WADA leaks

[Digby]

TUE's also aren't power or performance data so I'm not sure what the objections would be.

Patient confidentiality, which isn't an unreasonable point, then again transparency isn't either.

[Mellsblue]

Interesting and informative article in today's The Times.

Main points are a lot of elite athletes only suffer from (sport induced) asthma once they start elite level training regimes. Hence the higher proportion when compared to mere mortals.

Wiggins' TUE is highly controversial and does have large, short lead time upsides on performance.

Millar has put his hypocritical oar in, as usual.

Sam Quek is a solid 9/10. Sadly, her photo didn't copy and paste.



TIMES SPORT INVESTIGATES
Why top athletes really do suffer more from asthma

Martyn Ziegler, Chief Sports Reporter
September 24 2016, 12:01am, The Times


What connects David Beckham, Paula Radcliffe, Laura Trott and Sir Bradley Wiggins? The answer: they are all top British sports people who suffer from asthma, the breathing condition that has been thrust into the limelight by the hacking of Olympic athletes’ medical records.

Wiggins and Trott are among the 66 Olympians who have had details of their medical treatments leaked, and these showed most of those athletes named had been treated for asthma.

Intensive exercise and training in the cold or in a pool can trigger an asthmatic response
Once the shock at how easily the World Anti-Doping Agency’s database had been hacked had receded, for many — and especially those whose view of elite sport has been jaded by successive waves of doping scandals — the dominant reaction was one of heightened suspicion about the prevalence of the condition among many of the world’s top athletes.

File after file posted on the website of the Fancy Bears, the Russian hackers who targeted Wada, showed athletes being prescribed medications for asthma, from routine inhalers through to powerful corticosteroid injections.

Of the 17 British athletes who had their therapeutic use exemptions (TUEs) for medical treatments revealed by the hackers, 14 of those were for asthma, including cyclists Wiggins, Trott and Chris Froome, and the boxer Nicola Adams. Mo Farah, whose TUEs were for other health issues, has previously disclosed that he suffers from the condition.


“Sport seems to have asthma and allergy issues . . .” posted Simon Chadwick, professor of sports enterprise at the University of Salford, on Twitter in a response that summed up the prevailing reaction on social media.

The bare facts are that 10 per cent of the general population in Britain suffer from asthma while a study of British Olympic athletes found that the figure rose to 21 per cent. Among certain sports, the figure rose again: more than 50 per cent of elite swimmers, 40 per cent of cyclists, 30 per cent of rowers and a quarter of footballers.

Given those figures, the cynically inclined might be forgiven for believing that an asthma diagnosis is merely a convenient mechanism to obtain a doctor’s prescription for a performance-enhancing drug that will clear the airways and allow athletes to take on board more oxygen.

The truth, inevitably, is much more complex than that. Dr John Dickinson, from the University of Kent, is one of the leading authorities on asthma in elite sport, and his research has indicated that in certain sports the intensive exercise can actually trigger an asthmatic response. The condition even has a name: exercise-induced asthma.

“We know that athletes have a higher prevalence of asthma than the general population,” Dickinson said. “We believe the reason for this is that during strenuous exercise large amounts of air are taken in through the mouth instead of the nose — and normally the nose filters the air, removes little particulates and warms it

“By bypassing the nose you have a massive volume of cold, unfiltered air, which triggers an inflammatory response and muscle restriction in the lower airways, and that is what exercise-induced asthma is.” Cross-country skiers and swimmers are particularly prone to it because the training conditions for the sport also contribute to the prevalence of asthma — if training takes place in the cold outdoors during the winter, or in a swimming pool, then the athlete is more likely to develop the problem, even if they have never suffered from breathing difficulties beforehand.

Sam Quek, the Great Britain Olympic hockey player who was among those who had her details leaked by the Russian hackers, was in exactly that position: only when she started high-intensity training in her late teens did she encounter the problem.

“I had the test for exercise-induced asthma in 2008 and it was found out that’s what I had,” she told The Times. “I didn’t know if I was struggling for breath during exercise simply because I was out of breath or for another reason which is why testing is so important. The test was organised through the governing body’s doctors and is pretty rigorous.

“I used an inhaler for a couple of years but have not needed it since then.”

Another British female Olympic medallist, who has asked to remain anonymous, suffered from asthma as a child but thought she had grown out of it until she was identified as a potential elite athlete and began strenuous training.

“I was about 16 then and I soon became famous for my breathing being so noisy — my wheezing was a running joke,” she said. “I had to go through a testing procedure — it was by no means an easy process, it was quite rigorous, testing my breathing and oxygen intake at different times while doing different levels of exercise, and it all had to be approved by doctors.

“When I was given the inhalers it made a huge difference to me, but it was not an overnight change and over the years I have become better at knowing when to take the inhaler.

“If I didn’t do elite sport I doubt I would even be aware of the asthma, but I hope the general public has the intelligence to realise that it is a non-story and this is the Russians trying to make headlines out of nothing.”

The use of salbutamol and salmeterol in inhalers was removed from Wada’s banned list in 2010, so any athlete needing to use them no longer has to obtain a TUE. So, for the likes of Trott and Quek, for the hackers to have revealed their use of those inhalers back in 2008 should cast no shadow on their reputations.

But what about less scrupulous sportsmen and women? Could they report the symptoms of exercise- induced asthma in order to get an inhaler and boost their oxygen intake? Dickinson says not: if you do not suffer from asthma, then there is no advantage in taking the drug.

“Salbutamol does not give you super lungs,” he said. “If you do not have asthma there is no advantage to taking it.”

The only performance-enhancing benefits for non-asthmatics, according to Dickinson, would be for sprinters — but they would have to inhale huge amounts of it from two different inhalers immediately before a race.

“You would need around 24 puffs seconds before a race and the effect wears off within a minute,” he added. “There are better and easier ways to cheat in sprinting if that’s what you want to do.”

When it comes to athletes pushing the boundaries of what is legal in sport, asthma looks increasingly like a red herring and more attention should be focused on applications for treatments for other medical conditions.

Wiggins’ three TUEs for pollen allergy were approved in the week before three of the biggest races of his life, the 2011 and 2012 Tours de France and the 2013 Giro d’Italia. In Wiggins’ case he was given injections of triamcinolone, a powerful corticosteroid, as a preventative measure.

What Wiggins and Team Sky did was entirely within the rules, but it has led to questions about whether it strays close to the grey area of that blurred boundary between what is medically necessary and what is performance-enhancing.

David Millar, the former professional cyclist who admitted to using performance-enhancing drugs before becoming an anti-doping campaigner has called for the use of Kenacort — a trade name for triamcinolone — to be banned completely because it can massively aid weight loss just before a race without affecting the power output.

He said: “If you are non-asthmatic and you take Ventolin it’s not going to give you any advantage. But if you take Kenacort it’s not only going to make a sick person better, it’s going to make a sick person better than a healthy person. That’s a very grey area.

“If it’s that strong we shouldn’t be allowed to take it unless there is a serious issue. And if we’re suffering from that serious an issue, we shouldn’t be racing. I can’t fathom how a doctor could prescribe it [before a race].”

Dick Pound, the former president of Wada, is another who believes that the applications for some exemptions could do with tightening up.

“I think one of the areas for tightening up is that a lot of these treatments should not be injectable,” he told The Times. “If it is just taken by inhaler it is much less likely to enhance performance.”

The hackers have no doubt achieved their aim, which was to imply that athletes in the West are given favourable treatment compared to those in Russia by being allowed to take prohibited drugs for medical reasons.

In reality, trying to drum up suspicion about those athletes with asthma is misleading. Sport has plenty of genuine problems with doping, and secondary issues with athletes, coaches and doctors pushing the boundaries with what is legal.

But as far as athletes and asthma inhalers are concerned, we can probably all breathe easy.

Prescription of banned steroid to wiggins ‘doesn’t look right’, says his former doctor

Sir Bradley Wiggins’s former team doctor has questioned the decision to allow the cyclist to use a banned steroid days before major races.

Prentice Steffen admitted he was “surprised” that Wiggins was prescribed triamcinolone, a powerful corticosteroid, in an attempt to counter a pollen allergy. Wiggins was granted the therapeutic use exemptions (TUEs) before the 2011 and 2012 Tours de France and the 2013 Giro d’Italia. There is no suggestion he or Team Sky have broken any rules.

Steffen was team doctor at Wiggins’s former team, Garmin Slipstream, in 2009, when Wiggins’s only TUEs were for standard asthma inhalers.

He told BBC Newsnight: “I was surprised to see there were TUEs documented
for intramuscular triamcinolone just before three major events.

“You do have to think it is kind of coincidental that a big dose of intramuscular long-acting corticosteroids would be needed at that . . . exact time before the most important race of the season.

“I would say, certainly now in retrospect, it doesn’t look good, it doesn’t look right from a health or sporting perspective.”

[Eugene Wrayburn]

I remain to be convinced that "exercise induced asthma" is a thing.

I'm in favour of limited disclosure of TUEs. It's important to remember that anti-doping doesn't just cover showpiece events. The easiest way is probably to say that the top 10 in every event will have their year's TUEs revealed. It doesn't infringe against patient confidentiality - if you don't want to have your medical history revealed then don't become a professional athlete.

[switchskier]

I remain to be convinced that "exercise induced asthma" is a thing.

I'm in favour of limited disclosure of TUEs. It's important to remember that anti-doping doesn't just cover showpiece events. The easiest way is probably to say that the top 10 in every event will have their year's TUEs revealed. It doesn't infringe against patient confidentiality - if you don't want to have your medical history revealed then don't become a professional athlete.

In the case of cycling you could just make it world tour events. That way it's not necessary for small events like the tour of Britain but could be done three weeks before the classics, grand tours etc. Patient confidentiality is a major issue that I hadn't considered but it ought to be possible to give athletes the option to opt out but make the default be that the information is published. That way you have to actively choose to have it removed.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

I remain to be convinced that "exercise induced asthma" is a thing.

I'm in favour of limited disclosure of TUEs. It's important to remember that anti-doping doesn't just cover showpiece events. The easiest way is probably to say that the top 10 in every event will have their year's TUEs revealed. It doesn't infringe against patient confidentiality - if you don't want to have your medical history revealed then don't become a professional athlete.

In the case of cycling you could just make it world tour events. That way it's not necessary for small events like the tour of Britain but could be done three weeks before the classics, grand tours etc. Patient confidentiality is a major issue that I hadn't considered but it ought to be possible to give athletes the option to opt out but make the default be that the information is published. That way you have to actively choose to have it removed.

I see no difficulty with the idea that if you want an exception from the standard doping rules that you have to be prepared to declare that publicly. If you are prepared to waive patient confidentiality sufficiently to disclose to Wada why not the public?

[Digby]

I remain to be convinced that "exercise induced asthma" is a thing.

I'm in favour of limited disclosure of TUEs. It's important to remember that anti-doping doesn't just cover showpiece events. The easiest way is probably to say that the top 10 in every event will have their year's TUEs revealed. It doesn't infringe against patient confidentiality - if you don't want to have your medical history revealed then don't become a professional athlete.

I'm not sure it's reasonable to say people should just give up their privacy, whether here in sports, or elsewhere in say politics with increasing demands and expectations to do such as release tax returns. I can see why they're wanted, I can see why they're viewed as positives, but I'm not comfortable with demands to just give up privacy.

Maybe with limited disclosure I wouldn't find the process too revealing, maybe.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

I remain to be convinced that "exercise induced asthma" is a thing.

I'm in favour of limited disclosure of TUEs. It's important to remember that anti-doping doesn't just cover showpiece events. The easiest way is probably to say that the top 10 in every event will have their year's TUEs revealed. It doesn't infringe against patient confidentiality - if you don't want to have your medical history revealed then don't become a professional athlete.

I'm not sure it's reasonable to say people should just give up their privacy, whether here in sports, or elsewhere in say politics with increasing demands and expectations to do such as release tax returns. I can see why they're wanted, I can see why they're viewed as positives, but I'm not comfortable with demands to just give up privacy.

Maybe with limited disclosure I wouldn't find the process too revealing, maybe.

To rephrase my last sentence as I implicitly did in the later post: if you want an exception from the list of banned substances than you accept that you will also be an exception to the principle that all the details of your health are between you and your doctor.

[Digby]

I remain to be convinced that "exercise induced asthma" is a thing.

I'm in favour of limited disclosure of TUEs. It's important to remember that anti-doping doesn't just cover showpiece events. The easiest way is probably to say that the top 10 in every event will have their year's TUEs revealed. It doesn't infringe against patient confidentiality - if you don't want to have your medical history revealed then don't become a professional athlete.

I'm not sure it's reasonable to say people should just give up their privacy, whether here in sports, or elsewhere in say politics with increasing demands and expectations to do such as release tax returns. I can see why they're wanted, I can see why they're viewed as positives, but I'm not comfortable with demands to just give up privacy.

Maybe with limited disclosure I wouldn't find the process too revealing, maybe.

To rephrase my last sentence as I implicitly did in the later post: if you want an exception from the list of banned substances than you accept that you will also be an exception to the principle that all the details of your health are between you and your doctor.

Maybe. I'm not convinced, either that it's needed or that driving the thin end of a wedge into privacy takes us in a positive direction as a society.

[Lizard]

It might ok if you're just confessing to having a touch of asthma from time to time, but it might a bit intrusive if you're a married Olympian who picked up a dose of the Rio clap.


Sent from my genius using brilliance

[Eugene Wrayburn]

It might ok if you're just confessing to having a touch of asthma from time to time, but it might a bit intrusive if you're a married Olympian who picked up a dose of the Rio clap.


Sent from my genius using brilliance

Then don't claim the exemption. Besides whilst I understand the point you make, the embarrassing illnesses will tend to be treated by non list items such as antibiotics.

[Sandydragon]

I am no more concerned about Farah than a week ago. Do I think he is clean? Yes until proven otherwise the same with most other athletes. But that doesn't mean when Salazar and Rupp are being looked at suspiciously and between 2010 and 2011 Farah took 40s off his 10k pb that I can blame people for looking at him with an element of suspicion.

Personally I believe he is clean, I actually believe he is easily one of Britain's greatest track athletes but admittedly has undoubtedly benefitted from competing in the current era which isn't his fault and a discussion for another day.

I'm in the same boat. I don't think Farah is a doper, but I have that background cynicism regarding athletics (and cycling) that has been reinforced by far too many scandals over the years. The optimistic side of me is pleased that rugby doesn't have the same problem (at least in degree of severity, I know there are cases of individual dopers within the game) - perhaps its the nature of the sports involved? Don't know.

I also wonder if the number of drugs on the prohibited list and the exceptions are too complicated. Admittedly professional athletes and their medical staff should be well aware of what they can and cant take in the normal course of events or for specific medical problems. But given that with almost every revelation there is some comment that the drug is for medical purposes and was prescribed by a doctor, I do wonder if the rules are too detailed.

Rugby, and particularly welsh rugby i think, is the biggest offender in UKADA I believe.

Which performance enhancing drugs would you want to leave off the list?

DO I say that rugby was totally clean? IS any pro sport totally clean? Do you come across widespread use of drugs in sports like rugby that is even remotely comparable in scale to that which you find in other sports? How many rugby players get sent home from the RWC for drugs misuse? How many Olypians (and yes I am fully aware that there are more Olympians). Some sports have a bigger problem with this issue than others. The question is why? Is it easier for many athletes who perhaps operate in a less team focused environment to use performance enhancing drugs? Is it something that a team sport would pick up on quicker?

It also worth remembering that each sport decides at what level drug testing will be enacted. For rugby, and football, the level includes a lot of the grassroots, so the population bas for testing is far higher than in athletics, leading to the Telegraph article a few years ago which highlighted rugby and football at the top of the list. It would be more useful to focus on the elite/ pro level results as they provide some degree of comparability.

Many of the reports into Welsh rugby focus on the grass roots level where there are significant issues.

[Sandydragon]

Losing weight and thus losing power on the flats would of course be offset in that there's less of you to force through the air, and the rider is the worst aerodynamic feature on the bike.

I know the square root of feck all about any of this.

However ([emoji57] ) in the olympics that dutch girl won gold despite carrying a shit load of extra timber which clearly didn't affect her aerodynamicity. I know that's track cycling etc but it was obvious that, when you're bent over the handle bars, having extra weight around your middle doesn't affect how you get thru the air to that big of an extent.

Aerodynamicity.

She was 7 months pregnant!

As you mentioned that was track cycling and it was also a sprint. Whilst she doesn't have the typical upper body mass of a sprinter, she is incredibly powerful. Her somewhat lack of aerodynamics compared to her rivals is off-set by her power. She also comes from an elite BMX background and the best BMX cyclists can put out some amazing power.

A colleague of mine was seriously into cycling and he made that comment that in the velodrome there is a reasonable trade off between greater power and mass or being lighter. Over long distance, having to move less bulk becomes important.

I think the same can be seen in other sports. Many sprinters are carrying large amounts of muscle that just isn't present in long distance runners.

[Sandydragon]

Why does WADA need to publish its exemptions to certain sportsmen? Are we suggesting that there is a lack of trust in WADA to do its job properly and impartially? Is the average layman able to make a decision on whether a medical condition is sufficiently adverse to allow an otherwise prescribed drug to be taken? I think Liz has hit the nail on the head, whilst asthma is not embarrassing, other ailments might be which have no business being in the public domain. Only if evidence of cheating is found and proven should sportsmen be named and shamed.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

I'm in the same boat. I don't think Farah is a doper, but I have that background cynicism regarding athletics (and cycling) that has been reinforced by far too many scandals over the years. The optimistic side of me is pleased that rugby doesn't have the same problem (at least in degree of severity, I know there are cases of individual dopers within the game) - perhaps its the nature of the sports involved? Don't know.

I also wonder if the number of drugs on the prohibited list and the exceptions are too complicated. Admittedly professional athletes and their medical staff should be well aware of what they can and cant take in the normal course of events or for specific medical problems. But given that with almost every revelation there is some comment that the drug is for medical purposes and was prescribed by a doctor, I do wonder if the rules are too detailed.

Rugby, and particularly welsh rugby i think, is the biggest offender in UKADA I believe.

Which performance enhancing drugs would you want to leave off the list?

DO I say that rugby was totally clean? IS any pro sport totally clean? Do you come across widespread use of drugs in sports like rugby that is even remotely comparable in scale to that which you find in other sports? How many rugby players get sent home from the RWC for drugs misuse? How many Olypians (and yes I am fully aware that there are more Olympians). Some sports have a bigger problem with this issue than others. The question is why? Is it easier for many athletes who perhaps operate in a less team focused environment to use performance enhancing drugs? Is it something that a team sport would pick up on quicker?

It also worth remembering that each sport decides at what level drug testing will be enacted. For rugby, and football, the level includes a lot of the grassroots, so the population bas for testing is far higher than in athletics, leading to the Telegraph article a few years ago which highlighted rugby and football at the top of the list. It would be more useful to focus on the elite/ pro level results as they provide some degree of comparability.

Many of the reports into Welsh rugby focus on the grass roots level where there are significant issues.

You suggested, and suggest again, that athletics has a particular problem. It doesn't, at least compared to rugby, at least in this country. Athletics has a very highly developed set of procedures designed to catch drugs cheats. I'd put large sums of money on rugby being nowhere near the level of organistion or expenditure devoted to catching cheats, yet still more rugby cheats are found than athletes.

[Lizard]

How far down does athletics test? I assume that rugby in, say, Wales tests down into the amateur ranks, but I'd be fairly certain that athletics isn't testing charity fun runners. Are there any published stats about total participants tested as well as the number of positive results?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Eugene Wrayburn]

How far down does athletics test? I assume that rugby in, say, Wales tests down into the amateur ranks, but I'd be fairly certain that athletics isn't testing charity fun runners. Are there any published stats about total participants tested as well as the number of positive results?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Back in the 90s when athletics was still amateur they were testing down to schools level in Ireland. The equivalent of a fun run would be touch rugby games on the common, not league rugby in south wales. I'd be pretty confident that athletics tests down to the same amateur club level that has such a problem in rugby in britain.

[Sandydragon]

Rugby, and particularly welsh rugby i think, is the biggest offender in UKADA I believe.

Which performance enhancing drugs would you want to leave off the list?

DO I say that rugby was totally clean? IS any pro sport totally clean? Do you come across widespread use of drugs in sports like rugby that is even remotely comparable in scale to that which you find in other sports? How many rugby players get sent home from the RWC for drugs misuse? How many Olypians (and yes I am fully aware that there are more Olympians). Some sports have a bigger problem with this issue than others. The question is why? Is it easier for many athletes who perhaps operate in a less team focused environment to use performance enhancing drugs? Is it something that a team sport would pick up on quicker?

It also worth remembering that each sport decides at what level drug testing will be enacted. For rugby, and football, the level includes a lot of the grassroots, so the population bas for testing is far higher than in athletics, leading to the Telegraph article a few years ago which highlighted rugby and football at the top of the list. It would be more useful to focus on the elite/ pro level results as they provide some degree of comparability.

Many of the reports into Welsh rugby focus on the grass roots level where there are significant issues.

You suggested, and suggest again, that athletics has a particular problem. It doesn't, at least compared to rugby, at least in this country. Athletics has a very highly developed set of procedures designed to catch drugs cheats. I'd put large sums of money on rugby being nowhere near the level of organistion or expenditure devoted to catching cheats, yet still more rugby cheats are found than athletes.

I wasn't aware that we were just talking about the UK in this. For many people, their experience of sport is at the international level, so their view of drug abuse is that presented by events like the Olympics or world championships. I consider Uk athletes pretty clean compared to many other nationalities. According to UKADA, the number of rugby players banned is higher than athletics, but many of those players are below the pro level and are probably trying to emulate the supplement use of their pro players without being fully aware of what crap they are taking. Which isn't a excuse, if someone is stupid enough to buy white powder on line and mix it into a drink, or inject it, without knowing what they have bought then the deserve a ban. But I would suggest that expert advice on what is legit to take isn't present at the amateur and semi-pro levels. I would suggest that much of the failed tests have been a result of stupidity, rather than deliberate intention to cheat, at least thats the impression I get from the UKADA website and the length of bans and type of substances used. And what happens below the elite level will get less coverage than professional athletes on the international stage.

Internationally at elite level, I don't regard athletics being cleaner. I doubt that there are any differences in periodicity of testing between the sports at that level (whilst UKADA tests all sports played competitively I doubt the lower levels get that much coverage), but maintaining a system of covering uo drug abuse as Armstrong did in cycling would take a huge effort across a 40 man rugby squad.

You asked me earlier what changes I would make to supplement use. Personally, Id like to see them all banned. No sportsman is allowed to take any supplement. Completely remove the argument of confusion from the system. Only if an independent doctor is satisfied that a steroid is required for a genuine medical reason should it be administered. AS a bonus, not only would it reduce confusion, it might lead to rugby players becoming less enormous due to time spent in the gym and perhaps they might look at some actual rugby skills as opposed to the ability to lift weights.

[Sandydragon]

How far down does athletics test? I assume that rugby in, say, Wales tests down into the amateur ranks, but I'd be fairly certain that athletics isn't testing charity fun runners. Are there any published stats about total participants tested as well as the number of positive results?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Back in the 90s when athletics was still amateur they were testing down to schools level in Ireland. The equivalent of a fun run would be touch rugby games on the common, not league rugby in south wales. I'd be pretty confident that athletics tests down to the same amateur club level that has such a problem in rugby in britain.

UKADA test all competitive matches across both sports. An athletics event that had a competitive element as well as a fun element could be tested, the elite athletes at the London Marathon are, but none of the amateur fun runners are. A club match in rugby could be tested. Whether UKADA would turn up to a such a low level event is another matter.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

DO I say that rugby was totally clean? IS any pro sport totally clean? Do you come across widespread use of drugs in sports like rugby that is even remotely comparable in scale to that which you find in other sports? How many rugby players get sent home from the RWC for drugs misuse? How many Olypians (and yes I am fully aware that there are more Olympians). Some sports have a bigger problem with this issue than others. The question is why? Is it easier for many athletes who perhaps operate in a less team focused environment to use performance enhancing drugs? Is it something that a team sport would pick up on quicker?

It also worth remembering that each sport decides at what level drug testing will be enacted. For rugby, and football, the level includes a lot of the grassroots, so the population bas for testing is far higher than in athletics, leading to the Telegraph article a few years ago which highlighted rugby and football at the top of the list. It would be more useful to focus on the elite/ pro level results as they provide some degree of comparability.

Many of the reports into Welsh rugby focus on the grass roots level where there are significant issues.

You suggested, and suggest again, that athletics has a particular problem. It doesn't, at least compared to rugby, at least in this country. Athletics has a very highly developed set of procedures designed to catch drugs cheats. I'd put large sums of money on rugby being nowhere near the level of organistion or expenditure devoted to catching cheats, yet still more rugby cheats are found than athletes.

I wasn't aware that we were just talking about the UK in this. For many people, their experience of sport is at the international level, so their view of drug abuse is that presented by events like the Olympics or world championships. I consider Uk athletes pretty clean compared to many other nationalities. According to UKADA, the number of rugby players banned is higher than athletics, but many of those players are below the pro level and are probably trying to emulate the supplement use of their pro players without being fully aware of what crap they are taking. Which isn't a excuse, if someone is stupid enough to buy white powder on line and mix it into a drink, or inject it, without knowing what they have bought then the deserve a ban. But I would suggest that expert advice on what is legit to take isn't present at the amateur and semi-pro levels. I would suggest that much of the failed tests have been a result of stupidity, rather than deliberate intention to cheat, at least thats the impression I get from the UKADA website and the length of bans and type of substances used. And what happens below the elite level will get less coverage than professional athletes on the international stage.

Internationally at elite level, I don't regard athletics being cleaner. I doubt that there are any differences in periodicity of testing between the sports at that level (whilst UKADA tests all sports played competitively I doubt the lower levels get that much coverage), but maintaining a system of covering uo drug abuse as Armstrong did in cycling would take a huge effort across a 40 man rugby squad.

You asked me earlier what changes I would make to supplement use. Personally, Id like to see them all banned. No sportsman is allowed to take any supplement. Completely remove the argument of confusion from the system. Only if an independent doctor is satisfied that a steroid is required for a genuine medical reason should it be administered. AS a bonus, not only would it reduce confusion, it might lead to rugby players becoming less enormous due to time spent in the gym and perhaps they might look at some actual rugby skills as opposed to the ability to lift weights.

Define a "supplement".

I suggest you have a look at the TUE rules. You'll find them in this article.


Sir Bradley Wiggins: No unfair advantage from drug - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37462540

[Big D]

How far down does athletics test? I assume that rugby in, say, Wales tests down into the amateur ranks, but I'd be fairly certain that athletics isn't testing charity fun runners. Are there any published stats about total participants tested as well as the number of positive results?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Liz, can't speak for Wales but in Scotland they test at age grade international level (I think), and whilst I can't speak from 1st hand knowledge of the top amateur ranks (likes of Melrose etc) at a lower level they "target test" based on intelligence.

[Lizard]

So the first NZ athletes' details have been leaked. Mahe Drysdale (rowing) has had a couple of TUE's for suppository use to treat haemorrhoids, Peter Burling (yachting) had one for a pain relief drug during a wisdom tooth extraction and Al Brownlee (triathlon) used diamox to treat altitude sickness after climbing Kilimanjaro.

I heard Drysdale interviewed on the radio and interestingly he advocated for TUEs to be public. His view was that if an athlete had sought one for a genuine purpose then they should have no problem standing by it and explaining the reasons. He said that transparency would help prevent any abuse of the system.

I also learned that although Mahe's suppositories are on the banned list, the same active ingredient applied as a cream is not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Digby]

Piles of new info there

[Lizard]

Yeah, I thought I would just chuck that news into the ring.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sandydragon]

Make of this what you will, its totally unconfirmed by any official source.

http://www.scmagazineuk.com/who-calls-t ... MjE5ODI2S0

[Lizard]

WADA should call their bluff and just make TUEs publicly available. This might be difficult to do retrospectively in terms of gaining consent from the athletes but it would completely undermine the hackers. After all, all they are doing is publicising legitimate uses of substances allowed under the rules.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk