Rupp certified: Rupp could medal in 2016 as WADA refuses to ban thyroid meds despite lobbying!!

The most frustrating thing about this forum are people who post without reading the rest of the thread:

USADA Drs agree it's cheating wrote:

http://coachsci.sdsu.edu/csa/vol13/urhause1.htm

Instead of resting to allow the hormone levels to recover after hard training, Rupp is able to continue training hard because he's using synthetic hormones as a recovery aid.

Like another poster said, read your own link. And

[quote]Everytime Thyroidism comes up, I post the same thing:

Thyroid medication by itself does not increase performance. That's just not the way it works. The side effects that look performance enhancing are not: increased metabolism, for example is really an alertness/jitteriness that can effect recovery and relaxation.

But athletes do take thyroid medication in a doping program.

They take thyroid medication in a doping program because other doping products effect their thyroid system, just like it effects other systems.

EPO, Testosterone, HGH, all effect thyroid. A doping athlete doesn't take thyroid medication to add to those boosters, but to balance out their negative side effects.

It should still be banned.

Masking agents are banned. Masking agents are not performance enhancing. They are not acutely dangerous to the individual. They are banned because of their use in the context of a doping program.

Ban thyroid medication then give out TUEs. Easy solution.

[/quote

Are you saying that thryoid medication is a masking agent?Or that WADA should ban it like they ban other non-PEDs, like masking agents?Either way, I would disagree.The primary problem with your easy solution is that it solves a problem that WADA says we don't have. If we don't have a problem, we don't need any solution, not even an easy one. And it would divert limited resources away from more effective solutions.If it's compensating for other banned substances, these are already banned, and tested for. Banning thryoid medication would be superfluous. And detection of these banned substances is not influenced by the presense of synthetic T3 or T4 hormones, like they would be by diuretics, or other "masking" agents.

This whole discussion is about the fact that WADA is wrong.

Easy example: a doped athlete does not need thyroid medication and is taking it anyway to balance hormone profile: it is harmful and against the spirit. It boosts performance because they do infact have bad levels of thyroid hormones (caused by doping).

Harder example: Tired athlete is misdiagnosed with thyroid. Harmful to them as a mistreatment, against the spirit of the sport (they don't need the medication, but are taking it anyway.)

TUE example: Hypothyroid person wants to compete. They get a TUE.

More than that, WADA bans masking agents/methods even though they only meet 1 out of 3 of those criteria.

__________________

RE: USADA's evidence: “intelligence collected by Usada suggests the use of thyroid medication for doping is a threat for all athletes, especially endurance athletes.”

Joe Papp and Conte have written on twitter that thyroid hormones where an essential part of their program. Their testimony is likely among others to make USADA believe it is an integral part of dopers' programs. Joe Pavey is on record with UKAD making a statement about other athletes.

The research scientists at both USADA and UKADA have determined that it's cheating and should be banned. That's the biggest proof that experts in the field have come to the conclusion that it's cheating.

Americans competing for a spot on the 5000m and 10,000m olympic team will be competing agaisnt someone taking drugs that USADA have determined to be A PED.

American doctors and scientists working for USADA agree that it's cheating. US medical research is the most advanced in the world. Half of the world's most innovative clinical trials, medical research, and findings come from one country, the U.S. Number two is the UK.

So give me a credible reason why WADA should be deliberately getting this wrong?

Simplest explanation is that WADA genuinely judges, based on the evidence it has (including submissions made by UKAD and USADA), that thyroid meds do not present as a PED by their definition of them. Of course, that judgement may be wrong. It may equally be wrong about many other drugs which are either banned or allowed. It doesn't matter. They set the rules.

There are plenty of performance enhancing substances. Caffiene. Beetroot juice. Water. Glucose. It is not the job of WADA to propose to ban everything that might enhance performance just because some doctors think it might.

Unless WADA is right. Anecdotes from Joe Papp and Victor Conte and Jo Pavey do not show "performance enhancing" or "harmful to health". Is USADA's evidence a package of faith and fears? Seems like WADA found it uncompelling.

Masking agents often cause weight loss (performance enhancing). Diuretics could cause dehydration (dangerous to health).

Did research scientists determine it was cheating? Which USADA/UKAD research scientists and doctors? Do you have a link, or some names, or any other reference that any scientists and doctors came to that conclusion? I would love to see it. WADA said there was no research as late as August supporting any such conclusions. I think USADA (lawyers) came forward with a list of athletes allegedly abusing non-banned prescriptions, and some corroborating testimony, as their evidence. This would be compelling, but fall short of actually showing performance enhancing, or harmful to health.

US Dr. wrote:

The research scientists at both USADA and UKADA have determined that it's cheating and should be banned. That's the biggest proof that experts in the field have come to the conclusion that it's cheating.

Americans competing for a spot on the 5000m and 10,000m olympic team will be competing agaisnt someone taking drugs that USADA have determined to be A PED.

American doctors and scientists working for USADA agree that it's cheating. US medical research is the most advanced in the world. Half of the world's most innovative clinical trials, medical research, and findings come from one country, the U.S. Number two is the UK.

BBC puts the arguments succinctly:

USADA/UKAD says it is harmful, WADA asked some experts who replied that it is not. USADA/UKAD says it is against the spirit of the sport, WADA says that it is not.

(Not sure from whom you are asking for a list of names) I don't have a list of names of experts. I'm not part of the UKAD or USADA. Do you have a list of WADA's names? Of course not. I don't need to establish any credibility by knowing their names any more than you do, in order to argue that there is a significant difference of opinion between national and international governing bodies. I disagree with poster US Dr. that US doctors outweigh anyone else, and like you I am interested to know who each side consulted. But...

The anecdotal evidence tips the scales, for us as observers. We've seen that thyroid hormones are a part of a doping program. We've seen the disproportionate use of the Hormone by teams/coaches.

larkimm wrote:

There are plenty of performance enhancing substances. Caffiene. Beetroot juice. Water. Glucose. It is not the job of WADA to propose to ban everything that might enhance performance just because some doctors think it might.

Nope, it is WADA's job to ban everything that meets 2 of the 3 criteres:

-enhance performance;

-pose a threat to athlete health;

-violate the spirit of sport.

Caffeine is monitored and banned in high doses. Beetroot juice enhances performance, like water, quality food, and sleep, but is not against the spirit of the sport. If you think beetroot juice is against the spirit of the sport, then lobby your national ADA and WADA, and they may turn to your point of view.

Just to repeat my other post (this forum requires a lot of repeating: USADA/UKAD says it is harmful, WADA asked some experts who replied that it is not. USADA/UKAD says it is against the spirit of the sport, WADA says that it is not.

I wish we could see the evidence presented by both sides. But as outside observers, we can also take in the anecdotal evidence, which does in fact matter.

As a whole, I think WADA made the wrong decision, at the expense of the integrity of the sport, and opportunity for clean athletes.

Where WADA erred is abuse of thyroid meds. Caffeine is banned if the use if abused. Caffeine can be tested for. Thyroid meds can be abused. WADA does not have a way to test for thyroid med abuse.

WADA buried their collective heads in the sand on this one. The proper solution would be to ban thyroid meds outright. Require medical proof for use from a third-party doctor, paid the the person who "needs" the thyroid meds, and not prescribed by someone like Salazar's Dr Brown who thinks everyone needs thyroid treatment.

I was asking "US Dr" why he talks about USADA/UKADA's research scientists. Is there anything that corroborates that?From the BBC link, UKAD's views are clear, but it's not clear that UKAD's views were formed by consulting scientists or doctors (as US Dr suggests). At least we know that WADA consulted experts, who rejected the request for lack of evidence.I'm not interested in USADA/UKAD's views so much as the basis of their views. If it's solely based on testimony from Magness, Goucher, etc., and tweets from Conte, and statements from Pavey, then WADA had no choice but to deny their request as lacking evidence of performance or harm.TestoBoost and Iron are also part of doping programs, and also disproportionately used by teams/coaches.

rekrunner wrote:

... At least we know that WADA consulted experts, who rejected the request for lack of evidence.

...WADA had no choice but to deny their request as lacking evidence of performance or harm.

You are wrong, as usual. WADA did not give the thumbs up to open-ended, and abuse of, thyroid med use. They simple refuse to put in the money to develop a test for use, and are loath to oppose any doctor--for hires like Salazar's Dr Brown--who prescribes thyroid meds simply to make themselves money.

WADA only concerns itself with anti-doping. Their statements speak for themselves.WADA also refuses to put in the money to develop a test for spaghetti, and are loath to oppose Italian chefs who sell spaghetti simply to make themselves money.

uaerunner wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

... At least we know that WADA consulted experts, who rejected the request for lack of evidence.

...WADA had no choice but to deny their request as lacking evidence of performance or harm.

You are wrong, as usual. WADA did not give the thumbs up to open-ended, and abuse of, thyroid med use. They simple refuse to put in the money to develop a test for use, and are loath to oppose any doctor--for hires like Salazar's Dr Brown--who prescribes thyroid meds simply to make themselves money.

rekrunner wrote:

WADA also refuses to put in the money to develop a test for spaghetti, and are loath to oppose Italian chefs who sell spaghetti simply to make themselves money.

You proved your level of ignorance with your statement.

You too.

uaerunner v2 wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

WADA also refuses to put in the money to develop a test for spaghetti, and are loath to oppose Italian chefs who sell spaghetti simply to make themselves money.

You proved your level of ignorance with your statement.

uaerunner wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

... At least we know that WADA consulted experts, who rejected the request for lack of evidence.

...WADA had no choice but to deny their request as lacking evidence of performance or harm.

You are wrong, as usual. WADA did not give the thumbs up to open-ended, and abuse of, thyroid med use. They simple refuse to put in the money to develop a test for use, and are loath to oppose any doctor--for hires like Salazar's Dr Brown--who prescribes thyroid meds simply to make themselves money.

No, WADA did not give the thumbs up to open ended and abuse of thyroid med use . . . agreed, but they did state that it is not a PED and will not be a banned substance.

Your stated reasons for why WADA came to their conclusions is completely made up and void of fact.

rekrunner wrote:

You too.

What a comeback. Your mommy must be proud.

I think I see what you are saying. Except the "doping" you are alluding to is the use of altitude tents and houses. Look no further than Lauren Fleshman's account of dealing with those artificial devices. Lauren was feeling run and down as she was going through an intense training period and sleeping in an altitude apartment. She wasn't sleeping well because of the altitude. She considered getting Thyroid medication on the rationale that her thryroid was insuffiicient to handle the altitude and training. Lananna of course advised her to simply ease off on her training.

But the question arises, why doesn't the USADA call for the ban of altitude tents? That is the real doping if anything is. That was always more controversial than the Thyroid medication. In fact as I recall USADA was going to ban oxygen tents some 5-10 years ago. American T&F interest lobbied against it. Even then USADA simply said they would hold off on taking any action to make them illegal. USADA never made an endorsement of them being okay and healthy to use. Just that they wouldn't be illegal.

Ummm, ryan foreman, Altitude tents do not simulate altitude the way someone at real altitude would experience it. You basically rebreath your own exhaust air without any pressure drop at all. It's like putting a paper bag over your head while letting some air in. This is old news.

In 2002, the Oregon Project came under scrutiny from the United States Anti-Doping Agency, which formed a think tank to discuss the ethics of the high altitude house. The Agency's Senior Managing Director, Larry Bowers said, "The argument for altitude rooms is that they make up for those athletes that can't live high. What they don't take into account is that people living high don't get the benefits of training low." Alberto Salazar was confident the Anti-Doping Agency would ultimately approve the altitude house, saying that it's no different from other legal scientific advances like heart rate monitors and sports drinks.

In 2006, the subject was revisited more thoroughly by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) which claimed that it could be equivalent to blood doping and therefore they should be banned; however, on September 16, 2006, Dick Pound of the WADA announced that "...the overwhelming consensus of our health, medicine and research committees – was that, at this time, it is not appropriate to do so." No explanation was given as to how WADA would have enforced a ban.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike_Oregon_Project#Criticisms