well, thats just my 2c

[Eldron]

Am I harsh? Yes, and Eldron I am sure you will agree that the punishments currently do not fit the crimes?

Well, thats just my 2c

 

Ironically I have always advocated a dual system. Positives like Craig Stone's I'm pretty sure were a result of trusting the wrong doctor/ignoring the problem/not educating yourself on what is legal etc.

 

Mistakes like this don't deserve the full BAN THEM FOREVER pitchfork approach (much as I'd like to see it I guess we have to leave some leeway for "soft drugs".

 

EPO/HGH/Blood Doping etc should be lifetime ban on first fail in my opinion.

 

6 months/1 year for things like diet pills/topical steroidals/mild CNS stimulants etc.

 

Nolan Hoffman is a good case in point. Under pressure he used a steroidal to fix an injury faster. Silly mistake but not one that would give him a massive advantage over the competition (although, like Craig, the sterdoial would heal the injury faster giving him an advantage over an athlete with a similar injury who used a legal cure).

 

Let's hope Craig Stone has a TUE so this becomes a non issue. If no TUE then 6 months/1 year (meaning no Epic next year) will hopefully make the guy (and any young aspiring athlete following the story) realise the consequences of their actions.

[stringbean]

I agree 100% with V12,it's not uncommon for your GP to prescribe it and I really feel sorry for Craig as I do believe it's a mistake on his part.It's a tough one.You sit with a chest infection for 3 weeks that wont go away,the normal response from your GP will be antibiotics and perhaps steroid.So you can not take anything and sit with this for months or take it and not race till you think it has cleared from your system.The problem is that the testing is getting so good that a year ago they could pick up a steroid in your system that you took a couple of months ago,now they can pick it up in your system if you took it a year ago.I think that Drug free SA are doing it right with the little money they have.Why should the guy comming last be treated different to the winner.We are more than happy to enter races with international riders,top SA guys and UCI points on the line but then moan if we are subjected to the same rules as them.

[stringbean]

I'm pretty sure he won't have a TUE.If every time a GP prescibed that ,or flu medication to someone that was going to be doing a race in the near future,imagine the chaos if everyone then applied for a TUE.This is what might happen in future if he gets nailed.

[Eldron]

I'm pretty sure he won't have a TUE.If every time a GP prescibed that ,or flu medication to someone that was going to be doing a race in the near future,imagine the chaos if everyone then applied for a TUE.This is what might happen in future if he gets nailed.

 

Agreed - half the TdF peleton have asthma and a TUE for a steroidal cure - it makes a biut of a mockery of the system.

 

The solution is - download the book and arm youorself with the knowledge required. We learn the rules of the road to drive a car, pass a competancy test for a gun, sign a contract of employment when we start work - every aspect of life has a set of rules.

 

If you're at the point where you're starting to win stuff and get sponsors then it really is your responsibility to learn the rules of cycling.

 

That said - and spinnekop and I have debated this at length - the info is not clear cut in some instances. In those instances pick up the phone and chat to SAIDS - they've been pretty good in my experience.

 

Ultimately - if in doubt - don't take it.

[stringbean]

No need for books or anything.I've said before,drugfreesport has a brilliant phone app where everything is listed and you just type in the medication and it tells you if you can use it or not.

[Daideron]

And when you are tested, declare it. You will be asked by the SAIDS officer when you are taken in for the test if you have taken anything, or if you have a TUE certificate. No use crying foul after the event, rather be honest and upfront with the test.

[Spinnekop]

No need for books or anything.I've said before,drugfreesport has a brilliant phone app where everything is listed and you just type in the medication and it tells you if you can use it or not.

 

The app is 80% effective.

NONE of the items listed on any of SA supplement industry as "ingredients" are on the app.

 

Secondly, there are quite a lot of medication that I have checked in the past that they do not list. So no....not always clear cut.

 

General rule would be as follows:

 

Ultimately - if in doubt - don't take it.

 

Not so easy when you are a wannabe funrider that wants to take the medicine that the doctor prescribed you.....that you had to pay for with your salary........just to get better...not cheat in the local fun ride.

[stringbean]

How far back do you declare?6 months?8 months? 2 years?Not that simple.As the testing is getting better, the window period for drugs is changing every day.Imagine testing positive for cortisone your GP put you on a year ago.

[Spinnekop]

How far back do you declare?6 months?8 months? 2 years?Not that simple.As the testing is getting better, the window period for drugs is changing every day.Imagine testing positive for cortisone your GP put you on a year ago.

 

There is a time period stipulated on the form.

 

But yes....good point.

 

SAIDS told me that if you use "banned only in competition" stuff like the normal Sinucon are (good cheap sinus remedy) then you should stop using it at least 2 weeks before the competition.

But that was only a rough guideline.

[Eldron]

Not so easy when you are a wannabe funrider that wants to take the medicine that the doctor prescribed you.....that you had to pay for with your salary........just to get better...not cheat in the local fun ride.

 

The only fun rider wannabe I know of that got caught was the mtbmuscletat oke right here on thehub and he knowingly took a banned substance. The system seems to be working - fun riders are not getting bust left, right and centre.

 

Also - if you're sick enough to require medication I reckon you should not be racing your bicycle!

[Lefty V]

Ugh, clearly Friday, but hey since it is, I might as well....

 

"Positives like Craig Stone's I'm pretty sure were a result of trusting the wrong doctor/ignoring the problem/not educating yourself on what is legal etc."

 

First flame the guy, then make rambling justifications based on more ignorance? How are you pretty sure now?

 

How about taking the radical option of basing opinions on facts once they become available?

Edited October 25, 2013 by Lefty V

[mazambaan]

Good post Spinnekop and I like Eldron's variable "fit the crime" sentencing not one size fits all crimes.

 

Not easy to do everything yourself as an athlete, you eventually have to rely on others. Not all doctors are knowledgeable as regards medication and its side effects, let alone whether it's on a banned list.

 

Mr Stone, being an motor bike enduro (ex?) rider, I'm surprised it's such a complex drug - thought it would be good old aaptwak. Flame suit on.

[Eldron]

Ugh, clearly Friday, but hey since it is, I might as well....

 

"Positives like Craig Stone's I'm pretty sure were a result of trusting the wrong doctor/ignoring the problem/not educating yourself on what is legal etc."

 

First flame the guy, then make rambling justifications based on more ignorance? How are you pretty sure now?

 

How about taking the radical option of basing opinions on facts once they become available?

 

Fact: An illegal substance was found in his system. Until such time as a correclty dated TUE is presented he is guilt of doping.

 

"Pretty sure" means exactly that. I'm not 100% sure. It is the likely scenario as the substance in question is not a traditional performance enhancer.

[Lefty V]

"It is the likely scenario as the substance in question is not a traditional performance enhancer." as opposed to your "farkin cheater" and "Whatever way you look at it - glucocorticosteroids benefit those taking them (illegally benefit). " statements?

 

So with facts I mean facts about things like motive and circumstances because your reaction of wanting to ban for life and defame the guy speaks to that, and not to single reported fact of the positive test.