The Case Against Maggie Vessey

To me this is a case of "who cares". This is small potatoes and hardly worth debating. People need to learn subtleties and context before deciding to implicate full measure. That said, it would be worth her while to consider any drug or supplement more carefully given that it could potentially ruin her career, and now I am sure she will.

Aldactor wrote:

The half-life of Spironolactone is 85 minutes. It would be completely eliminated overnight.

Ummmm....

200 dose = 0 time

100 = 100 time

50 more = 50

25

more = whatever

etc

What's embarrassing is her coach, Rose Monday, is a big wig with USATF. She was the Olympic Team distance coach.

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=4713875

Normally if you're on the USADA out-of-competition testing, you go through all kinds of educational stuff to prevent this from happening. It sounds like an honest mistake on Maggie's part, but she should know better.

old guy 25 wrote:

Hey Nappy Roots, So you have always been suspicious of her running 'faster' at a point in an 800m race when others are slowing and are now convinced that... Well, she doesn't run 'faster'- she just isn't 'slowing' as much as others. She is running a more evenly paced race! She ran the same way in her 200m & 400m races in high school. NONE of her coaches have been able to get her to run differently.

This is a very poor attempt to distract us from the reality that your girl just tested positive for a banned substance. I'm not surprised; there will be many more folks jumping to her defense to no avail with attempts to turn our heads away from this sad fact. And yes, I stand by my statement: how is she physically and biochemically capable of kicking like she's fresh as a cool breeze while others are tieing up? That's not evidence of doping, but it does make you wonder (i.e. the Turkish females at the London Olys). Again, this is LESS about her racing tactics and more about her positive test.

Let me also raise another very critical point: We are not talking about the weekend warrior or hobby-jogger randomly tested only to find out they were taking a banned substance. Vessey is a professional athlete who runs for a living, has pervasive resources and knowledge at her disposal, and should know that a diuretic raises instant and serious suspicion. If nothing else, old guy 25, embrace the responsibility that lies in being a professional athlete, understand the difference in her VS the hobby-jogger, and increase your awareness of the doping system within athletics. You do realize that regardless of your naivety, Vessey will now be on the "tested positive for banned substance" list right? And while this public warning is unacceptable in my honest opinion, it does highlight one more high profile individual with suspicious behavior. No excuses; no honest mistake.

USADA investigated and gave a warning. I'm sure after all the recent drug news they would be extra diligent in this case. If they are satisfied with their decision let's move on. To those who cannot I would say congratulations on living mistake-free and pure lives. Stupid, stupid mistake, an embarrassing example of not paying attention but not worthy of a ban.

Just the facts ma'am.

Professional athlete tests positive for a suspicious substance.

The professional athlete is duty bound to declare all prescriptions and supplements.

The professional athlete appears to have not declared the prescription drug prior to testing. It was only after the positive test that the athlete sought a TUE - Therapeutic Use Exception.

The suspicious substance is on the WADA, USADA and NCAA list of prohibited substance. The banned substance is a common masking agent or metabolite of a banned substance.

The banned substance or its metabolite has 2 primary effects.

1) Diuretic - quickly flush out other banned substances, or changes/dilutes urine concentrations.

2) Anti-androgen - reduces the masculinizing effects (body/facial hair, deepening of voice) on females who take steroids or testosterone.

Additionally, the drug in question has a very fast clearance time; however, the metabolites it produces, for which the athlete received the positive have a longer clearance time.

The suspicious substance for which the athlete received the warning is a direct metabolite of a drug which is marketed and sold online as a masking agent for steroids and testosterone.

"Aldactone, which is also known as Spironolactone, is a diuretic that helps in hiding or masking the presence of anabolic steroids in the human body. It is used by bodybuilders, strength athletes, and other sportsmen to deliver dramatic on-field performances and yet remaining safe from doping tests."

Aldactone is also an antiandrogen since it reduces the androgen level. Female athletes take advantage of this characteristic by using it to mini-mize the virilization symptoms during steroid treatment or the symptoms after treatment."

^Therapeutic Use Exemption

Some more facts:

- USADA has all the facts

- USADA gave her a warning and stripped her result

Case closed.

rekrunner wrote:

Some more facts:

- USADA has all the facts

- USADA gave her a warning and stripped her result

Case closed.

This is not necessarily true.

USADA has sufficient facts to permit them to, in their judgment, reach a particular conclusion and mete out a particular sanction, in this case a warning and a stripped result.

There is no evidence whatsoever that USADA has ALL the facts. That reality, combined with the inherent institutional bias at USADA, is sufficient to permit and maintain suspicion that Vessey was using the substance as a masking agent.

The same goes for all other national anti-doping federations like JADCO.

In the event of a verified positive test, discretion to "warn" should be stripped from these organizations, and a more severe, mandatory penalty instituted, like a mandatory 2-year ban--or how about a 1-year ban, if you think that is too severe.

Like another poster said on the other thread, there is simply no acceptable excuse for this result.

USADA had all the facts cited by Seargent Joe Friday.

There is no evidence of institutional bias either.

Zero tolerance is not an appropriate solution for any problem.

It effectively renders the thinking man powerless, and makes a mockery of the issue. The punishment should fit the crime, and the circumstance must be considered in ways perhaps unforeseen by drafters of the rules. The power of discretion must maintained, in order to keep perspective.

There is no evidence to suggest that USADA has "all" the facts.

Institutional bias at USADA is inherent.

Zero tolerance is absolutely appropriate where there is a prevailing interest in an administrative offense. It is akin to the criminal law standard of "strict liability" where only the actus reus must be proven, and intent is presumed therefrom.

The "thinking" required comes before the immediate investigatory stage, at the level of policy formulation, and the "thinking man" is not at all rendered "powerless".

Discretion is maintained, only curtailed--that is, the envelope within which discretion is permitted is constrained--for instance, there could still be discretion to apply a penalty in excess of the minimum. The mandatory minimum would be a floor beneath which discretion is unavailable.

This happens all the time in things like sentencing guidelines.

Like you said, it is important to "keep things in perspective". Look up strict liability on the web, and post us your thoughts.

rekrunner wrote:

USADA had all the facts cited by Seargent Joe Friday.

There is no evidence of institutional bias either.

Zero tolerance is not an appropriate solution for any problem.

It effectively renders the thinking man powerless, and makes a mockery of the issue. The punishment should fit the crime, and the circumstance must be considered in ways perhaps unforeseen by drafters of the rules. The power of discretion must maintained, in order to keep perspective.

You are one of the few here that refuses to join the lynch mob. I'm glad the world isn't ruled by lynch mobs or we'd all be in trouble.

What a bunch of crap hyperbole.

Nobody here is part of any so-called "lynch mob". We all accept the findings and the sanction, you moron.

What I am personally doing is expressing my desire that a more substantial minimum sanction be imposed in cases such as this, where a positive result is returned, and where there is no reason to excuse the tested party from said sanction.

In this case, the positive test was totally and completely avoidable through the application of merely ordinary diligence in the case of no intentional malfeasance, and in the case of voluntary malfeasance, through choosing to not engage in the voluntary malfeasance in the first place.

Nobody's advocating to "lynch" anybody. Even by USADA's lawful administrative determination, her actions warranted a sanction. Your invocation of the concept of a "lynch mob" suggests that posters here want to make an unlawful determination and pronounce and execute an unlawful sanction.

You are completely wrong, completely inarticulate, and completely ignorant in this matter.

Unless you are 12 years old, your post is absolute g.a.r.b.a.g.e.

rekrunner wrote:

Some more facts:

- USADA has all the facts

- USADA gave her a warning and stripped her result

Case closed.

OJ found innocent, case closed.

Once again, I responded to "Seargent Joe Friday". USADA had all of *his* facts. He did not present any new facts. (Nor has anyone else, anywhere.) He presented us facts readily available from USADA's website, with the intention of letting the public be the judge, based on his selection of facts. USADA had all *these* facts, and decided on a warning and a sanction.

You provided no evidence that institutional bias is inherent, or that it is a problem biasing USADA's sanctions. The best solution to policing drug use is to have an independent organization with the authority to evaluate each case on its own merits. USADA is independent from the athlete, and the sporting federation.

Zero tolerance only hurts the innocent without solving the problem. It equates squirt guns to machine guns, forcing mandatory severe sentences for possession of a harmless facsimile. It equates offering candy to classmates with trafficking of drugs. It forces schools to call the police for the student baseball player with a bat in his car. It forces schools to expel the boy whose mom puts a plastic knife in his lunch box to cut a sandwich. The administrators involved do not have the power to do what is appropriate on a case by case basis, when harsh mandatory sentences must apply to all offenders. Zero tolerance has never proven effective in any domain (e.g. Columbine shootings happened in a zero-tolerance county).

In the justice system, we also have a concept of reduced and suspended sentences. This happens all the time in sentencing, especially for first time offenders.

I don't see how something like "strict liability" is appropriate, or why taking away the discretion to be lenient on a case by case basis will help solve the issue.

OJ was found guilty in a civil trial of wrongful death.In murder trials, there is a high bar to avoid wrongful conviction. It looks like the jurors decided that the police screwed up enough to cause reasonable doubt about the evidence linking OJ to the crime.

r2 unit wrote:

OJ found innocent, case closed.

rekrunner--

You really have no idea what I'm talking about, do you? You have inappropriately focused on the term "zero tolerance", and have failed to understand how it was used.

I explained concisely how I used it. Please re-read and post again, and think more about your comment on sentencing.

Aldactor wrote:

"Spironolactone is also metabolized very, very quickly. The half-life of Spironolactone is 85 minutes. It would be completely eliminated overnight."

That's true. But we aren't talking about spironolactone. We're talking about canrenone, a metabolite of spironolactone that some studies have shown can have an elimination half life of well over a day... Depending on the sensitivity of the drug tests, and on the established estimate that it usually takes 4 or 5 half lives for a substance to essentially clear from the system, canrenone could very well be detectable for more than a few days, and maybe even close to a week, after the last dose. The substance is banned at all times though, not just in competition, so the athletes involved, if innocent, should have done their homework to see if it was banned.

You are talking about a harsh mandatory minimum sentence, with no possibility for leniency. It's a bad idea for all the reasons I gave:- it equates harmless transgressions with major offenses- it takes discretion for leniency away from competent adjudicators- it won't solve the problem, just punish more athletes needlesslyIt's a bad idea for another reason:- testing isn't perfect

Sprintgeezer wrote:

rekrunner--

You really have no idea what I'm talking about, do you? You have inappropriately focused on the term "zero tolerance", and have failed to understand how it was used.

I explained concisely how I used it. Please re-read and post again, and think more about your comment on sentencing.