Steve Mullings already had a positive for Test though...
It depends on many factors we don't know yet, like how much, was it in both samples, the diuretic in question.
Do you know the diuretic in question? If you do what is it that would help.
Steve Mullings already had a positive for Test though...
It depends on many factors we don't know yet, like how much, was it in both samples, the diuretic in question.
Do you know the diuretic in question? If you do what is it that would help.
Diuretics as a a group are drugs that increase the amount of water that is excreted in the urine. Lasix (generic name furosemide) is what's known as a loop-acting diuretic, which means that it blocks the action of the Na/K/2Cl pump in the nephrons of the kidney. This pump is important for establishing a concentration gradient to allow for the reabsorption of water, so if its action is blocked, the water is not reabsorbed into the blood, and is instead excreted in the urine. The end result is a more dilute urine, and a net loss of water from the body.
Its use in doping is a bit beyond my expertise, but I believe the idea is that a more dilute urine can help to keep the concentration of any PEDs below the concentration threshold that they test for.
exactly, but the testing is better now and if VCB was surprise tested and took the diuretic trying to flush out the drug it still wouldn't be that hard to find the drug she was trying to flush out.
I'm not sure what happened but it appears it could be any one of many possibilities.
As far as there being a possible systemic problem in Jamaica, it appears there could be one. The actions of all the top Jamaicans the past 2 months is not helping their case. All have either been injured or skipped meets. Bolt, Blake, SAFP, VCB now, Powell.
The least likely to question is Blake, he seemed legitimately hurt and trying to race but you never know.
No homo wrote:
Steve Mullings already had a positive for Test though...
It depends on many factors we don't know yet, like how much, was it in both samples, the diuretic in question.
Do you know the diuretic in question? If you do what is it that would help.
Lasix.
He got a life ban though, not a warning or Gatlin longer ban type thing. If it was methylhex or ephedrine, I doubt he would have gotten life.
2nd year med student wrote:
Diuretics as a a group are drugs that increase the amount of water that is excreted in the urine. Lasix (generic name furosemide) is what's known as a loop-acting diuretic, which means that it blocks the action of the Na/K/2Cl pump in the nephrons of the kidney. This pump is important for establishing a concentration gradient to allow for the reabsorption of water, so if its action is blocked, the water is not reabsorbed into the blood, and is instead excreted in the urine. The end result is a more dilute urine, and a net loss of water from the body.
Its use in doping is a bit beyond my expertise, but I believe the idea is that a more dilute urine can help to keep the concentration of any PEDs below the concentration threshold that they test for.
No, the testing will catch low concentrations of harder PED's if they are there. Urine just can't get that thin.
What this could and is only a theory is that the athlete in question was trying to flush for several days and perhaps as long as a week before the test in a training taper for the race. The PED is gone, and the diuretic was probably supposed to be gone too, but the diuretic was overused and the result was some of it was still in the athletes system.
This would be the most heinous case. Obviously it would be impossible to differentiate between this and an accidental ingestion in say a sports energy drink.
On the less extreme case, the athlete in question is older now and training and racing could be taking more of a toll and the energy drink was just a way to stay alert and focused.
oooooooh.
Lasix, she's done. Anything less than 2 years would be criminal.
When the enforcements agencies can't make a hard claim for why the diuretic was there, this is what they should do.
Give a short-term ban, long enough to force the athlete a minimum of 4-6 months, and long enough to force them out of competition for the remainder of the current season.
After that, impose mandatory regular testing, maybe once every week or two weeks, and lasting for at least a year.
With a second positive future sample, impose a lifetime ban.
Weldon, the as alluded to by "2nd yr med student," the primary reason for a diuretic is the flushing action.
think of it like a car engine. you get an oil change, and the oil is what, 90% clean right after (b/c of residual "dirty" oil that didn't drain out). 50mi later, you change the oil again. now you are at 90%....of 90%, so perhaps you only have 1-2% dirty oil, and 98% clean.....now flush again, and you get the point.
same thing with a diuretic, you will pee like a racehorse, but as long as you replenish adequately, you're effectively lowering whatever "could" be in your system exponentially. hope this helps.
No homo wrote:
This would be the most heinous case. Obviously it would be impossible to differentiate between this and an accidental ingestion in say a sports energy drink.
Erm, which sports energy drinks have Lasix in them?
"Drink new Berry Flavor Careerender, with B Vitamins, Ginseng and Lasix!"
In a case like this... wrote:
When the enforcements agencies can't make a hard claim for why the diuretic was there, this is what they should do.
Give a short-term ban, long enough to force the athlete a minimum of 4-6 months, and long enough to force them out of competition for the remainder of the current season.
After that, impose mandatory regular testing, maybe once every week or two weeks, and lasting for at least a year.
With a second positive future sample, impose a lifetime ban.
Why does the enforcement agency need to do make a claim or spend extra money to ensure the athlete doesn't dope?
As an athlete, your duty is simply. Provide piss and blood samples with nothing unusual in it, whether it be hormonal levels or foreign substances. If you cannot do that and the agency can prove you cannot do it, then you're banned.
No I agree, I didn't know it was lasix when I posted. I mean some sports drinks may have it you never know, and it will depend on the concentration.
Some weight loss supplements do have lasix, but weight loss supplements and sports drinks are usually two different things with different intentions of usage and should have different punishments. Now if the sports drink is labeled for weight loss that would put it in the weight loss category.
For instance someone taking a sports drink with ephedrine in it, unknowingly should get maybe a year or less.
Someone taking weight loss sups is intentionally looking for a performance advantage and should be banned longer, at least a year, maybe 2.
areyouretarded wrote:
Why does the enforcement agency need to do make a claim or spend extra money to ensure the athlete doesn't dope?
As an athlete, your duty is simply. Provide piss and blood samples with nothing unusual in it, whether it be hormonal levels or foreign substances. If you cannot do that and the agency can prove you cannot do it, then you're banned.
First of all, you are incredibly immature and childish. I posted an opinion. You resort to posting ignorant comments. You are the "retarded" one.
Enforcement agencies are not immune to lawsuits. They don't not live in protected castles, and site on golden thrones. The enforcement agencies cannot prove something taken was taken intentionally, unless the athlete willingly admits it.
As an athlete, you have rights to legal protections. You provide samples and you believe you will be treated fairly.
Marion Jones failed an A sample and passed the B. The problem for the testers was EPO degrades after a few days and she like Lagat got off on a technicality.
In a case like this... wrote:
First of all, you are incredibly immature and childish. I posted an opinion. You resort to posting ignorant comments. You are the "retarded" one.
Enforcement agencies are not immune to lawsuits. They don't not live in protected castles, and site on golden thrones. The enforcement agencies cannot prove something taken was taken intentionally, unless the athlete willingly admits it.
As an athlete, you have rights to legal protections. You provide samples and you believe you will be treated fairly.
Your opinion is fcking asinine and deserves no respect. In what was is it ignorant? Explain to me why WADA or USADA have to find a plausible reason for why this athlete used a diuretic?
In court, you certainly don't have to give a reason why someone robbed a store if you have video evidence right in front of you! It is the same here. An athlete provided a dirty sample and if it can be proven it was her sample and laden with the drug, I don't see why they would have to prove why she used it. That certainly isn't the case for amphetamine or HGH, which I don't recall ever proving too enhance 100m performance in a clinical study.
areyouretarded wrote:
Time for you to ask your mommy to bring some cookies and milk down to your basement lair.
areyouretarded wrote:
In court, you certainly don't have to give a reason why someone robbed a store if you have video evidence right in front of you! It is the same here. An athlete provided a dirty sample and if it can be proven it was her sample and laden with the drug, I don't see why they would have to prove why she used it. That certainly isn't the case for amphetamine or HGH, which I don't recall ever proving too enhance 100m performance in a clinical study.
I'd like a dirty sample more to be in possession of stolen goods, or passing counterfeit cash .. so then there is a gray area where an explanation of how someone ended up with that counterfeit cash .. it's critically different to, say, stealing a TV or some such.
wtfunny wrote:
I'd like a dirty sample more to be in possession of stolen goods, or passing counterfeit cash .. so then there is a gray area where an explanation of how someone ended up with that counterfeit cash .. it's critically different to, say, stealing a TV or some such.
That's actually a pretty good point, but I am not quite sure those would fit either. If used to advance in competition, it is deriving benefit and monetary reward over other athletes, etc. Either way, the agency doesn't have to prove anything beyond it being there since that is a crime in itself in this case.
areyouretarded wrote:
wtfunny wrote:I'd like a dirty sample more to be in possession of stolen goods, or passing counterfeit cash .. so then there is a gray area where an explanation of how someone ended up with that counterfeit cash .. it's critically different to, say, stealing a TV or some such.
That's actually a pretty good point, but I am not quite sure those would fit either. If used to advance in competition, it is deriving benefit and monetary reward over other athletes, etc. Either way, the agency doesn't have to prove anything beyond it being there since that is a crime in itself in this case.
Sure .. a DQ is requisite and should be automatic; just like Kemboi in his Pre race against Kipruto. But any kind of punitive thing involves the question of intention and motive. And that's what makes the case against stuff like diuretics difficult.
wtfunny wrote:
Sure .. a DQ is requisite and should be automatic; just like Kemboi in his Pre race against Kipruto. But any kind of punitive thing involves the question of intention and motive. And that's what makes the case against stuff like diuretics difficult.
Why nothing punitive? It isn't required for any other banned substance. Those are not the rules. Not to mention, it has already been stated why there are numerous reasons why someone might use a BANNED diuretic.
Obviously I shouldn't have said "any kind of punitive thing ... " clearly even a DQ is punitive. More accurately "the extent of the punitive judgement involves the questions of intention and motive".
And yes, there are many reasons why someone might use a banned diuretic; examining the specific reason that applies would therefore seem to be reasonable, no?