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

She is. Yours must not be.Thing is WADA decided that T4 loading, and T3 loading is no different than carbo-loading. And you have not contradicted their decision, or justifications. You just made up another story about not spending money for testing, something that wasn't at issue.

uaerunner v2 wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

You too.

What a comeback. Your mommy must be proud.

The difference is not huge.Can you corroborate which US and UK doctors again?The Eurocrats actually did decide, again.We don't need to test for a type of doping that is not doping.WADA doesn't need to buy time to develop a test. EPO was banned before a test existed.It won't be banned without first showing performance or harm. And given how long thyroid medication has been around, that seems unlikely.

Clean Runner Competing Against wrote:

The WADA decision, as reported in the article in the first post, didn't say it was a unanimus decision. It said they reached "near consensus." Huge difference.

US and UK doctors agree it's cheating and a bunch of Eurocrates couldn't decide.

Do you think Salazar sent Rupp to his hormone test when he was well rested? No, he sent him dead tired from killer workouts which would obviously result in less than normal hormonal levels.

To test for this type of doping properly a hormonal passport would be required. WADA can't possibly implement this testing with the Olympics less than a year away. They bought some time. It will be banned, just not this year.

rekrunner, instead of attacking, why don't you help in finding out exactly what evidence was presented, or which doctors were consulted? Obviously UKAD/USADA believe it his harmful and against the spirit of the sport, and they had evidence for their position. I started my search of news media, which wasn't very helpful (I posted the most informative, which wasn't very much), and will be looking at pub med within a few days.

I think I'm going to side with the U.S. and UK doctors on this issue. Nine of the top ten medical schools are in either the U.S. or the UK. Nearly all the top fifty medical schools are in the US or the UK.

It's going to be banned. Do you think USADA and UKADA are going to drop the issue? No, they will be more determined and better prepared next year.

Perhaps the USADA will impose a national ban on hormone therapy. It's common for nations to have tighter controls than international standards in many areas of medicine.

USADA scientists' bios and contact information

been around 'ya know wrote:

“All the experts in the field came to the conclusion that no, there is no way to believe that thyroid hormone could be performance enhancing,” he said.

Let it go.

Some experts in running at NOP obviously disagree otherwise they would not be all faking thyroid problems

Attacking? Except for some minor self-defense, I'm mostly trying to keep people honest.

But I won't do it for two reasons:

1) These are not my claims, therefore not my burden.

2) I think WADA is right - there is no evidence. WADA has everything and said it's nothing.

In my opinion, thyroid medication has always been a non-story. WADA reconfirms it again, by indicating a lack of evidence that treatment could be performance enhancing, or harmful. If relevant evidence hasn't surfaced by now, it never will.

I'm not making claims that USADA/UKAD had evidence, or consulted doctors or scientists. I think they produced Magness' and Goucher's testimony, and not much more. I think we learned everything throughout the Salazar saga - another non-story.

I don't mind being if someone produces evidence contradicting my opinions, but I think it is clearly not my burden to prove a position I think is wrong.

Can you inform the rest of us what US and UK doctors actually say or said on this issue? No one else seems to be able to be specific. Do they claim treatment is performance enhancing or harmful? Do you have a direct reference from the doctors you are siding with for corroboration? Isn't Dr. Jeffrey Brown a US doctor? Is that the one you are siding with?Thanks for any corroboration you can provide.

Ban Coming wrote:

I think I'm going to side with the U.S. and UK doctors on this issue.

Given that WADA said their evidence shows that thyroid hormones are not harmful, they are not ignoring the evidence presented by USADA/UKAD that it is. Just that their research was either more valid, more relevant populations/samples, more robust, more repeatable, more of it in general. We don't know. By saying you think WADA is right, you have as much obligation to find their evidence/credibility as we do to find USADA's/UKAD's evidence/credibility.

Which I think is zero. Which is why I say it's unfair to address our position the way you have.

For the record, there is an "Ask the scientists" form on that page linked above. I wrote a question about the evidence lobbied to WADA, and the evidence WADA used to defend its position. I'll post on the thread if I get a response (not counting on it, maybe just a general statement).

Read between the lines. WADA based their decision on a real need for thyroid meds, and proper usage of the meds. What WADA did not do was address the real issue at hand: thyroid meds used by runners who don't really need them--stop over-training you idiots; and over use of the meds--running faster is not worth your future health.

Any more requests?

In his book "Speed Trap", Charile Francis says athletes on steroids use thyroid meds to keep the muscles from bulking up too much. He says taking just steroids reduces mobility due to muscle bulking. He says the thyroid drug athletes were taking back then was Thyroxine. He says thyroid meds speed metabolism.

Even if distance runners are not taking steroids, they can benefit from slimming. It is well known that the coach of the distance runner in question is obsessed with having his athletes as slim as possible. Using testosterone also bulks muscle, so a distance runner taking testosterone would use thyroid meds for the same reason sprinters and throwers used it back in Charlie Francis' day (and today).

WADA and the other agencies are certainly aware of this. But a 10,000m final in Rio without at least one Great White Hope won't have a broad appeal to worldwide viewers. Considering the doping going on in East Africa, we should have a doped up white hope, it is only fair.

Great name for a new rock band!

"However, USADA considers the use of any dietary supplement that claims to deliver or “boost” hormones to be very risky. The use of any dietary supplement or compounded medicine is at your own risk."From your link. Any more questions about risks?

Drug free sport please wrote:

http://www.usada.org/pregnenolone/

Any more requests?

Thank you lobbying WADA for banning hormone therapy. It is being used in an unhealthy and uthetical manner in the sport of track and field. Since your agency has declared hormone therapy to be a PED, can you ban it at the national level?

I submitted this question to the USADA science team? I'll let you know what they say.

There was a Sports Illustrated article in the 80s on steeplechase specialist Henry Marsh. He was on thyroid meds for "depleted adrenal glands". He had to have been with Athletics West at that time. Wonder which doctor diagnosed him? Malmo may remember Henry's particulars.

Clerk wrote:

Caffeine is monitored and banned in high doses.

The Gray-Zone wrote:

Caffeine is banned if the use if abused.

What's it like to sleep for that many years?

As for scientists saying metabolism boosting doesn't enhance performance, none of their studies mean shit if their subjects weren't starving themselves while at the same time competing in sports that demand extreme high metabolism such as track. If you're not underweight to the point of your body wanting to shut down, of course it makes no difference.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. The only subjects who could provide the evidence are top track elites who are not going to volunteer to be studied.

However there are now so many athletes achieving skinny-energetic without thyroid meds that it's a moot issue from the past, just like caffeine. Doping is way ahead of the curve. In a few years the public will start to find out how they did it this year.

I'm really not following you. You're asking me to search for evidence that I think doesn't exist, and WADA says doesn't exist, and even you think WADA has zero evidence. We need a reason to change the status quo. We don't need reasons to keep it.How did I ever address your position unfairly? Again, I didn't start by making any claims. I started by asking simply "what do we know about USADA/UKAD's case?". I don't expect you or others to make USADA/UKAD's case, but I'm simply just asking posters, like "US Dr." (not really you so much) to support their own statements that over-interpret what was written in the WSJ and BBC articles. I only shared my opinion to justify why I think I don't have the burden to make sense of USADA/UKAD's case. Now you want to burden me with justifying WADA's conclusions? I will delegate these tasks to the capable members of USADA.Look in this thread how posters start from the position that USADA/UKAD consulted doctors/scientists and concluded it was cheating. Despite my asking multiple times, no one has corroborated that USADA/UKAD consulted "doctors/scientists", or that it was their "doctors/scientists" concluding "performance enhancing" or "harmful to health". Maybe they did, but I haven't seen this in print, outside of this forum. If someone with a name said it, it should be easy to find a source of the statement. That's a pretty low burden to meet.My evidence is the OP's link and your BBC link. I have a statement from WADA's science director, Dr. Olivier Rabin -- both a doctor and scientist. WADA formed a committee of "medical experts" to review recommendations. They claimed reviewing research as late as August, concluding there was "no way to believe that thyroid hormone could be performance enhancing". From the BBC link, WADA's spokesman Ben Nichols said "Wada had consulted scientific and medical experts who "were unanimous in their view" that thyroid medication did not meet the criteria needed to ban it". We know a lot about WADA's conclusions coming from scientists and doctors, after a thorough evaluation of the subject. Yet we know nothing about USADA/UKAD consulting doctors/scientists.So what about USADA/UKAD's evidence? The WSJ link says that USADA/UKAD only brought "concerns" that athletes are abusing the hormone. Were these "concerns" coming from doctors and scientists and research? I don't know. Do you? I see conclusions from USADA's officials, that this is being used for performance enhancing. Not "doctors" or "scientists", but "officials". The BBC link says UKAD "formed a view" about "harmful to athletes", and some wishy-washy "could be" "in some circumstances" speculative language . Nicole Sapstead, CEO of UKAD, looks like she has more of a legal background, rather than medical/scientific. Her views include all the right keywords, "performance enhancing, harmful, contrary to the spirit", but it's vague how these views were formed and by whom. Were UKADs' views formed by "doctors"? Maybe they were, but I haven't seen this in print. So why does "Dr. US" talk about US and UK doctors and scientists and their conclusions? These are inflated claims, that need to be deflated, or substantiated before any honest discussion can start.It sounds to me like USADA came to WADA, with affidavits from Magness, Goucher, and others, maybe tweets from Conte and Caitlan, expressing "concern" about what some athletes/coaches are doing with prescriptions. Presumably USADA/UKAD didn't hide any evidence from WADA, and WADA's committee of medical experts evaluated these concerns of abuse, plus all the "could be, in some circumstances" arguments, plus any and all available research "as late as August", and concluded, with "near consensus" that there is "no way to believe that thyroid hormone could be performance enhancing", and were ""unanimous in their view" that thyroid medication did not meet the criteria needed to ban it".Did WADA err in their evaluation, or overlook significant research? Not my burden. But I trust USADA to make that case if one exists. They are far more capable than I am, and I trust their professionalism and objectivity completely. And I trust you to inform us if such a case has been made.Did USADA/UKAD consult doctors, scientists, or research? Not my burden. But I trust that if scientific/medical data exists, they presented it, and it wasn't compelling. I also trust that if the research is immature, someone will do more research, and try to make a more compelling case.This is not me unfairly placing a heavy burden in you and your position. Showing the existence of evidence, or a source of a quote, is a pretty low burden to meet.And again, thyroid medication in sports is not new. We learned from the BBC, that UKAD has been trying to make the case for 3 years. Carl Lewis was diagnosed hypo in 1996, by the infamous Dr. Brown, nearly 20 years ago. This isn't a case of USADA/UKAD had too little time to form a case, or WADA being able to put testing in place, before Rio 2016 Olympics. In my opinion, if a case couldn't be made after 20 years, there is a good reason for that.It's not my burden to prove me wrong. Good luck.

I understand your point rekrunner. I do think you're reading too much into a press release. I'm not sure why you assume USADA and UKAD are lobbying with only testimony. I'm not sure why you say there is not evidence it is harmful. Those are two assumptions that aren't supported by any of the very little information we have.But then you challenge us to back our position that USADA and UKAD thinks it is harmful.

This is the disconnect I am first concerned about. You make the same kind of claims we do, and none of us have evidence. My point about your tone, again, is:

"By saying you think WADA is right, you have as much obligation to find their evidence/credibility as we do to find USADA's/UKAD's evidence/credibility.

Which I think is zero. Which is why I say it's unfair to address our position the way you have."

None of us have any hard evidence, but you're only demanding it from us and not yourself.

_______

. "Product Information. Armour thyroid (thyroid desiccated)." Forest Pharmaceuticals, St. Louis, MO.:

On that list, sympathomimetic amines includes asthma medications like salbutamol.

=

And finally, a very comprehensive list of the risk factors of the common medications: