Patchelicious Posted March 29, 2018 Share All IMHO: I think where the athlete is in a position to do so and there is a viable medical alternative it is reasonable requests. Where there is no viable alternative, the TUE process could and should then immediately be initiated. Where the patient is not in a position to discuss it due to some incapacity, the doctor should treat as best indicated medically and the athlete must take his chances with WADA.Think you hit the nail on the head with the 3 situtions. The first 2 are both better after a discussion. To bring it back the topic of cyclists doping, most would fall into the first two categories. So I think conversations between athletes and their doctors is a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patchelicious Posted March 29, 2018 Share The emotionally intelligent doctor that smiles on the pharmacy door advertisement would assess the patient’s need, understand the situation and intervene with so-called elegance and awesome courtesy. The average doc is guided by prescription guidelines / suppliers, the daily grind of patient appt schedule as well as the Oath (Do no harm).I dont want to derail this particular thread, so maybe we should start another for this discussion, but its these guidelines and suppliers that have contributed to the statin and opioid issues we see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddy Posted March 29, 2018 Share Snorre? For France? Not Snorre. Pieter de Villiers who was French tighthead. 3.76 times the size of Snorre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shebeen Posted March 29, 2018 Share Not Snorre. Pieter de Villiers who was French tighthead. 3.76 times the size of Snorre.this guy, straight from marremsburryhttp://www.sarugbymag.co.za/images/made/1a9007c8778d45b5/pieter_de_villiers_scrum_coach_gallo_620_395_s_c1_top_top.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the nerd Posted March 29, 2018 Share Spot on. Anyone that actually knows An-Li will know better. Some people just immediately jumps to conclusions, others detriment makes them feel better. Unfortunately, and not using this case in particular as this may be different. But using the "anyone who knows them personally" story doesn't hold anything... think back to the previous cases where they were totally innocent by all and sundry right up until they weren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skubarra Posted March 29, 2018 Share Unfortunately, and not using this case in particular as this may be different. But using the "anyone who knows them personally" story doesn't hold anything... think back to the previous cases where they were totally innocent by all and sundry right up until they weren't. She pleaded guilty. She was found guilty by SAIDS. She was sentenced. Nobody is claiming she is "totally innocent". But there is a difference between a careless mistake and deliberately cheating. But seems to some hubbers a positive test can only mean deliberate cheating and nothing else, no further evidence required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldron Posted March 29, 2018 Share But seems to some hubbers a positive test can only mean deliberate cheating and nothing else, no further evidence required.This case seems fairly clear in terms of the classic whoopsie but decades of dodgy doping and insane excuses have given me (us) an unhealthy dose of scepticism... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinnyone Posted March 29, 2018 Share She pleaded guilty. She was found guilty by SAIDS. She was sentenced. Nobody is claiming she is "totally innocent". But there is a difference between a careless mistake and deliberately cheating. But seems to some hubbers a positive test can only mean deliberate cheating and nothing else, no further evidence required.^^^^This... I know her personally, and whilst I am not saying she was not caught with something in her system, I am saying that she is not the type to intentionally take something to enhance her performance...the fact that she contacted SAIDS voluntarily and inform them speaks for itself surely...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V12man Posted March 29, 2018 Share Doc, this has been your stance on a few discussions. That Docs have an obligation to treat without worrying about WADA.. I agree with this. The part that I don’t really fully agree with is that there is absolute of “prescribing only stuff that’s not on the WADA list”. The way that I would think it should work is a conversation. Doc and patient can take 5 mins and check the proposed prescription together on WADA, make sure both parties are comfortable with the decision, or jointly talk about an alternative solution. I think that’s a reasonable request?I made a small edit - The not treating with things on WADA's list is a WADA requirment, and should be of no concern for the prescribing doctor - HOWEVER - many of us are reasonable (IF ASKED) and we have a good relationship with the patient, and might help them swap out some treatments (IF APPROPRIATE ALTERNATIVES ARE AVAILABLE) - but my view is that the patients health should be the primary concern (and WADA don't see it quite that way) That said - there are many prescribers who are less than ethical in what and why they prescribe - they are bad news for both the medical profession and athletes. While I understand the requirement for out of competition testing - the TUE process needs huge improvements for some meds (like oral salbutamol prescribed for short term treatment) But - at the end of the day - the onus is on the athlete to check - drop that ball and an athlete deserves sanctions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V12man Posted March 29, 2018 Share ^^^^This... I know her personally, and whilst I am not saying she was not caught with something in her system, I am saying that she is not the type to intentionally take something to enhance her performance...the fact that she contacted SAIDS voluntarily and inform them speaks for itself surely...? One wonders if she had not have called them if she would have been tested at all.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinnyone Posted March 29, 2018 Share This case seems fairly clear in terms of the classic whoopsie but decades of dodgy doping and insane excuses have given me (us) an unhealthy dose of scepticism...Absolutely, and I agree...however, there are characters out there that you always have "that feeling" about and when they get caught it is not really a surprise... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shebeen Posted March 29, 2018 Share Spot on. Anyone that actually knows An-Li will know better. Some people just immediately jumps to conclusions, others detriment makes them feel better.I don't know An-Li personally - but she's an olympic cyclist for my country and a former national champion. So she has a duty to uphold for the community in general. I have no skin in this beyond just being a cycling fan. What she did could well be an honest mistake. She's only human, but as a professional cyclist she knows the history of doping cases and medication. For me the transgression is not really the issue now. It now smacks of a cover up, and that is not acceptable. I'm going to assume that Owen commenting here is Owen Botha, team bestmed ASG manager - https://twitter.com/obbotha/with_replies?lang=en - he has the same avatar here and on his hubprofile. He is more than allowed to comment on the issue, but not stating that he was her 'team boss' is not helpful for the narrative. Just start the post with: "Hi I'm Owen, team manager and this is what happened:......." I wonder if mvanrooyen who is agreeing with Owen is also related? a quick search on the teambestmed site and you get this: The idea of taking part in my fourth sani2c mountain bike race felt enormous, but the task was made easier when my close friend and fellow Bestmed-ASG team owner Chris van Rooyen agreed to ride with me.Could just be a coincidence, it's a common surname - but I don't know. Now back to the timeline:June 2017 - offenceSeptember 2017 - sanctionFeb 2018 sanction endsMar 2018 - thread starts, saying why is it a secret? - doping offence is on the drugfreesport websitenext day - it is gone. That is suspicious? Why is it gone all of a sudden? Who has that authority? I understand that she is well into her first pregnancy, and doesn't really need this right now.BUT hiding it is not going to make it go away. Just be honest, and we can all move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
'Dale Posted March 29, 2018 Share She pleaded guilty. She was found guilty by SAIDS. She was sentenced. Nobody is claiming she is "totally innocent". But there is a difference between a careless mistake and deliberately cheating. But seems to some hubbers a positive test can only mean deliberate cheating and nothing else, no further evidence required. Unfortunately, intent cannot be examined here, Skubarra.And the culture of doping in worldwide sport with prestige, privileges and money have led to athletes being prejudiced.Good managers and teams must understand this tough reality and not sidestep, short-cut or discount the importance of following due process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shebeen Posted March 29, 2018 Share ^^^^This... I know her personally, and whilst I am not saying she was not caught with something in her system, I am saying that she is not the type to intentionally take something to enhance her performance...the fact that she contacted SAIDS voluntarily and inform them speaks for itself surely...? maybe you can help clear this up. From the hearing report it seems it went: medication=>testing=>call SAIDS to inform. notmedication=>call SAIDS=>testing One wonders if she had not have called them if she would have been tested at all.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldron Posted March 29, 2018 Share maybe you can help clear this up. From the hearing report it seems it went: medication=>testing=>call SAIDS to inform. notmedication=>call SAIDS=>testing That's how I read it - the report went something like: took the medication during the day, was tested after medication, read the label then called SAIDS/Doctor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldron Posted March 29, 2018 Share Absolutely, and I agree...however, there are characters out there that you always have "that feeling" about and when they get caught it is not really a surprise... And that kind of suspicion only reinforces the guilty unless proven innocent thinking. It's that "unknowing" part of doping that really infuriates me - we will never know who the best rider is, we will never know how long an athlete has been doping (they always seem to get caught the first time they dope), we will never know who should have got the award/trophy/sponsorship - doping taints cycling in a way that always leaves a bad taste in your mouth and a nasty smell in your nose... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.