NY Times: USADA seeking to depose Dr. Brown, hearing to be held July 11

too simplistic, cleans

--Salazar fears that someone might steal the drugs he sends thought the US mail. That is why they are hidden inside books and magazines, and all drug identification is removed.

--Or, Salazar knows he shouldn't be sending prescription drugs to people without a prescription, so hiding the drugs inside books and magazines, with all drug identification is removed is the way to do it.

I think WADA screwed up by declaring that supplemental thryoid hormones aren't performance-enhancing. Now you get people like some posters already in this thread stating "there is no scientific evidence that thyroid hormones are performance-enhancing". I think that's B.S. I also frequently hear the line that goes "believe me, if you don't have hypothyroidism, you don't want to take levothyroxine - you'll feel awful".

And yet, numerous times I've read athlete confessions wherein they included references to thyroid hormones as part of their cocktail. Who knows what WADA's testing involved, but the use of thyroid hormones for doping probably isn't as simple as just taking a bunch of the pills and you get faster. They are presumably used in conjunction with other substances.

Found this interesting bit about Muhammad Ali's experience with thyroid hormones (note that he blames taking too many of them them for a defeat, but clearly believes they have a strong effect, and presumably, given his openness, the used of "thyroid pills" by non-hypothyroid athletes must have been fairly routine in some circles):

"Heavyweight boxer Muhammad Ali was bested in 1981 by Jamaican boxer Trevor Berbick before a 10,000-person crowd in the Bahamas. Later, Ali blamed his poor showing on taking too many thyroid pills, which may have been part of an intense effort to make weight for the fight.

“I took too many thyroid pills,” Ali told the New York Times at the time. “Always used to double up on my vitamins. Bad idea with thyroid pills. Started training at 253, went down to 217 for the fight. Too much. People saying, 'Oooh, isn't he pretty?' But I was too weak, didn't feel like dancing. I was dazed. I was in a dream.”

http://www.ibtimes.com/hypothyroidism-star-athletes-undiagnosed-epidemic-hormonal-gray-area-or-cloaked-doping-1196751

Obviously, the focus of thyroid drug use in athletic pursuits seems to be focused on weight-loss issues. Cutting weight seems to be the "in" thing in endurance sports nowadays. Maintaining the lowest healthy weight possible makes loads of sense for endurance events from a standpoint of pure physics, but staying healthy whilst being borderline emaciated is notoriously difficult. That would explain why thyroid hormones are only part of the doping recipe; athletes want to cut weight, but maintain their strength. So that's why I'm so skeptical when WADA decides that thyroid hormones are not performance-enhancing; maybe they aren't in isolation, but as part of a program, they surely can be. (and I don't even buy that they're not performance-enhancing in isolation, given the reports of how casually some athletes use them as a weight-loss aid)

The timing of the deposition is great. USADA clearly has evidence they want to ask him about so they've waited until they've looked down every other avenue. Much like Hillary's FBI questioning, the standard protocol is to talk to everyone else first and the big dogs last. Dr. Brown has a lot to lose by lying to USADA. My guess is that they'll have a number of tough questions to ask him at this stage in the investigation. He should be worried.

Phil Knight wrote:

The timing of the deposition is great.

Brown doesn't have anything to say, to them or anyone else about anything.

ryan foreman wrote:

I read the article. btw, as I understand the NY times policy, they give you free access to any 10 articles than you have to pay to view any more. I just happen to have a digital subscription.

Then you have to clear your cookies

Actually it's very stupid wrote:

Phil Knight wrote:

The timing of the deposition is great.

Brown doesn't have anything to say, to them or anyone else about anything.

So, Alberto, you are having take the 5th. Is that to delay the process till after Rio. A lot of money is at stake for the medal winners. I can see why you are having Dr Brown refuse to talk to the USADA.

I'd love to hear what attorneys think about the legal basis for the USADA's suit seeking to depose Dr. Brown.

The USADA relies Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202. That rule allows people to be deposed before a suit is filed. All states (and the Feds) have some version of this rule. The rule is used to preserve evidence, say by getting testimony from a witness who is may die before a suit can be filed. Texas law goes farther. It allows people to be deposed as part of the investigation that determines whether a suit can be filed. As one Texas lawyer put it, under Texas law, you can be sued so someone can find out if you can be sued!

To use this rule, there has to be the potential for some sort of legal claim or suit at the end of the investigation. But as we all know, in the US it's not illegal to break the doping rules. So what sort of legal claim would the USADA have in this case, whether against Dr. Brown or others?

Here's a copy of the USADA's petition:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/317004163/Usada-Brown

Some facts about this mess:

1) Salazar was a jerk in the 70's.

2) Salazar was a doping cheater in the 80's.

3) Salazar is a sleazy cheater now.

It is time for Salazar to go to prison and for all the NOPers to be permanently banned.

Doping NOPers wrote:

Some facts about this mess:

1) Salazar was a jerk in the 70's.

2) Salazar was a doping cheater in the 80's.

3) Salazar is a sleazy cheater now.

It is time for Salazar to go to prison and for all the NOPers to be permanently banned.

Salazar was a jerk in the 80's also, and still is a jerk.

Phil Knight wrote:

The timing of the deposition is great. USADA clearly has evidence they want to ask him about so they've waited until they've looked down every other avenue. Much like Hillary's FBI questioning, the standard protocol is to talk to everyone else first and the big dogs last. Dr. Brown has a lot to lose by lying to USADA. My guess is that they'll have a number of tough questions to ask him at this stage in the investigation. He should be worried.

What exactly does Dr. Brown have to lose? Except for a few narrow situations, it's not a crime to lie to the USADA, since the USADA is not part of the government.

The USADA is not like the FBI. It is set up to investigate physical evidence. It's rules do not even provide for witnesses to take an oath while being questioned. With only a few exceptions that are not relevant here, all of the rules about investigations have to do with the handling of blood and other physical evidence.

Silly. That's like LAPD Internal Affairs investigating their own racist cop Mark Furman.

webby wrote:

been around 'ya know wrote:

I don't know why people are still hyperventilating over the Androgel experiment. We already know this information. Salazar has publicly gone on record admitting to it and explained his actions with a fair amount of detail. If something was done illegally or in violation of the governing boards of athletics, action could have already been taken.

Did you see WADA President Craig Reedie's response last year to learning that "something was done illegally or in violation of the governing boards" in the Russian doping scandal? He wrote a hand-written, signed note to IAAF Vice President Segey Bubka saying: "Hope no more damage will be done."

It should be plainly apparent that WADA is not an enforcement agency but a cleverly-named advertising arm of IAAF. Their primary interest is in suppressing bad press, not doping.

Aren't Russian athletes currently banned from international competition? Something happened. Maybe it wasn't the result you wanted to see or expected but something happened. The case against Salazar et al is conjecture and speculation.

Russia was banned a year after Reedie wrote that letter pressing Bubka to quell the story. So no thanks are owed to WADA.

Hang tight for the verdicts on Salazar and his enhanced athletes. Things move slowly through corrupt organizations. And when they don't move at all, you are still foolish to presume innocence in the face of mounting evidence.

Thanks for posting this. I was just going to post a question on what basis USADA was seeking a deposition if there is no lawsuit. I am a little confused as to the underlying basis (surely there must be some reasonable claim filed) but I don't have time to read it now. I hope to get the chance to dig into this in the next couple days.

Kwala Fied wrote:

Another retard you are, indeed. You fail to understand that Brown will give out a TUE where other endocrinologist claim one is not merited. He is about making money by selling continuing treatment, not about proper diagnosis.

For about the 100th time...

You don't need a TUE to use thyroid medication. It is not a prohibited substance.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Kwala Fied wrote:

Another retard you are, indeed. You fail to understand that Brown will give out a TUE where other endocrinologist claim one is not merited. He is about making money by selling continuing treatment, not about proper diagnosis.

For about the 100th time...

You don't need a TUE to use thyroid medication. It is not a prohibited substance.

For about the 100th time...

Rupp doesn't need thyroid meds, asthma meds, EPO, HGH, testosterone, steroids, beet juice, xenon -- he just needs them to run fast.

Actually it's very stupid wrote:

Brown doesn't have anything to say, to them or anyone else about anything.

Taking the 5th??? wrote:

So, Alberto, you are having take the 5th. Is that to delay the process till after Rio. A lot of money is at stake for the medal winners. I can see why you are having Dr Brown refuse to talk to the USADA.

My name is not Alberto. you idiot.

spotted the saladbar sympathizer

The USADA & Crime wrote:

Phil Knight wrote:

Dr. Brown has a lot to lose by lying to USADA. My guess is that they'll have a number of tough questions to ask him at this stage in the investigation.

What exactly does Dr. Brown have to lose? Except for a few narrow situations, it's not a crime to lie to the USADA, since the USADA is not part of the government.

The USADA is not like the FBI. It is set up to investigate physical evidence. It's rules do not even provide for witnesses to take an oath while being questioned. With only a few exceptions that are not relevant here, all of the rules about investigations have to do with the handling of blood and other physical evidence.

I was under the assumption that USADA will have him testify under oath, just as they wanted Lance to do. Once they ask him questions regarding his treatment of athletes and handling and prescribing medications Dr. Brown opens himself up to a number of potential issues from state licensing boards. For example, other posters in previous treads have noted that his androgel experiment with Alberto may have violated a number of ethical and procedural violations. Why else would he avoid speaking to USADA if there was no wrong doing? Even Alberto spoke to USADA informally. My assumption is that USADA has waited until they have loads of evidence of suspect prescriptions. Dr. Brown does not want a formal record of his shoddy and possibly unethical work.