We just received the following press release from USADA. What I don't think I agree with is Travis Tygart's quote where he says another athlete was "unjustly charged". She had an illegal substance in her system. They determined how it got there and let her go. What would a better way to do it be? Not announce it if there is an explanation?
I still think she was justly charged but do kind of think a rules rewrite for some things might be a good idea. What do you think?
U.S. Track & Field Athlete Brenda Martinez Accepts Finding of No Fault
Colorado Springs, Colo. (December 29, 2020) – USADA announced today that Brenda Martinez, of Big Bear, Calif., an athlete in the sport of track and field, has tested positive for a prohibited substance, which was determined to have been ingested by her without fault or negligence. As a result, Martinez will not face a period of ineligibility for her positive test.
“This is our sixth no-fault case in just one year, meaning that yet another athlete has been unjustly charged with a violation and publicly recognized for ingesting a prohibited substance from a completely innocent source, such as contaminated medication, meat, or water, and despite there being no effect on performance,” said Travis T. Tygart, Chief Executive Officer of USADA. “USADA strongly objects to this requirement under the rules and will continue to urge WADA to reform the system to be fairer for athletes.”
Martinez, 33, tested positive for hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) as the result of an out-of-competition urine sample she provided on September 10, 2020. HCTZ is a Specified Substance in the class of Diuretics and Masking Agents and is prohibited at all times under the USADA Protocol for Olympic and Paralympic Movement Testing, the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee National Anti-Doping Policy, and the World Athletics Anti-Doping Rules, all of which have adopted the World Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Agency Prohibited List.
During USADA’s investigation into the circumstances of her case, Martinez provided USADA with records of a permitted oral prescription medication that she was taking at the time of her positive test. This permitted medication, which Martinez takes at the direction of a physician, did not list HCTZ or any other prohibited substances on the label. However, detailed laboratory analysis subsequently conducted on multiple tablets of the athlete’s medication confirmed HCTZ contamination at a level consistent with Martinez’s positive test.
Martinez will not face a period of ineligibility for her positive test, and because the sample was collected out-of-competition, there are no competitive results to disqualify.
In an effort to aid athletes, as well as support team members such as parents and coaches, in understanding the rules applicable to them, USADA provides comprehensive instruction on its website on the testing process and prohibited substances, how to file and update athlete Whereabouts, how to obtain permission to use a necessary medication, and the risks and dangers of taking supplements, as well as performance-enhancing and recreational drugs.
In addition, USADA manages a drug reference hotline, Global Drug Reference Online (www.GlobalDRO.com), conducts educational sessions with National Governing Bodies and their athletes, and distributes a multitude of educational materials, such as an easy-reference wallet card with examples of prohibited and permitted substances, a supplement guide, a nutrition guide, an athlete handbook, and periodic alerts and advisories.
Along with education and testing, robust anti-doping programs enable investigations stemming from tips and whistleblowers. USADA makes available a number of ways to report the abuse of performance-enhancing drugs in sport in an effort to protect clean athletes and promote clean competition. Any tip can be reported using the USADA Play Clean Tip Center, by email at [email protected], by phone at 1-877-Play Clean (1-877-752-9253) or by mail.
USADA is responsible for the testing and results management process for athletes in the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Movement and is equally dedicated to preserving the integrity of sport through research initiatives and educational programs.
Breaking: Brenda Martinez tested positive but is cleared by USADA
Report Thread
-
-
Considering Brenda Martinez' age and considering her best event is 800 metres which she has aged out, this should be no issue.
-
This is only superficially about Brenda Martinez. This is very much, as Travis Tygart explained, a flawed process. That Martinez is 33 and “aged out”, as you put it, is missing the whole point.
-
I hate to see an athlete unfairly tainted in cases such as this. Tygart is right that the system needs to be reformed. The various cases of tainted meat (hers was an off label item in a prescription drug) are even clearer, where sensitive tests detect tiny quantities of PEDS fed to cattle, something any of us could fall to, and have our reputations destroyed because we ate in the wrong restaurant.
-
What was the prescription for?
What happened to the athlete being responsible for what goes into their body.
She couldn't go sub 2 until she was 25 then gets silver in world champs. -
Why would USADA announce this at all. It should be kept quite if there is a legitamate appeal until the appeal is complete. Now there will be people who believe B-Mart was involved in cheating regardless of the fact that it was determined no fault. People have so little trust in the USADA and athletes in general that just having her name thrown out there with a positive test is extremely damaging to her reputation.
Take Lagat for example. His B sample came back negative and improper handling of the A sample was found. Yet a huge percentage of people think he got away with one. -
ukathleticscoach wrote:
What happened to the athlete being responsible for what goes into their body.
You didn't, or can't read the article.
It wasn't listed on the bottle. -
[quote]middlingNAIAcoach wrote:
This is only superficially about Brenda Martinez. This is very much, as Travis Tygart explained, a flawed process. That Martinez is 33 and “aged out”, as you put it, is missing the whole point.[/quote]
I am not missing any points. Leave B-Mart alone is a good point. -
HCTZ is a masking agent. But also has previously been found to be contaminating other supplements/medications.
-
Agreed. She should be left alone as this shouldn’t have even come in to public view. Hence the whole purpose of this discussion. She should be left alone but because of ridiculous processes put into place, this was announced which is bs.
So again, this ain’t about Brenda Martinez. This is about a flawed process, of which there is plenty to discuss. -
Before weighing in on this, I researched hydrochlorothiazide, drugs containing hydrochlorothiazide and side effects.
It would seem most diligent if they were to announce it if the announcement is for the benefit of an athlete in that classification.
In Martinez's case, being that hydrochlorothiazide is a pretty convincing diuretic, the Martinez announcement makes sense because it opens up the chance for other athletes who may be on medication to analyze the contents through an athletic standpoint, and, especially, through a USADA standpoint.
To make no announcement would not do a service to Brenda or coach because immediately after something adverse happened to Brenda if it did, the coach's training would be the first thing to be evaluated. This way, everyone knows what actually happened.
The solution seems to be that USADA should make it an alert and warning and put it out there like this:
Dear USATF athletes:
It has come to our attention that Brenda Martinez, a middle -distance athlete, has tested positive for a banned substance (hydrochlorothiazide) without her previous knowledge of ingesting it. While nobody is at fault in this matter, please make sure to review all medications in full scope with the USADA drug policies. As more information is known about prescription drug ingredients, we will continue to provide this information to make the process clearer.
Sincerely,
USADA -
Stoppit Smith wrote:
Before weighing in on this, I researched hydrochlorothiazide, drugs containing hydrochlorothiazide and side effects.
It would seem most diligent if they were to announce it if the announcement is for the benefit of an athlete in that classification.
In Martinez's case, being that hydrochlorothiazide is a pretty convincing diuretic, the Martinez announcement makes sense because it opens up the chance for other athletes who may be on medication to analyze the contents through an athletic standpoint, and, especially, through a USADA standpoint.
To make no announcement would not do a service to Brenda or coach because immediately after something adverse happened to Brenda if it did, the coach's training would be the first thing to be evaluated. This way, everyone knows what actually happened.
The solution seems to be that USADA should make it an alert and warning and put it out there like this:
Dear USATF athletes:
It has come to our attention that Brenda Martinez, a middle -distance athlete, has tested positive for a banned substance (hydrochlorothiazide) without her previous knowledge of ingesting it. While nobody is at fault in this matter, please make sure to review all medications in full scope with the USADA drug policies. As more information is known about prescription drug ingredients, we will continue to provide this information to make the process clearer.
Sincerely,
USADA
Yeah, except I didn't see where anyone said what was the drug she was prescribed. If they said "X brand of oral contraceptive" or "Y brand of NSAID" is contaminated with a masking agent, that would be a true public service.
It doesn't seem realistic that every athlete taking a prescription will be able to have it analyzed to see if it has a banned substance not listed in the ingredients. -
The only real question is why the banned substance wasn't listed as one of the ingredients of the drug.
-
I suppose that makes even more sense to address the product and leave the athlete name out because divulging medication information could violate HIPAA. But i like the PSA in the way you presented it.
Going further, maybe USADA should present a list of banned substances so the pharmaceutical could include an athletics warning. But that may violate trade secrets.
But keeping a powerful diuretic out of the ingredient list seems weird. I'll take the ruling at face value, but knowing this, USADA needs to find the proper balance between satisfying their policies and HIPAA. -
fahrenheit452 wrote:
The only real question is why the banned substance wasn't listed as one of the ingredients of the drug.
Dude because it was contaminated. It's not listed because it's not supposed to be in it. -
25's peak age for most middle distance runners. Your athlete Jake Wightman just ran 3:29 at age 26, a four second drop in two years. 1:58 for a woman's no indicator of doping. 3:29, on the other hand, is pretty interesting at that age for a guy who had a pr of 3:33 at 24. Oh, and what about that other Brit with the 3:33.98 pr at age 26 and then two 3:28s at age 30 and 32?
-
ukathleticscoach wrote:
What was the prescription for?
What happened to the athlete being responsible for what goes into their body.
She couldn't go sub 2 until she was 25 then gets silver in world champs.
The issue is that she was given a medication and an ingredient was not listed. Was she supposed to have known some other way? Was she supposed to have taken a prescription medication and paid to get it tested on the off chance that it contains a prohibited substance? -
fahrenheit452 wrote:
The only real question is why the banned substance wasn't listed as one of the ingredients of the drug.
Someone on the other thread said it's not that uncommon for tainted substances to be mixed in with pharmaceuticals, particularly from China.
I know this information will not come out, but it would certainly be helpful to other athletes if there were a list of drugs or drug companies to watch out for. -
ShilohDoesntCare wrote:
fahrenheit452 wrote:
The only real question is why the banned substance wasn't listed as one of the ingredients of the drug.
Dude because it was contaminated. It's not listed because it's not supposed to be in it.
I wonder if this medication was made in China.
Many years ago (early 2000s) there was rampant cross contamination in supplements (not medications). In many cases it appears it was as simple as a plant making something like a steroid laced powder and just not cleaning the equipment so the next batch of something else (let's say creatine monohydrate) that was being produced picked up some of that.
In some cases, the manufacturer might well have been spiking something with a steroid to increase the effects. For instance, if I lace my creatine powder with a steroid and the guys in the gym say it works better than "normal" creatine then more sells. -
I’m guessing we will find out if this is just a “bad meat” excuse if one of t so things come of this.
1). Martinez sues the pharmacy/drug company for damage to her reputation.
2). The pharmacy/ drug company sues Martinez for the same reason.’m
I don’t believe her or the others. What are the odds ?
