Lindsey Scherf wins CAS appeal

do you actually believe that? she was taking a drug for exercised induced asthma (nobody has even brought up whether this is a legit health issue of hers). she then claimed that she had a throat/lung infection, so, rather than taking an antibiotic or something normally used to fight infections, she had to take her exercise induced asthma medication to fight it? yeah right. moreover, if the condition was so serious that she could die from it (her claim), then why was she running a marathon in the first place? the whole site smells of bunk.

Is Sammons the 10,000 runner that ran so well frosh yr and sat out last yr?

1500 wrote:

Is Sammons the 10,000 runner that ran so well frosh yr and sat out last yr?

Yes.

JPGarland wrote:

The scary thing is that it appears that an elite runner couldn't get an answer to a simple question, i.e., is a U.S. exemption for the use of a drug good enough for the Gulf Coast Marathon in Brisbane? USADA didn't know. The IAAF didn't know (since after the race it granted the exemption only to withdraw that because it didn't have jurisdiction over the race).

This wasn't a last minute question.

Which is why the idiots should not be in charge of testing athletes. In fact, athletics were much better off before all this testing crap became their modus operandi.

Has anyone else noticed the testing is synonymous with the drug companies taking over major marathons? The wolves are guarding the hen house!

cheech wrote:

do you actually believe that? she was taking a drug for exercised induced asthma (nobody has even brought up whether this is a legit health issue of hers). she then claimed that she had a throat/lung infection, so, rather than taking an antibiotic or something normally used to fight infections, she had to take her exercise induced asthma medication to fight it? yeah right. moreover, if the condition was so serious that she could die from it (her claim), then why was she running a marathon in the first place? the whole site smells of bunk.

I completely agree....why on earth put yourself at risk by running a grueling marathon like that if this infection was as serious as she claimed? there are bigger tragedies in this world than not competing in a frivolous race...

cheech wrote:

do you actually believe that? she was taking a drug for exercised induced asthma (nobody has even brought up whether this is a legit health issue of hers). she then claimed that she had a throat/lung infection, so, rather than taking an antibiotic or something normally used to fight infections, she had to take her exercise induced asthma medication to fight it? yeah right. moreover, if the condition was so serious that she could die from it (her claim), then why was she running a marathon in the first place? the whole site smells of bunk.

Cheech, unless you have a hidden agenda here, you would not state “the whole site smells of bunk”. Take the time to actually read what is on Lindsey’s website (obviously you haven’t) rather than asking for the CliffsNotes.

On page 7 of USADA’s Legal brief under “Facts as found by USADA”, USADA states:

“USADA was able to corroborate all aspects of Lindsey’s account of events preceding and at the GCM (Gold Coast Marathon). Dr. Kowalczuk confirmed that she saw Lindsey on June 20, 2007, and that Lindsey had “lost her voice and was not well at all.” Dr. Kowalczuk prescribed Singular and Ventalin for Lindsey and advised Lindsey to continue on her Flovent (asthma medication) which had been prescribed for Lindsey in February 2007. Dr. Kowalczuk said she was concerned for Lindsey, that Lindsey mentioned competing in the GCM and at this point (10 days before the GCM) Dr. Kowalczuk advised Lindsey not to compete. Dr. Kowalczuk confirmed that she discussed with Lindsey a 16 year old boy who had developed myocarditis as a result of an improperly treated respiratory condition and told Lindsey she was fearful that the same thing could happen to Lindsey with appropriate treatment.”

Lindsey gradually felt better over the next several days and she made a decision to compete a few days before the GCM. I’d like you to also read the bottom of page 12 and top of page 13 of USADA’s legal brief, but as someone only wanting CliffsNotes, I’d better spell it out for you here.

“Persuant to the (WADA) code USADA was required to investigate whether Lindsey could satisfy the standard of establishing the facts on which her exceptional circumstances claim rests by a balance of probability. See Code art. 3.1. USADA found that Lindsey could carry her burden of proof because more nefarious explanations for Lindsey’s conduct were, under the circumstances revealed by USADA’s investigation, highly improbable. It would have taken an extraordinary and improbable series of acts and fortuities for Lindsey to have weaved a web of deceit to create the circumstances of this case in order to cover intentional doping. To believe that Lindsey concocted the scenario found by USADA in order to use drugs at the CGM and evade penalties for such use one would have to believe the following:

1. That Lindsey knew in advance that USADA would give her advice concerning whether her USADA ATUE was valid at the GCM;

2. That Lindsey knew in advance that the IAAF would not timely process her ATUE application;

3. That Lindsey was able to intentionally contract a serious lung condition several weeks prior to the GCM and/or to mislead a physician that she had such a condition;

4. That Lindsey was able to convince the ASADA DCO (Doping Control Officer) and chaperone of false emotional fragility throughout a two hour time period following the competition while she was really coolly calculating to avoid doping control rules;

5. That Lindsey was confident enough that any drugs had cleared her system or gambled that ASDA officials would not test her the day following the GCM when she admitted she had made a mistake and asked to be immediately tested; and

6. That Lindsey was sufficiently cunning and scheming to concoct an involved explanation to support her refusal and yet was ignorant that the standard period of ineligibility for a refusal is two years.

The foregoing circumstances render highly improbable speculation that Lindsey created the odd circumstances in this case as a cover for intentional doping.”

I’ll trust the findings of a team of experienced USADA investigators (and CAS arbitrators), and ignore an anonymous CliffsNotes fan who offers opinions on a matter that he won’t take the time to read about.

Correction:

Third paragraph above should end in "without appropriate treatment".

I think we're missing the bigger question here. I happen to have some Flovent. The question is, will taking this make me a better runner? I'm a masters runner so no one is going to be testing me in local road races and track meets. I'm willing to take the risk that the small amount of steroids in this will not give me roid rage.

great. so she had a respiratory infection and she found a doctor who, rather than prescribing something that might actually combat her sickness, decided to tell her to keep on taking her anti exercise induced asthma medication. are you that gullible to think that someone with an upper respiratory infection would skip antibiotics and any other medication normally used to treat such sickness and go with a banned drug that isn't normally used to fight such sickness?

her story would be a lot more convincing if she cut all of that out and just left it with, i went to the appropriate US authorities and they either couldn't tell me what to do or told me the wrong info and now i am up a creek without a paddle. her claim that she needed her anti exercise induced asthma drug to fight an upper respiratory infection is simply silly and i am shocked that people on here fell for it hook, line and sinker.

americansprinter wrote:

I completely agree....why on earth put yourself at risk by running a grueling marathon like that if this infection was as serious as she claimed? there are bigger tragedies in this world than not competing in a frivolous race...

A few days before the Gold Coast Marathon Lindsey no longer felt any symptoms from her recent illness and thought that she had fully recovered from it. She didn't feel there was any risk to running this marathon.

Also, this was not going to be a grueling marathon for Lindsey because her objective was only to get the 2:47 Olympic Trials qualifying time – a time that would be easy for her.

And this wasn’t a frivolous race for Lindsey. At the top of page 3 of Lindsey’s overview she states:

“I decided to run the July 1st Gold Coast Marathon in Brisbane, Australia to get the qualifying time for the US Olympic Marathon Trials. Entering this marathon was very important to me because it was going to be my only chance to get the marathon trials qualifying time. I could not get permission from my college to run a qualifying marathon during the fall while competing on my college cross-country team.”

Lindsey felt she had a good shot at placing in the top-3 at the US Marathon Trials, so running this race to get the needed 2:47 qualifying time was extremely important to her.

jimxs wrote:

Lindsey felt she had a good shot at placing in the top-3 at the US Marathon Trials

With or without Flovent?

cheech wrote:

great. so she had a respiratory infection and she found a doctor who, rather than prescribing something that might actually combat her sickness, decided to tell her to keep on taking her anti exercise induced asthma medication. are you that gullible to think that someone with an upper respiratory infection would skip antibiotics and any other medication normally used to treat such sickness and go with a banned drug that isn't normally used to fight such sickness?

Cheech, you have no creditability here. A medical doctor who has expertise in repertory problems and who works part time at the Univ. of Queensland Health Dept. was assigned to see Lindsey. This doctor carefully examined Lindsey and prescribed a treatment plan that was successful. Lindsey’s website states her doctor was concerned about Myocarditis, which is a disorder that is caused by viral infections that reach the heart. Of course you didn’t read that because you can’t get beyond CliffsNotes. Lindsey’s viral infection was not treatable with Antibiotics.

Here’s some CliffsNotes for you:

“Antibiotics are medicines that help your body fight bacteria and viruses, either by directly killing the offending bugs or by weakening them so that your own immune system can fight and kill them more easily. The vast majority of antibiotics are bacteria fighters. Although there are millions of viruses, we only have antibiotics for half-a-dozen or so of them. Bacteria are more complex and so are easier to kill.”

You are obviously not a doctor, but not surprisingly you think you know better. You show your extreme stupidity by asking me this question: “are you that gullible to think that someone with an upper respiratory infection would skip antibiotics and any other medication normally used to treat such sickness and go with a banned drug that isn't normally used to fight such sickness?”

No, I’m not gullible and I’m one hell of a lot smarter than you could ever hope to be. The correct answer is that antibiotics won’t work for Lindsey’s viral infection, and yes, the medications prescribed (Ventalin, Singular, Flovent) are exactly the one’s normally prescribed for the illness Lindsey had. But don’t believe me, ask your own doctor. Lindsey ended up not taking Ventalin as she would have needed a TUE (Therapeutic Use Exemption) for it and wouldn’t have obtained the TUE in time for the marathon. Lindsey did take Singular (not a banned drug) and Flovent (where for years she has had a USA TUE and where she was desperately trying to get an international TUE before race day).

Cheech, the more you post, the more you show your stupidity. You are a first class idiot and not capable of sound judgment. Your frequent visits to this thread and your baseless accusations strongly indicate you have some hidden agenda going on here. Continue to post. I’m not coming back to read your crap. I’m sure others are going to ignore you from here on as well.

Wjkl wrote:

I believe this is the first time WADA has appealed a decision made by USADA and lost the appeal. The appeal likely cost WADA, IAAF, USADA and CAS somewhere between $100,000 and $200,000.

See

http://www.lindseyscherf.org

for Lindsey's explanation of what occurred.

The website is currently down, but I understand it will be back up in a few hours.

Meanwhile, I am injecting 1,000 IU of EPO into the little (very little) roll of fat I have in my left abdomen. It will clear by morning, this small a dose. But I have masking agent ready for any surprises.

I have races coming up--26:10 seems quite possible.

i have no credibility? all that i can do is read the idiotic explanation that she posted and conclude that it makes no sense. you, on the other hand, have to accuse me twice of having an agenda (i don't -- i don't know her but think that drug cheats are killing the sport) and have resorted to the convincing tactic of an ad hominen attack on me. moreover, it is clear that you are the one with the agenda because you either have information that is not public or you simply are making things up (eg, the background of her doctor).

let's take a closer look at what flovent is and what it is used for because your pedantic declaration that she should have been on it for an upper respiratory infection is just plain idiotic. it would behoove you to do a little research before making any more ridiculous claims.

first off, it is a steroid, which certainly nicely falls under the PED umbrella. i strongly suggest that you read some of the sites that describe it since you clearly have no idea what it is and is not used for. since you seem to have difficulty with reality, here are a few:

what is interesting is that all of the sites indicate that flovent is used to treat asthma and wheezing and that's it. in fact, it only is used to prevent an asthma attack -- once an attack occurs, it doesn't work. most importantly, there are no other proper medical uses for it (at least ones generally accepted by the medical community)

for a so-called repertory [sic] expert to then decide to treat an an elite athlete, with an upper respiratory infection who will be drug tested, with a drug not normally used to treat upper respiratory infections is, to say the least, very odd. maybe there is some bizantine medical use for flovent in this case but something tells me that a doctor who knows what he/she is doing isn't going to go that route in these circumstances.

i find it particularly interesting that you have proclaimed that antibiotics wouldn't work for her infection. what is that based on? your knowledge of flovent? moreover, if this upper respiratory infection were so bad, then how come it cleared up so quickly despite improper medical treatment?

some other statements in her letter that really made you question what is going on here are:

(1) her claim that her only opportunity to qualify for the oly trials was a july 1, 2007 race in australia during her semester abroad. what happened to all of the other races during the entire year of 2007 plus any other ones up to when the window closed? something tells me that with no definitive ruling on flovent and an illness that she was told could become deadly, she probably should have picked a different race during the year to run.

(2) her claim that she just got over a "prolonged 2-year foot injury during which time [she] was able to run only a few races." wait a minute. 2 years back is 2006, so how was she able to run a 2:4x marathon and plan on making the olympic team if she had such a bad foot injury for 2 years?

(3) the fact that she thinks passing a polygraph test means anything. is she serious???

as i stated earlier, i have no agenda, don't know her and hope she does well going forward while not on banned drugs with no exemptions (according to some on here, she will be on a national championship team next year). i just can read what she publicly posted (she does open herself up to all kinds of scrutiny when she launches a public site with her defense on it) and what people have posted here and it is not too hard to spot things that make you raise an eyebrow. your abrasive rants that a doctor "carefully" examined her and properly prescribed a steroid not normally used to treat upper respiratory infections to an an elite athlete who didn't have it approved and who likely would be drug tested ring particularly hollow to me.

"Cheech, you have no creditability here. A medical doctor who has expertise in repertory problems and who works part time at the Univ. of Queensland Health Dept. was assigned to see Lindsey."

It's "credibility" and "respiratory".

Those aren't typos, they're just plain stupidity in using completely wrong words!

To add to Cheech's point, here is a fun fact about the Ventolin she was prescribed. I'm assuming they meant "Ventolin" when they wrote "Ventalin."

"In clinical studies, the most common side effects were throat irritation, viral respiratory infection, upper respiratory inflammation, cough, and musculoskeletal pain."

http://www.ventolin.com/about_ventolin.html

So, as Cheech has already mentioned, her 'doctor' prescribed a drug that has viral respiratory infection as a side effect. This doesn't seem like a good way to treat a viral respiratory infection. :) No worries, she didn't take it b/c she didn't have a TUE for albuterol. Jeebus cleared the infection. :)

This may be a little off the topic but don't NCAA rules state that an athlete has 5 yrs to complete 4 yrs of running? I know BYU athletes are given 6 yrs if they go on a mission but at the most Scherf has 1 yr of NCAA running remaining. Someone stated that she had 6 seasons remaining, that can't possible be correct.

Those are possible side effects. It doens't mean the they will happen. I've taken Flovent after an upper respiratory infection, since it helps to clear up a lot of broncial tube congestion that I sometime get after the infection.