RE: t-and-f: Reuters version of USATF-Rogge story
I agree with Kurt that the athletes and their minders need to exercise some common sense on this matter. It reminds me of the excuse CJ Hunter's nutrionist used after the story broke at the Sydney Games. He said that supplements can be contaminated because of poor quality control by the manufacturer and that the same supplement was used by sprinters Merlene Ottey and Linford Christie, both of whom were suspended after testing positive. Hello. That should have been a big enough red flag to stop using the supplement altogether. John Sun > I agree that it is not feasible for athletes to > personally perform chemical > analyses on the pills they take, but if they apply a > little common sense > about which pills they choose in the first place > they can probably keep > themselves out of trouble. > > To begin with, recall that the "dietary supplements" > industry is not > regulated by the FDA the way other drugs are. > Congress took away their > power to do so in 1994. So the ONLY thing an > athlete has to go on is the > competence and honesty of the manufacturer in > ensuring that a pill contains > exactly what the label says and nothing more. There > is no government > watchdog here. YOU ARE ON YOU OWN. > > So if people taking pills buy them from mainline > manufacturers, who because > they also make other more traditional medicines are > accustomed to working up > to FDA standards, they are likely to get what the > label says. These > companies already have good reputations and good > processes and procedures in > place in their factories. > > On the other hand if they are buying things with > names like "Muscle Blaster > 5000" made by Shady Sam's Laboratories and sold in > the back room of the body > building club, they are certainly headed for trouble > - no matter what the > label says. > > Most of the supplements probably fall somewhere in > between. But if I were > an elite athlete with a career on the line, I know > on which side I'd prefer > to err. > > Kurt Bray > > __ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com
RE: t-and-f: Reuters version of USATF-Rogge story
Gerald says: >an athlete MUST know everything about any vitamins or supplements they >take, >even if the label does not indicate that a harmful substance is in it. How >are most athletes, who are living on the ragged edge supposed to be able to >afford to investigate every supplement they take? When they call the >manufacturer and the manufacturer states unequivocally that it does not >contain banned substances, what more can most athletes afford to do? I agree that it is not feasible for athletes to personally perform chemical analyses on the pills they take, but if they apply a little common sense about which pills they choose in the first place they can probably keep themselves out of trouble. To begin with, recall that the "dietary supplements" industry is not regulated by the FDA the way other drugs are. Congress took away their power to do so in 1994. So the ONLY thing an athlete has to go on is the competence and honesty of the manufacturer in ensuring that a pill contains exactly what the label says and nothing more. There is no government watchdog here. YOU ARE ON YOU OWN. So if people taking pills buy them from mainline manufacturers, who because they also make other more traditional medicines are accustomed to working up to FDA standards, they are likely to get what the label says. These companies already have good reputations and good processes and procedures in place in their factories. On the other hand if they are buying things with names like "Muscle Blaster 5000" made by Shady Sam's Laboratories and sold in the back room of the body building club, they are certainly headed for trouble - no matter what the label says. Most of the supplements probably fall somewhere in between. But if I were an elite athlete with a career on the line, I know on which side I'd prefer to err. Kurt Bray _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
RE: t-and-f: Reuters version of USATF-Rogge story
This self pontificating idiot had the >gall to sit on the Today Show this morning (Monday, Feb 11th) and say that >an athlete MUST know everything about any vitamins or supplements they >take, >even if the label does not indicate that a harmful substance is in it. How >are most athletes, who are living on the ragged edge supposed to be able to >afford to investigate every supplement they take? When they call the >manufacturere and the manufacturer states unequivocally that it does not >contain banned substances, what more can most athletes afford to do? > Gerald, I agree with your position. But, the official position that the IAAF and the USOC takes is even stronger. An athlete must know the contents of the food as well. This includes the food eaten at restaurants, where food does not need to be labeled by law. If an athlete can prove that the food eaten at a restaurant contained a banned substance, IT IS NOT A DEFENSE. Harold _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
RE: t-and-f: Reuters version of USATF-Rogge story
At 10:56 PM 2/11/02 -0800, you wrote: >: "Gerald Woodward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Someone needs to expel Dick Pound! This self pontificating idiot had the gall to sit on the Today Show this morning (Monday, Feb 11th) and say that an athlete MUST know everything about any vitamins or supplements they take, even if the label does not indicate that a harmful substance is in it. How are most athletes, who are living on the ragged edge supposed to be able to afford to investigate every supplement they take? When they call the manufacturere and the manufacturer states unequivocally that it does not contain banned substances, what more can most athletes afford to do? I do not condone doping, have never used drugs and do not intend to start. I think dope is for dopes!!! However, when a Latvian athlete with twice the levels of a banned substance which was found to be a contamination to his supplements is allowed to compete in the Winter Olympics while the American athlete loses his appeals to compete, this is a travesty of justice. If one is banned, then all should be banned. If one is allowed to compete, then the other should also be allowed to compete. Gerald BUT... However, when (a Latvian athlete) an untold number of American athleteS (with twice the levels of a banned substance which was found to be a contamination to his supplements) test positive by the same standards as the rest of the World uses is allowed to compete in the (Winter) Summer Olympics while the (American) Canadian athlete loses (his) her appeals to competehammer thrower Tracy Lyons., this is a travesty of justice. If one is banned, then all should be banned. If one is allowed to compete, then the other should also be allowed to compete. Thirty months later the names still have not been released. It is not a level playing field. The World is held up to one standard and the US athletes are held up to another ,much lower seemingly tainted, one. This, of course , is the impression left by the present US process. The impression is, that if the athletes had nothing to hid the names would be released. Some how this double standard needs to be changed. The US has to find a way to get the information to the IAAF in a more timely fashion. If not, then every National body should hve the right to cover-up positive tests for two to three years!! Let the flaming begin !! Peter Stuart Head Coach South-East Athletics Head Coach NB Canada Games Coach,Field Events, Universitie de Moncton NB Coaching Chair Master Course Conductor NB CSG web page http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/stuart/
RE: t-and-f: Reuters version of USATF-Rogge story
Someone needs to expel Dick Pound! This self pontificating idiot had the gall to sit on the Today Show this morning (Monday, Feb 11th) and say that an athlete MUST know everything about any vitamins or supplements they take, even if the label does not indicate that a harmful substance is in it. How are most athletes, who are living on the ragged edge supposed to be able to afford to investigate every supplement they take? When they call the manufacturere and the manufacturer states unequivocally that it does not contain banned substances, what more can most athletes afford to do? I do not condone doping, have never used drugs and do not intend to start. I think dope is for dopes!!! However, when a Latvian athlete with twice the levels of a banned substance which was found to be a contamination to his supplements is allowed to compete in the Winter Olympics while the American athlete loses his appeals to compete, this is a travesty of justice. If one is banned, then all should be banned. If one is allowed to compete, then the other should also be allowed to compete. Gerald -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 9:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: t-and-f: Reuters version of USATF-Rogge story Y ask: SALT LAKE CITY (Reuters) - IOC president Jacques Rogge said Thursday he was flummoxed by USA Track & Field's reluctance to provide details of a controversial drugs case involving a U.S. athlete before the 2000 Sydney Olympics. Faced with several questions about doping at a news conference on the eve of the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics, the former surgeon said he was keen to find out why an athlete was allowed to compete in Sydney despite failing a drug test. ``We want to know whether the exoneration was valid,'' the International Olympic Committee (IOC) chief said. ``I do not understand the position of USA Track & Field. They say there was a valid exoneration but they refuse to give reasons. ``This is quite strange.'' The athlete, not believed to be a household name, tested positive for steroids but was exonerated by USA Track & Field, which has since refused to reveal details of the case despite several demands from the sport's world governing body. The federation has come under heavy fire from leading sports officials meeting in Salt Lake. World Anti-Doping Agency chairman Dick Pound has called on the International Association of Athletics Associationsto expel USA Track & Field, although IAAF president Lamine Diack said Thursday that this was unlikely to happen. Rogge, who targeted the fight against drug abuse as his top priority when he took office last July, considered the matter so important that he brought it up at an IOC session held in the run-up to Salt Lake event. ``The IOC is concerned that an athlete participated in the Olympic Games after being exonerated by the track and field federation and we are glad to see the great resolve of the IAAF and United States Olympic Committee (USOC) to solve the case.'' NO SUSPENSION The U.S. national body failed to meet a final deadline on Wednesday to provide details of the case. In a letter sent by the IAAF and USOC Tuesday, the IAAF said it would have to take ''strong action'' if the deadline were not met. But in an interview with Reuters, Diack said: ``I don't think we will go as far as a suspension but it is up to (the IAAF's) council to decide in April.'' IAAF general secretary Istvan Gyulai said Wednesday that USA Track and Field had replied to the letter, but said it could not provide the details because of the rules on confidentiality governing their actions at the time. Diack stressed the Americans had since changed their rules. ``They have a good anti-doping system,'' he said. ``I don't think we will be as extreme as introducing a suspension.' Arne Ljungqvist, the IAAF's chief anti-doping official, had said Wednesday that the U.S. federation could be suspended by both the USOC and the IAAF. But the IOC medical commission member made it clear that it was up to the IAAF council to decide. ``The letter was worded that the IAAF would have to take strong action,'' he said. ``The ultimate action is suspension. But that remains to be decided.'' ks
Re: t-and-f: Reuters version of USATF-Rogge story
(I tried to be brief, but:) At issue here are the protective rights afforded to individuals in the U.S., which USATF has to function under. These same laws protect individuals and workers in the U.S. from a variety of discriminations and labor disputes. Also, unfair labor issues are not uncommon with the big team sports in the U.S., which would never happen in many IOC and IAAF member nations that have dictatorship forms of governments. Under IOC/IAAF testing, all cases are considered the same and in unique situations, might be given individual consideration. In the U.S., we are first presumed innocent and given individual consideration until evidence narrows and classifies the individual in to a guilty category. This is the clash we see between USATF and the IOC/IAAF where in the U.S., cases are treated with individual rights and individual considerations first while the IOC/IAAF seems to automatically lump all "LAB" positives into one guilty category. I have about 15 years experience offering companies limited assistance (I'm NOT an attorney) in developing employment drug testing policies. ((I also write a column - Speedplay - for Chicago Athlete Magazine.)) U.S. employees SHOULD know that an employer is legally limited by law as to what information can be released out of the company, ex: a previous employer is very limited as to what "reference" information can be passed on to a prospective employer. And, a current employer has to be extremely careful when drug testing an employee (ex: drug testing results should NOT be kept in the regular employee/HR files.) For U.S. employment drug testing, a "LAB" positive should first be reviewed by a third-party Medical Review Officer (MRO.) It is the MRO's responsibility to determine if the positive is a true positive. The MRO has to review the findings and interview the employee. The MRO may determine that the positive lab result should be reported as a negative. The drug may have been detected, but the MRO may determine that there are extenuating circumstances to rule that the positive should be reported as a negative. Even with the positive lab report, the company can only be told that the result was negative and should not be shown the original positive lab report. In this situation, the MRO can not report to the company that a drug was detected nor what the drug was. In any case, the actual lab report should never be given to the employer. Regarding drug results and whether a newspaper can report them and whether an employer can announce them, these are two very different issues. The media, in most cases, would be protected under free speech laws while a U.S. company would be held to privacy laws, state laws, labor agreements, Americans With Disability's Act, EEOC, etc. "Wayne T. Armbrust" wrote: > Oleg hits the nail on the head here. How can USATF be worried about a law suit > when the names of people are routinely reported in the media as soon as they > are accused of a crime? The media also reports civil suits as soon as they are > filed. Major newspapers have reporters who do nothing else but work the > so-called crime beat. > > On the back of each USATF card there is a Membership Pledge which reads: > > "MEMBERSHIP PLEDGE > > As an athlete member of USA Track & Field (USATF), I am honored and privileged > to be a participant in the sports of track & field, long distance running, > cross country running and race walking. I pledge that, as a participant in > these sports, I will abide by the rules and regulations of the International > Olympic Committee, the [International Association of Athletics Federations], > the United States Olympic Committee and USATF. I will also uphold the ideals > af fair play and sportsmanship and will abide by the competition rules of track > & field at all times. > > As an athlete member of USATF, I understand that I may be subject to drug > testing in order to maintain my eligibility to compete. I will cooperate with > all drug testing authorities and will make myself available for drug testing > when requested. > > By signature on this membership card (or that of my guardian) or by utilization > of my USATF number, I agree to abide by this membership pledge." > > It would seem a small thing to add to this pledge that the athlete agrees that > information about a positive test would be released after say, the B sample > tested positive. > > A policy such as this would do much to negate the suspicion, right or wrong, > that USATF is covering up positive tests. > > Oleg Shpyrko wrote: > > > While I agree with general legal analysis of the situation, you'd have to > > also admit that the current state > > of things provides a shield of protection for drug cheats. Someone should > > correct me if I am wrong but in the past > > USATF has tried to protect Slaney and Mitchell - and were overturned by > > IAAF. Has anything changed to think > > they wouldn't try protecting their athletes
Re: t-and-f: Reuters version of USATF-Rogge story
I doubt that USOC would cut off funds to USATF because they covered up positive tests. After all, the two previous Medical Directors of USOC have said that USOC covered up positive tests. Better check USATF's accounts to see if they got a bonus from USOC. Ed Prytherch
Re: t-and-f: Reuters version of USATF-Rogge story
Oleg hits the nail on the head here. How can USATF be worried about a law suit when the names of people are routinely reported in the media as soon as they are accused of a crime? The media also reports civil suits as soon as they are filed. Major newspapers have reporters who do nothing else but work the so-called crime beat. On the back of each USATF card there is a Membership Pledge which reads: "MEMBERSHIP PLEDGE As an athlete member of USA Track & Field (USATF), I am honored and privileged to be a participant in the sports of track & field, long distance running, cross country running and race walking. I pledge that, as a participant in these sports, I will abide by the rules and regulations of the International Olympic Committee, the [International Association of Athletics Federations], the United States Olympic Committee and USATF. I will also uphold the ideals af fair play and sportsmanship and will abide by the competition rules of track & field at all times. As an athlete member of USATF, I understand that I may be subject to drug testing in order to maintain my eligibility to compete. I will cooperate with all drug testing authorities and will make myself available for drug testing when requested. By signature on this membership card (or that of my guardian) or by utilization of my USATF number, I agree to abide by this membership pledge." It would seem a small thing to add to this pledge that the athlete agrees that information about a positive test would be released after say, the B sample tested positive. A policy such as this would do much to negate the suspicion, right or wrong, that USATF is covering up positive tests. Oleg Shpyrko wrote: > While I agree with general legal analysis of the situation, you'd have to > also admit that the current state > of things provides a shield of protection for drug cheats. Someone should > correct me if I am wrong but in the past > USATF has tried to protect Slaney and Mitchell - and were overturned by > IAAF. Has anything changed to think > they wouldn't try protecting their athletes now? They definitely appear to > have a conflict of interests here. snip > In US court system the information about a suspect being arrested is often > released long before the suspect being convicted or even arraigned, even > though such information is surely damaging to their reputation, and the fact > that > they might be found innocent later. Public interests of having a criminal > brought to justice, and a right of fair and open trial seems to take > precedence over privacy rights or damaged reputation, as long as there's > plausible cause to justify the arrest warrant or indictment, of course. > A suspect suing the police for revealing their name to the press seems > ridiculous, doesn't it? How about suing the police for even reporting the > alleged crime to the district attorney's office - or to the judge? Do they > have a right to know? > > How is this different for athletes who test positive for banned substances? > You seem to argue that not only public doesn't have a right to know, but > even IAAF - international governing body - doesn't have a right to know a > single thing about the case. > > Oleg. -- Wayne T. Armbrust, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Computomarx™ 3604 Grant Ct. Columbia MO 65203-5800 USA (573) 445-6675 (voice & FAX) http://www.Computomarx.com "Know the difference between right and wrong... Always give your best effort... Treat others the way you'd like to be treated..." - Coach Bill Sudeck (1926-2000)
RE: t-and-f: Reuters version of USATF-Rogge story
In a message dated Fri, 8 Feb 2002 4:55:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, "Oleg Shpyrko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Someone should correct me if I am wrong but in the past USATF has tried to protect >Slaney and Mitchell - and were overturned by IAAF. Has anything changed to think they >wouldn't try protecting their athletes now? They definitely appear to have a conflict >of interests here.>> Of course they do. And the DLV originally tried to shield Baumann, and Moorcroft swore on his mother's grave that all the nandro Brits were innocent, and the Russian Federation gave Lyudmila Narozhilenko a lighter-than-IAAF suspension in her original steroid case. To paraphrase Tony Soprano paraphrasing the scorpion, "It's what they do!" If an athlete doesn't feel he has a federation that will stand up for him in tough times, what good is it? And please note, standing up is not equal to covering up. gh
RE: t-and-f: Reuters version of USATF-Rogge story
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Ed and Dana Parrot > Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 2:20 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: t-and-f: Reuters version of USATF-Rogge story > > > > ``We want to know whether the exoneration was valid,'' the International > > Olympic Committee (IOC) chief said. ``I do not understand the > position of > USA > > Track & Field. They say there was a valid exoneration but they refuse to > give > > reasons. > > > > ``This is quite strange.'' > > > > The athlete, not believed to be a household name, tested positive for > > steroids but was exonerated by USA Track & Field, which has > since refused > to > > reveal details of the case despite several demands from the > sport's world > > It is NOT strange at all. If the athlete was exonerated, then it is the > same as if the test was not failed. USATF cannot give out the names, nor > any details which might hint at who it is. I know that the IAAF > and the IOC > believe they are entitled to that information, but legal precedent in the > U.S. is such that USATF cannot take the risk of being liable for > it leaking > (which has happened in the past). The IAAF has already declared itself > above the rulings of U.S. courts (read: Butch Reynolds), so there > isn't even > the possibilty of any legally binding "gag" that would reduce USATF's > potential liability. > > Now, I realize that the IAAF and the IOC may consider that the U.S. legal > protecion is unreasonable and unfiar to the other countries. If so, my > message is to put up or shut up. If there are no sanctions or suspension > for the U.S., then the IAAF is just blowing a lot of smoke. > USATF has made > its position crystal clear and "strongly-worded" rebuke will > obviously have > no influence. > > Perhaps the game has been escalated with the alleged USOC funding cut, > although my suspicion is that even the loss of some USOC funds will not be > worth risking making the names of innocent people public. Certainly, > negative publicity can hurt sponsorship, but picture Craig at a > meeting with > a sponsor: > > Sponsor:We are disturbed about the allegations of cover-up > Craig:Do you drug test at your company? > Sponsor:Yes > Craig:If someone tests positive, do you release their name > and fire them > immediately? > Sponsor:Of course not, we'd be sued faster than Mo Greene can run the > 100. We test another sample, plus we have a confidential appeals process. > Craig:I rest my case - how much would you like to give us this year? > > > A final note - if the USOC indeed does cut USATF funding because of this > issue, it would not surprise me at all if USATF had legal recourse against > the USOC under the Amateur Sports Act. > > - ed Parrot Ed - While I agree with general legal analysis of the situation, you'd have to also admit that the current state of things provides a shield of protection for drug cheats. Someone should correct me if I am wrong but in the past USATF has tried to protect Slaney and Mitchell - and were overturned by IAAF. Has anything changed to think they wouldn't try protecting their athletes now? They definitely appear to have a conflict of interests here. If Slaney/Mitchell cases weren't disclosed to IAAF and to the public, my guess is that they would have been exonerated, just like these mysterious athlete(s) in question, and we would have never known about it. Makes you wonder how many cases have gone unnoticed like this. What's the use of having each federation trying to police their own athletes if they can always hide behind above-mentioned legalities and never disclose the identity of the athlete who tests positive, as well as the reasons behind exoneration decision? USATF sided with "beer and sex" defense in Mitchell's case, so I would be curious about reasons for exonerating other athletes. Do you seriously trust USATF in making this kind of decisions? If you think USATF is afraid to announce a positive test which has been exonerated for fear of being sued, why should they feel different about standing by a positive test - period? Consider the example of CJ Hunter who was never reported to IAAF even despite *repeatedly* testing positive (as in "both samples") over the summer. If it weren't for the (surely politically motivated) leak we may have never found out. What is to stop the national federations from exonerating everyone they catch and keeping this under wraps? Historically, every national federation has been trying to protect their athletes - in almost every case. And when they di
Re: t-and-f: Reuters version of USATF-Rogge story
> ``We want to know whether the exoneration was valid,'' the International > Olympic Committee (IOC) chief said. ``I do not understand the position of USA > Track & Field. They say there was a valid exoneration but they refuse to give > reasons. > > ``This is quite strange.'' > > The athlete, not believed to be a household name, tested positive for > steroids but was exonerated by USA Track & Field, which has since refused to > reveal details of the case despite several demands from the sport's world It is NOT strange at all. If the athlete was exonerated, then it is the same as if the test was not failed. USATF cannot give out the names, nor any details which might hint at who it is. I know that the IAAF and the IOC believe they are entitled to that information, but legal precedent in the U.S. is such that USATF cannot take the risk of being liable for it leaking (which has happened in the past). The IAAF has already declared itself above the rulings of U.S. courts (read: Butch Reynolds), so there isn't even the possibilty of any legally binding "gag" that would reduce USATF's potential liability. Now, I realize that the IAAF and the IOC may consider that the U.S. legal protecion is unreasonable and unfiar to the other countries. If so, my message is to put up or shut up. If there are no sanctions or suspension for the U.S., then the IAAF is just blowing a lot of smoke. USATF has made its position crystal clear and "strongly-worded" rebuke will obviously have no influence. Perhaps the game has been escalated with the alleged USOC funding cut, although my suspicion is that even the loss of some USOC funds will not be worth risking making the names of innocent people public. Certainly, negative publicity can hurt sponsorship, but picture Craig at a meeting with a sponsor: Sponsor:We are disturbed about the allegations of cover-up Craig:Do you drug test at your company? Sponsor:Yes Craig:If someone tests positive, do you release their name and fire them immediately? Sponsor:Of course not, we'd be sued faster than Mo Greene can run the 100. We test another sample, plus we have a confidential appeals process. Craig:I rest my case - how much would you like to give us this year? A final note - if the USOC indeed does cut USATF funding because of this issue, it would not surprise me at all if USATF had legal recourse against the USOC under the Amateur Sports Act. - ed Parrot
