RE: Why Dick Pound Is The Most Dangerous Man In Sports

I'm assuming taking a banned substance like testosterone without a prescription from a doctor to treat an illness is illegal. I may be wrong on that.

Doctors cannot prescribe testosterone to enhance an athlete's performance even if that results in a reading of 3.9 (barely excapes drug testers).

I do respect your ethical opinion. It upsets me to think others may share that opinion. What an awful can of worms. How are us athletes who don't have access to shady doctors oging to compete with that?

You don't need a prescription for testosterone. It's sold over the counter as testostole. They even advertise on sports talk radio about the benefits to taking it (stronger, better sex life).

I'll bet millions of middle aged men are above 4 to 1. How bad can it be if it's over the counter?

Not A Doctor wrote:

You don't need a prescription for testosterone. It's sold over the counter as testostole. They even advertise on sports talk radio about the benefits to taking it (stronger, better sex life).

I'll bet millions of middle aged men are above 4 to 1. How bad can it be if it's over the counter?

It's sold by GNC under the name "Maximum Testostole"

Should WADA bad GNC?

hey f***wad,

I was simply returning my answer with a swear because of his rants about the "i heard syndrome"

so why don't you f*** off, bitch.

God I've never met a bunch of pussies who are offended by curse words.

I have to agree with "not a doctor". There's a very good reason they define "illegal" as > 4:1. While it may be true that a majority of athletes with levels of 3.9:1 are truly taking PED's, there's enough natural variation that if you set the limit lower you would have an unacceptable number of false positives. This is an obvious conclusion and a technique that is commonly used to avoid false positives. Taking a B sample is another method of preventing a false positive. My experience in medicine is that there is natural variation in almost every biochemical marker. So expecting the entire population to have an exact T:E ratio of 1:1 is absurd. Paddytheirishman's post apparrently refuting this fact only accomplishes the opposite. If you read the fine print at the bottom, calibration, microbial degradation and urine specific gravity all apparently affect the test. I'm not claiming the drug testing process is flawed. I'm pointing out that there is a reason they don't ban every athlete with a 1 time aberation. They rerun the test in "triplicate" They repeat the test on the B sample, and they perform an IRMS analysis. I am not an expert on any of these tests but its clear there is a defined protocol that must be followed before declaring an athlete guilty. Which is why I think it is wrong to declare someone "immoral" before the testing process has been completed. Its also wrong to judge people who simply come close to an abnormal test. And its particularly wrong for the head of WADA to circumvent all the rules, regulations and safeguards that his own body has created. As a lawyer, I'm sure dick Pound is acutely aware of the entire process and the ethical implications of his premature accusations so I can only conclude that he has little regard for due process and is more concerned with seeing his name in print.

This is not true, see for example WADA's own statement:

"populations of both males and females. It should be borne in mind that there is significant variation between individuals . A normal level for one individual may in another be elevated and be consistent with doping."

Also there are known conditions which substantially reduce the level of epitestosterone and therefore increase the ratio without any doping taking place. This is one reason the T/E ratio test is now only used as a screening test and further testing is required for an adverse finding. Although previously others had their careers ended by this test in the past who probably wouldn't under the current rules. Also sample degradation is possible, particularly if exposed to high temperatures such as occurred in the Lagat case. That the testing authority thought it was appropriate to transport samples unrefrigerated in the trunk of a car for 18+hrs in 40ºC weather to save a few bucks rather than ship it properly was a disgrace! Again following WADA's own documentation:

"The urine Sample is not collected under sterile conditions, and where the circumstances are favourable, the microbes present in the Sample can cause changes to the profile of the urinary steroids. Initially there is cleavage of the glucuronides and sulfates followed by modifications of the steroids’ structure by oxido-reductive reactions. To report an Adverse Analytical Finding of an

elevated T/E value, testosterone or epitestosterone concentration or any other endogenous steroid parameters, the concentration of free testosterone and/or epitestosterone in the specimen is not to exceed 5% of the respective glucuroconjugates. Elevated amounts of 5a- and 5ß-androstan-3,17-dione in the free form also indicate microbial degradation."

Highly concentrated urine such as might be obtained from a dehydrated athlete could be more subject to this post sampling modification.

They rely in part on this method now but it can so easily be defeated that I would hope that they're looking into an alternative.

Sorry I'm not convinced. The science is good but it's not infallible, particularly when WADA don't always follow their own protocols and as indicated above sometimes don't use best practice for their sample handling.

Paddytheirishman wrote:

Remember Pound has access to ALL the test results, positive and negative. He has seen all the guys who have come in with testosterone ratios at 5.9/1 when the acceptable limit was 6/1 and watched those same guys consistently come in at 3.9/1 when the threshold was lowered to 4/1. He has all the background info, mountains of "negative" test results that point to a pattern of obvious doping. He knows that most thresholds are set inhumanely high levels to avoid any possibilities of a false positive and he sees the same athletes come in at just under those limits time and time again. He KNOWS they are doping.

The issue of 'inhumanely high levels' (sic) I have refuted elsewhere (Ayotte and Catlin have previously shown that 15:1 is probably the limit of normal physiological variation). If Pound does have results such as you suggest then the remedy is very simple, conduct a targeted test (allowed under the WADA code) and carry out the isotope test. There have been some reports in the press that indicate that this is what happened with Gatlin.

For those who are unaware Ayotte is the head of the WADA lab in Montreal.

She has even posted on this message board before.

I would love to hear what she thinks about Mr. Pound although I'm sure she would never be able to give her opinion.