Good News for Ritz: WADA Issues Statement on NOP L-carnitine usage - Doping Rules NOT Broken with 2011 Advice

Although not appearing in the 2009, 2010, and 2011 lists, it looks like "less than 50ml" was WADA's intent since at least 2009:https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/WADA_Summary_of_Modifications_2009_EN.pdfM2. Chemical and Physical Manipulation...Injections with a simple syringe are not prohibited as a method if theinjected substance is not prohibited and if the volume does not exceed50 mL. ...

I'm Not A Lawyer, But wrote:

From WADA's 2011 Prohibited List:

https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/WADA_Prohibited_List_2011_EN.pdf

M2. CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL MANIPULATION

The following is prohibited:

2. Intravenous infusions are prohibited except for those legitimately received in the course of hospital admissions or clinical investigations.

So.... London Times.... care to raise this point?

WADA, care to make another statement?

WADA's 2012 Prohibited List:

https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/WADA_Prohibited_List_2012_EN.pdf

M2. CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL MANIPULATION

The following is prohibited:

2. Intravenous infusions and/or injections of more than 50 mL per 6 hour period are prohibited except for those legitimately received in the course of hospital admissions or clinical investigations.

Can Nike actually squeeze out of this one?

ramxc wrote:

No NOPers wrote:

Or, take a stand for our sport and demand an even safe playing field. Athletics is simple and pure. Infusing yourself with a substance to gain an advantage is beyond the pale.

So, you, then should take your jaded narcissistic attitude elsewhere. Try the NFL or MLB.

Is altitude training - clearly a performance enhancer according to scientific research - creating an uneven playing field?

There is a difference between living at a high elevation and having your red blood cell count increase in response to that (which happens to everyone who lives at a high elevation, most of whom are not athletes), and taking a designer drug for the sole purpose of improving your running capabilities.

One is natural, one is artificial.

And taking drugs solely for this purpose (to improve), even if they are legal, is behavior worthy of condemnation.

Health wrote:

With all the various stuff NOP seem to be putting in to their athletes I hope they (the athletes) haven't signed away their rights to sue for compensation should future health problems arise because of it.

We should ask Jeff Drenth.

What's next? Suspending athletes for breathing the air? Outlawing training? Because it is clearly a fact that breathing and training, and also eating food and drinking water, are all just as much forms of doping as flying to see Dr. Controversial and receiving an injection that you believe is going to take 2-3 minutes off your marathon time, just like that.

Because, you know, it's impossible to draw any kind of line between what's ethical and what isn't, because EVERYTHING IS EXACTLY THE SAME!!!! Wearing spiked shoes is just as much cheating as taking EPO and steroids and murdering your rivals. I can't think of any way you could possibly distinguish right from wrong!! I'm so open-minded!

I have an idea for how we can draw a boundary between what's ethical and what isn't. How about we say, if you do something as part of your training and you would feel wrong or sneaky or guilty if any of your rivals saw you doing it, then it doesn't meet the criteria of "ethical". If you do some type of preparation in secrecy that you wouldn't want to do whilst milling around in the starting area of a race with all your competitors, that is also probably not ethical.

Think about it. Let's pretend the L-carnitine injections worked out exactly like Salazar had hoped. If you're Ritz, and you just made another Olympic team by taking 3rd at the 2016 marathon trials, would you feel OK saying in front of the guy in 4th, who barely missed the team, "Thanks Coach! I'm sure glad Dr Controversial Brown gave me those L-carnitine injections that took 2-3 minutes off my marathon time. I wouldn't have made the team otherwise!"

On the other hand, doing things like wearing compression socks, drinking Gatorade, eating carb-rich foods, training at altitude, and the like, will not cause any cries of "no fair!" If a runner is edged out by Ritz for an Olympic spot, and Ritz later says compression socks seemed to help by preventing his usual calf cramps, I don't think his rival would be furious about the socks.

WADA Willy wrote:

I don't understand your logic.

How about people that ingest or snort stuff to enhance performance? Are they also dopers?

How about anemic runners that receive IV injections? Or take iron supplements? Those actually do increase performance capabilities dramatically. Are they dopers?

I know this one athlete that thinks ingesting large amounts of carbohydrates and water the night prior to racing increases his performance, is he a doper??

I suffer from chronic anemia. I take iron supplements and it absolutely helps my performance. Where do I stand?

I chew Run Gum. Forgive me SMiLE. I know not what I've done.

What a prick... You know where you can shove your condemnation.

Here's a simple way to figure out if you're cheating or not: If WADA or USADA says it is legal, especially if you ask them about it, then you're ok. If they say it's not legal, then it's not ok. Why is this so hard to understand?

A runner or coach that is willing to get that close to the legal line, where they have to ask SPECIFIC questions of WADA, is probably more than willing to cross that line when they are confident they cannot get caught.

Work on your reading comprehension, wejo. I didn't "draw" any "line" at injections. Although it was the only modality I described in my post, your inference that I find any other modality acceptable is unwarranted, and incorrect.

"Vitamin B shots are/were common." --Yeah, for @ssholes.

reader of the forums: "Taking something, even if it is not banned, for the sole purpose of shaving seconds or minutes off of your PR (as Salazar thought this would do), is highly questionable." --This is another way of saying that Ritzenhein is an @sshole.

That one guy: "Before a race I'll drink a pot of coffee, drop a few profins, put on my compression socks, and pound a couple of Gu gels along the race course. I would be lying if I didn't admit to smoking a bowl a few times out in the parking lot before the race" --That makes you a loser to me, and an @sshole to your competitors, unless it is distinctly more recreation than competition; in which case you're just a loser to everybody.

Baconn: "Even if it's a legal PED, it's still just that, a performance enhancing drug, and any honest athlete dedicated to being the best based off of their own work should stay away from them." --Translation: "Don't be an @sshole."

P. Henry: "Get over yourselves and take your phony sanctimonious attitudes elsewhere" --Spoken like a true, not to mention stupid, @sshole. I'm sure there's something you can take to feel better.

No NOPers: " Infusing yourself with a substance to gain an advantage is beyond the pale." --Translation: People who do this kind of thing are @ssholes.

Harrison bergeron: "I'm fine people training and preparing in their own way. It's part of the game. Carnitine is no more a ped than is vitamin c. --Translation: I'm an @sshole, and I feel comfortable around others of my kind. If it's not a ped, then why take it? Right.

WADA Willy: "How about people that ingest or snort stuff to enhance performance? Are they also dopers?" --They are definitely @ssholes.

SMiLE: "taking drugs solely for this purpose (to improve), even if they are legal, is behavior worthy of condemnation." --Translation: Anybody who does this is an @sshole.

Stench Test: "How about we say, if you do something as part of your training and you would feel wrong or sneaky or guilty if any of your rivals saw you doing it, then it doesn't meet the criteria of "ethical". If you do some type of preparation in secrecy that you wouldn't want to do whilst milling around in the starting area of a race with all your competitors, that is also probably not ethical." --Translation: Don't be an @sshole.

The bottom line: Those who think they are "unfairly inadequate" are LOSERS, and those LOSERS who address via these means the need for a better self-image, are A55HOLES.

So, once again, there is ZERO evidence that NOP broke the law.

I'm no NOP apologist. I've never met Salazar or any of his athletes. I'm just a fan of distance running. I find it ridiculous how people on these boards are so ready to condemn a group of athletes on heresay and speculation.

If you're worried about doping, why not focus your anger on Africa, Russia, etc. vs NOP? That's where the action is.

And, I'll continue to root for Hasay, Levins, Farah, Rupp, Centro, Cain, etc. I can't root for Rowbury--Jenny's my girl :)

anyone wrote:

So, once again, there is ZERO evidence that NOP broke the law.

Exactly. LetsRun and NOP posts would be great material for a critical thinking/logic class. Salazar emails someone to ask if this is ok, but then "that has to be proof he's checking on the small stuff to hide the major doping." etc etc. Doing one thing is proof something else isn't happening, and not doing something is proof something else is happening. The utter complete leaps of logic, with no basis, that are taken as fact by many regarding this topic are either sad or comical depending on how you want to look at it.

This, and the entire doping posts are created by the owners of this site.

They lure the dumb and uneducated to their site, to continue to state lies about professionals, only hoping this will keep you idiots following the untruthful pathetic information presented on Letsrun.

The fact is, most professionals are drug tested once a month (yes brothers and stupid people out there , once a month). Yet, the owners on this site continue to attack NOP and the like. It's vomitingly disgusting.

IMO wrote:

A runner or coach that is willing to get that close to the legal line, where they have to ask SPECIFIC questions of WADA, is probably more than willing to cross that line when they are confident they cannot get caught.

Consulting WADA / USADA before ingesting substances is nothing new and nothing to get your panties in a bunch over.

I know many runners who won't even take an over the counter cold medication or analgesic until they have consulted the WADA / USADA websites to make sure it is safe to take

Please stick to facts and stop trying to rationalize fantasy scenarios in your pea brain

"I know many runners who won't even take an over the counter cold medication or analgesic until they have consulted the WADA / USADA"

Well, pee brained idjiot. The are many runner who don't consult, and do something anyways. How about Rupp living in a NOP altitude house BEFORE WADA decided in 2006 not to pursue "blood doping" benefits at that time.

The above is a fact--Rupp didn't check--, and stop fabricating WADA pre-uses checking scenarios that your hero's never followed.

Was the altitude house ever banned by WADA?

The altitude house was used for years while WADA was deciding whether to ban it.

anyone wrote:

So, once again, there is ZERO evidence that NOP broke the law.

The evidence is:

1) The published WADA rules in 2011 (still online) confirm that infusions of any kind are illegal. All IAAF athletes were held to this threshold.

2) NOP and Salazar admit they used infusions at that time.

3) The published 2012 rules changed to create a threshold for infusions.

4) WADA retroactively states NOP was not in violation of the 2011 rule in 2011 because the rule was relaxed in 2012.

Am I missing anything here?

P.S. Ignorance of the law is no defense for breaking the law. Nor is bureaucratic manipulation after the fact.

rekrunner wrote:

Was the altitude house ever banned by WADA?

No, but they've been banned by quite a few national ADAs.

this is dreative wrote:

They lure the dumb and uneducated to their site, ...hoping this will keep...idiots following...

Err, it seems to be working, not only are you following you're also participating, does it make you wonder exactly who the "dumb and uneducated" are on this site?

Also, would you please provide a link which shows the "fact" that "most professionals are drug tested once a month", thanks.