Wallace Spearmon Suspended

Sprintgeezer,

Did you read the trackandfield article?

Seems like a lot of your comments are off base here. He actually had a TUE, for his asthma inhaler which contains the glucocorticosteroid. Maybe he got screwed for being too forthcoming with the facts, by admitting to an out of competition injection which would have been allowed, and seemingly didn't factor strongly in his positive.

[quote]rekrunner wrote:

Zero tolerance policy for anything is like asking for permission to no longer use your brain.

[quote]

I agree.

The explanations provided by Spearmon and his doctor are, in my view, perfectly plausible and reasonable. Under the circumstances, even a three-month suspension seems harsh, although I can certainly understand a system that requires some sort of penalty where it appears that the athlete could have obtained a TUE to protect himself against the risks of an in-competition positive test.

Spearmon is also right in pointing out that not everyone who has a positive doping test is a "cheater." People can criticize him for not being sufficiently cautious, but I don't see any evidence that he was "cheating." And those who fail to appreciate the distinction are hardly in a position to adjudge Spearmon to be a "moron."

The fact that he had a TUE for the inhaler-delivered cortisone actually strengthens the suspicion that there is more here than meets the eye.

If he could get his act together enough to get a TUE for that, why couldn't he get it together enough to disclose an injection, and ask what he should do? Does he know the rules or doesn't he? He can't have it both ways.

He had passed some tests, because out-of-comp testing doesn't test for it; he then failed a test in Edmonton, in-comp, during they did test for it. He says he was surprised, that it was "crazy", that he passed the first 2 tests and then failed the third.

Give me a break. This tells me his way of thinking is like this: I'll just keep doing what I'm doing and if I pass tests, great.

Ridiculous, and he knows it. There is absolutely no excuse for not knowing the simple rules, other than cognitive deficit. Yes, SIMPLE. This is his entire livelihood, and it's very little to ask.

It boils down to this: a doctor shoves a needle into your arm, and you don't err on the side of caution? Why not?

Here's a fact:

Spearmon is either a liar or a lazy moron.

I'm sure he would pick option 2 over option 1, and that he wouldn't like it.

But he knows it, and has accepted his suspension, along with the intangible damage to image and credibility that go along with it.

BTW I always liked his public image, and still do. It's just that I now like a lazy moron, who I respect a whole heck of a lot less than before, if at all.

Quote from USADA statement:

"After a thorough review of the case, including Spearmon’s medical records, USADA has accepted Spearmon’s explanation that the Methylprednisolone was not being used in an effort to enhance his performance and that he was taking the prescribed medication in a therapeutic dose under the care of a physician. USADA can grant a Therapeutic Use Exemption (“TUE”) in situations where an athlete has a legitimate medical need to use a substance or method listed on the WADA Prohibited List; however, Spearmon failed to apply for a TUE prior to using the medication."

Note that the TUE had to be obtained PRIOR to using the medication, which is a difficult standard in this case since the medication was delivered in an emergency situation to treat a condition that is difficult to reverse (asthma). His physician was concerned about his immediate health, as he should be. Spearmon should probably have contacted the USADA after treatment, but he already had a TUE for the substance, just not in that form. It only became a problem when he admitted to the injection.

You are reading into the last sentence an inference that isn't necessarily there: that applying for a TUE only prior will suffice.

I find it difficult to believe that that would be the case, as it would exclude TUE's for any emergency procedures.

If that is in fact the case, let me know.

If not, then the last sentence does not exclude the relevant fact that he also failed to apply for the TUE AFTER having used the medication.

The question also arises as to what is an emergency procedure, and if this would have met the established criteria.

A poorly-crafted public summary of the facts is not of dispositive legal significance.

Collin wrote:

If this is all he got banned for, I really couldn't care less. Probably half the serious runners on this board have had a doctor-supervised corticosteroid injection at some point.

Not for a cold or allergy

Have you never thought that athletes might be deliberately looking for things which help there training but don't get a long ban

You people have an excuse for every American sprinter caught doping on here. Everyone knows they are all at it anyway but when one gets caught he is innocent!

You all know how I feel about the 100m and sub-9.80.

I felt like that BEFORE Gay and Powell, and I feel like that AFTER.

I am correct. If you didn't believe me the first time, you're a fool. If you didn't believe me the second time, you're a moron.

Let's now take a brief look at the 200 top-10 all-time from alltimeathletics:

Bolt 19.19

Blake 19.26

Johnson 19.32

Dix 19.53

Gay 19.58

Carter 19.63

Spearmon 19.65

Fredericks 19.68

Gatlin 19.68

Mennea 19.72

Excluding Spearmon, we have 9 athletes. I have arbitrarily cut it off at 10 total because there doesn't yet appear to be any bright-line time below which everybody has for sure been doped. I have my doubts about the timing accuracy of the Brussels 19.26 and 19.53, but it doesn't matter, because Blake and Dix would still be on the list at 19.54 and 19.69

Of those 9, Blake, Gay, Gatlin, and Mennea were caught or admitted using. That's 4/9, almost half. Fact. Statistically a 44.4% chance that Spearmon doped, based on his class membership alone, that of being among the top 10 all-time. Certainly not conclusive in any way, but suggestive.

My own suspicion is that both Johnson and Bolt were using, which for me personally makes it 6/9, or 67%, making it more likely than not that Spearmon doped, again based only on class membership. Highly suggestive.

Now combine that with the figures of the top 10 in the next-closest race, the 100m. Very highly suggestive.

My personal belief is that the clean guys on the list, if there are in fact any, are Dix, Carter, Spearmon, and Fredericks. I have begun to have some small doubt about Dix, so that leaves me with Carter, Spearmon, and Fredericks. Given Carter's criminal history with drugs, his bona fides absolutely must be questioned.

That leaves us with Spearmon and Fredericks, 2 guys I could believe. Put them in with the next-best guys like Marsh, Lewis, DeLoach, Boldon, Crawford, Weir, and Lemaitre, and what do you have? Of those next-best guys, it is generally agreed that Lewis, DeLoach, and Crawford were doped (I give Lewis the benefit of the doubt, but I go with prevailing opinion for the purposes of this analysis because he doesn't really stand out one way or another, unlike Bolt).

So you have, in order, Spearmon, Fredericks, Marsh, Boldon, Weir, and Lemaitre.

This seems roughly reasonable. Taller and thinner guys, 4 of whom are good but not great in the 100, 2 of whom were also top in the 100, all good SE guys.

What to think about Spearmon? Honestly, IDK.

What I DO know is what I said before: either a liar, or a lazy moron. Take your pick.

Once again, the rules are simple and few. They are not the tax code. They are not the patent act. His entire livelihood and much of his self-construct rely on knowing and adhering to those rules. He knows them--and if he doesn't, he is a lazy moron.

If you know anything about aviation/piloting, you will know that there are a great many rules that must be understood and followed in order to avoid catastrophe, especially at busy airports--a heck of a lot more than the simple anti-doping rules.

Give me a break.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

My own suspicion is that both Johnson and Bolt were using, which for me personally makes it 6/9, or 67%, making it more likely than not that Spearmon doped, again based only on class membership. Highly suggestive.

Lol give us a break. Percentages caught doping does not convert to likelihood that they doping. Where did you learn statistics? Just as dumb, you've converted your suspicions into a confirmation and increased the number to 67%. But that wasn't enough idiocy for you. You then continued making statements and basing them off of a premise (67%) that doesn't actually exist.

I don't believe people as dumb as you really exist. You have to be one of the Brojos trolling for page views.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

You all know how I feel about the 100m and sub-9.80.

I felt like that BEFORE Gay and Powell, and I feel like that AFTER.

I am correct. If you didn't believe me the first time, you're a fool. If you didn't believe me the second time, you're a moron.

Give me a break.

Ha, ha. You just don't know how to stop do you? What you feel is Irrelevant, as you like to say.

You type such crap on here without any evidence, without any sources that can be verified and you think you can bully your way up to the top of the "expert" list.

Sorry buddy, you loose any credibility as to knowing anything about track and field. It is time you take you spiel somewhere else and stop denigrating people you don't know anything about.

You speculation is, as you like to say, IRRELEVANT.

And as we used to say when we were kids, "It takes one to know one" as to your constant reference to the use of "moron".

That's why I said "for me", in case you didn't notice.

Nothing is certain. To me, the actual evidence that Bolt is has doped is overwhelming, and the actual evidence that Johnson doped is very strong.

So "for me", the premise is entirely valid--the premise being that they doped their way to those times.

As for the first part of your post, it's wrong. And once again, I said that such a measure is not by itself conclusive evidence.

Sprintgeezer wrote:

That's why I said "for me", in case you didn't notice.

Nothing is certain. To me, the actual evidence that Bolt is has doped is overwhelming, and the actual evidence that Johnson doped is very strong.

So "for me", the premise is entirely valid--the premise being that they doped their way to those times.

As for the first part of your post, it's wrong. And once again, I said that such a measure is not by itself conclusive evidence.

No, the first part of my post is a not wrong at all. It's basic statistics. The number that have tested positive is not the same thing as the likelihood the others are cheating too.

It doesn't matter if it is "for you" or not. The premise is not sound. This isn't something that can be relative. It is either logical and rational or it is not. Yours is not. You are wrong.

There is no evidence that bolt has been doing. Certainly no "actual" evidence. Perhaps you mean "clues" or "suspiciousness", but there is no evidence. You are wrong again.

Oh, what a coincidence!!

How many elite athletes have a TUE for asthma!!!

------------------------------------------------------

"...My doctor prescribed a medication for me for emergency use- what should I do?

If you are prescribed a prohibited substance for an emergency, you should file an emergency TUE. The process is essentially the same – you should download the relevant forms from the TUE application page and submit them as a matter of urgency. Make sure to write EMERGENCY TUE at the top of the form so that we know to expedite processing. It is understood that in some instances not all medical information can be obtained quickly. You should make your best effort to submit a medical file that is as complete as possible, and submit the TUE application as soon as practicable.

Do I need a TUE for an upcoming surgery?

If you are planning a surgery, your first step is to look up all medications that you will be given (or that will be administered) during or after your surgery on

www.GlobalDRO.com

. For general anesthesia, it is common for more than one medication to be used. There may be cases when it is not possible to find out in advance of what medications you will receive (such as in an emergency) and sometimes the anesthesiologist will change his or her mind during the surgery about the most appropriate medication to use. In all cases, request a copy of the surgical notes in order to find out which medications were administered and submit an emergency TUE if necessary. Please review the USADA surgery checklist before a planned visit or emergency visit to the hospital.

http://www.usada.org/substances/tue/tue-faqs/

You have just demonstrated your ignorance on the concept of evidence.

And as far as what is relevant goes, THIS is what is relevant:

Spearmon was found to have the metabolites of a banned substance in his urine sample, which is evidence that the banned substance was introduced into his body which, combined with his admissions concerning the method of administration and the absence of a TUE or any voluntary disclosure, constituted a violation of the anti-doping rules under which he competes, and for which he was sanctioned with a 3-month suspension.

THOSE are the RELEVANT facts.

If you wish to slice the baloney more thinly and include secondary facts that were considered in determining the sanction, such as his history with asthma, etc., then I can also look at secondary facts such as statistical facts that are evidence of the credibility of elite sprint athletes such as he.

I stand by what I say. If all of your primary and secondary facts are believed, and if he had no intention whatsoever to dope and in fact did not dope, then in my opinion he is a lazy moron. How old is the guy? Time to grow up, Wally. Unfortunately, as you said, this will irreversibly tarnish things.

keters, your entire post is ridiculous.

You have to do better than that.

Ben--

Exactly.

Sprintgeezer,"There's more here than meets the eye." "Where there's smoke there's fire." These are things you say when you've got nothing else of substance.Again, did you read the track and field article, or have you already made up your mind? Because I'm guessing both "no" and "yes", in that order, based on your knee-jerk responses.From the article:On June 10, he got injected.On June 29, he passed an in competition test.Then he inhaled the gluco steroids for which he had a TUE.Then he failed the July 6 test.Can you explain that sequence of events?Did he fail the July 6 test due to a June 10 injection, which did not cause a June 29 in competition test failure? How is that possible?Looks to me like he tested positive because of his TUE approved inhaler, rather than the permitted out of competition injection. I know it's possible that this is all selected Spearmon propaganda, despite T&FN saying they received extensive and copious historical documentation. But maybe in fact Wallace was screwed by the bureaucracy slanted against the athletes.If it were Dr. Ferrarri, or Dr. Fuentes, or Victor Conte, that might be something. But it was a long time Dr. Bonner, personal physician since early teen years, who knew the difficulty of treating Spearmon's asthma.If you equally lose respect by equating "lazy moron" with "cheating lying doper", I guess that's your right.But it looks to me like everything Wallace did was totally permissible at every level, if only he had found a knowledgeable "tax preparer".

rek, did you read what I posted?

If so, why did you only selectively quote the first sentence, thereby robbing it of the meaning that I gave it and substituting your own?

OK, let's go deeper, because you seem like a reasonable fellow.

Believe it or not, I do understand what you are saying, which is this: the cortisone that resulted in the metabolites in his urine was introduced into his body after June 29, via inhaler, and not on June 10, via injection, and therefore the cortisone metabolites present on July 6 are not evidence of Spearmon's having received cortisone via injection.

I proceed under the assumption that this is a correct interpretation of your position.

This I assume: that a positive finding means that metabolites of a banned substance were found in a urine sample at a level in excess of that level specified in the rules.

I don't know for how long the relevant metabolites of cortisone persist. I also don't know how much Spearmon dosed via inhaler. In my world of ignorance it is possible that all the metabolites from the injection cleared, and that all those responsible for the positive finding came from the inhaler. It is equally possible that some lingered from the injection, and that while of insufficient concentration by themselves to result in a positive finding, they combined with those from the inhaler to produce a positive finding, whether or not the dose from the inhaler alone would have been enough to produce a positive finding. It is equally possible that the June 29 test was faulty, or that it did not test for cortisone metabolites.

There are too many if's, and's, and but's. Do you see what I am getting at? It is equally possible that by July 6 all the metabolites had cleared, and the metabolites from the inhaler were insufficient to return a positive finding--otherwise he would have been regularly returning positive findings throughout his career of inhaler use during competition. If that is the case, then where would the metabolites have come from?

BUT REKRUNNER, THIS SOPHISTICATION IS IS ALL A DIVERSION.

Consider your timeline.

Look at the first entry: ON JUNE 10, HE GOT INJECTED.

STOP RIGHT THERE.

Why is the next entry not "He contacted USATF/USADA to disclose the date and details of the event, and to determine how to proceed", or "He contacted USATF/USADA to disclose the date and details of the event pursuant to a rule that he knew and understood, and that was clearly highlighted on materials made available to him"

WHY?

He knew enough to get a TUE for an inhaler, but he didn't know enough to get an emergency TUE for an injection?

If that is the case, I stand by my lazy moron assessment. Lazy because this is something that is extremely easy to discover, know, understand, and follow. Moron because it is something that is critically important to his vocation, livelihood, and personal reputation, all of which are critically important to his life.

But I find it difficult to believe that any normally-functioning adult could be so negligent and lazy, which, combined with his membership in a group that is not known for its credibility on the PED issue, is why I am suspicious.

You are a professional athlete. You make your living doing this, and your character and integrity are inextricably bound to your actions because you are a limited public figure in that the results of certain of your actions will be published to the public. You know all of this, and have taken steps to protect yourself accordingly. A doctor shoves a needle in your arm and injects something, AND YOU DO NOTHING?

If your actions were on the level, what do you possibly have to gain by doing nothing? NOTHING. What do you possibly have to lose by doing something? 15 minutes of your life filling out and submitting a form. What do you possibly have to lose by doing nothing? Your reputation.

You do the math. Either he is cheating, or he is colossally stupid and lazy. Given that he was sufficiently diligent to get a TUE for the inhaler, and given how absolutely easy it is to just phone USATF/USADA, and given the history of excellent men's sprinters, I do not readily believe #2 more than #1.

Of course there is a third possibility--both 1 & 2.

"But it looks to me like everything Wallace did was totally permissible at every level"

This is clearly incorrect--he received cortisone via injection without an accompanying TUE. If everything he did was totally permissible at every level, why was he sanctioned, and why has he accepted that sanction?

Right.

rekrunner--

If I have stated your position correctly, then your position is in fact wrong according to the administering physician Bonner, who stated that ""Based on the clinical responses to this medication, and the published muscle release rate, I would expect this medication to still be released into his system at the time of [the July 6] drug screen."

Therefore whatever was found in the July 6 sample did, at least in some measure, result directly from the injection.

Spearmon tries self-serving statements to make himself look better, statements that should have carried no weight whatsoever in considering his sanction, such as "[USADA] explained it to me later that I could have filed for a TUE [therapeutic use exemption] after I got the shot and everything would have been OK," While that is an alleged fact, even if a true record of events, it is not relevant to his culpability in view of the countervailing fact that 'USADA had also explained to him prior to the injection that he could have filed for a TUE after he got the shot and everything would have been OK'. In other words, what USADA communicated to him after-the-fact is of no relevance to his state of mind at or near the time of the injection--but what they communicated to him before-the-fact, and which he can therefore be presumed to know, is relevant to his state of mind at or near the time of the injection.

Likewise, hearsay statements made by Bonner in support of Spearmon, such as "There was never any intent on my part or Wallace's to engage in any treatment not allowed by the Track and Field governing bodies" should be treated as inadmissible for consideration, unless maybe corroborating evidence of a higher quality was also provided, depending on how the tribunal treats such evidence. A better way to treat this would be to just let the better-quality corroborating evidence stand on its own, if it is itself admissible.

I don't know the rules under which this particular tribunal operates. At the end of the day, Spearmon was found to have been in violation and was sanctioned therefor, a sanction that he has accepted.

There is no substitute for interviewing an individual who is under investigation, in person. I don't know what procedures were used here, but I do in the first instance accept the finding and wisdom of the tribunal--however, I also accept the the issues that are raised by the situation as described, and therefore also the questions they should have asked.

Spearmon could very well be telling the whole truth--I have no way of personally knowing this, nor do I have the benefit of having personally interviewed him. Based on the facts released, I can say that there is certainly initial cause to suspect malfeasance, and that the issue of potential malfeasance should be investigated--which it no doubt was.

The tribunal's findings are theirs, and I accept them from a legal standpoint. However, considering only the facts that have been reported, as they have been reported, there still remain questions in my mind. Again, I do not have the benefit of proximity as does the tribunal, but neither am I burdened by that proximity or any potential personal interest in the situation.