So wait….is Nick Willis the 2008 Olympic 1500m champion?

rekrunner wrote:

Watcher of races wrote:

Ramzi won the race, so he should get the medal. The only way someone should be DQed is for either impeding another athlete or somehow running off of the track. I don't really care what supplements they take.

"Doping" is subjective. I take magnesium, a multivitamin, an iron supplement, vitamin B complex, albuterol for asthma, and copious amounts of caffeine. All of those give me performance enhancement. In the eyes of some people, I am cheating. I don't see it that way. I just want to run as well as I can.

Why are you anti-doping?
If it's because it's an unlevel playing field, then just let everyone do it. Problem solved. If someone chooses not to, that's fine, but the opportunity can be equal for everyone involved.

If it's because doping is unsafe, I question that as well. If Ramzi doped, the unsafe methods should have caused his body to react negatively. The opposite is true. He actually became MORE HEALTHY and WON THE OLYMPICS?! How can doping be detrimental to your health when it literally makes you fitter?

The anti-doping guidelines are three-fold, related to 1) potential performance enhancement, 2) potential harm to health, and 3) against the spirit of the sport.

The measure of "risk to health" is not measured by performance in a single competition. Consider for example, blood transfusions which can allegedly make you "fitter", or, if the blood has gone bad, can end you up in critical condition in a hospital. Or look at East German women who got "fitter", but now have lifelong permanent issues, or look at wrestlers and body-builders who die prematurely, etc.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

These are subjective opinions with no objective basis.

That which is fact, that the drugs are listed and are banned on expert advice according to specific criteria is objective. You show that the term is meaningless coming from your mouth, like most of what you say.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

That which is fact, that the drugs are listed and are banned on expert advice according to specific criteria is objective. You show that the term is meaningless coming from your mouth, like most of what you say.

Maybe the terms change meaning only after they have entered your ears.

Sorry for the length, but you are missing so many clues, it is at both laughable and yet concerning how oblivious you are to it. It's most surprising, given your self-proclaimed legal credentials, that you fail to recognize the latitude granted to ADAs and ADOs by WADA at virtually every level at the expense of even the most diligent athlete. It's almost like you never really read anything.

Contrary to your suggestion, both the criteria when forming the list, and the list itself, is subject to interpretation, and the athlete can never be certain how an ADA or ADO or a CAS Panel will interpret it.

Is the list objective to the athlete?

Side question first: What if the list is not available in the athlete's mother tongue? It is literally subject to interpretation before the athlete can consult it. But let's continue in English.

Before you even open the list, WADA's website has an "Important Disclaimer" "If a Substance or Method is not defined in this list, please verify with your Anti-Doping Organization."

The contents of the banned substance list starts with a default blanket ban of "Any pharmacological substances which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections ...". Are "supplements" considered "pharmacological substances" requiring "approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use"? The supplement industry is risky because it is largely unregulated, but will their use cause an automatic ADRV? If the Lichtenstein health authority approves a substance, is it then OK for all athletes? Not being explicit or objective, it will be subject to interpretation during adjudication.

All of the remaining sections frequently contain non-specific open ended inclusions like "including but not limited to" and "other substances with similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s)", etc.

Some banned substances are permitted by some routes but not others.

Some banned substances are permitted in some sports, but not others.

Many substance ingredients can go by different names, which cannot be found in the list.

Many sections include exceptions that may be difficult to interpret (e.g. All Cannibinoids except Cannabidiol).

Is the criteria for the medical experts objective?

The criteria as explained by WADA contains so many lawyer words with wiggle room, like "may include" and "potential to enhance" and "potential health risk" and "spirit of the sport", it cannot be rationally argued that the expert advice is strictly according to "objective" "specific criteria".

There are many exceptions that arguably meet two out of the three criteria, which are not banned, e.g. caffeine and sugar and thyroid supplementation.

Even water objectively has both the potential to enhance performance and the potential to be harmful to health, yet it is freely available to all participants at every road race, despite the potential health risk of dropping dead from hyponatremia.

Bananas enhance performance, but anyone can choke, or slip on the peel, potentially causing quite serious harm to health. Is that silly? That is subject to interpretation.

Some drugs meet none of these criteria, but simply "mask the effect or detection" or might be banned for "not (being approved) for human use", or might be banned based on reflecting "current ... doping practices".

For reference with italic emphasis added to the show wiggle words that allow subjectivity:

How does a substance or method make it to the prohibited list?
The WADA Prohibited List may include any substance and methods that satisfy any two of the following three criteria:
01 It has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance;
02 It represents an actual or potential health risk to the Athlete;
03 It violates the spirit of sport (this definition is outlined in the Code).
Substances or methods which mask the effect or detection of prohibited substances are also prohibited. In addition, a substance which has not been approved for human use is likely to be prohibited as well.
The Prohibited List is reviewed annually in consultation with scientific, medical and anti-doping experts to ensure it reflects current medical and scientific evidence and doping practices.

Note, neither WADA, nor it's consulted committee of experts are required to justify which criteria was considered, nor establish whether that criteria was actually met.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

That which is fact, that the drugs are listed and are banned on expert advice according to specific criteria is objective. You show that the term is meaningless coming from your mouth, like most of what you say.

Maybe the terms change meaning only after they have entered your ears.

Sorry for the length, but you are missing so many clues, it is at both laughable and yet concerning how oblivious you are to it. It's most surprising, given your self-proclaimed legal credentials, that you fail to recognize the latitude granted to ADAs and ADOs by WADA at virtually every level at the expense of even the most diligent athlete. It's almost like you never really read anything.

Contrary to your suggestion, both the criteria when forming the list, and the list itself, is subject to interpretation, and the athlete can never be certain how an ADA or ADO or a CAS Panel will interpret it.

Is the list objective to the athlete?

Side question first: What if the list is not available in the athlete's mother tongue? It is literally subject to interpretation before the athlete can consult it. But let's continue in English.

Before you even open the list, WADA's website has an "Important Disclaimer" "If a Substance or Method is not defined in this list, please verify with your Anti-Doping Organization."

The contents of the banned substance list starts with a default blanket ban of "Any pharmacological substances which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections ...". Are "supplements" considered "pharmacological substances" requiring "approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use"? The supplement industry is risky because it is largely unregulated, but will their use cause an automatic ADRV? If the Lichtenstein health authority approves a substance, is it then OK for all athletes? Not being explicit or objective, it will be subject to interpretation during adjudication.

All of the remaining sections frequently contain non-specific open ended inclusions like "including but not limited to" and "other substances with similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s)", etc.

Some banned substances are permitted by some routes but not others.

Some banned substances are permitted in some sports, but not others.

Many substance ingredients can go by different names, which cannot be found in the list.

Many sections include exceptions that may be difficult to interpret (e.g. All Cannibinoids except Cannabidiol).

Is the criteria for the medical experts objective?

The criteria as explained by WADA contains so many lawyer words with wiggle room, like "may include" and "potential to enhance" and "potential health risk" and "spirit of the sport", it cannot be rationally argued that the expert advice is strictly according to "objective" "specific criteria".

There are many exceptions that arguably meet two out of the three criteria, which are not banned, e.g. caffeine and sugar and thyroid supplementation.

Even water objectively has both the potential to enhance performance and the potential to be harmful to health, yet it is freely available to all participants at every road race, despite the potential health risk of dropping dead from hyponatremia.

Bananas enhance performance, but anyone can choke, or slip on the peel, potentially causing quite serious harm to health. Is that silly? That is subject to interpretation.

Some drugs meet none of these criteria, but simply "mask the effect or detection" or might be banned for "not (being approved) for human use", or might be banned based on reflecting "current ... doping practices".

For reference with italic emphasis added to the show wiggle words that allow subjectivity:

How does a substance or method make it to the prohibited list?
The WADA Prohibited List may include any substance and methods that satisfy any two of the following three criteria:
01 It has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance;
02 It represents an actual or potential health risk to the Athlete;
03 It violates the spirit of sport (this definition is outlined in the Code).
Substances or methods which mask the effect or detection of prohibited substances are also prohibited. In addition, a substance which has not been approved for human use is likely to be prohibited as well.
The Prohibited List is reviewed annually in consultation with scientific, medical and anti-doping experts to ensure it reflects current medical and scientific evidence and doping practices.

Note, neither WADA, nor it's consulted committee of experts are required to justify which criteria was considered, nor establish whether that criteria was actually met.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

That which is fact, that the drugs are listed and are banned on expert advice according to specific criteria is objective. You show that the term is meaningless coming from your mouth, like most of what you say.

Maybe the terms change meaning only after they have entered your ears.

Sorry for the length, but you are missing so many clues, it is at both laughable and yet concerning how oblivious you are to it. It's most surprising, given your self-proclaimed legal credentials, that you fail to recognize the latitude granted to ADAs and ADOs by WADA at virtually every level at the expense of even the most diligent athlete. It's almost like you never really read anything.

Contrary to your suggestion, both the criteria when forming the list, and the list itself, is subject to interpretation, and the athlete can never be certain how an ADA or ADO or a CAS Panel will interpret it.

Is the list objective to the athlete?

Side question first: What if the list is not available in the athlete's mother tongue? It is literally subject to interpretation before the athlete can consult it. But let's continue in English.

Before you even open the list, WADA's website has an "Important Disclaimer" "If a Substance or Method is not defined in this list, please verify with your Anti-Doping Organization."

The contents of the banned substance list starts with a default blanket ban of "Any pharmacological substances which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections ...". Are "supplements" considered "pharmacological substances" requiring "approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use"? The supplement industry is risky because it is largely unregulated, but will their use cause an automatic ADRV? If the Lichtenstein health authority approves a substance, is it then OK for all athletes? Not being explicit or objective, it will be subject to interpretation during adjudication.

All of the remaining sections frequently contain non-specific open ended inclusions like "including but not limited to" and "other substances with similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s)", etc.

Some banned substances are permitted by some routes but not others.

Some banned substances are permitted in some sports, but not others.

Many substance ingredients can go by different names, which cannot be found in the list.

Many sections include exceptions that may be difficult to interpret (e.g. All Cannibinoids except Cannabidiol).

Is the criteria for the medical experts objective?

The criteria as explained by WADA contains so many lawyer words with wiggle room, like "may include" and "potential to enhance" and "potential health risk" and "spirit of the sport", it cannot be rationally argued that the expert advice is strictly according to "objective" "specific criteria".

There are many exceptions that arguably meet two out of the three criteria, which are not banned, e.g. caffeine and sugar and thyroid supplementation.

Even water objectively has both the potential to enhance performance and the potential to be harmful to health, yet it is freely available to all participants at every road race, despite the potential health risk of dropping dead from hyponatremia.

Bananas enhance performance, but anyone can choke, or slip on the peel, potentially causing quite serious harm to health. Is that silly? That is subject to interpretation.

Some drugs meet none of these criteria, but simply "mask the effect or detection" or might be banned for "not (being approved) for human use", or might be banned based on reflecting "current ... doping practices".

For reference with italic emphasis added to the show wiggle words that allow subjectivity:

How does a substance or method make it to the prohibited list?
The WADA Prohibited List may include any substance and methods that satisfy any two of the following three criteria:
01 It has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance;
02 It represents an actual or potential health risk to the Athlete;
03 It violates the spirit of sport (this definition is outlined in the Code).
Substances or methods which mask the effect or detection of prohibited substances are also prohibited. In addition, a substance which has not been approved for human use is likely to be prohibited as well.
The Prohibited List is reviewed annually in consultation with scientific, medical and anti-doping experts to ensure it reflects current medical and scientific evidence and doping practices.

Note, neither WADA, nor it's consulted committee of experts are required to justify which criteria was considered, nor establish whether that criteria was actually met.

runn wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Maybe the terms change meaning only after they have entered your ears.

Sorry for the length, but you are missing so many clues, it is at both laughable and yet concerning how oblivious you are to it. It's most surprising, given your self-proclaimed legal credentials, that you fail to recognize the latitude granted to ADAs and ADOs by WADA at virtually every level at the expense of even the most diligent athlete. It's almost like you never really read anything.

Contrary to your suggestion, both the criteria when forming the list, and the list itself, is subject to interpretation, and the athlete can never be certain how an ADA or ADO or a CAS Panel will interpret it.

Is the list objective to the athlete?

Side question first: What if the list is not available in the athlete's mother tongue? It is literally subject to interpretation before the athlete can consult it. But let's continue in English.

Before you even open the list, WADA's website has an "Important Disclaimer" "If a Substance or Method is not defined in this list, please verify with your Anti-Doping Organization."

The contents of the banned substance list starts with a default blanket ban of "Any pharmacological substances which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections ...". Are "supplements" considered "pharmacological substances" requiring "approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use"? The supplement industry is risky because it is largely unregulated, but will their use cause an automatic ADRV? If the Lichtenstein health authority approves a substance, is it then OK for all athletes? Not being explicit or objective, it will be subject to interpretation during adjudication.

All of the remaining sections frequently contain non-specific open ended inclusions like "including but not limited to" and "other substances with similar chemical structure or similar biological effect(s)", etc.

Some banned substances are permitted by some routes but not others.

Some banned substances are permitted in some sports, but not others.

Many substance ingredients can go by different names, which cannot be found in the list.

Many sections include exceptions that may be difficult to interpret (e.g. All Cannibinoids except Cannabidiol).

Is the criteria for the medical experts objective?

The criteria as explained by WADA contains so many lawyer words with wiggle room, like "may include" and "potential to enhance" and "potential health risk" and "spirit of the sport", it cannot be rationally argued that the expert advice is strictly according to "objective" "specific criteria".

There are many exceptions that arguably meet two out of the three criteria, which are not banned, e.g. caffeine and sugar and thyroid supplementation.

Even water objectively has both the potential to enhance performance and the potential to be harmful to health, yet it is freely available to all participants at every road race, despite the potential health risk of dropping dead from hyponatremia.

Bananas enhance performance, but anyone can choke, or slip on the peel, potentially causing quite serious harm to health. Is that silly? That is subject to interpretation.

Some drugs meet none of these criteria, but simply "mask the effect or detection" or might be banned for "not (being approved) for human use", or might be banned based on reflecting "current ... doping practices".

For reference with italic emphasis added to the show wiggle words that allow subjectivity:

Note, neither WADA, nor it's consulted committee of experts are required to justify which criteria was considered, nor establish whether that criteria was actually met.

I remember John Treacy saying that during his world class career he wouldn't take ANY supplement, not even a vitamin.

This explanation is great. Thank you. I always thought there was a fine line. This makes it clearer.

HRE wrote:

Thank you! Reading this actually gets me to question further whether or not Cierpinski really doped. Nothing in that article mentions anything about doping distance runners. They were mostly using steroids and in the 70's we all knew those were being used but didn't believe they were used on distance runners. The idea was that those drugs bulked you up, added weight, and actually slowed you down. The article mentions that most of the DDR swimmers who won gold medals and all of the throwers who did were in the doping program. Weight lifters get mentioned. So do sprinters. But unless I really missed something there's not a word about doping distance runners.

I know Shorter has said for many years that he's seen Cierpinski's name on the list of doped athletes. But as far as I can tell he's never made that list available to the general viewer. Maybe there's something that prevents him from doing so but it seems we're left to take him at his word here. If he's not going to make the list available I wish he'd at least say why he won't or can't.