Yolande de Villiers sanctioned for anti-doping rule violation

[jcza]

Have you tried asking a pharmaceutical company what their products contain? I have all they will offer is printed on the side of the container. Add up those numbers and they don't reconcile to 1 so theres also stuff in there they won't disclose. To find out what that "other stuff" is I would need to send the product to a lab and have it analysed and then I'll fall foul of patent or copyright law.

So either way, as an athelete, unless you live on organic produce groen in your own backyard and fertilized by a free range cow, drink natural spring water and are one of those 0.005% of the worlds population who never gets ill, you're rolling the dice when you turn up to start a bike race and you're asked to pee in the cup.

 

Without full disclosure of what any foodstuff contains, the athlete cannot be 100% responsible for what they ingest because of the lack of transparency in the food/medication/ manufacturing and supply chain.

Only WADA and its affiliates can demystify that. In the mean time, we're all guinea pigs, and sacrificial lambs in the game of laying down markers to act as a deterrent.

 

I don't find that particularly fair when WADA is all about promoting fair sport. This is like justifying the Spanish Inquisition as a good cause that had to step over the line in order to givet Christianity credibility by identifying witch craft. The only difference is that witches never really existed.

 

I was only referring to medication not supplements, dodgy steakhouses/roadhouses etc and it will only apply to meds not specifically listed on the website. 

[BarHugger]

Have you tried asking a pharmaceutical company what their products contain? I have all they will offer is printed on the side of the container. Add up those numbers and they don't reconcile to 1 so theres also stuff in there they won't disclose. To find out what that "other stuff" is I would need to send the product to a lab and have it analysed and then I'll fall foul of patent or copyright law.

 

The best post in this thread so far....if you read back a bit it's exactly what I was referring to and then we got handed the link where it was suggested as to how "simple" it is........

[Baaisikilist]

I think you hit the nail on the head - seems the current  way of doing things is to go ahead anyway and hope for the best (Seems to be the method KE & BS was following).

 

For how long can athletes keep on hiding behind ignorance given the tainted history of the sport?

Just a question...

 

How long is the TUE application and approval process supposed to take...?

I mean, for our local "pro's", not Chris Froome.

How many potential income earning events do you need to sit out whilst they fumble...?

Is the process being run as a streamlined, well oiled machine...?

[BarHugger]

This is obviously speculation, but their fingers are still in their ears, and they're still going "LALALALALALALALALA....!!!!", so anything here is all pure speculation.

 

One has to wonder why she only got 10 months, and why they are considered to have already been served.

 

I smell rats...

Purely just an out there thought....but we are living in a country where greasing of palms is a favourite pastime .......

[raptor-22]

I was only referring to medication not supplements, dodgy steakhouses/roadhouses etc and it will only apply to meds not specifically listed on the website. 

 

 

With Prescription medication its an absolute mine field. I asked my doc to check up on a particular med he prescribed because it was not known if it was on the banned list or not.

 

He came back to me a week later (he has other patients and a life after work) and said he THINKS its ok.

I asked why no certainty and he said , even though the ingredient list is extensive, convoluted (intentionally) he could not be 100% certain as some of the names of the ingredients are proprietary to the manufacturer. He had asked the pharmacist who asked the pharmaceutical rep.

All she came back with was a shorter skirt, slightly higher heel, extra swing and a "ek dink dis OOOIriiiiiight!"

 

So,

Forgive me if I'm a bit soft on dopers but when the burden of proof is with the athlete and information is not quite 100% available then I'm very very skeptical that the only objective is athlete health. It may be the final objective but right now the purpose is sacrificing as many lambs as possible to give the system credibility

[Edgar]

So as part of my formulating my arguments to illustrate my distrust of the system I've been reading through transcripts of SAIDS hearings with athletes who have found themselves on the wrong side of the process.

 

The challenge with educating people about the system is not with the process but rather what is allowed and what is not , knowing all the names of the substances. This burden lies with the athlete. This in itself is a bit of an unfair expectation since one really needs a degree in sports medicine, pharmacy or biochemistry to make head or tail of it. The app on their website is helpful but it wouldn't have helped the kid who bought supplements from dischem and 32Gi.

 

The whole burden of proof lying with the athletes smacks of a witch hunt since the athletes; particularly at an amateur or lower level pro will not have the resources to establish the contents of every vitamin or supplement they ingest without having a lab do analysis of the products. It's here where I feel WADA and moRe locally SAIDS needs to be assisting by identifying which products actually contain banned substances and approve products that are clean by either developing an SABS standard or applying a SAIDS approved mark to products.

 

In a he mean time it feels like picking the low hanging fruit to serve as sacrificial lambs and a deterrent to others is the real objective. If a real doper gets caught then that's a bonus.

 

Agree with you that education needs to improve and I believe responsibility falls to both parties. You are correct in pointing out that it is difficult to know all the names of the substances and that can make it difficult. As it stands though the burden of responsibility does lie with the athletes. They would need to lobby the relevant groups to get this changed. That is however the frame work you have to live with when taking up sport. Righ or Wrong. 

 

With regards to Dischem and the Kid that bought any supplement, for the last few years Discham have implemented Safe Supplements thttp://http://dischem.co.za/articles/17240-safe-supplements/16976-choose-safe- to assist with this. There is also the Trusted by Sport symbol which will give you comfort when choosing supplements. If there is cross contamination, you should be able to prove it. I personally would advise athletes to take a photo of the barcode and batch no. of all supplements they take to keep as a record. There are enough athletes that have got off with this defense in the last few years to prove that it does work. 

 

WADA and SAIDS could be more involved with organisations like LGC and Trusted by Sport to assist athletes, they do publish a booklet of illegal substances. Again, ingredients are given different names and generics are not always covered. 

 

In the last few months 3 cyclists have had AAF and I see some EFC guy (not my thing so can't really comment)  all three of the cyclists I would class as high profile, so hardly sacrificial lambs here. And yes, I think it is sending out a very strong message, be careful, don't dope and if you do and we catch you. The punishment will follow. Ignorance cannot be an excuse, and we still don't know what RC's punishment is going to be. 

 

I'm making these comments from what is in the public domain at this point. Athletes are always given the opportunity to defend themselves, if they are not happy with this process they still have the option of going to CAS. (I'm not debating whether this is a realistic option for SA athletes) 

 

I would really like to see more transparency from WADA, SAIDS, CSA and the UCI. they owe that to the the athlete and to the us the general public. 

[Skubarra]

Just a question...

 

How long is the TUE application and approval process supposed to take...?

I mean, for our local "pro's", not Chris Froome.

How many potential income earning events do you need to sit out whilst they fumble...?

Is the process being run as a streamlined, well oiled machine...?

 

Baaisikilist - I see where you going with this... 

 

I am happy to belief the possibility that some of the athletes who got caught made genuine admin mistakes (not helped by a ineffective SAIDS/CSA).

 

But given that the "oops, there was an admin mix up" excuse doesn't fly anymore (at least with UCI) is it still worth the risk to just go ahead and hope for the best when there is uncertainty? I would imagine losing a sponsor is less career limiting than a 2 year ban for doping.

[Edgar]

With Prescription medication its an absolute mine field. I asked my doc to check up on a particular med he prescribed because it was not known if it was on the banned list or not.

 

He came back to me a week later (he has other patients and a life after work) and said he THINKS its ok.

I asked why no certainty and he said , even though the ingredient list is extensive, convoluted (intentionally) he could not be 100% certain as some of the names of the ingredients are proprietary to the manufacturer. He had asked the pharmacist who asked the pharmaceutical rep.

All she came back with was a shorter skirt, slightly higher heel, extra swing and a "ek dink dis OOOIriiiiiight!"

 

So,

Forgive me if I'm a bit soft on dopers but when the burden of proof is with the athlete and information is not quite 100% available then I'm very very skeptical that the only objective is athlete health. It may be the final objective but right now the purpose is sacrificing as many lambs as possible to give the system credibility

 

 

From my understanding you cannot be held responsible for ingesting things that are not declared on the label. If you can prove that what you tested positive for is in the medication you are taking and it is not listed you will be allowed to continue business as usual. 

 

That being said, if you need medication for health reasons should you be pushing your body to the brink racing and competing? 

[raptor-22]

Agree with you that education needs to improve and I believe responsibility falls to both parties. You are correct in pointing out that it is difficult to know all the names of the substances and that can make it difficult. As it stands though the burden of responsibility does lie with the athletes. They would need to lobby the relevant groups to get this changed. That is however the frame work you have to live with when taking up sport. Righ or Wrong. 

 

With regards to Dischem and the Kid that bought any supplement, for the last few years Discham have implemented Safe Supplements thttp://http://dischem.co.za/articles/17240-safe-supplements/16976-choose-safe- to assist with this. There is also the Trusted by Sport symbol which will give you comfort when choosing supplements. If there is cross contamination, you should be able to prove it. I personally would advise athletes to take a photo of the barcode and batch no. of all supplements they take to keep as a record. There are enough athletes that have got off with this defense in the last few years to prove that it does work. 

 

WADA and SAIDS could be more involved with organisations like LGC and Trusted by Sport to assist athletes, they do publish a booklet of illegal substances. Again, ingredients are given different names and generics are not always covered. 

 

In the last few months 3 cyclists have had AAF and I see some EFC guy (not my thing so can't really comment)  all three of the cyclists I would class as high profile, so hardly sacrificial lambs here. And yes, I think it is sending out a very strong message, be careful, don't dope and if you do and we catch you. The punishment will follow. Ignorance cannot be an excuse, and we still don't know what RC's punishment is going to be. 

 

I'm making these comments from what is in the public domain at this point. Athletes are always given the opportunity to defend themselves, if they are not happy with this process they still have the option of going to CAS. (I'm not debating whether this is a realistic option for SA athletes) 

 

I would really like to see more transparency from WADA, SAIDS, CSA and the UCI. they owe that to the the athlete and to the us the general public. 

 

Thanks, some good info here an d I learned something from it.

 

the thing with defending oneself against a ruling is that it costs a heck of a lot of money. I feel this area is severely lacking.

 

I'm glad the process does weed out real cheats and I'm 1000% behind that concept, but I'm also about catching people in a fair manner. So it appears from your info that there are mechanisms whereby one can defend oneself. It would be great if you could share how that process works

[raptor-22]

From my understanding you cannot be held responsible for ingesting things that are not declared on the label. If you can prove that what you tested positive for is in the medication you are taking and it is not listed you will be allowed to continue business as usual. 

 

That being said, if you need medication for health reasons should you be pushing your body to the brink racing and competing? 

 

 

Good question.

 

last year I had an annis horriblis in terms of health. Took a step forward and two steps backward. All the while my doc and I avoided anti-biotic. But some chronic meds was required.

However, a big part of getting through the health issue was staying fit, picking my events and not going 100%. This advice was given by my GP and a specialist. Exercise is actually a very strong healing mechanism but one does need to be pragmatic about the intensity and duration.

I got through all of that and hit the curve to improving quality of life but still need the chronic meds to help stablise my respiratory system. Both agree that I won't need it long term but it helps the body get to a point where the systems will stabilize on their own.

 

being an athlete himself my GP reckons athletes are more prone to certain health issues simply because they stress their bodies more especially when they are off their form. Normal people break a sweat and back off. Athletes break and sweat and go harder because there's not enough sweat. The stats for athletes using inhalers is quite staggering but both GP and specialist agree that typically people who have had a health issue when young have turned to sport and vigorous exercise to strengthen their bodies to be less pone to getting ill. So when they fall ill, the effects are generally more severe than with less trained but generally healthy people. E.g I don't get the flu, I get bronchitis whereas someone else will just get the flu.

 

I also think athletes become addicted to the endorphins released during exercise so when they're ill they're more likely to want to continue training and racing. No ones going to give their neighbor the edge on training when competing for the fastest Argust Time in Pine ave

 

Dunno if that answers the question.

[Edgar]

Thanks, some good info here an d I learned something from it.

 

the thing with defending oneself against a ruling is that it costs a heck of a lot of money. I feel this area is severely lacking.

 

I'm glad the process does weed out real cheats and I'm 1000% behind that concept, but I'm also about catching people in a fair manner. So it appears from your info that there are mechanisms whereby one can defend oneself. It would be great if you could share how that process works

 

It does cost money to defend oneself, but what is the price of your good name? I know sometimes the resources are just not available. This happens everyday in our courts of law though and it can be a bitter pill.

 

As for the exact process, I'm not qualified to answer that. I haven't been through the process, only know people that have been. I can speak to Fahmy Ghalant at SAIDS and ask him though. 

 

I'm glad we can have constructive discussion on this inflammatory subject.

There is one athlete the served a three week ban just after Epic made the life ban announcement for a positive in the previous year. For some medication to assist with a chest cold. No more epic. Is this fair? Probably not, but them be the rules. 

 

We should be asking CSA for further comment on this situation.

[raptor-22]

It does cost money to defend oneself, but what is the price of your good name? I know sometimes the resources are just not available. This happens everyday in our courts of law though and it can be a bitter pill.

 

As for the exact process, I'm not qualified to answer that. I haven't been through the process, only know people that have been. I can speak to Fahmy Ghalant at SAIDS and ask him though. 

 

I'm glad we can have constructive discussion on this inflammatory subject.

There is one athlete the served a three week ban just after Epic made the life ban announcement for a positive in the previous year. For some medication to assist with a chest cold. No more epic. Is this fair? Probably not, but them be the rules. 

 

We should be asking CSA for further comment on this situation.

 

 

Cool that would be appreciated.

 

AS for a life time ban for a chest cold medication?! That's really not fair at all and sends the wrong message.

It can be interpreted in conjunction with the high sticker price as "only the financially and genetically gifted need apply".

A chest cold could develop further but then the race doctor needs to make a responsible call.

Did the ride get the medication from the events medics? That would just double the injustice.

 

Not only CSA should be taken to task, but also the event organizer. I think if enough amateurs get busted for silly infringements, it will sound the death nell for events that take such an unfair stance. But we never hear about these infringements so it makes one wonder if there's a gagging order being issued somewhere...

Edited February 9, 2016 by raptor-22

[BarHugger]

Cool that would be appreciated.

 

AS for a life time ban for a chest cold medication?! That's really not fair at all and sends the wrong message.

 

Interesting though....Charl Mattheus was disqualified from winning the Comrades in 1992 for a banned substance which he ingested from an over the counter cough medicine phenylpropanolamine interestingly enough it was removed off the list shortly after his disqualification....

[raptor-22]

Interesting though....Charl Mattheus was disqualified from winning the Comrades in 1992 for a banned substance which he ingested from an over the counter cough medicine phenylpropanolamine interestingly enough it was removed off the list shortly after his disqualification....

 

 

was his ban ever revoked?

[BarHugger]

was his ban ever revoked?

I am not sure if he had a banned period but the DQ was never revoked....he did come back later on to win it hands down....

[Edgar]

Interesting though....Charl Mattheus was disqualified from winning the Comrades in 1992 for a banned substance which he ingested from an over the counter cough medicine phenylpropanolamine interestingly enough it was removed off the list shortly after his disqualification....

 

 

That is just unlucky, poor bugger.