Be interested to see how it all plays out. Some stuff seems well supported but I didn't think the L-Carnitine infusions being over 50ml was that well supported. They made false statements like it's impossible to infuse 50ml at a consistent rate over an hour. Come to work at the hospital with me tomorrow and I'll be happy to show them how to do that easily. Statements like that make me question some (not all) of the other conclusions/inferences they have drawn.
LCarnitine wrote:
Be interested to see how it all plays out. Some stuff seems well supported but I didn't think the L-Carnitine infusions being over 50ml was that well supported. They made false statements like it's impossible to infuse 50ml at a consistent rate over an hour. Come to work at the hospital with me tomorrow and I'll be happy to show them how to do that easily. Statements like that make me question some (not all) of the other conclusions/inferences they have drawn.
Ummm, sounds like the Lance A. defense. No actually real, physical test evidence. Only hearsay. You know how that worked out for Lance, yes?
WADA CODE wrote:
How? wrote:How does USADA have authority over physicians?
How could people/runners not know this. No runner is an island.
To fight doping by promoting the spirit of sport, the Code requires each anti-doping organization to develop and implement education and prevention programs for athletes, including youth, and athlete Support Personnel.
Brown is covered under athlete Support Personnel.
This would only be relevant if WADA somehow had the ability to grant USADA authority over physicians. It doesn't.
How? wrote:
WADA CODE wrote:How could people/runners not know this. No runner is an island.
To fight doping by promoting the spirit of sport, the Code requires each anti-doping organization to develop and implement education and prevention programs for athletes, including youth, and athlete Support Personnel.
Brown is covered under athlete Support Personnel.
This would only be relevant if WADA somehow had the ability to grant USADA authority over physicians. It doesn't.
You are wrong.
Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:
rojo wrote:I added in "Is Alberto Salazar next?" to the title as it seems hard that one would happen without the other unless Salazar claims Dr. Brown went rogue and did treatment that he thought should be kosher.
Don't they called it the prisoner's dilemma when two crooks refuse to rat on each other because they realize keeping quite is best for both? If Salazar blames Dr. Brown they will end up taking each other down in a vortex.
You ok, dude? You usually write better than this. Perhaps you're drunk or something?
WADA CODE wrote:
How? wrote:This would only be relevant if WADA somehow had the ability to grant USADA authority over physicians. It doesn't.
You are wrong.
Powerful argument.
To clafiry, Salazar still could be in hot water. He is on the non-medical side the boss. If he is in any capacity either doing clinical things (giving out drugs, suggesting medical treatments) or instructing valid clinicians to do these things, the buck stops with him. He could face various civil and even criminal complaints per all that.
I once was at a soccer match—I coach soccer, also—and an athlete on an opposing team complained of her head and nose hurting after a strong blow to the forehead in a header. Her parents were not there and she'd traveled several hours to the game. The asst coach of that team was concerned but not sure what to do. I told them, I'm not a clinician, however, in my coaching training I learned things that made me feel this could be a concussion or other injury. We went through the basic concussion tests to ensure she did not need an ambulance called immediately, and clearing that, we took her to the local hospital. Turns out she'd broken her nose on the header, but no concussion. Point being, beyond emergency first aid, you do not provide medical treatment, diagnosis, or advice. You get the athlete to those qualified to do that.
This is following proper protocol: a coach is in a position where no licensed medical staff is on site ( the trainer already had left). He sees a possible medical issue, enacts first aid triage to ensure this is not an immediate emergency, then seeks valid medical care for the athlete. By several accounts, in non-emergency situations Salazar appears to have offered specific medical advice, possibly even provided medications. Whether he did this with his own hands or ordered it from Dr. Brown or the now-deceased Nike doc, seems it was way above what any coach at any level is allowed under NFHS, NCAA, USATF, and other governing body rules.
Beyond that, there is the question of if the agents (supplements/drugs) administered were allowable in the doses they were administered. But Salazar never should have been calling the medical shots at all, so if he was, he seems in as much trouble as any clinician. If he was instead making valid requests from those clinicians and they bent the rules, it's on them.
Not following your logic...I think there were rules broken by Salazar. The point I was making that the report said - "Infusing 40 mL (2.7 tablespoons) continuously and uniformly over a one hourperiod is a practical impossibility and Dr. Brown knew this.""Unless the flow from an IV is restricted or extraordinarily narrow tubing is used 50 mL of liquid would flow out of an IV bag in much less than an hour. Moreover, squeezing an IV bag can result in flow rates of some 150 - 200 ml per minute"Both these statements indicate little knowledge about IV infusions. They are comical, it is quite easy to infuse 40ml continuously and uniformly over an hour. That just makes you wonder what other seemingly well supported conclusions have been jumped to erroneously. I'm not saying the whole report is false, that it's all hearsay but I'm saying that if you put some silly unresearched conclusions in a report that indicate you don't know what you're talking about in that specific instance it does cast doubt on other aspects of the report.
well supported wrote:
Ummm, sounds like the Lance A. defense. No actually real, physical test evidence. Only hearsay. You know how that worked out for Lance, yes?
How? wrote:
WADA CODE wrote:You are wrong.
Powerful argument.
Yes, compared to your weak one. Only one post provides a link to the WADA code. The first-responder, and you are provided NOTHING of substance.
Whatisthis wrote:
Yeah, does anyone know? Because USADA hearings are not criminal proceedings. The TX medical board could discipline him but I fail to see what USADA itself could do to him.
How? wrote:How does USADA have authority over physicians?
They can ban him as an athlete support personnel.
That means he can't get a credential. It also means any athlete who continues to work with him could be banned for prohibited association.
I suspect Dr. Brown will deny the allegations but end up not contesting them if there is a hearing. There is not much downside to him at all from any sort of ban due to USADA's very limited jurisdiction.
There may still be a complaint before the Texas Medical Board. About the worst outcome I can see for Dr. Brown is that he could be essentially forced into retirement. Dr. Brown is 68 years old. This would not be a horrible outcome for him.
WADA CODE wrote:
How? wrote:Powerful argument.
Yes, compared to your weak one. Only one post provides a link to the WADA code. The first-responder, and you are provided NOTHING of substance.
I didn't put forth an argument. I asked a question, which you were unable to answer despite your own assertion that the answer is obvious.
How? wrote:
How? wrote:How does USADA have authority over physicians?
I didn't put forth an argument. I asked a question, which you were unable to answer despite your own assertion that the answer is obvious.
So, back to your original question. USADA has very little authority over physicians. They cannot sanction them professionally or limit or direct their medical practice in any way.
The sphere of USADA's authority is solely within the sports over which it has jurisdiction.
USADA can sanction anybody as an athlete support personnel. This can include coaches, physicians, agents, and pretty much anybody else.
The limits of those sanctions is that they can prevent you from receiving a credential to a track meet. In addition, they can declare you a banned person. Which means that other people (mostly coaches and athletes) over which USADA does have authority cannot have associations with you. If athletes or coaches have prohibited associations (by, for example, continuing to seek medical treatment from Dr. Brown) then they can be banned.
LCarnitine wrote:
Be interested to see how it all plays out. Some stuff seems well supported but I didn't think the L-Carnitine infusions being over 50ml was that well supported. They made false statements like it's impossible to infuse 50ml at a consistent rate over an hour. Come to work at the hospital with me tomorrow and I'll be happy to show them how to do that easily. Statements like that make me question some (not all) of the other conclusions/inferences they have drawn.
It would be nice if the charging document was published in full. Maybe the journalists? at Letsrun.com could get on that.
I see two potential charges:
1. Use of a prohibited method (infusion of more than 50ml of fluid within 6 hours)
2. Attempting to mislead or coverup (not the technical charge, but I don't have enough time right now to look up exact language in the Code) for altering medical records submitted to USADA.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
How? wrote:I didn't put forth an argument. I asked a question, which you were unable to answer despite your own assertion that the answer is obvious.
So, back to your original question. USADA has very little authority over physicians. They cannot sanction them professionally or limit or direct their medical practice in any way.
The sphere of USADA's authority is solely within the sports over which it has jurisdiction.
USADA can sanction anybody as an athlete support personnel. This can include coaches, physicians, agents, and pretty much anybody else.
The limits of those sanctions is that they can prevent you from receiving a credential to a track meet. In addition, they can declare you a banned person. Which means that other people (mostly coaches and athletes) over which USADA does have authority cannot have associations with you. If athletes or coaches have prohibited associations (by, for example, continuing to seek medical treatment from Dr. Brown) then they can be banned.
This makes sense. It's really an exercise of authority over the athletes rather than an exercise of authority over the physician (they can prevent athletes from using him, but cannot impact his medical license or ability to practice in any way).
So the claim that he is facing charges is just a sensationalist headline for the thread, I guess, as no one with the ability to charge him with anything is involved in the case.
Well, charge is still accurate as there is an arbitration process. It is a hearing and process with very limited stakes for Dr. Brown and up to him if he chooses to contest it or not. I guess it depends how good he thinks his defense is and how important it is to him personnally to continue to work with athletes.
If he does choose to participate he wouldhave to testify under oath with the possibility of perjury if he lies.
Mr. Obvious wrote:
I suspect Dr. Brown will deny the allegations but end up not contesting them if there is a hearing. There is not much downside to him at all from any sort of ban due to USADA's very limited jurisdiction.
There may still be a complaint before the Texas Medical Board. About the worst outcome I can see for Dr. Brown is that he could be essentially forced into retirement. Dr. Brown is 68 years old. This would not be a horrible outcome for him.
I sure wouldn't want to end my career on that note.
Well that is getting ahead of the game. I think that represents the worst case scenario. It would not be a great way to go out for sure, but also not devastating
Why are you telling us that it's about Alberto? We know that these allegations are, in a large part, concerned with Alberto.If, on the other hand, you meant to address Salazar directly, you should have put a comma before his name: "It's over, Alberto."
Ben L Wrong wrote:
It's over Alberto. It's over.
LCarnitine wrote:
Not following your logic...I think there were rules broken by Salazar. The point I was making that the report said -
"Infusing 40 mL (2.7 tablespoons) continuously and uniformly over a one hour
period is a practical impossibility and Dr. Brown knew this."
"Unless the flow from an IV is restricted or extraordinarily narrow tubing is used 50 mL of liquid would flow out of an IV bag in much less than an hour. Moreover, squeezing an IV bag can result in flow rates of some 150 - 200 ml per minute"
Both these statements indicate little knowledge about IV infusions. They are comical, it is quite easy to infuse 40ml continuously and uniformly over an hour. That just makes you wonder what other seemingly well supported conclusions have been jumped to erroneously. I'm not saying the whole report is false, that it's all hearsay but I'm saying that if you put some silly unresearched conclusions in a report that indicate you don't know what you're talking about in that specific instance it does cast doubt on other aspects of the report.
Thanks for bringing this up. A quick google tells me there are different tubing sizes that produce different drop sizes, and then an adjustable clamp to regulate drip rate. So, their comment about "a restriction or narrow tubing" makes no sense because that's exactly how an IV is set up. It does make you wonder who their source was behind that statement (surely USADA consulted a Dr), and what that source's reasoning was.