Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 |
AZ400
RE: Rodgers tests positive 3/2/2012 8:48AM - in reply to ukathleticscoach Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
I don't think he deserves to be automatically labeled a doper... Methylhexaneamine is a stimulant that's allowable by WADA except during competitions.. Had Michael Rodgers tested positive during a random test a day or two earlier or a day or two later, it wouldn't have been a violation. Maybe he was just naive instead of dirty, since the drug allegedly can still appear in the urine for a few days after it's taken. For example, if he took Jack3D 2 days before the Lignano meet, any stimulant effects or performance enhancing effects of it would have worn off the same day he took it, but the substance might still be detectable in his urine on the day of the meet a few days later, even though there would be no performance enhancing benefit from it during the competition.

In the case of LaShawn Merritt though, DHEA is banned at all times, in competiton and out of competition (like steroids, HGH, and many other performance enhancing drugs..), so in Merritt's case, taking it at ANY time constituted a violation of the rules. Unlike LaShawn, there's at least a chance that Mike Rodgers might have legally taken the supplement during training, but unwittingly not given himself enough supplement-free days before the day of the meet to allow all traces of it to completely clear from his system...
ukathleticscoach
RE: Rodgers tests positive 3/2/2012 9:08AM - in reply to AZ400 Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
'Methylhexaneamine is a stimulant that's allowable by WADA except during competitions'

Didn't know that. They need to change that rule!

That would still make him a liar as he said he didn't know it was in there!

All I know is they are always innocent and athletes are continuing to dope because the rules are not strict enough
AZ400
RE: Rodgers tests positive 3/2/2012 9:15AM - in reply to AZ400 Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
And just to clarify what it means when a substance is only banned "in competition", WADA defines "in-competition" as the period starting 12 hours before a competition, and ending at the end of the competition or at the end of the urine sample collections for the competition. So testing positive for the methylhexaneamine in Jack3D any time other than that would not have resulted in a doping violation.
Doclove
RE: Rodgers tests positive 3/2/2012 11:08AM - in reply to AZ400 Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

AZ400 wrote:

And just to clarify what it means when a substance is only banned "in competition", WADA defines "in-competition" as the period starting 12 hours before a competition, and ending at the end of the competition or at the end of the urine sample collections for the competition. So testing positive for the methylhexaneamine in Jack3D any time other than that would not have resulted in a doping violation.


If only I was not driving that time I got drunk
Sprintgeezer
RE: Rodgers tests positive 3/2/2012 11:09AM - in reply to JOCKSTRAP Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

JOCKSTRAP wrote:

wtf is this crap? Eugene is way slower than Rieti. Its even slower than Beijing AND Berlin.

Its about as fast as Paris or Manaco, maybe a little faster. Its on the fast end but its not that fast.


I'm not talking about the track or the facility, I'm talking about that particular men's 100m race.

See the link that I posted.
Sprintgeezer
RE: Rodgers tests positive 3/2/2012 11:29AM - in reply to AZ400 Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
"I don't think he deserves to be automatically labeled a doper"

Yes, he does.

Any athlete who is found, or who admits to being, guilty of a doping offense, is a doper. Period.

All that means is that they violated an anti-doping rule.

Your type of logic could be used to excuse the actions of an athlete who was normally cycling PED's such that they were at undetectable levels when testing time came around, but this time "screwed up their timing" and were found with metabolites in their urine.

Unless an athlete makes an unequivocal, unilateral, uncoerced admission to having used un-sanctioned PED's in the absence of any positive test result (which nobody has ever done, to the best of my knowledge), then the critical event upon which all doping results rest is WHETHER OR NOT THE RELEVANT SUBSTANCES APPEAR IN THE FLUID BEING TESTED, AT THE TIME OF THE TEST.

They did appear at the time of Rodgers' test, and a doping violation was therefore found to have occurred.

No different than somebody who screws up their cycling, miscalculates clearance time, and has metabolites show up in their urine. By PRECISELY THE SAME TEST, they are also a doper.

None of Rodgers' self-serving statements mean jack to the finding of a positive test--they are only relevant to the decision of which sanction to hand down. His credibility is assessed in such a proceeding, but there is no determination of "the truth". He could always be lying, nobody knows for sure--what we DO know for sure is that his urine, as tested, contained the metabolites of a substance which, when found at that time, constituted evidence of a doping violation.

Are there "degrees of dopers"? No. The doping rules are not irrational--if he had the metabolites in his urine at the time of the test, there is a demonstrable chance that he received benefit during the competition from the intake of the initial substance. It doesn't matter if, at the time of the competition, that benefit was reduced to 1% of its level upon first taking the substance--ultimately, there was likely a benefit gained in violation of previously agreed-upon standards of conduct, of which conduct Rodgers was in complete control.

He is now considered to once have been doping. The point is, if he gets caught again, he may be toast. Good.
Avante
RE: Rodgers tests positive 3/2/2012 11:34AM - in reply to Azaleas Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
So many of these guys especially in football...young and dumb. They just do not get it. I do have a theory but this isn't the place.
ray
RE: Rodgers tests positive 3/2/2012 11:54AM - in reply to Avante Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Wow, you guys are harsh. Next thing you know you'll be telling me Slaney and Jacobs were dopers. I bet there's people on this site that think Braun, Bonds and Clemens cheated!
dream on
RE: Rodgers tests positive 3/2/2012 3:11PM - in reply to ray Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
extenze!!!!
AZ400
RE: Rodgers tests positive 3/2/2012 5:35PM - in reply to Sprintgeezer Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Some of your logic makes sense but some is crazy. An athlete cycling PEDs is absolutely cheating, because they're ingesting or administering a banned substance WHEN IT'S BANNED. Taking a stimulant during training WHEN IT'S PERMISSIBLE TO USE, but still possibly having a little left over in the urine up to a few days later during in-competition testing at a meet, long after there's absolutely no performance benefit remaining, is hardly the same thing. Nobody is saying that's what happened in Michael Rodgers' case, but there's no proof that it isn't what happened either. To many people, a "doper" is a person who intentionally ingests a banned substance. There's a possibility that Rodgers ingested the substance when it was permissable, with no intent to cheat, and that he received no performance benefit during the meet. IF that's the case, then some of us wouldn't consider him a "doper", since to some of us judging someone and labeling them a "doper" implies an intent to cheat.

Your statement that "if there were metabolites in his urine at the time of the test then there's a demonstrable chance that he received benefit during the competition" would set the science of physiology back 100 years if it was true. Metabolites of darn near everything are found in the urine long after the blood levels of the substance are no longer high enough to cause any therapeutic (or performance enhancing) effect...
Sprintgeezer
RE: Rodgers tests positive 3/2/2012 6:23PM - in reply to AZ400 Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
AZ400--

I believe we were talking not about whether Rodgers is a "cheater", but whether he is a "doper", which he is.

I have no opinion on whether he's morally a cheater or not--I don't know.

As to your last paragraph, that is why I said there was a "chance", not a certainty. The anti-doping rules are not arbitrary.
Azaleas
RE: Rodgers tests positive 3/2/2012 8:32PM - in reply to AZ400 Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Why in the world would you be using a stimulant in training in the week before competition? I don't buy that excuse.
ukathleticscoach
RE: Rodgers tests positive 3/5/2012 8:54AM - in reply to Azaleas Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Unearthed a classic here:

"A couple of years ago I made a promise to my aunt that I wouldn't put anything in my body that's not supposed to be there. I don't even take multi-vitamins."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/7265779.stm
Sprintgeezer
RE: Rodgers tests positive 3/5/2012 9:01AM - in reply to AZ400 Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
AZ400, do you see the error in your logic?

You assume what you set out to prove.

It is NEVER "permissible to use" a PED when said use will result in the detection of metabolites during a test in which said metabolites are not permitted.

Rodgers is a doper.

The times he has put up are those achievable by a clean sprinter, however, so there is not really any reason to suspect that he is a systematic cheater.

What would be funny would be if he came out this spring and flamed.

I expect him to come out and do what he has always done, no more, no less, and that he could very well earn himself a spot on the relay team, if he can best Gatlin this year; I still think that Kimmons or Demps would be better lead-off men than Gatlin, even if Gatlin puts up better 100m times this season.

Rodgers would be a good addition to the relay team--he's always solid and reliable, and could sub for maybe Gay in some early rounds without much performance deficit.
ukathleticscoach
RE: Rodgers tests positive 3/5/2012 11:28AM - in reply to ukathleticscoach Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

ukathleticscoach wrote:

Unearthed a classic here:

"A couple of years ago I made a promise to my aunt that I wouldn't put anything in my body that's not supposed to be there. I don't even take multi-vitamins."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/athletics/7265779.stm


It's suddenly gone silent
Sprintgeezer
RE: Rodgers tests positive 3/5/2012 11:33AM - in reply to ukathleticscoach Reply | Return to Index | Report Post
Awesome.

Another great quote is this one:

"If you are guilty of a doping offence then you should not be allowed to run," he [Rodgers] said. That's how I feel about it."

Apparently he meant "not be allowed to run for a specified period of time", like 9 months.

Great find, coach!
Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 |