Drugs tests, what's the point.

slowmart

It seems everyone who tests positive for banned substances is either innocent or took the drug in question in error or through "medical advice" .

Sharapovas legal team are already on the offensive.....

Standard ban is four years....

VTech

I take the same drug (uk version Lisinopril)
It has been fine for 25 years and only came onto the banned list this Jan.
Due to the fact that there is no evidence from the medical council that it aids stamina or makes a person better at tennis and given that she knew she would be regularly tested and that it comes out of the system very quickly (within a couple of days) I honestly feel she is genuinely innocent of intent to take controlled drugs.

Lookyhere

VTech wrote:

I take the same drug (uk version Lisinopril)
It has been fine for 25 years and only came onto the banned list this Jan.
Due to the fact that there is no evidence from the medical council that it aids stamina or makes a person better at tennis and given that she knew she would be regularly tested and that it comes out of the system very quickly (within a couple of days) I honestly feel she is genuinely innocent of intent to take controlled drugs.

i think they are 2 completely different drugs

bianchimoon

A December 2015 study in the journal Drug Testing and Analysis argued that meldonium "demonstrates an increase in endurance performance of athletes, improved rehabilitation after exercise, protection against stress, and enhanced activations of central nervous system (CNS) functions."[36][non-primary source needed] It was added to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) list of banned substances effective 1 January 2016 because of evidence of its use by athletes with the intention of enhancing performance.[1][37] It was on the 2015 WADA's list of drugs to be monitored.[38][39] WADA considers the drug to be a metabolic modulator, similar to insulin.

Sounds perfect for a tennis player

Pross

It doesn't matter what anyone says or whether they deny taking it. Tests are there to catch people using the banned substance and the guilty party will get banned for somewhere up to 4 years. As with the legal system, there can be a reduction in the 'sentence' when taking extenuating circumstances into account. You're question may as well be 'what's the point in having police as everyone they catch claims to be innocent''.

slowmart

Pross wrote:

It doesn't matter what anyone says or whether they deny taking it. Tests are there to catch people using the banned substance and the guilty party will get banned for somewhere up to 4 years. As with the legal system, there can be a reduction in the 'sentence' when taking extenuating circumstances into account. You're question may as well be 'what's the point in having police as everyone they catch claims to be innocent''.

I'd like to understand what extenuating circumstances look like when you're a $30,000,000 per annum business on a core pillar of illegal drugs?

When your that size of business and are able to get out in front of a story like this makes for uncomfortable viewing. The sports governing body should make the announcement, not the guilty party, mitigating and deflecting.

rick_chasey

Keeps the forums busy.

tangled_metal

How many threads talking about this drug, Sharapova and others caught out? It's a good discussion topic. The looks of Sharapova, the anti doping testing system, the notification of banning drugs system, ethics of taking medical drugs without the medical condition they're for just.for sporting gain and other side discussions.

Innocent until proven guilty is the legal way. Anti doping way is similar but there's a suspension in a suspect's activities while the "court process" is happening. Also there's a guilty pronunciation upon the requisite number of positives from A and B samples. The process is about mitigation by Sharapova's team and fighting that by the relevant anti doping team. I take it the OP has an issue with that part of the process.

If you don't like the system I guess you could argue for open house to doping or stricter system. The latter could include a more prescriptive system over what is allowed. Perhaps all prescription drugs are banned above a certain level unless you have the relevant condition and you have exhausted all other drugs that do not confer any sporting advantage. Perhaps at the top level they have to get all meds through certain licenced medics that are independent of the athlete's camp. Then any test could just be for any drug-like compound in the athlete that can not be proven as natural.

Of course there'll be loopholes with even the strictest system but you still have to try unless you end the whole anti doping system.

ddraver

In fairness, "Drugs Tests, Whats the point?" appears to have been Tennis's attitude for a good long while now...

FishFish

VTech wrote:

I take the same drug (uk version Lisinopril)
.

Do you take it for Ebola, Bob?

homers_double

Where can I get me some of these ere pills?

bianchimoon

homers double wrote:

Where can I get me some of these ere pills?

Maria won't be needing hers for a while, you could drop her a line?

ddraver

Amazon...no seriously

VTech

FishFish wrote:

VTech wrote:

I take the same drug (uk version Lisinopril)
.

Do you take it for Ebola, Bob?

Sadly not, but it is a wonder drug for weight reduction, lost a stone in a month and have managed to keep it off.
It aids the process of water retention reduction but you piss like horse :oops:

ugo.santalucia

Having symphaty for a Russian tennis player who tests positive means having no idea of what sport is about.

For decades they have tried to clean cycling and athletics from the worst of blood doping, with mixed results. Tennis has been untouched... yet, these amazing athletes compete 365 days per year at the top level, jetting around the world in doing so, with a remarkable consistency.
If Federer, who knows a thing or two about the sport, came out saying that tennis needs more anti-doping, then it means exactly that! The sport is rich enough to afford a thorough anti doping program

VTech

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Having symphaty for a Russian tennis player who tests positive means having no idea of what sport is about.

For decades they have tried to clean cycling and athletics from the worst of blood doping, with mixed results. Tennis has been untouched... yet, these amazing athletes compete 365 days per year at the top level, jetting around the world in doing so, with a remarkable consistency.
If Federer, who knows a thing or two about the sport, came out saying that tennis needs more anti-doping, then it means exactly that! The sport is rich enough to afford a thorough anti doping program

This is a damned if I do, damned if I don't answer but I'm with you.
The problem is, sport is about money, money comes from sponsors, sponsors won't want to back events without big names and so to get them and make them viable you need big names.
This in turn means that sport stars need to remain fit for longer than is humanly possible and hence why drugs and certain types of processes are needed.
People want to watch their chosen sport on TV and at venues and this means that the cycle will continue.

homers_double

Vtech, did the doc prescribe it for that or is a lucky side effect?

VTech

homers double wrote:

Vtech, did the doc prescribe it for that or is a lucky side effect?

I was in Las Vegas in December 2014 and had hit 16st 4lb, hugely overweight, travelling a lot and under huge stress.
I had a massive headache so went to a wallgreens chemist and the chemist asked me to see the doctor as they have them in all chemist stores so $99 later she did my blood pressure which was 197/145 and she said that is at imminent death levels, she cut no mustard and told me how it is, I was drinking 3-5 cans of red bull a day, eating at the wrong times and doing little to no training.

I was rushed to ER, they gave me an injection in the bum and prescribed me lisinopril to reduce water retention and when I came back to the UK the doctor said it best to continue this and I'm down to 14st 6lb.
I need to lose another stone and am back on the bike now but am told I will probably take the drug for the rest of my life.
I have had zero side effects other than going for a wee more often. I take it in the morning as it was waking me in the night as I needed the toilet a lot.

Frank the tank

VTech wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Having symphaty for a Russian tennis player who tests positive means having no idea of what sport is about.

For decades they have tried to clean cycling and athletics from the worst of blood doping, with mixed results. Tennis has been untouched... yet, these amazing athletes compete 365 days per year at the top level, jetting around the world in doing so, with a remarkable consistency.
If Federer, who knows a thing or two about the sport, came out saying that tennis needs more anti-doping, then it means exactly that! The sport is rich enough to afford a thorough anti doping program

This is a damned if I do, damned if I don't answer but I'm with you.
The problem is, sport is about money, money comes from sponsors, sponsors won't want to back events without big names and so to get them and make them viable you need big names.
This in turn means that sport stars need to remain fit for longer than is humanly possible and hence why drugs and certain types of processes are needed.
People want to watch their chosen sport on TV and at venues and this means that the cycle will continue.

So the real problem is money in sport, which is what I've thought for a long time.

Money does drive up standards, however wherever money is involved (especially large amounts) it attracts all kinds of criminal activity, including performance enhancing drugs etc because the rewards are truly life changing rather than just having a piece of silverware, rainbow jersey,whatever.

So the best way to get rid of drugs in sport would be take the money out of it. Obviously will never happen as too many people (other than the sportsman/woman) make too much money out of it and they will continue to make money after the athlete feeling the pressure to perform has lost their career.

VTech

Frank the tank wrote:

VTech wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Having symphaty for a Russian tennis player who tests positive means having no idea of what sport is about.

For decades they have tried to clean cycling and athletics from the worst of blood doping, with mixed results. Tennis has been untouched... yet, these amazing athletes compete 365 days per year at the top level, jetting around the world in doing so, with a remarkable consistency.
If Federer, who knows a thing or two about the sport, came out saying that tennis needs more anti-doping, then it means exactly that! The sport is rich enough to afford a thorough anti doping program

This is a damned if I do, damned if I don't answer but I'm with you.
The problem is, sport is about money, money comes from sponsors, sponsors won't want to back events without big names and so to get them and make them viable you need big names.
This in turn means that sport stars need to remain fit for longer than is humanly possible and hence why drugs and certain types of processes are needed.
People want to watch their chosen sport on TV and at venues and this means that the cycle will continue.

So the real problem is money in sport, which is what I've thought for a long time.

Money does drive up standards, however wherever money is involved (especially large amounts) it attracts all kinds of criminal activity, including performance enhancing drugs etc because the rewards are truly life changing rather than just having a piece of silverware, rainbow jersey,whatever.

So the best way to get rid of drugs in sport would be take the money out of it. Obviously will never happen as too many people (other than the sportsman/woman) make too much money out of it and they will continue to make money after the athlete feeling the pressure to perform has lost their career.

I think it is also often missed that its not just the sports person who gets the cash. The organisers of events make a fortune, it is in their interest to have the "best" of the field attend the events and this makes them push harder to attract them and money is the attraction.
Offering $1,000,000 for a world record at the end of long seasons in athletics surely is a sin, tired athletes who have trained all year, attended many events and genetically in need of rest have no option but to push the limits !

tangled_metal

Take the money out of sport? You mean take the money out of top flight sport surely. Grass roots always gets crumbs and need more.

If you look at it this way, in any walk of life someone who's worked hard over many hours of their life from a young age to achieve success at the top is someone worthy of a good level of remuneration. Rewarding success through hard work is not a problem IMHO. If short cuts were taken such as taking medicinal drugs purely for competitive advantage (whether on a banned list or not) then take their reward from them. Perhaps there should be a requirement for sponsors to drop banned athletes for as long as the ban is my affect. If all monies dry up, and it is known this will happen, perhaps there will be a reduction. Dream on!

The one thing I don't want to see, that is a clean athlete who's at the top levels based purely on a life of striving and effort to not get the same performance related pay as say top actors or top business people. There is no way a clean Olympic gold medalist should get less than a CEO of a multinational or a top banker. IMHO Paula Radcliffe should be as rich as Warren Buffett our George Soros. In fact I'd say it the other way around. They should only be as rich as Paula Radcliffe, not as fabulously rich as they are.

mrb123

In a 2015 study, 724 of 4316 Russian athletes tested had traces of Meldonium in their system.

A lot of heart problems about then!

ugo.santalucia

VTech wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Having symphaty for a Russian tennis player who tests positive means having no idea of what sport is about.

For decades they have tried to clean cycling and athletics from the worst of blood doping, with mixed results. Tennis has been untouched... yet, these amazing athletes compete 365 days per year at the top level, jetting around the world in doing so, with a remarkable consistency.
If Federer, who knows a thing or two about the sport, came out saying that tennis needs more anti-doping, then it means exactly that! The sport is rich enough to afford a thorough anti doping program

This is a damned if I do, damned if I don't answer but I'm with you.
The problem is, sport is about money, money comes from sponsors, sponsors won't want to back events without big names and so to get them and make them viable you need big names.
This in turn means that sport stars need to remain fit for longer than is humanly possible and hence why drugs and certain types of processes are needed.
People want to watch their chosen sport on TV and at venues and this means that the cycle will continue.

Yet even those athletes who are very shy with their presence at events do dope... the name Lance Armstrong comes to mind... he used to race less than anybody else in the PRO peloton.
Doping in sport is normal, but the lack of state of the arts controls is unforgivable

Frank the tank

Tangled Metal wrote:

Take the money out of sport? You mean take the money out of top flight sport surely. Grass roots always gets crumbs and need more.

If you look at it this way, in any walk of life someone who's worked hard over many hours of their life from a young age to achieve success at the top is someone worthy of a good level of remuneration. Rewarding success through hard work is not a problem IMHO. If short cuts were taken such as taking medicinal drugs purely for competitive advantage (whether on a banned list or not) then take their reward from them. Perhaps there should be a requirement for sponsors to drop banned athletes for as long as the ban is my affect. If all monies dry up, and it is known this will happen, perhaps there will be a reduction. Dream on!

The one thing I don't want to see, that is a clean athlete who's at the top levels based purely on a life of striving and effort to not get the same performance related pay as say top actors or top business people. There is no way a clean Olympic gold medalist should get less than a CEO of a multinational or a top banker. IMHO Paula Radcliffe should be as rich as Warren Buffett our George Soros. In fact I'd say it the other way around. They should only be as rich as Paula Radcliffe, not as fabulously rich as they are.

This is the conundrum though is it not. I agree that top level athletes should be able to earn exceptional amounts, if for no other reason than it is a way of getting out of the (sometimes) socially deprived background from which they came. However it is that very same driver that spurs some on to cheat.

Calculating how much a cheat has earned from cheating is difficult, Armstrong being a prime example. It's not just his race winnings is it. Sharapova, made herself mega-rich even though by international tennis standards she has had limited success.

mrb123

Frank the tank wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Take the money out of sport? You mean take the money out of top flight sport surely. Grass roots always gets crumbs and need more.

If you look at it this way, in any walk of life someone who's worked hard over many hours of their life from a young age to achieve success at the top is someone worthy of a good level of remuneration. Rewarding success through hard work is not a problem IMHO. If short cuts were taken such as taking medicinal drugs purely for competitive advantage (whether on a banned list or not) then take their reward from them. Perhaps there should be a requirement for sponsors to drop banned athletes for as long as the ban is my affect. If all monies dry up, and it is known this will happen, perhaps there will be a reduction. Dream on!

The one thing I don't want to see, that is a clean athlete who's at the top levels based purely on a life of striving and effort to not get the same performance related pay as say top actors or top business people. There is no way a clean Olympic gold medalist should get less than a CEO of a multinational or a top banker. IMHO Paula Radcliffe should be as rich as Warren Buffett our George Soros. In fact I'd say it the other way around. They should only be as rich as Paula Radcliffe, not as fabulously rich as they are.

This is the conundrum though is it not. I agree that top level athletes should be able to earn exceptional amounts, if for no other reason than it is a way of getting out of the (sometimes) socially deprived background from which they came. However it is that very same driver that spurs some on to cheat.

Calculating how much a cheat has earned from cheating is difficult, Armstrong being a prime example. It's not just his race winnings is it. Sharapova, made herself mega-rich even though by international tennis standards she has had limited success.

Well she has completed a career Grand Slam...Djokovic hasn't managed that yet.

earth

ddraver wrote:

In fairness, "Drugs Tests, Whats the point?" appears to have been Tennis's attitude for a good long while now...

Back in McEnroe's day the drug was clearly cocaine.

frisbee

Lookyhere wrote:

VTech wrote:

I take the same drug (uk version Lisinopril)
It has been fine for 25 years and only came onto the banned list this Jan.
Due to the fact that there is no evidence from the medical council that it aids stamina or makes a person better at tennis and given that she knew she would be regularly tested and that it comes out of the system very quickly (within a couple of days) I honestly feel she is genuinely innocent of intent to take controlled drugs.

i think they are 2 completely different drugs

Yep, two seconds of wiki-ing indicate that it is a performing de-hancing drug!

Alex99

VTech wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

VTech wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Having symphaty for a Russian tennis player who tests positive means having no idea of what sport is about.

For decades they have tried to clean cycling and athletics from the worst of blood doping, with mixed results. Tennis has been untouched... yet, these amazing athletes compete 365 days per year at the top level, jetting around the world in doing so, with a remarkable consistency.
If Federer, who knows a thing or two about the sport, came out saying that tennis needs more anti-doping, then it means exactly that! The sport is rich enough to afford a thorough anti doping program

This is a damned if I do, damned if I don't answer but I'm with you.
The problem is, sport is about money, money comes from sponsors, sponsors won't want to back events without big names and so to get them and make them viable you need big names.
This in turn means that sport stars need to remain fit for longer than is humanly possible and hence why drugs and certain types of processes are needed.
People want to watch their chosen sport on TV and at venues and this means that the cycle will continue.

So the real problem is money in sport, which is what I've thought for a long time.

Money does drive up standards, however wherever money is involved (especially large amounts) it attracts all kinds of criminal activity, including performance enhancing drugs etc because the rewards are truly life changing rather than just having a piece of silverware, rainbow jersey,whatever.

So the best way to get rid of drugs in sport would be take the money out of it. Obviously will never happen as too many people (other than the sportsman/woman) make too much money out of it and they will continue to make money after the athlete feeling the pressure to perform has lost their career.

I think it is also often missed that its not just the sports person who gets the cash. The organisers of events make a fortune, it is in their interest to have the "best" of the field attend the events and this makes them push harder to attract them and money is the attraction.
Offering $1,000,000 for a world record at the end of long seasons in athletics surely is a sin, tired athletes who have trained all year, attended many events and genetically in need of rest have no option but to push the limits !

They do have the an option. Be less greedy.

Alex99

Tangled Metal wrote:

Take the money out of sport? You mean take the money out of top flight sport surely. Grass roots always gets crumbs and need more.

If you look at it this way, in any walk of life someone who's worked hard over many hours of their life from a young age to achieve success at the top is someone worthy of a good level of remuneration. Rewarding success through hard work is not a problem IMHO. If short cuts were taken such as taking medicinal drugs purely for competitive advantage (whether on a banned list or not) then take their reward from them. Perhaps there should be a requirement for sponsors to drop banned athletes for as long as the ban is my affect. If all monies dry up, and it is known this will happen, perhaps there will be a reduction. Dream on!

The one thing I don't want to see, that is a clean athlete who's at the top levels based purely on a life of striving and effort to not get the same performance related pay as say top actors or top business people. There is no way a clean Olympic gold medalist should get less than a CEO of a multinational or a top banker. IMHO Paula Radcliffe should be as rich as Warren Buffett our George Soros. In fact I'd say it the other way around. They should only be as rich as Paula Radcliffe, not as fabulously rich as they are.

Not sure I agree. A life in sport is hard work and requires dedication, and they should be fairly rewarded. I think we possibly put sports people on too much of a pedestal. After all, it is just a bunch of blokes/ladies kicking a football / riding bikes / going for a run.

ugo.santalucia

Alex99 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Take the money out of sport? You mean take the money out of top flight sport surely. Grass roots always gets crumbs and need more.

If you look at it this way, in any walk of life someone who's worked hard over many hours of their life from a young age to achieve success at the top is someone worthy of a good level of remuneration. Rewarding success through hard work is not a problem IMHO. If short cuts were taken such as taking medicinal drugs purely for competitive advantage (whether on a banned list or not) then take their reward from them. Perhaps there should be a requirement for sponsors to drop banned athletes for as long as the ban is my affect. If all monies dry up, and it is known this will happen, perhaps there will be a reduction. Dream on!

The one thing I don't want to see, that is a clean athlete who's at the top levels based purely on a life of striving and effort to not get the same performance related pay as say top actors or top business people. There is no way a clean Olympic gold medalist should get less than a CEO of a multinational or a top banker. IMHO Paula Radcliffe should be as rich as Warren Buffett our George Soros. In fact I'd say it the other way around. They should only be as rich as Paula Radcliffe, not as fabulously rich as they are.

Not sure I agree. A life in sport is hard work and requires dedication, and they should be fairly rewarded. I think we possibly put sports people on too much of a pedestal. After all, it is just a bunch of blokes/ladies kicking a football / riding bikes / going for a run.

Not in all professions the best get 7-8 fiugres salaries... in my line of work the top of the top gets maybe 2-300,000 and it takes at least 20 years to get there

Alex99

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Alex99 wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Take the money out of sport? You mean take the money out of top flight sport surely. Grass roots always gets crumbs and need more.

If you look at it this way, in any walk of life someone who's worked hard over many hours of their life from a young age to achieve success at the top is someone worthy of a good level of remuneration. Rewarding success through hard work is not a problem IMHO. If short cuts were taken such as taking medicinal drugs purely for competitive advantage (whether on a banned list or not) then take their reward from them. Perhaps there should be a requirement for sponsors to drop banned athletes for as long as the ban is my affect. If all monies dry up, and it is known this will happen, perhaps there will be a reduction. Dream on!

The one thing I don't want to see, that is a clean athlete who's at the top levels based purely on a life of striving and effort to not get the same performance related pay as say top actors or top business people. There is no way a clean Olympic gold medalist should get less than a CEO of a multinational or a top banker. IMHO Paula Radcliffe should be as rich as Warren Buffett our George Soros. In fact I'd say it the other way around. They should only be as rich as Paula Radcliffe, not as fabulously rich as they are.

Not sure I agree. A life in sport is hard work and requires dedication, and they should be fairly rewarded. I think we possibly put sports people on too much of a pedestal. After all, it is just a bunch of blokes/ladies kicking a football / riding bikes / going for a run.

Not in all professions the best get 7-8 fiugres salaries... in my line of work the top of the top gets maybe 2-300,000 and it takes at least 20 years to get there

Likewise, in my line of work, even the very top will not get paid close to what a top sportsperson gets. I'm basically saying, the it is a bit strange to pity sports persons for not getting paid as much as e.g. top business people.