DjCyclist Posted March 29, 2018 Share The fact that this has gone missing from the SAIDS website since this thread popped up, simply reaffirms the OPs questions.Yep and agree, if you do a google search on any previous SA dope offenders their names pop up all over Google but not Ani-Li so have to agree with the OP as to why it has been kept a secret Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edition 507 Posted March 29, 2018 Share What happened to the 'anal' chirp? A suppository is a perfectly acceptable medical means of taking medicine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odinson Posted March 29, 2018 Share What happened to the 'anal' chirp? A suppository is a perfectly acceptable medical means of taking medicine. This thread is too PC for that kind of language, it seems. Edit: Ha! It's back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edition 507 Posted March 29, 2018 Share This thread is too PC for that kind of language, it seems. Edit: Ha! It's back.I see. I thought it was pretty funny! And you can get a suppository for almost anything. I hear the French are quite partial to taking their medicine in this way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shebeen Posted March 29, 2018 Share Inhaled salbutamol is allowed - oral salbutamol is not. The somewhat indirect measurement of metabolite concentrations in urine is dubious to get to a starting dose of any medication and prone to error.... Oral salbutamol easily generates much higher concentrations of metabolites in urine than inhaled - so if you take oral salbutamol containing meds it is almost sure you will go over the limit in a flash. Here is WADA's note - in toto. All selective and non-selective beta-2 agonists, including all optical isomers, are prohibited;Including, but not limited to:FenoterolFormoterolHigenamineIndacaterolOlodaterolProcaterolReproterolSalbutamolSalmeterolTerbutalineTulobuterolVilanterolExcept:Inhaled salbutamol: maximum 1600 micrograms over 24 hours;in divided doses not to exceed 800 micrograms over 12 hours starting from any dose;Inhaled formoterol: maximum delivered dose of 54 micrograms over 24 hours;Inhaled salmeterol: maximum 200 micrograms over 24 hours.The presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of 1000 ng/mL or formoterol in excess of 40 ng/mL is not consistent with therapeutic use of the substance and will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) unless the Athlete proves, through a controlled pharmacokinetic study, that the abnormal result was the consequence of a therapeutic dose (by inhalation) up to the maximum dose indicated above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avatar Posted March 29, 2018 Share Yoh, you people hey For someone who doesn't race and lives in paarl,it must have been a serious accident to end up in Polokwane at the end of May 2017.and she must have got very lucky because all the other ladies took longer than her to get to the finish http://results.racetec.co.za/results_by_event.aspx?RID=9123&EN=Polokwane%20Annual%20Cycle%20Race%202017%20%28104km%29&GG=Female Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V12man Posted March 29, 2018 Share Is anal Salbutamol banned? Asking for a friend. Medical aids don't pay for it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RocknRolla Posted March 29, 2018 Share I think the OP achieved what he/she set out to do.. 14 pages and still nothing more than that one post from the OP. The secret is out... close the fred.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edition 507 Posted March 29, 2018 Share Medical aids don't pay for it...I'm trying very hard not to imagine how you found this out! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Underachiever Posted March 29, 2018 Share Sedert ek 'n setpil ingesluk het, klink my stem so 'n bietjie hol.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odinson Posted March 29, 2018 Share Medical aids don't pay for it... Disgraceful how they discriminate against the anally-inclined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skubarra Posted March 29, 2018 Share People are waving it away because she now longer races...I don't agree with that .. At the time if the offence in June 2017 she was still in the testing pool which means she was at some point going to race or at least could at any point race.. she was cosidering retiring because of what went down at SA champs..but had not (as per article of May 2017).. she wrote a website entry in Aug 2017 (a few days before she was notified of the AAF)with her plans for 2018..at no point did she mention she won't race again... she would race as what she saw a semi pro...which would still make her subject to out of competition testing...at that time she would've known that her retrospective TUE was denied and would've known that she would return a AAF ..which would mean she would probably be expecting a phone call or letter about that at some point. She never claimed that she completely retired from all cycling at the time of the test. It is quite clear from her testimony she was fully aware that she was still part of the RPT when tested. She told the docter that prescribed the medicine "I am a professional athlete and part of the RPT". So the above is a straw man argument imo. (for both sides to be fair) At best that would have been a very minor mitigating factor anyway, the fact that it happened out of competition with no immediate races coming was far more relevant to her light sentence. I think the "but has she really retired?" argument is really a long stretch in trying to prove something more sinister. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patchelicious Posted March 29, 2018 Share She never claimed that she completely retired from all cycling at the time of the test. It is quite clear from her testimony she was fully aware that she was still part of the RPT when tested. She told the docter that prescribed the medicine "I am a professional athlete and part of the RPT". So the above is a straw man argument imo. (for both sides to be fair) At best that would have been a very minor mitigating factor anyway, the fact that it happened out of competition with no immediate races coming was far more relevant to her light sentence. I think the "but has she really retired?" argument is really a long stretch in trying to prove something more sinister.The athlete hasn't, but some of the people posting here have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen Posted March 29, 2018 Share She never claimed that she completely retired from all cycling at the time of the test. It is quite clear from her testimony she was fully aware that she was still part of the RPT when tested. She told the docter that prescribed the medicine "I am a professional athlete and part of the RPT". So the above is a straw man argument imo. (for both sides to be fair) At best that would have been a very minor mitigating factor anyway, the fact that it happened out of competition with no immediate races coming was far more relevant to her light sentence. I think the "but has she really retired?" argument is really a long stretch in trying to prove something more sinister.No you misunderstand..i have no issue with her, she handled it all well.. if you read my post you will see my problem is with some people waving it away and feel that her ban is irrelevant because she isn't racing anymore. Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
V12man Posted March 29, 2018 Share I'm trying very hard not to imagine how you found this out!We get lists of what they do pay for.... Salbutamol suppositories is not on it.... pretty simple logic really.... 1 +1 = 2 stuff.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.