Dr. Brown notified of doping charges - Is Alberto Salazar next?

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Other Wise wrote:

You really have your head in the sand. It is the WADA Code. Pretending it is not there will save Salazar.

. . . Armstrong.

Wrong. Armstrong had a long list of violations of the WADA code for both substances and methods that were on the prohibited list.

Salazar may well go down. It will not be for thyroid medication.

You are entirely wrong. You are completely clueless. Violating 2 of 3 criteria is violations of the WADA code for intent and risk. Not being on a prohibited list will not save Salazar.

And the WADA case will be based on a lot more than thyroid medications.

PS. Keep trying.

70 minutes, fine doesn't change anything. They may have squeezed the bag because it was temporarily occluded. You don't run any IV fluids wide open (unregulated by a clamp) unless it's an emergency. I am not saying this is proof the infusion was less than 50ml, simply that it's amateur/incorrect information.

LCarnitine wrote:

70 minutes, fine doesn't change anything. They may have squeezed the bag because it was temporarily occluded. You don't run any IV fluids wide open (unregulated by a clamp) unless it's an emergency. I am not saying this is proof the infusion was less than 50ml, simply that it's amateur/incorrect information.

Hmmmm ... you made an assumption in your post. Don't be guilty of what you called 'amateur/incorrect information'.

Other Wise wrote:

What you are missing is that two of three criteria are sufficient to ban an athlete. Actual test results are not necessary.

The reason it works this way is to prevent athletes and support personnel (coaches, doctors, etc.) from taking advantage of rules not yet written or specifically described in the code. Think of it as closing the gray-zone door. An athlete cannot simple use a new wonder-drug no one knows about and plead innocence: "It's not in the prohibited list; I can use it!"; this doesn't fly.

You are wrong. It might be a good thing if the WADA Code had an open-ended clause "closing the gray-zone door." But despite what you keep saying, the "two of three criteria" does not apply to athletes. It is used to decide which substances and methods to ban.

The Code is very clear on these points. The "two of three" criteria is mentioned in Section 4.3 of the Code. That section lists "Criteria for Including Substances and Methods on the Prohibited List." It says nothing about banning athletes. And Section 2, which lists all doping violations, is clear that it only applies to substances and methods on the Prohibited List.

Here is what Section 4.3 says:

WADA shall consider the following criteria in deciding whether to include a substance or method on the Prohibited List:

4.3.1 A substance or method shall be considered for inclusion on the Prohibited List if WADA , in its sole discretion, determines that the substance

or method meets any two of the following three criteria:

4.3.1.1 Medical or other scientific evidence, pharmacological effect or experience that the substance or method, alone or in combination with other substances or methods, has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance;

4.3.1.2 Medical or other scientific evidence, pharmacological effect or experience that the Use of the substance or method represents an actual or potential health risk to the Athlete;

4.3.1.3 WADA ’s determination that the Use of the substance or method violates the spirit of sport described in the introduction to the Code.

Legal under WADA or not, what Dr. Brown does is very suspicious. He finds hypothyroidism in people that other doctors don't? How? Based on what? None of these distance runners train in Texas, but they all travel to see this Particular doctor? Not unlike Tiger Woods and Dr. Galea in Canada.

https://www.evolutionary.org/jeffrey-s-brown-the-unconventional-physician-of-us-track-and-field/

Other Wise wrote:

What you are missing is that two of three criteria are sufficient to ban an athlete. Actual test results are not necessary.

The reason it works this way is to prevent athletes and support personnel (coaches, doctors, etc.) from taking advantage of rules not yet written or specifically described in the code. Think of it as closing the gray-zone door. An athlete cannot simple use a new wonder-drug no one knows about and plead innocence: "It's not in the prohibited list; I can use it!"; this doesn't fly.

The WSJ, Runners World and Outside all say the WADA Rules allow runners to use thyroid. Are you really saying they are all confused?

LCarnitine wrote:

70 minutes, fine doesn't change anything. They may have squeezed the bag because it was temporarily occluded. You don't run any IV fluids wide open (unregulated by a clamp) unless it's an emergency. I am not saying this is proof the infusion was less than 50ml, simply that it's amateur/incorrect information.

Tril4.0 wrote:

Too bad this was a 70min infusion that included multiple squeezes of the bag to help push more through. Why would they have a clamp on the IV to restrict flow and then squeeze the bag to push more through? Remember they wanted to do a longer IV infusion originally and they compromised on the 70min one.

There is no way around this. They broke the rules and all of them took in more than 50ml.

I didn't word the clamping sentance correctly. I was inferring they wouldn't have it shut off to such a slow pace if they were going to have a nurse come in and squeeze it from time to time. They were trying to get as much into these athletes over a short amount of time as possible. The goal was to mimic the results that Magness had shown after his multi hour infusion.

Are you also factoring in that they have shown you can't reach the blood levels that they did with just 50ml of L-cartintine if they used what the pharmacy compounded for them? When you add up how the levels were increased, the amount of time it took to complete the infusion, and the test they did on Magness that they were trying to mimic I don't see how they didn't cheat.

Read it, and weep wrote:

It says nothing about banning athletes.

The WADA 2015 Code says nothing about banning athletes at all.

How can an athlete be banned based on your claim they cannot be banned if the Code is mum about it?

Read it, and weep wrote:

Other Wise wrote:

What you are missing is that two of three criteria are sufficient to ban an athlete. Actual test results are not necessary.

The reason it works this way is to prevent athletes and support personnel (coaches, doctors, etc.) from taking advantage of rules not yet written or specifically described in the code. Think of it as closing the gray-zone door. An athlete cannot simple use a new wonder-drug no one knows about and plead innocence: "It's not in the prohibited list; I can use it!"; this doesn't fly.

The WSJ, Runners World and Outside all say the WADA Rules allow runners to use thyroid. Are you really saying they are all confused?

http://www.runnersworld.com/performance-enhancing-drugs/thyroid-medication-will-remain-legal-for-elite-athleteshttps://www.outsideonline.com/2030506/wada-right-not-ban-thyroid-medications

Abusing TUEs is not the same as being allowed a TUE.

Abusing TUEs wrote:

Read it, and weep wrote:

The WSJ, Runners World and Outside all say the WADA Rules allow runners to use thyroid. Are you really saying they are all confused?

http://www.runnersworld.com/performance-enhancing-drugs/thyroid-medication-will-remain-legal-for-elite-athleteshttps://www.outsideonline.com/2030506/wada-right-not-ban-thyroid-medications

Abusing TUEs is not the same as being allowed a TUE.

You are just trolling. Thyroid meds do not require a TUE.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Abusing TUEs wrote:

Abusing TUEs is not the same as being allowed a TUE.

You are just trolling. Thyroid meds do not require a TUE.

I did not mention thyroid meds, troll. You did.

How? wrote:

How does USADA have authority over physicians?

It doesn't, but it can ban them from the sport - or rather, ban the sport from going near them.

rjm33 wrote:

In a Dec. 20, 2011, email to Rupp, Alberto wrote: "TAKE A FULL EXTRA LEVOXYL (Prescription thyroid hormone drug T4) TONIGHT AND START ON CYTOMEL (Prescription thyroid hormone drug T3) RIGHT AWAY. P.S. I'VE GOT CYTOMEL. IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT, CALL ME AND I'LL DRIVE IT OVER."

It would be illegal for Alberto to "play doctor" with Galen Rupp by telling Galen to change his dose of Levoxyl and to start on Cytomel…because Alberto is not a doctor. Alberto does not have a license to practice medicine.

It would also be illegal for Alberto to be a pharmacy delivery service for Galen Rupp…because Alberto Salazar is not a pharmacy.

While this is pretty suspect, it may not necessarily be illegal depending on the jurisdiction. I am not familiar with Oregon state laws, but where I live it is possible to have someone else pick up a prescription from the pharmacy on your behalf.

I had to do this once as I was living away from home and needed a refill on a prescription, but couldn't refill it where I was. I got my doctor to refill the prescription for me over email (longstanding prescription for a stable medical condition) and then got my parents to go pick up the prescription for me from my local pharmacy. They then brought the medication to me when they came for a visit. I believe I had to write and sign some sort of letter indicating specifically who was designated to pick up my meds, but I can't remember as it was a few years ago. All of this was perfectly fine.

Now, I can't imagine a "good" reason for this arrangement in the Rupp/Salazar case, but this may not be specifically illegal.

eurodonkey wrote:

How? wrote:

How does USADA have authority over physicians?

It doesn't, but it can ban them from the sport - or rather, ban the sport from going near them.

That is a really good idea.

Let's start with Coach Alberto.

For example:

Dathan Ritzenhein said:

"I felt like that was a point when he [Salazar] tried to abuse that [i.e. thyroid medication] for a game, and that’s the time that I really felt like he [Salazar] was was trying to do that instead of just whatever was best for my health on that.173"

Ritzenhein was then asked – “[W]hat are the factors that caused you to reach that conclusion that he [Salazar] was pushing you to use a medication to enhance performance, rather than to help your health?”174 Ritzenhein responded:

"Because I just felt like I was telling them [Salazar and Dr. Brown] that I didn’t feel good on this amount [of thyroid medication], and that it was, that concern was disregarded, and told to just continue on it, and so, that was contrary to what I was telling him how I felt."

"And he [Salazar] was PARANOID, I believe, from the year before the rise [in TSH] that I had had right around the time of the New York City Marathon, and I think that he told me at one point, it’s better to be, it’s better to be a little low [in terms of TSH level], because it’s easy to back off [on thyroid medication], but if you are high, if your TSH is, like once you start feeling bad, it takes awhile to start feeling good again, so it’s easier to back off than it is to take more [thyroid medication]."

Wait a minute.

Did Ritz say that Coach Alberto was paranoid about hormone levels?

This is not a big surprise with Alberto.

In a Dec. 20, 2011, email to Rupp, Alberto wrote: "TAKE A FULL EXTRA LEVOXYL (Prescription thyroid hormone drug T4) TONIGHT AND START ON CYTOMEL (Prescription thyroid hormone drug T3) RIGHT AWAY. P.S. I'VE GOT CYTOMEL. IF YOU DON'T HAVE IT, CALL ME AND I'LL DRIVE IT OVER."

It would be illegal for Alberto to "play doctor" with Galen Rupp by telling Galen to increase his dose of Levoxyl and to start on Cytomel at the same time (which could cause side effects)…because Alberto is not a doctor. Alberto does not have a license to practice medicine.

It would also be illegal for Alberto to be a pharmacy delivery service for Galen Rupp…because Alberto Salazar is not a pharmacy.

Alberto's 'Possible Sabotage of Galen Rupp with Testosterone Gel Experiments' on his 2 sons also broke various federal and state drug laws, because it is illegal to administer the schedule III controlled substance and prescription hormone drug AndroGel to any other people who do not have a prescription for AndroGel.

Questions for Alberto:

1) Why does Alberto Salazar have the prescription thyroid hormone drug Cytomel (T3) at his house?

2) Does Alberto Salazar have a prescription from Dr. Jeffrey Brown for Cytomel to treat his 'hypothyroidism' medical condition?

...in addition to having a prescription from a doctor for testosterone gel to treat his 'hypogonadism' medical condition?

In conclusion:

1) Coach Alberto needs to be stopped.

There are just a few more questions for Coach Alberto:

http://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/33096367

https://www.si.com/olympics/2017/03/07/alberto-salazar-doping-allegations-fbi-investigation

There is nothing here to cause worries for Coach Alberto.

It is going to be fun for Coach Alberto.

No I wasn't factoring that in, it appears to be a convincing argument but not one that I know enough about to evaluate. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the infusions were more than 50ml. It's just surprising to see statements that indicate a lack of knowledge of IV infusions in an official report.

"They may have" is a possibility. Not suggesting a fact. That's not the same thing as making statements presented as fact "It is impossible to...." that are completely false. I wasn't saying that's why they squeezed the bag, maybe they squeezed it for the reason mentioned in the report maybe not, but the conclusions they reached from that and saying it's impossible to infuse 50ml over an hour are incorrect.

amateur/incorrect information wrote:

LCarnitine wrote:

70 minutes, fine doesn't change anything. They may have squeezed the bag because it was temporarily occluded. You don't run any IV fluids wide open (unregulated by a clamp) unless it's an emergency. I am not saying this is proof the infusion was less than 50ml, simply that it's amateur/incorrect information.

Hmmmm ... you made an assumption in your post. Don't be guilty of what you called 'amateur/incorrect information'.

You actually wrote: :"They may have squeezed the bag because it was temporarily occluded." They may have .... because ... . That is what you called "amateur/incorrect information."

LCarnitine wrote:

"They may have" is a possibility. Not suggesting a fact..

[/quote]

What about other runners and coaches that were treated by Dr.Brown? Notice how they don't get brought up, only Salazar and NOP.