What on Earth? wrote:
And then Nike WILL get away with it.
How did you arrive at this conclusion?
What on Earth? wrote:
And then Nike WILL get away with it.
How did you arrive at this conclusion?
Mo didn't go to Ethiopia for the Carnitine.
combined benefits wrote:
What on Earth? wrote:And then Nike WILL get away with it.
How did you arrive at this conclusion?
Well..they could...
I'm just saying to get out there and FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT for what you believe in or suffer eternally in regret.
Hamza Driouch didn't go to Ethiopia for the Carnitine.
combined benefits wrote:
What on Earth? wrote:And then Nike WILL get away with it.
How did you arrive at this conclusion?
This just posted on Buzzfeed: Nike is, apparently, USATF's biggest sponsor and beloved by the IAAF and IOC for their sponsorship revenues.
Salazar appears to have planned for the appearance of doping controversy despite the fact that strictly speaking it is not doping.
We've seen these dramas before and it turns out that most of the time much worse things are going on than legal doping.
Oh crap - I just ate a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and had a little coffee.
Someone write a story about how obscure masters athletes are now openly using special high protein foods and performance enhancing liquids strained from a berry found mostly in the jungle. The question is not if it is legal - it is.
It maybe be legal, but it sure ain't right.
This is straight from WADA.
"In cases where IV infusions/injections are deemed medically necessary, good medical practice must ensure that: 1) a clear, well-justified diagnosis has been established; 2) no non-prohibited alternative treatment exists; 3) this treatment will not enhance performance other than to return the athlete to a normal state of health; 4) the treatment is administered by qualified medical personnel in an appropriate medical setting; and 5) adequate medical records of the treatment are maintained. Athletes and support personnel administering IV infusions which cannot be medically justified are committing an anti-doping rule violation (ADRV) whether or not the individual substances are prohibited. In such cases, both the athlete and the personnel administering the IV infusion may be sanctioned."
Seems a little murky here. That first sentence would seem to say that injections are also banned due to points 1 and 3 at the very least.
You know I'm...I'm not quite sure if it's fully appropriate, but I'm going to go ahead and blame this whole thing on Obama.
Easy. Take L-Carnitine injections to offset the thyroid meds. C'mon guys there is likely a matrix of drugs/interactions going on here!
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1196/annals.1320.015/abstract
;jsessionid=18B2D57E2B718D3D6167FECA9C504B2F.f02t04
It is not an IV. No conflict.
Hypodermoclysis is the subcutaneous infusion of fluids. It is an alternative to IV that is technically not IV.
runDirtyrun wrote:
the real takeaway wrote:Stepping back for a second, here's what I take away from all this:
1. I don't think one can infer that Alberto is doping his athletes. It does imply that he has a "kitchen sink" approach to supplementation and training aides. Anything that shows some kind of benefit (even in small studies), he'll try it. This is not a strategy that will lead to long-term success.
2. It seems Magness is not banned from or reluctant to comment on what he observed while at the NOP. Therefore, it would seem there wasn't anything "worse" that went on.
So, as long as it is not explicitly against the rules, then the doping is okay? Good to know.
When Salazar wants to do what amounts to uncontrolled human experimentation on you, is it okay? Do you think Salazar is going to keep you on if you said/say no to his human experimentation schemes?
Let's imagine your kid wins the athletic genes lottery and Salazar wants to stick needles with who-knows-what into her is it still okay? Remember, it's not doping.
USATF have anything to say on this topic? They were notified about the story.
If it's not against the WADA rules, or doesn't contravene the spirit of the WADA code, then it is not doping, is it? This isn't a technicality. This is the basis of the definition of what is doping and what isn't.
The WADA code already bans substances and methods which aren't known, but fall within certain categories. You can't have the excuse anymore of using a designer drug and later claiming that it's not on the banned list. If it's a doping-like substance, it's doping.
No, I wouldn't want my kid to be coached by Alberto, but mostly because I don't think he's a good coach. He gets good results, but only with those athletes who fit the training program. A good coach changes the training program to fit the athlete.
I think a lot of coaches could get good results if they worked with extremely talented athletes with great biomechanics who rarely get injured.
Incorrecto wrote:
grox wrote:You did realise it's (at least) two of the three? So, if a product enhances performance, it also has to harm or, roughly, confer an unfair advantage (or both).
You misread that rules.
4.3.1.2
Medical or other scientific evidence, pharmacological effect or experience that the Use of the substance or method represents an actual or potential health risk to the Athlete;
4.3.1.3
WADA's determination that the Use of the substance or method violates the spirit of sport described in the Introduction to the Code.
These two are enough to Salazar on the hot seat.
Injecting l-carnitine it easily could be argued violates 2 of the 3. However, my reading is it doesn't make it a doping violation as these are the criteria for "WADA shall consider the following criteria in deciding whether to include a substance or method on the Prohibited List". So even though it violates 2 of the 3 it doesn't mean it is banned, it means it could be banned.
However there must be some section where it says you can't take some new wonder drug. Like what would prevent CERA from being taken before people knew what it was? Anyone have that section?
Here is a previously posted link to the redlined version of the next WADA code. The 2009 code is redlined so that you see what changes are being made.
https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/wada-redline-2015-wadc-to-2009-wadc-en.pdf
wejo wrote:
Incorrecto wrote:You misread that rules.
4.3.1.2
Medical or other scientific evidence, pharmacological effect or experience that the Use of the substance or method represents an actual or potential health risk to the Athlete;
4.3.1.3
WADA's determination that the Use of the substance or method violates the spirit of sport described in the Introduction to the Code.
These two are enough to Salazar on the hot seat.
Injecting l-carnitine it easily could be argued violates 2 of the 3. However, my reading is it doesn't make it a doping violation as these are the criteria for "WADA shall consider the following criteria in deciding whether to include a substance or method on the Prohibited List". So even though it violates 2 of the 3 it doesn't mean it is banned, it means it could be banned.
However there must be some section where it says you can't take some new wonder drug. Like what would prevent CERA from being taken before people knew what it was? Anyone have that section?
Yes, there is. This is how they popped people for "The Clear", even though it was not on the banned list.
Good luck finding that section, though!
https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/wada-2015-world-anti-doping-code.pdfLOL, the WADA code is now 150+ pages worth of legalese. What madness has WADA brought down on athletes.
wejo wrote:
Injecting l-carnitine it easily could be argued violates 2 of the 3. However, my reading is it doesn't make it a doping violation as these are the criteria for "WADA shall consider the following criteria in deciding whether to include a substance or method on the Prohibited List". So even though it violates 2 of the 3 it doesn't mean it is banned, it means it could be banned.
However there must be some section where it says you can't take some new wonder drug. Like what would prevent CERA from being taken before people knew what it was? Anyone have that section?
CERA is a form of EPO, so it clearly falls under S2
http://www.usada.org/wp-content/uploads/wada-2015-prohibited-list-en.pdfI see also that injections have to be more than 50ml per 6 hour period to be illegal so technically they were fine injecting l-carnitine as I'm sure it was plenty concentrated enough not to be needing 50ml of solution to dissolve it in.
But, if something has the potential to enhance performance the 50ml limit would not apply. This is how I read what the WADA intends.
ummm...ever crack a book? wrote:
clerk wrote:I've never heard of it....
Really? You've never heard of carnitine? Seriously? In all of your studies in all of your life you have NEVER EVER heard of freaking carnitine?!? May I ask what your education level is? May I suggest that you maybe crack a book from time to time and learn a scientific fact or two?
I've never really heard of it either, except here on LR.
From good ol' Pub Med.
Effects of carnitine on thyroid hormone action.
In the randomized trial, we showed that 2 and 4 grams per day of oral L-carnitine are capable of reversing hyperthyroid symptoms (and biochemical changes in the hyperthyroid direction) as well as preventing (or minimizing) the appearance of hyperthyroid symptoms (or biochemical changes in the hyperthyroid direction).
So, if a guy were wanting to get the performance enhancing benefits of thyroid "supplementation" without the nasty side effects of hyperthyroidism, he might take a little L-Cartinine. Do we know any guys who might have been taking a thyroid hormone in Oregon?