| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67741
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2016 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Your link allows it's not a witch hunt. The accusations merit investigation. Remember Hitler and the super race?
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Other than one passing reference, that article says nothing about Putin. It also has nothing to do with anything I said. You seem to be reacting to some different argument involving Russia. With respect to what I'm saying, you're being deliberately obtuse. Maybe you should go to a Russian message board and troll them until someone engages you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 4:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | Your link allows it's not a witch hunt. The accusations merit investigation. Remember Hitler and the super race? |
More to the point, shouldn't there actually be proof that something is performance enhancing before it gets banned? Otherwise, what are we really regulating? If a bunch of NBA players start taking a particular cough drop before games, do we ban the cough drop because the players think that it enhances performance? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67741
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 10:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Your link allows it's not a witch hunt. The accusations merit investigation. Remember Hitler and the super race? |
More to the point, shouldn't there actually be proof that something is performance enhancing before it gets banned? Otherwise, what are we really regulating? If a bunch of NBA players start taking a particular cough drop before games, do we ban the cough drop because the players think that it enhances performance? |
LINK
This isn't proof but as I asked doesn't it merit investigation?
| Quote: | At least one study indicates athletes who take the drug benefit from both increased endurance and increased physical workloads, in addition to protecting against stress-induced damage and speeding up recovery times.
“Meldonium increases an athlete’s endurance and exercise tolerance and it also reduces recovery time, which is really important in high-level athletes,” Dr. Robert Glatter, a physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York, explained to CBS. |
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Last edited by jodeke on Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:31 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 17251
Location: In a no-ship
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: |
Other than one passing reference, that article says nothing about Putin. It also has nothing to do with anything I said. You seem to be reacting to some different argument involving Russia. With respect to what I'm saying, you're being deliberately obtuse. Maybe you should go to a Russian message board and troll them until someone engages you. |
I counter that you're being deliberately obtuse in questioning whether this is actually a PED. USADA/WADA and the rest wouldn't have banned it if it was just a placebo. I get you like Maria, but come on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DuncanIdaho wrote: | | I counter that you're being deliberately obtuse in questioning whether this is actually a PED. USADA/WADA and the rest wouldn't have banned it if it was just a placebo. I get you like Maria, but come on. |
No, I said you should do your trolling on a Russian message board, not here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | This isn't proof but as I asked doesn't it merit investigation? |
Here is an excerpt from the ESPN article that I linked on the last page:
| Quote: | Dr. David J. Greenblatt, a Tufts University School of Medicine professor who studies drug interactions, recently co-wrote a review of medical literature on meldonium that challenges the medication's therapeutic and potential doping efficacy.
"The vast majority of data is on animals or in-vitro systems, which is of minimal or no relationship to what goes on in humans," Greenblatt said in an interview with ESPN.com last month. "There are a couple of human studies, and as best we could tell, we cited every human English-language study. Basically, there's little or nothing there.
"I would say, there is no substantive evidence that meldonium does anything to help human disease. And certainly, there's no evidence that it does anything to enhance athletic performance in athletes or otherwise normal people.''
In response, WADA's medical director, Dr. Alan Vernec noted that "potential of performance enhancement is not an absolutely necessary criterion."
In an email to ESPN.com, Vernec wrote, "It is often very difficult and even unethical, to do meaningful studies on elite-level athletes for many substances. Therefore, decisions must be made extrapolating from existing data, use patterns, pharmacology, etc.
"It is true that the product has not been evaluated in North America and Western Europe, even though the product is used by athletes from those regions. This did not stop WADA from investigating papers from Eastern Europe although admittedly and not surprisingly, there are limited good quality studies on the potential for performance-enhancing effect.''
It would be the height of irony if Sharapova's disregard for the rules, careless or reckless or both, cost her so mightily for a drug that may or may not have made much of a difference. That is unknowable. But as we are learning on almost a daily basis now, neither doping nor the anti-doping effort is an exact science. |
This is the part that troubles me. I find the comment by Vernec to be shocking. They get to ban something even though it is not proven to be performance enhancing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hoopschick29
Franchise Player
Joined: 23 Jul 2004
Posts: 12898
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Short answer?? Yes.
Long answer?? Yes, because direct proof of enhancement is very difficult to ascertain as you would almost need a pool of elite athletes and use them as guinnea pigs to base a legit study on.
With Meldonium in particular, according to Wiki, it was on the 'Watch List' in 2015. An unusually high number of athletes tested positive for this substance without disclosing they were taking it. This is BEFORE the drug was banned. That's a red flag, IMO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meldonium
http://blogs.bmj.com/bjsm/2016/03/08/meldonium-use-by-athletes-at-the-baku-2015-european-games-adding-data-to-ms-maria-sharapovas-failed-drug-test-case/
| Quote: | | An alarmingly high prevalence of meldonium use by athletes in sport was demonstrated by the laboratory findings at the Baku 2015 European Games. 13 medalists or competition winners were taking meldonium at the time of the Baku Games. Meldonium use was detected in athletes competing in 15 of the 21 sports during the Games. Most of the athletes taking meldonium withheld the information of their use from anti-doping authorities by not declaring it on their doping control forms as they should have. Only 23 of the 662 (3.5%) athletes tested declared the personal use of meldonium. However, 66 of the total 762 (8.7%) of athlete urine samples analysed during the Games and during pre-competition tested positive for meldonium. |
I believe in your line of work, it's called 'circumstantial evidence.'
_________________
So glad we gave you your flowers while you were here, Kobe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67741
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | This isn't proof but as I asked doesn't it merit investigation? |
Here is an excerpt from the ESPN article that I linked on the last page:
| Quote: | Dr. David J. Greenblatt, a Tufts University School of Medicine professor who studies drug interactions, recently co-wrote a review of medical literature on meldonium that challenges the medication's therapeutic and potential doping efficacy.
"The vast majority of data is on animals or in-vitro systems, which is of minimal or no relationship to what goes on in humans," Greenblatt said in an interview with ESPN.com last month. "There are a couple of human studies, and as best we could tell, we cited every human English-language study. Basically, there's little or nothing there.
"I would say, there is no substantive evidence that meldonium does anything to help human disease. And certainly, there's no evidence that it does anything to enhance athletic performance in athletes or otherwise normal people.''
In response, WADA's medical director, Dr. Alan Vernec noted that "potential of performance enhancement is not an absolutely necessary criterion."
In an email to ESPN.com, Vernec wrote, "It is often very difficult and even unethical, to do meaningful studies on elite-level athletes for many substances. Therefore, decisions must be made extrapolating from existing data, use patterns, pharmacology, etc.
"It is true that the product has not been evaluated in North America and Western Europe, even though the product is used by athletes from those regions. This did not stop WADA from investigating papers from Eastern Europe although admittedly and not surprisingly, there are limited good quality studies on the potential for performance-enhancing effect.''
It would be the height of irony if Sharapova's disregard for the rules, careless or reckless or both, cost her so mightily for a drug that may or may not have made much of a difference. That is unknowable. But as we are learning on almost a daily basis now, neither doping nor the anti-doping effort is an exact science. |
This is the part that troubles me. I find the comment by Vernec to be shocking. They get to ban something even though it is not proven to be performance enhancing? |
IA. Maybe Sharapova will win her appeal. Have it abandoned or shortened.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 12:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hoopschick --
No, that would not be circumstantial evidence, unless the state of mind of the athletes was relevant. But it isn't. Let's assume that every one of these Eastern European athletes believed that Meldonium was performance enhancing. That doesn't make it true.
In the real world, we see people taking stuff all the time even though it later turns out to have no effect. This is part of why we have the FDA: to find out whether drugs actually do something. We don't approve drugs because lots of people are taking them. Can you imagine the FDA saying, "We don't know whether this anti-cancer drug actually works, but lots of people in China take it, so that's circumstantial evidence."
Maybe that's enough for you in the specific context of PEDs. I understand your point about testing. As I have said from the start, I realize that I'm in the minority on this one. However, I offer the NBA example again. If NBA players all start taking some cough drop before games, do we ban it because it must be performance enhancing? If so, what are we really regulating here? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | IA. Maybe Sharapova will win her appeal. Have it abandoned or shortened. |
No, I don't think she gets an appeal on this. It was on the banned list, and she took it. I have no problem with that part. I understand that the doping agencies need to take a hard line when it comes to compliance. About the only time when you would cut someone a break is when you have a case like Duane Brown, who tested positive because of imported beef in Mexico.
My concern is with the bigger picture of what is going on here. Are we just banning stuff because jocks think it helps them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67741
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | IA. Maybe Sharapova will win her appeal. Have it abandoned or shortened. |
No, I don't think she gets an appeal on this. It was on the banned list, and she took it. I have no problem with that part. I understand that the doping agencies need to take a hard line when it comes to compliance. About the only time when you would cut someone a break is when you have a case like Duane Brown, who tested positive because of imported beef in Mexico.
My concern is with the bigger picture of what is going on here. Are we just banning stuff because jocks think it helps them? |
Are you saying she isn't in a position to qualify for an appeal or that she won't win one?
Sharapova to "immediately appeal" two-year doping suspension
LINK
I give her a outside shot at shorting the length of the suspension. She's already served six months. There's a possibility of getting a year knocked off leaving another six months to do.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Last edited by jodeke on Fri Jun 10, 2016 1:27 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hoopschick29
Franchise Player
Joined: 23 Jul 2004
Posts: 12898
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | Hoopschick --
No, that would not be circumstantial evidence, unless the state of mind of the athletes was relevant. But it isn't. Let's assume that every one of these Eastern European athletes believed that Meldonium was performance enhancing. That doesn't make it true.
In the real world, we see people taking stuff all the time even though it later turns out to have no effect. This is part of why we have the FDA: to find out whether drugs actually do something. We don't approve drugs because lots of people are taking them. Can you imagine the FDA saying, "We don't know whether this anti-cancer drug actually works, but lots of people in China take it, so that's circumstantial evidence."
Maybe that's enough for you in the specific context of PEDs. I understand your point about testing. As I have said from the start, I realize that I'm in the minority on this one. However, I offer the NBA example again. If NBA players all start taking some cough drop before games, do we ban it because it must be performance enhancing? If so, what are we really regulating here? |
Cough drops aren't showing up in a urine or blood test.
_________________
So glad we gave you your flowers while you were here, Kobe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hoopschick29 wrote: | | Cough drops aren't showing up in a urine or blood test. |
If you test for whatever is in them, it will show up. I mean, come on. The fact that something is detectable in a urine test does not make it a PED. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | Are you saying she isn't in a position to qualify for an appeal or that she won't win one? |
I'm saying that she doesn't have a valid appeal on this ground. It was on the banned list. I don't think that she gets to litigate whether it should have been banned in the first place. She can argue that the punishment is too harsh under the circumstances. I don't know what standard exists under the rules for judging that argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67741
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2016 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Are you saying she isn't in a position to qualify for an appeal or that she won't win one? |
I'm saying that she doesn't have a valid appeal on this ground. It was on the banned list. I don't think that she gets to litigate whether it should have been banned in the first place. She can argue that the punishment is too harsh under the circumstances. I don't know what standard exists under the rules for judging that argument. |
But she is appealing! | Quote: | | The tennis star said she would appeal what she called ''an unfairly harsh'' punishment to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. |
I wonder on what ground?
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DuncanIdaho
Franchise Player
Joined: 26 Apr 2004
Posts: 17251
Location: In a no-ship
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2016 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Andy Murray says Maria Sharapova had no ‘valid excuse’ for failing test
Andy Murray maintained his hardline stance on Maria Sharapova’s conviction for taking a banned substance – on the day she announced her appeal against the two-year ban handed down a week ago.
Speaking after he advanced to the second round at Queen’s with a two-set win over the Frenchman Nicolas Mahut, the world No2 said: “My thoughts haven’t changed really from March [when he condemned the Russian for failing a drug test at the Australian Open]. I spoke quite a lot about it then.
“I do feel like if you’re cheating and are caught, and you are gaining advantage on your opponents, then you have to be punished for that. It’s not what’s fair or not, in terms of time. That’s up to the governing bodies, the courts and stuff and the lawyers, to decide. But my view hasn’t changed since March at all.”
Nor would he accept it as a defence for athletes to claim they were ignorant of what drugs they were taking, banned or not.
“I don’t really see that as being a valid excuse. If you’re taking any medication, it’s your responsibility as the athlete to check and make sure what you’re taking is legal. There can be the odd case where, if you were given something by a doctor, he tells you, “Oh, this is, I don’t know, a vitamin’, and it’s not, then that’s different. But if you’re taking medication, there is absolutely no reason why you shouldn’t know whether it’s on the banned list or not.”
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/jun/14/andy-murray-maria-sharapova-excuse-appeal |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LakerLanny
Retired Number
Joined: 24 Oct 2001
Posts: 47589
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2016 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Vujacic gets the last laugh, he is still playing professionally.
_________________
Love, Laker Lanny |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67741
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2016 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LakerLanny wrote: | | Vujacic gets the last laugh, he is still playing professionally. |
Gotta love Phil Jackson. He's loyal to Lakers and ex Lakers.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
governator
Retired Number
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 25092
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2016 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Are you saying she isn't in a position to qualify for an appeal or that she won't win one? |
I'm saying that she doesn't have a valid appeal on this ground. It was on the banned list. I don't think that she gets to litigate whether it should have been banned in the first place. She can argue that the punishment is too harsh under the circumstances. I don't know what standard exists under the rules for judging that argument. |
It was on the banned list... hard to argue, no matter how fair or unfair it is. This is the same exact thing as NFL player suspended for marijuana use, not performance enhancing, actually performance reducing, but it's on the banned list |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67741
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2016 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| governator wrote: | | Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | Are you saying she isn't in a position to qualify for an appeal or that she won't win one? |
I'm saying that she doesn't have a valid appeal on this ground. It was on the banned list. I don't think that she gets to litigate whether it should have been banned in the first place. She can argue that the punishment is too harsh under the circumstances. I don't know what standard exists under the rules for judging that argument. |
It was on the banned list... hard to argue, no matter how fair or unfair it is. This is the same exact thing as NFL player suspended for marijuana use, not performance enhancing, actually performance reducing, but it's on the banned list |
I know it is which is why I wondered on what ground she's basing her appeal?
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 18, 2016 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| You can plead guilty to a crime, but still argue that the sentence was too harsh. I think that is what is happening here. Her suspension was already cut from four years to two years, apparently because the tribunal found that she was not intentionally violating the rule. She is arguing that it should be reduced further. Again, I have no idea what the standard is. Cases like this often turn on how other players have been punished in similar circumstances. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Basketball Fan
Franchise Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Posts: 24766
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
https://www.rt.com/sport/348459-maria-sharapova-harvard-business-school/
| Quote: | Maria Sharapova enrolls at Harvard
While tennis star Sharapova fights her two-year doping ban, she's decided to keep herself busy in the interim by enrolling in the Harvard Business School.
The ruling on the Sharapova case by CAS is expected by July 18, but the tennis player is not wasting time sitting on the sidelines.
For someone who has displayed great business acumen off the court throughout her career, it seems she's now going to have a degree to show for it.
Maria Sharapova ✔ @MariaSharapova
Not sure how this happened but Hey Harvard! Can't wait to start the program! 🎓📓
The International Tennis Federation (ITF) banned the 29-year-old Russian in June, after a positive test for the banned substance meldonium during January's Australian Open.
Sharapova held a press conference in March to present her side of the story, saying she had taken meldonium since 2006 as a preventive measure for health reasons.
Almost 200 athletes have tested positive for meldonium so far this year, after the drug was placed on the banned list by WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) in January.
The five-time grand slam champion's appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was filed earlier in June with the goal of either reducing or completely eliminating the ban.
One possible outcome is to have the ban reduced to by six months and backdate it to the day Sharapova tested positive, which would allow her to compete in the 2016 Olympics.
She has already been named in Russia's official entry list for the Olympic tennis tournament. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67741
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2016 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Did she get a get a tennis scholarship? 
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
