A three-member arbitration panel ruled last December the testing of her sample, given at a meet in Belgium, was not done in accordance with WADA rules that require tests be run by two different technicians.
That broke USADA’s perfect record in front of arbitration panels, which was 35-0 according to the best available statistics.
To the question of Jenkins’ appearing to have won on a technicality, Valparaiso Sports Law Clinic director Michael Straubel had said, “[The arbitrators] set aside the test results because they were not based on reliable lab results.”
WADA refuses to worry about trivial genetic factors. WADA is loath to do longitudinal tests of athletes. WADA might find a variable that might refute their laboratory findings or challenge their presumption of laboratory perfection. WADA would never invest time and money doing pedigree studies to determine if a single metabolite above threshold for exogenous testosterone is a trait common in a family, or among a group of people found in a geographical region. But idiosyncratic individual differences in medicine have been documented in many pedigree studies. For example, hematocrit levels above 50% have been found in fathers and sons of elite cyclists. These hematocirt levels are inherited tendencies, not based on EPO doping. The same is true for testosterone/epitestosterone ratio(s) and may be true for Carbon Isotope metabolite delta/delta scores.
According to the New York Times, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has purchased thousands of doping kits that will be used to screen blood for exogenous human growth hormone (HGH). The top-secret HGH test has been available for some time but WADA only recently found a secret European-based manufacturer capable of producing significant quantities of the blood screening kits (”Agency will increase blood tests for HGH,” April 2).
WADA says the out of competition testing for HGH will begin within weeks The test will be used at the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Additionally, a WADA spokesperson says the the HGH screening kits will be used to analyze previously frozen blood samples from athletes.
Slated for publication in September under the Skyhorse imprint, the book’s working title is “BALCO: The Straight Dope on Barry Bonds, Marion Jones and What We Can Do To Save Sports.” Conte, in conjunction with co-author Nathan Jendrick, promises to share “the dirt, the drugs, the doses, the names, dates and places, and a ‘prescription’ for a brighter future.”
He promises the “complete truth in its honest, unadulterated and raw form” and says he is “ready to tell the world everything.”
The scientific and anti-doping community continue to struggle with the development a test for exogenous growth hormone in athletes. They haven’t even been able to produce scientific evidence that growth hormone enhances athletic performance in spite of anecdotal evidence [from athletes and strength coaches] that this is the case.
But science continues to do a good job at finding weakness in the doping controls currently in place. Tip of the hat to Trust But Verify for alerting us of a new study which, among other things, tells us exactly how much exogenous testosterone some athletes can use and still pass the drug test.
Landis, 32, has spent millions of dollars on a defense that tried to cast doubt on the scientific validity of doping tests and the procedures followed at antidoping labs. But last September, in a 2-to-1 ruling, a United States Anti-Doping Agency arbitration panel concluded that Landis had used synthetic testosterone to achieve his comeback win at the 2006 Tour. As a result, he was barred from racing until January 2009….
In its 84-page ruling last year, the United States Anti-Doping Agency panel accepted Landis’s argument that the French antidoping lab that tested his urine samples from the Tour was sloppy in some of its operating procedures, and in how it documented its work. But the panel also found that a more sophisticated second test, conducted after the initial screening proved positive, was accurate.
An article on the Psychology Today blog by Steven Kotler asked the question, “what makes a drug performance-enhancing?” It cites the WADA rules for banning performance enhancing drugs.
According to the World Anti-Doping Code, three substance categories govern the chemistry of cheating—1) It has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance 2) It represents a potential or actual health risk 3) It is contrary to the spirit of sport—with a score of two-out-of-three being enough to earn a drug a place on the dreaded Prohibited List.
Russia has funded the new Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RusADA) with new equipment and $5 million. RusADA is an independent agency created to test athletes for anabolic steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs. Representatives from RusADA are visiting the United States to learn more about the U.S. doping control program - United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) - and strengthen relationships with their U.S. counterparts. Read the rest of this entry »
Several observers, including myself, have wondered why surgical procedures such as LASIK laser eye surgery or ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction (better known as Tommy Johns surgery) are not considered cheating. After all, they could arguably offer a greater advantage than anabolic steroids. If steroids are considered cheating, why aren’t these surgical procedures?
The answer is quite simple. It is not against the rules. The World Anti-Doping Association (WADA) has no prohibitions whatsoever on performance enhancement surgeries. They are all permitted. Read the rest of this entry »
