Breaking: Brenda Martinez tested positive but is cleared by USADA

Like someone (but just one!) pointed out already, the real question is whyTF a medication is tainted with another drug.

You can't compare this case with a tainted supplement, because laws and standards for drugs are much stricter than for supplements/ foods. At least in Europe, but I can't imagine it's much different in the US.

Are the USA on of the countries, where you don't always get your drugs in the original blister, but also in a can filled from the pharmacy?

How do diuretics actually help you not test positive for a test? From what I read, they help you eliminate more urine (by getting your body to release sodium and water).

But you’d have to take the diuretic and pee before your test. That takes at least a few hours. It’s not like USADA knocks on your door and you say “Hey, uhh, give me two hours so I can pop this diuretic, pee a lot, and then take your test with a slightly better shot at passing”. It only works if you know when you’re going to get tested a day or few days in advance. In that case, you don’t really need diuretics. You just follow a modified ‘cut’ procedure like bodybuilders. You drink 2-3 gallons of water for a few days, then cut sodium and that would likely be more effective than a pill. If it’s a competition., you’ve known about the drug test for months in advance... so you’d have plenty of options to make sure there’s not an illegal substance in you at times of testing... so why are diuretics even necessary? If they aren’t even necessary practically speaking, what’s the point in testing- you’ll only catch people who unknowingly took it (or complete dummies who would get caught sooner or later anyways). I’m just thinking out loud. There Has to be a good rationale for testing for simple diuretics that I’m missing. Anyone have any insight?

It just seems like we should cut down the banned substance list and eliminate the substances that aren’t massively beneficial like Testosterone, EPO, HGH, etc. Even if Martinez willfully took diuretics, I wouldn’t even care...just like I wouldn’t care if someone smoked weed before the race (THC banned in competition) because it’s not helping them in running specifically.

It’s pretty obvious she’s juiced. Most pros are juiced, it’s a fact. That chemical she was busted for is a masking agent.

This is all too easy.

A 'good' sports doctor, probably with a name that sounds like a sports car, finds drugs that contain useful agents. He then safely finds an excuse to prescribe this drug, and bingo, he has a masking agent permanently on hand with a cast iron excuse.

USADA need to team up with FDA and prosecute the drugs company.

USADA need to investigate the prescribing doctor (hint; check invoices from labs).

As for Travis; he appears to be judge, jury and executor. If he doesnt like you and your name is Lance - he will stop at nothing to nail you (good). But it seems he likes some athletes and goes out of his way to let them off. There is something not right there as well.

I’m not arguing mistakes happen, and from what I’ve read briefly Martinez appears to be innocent.

But the question must be asked - why does contaminated unintentional ingestion seem to happen to mostly (almost only) US athletes? And why is it coincidentally always the top guns who are winning medals, not the ones that haven’t yet had that big breakthrough, that seem to have traces in their system?

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.

Are you suggesting that all athletes should be sending all of their medication and food to a lab before consuming to make sure they are not accidentally contaminated with banned substances that aren’t listed on the label?

clon rarke wrote:

I’m not arguing mistakes happen, and from what I’ve read briefly Martinez appears to be innocent.

But the question must be asked - why does contaminated unintentional ingestion seem to happen to mostly (almost only) US athletes? And why is it coincidentally always the top guns who are winning medals, not the ones that haven’t yet had that big breakthrough, that seem to have traces in their system?

Answers:

- The US athletes have the capability and support to mount a defense, and USADA has the ability and will to analyze the substances. It is likely happening in all countries who fail to get the sanction reduced to no-fault, no-negligence.

- The top guns are being tested more often, explaining the higher rate of incidence. The ones who have not yet had that big breakthrough wouldn't be tested out of competition.

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

Why would USADA announce this at all.

I think this is a WADA requirement. Countries must post confirmed positives.

A no-fault, no-negligence finding only eliminates the sanctions -- it is still a positive result.

rojo wrote:

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?.

Tygart is saying that the rule is unjust. They didn't let her go -- it is still a positive ruling, with the sanctions reduced to zero because of no-fault, no-negligence. Even then, in the eyes of some, this will put a permanent asterix on her whole career, unnecessarily damaging her reputation.

The expense and effort to process this all-around consumes limited resources which could be better used to be more effective at fighting real doping.

xczvzxcv wrote:

I hate to see an athlete unfairly tainted in cases such as this.

Me too. But on these forums different people with the same infractions get treated differently.

Of course she was unjustly charged. What you are saying would mean that any athlete who has ever taken a medication is at risk of being justly charged with an anti-doping rule violation.

Put it another way - when wejo was competing, maybe he was drug tested a couple of times? And maybe he also once used a medication? If so, he could have found himself in the situation that Martinez was/is in.

He would have received a letter from USADA saying he had tested positive for a prohibited substance and been provisionally suspended from all sport. He would have had no idea where the substance had come from. He would have had to hire a lawyer. He would have been terrified that his running career was over and that his reputation was permanently damaged. He may have had to spend large amounts of money to test every potential source of the prohibited substance in anything he had ingested. I imagine he would have struggled to train, and maybe even struggled to sleep, due to the stress. He would also have had people calling him a cheat on twitter and on these message boards for the rest of his life, even after he was cleared of any wrongdoing. Would you still have considered that "just"?

USADA know that there are a few substances on the prohibited list that can be present in certain medications that are prescribed in the US, as a contaminant. When one of those substances is detected in a sample at very low levels, and when the athlete has declared that they are using one of the medications which is known to sometimes be contaminated with that substance on their doping control form, the process should be different. USADA should test that medication for the presence of the prohibited substance at their own expense and conduct a full investigation into whether a contaminated medication was in fact the source of the positive test, prior to any charges being levelled against the athlete. If it is determined that the source of the positive test was a contaminated medication, the athlete should never be named. And USADA should use their findings to work with the FDA to ensure that unlabelled and potentially harmful contaminants do not find their way into prescription medications.

Right. I just can't see these athletes heading to the local lab with their bottles of vitamins to get tested.

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.

It doesn't matter what the prescription was for. Her doctor prescribed it and there was zero reason to believe it was contaminated with a diuretic.

The real story here is how badly the FDA is failing at keeping our medication safe.

If I recall correctly, her husband called Ajee Wilson a cheat at USAs after her positive.

That said, Brenda is pretty much done in the sport.

They should have announced that an anonymous USATF athlete tested positive due to a banned substance in Drug X. Throwing BMart under the bus accomplishes nothing, and not naming the drug helps nobody.

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

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.

I agree. Nothing should be announced until positive tests are confirmed and she is appealing. That being said, I'm always suspect of "Tainted" food and or "Contaminated" medication. What are the odds of eating "Tainted" food and then testing positive? or that your medication is "Contaminated"? Question: USADA states that Brenda's medication was "Contaminated", was the banned substance an active ingredient in the medication? or was it in fact "Contaminated"? which is cause for a lawsuit against the drug manufacturer on many levels. If the medication contained an active ingredient that is banned then Brenda was negligent in confirming it to be "Clean".

"Go Run One"

Picard wrote:

SlowFatMaster wrote:

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.

Right. I just can't see these athletes heading to the local lab with their bottles of vitamins to get tested.

If you're a professional athlete and your livelihood depends on it you need to have ALL medication and or supplements cleared prior to ingesting. There's plenty of resources available to ask questions and confirm what is allowable. This has been the rule of thumb for many years and is not new. It's the responsibility of the athlete to ensure what they ingest is not banned. If for some reason a positive test emerges you simply show your due diligence in vetting out any medications and or supplements. Document and confirm your sources. Case closed.

"Go Run One"

polevaultpower wrote:

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.

It doesn't matter what the prescription was for. Her doctor prescribed it and there was zero reason to believe it was contaminated with a diuretic.

The real story here is how badly the FDA is failing at keeping our medication safe.

What the prescription is means everything . You were obsessed with AlSals doctor , and his prescriptions to the Goucher family.

What exactly was the prescription for.? I get that it's "none of our business" but it might clear the air a bit knowing what exactly requires the medication.