With the exception of Bolt, all Jamaicans are drug cheats.
With the exception of Bolt, all Jamaicans are drug cheats.
C/M Runner wrote:
Why would a drug that is known to have diuretic properties be added to a cream in the first place? How would it be used to help with a leg injury? Is there any feasible explanation for that?
Cross contamination would be the only reason I can think of.
The usual bullcrap.
Like I said, the system is set up so that a second lie can be rewarded with a reduced penalty for the first lie.
We will see what happens.
Maybe she ran after a rainstorm and went through a puddle containing Lasix runoff and it splashed onto her. I hear that's common in South America.
People seem to jump to conclusions without knowing anything for sure. I do not know what the story is and have to wait, but already, most of the speculation seems to be trumped by later information, so going hard on nothing a second time hardly seems worth going on and on about.
Multiple possibilities would seem to fit the scenario that the IAAF would note. One example is that there is a very little bit that is in a cream and is not even noted on the cream ingredients (I think that was an indication of not being noted but there are so many posts that it is hard to keep straight). Since the cream was a prescription, they were careful and noted it (to IAAF) ahead of the meet.
Also, is it known for sure that the ingredient is really Lasix and not some other diuretic. That also would fit the circumstances as it would trigger a positive test while not being an element that would have any PED effects. Inadvertent (since not listed) use of something with virtually no actual PED effect certainly fits the bill for reduced penalty, even to the point of no suspension (although that does necessarily seem to be the level of reduction indicated).
When SAFP had pain killers a couple years ago that left her groggy and with her slowest time of the year (and worst start by the sports best starter) does anyone here think that it was taken to obtain a competitive advantage? [it would not help long-term either].
i don't know if it has come out that the metabolites of the drug were those of lasix, but if that is the case, then the drug most certainly does NOT come in a cream form. i just spoke with the inhouse pharmacologist at a hospital here. regardless, even if it was another diuretic, this would likely send up a red flag. as most of you have come to learn, diuretics are common masking agents, enhancing the renal excretion of multiple performance enhancing drugs. re: the olympic caliber moroccan 800m runner last summer.
Yes, I used that one in 1997 with a busted sprinter. I also threw in the language barrier, too.
needtoknow wrote:
"It was just to recovery from an injury"
Wait, it was 1995.
Wait, it was 1995.
With lasix being used on horses, and the Worlds being held in Russia, maybe a Catherine the Great defense is in the works.
Perhaps Maggie lent it to her
Time out: I don't get it. Are diuretics performance enhancing? I don't understand how testing positive for diuretics implies that she was trying to cheat. Someone please explain.
Too bad she couldn't blame it on male enhancement product. I don't know which is more BS. Diuretic cream or black guys needing tiger peepee juice laced with steroids.
Totally Confused wrote:
Time out: I don't get it. Are diuretics performance enhancing? I don't understand how testing positive for diuretics implies that she was trying to cheat. Someone please explain.
google is your friend.
Diuretics are used by drug cheats to flush out the drugs from their bodies so there is no trace remaining for the test to pick up. Therefore they are banned.