PDA

View Full Version : Masters Swimming and Illegal Supplements



TheGoodSmith
October 7th, 2005, 05:41 PM
Do you think that there are any participants in Masters Swimming that use illegal supplements?


John Smith

Ion Beza
October 7th, 2005, 06:36 PM
Good question.

By illegal supplements I mean products on the F.I.N.A.'s banned list.

(Masters swimming doesn't have a banned list, so in Masters swimming every product is legal)

I believe there are.

I take the legal Platinum Performance -that was advertised in the Swim Magazine and is endorsed by swimmers Gary Hall Jr., Anthony Ervin, Ed Moses, and by coach Mike Bottom- but beyond the legal, into the sphere of steroids and EPO, I believe that there are users of illegal supplements.

I saw swims that to me are incomprehensible naturally.

hmlee
October 7th, 2005, 06:53 PM
Cheating is a morals thing. I think in every sport there are people who are willing to justify it in some way....I'd be shocked if masters swimming was an exception.

Edited to clear confusion.

Bob McAdams
October 7th, 2005, 07:27 PM
"Illegal supplements" is a strange choice of words. In general, supplements are not illegal. Drugs may be illegal if (1) they are prescription drugs that have been obtained without a prescription, or (2) they are drugs that have not been approved by the FDA for use even with a prescription. Since there are plenty of non-swimmers who use drugs that fall in the second category, I'd be surprised if masters swimming had no users of such drugs.


Bob

Sam Perry
October 7th, 2005, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by hmlee
Cheating is a moral thing.

Again, I think I have heard it all, and I see this. By far one of the most OUTRAGEOUS statements I have read on here. You can't be serious, please tell me this statement was a joke.

Peter Cruise
October 7th, 2005, 08:20 PM
Sam, Sam, Sam... I took it as cheating being a choice of morality; I don't think she meant it was the moral thing (but I could be wrong)...

jim clemmons
October 7th, 2005, 08:22 PM
please tell me this statement was a joke

I think it is just the manner in which it is phrased that's confusing. Something like "cheating is defined by what you consider wrong versus right".

Hopefully.



There are probably some younger swimmers that indulge but younger is a relative term. Anyone think of where it might tail off? Mid-thirties? Later? Forties?

hmlee
October 7th, 2005, 08:55 PM
Jim and Pete are correct. I meant it to come out as choosing to cheat is something that is inherantly a decision concerning morals/values/right v wrong etc. No matter the justification for it.

dorothyrde
October 7th, 2005, 10:08 PM
My question is, what would a Masters swimmer hope to gain from illegal performance enhancing drugs. Masters does not have the same exposure as the Olympic athletes have, so to me it seems that the reason to do that would be less. Of course, I could just be very naive......

Bob McAdams
October 7th, 2005, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by dorothyrde
My question is, what would a Masters swimmer hope to gain from illegal performance enhancing drugs. Masters does not have the same exposure as the Olympic athletes have, so to me it seems that the reason to do that would be less. Of course, I could just be very naive......

It is hard to see why masters swimmers would want to use illegal drugs to enhance their performance. You're not likely to become rich or famous or to get a college scholarship by winning masters meets.

But the question did not specify performance enhancing substances. There are illegal substances that non-athletes use for reasons unrelated to performance, and I think it is likely that there are some masters swimmers who do the same thing.


Bob

Sam Perry
October 7th, 2005, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by dorothyrde
My question is, what would a Masters swimmer hope to gain from illegal performance enhancing drugs. Masters does not have the same exposure as the Olympic athletes have, so to me it seems that the reason to do that would be less. Of course, I could just be very naive......

I believe many people use substances to enhance performance, the question is why? I have two theories:

1. Ego - people may not get rich and famous, but they get featured many times in our own publications for amazing accomplishments and feats and that can become intoxicating on the ego.

2. Competitiveness - face it, we are a very competitive group. If someone thinks they can win by doing something illegal, I believe they will do it for the sake of winning.

I hate to sound so cynical, but I see so much of cheating in all walks of life for many of these reasons. If there is no testing, and someone knows they can get away with it then why not? There just exists some people who only think it's cheating if you get caught.

Sam Perry
October 7th, 2005, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by jim clemmons
I "cheating is defined by what you consider wrong versus right".

Hopefully.




Again, cheating is doing something illegal. Just because "YOU" (emphasis added) might think something is "morally right", doesn't make it less illegal. I sound like such the moral police here, I just don't understand statements that try to justify doing something illegal just because an individual doesn't think it is wrong. Maybe Michelle Smith, the Chinese women, or the East Germans didn't think doping was morally wrong. Does that make it any less cheating?

Phil Arcuni
October 8th, 2005, 01:47 AM
No Sam, there are many things that are legal that are also cheating.

Just because FINA defines something as a performance enhancing drug that is against the rules does not make it illegal, but it is still cheating. Illegality is defined by local laws, not by international bodies.

Masters swimming does not even make it against the rules, but it is still cheating.

It is an odd bias that thinks that only the younger swimmers could perhaps take performance enhancing drugs. It is the generation 10 years older than me (46) that made a public statement for the consumption of illegal drugs (not that they were by any means the first generation to take them.)

But, Sam is right in that a cheater does not need money or fame to cheat. Just being recognized as a great swimmer by USMS swimmers is enough, or seeing your name in a list of the best age group swimmers in the country. And it is not very hard to justify by the people who are going to cheat. "Everybody does it," or "the best swimmers do it," is enough.

Bob McAdams
October 8th, 2005, 01:52 AM
Originally posted by Sam Perry
Again, cheating is doing something illegal.

Cheating is doing something that's against the rules. Very few rule violations are actually illegal (i.e., against the law).

And that brings us back once again to the question of what John actually meant. Did he mean to say "illegal supplements"? Or did he mean "banned substances" (which is how many people seem to be interpreting his question)?

If it is the latter, then as Ion rightly noted, there are no banned substances in masters swimming. Nor can we apply the standards used by FINA, USA Swimming, and NCAA, since the only substances that are blanketly banned by these organizations are substances that are illegal even with a prescription. Any other substances on the banned list are, in reality, banned only if the user does not disclose the use in advance and provide proof that there is a legitimate medical need for such use.

Masters swimmers (who, because of their average age, are much more likely to have a legitimate medical need for such substances) currently have no need to provide any such disclosure and proof of need, nor does USMS have any body to which such disclosure and proof could be submitted. Consequently, there is currently no way that the FINA/NCAA/USAS standards could be applied to masters swimmers.


Bob

Sam Perry
October 8th, 2005, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by Bob McAdams
Cheating is doing something that's against the rules. Very few rule violations are actually illegal (i.e., against the law).



You are right, illegal was the wrong word to use. I should have said against the rules. I know the difference between breaking the law and breaking the rules.

I also don't think age means anything, I'd be willing to bet if there were a test, you might find it more common among older swimmers. As you age the body begins to slow down, we all know this. If I could take something AGAINST THE RULES to slow that process, it would be enticing.

fanstone
October 8th, 2005, 10:13 AM
There isn't much left for Master swimmers to take in relation to drugs or performance enhancing chemicals. The growth hormones and the anabolizing hormones could make you "bigger" but at what cost? Amphetamines and the similar diet pills will make you think you're faster and might give you psychological boost but it wouldn't truly make you faster. EPO would be tricky because oxygen depletion isn't that big a deal in swimming as in running or cycling. I mean, the higher hematocrit (quantity of red blood cells) could benefit a middle to long distance runner or cyclist but I can't see it helping much in swimming. I might be wrong here, but I can't remember what drugs would enhance my swimming, but then I am used to putting people to sleep (anesthesia) not making them swim faster or further. billy fanstone

Bob McAdams
October 8th, 2005, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by Sam Perry
I also don't think age means anything, I'd be willing to bet if there were a test, you might find it more common among older swimmers. As you age the body begins to slow down, we all know this. If I could take something AGAINST THE RULES to slow that process, it would be enticing.

If by "you might find it more common" you mean that drug use is more common among older swimmers, I fully agree. In fact, that is what I said. The reason why they are more likely to be using drugs is because they are more likely to have health problems.

Let's take an actual example:

Hypertension (high blood pressure) is a problem that affects people of all ages. But there is no question that it is more prevalant among older people. Only about 1 in 9 men aged 20-34 have hypertension, while only about 1 in 32 women aged 20-34 have the disease, and I suspect that the percentages are even lower than this for competitive swimmers in this age range who enter FINA, NCAA, and USA Swimming competitions. Yet more than half of both men and women aged 55-64 have the disease, and more than 70% of men and nearly 85% of women aged 75 and older suffer from it. (Note that these figures are based on the classic definition of hypertension, in which anyone with a systolic pressure of at least 140 and/or a diastolic pressure of at least 90 is considered to be hypertensive.)

Diuretics are a class of anti-hypertensive drugs that have been in use for a long time, and which therefore have one of the best established records of safety and efficacy. And, in some circles, they are still considered to be the drugs of first choice when treating essential hypertension. But they are also on the list of banned substances that is used by FINA, NCAA, and USA Swimming. As I understand it, this is not because they actually enhance performance, but because their use may prevent other drugs that enhance performance from being detected by current testing procedures.

So what if a competitive swimmer has hypertension and their doctor prescribes a diuretic to treat it? Well, if they want to continue competing in FINA/NCAA/USAS meets, the first thing they must do is disclose the fact that they intend to use the said drug. The rules are very clear on this: If an athlete uses a banned substance without disclosing it, they're disqualified even if there was a legitimate medical reason for the use. In fact, the use is ideally supposed to be approved before the athlete even starts using it, but the rules do recognize that there are emergency situations in which it may place the athlete at risk if use of the substance is delayed. But even then, immediate disclosure of the use is required. And, if the review board does not approve the use, the athlete must either stop using it or be barred from competition.

Now, the first thing the review board would presumably examine is whether the health problem actually exists. I have no idea what sort of examination they do. In this case, would the athlete be required to temporarily stop using the drug so the board could verify that the athlete's blood pressure did, indeed, rise to dangerous levels?

Another problem is what constitutes hypertension. In the statistics I cited above, "hypertension" was considered to exist if systolic pressure was at least 140 and/or if diastolic pressure was at least 90. But this standard is now considered to be questionable. In fact, "normal" blood pressure is considered to be 115/75, and every elevation of 10 points in the systolic pressure and 5 points in the diastolic pressure above this is known to double the risk of heart disease. Thus, a person with a blood pressure of 125/80 (once considered very normal) actually has twice as much risk of heart disease as a person with a blood pressure of 115/75, and a person with a blood pressure of 135/85 (once considered a high normal) has 4 times the risk. Obviously, these risks are nothing new - it's just that nobody knew about them until recently. And, when they were discovered, all doctors did not learn about it at the same time.

But even if the board can (a) determine what the athlete's untreated blood pressure actually is, and (b) agree on how high it needs to be to warrant treatment, there is still the issue of what treatment should be used. The general policy is that use of a banned substance should not be allowed if there is an alternative treatment that could be used.

Obviously, there are several classes of anti-hypertensives besides diuretics. But there are serious health concerns about some of these, some do not have as well established a track record as diuretics (meaning that there may be as-yet-undiscovered health risks associated with their use), and virtually all of them have side effects which may render them inappropriate for some patients, particularly if those patients also have other health problems. Moreover, some hypertension is so severe that it requires treatment with more than one anti-hypertensive. And there are questions about whether all anti-hypertensives are equally effective in reducing the health risks of essential hypertension. (Note that the term essential hypertension means that the cause of the hypertension is unknown. It is therefore possible that some anti-hypertensives may be treating the cause of the hypertension while others may only be treating the symptoms.)

The bottom line is that the review boards are, in the end, in the position of second guessing the athlete's own doctors. A former doctor of mine wrote a diet book, and in the opening chapter, he included the following advice:

"It is always prudent for your physician to approve and supervise your diet, and I always so advise, even if you know you are in good health. Your physician knows much more about you than a stranger writing a book . . ."

If you substitute the words "review board" for "stranger writing a book", this statement is still valid.

I suspect that the reason all of these things have not been a problem for FINA/NCAA/USAS is because hypertension is so rare among the athletes who compete in their events. But this is clearly not going to be the case for USMS. Unless USMS is prepared to have a full-time review board consisting of doctors who have the expertise needed to second guess the treatments of doctors all over the country, USMS would be well-advised to stay away from banning substances (except, perhaps, for those that are illegal even with a prescription).


Bob

nkfrench
October 8th, 2005, 04:24 PM
I bet that many Masters swimmers are taking substances that are on the USADA list. It's suprising what is listed. Over the counter cold meds, dietary supplements, diet aids, diuretics and headache remedies often contain banned substances. Some blood pressure meds and some drugs for menopause symptoms are banned.

I bet some Masters swimmers drink a lot of coffee before meets - warmup in a cup.

Ion Beza
October 8th, 2005, 07:14 PM
Originally posted by Bob McAdams

...
But this is clearly not going to be the case for USMS. Unless USMS is prepared to have a full-time review board consisting of doctors who have the expertise needed to second guess the treatments of doctors all over the country, USMS would be well-advised to stay away from banning substances (except, perhaps, for those that are illegal even with a prescription).


Bob
That might come.

The F.I.N.A. web site has international Masters rankings, meaning Masters swimming is under the F.I.N.A.'s umbrella.

In meets held in meters, U.S.M.S. already obeys to F.I.N.A. in many rules (for example in defining the age of competitors before their birthday, in defining the standard of the pools that hold races, in strokes and technique allowed), but not on a banned list yet.

F.I.N.A. doesn't pressure U.S.M.S. to have a list of banned products, because there is no outcry from Olympic and U.S. age group swimmers about performances in U.S.M.S., yet.

Yet.

For example, in the late 90s, Jessica Foschi (U.S.) -who was knocking at the door of the international stage with 2:03.xx in 200 free Long Course- was banned from the U.S. Swimming for two years for use of a steroid, she competed in U.S.M.S., and all was 'dandy' and 'peachy'.

F.I.N.A. was lax even at the Olympic level -never mind the U.S.M.S. level- when East Germans and Chinese were systematically cheating with illegal performance enhancements, and only outcries did make F.I.N.A. act against the widespread use of illegal performance enhancements at the Olympic level.

At the Masters swim level, performance enhancement steroids that veterinary doctors prescribe to racing horses or that medical doctors prescribe to humans recovering from cancer and A.I.D.S. -products that are illegal by F.I.N.A. but are legal by U.S.M.S.- are being used and abused in my opinion.

I saw swims in all kinds of age groups in U.S.M.S., young and old, -but not direct instances of the act of doping, just swims- that defy the nature in mind boggling ways.

A few years ago, in the U.S.M.S. one hour swim, a known triathlete -who I saw starting swimming from zero in another country at the grand age of 22, and is mannish looking now- did 5,050 yards.
Only 100 yards less than a recent N.C.A.A. Division I swimmer, who was then in the shape of a 49.3x in 100 yards fly in U.S.M.S. that year, and a 56.xx in 100 meter fly Long Course.

That's impossible naturally without illegal -by F.I.N.A.- performance enhancements.

And other examples, at U.S.M.S. meets.

PeirsolFan
October 8th, 2005, 07:59 PM
I'm too lazy to search for it, but I recall a poll done in here not that long ago where people admitted to using steroids. The percentage was small, but still shocking.

You use 'em and you'll get what you deserve.

Phil Arcuni
October 8th, 2005, 10:01 PM
I still think using 'rules' to define cheating is a minimal standard, at best. There are many actions that are not against the rules but are still cheating, and ethics and morality play a significant role in determining what is cheating and what is not.

A.K.
October 9th, 2005, 09:51 AM
I believe USMS should test all record breakers and national top 8 swimmers randomly. This cost can easily be covered by a slight surcharge to the minimal USMS fee.

Somebody had mentioned blood pressure medications are on the banned lists - for this documented Medical conditions should be taken into consideration.

What are your thoughts?

Sabretooth Tiger
October 9th, 2005, 11:04 AM
A waste of time, money and other resources. This is USMS not USS.

NKMD
October 9th, 2005, 11:49 AM
At the World Master Games in Edmonton, they were drug testing athletes.

I would agree that world record holders should be tested at the expense of FINA not USMS. The cost of drug testing is too expensive.

Alicat
October 9th, 2005, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by nkfrench
I bet that many Masters swimmers are taking substances that are on the USADA list. It's suprising what is listed. Over the counter cold meds, dietary supplements, diet aids, diuretics and headache remedies often contain banned substances. Some blood pressure meds and some drugs for menopause symptoms are banned.

I bet some Masters swimmers drink a lot of coffee before meets - warmup in a cup.

So what about these caffeine induced ginseng laced pep drinks? Or for that matter an espresso? These products are flooded in the teen/rapper music market -or via your local coffee shop Thanks Starbucks! These energy drinks would personally shoot me into outerspace. If it's available to the general market then it's OK to use? Do we show our receipts from GNC to the officials along with our heat sheets?

It seems like we are expecting a personal responsibility from everyone to be playing on the same level. A.K.A. good sportsmanship? The code of swimmers? Basic athletic standards? Got me. If one looks at a morning cup of coffee as performance enhancing Vs. necessary to function then how are we to address this or do we?

tjrpatt
October 9th, 2005, 04:05 PM
That is so stupid that people would take illegal supplements in Masters Swimming.

gull
October 9th, 2005, 04:12 PM
Caffeine is no longer on the list of prohibited substances. Diuretics and other drugs which are medically necessary can be used with a Therapeutic Use Exemption. You can access the WADA's list by this link:

http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/list_2005.pdf

Supplements are not regulated by the FDA, consequently athletes are advised to use with extreme caution as they may contain banned substances (regardless of what the label indicates).

Drug testing could be implemented at the USMS level, certainly for record setting performances. I guarantee that if a Masters swimmer sets a National or World record and tests positive for an anabolic steroid, epo, or growth hormone, he or she will be unable to provide a Therapeutic Use Exemption. Diuretics are listed as potential masking agents which can hinder the detection of anabolic steroids in the urine.

I have no doubt banned substances are in use in USMS. Do not underestimate the power of rationalization.

Bob McAdams
October 9th, 2005, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by gull80
Caffeine is no longer on the list of prohibited substances.

Do you have any idea what is meant by the statement:

"The substances included in the 2005 Monitoring Program (bupropion, caffeine, phenylephrine, phenylpropanolamine, pipradrol, pseudoephedrine, synephrine) are not considered as Prohibited Substances."

? Is this saying that they monitor them, but there are no consequences if they're detected? If so, why do they bother monitoring them?


It appears that there are no banned supplements, though there are restrictions on serum levels of at least a couple.


Bob

gull
October 9th, 2005, 07:37 PM
Originally posted by Bob McAdams
It appears that there are no banned supplements, though there are restrictions on serum levels of at least a couple.

But that does not guarantee a negative drug test. The content of supplements varies and is unregulated.

gull
October 9th, 2005, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by Bob McAdams
Do you have any idea what is meant by the statement:

"The substances included in the 2005 Monitoring Program (bupropion, caffeine, phenylephrine, phenylpropanolamine, pipradrol, pseudoephedrine, synephrine) are not considered as Prohibited Substances."

? Is this saying that they monitor them, but there are no consequences if they're detected? If so, why do they bother monitoring them?


I believe this will answer your question:

http://www.wada-ama.org/en/newsarticle.ch2?articleId=3115184

Karen Duggan
October 9th, 2005, 09:06 PM
Why just test National Records and World Records? Why not randomly test everybody?

I guarantee you that it is just as frustrating for the person getting 11th place who was beat by the cheater who got 10th.

Just my .02 (two tenths ;) ) ha ha

Fritz
October 9th, 2005, 09:25 PM
Tell me again who's going to pay for this and why we need it?

Bob McAdams
October 9th, 2005, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by gull80
But that does not guarantee a negative drug test. The content of supplements varies and is unregulated.

That's why it's best to stick with supplements that are manufactured according to pharmaceutical standards.

Of course, the content of foods is also unregulated, and there's really nothing you can do about that!

What should happen when an athlete fails a drug test and did not expect to is:

1) The athlete should supply the unused portion of the suspected item to the drug testing organization and have them test it to see whether it contains the banned substance.

2) If it does (and the substance was not listed on the label), the test results should be used to prosecute the manufacturer. Manufacturers are required by law to list all ingredients on the label. If it is possible that the athlete could have tampered with the product himself, an opened container may also need to be tested to prove that the manufacturer was at fault.

3) If it appears that the athlete did not knowingly take a banned substance, there should be no penalty beyond invalidation of his/her times in the meet where the drug test that detected the substance was done.


Bob

Bob McAdams
October 9th, 2005, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by gull80
I believe this will answer your question:

http://www.wada-ama.org/en/newsarticle.ch2?articleId=3115184

Well, yes it does! But it raises another important issue:

They are monitoring use in order to determine whether they need to ban any of the substances. But what this means is that if USMS committed itself to testing according to WADA standards, it would be committing not only to test for what is on the banned list today, but also for what may be on the banned list tomorrow.


Bob

Bob McAdams
October 9th, 2005, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by Karen Duggan
Why just test National Records and World Records? Why not randomly test everybody?

I guarantee you that it is just as frustrating for the person getting 11th place who was beat by the cheater who got 10th.

Just my .02 (two tenths ;) ) ha ha

I also noticed that FIDE does drug testing for international chess tournaments (though I'd never before realized that beta blockers are a performance enhancer for chess players).

But why should they restrict the testing to international tournaments? Don't you think it's just as frustrating for a somebody to lose a chess game even when they're not playing at a tournament? Why not look for people playing chess in the park or in their living room and test them, too? And if they fail the test and don't have a Therapeutic Use Exemption (or refuse to be tested), bar them from playing chess again for a year or two. That'll fix 'em!


Bob

Ion Beza
October 9th, 2005, 11:40 PM
This:

Originally posted by Bob McAdams

...
2) If it does (and the substance was not listed on the label), the test results should be used to prosecute the manufacturer. Manufacturers are required by law to list all ingredients on the label. If it is possible that the athlete could have tampered with the product himself, an opened container may also need to be tested to prove that the manufacturer was at fault.

3) If it appears that the athlete did not knowingly take a banned substance, there should be no penalty beyond invalidation of his/her times in the meet where the drug test that detected the substance was done.


Bob
is ideal.

What happened to sprinter Kicker Vencill (U.S.) in U.S. Swimming two and a half years ago, is that he was booted from U.S. Swimming for two years and his times for a perdiod prior to the test were erased.

He proved recently that the manufacturer of a supplement was misleading on the label.

This only proved that himself, Kicker Vencill, was not cheating.

The suspension stood.

This year, Kicker Vencill came back in U.S. Swimming meets much slower than before, he trained all along for the two year ban but the lack of competitions shows in a stark way.

Kicker Vencill is suing the manufacturer, right now.

Swimmer Bill
October 10th, 2005, 12:05 AM
This question is more complicated for Masters swimmers than it is for USA swimmers. Why? Because Masters swimmers take a variety of medications for legitimate health reasons. Several medications may have performance enhancing qualities. Others may inhibit performance.

I'm assuming this question is not directed toward those people, but unfortunately, drug testing in Masters swimming would include people who take medications for health reasons. Does USMS want to send a message to those swimmers that they cannot take the medications they need for their health? No.

Aside from records, what incentives do Masters swimmers have to take performance enhancing drugs that are not required for their health? College scholarships? Endorsements? Olympics? In most cases, probably not.

Personally, I'm really more of a fitness swimmer pretending to be a competitor -- so other people setting records is not something that affects me. In my opinion, if a Masters swimmer wants to take a performance enhancing drug with so little incentive, they already suffer the appropriate consequences. They have to look at themselves in the mirror each day. They also have to take responsibility for any health consequences these performance enhancing drugs may have.

~SB

Bob McAdams
October 10th, 2005, 01:11 AM
Originally posted by Ion Beza
This:

is ideal.

What happened to sprinter Kicker Vencill (U.S.) in U.S. Swimming two and a half years ago, is that he was booted from U.S. Swimming for two years and his times for a perdiod prior to the test were erased.

He proved recently that the manufacturer of a supplement was misleading on the label.

This only proved that himself, Kicker Vencill, was not cheating.

The suspension stood.

I'm familiar with Kicker's ordeal. That's why I said I was laying out what should happen.

And this is one of the things that disturbs me about the concept of drug testing USMS swimmers. If this behavior is going to be typical of the review boards that are given the task of deciding whether to issue Therapeutic Use Exemptions (i.e., second-guessing the athlete and his doctors), I don't find this prospect inviting.


This year, Kicker Vencill came back in U.S. Swimming meets much slower than before, he trained all along for the two year ban but the lack of competitions shows in a stark way.

Kicker Vencill is suing the manufacturer, right now.

That's interesting! Conventional wisdom has been that it is training - not meets - that makes a competitive swimmer fast. This would appear to prove that false.

It also raises the question of whether masters swimmers are at a disadvantage due to the relative infrequency of masters meets (compared with, say, the frequency of meets that a typical kids' swim team has).


Bob

gull
October 10th, 2005, 05:20 AM
Originally posted by Swimmer Bill
This question is more complicated for Masters swimmers than it is for USA swimmers. Why? Because Masters swimmers take a variety of medications for legitimate health reasons. Several medications may have performance enhancing qualities. Others may inhibit performance.

I'm assuming this question is not directed toward those people, but unfortunately, drug testing in Masters swimming would include people who take medications for health reasons. Does USMS want to send a message to those swimmers that they cannot take the medications they need for their health? No.



Again I would refer you to the list on the WADA website. In the first place, the majority of the drugs listed are clearly performance enhancing (anabolic steroids, growth hormone, etc.), and very few, if any, Masters swimmers are using these to treat a legitimate medical condition. Second, if an athlete requires, say, a diuretic for hypertension, it can be used with a Therapeutic Use Exemption. I'm not strongly advocating this be implemented in USMS, but this debate tends to stray from the facts.

aquageek
October 10th, 2005, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by Ion Beza
He proved recently that the manufacturer of a supplement was misleading on the label.

This only proved that himself, Kicker Vencill, was not cheating.


What a bunch of crap!

Did the manufacturere hold the guy's mouth open and force him to take the "supplement?" A person who's foolish enough to roll the dice with unregulated substances should be prepared for potential consequences. Typical reaction - sue the manufacturer, refuse to take personal responsibility.

I believe Rafael Palmeiro used this insane argument for a while after he was initially busted and has been roundly lampooned.

I also think high levels of caffeine are banned at some level. This would disqualify me and gull, maybe for life.

craiglll@yahoo.com
October 10th, 2005, 10:36 AM
First, shouldn't it be"those who take?"

For medical reason, I take medication that both improve my abilities and cause a hindrance.

TheGoodSmith
October 10th, 2005, 11:16 AM
First let me say that I am extremely proud of this controversial thread and remain hopeful that it will launch me into the lead for the coveted "Most Controversial Thread" award for 2005/2006.... :-)

Second, to be more clear what my intentions were when I started this thread....... I was aiming the discussion toward banned substances in USS Swimming (and/or FINA) that promote real significant benefits beyond your normal GNC vitamin, protein powder regime. I'm talking REAL cheating here..... steriods, human growth hormone, THG, EPO and other designer drugs on the leading edge that as we have all heard are out there but not yet tested for yet.

I was not as focused on albuterol (asthma medications), caffeine, nose sprays and other misc. stimulants we've heard about. As an asthmatic, I have found little benefit during workouts if I take a "hit" on it to cure an attack, but that's just me. Muscle growth and EPO like supplements and drugs to me seem more of a concern.


John Smith

LindsayNB
October 10th, 2005, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by aquageek
What a bunch of crap!

Did the manufacturere hold the guy's mouth open and force him to take the "supplement?" A person who's foolish enough to roll the dice with unregulated substances should be prepared for potential consequences. Typical reaction - sue the manufacturer, refuse to take personal responsibility.

While suits against manufacturers are often crazy, if someone sells a product with a list of ingredients, but actually includes unlisted ingredients that are illegal in the product I don't see why they should not be held liable for the consequences. If your local bakery started putting a little bit of rat poison in every loaf of bread I doubt you would take the view that it was a matter of personal responsibility on the part of the bread consumer.

Btw, I believe that the courts have already awarded the swimmer in question damages.

jim clemmons
October 10th, 2005, 11:48 AM
I also think high levels of caffeine are banned at some level. This would disqualify me and gull, maybe for life.

You can include me on that list.

LindsayNB
October 10th, 2005, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by gull80
Again I would refer you to the list on the WADA website. In the first place, the majority of the drugs listed are clearly performance enhancing (anabolic steroids, growth hormone, etc.), and very few, if any, Masters swimmers are using these to treat a legitimate medical condition.

Craig, aren't some of the perfomance enhancing drugs used with AIDS patients to prevent certain types of wasting or something along those lines?

Phil Arcuni
October 10th, 2005, 11:54 AM
I know I would be pretty upset if my one-a-days contained illegal performance enhancing drugs.

This is a long standing disagreement between Geek and me. I fail to understand why the individual should be held to a higher standard of responsibility than a corporation, whos actions usually affect a very large number of people.

aquageek
October 10th, 2005, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by Phil Arcuni
I know I would be pretty upset if my one-a-days contained illegal performance enhancing drugs.


This has nothing to do with you being a communist and me being an American capitalist.

I agree with you that if these were One-A-Days there might be an issue. However, I was under the impression we were discussing some type of supplement, not a vitamin with some ginseng tossed in.

Still, any elite athlete should always err on the side of caution when taking these potion supplements.

Bob McAdams
October 10th, 2005, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by gull80
Again I would refer you to the list on the WADA website. In the first place, the majority of the drugs listed are clearly performance enhancing (anabolic steroids, growth hormone, etc.), and very few, if any, Masters swimmers are using these to treat a legitimate medical condition.

But, as noted previously, they are also monitoring things like caffeine, phenylpropanolamine, and pseudoephedrine in order to decide whether to include them on the list in the future. If USMS were to implement the WADA standard, it would be agreeing to conform not just to the current list, but also to anything WADA decides to add to the list in the future.


Second, if an athlete requires, say, a diuretic for hypertension, it can be used with a Therapeutic Use Exemption.

Theoretically.

But that's the problem. Historically, the board that issues the TUEs has been accustomed to dealing with fairly simple things like insulin use by Type 1 diabetics, drug use to treat sports injuries, etc. And that happened because they were dealing almost exclusively with young athletes who, because of their participation in their sport, were on the average healthier than their peers.

The health problems faced by some masters swimmers are far more complex. And research is proceeding at such a rapid rate that it's difficult, if not impossible, for a doctor to keep abreast of everything that's been discovered. That's why people go to specialists, and get second opinions.

Now, lets say that you've got a health problem - maybe even several health problems. You've been to a number of doctors, you've tried numerous treatments, you've suffered from drug sensitivities, bad side effects, and drug interactions, but you've finally found a doctor with the expertise to put you on a regimen that works. But there's one problem: The regimen includes a substance that's on the WADA banned list. And the result is that you have to place your fate as a comptetive swimmer (or as a patient - take your pick) in the hands of a board of doctors who have had no experience treating you and who have no particular expertise with the medical problems you have. Does that sound fair?

Another thing to consider is whether you want to advertise your medical problems to the entire world by applying for a TUE. Of course, USMS might promise you that the information would be kept confidential. But that also means that USMS would be open to lawsuits if that confidentiality were ever breached (even by accident).


Bob

dorothyrde
October 10th, 2005, 01:19 PM
[Now, lets say that you've got a health problem - maybe even several health problems. You've been to a number of doctors, you've tried numerous treatments, you've suffered from drug sensitivities, bad side effects, and drug interactions, but you've finally found a doctor with the expertise to put you on a regimen that works. But there's one problem: The regimen includes a substance that's on the WADA banned list. And the result is that you have to place your fate as a comptetive swimmer (or as a patient - take your pick) in the hands of a board of doctors who have had no experience treating you and who have no particular expertise with the medical problems you have. Does that sound fair?



Bob [/B][/QUOTE]

Hmmm sounds like dealing with getting insurance to pay for things.

Bob McAdams
October 10th, 2005, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by aquageek
I agree with you that if these were One-A-Days there might be an issue. However, I was under the impression we were discussing some type of supplement, not a vitamin with some ginseng tossed in.

Vitamins are a type of supplement, as is ginseng. Did you not know this?

Nutritional supplements are subject to the same kind of regulation that foods are. This means that they are required by law to list their ingredients on the label. (One of the reasons for this requirement, btw, is so that people with food allergies can make sure they don't buy a product to which they're allergic.) Food products and nutritional supplements are not monitored to the degree that pharmaceutical drugs are, but a consumer of such products has a right to expect that all ingredients will be listed on the label, and this rightful expectation is even stronger when the product is a supplement that lists exact quantities of each of the nutrients it supposedly contains.


Bob

Swimmer Bill
October 10th, 2005, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by gull80
Again I would refer you to the list on the WADA website. In the first place, the majority of the drugs listed are clearly performance enhancing (anabolic steroids, growth hormone, etc.), and very few, if any, Masters swimmers are using these to treat a legitimate medical condition. Second, if an athlete requires, say, a diuretic for hypertension, it can be used with a Therapeutic Use Exemption. I'm not strongly advocating this be implemented in USMS, but this debate tends to stray from the facts.

Hi Craig,

Thank you very much for the information, but I'm already very familiar with WADA.

I think Bob’s messages help clarify what I was trying to say earlier – but I’d also like to add a few bullet-points for those who may not know about the actual medical applications of certain banned substances. Let’s look at three of the big ones: erythropoietin (EPO), human growth hormone (hGH), and anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS). All of these drugs are used in medical treatments.

• EPO stimulates the bone marrow to make red blood cells, and can be given as a treatment for a low red blood cell count (anemia), or as an alternative to a blood transfusion. If your hemoglobin level falls too low after treatment with certain types of chemotherapy or radiotherapy, EPO is one of the treatments available.

• hGH is is a hormone produced in the pituitary gland of humans. Although it is used most frequently for treating children with a deficiency in their natural hGH levels and children who are shorter than their peers but have no hGH deficiency, it is also used as a treatment for Chronic Renal Insufficiency and Turner's Syndrome. Studies have also been performed and completed using hGH to quicken the repair of wounds, torn cartliage, and non-healing fractures, as well as treating juvenile rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthosis

• anabolic-androgenic steroids are man-made substances related to male sex hormones. “Anabolic” refers to muscle-building, and “androgenic” refers to increased masculine characteristics. “Steroids” refers to the class of drugs. These drugs are available legally only by prescription, to treat conditions that occur when the body produces abnormally low amounts of testosterone, such as delayed puberty and some types of impotence. They are also prescribed to treat body wasting in patients with AIDS and other diseases that result in loss of lean muscle mass.

Certainly, athletes abuse these substances. There may even be Masters athletes who abuse them. Personally, I think it is much more likely that Masters aged athletes would take those drugs to treat actual medical conditions rather than enhance their athletic performance.

Then, there’s still the question of incentive. Personally, although I realize there are a few people out there who live to see their names in print, having my name on a list is not what validates my swimming experience. I believe that's probably the case for most Masters swimmers.

~SB

aquageek
October 10th, 2005, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by Bob McAdams
Vitamins are a type of supplement, as is ginseng. Did you not know this?


Yes, I was aware. My point was that this thread is really not about vitamins but about the other supplements that are so prevalent these days. We all know many of these substances are hocus pocus stuff and you should recognize this when buying them.

A consumer has an expectation, which is substantially different than a right. I, personally, have an expectation that anyone who puts unregulated stuff in their body probably doesn't give a flip about their personal well being, or, is willing to take a risk.

For instance, when I enjoy a hot dog, I know there's a whole lot more parts of the cow in there than just the beef label leads me to believe on the front - like maybe some tail, snout, ears, etc.

gull
October 10th, 2005, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by Swimmer Bill


Certainly, athletes abuse these substances. There may even be Masters athletes who abuse them. Personally, I think it is much more likely that Masters aged athletes would take those drugs to treat actual medical conditions rather than enhance their athletic performance.



I think you've missed my point. Yes, these banned substances have a role in the treatment of certain well-defined medical conditions. Dialysis patients or patients undergoing chemotherapy receive epogen to boost their red blood cell production. Typically, though, they are still relatively anemic. AIDS patients or others with chronic wasting diseases may be given anabolic steroids (which are Schedule IV controlled substances). However these scenarios are very uncommon among Masters swimmers who are actively competing. What I'm hearing is an argument that testing for banned substances among Masters swimmers is problematic, since we've been prescribed these drugs to treat legitimate medical conditions. I don't believe this argument holds water. The fact is, the vast majority of medications prescribed to Masters swimmers are not on the WADA list.

As to the question of incentive--look, people do a lot of crazy things. Masters swimmers invest quite a bit of time and money in the sport. It's easy to lose perspective.

Swimmer Bill
October 10th, 2005, 07:57 PM
Hi Craig,

I didn't miss the point. I just disagree with it. Nothing personal. It's just my opinion.

~SB


Originally posted by gull80
I think you've missed my point. Yes, these banned substances have a role in the treatment of certain well-defined medical conditions. Dialysis patients or patients undergoing chemotherapy receive epogen to boost their red blood cell production. Typically, though, they are still relatively anemic. AIDS patients or others with chronic wasting diseases may be given anabolic steroids (which are Schedule IV controlled substances). However these scenarios are very uncommon among Masters swimmers who are actively competing. What I'm hearing is an argument that testing for banned substances among Masters swimmers is problematic, since we've been prescribed these drugs to treat legitimate medical conditions. I don't believe this argument holds water. The fact is, the vast majority of medications prescribed to Masters swimmers are not on the WADA list.

As to the question of incentive--look, people do a lot of crazy things. Masters swimmers invest quite a bit of time and money in the sport. It's easy to lose perspective.

gull
October 10th, 2005, 09:11 PM
If you choose to believe that substances on the WADA list are commonly prescribed to Masters athletes, that is your prerogative. As a practicing physician, my perspective is somewhat different. Aside from diuretics, insulin, and bronchodilators, I have not found this to be the case.

Do I think there is a lot of abuse in USMS? No.

Swimmer Bill
October 10th, 2005, 09:27 PM
Hi Craig,

That's not really what I was saying. I agree that those substances probably aren't commonly prescribed, but I do believe a majority of USMS swimmers who take those types of drugs would be taking them for health reasons rather than performance enhancement.

I come into contact with thousands of Masters swimmers each year. There probably are a few out there who do take those drugs for performance enhancement, but in general I feel that type of behavior is not characteristic of the majority of people I meet in Masters swimming. I simply don't believe that USMS has a rampant problem with people using performance enhancing drugs, nor do I feel the concern is great enough for USMS to devote time and resources with investigation.

~SB


Originally posted by gull80
If you choose to believe that substances on the WADA list are commonly prescribed to Masters athletes, that is your prerogative. As a practicing physician, my perspective is somewhat different. Aside from diuretics, insulin, and bronchodilators, I have not found this to be the case.

Do I think there is a lot of abuse in USMS? No.

Bob McAdams
October 11th, 2005, 01:41 AM
Originally posted by aquageek
A consumer has an expectation, which is substantially different than a right.

True. That is why we have laws to define the difference. And the law says that manufacturers of supplements have to list the ingredients. That means that, in the U.S. at least, consumers do have the legal right to expect that all ingredients will be listed on the label. And if they aren't, and the consumer suffers damages because of it, the consumer has the right to sue the manufacturer.

Of course, if a manufacturer is selling a food or supplement that contains an illegal drug, then the responsible individuals may have more of a debt to pay than just the proceeds of a lawsuit.


I, personally, have an expectation that anyone who puts unregulated stuff in their body probably doesn't give a flip about their personal well being, or, is willing to take a risk.

Except that, as I noted previously, supplements are not unregulated. It's true that they aren't regulated as drugs by the FDA. But they are subject to the same regulations that apply to foods. The Coca Cola company, for example, can't just manufacture their product without filtering out the small amounts of cocaine that are found in the coca leaves, and if they did, they'd be legally liable. The same principle applies to manufacturers of nutritional supplements.


Bob

aquageek
October 11th, 2005, 08:08 AM
Here you go Bob, straight from an article in today's NYT on something called bitter orange:

The F.D.A. does not require manufacturers of dietary supplements to prove that the products are safe and effective before they are sold.

We can parse right versus expectation all day but the simple fact remains that these supplements are not drugs, not regulated and many times not safe. But, feel free to part with you hard earned dollars to take them.

gull
October 11th, 2005, 09:20 AM
The USADA is very clear regarding the use of supplements:

http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/athletes/athlete%20advisory-approved%20or%20verified%20supplements.pdf

BTW, I once treated a woman who suffered significant postoperative bleeding related to her use of gingko, a commonly used supplement. Hers was by no means an isolated incident.

MegSmath
October 11th, 2005, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by LindsayNB
Btw, I believe that the courts have already awarded the swimmer in question damages.

You are correct, LindsayNB. He won $578,635 in a judgment against Ultimate Nutrition. And it was vitamins that were the culprit. See http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2005-05-13-swimmer_x.htm

As to the argument that Kicker should have known he was taking a risk when he swallowed the vitamins, he knows that now:

He said he will return to competition without supplements. "You can't be sure what you're buying. To me it's not worth it," he said.

aquageek
October 11th, 2005, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by gull80
BTW, I once treated a woman who suffered significant postoperative bleeding related to her use of gingko, a commonly used supplement.

You neglect to mention she had fantastic memory and concentration abilities.

lefty
October 11th, 2005, 10:47 AM
There was a piece on Fox sports that showed that small amounts of steroids administered to young healthy adults will have a positive effects on physical and mental health with NO unhealthy side effects.

If small amounts of steroids can make your life better - and are not dangerous - then why not use them? If the argument is USMS is more about making yourself better - and that is what steroids do - then wouldn't steroid use fit in USMS credo?

This argument only has merit if "safe" steroid use is possible. I do not know if it is, but I do believe in science and I think it is naive to think that safe steroid use won't be possible in the future. If your argument is built on steroids being "unsafe" then it really has nothing to do with my questions...

aquageek
October 11th, 2005, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by lefty
This argument only has merit if "safe" steroid use is possible.

Or if you find cheating acceptable.

lefty
October 11th, 2005, 12:14 PM
Please tell me what you mean by cheating? USMS has no banned list, so you certainly are not breaking any rules.

Steroids are banned in other sports not because they make you better, but because they are unsafe. If some people choose to use them, you would have to do something dangerous to your body to be on a level playing field. With safety out of the equation this point is moot.

A fast skin suit makes you faster and you do not have to do anything to get the improvement. Just put it on. Steroids will only make you faster if you work hard. So the "you get faster by doing nothing" argument has little relevance and no precedence.

Please define cheating...

gull
October 11th, 2005, 12:27 PM
Currently USMS does not prohibit performance-enhancing substances. Nor am I aware of a policy statement. Keep in mind, however, that use of a controlled substance (anabolic steroids) without a prescription is illegal.

aquageek
October 11th, 2005, 12:42 PM
Lefty:

To be honest I don't really understand your point. If you want to dope up on steroids, go right ahead and give yourself that advantage.

I'm fine if folks put on a fast skin. It doesn't make you faster or swim better, it reduces drag. But, putting controlled substances in your body is a whole different story.

gull
October 11th, 2005, 12:44 PM
Lefty is asking whether it's still considered cheating if you aren't breaking any rules.

Just be sure you don't wear any kind of flotation device. And enter feet first during warmups.

aquageek
October 11th, 2005, 12:53 PM
hmmm - now that's a toughy

For USMS I'd say "who cares" if someone is using steroids. So, I guess I'd say it's probably not cheating by USMS rules, or lack of rules.

I'm sure there are deeper thinkers than me on this topic who should weigh in. That excludes, by default, Cruise and the brothers Smith.

Bob McAdams
October 11th, 2005, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by aquageek
Here you go Bob, straight from an article in today's NYT on something called bitter orange:

The F.D.A. does not require manufacturers of dietary supplements to prove that the products are safe and effective before they are sold.

We can parse right versus expectation all day but the simple fact remains that these supplements are not drugs, not regulated and many times not safe. But, feel free to part with you hard earned dollars to take them.

Wrong again!

You are correct that supplements are not drugs and are therefore not (as the NYT article said) required to spend millions of dollars proving safety and efficacy to the FDA. But they are regulated in the same way that foods are. And that means that they are required by law to list ingredients.

Since you've brought up the whole subject of FDA regulation of drugs, I should clarify the situation for those who may not be familiar with the process.

When a company wants to introduce a new drug, the first thing they do is patent it, which gives them exclusive rights to produce it for 18 years. They then begin the long and expensive process of carrying out studies to prove its safety and efficacy to the FDA's satisfaction. Note that it is not enough just to prove that the drug is safe. They must also, to the FDA's satisfaction, prove its efficacy in treating some disease. The drug manufacturer essentially gambles that they will complete this process with enough of their 18 year patent left to recoup the millions of dollars they have spent satisfying the FDA's standards before the patent expires and other companies are allowed to compete by producing generic versions of the same drug.

What is ironic about this is that once a drug has received approval for treating some disease, doctors are free to prescribe it for any reason they choose, regardless of whether the disease it is being used to treat is one for which it has received FDA approval. Thus, we can have two drugs, which we'll call A and B, both of which have been shown to be safe, but neither of which have been proven, to the FDA's satisfaction, to be effective in treating disease X. But because drug A has been proven, to the FDA's satisfaction, to be efficacious in treating another disease, a doctor can prescribe it for the treatment of disease X, but he cannot prescribe drug B for treatment of the same disease, even though there may be more evidence that drug B is beneficial in treating disease X, and even though drug B may actually be in use for that purpose in other countries.

Industry experts have estimated that the cost of gaining approval for a new drug would be substantially reduced if the manufacturer only had to demonstrate safety, leaving it to doctors to determine whether its efficacy had been adequately demonstrated for a particular disease before prescribing it. As it is, the additional costs of proving efficacy are passed along to consumers in the form of high drug prices.

If supplements were to be regulated in the same way, there would be one important difference: Supplements, by definition, cannot be patented. Consequently, a manufacturer who spent millions of dollars demonstrating a supplement's safety and efficacy to the FDA's satisfaction would never be able to recoup their expenses, since they would have no period of exclusive right to production during which they could charge an inflated price.


Bob

gull
October 11th, 2005, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by Bob McAdams
Industry experts have estimated that the cost of gaining approval for a new drug would be substantially reduced if the manufacturer only had to demonstrate safety, leaving it to doctors to determine whether its efficacy had been adequately demonstrated for a particular disease before prescribing it. As it is, the additional costs of proving efficacy are passed along to consumers in the form of high drug prices.

If supplements were to be regulated in the same way, there would be one important difference: Supplements, by definition, cannot be patented. Consequently, a manufacturer who spent millions of dollars demonstrating a supplement's safety and efficacy to the FDA's satisfaction would never be able to recoup their expenses, since they would have no period of exclusive right to production during which they could charge an inflated price.


Efficacy is established through clinical trials, allowing physicians to practice evidence-based medicine (rather than relying strictly on their own experience or anecdotal reports).

The term "efficacy," as applied to supplements, is an oxymoron. Most randomized clinical trials of supplements have failed to show a clinically significant benefit, and in many cases have demonstrated risk.

Bob McAdams
October 11th, 2005, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by gull80
The USADA is very clear regarding the use of supplements:

http://www.usantidoping.org/files/active/athletes/athlete%20advisory-approved%20or%20verified%20supplements.pdf


Unfortunately, the policy doesn't address what happens if an athlete ingests trace amounts of a banned substance by eating food (rather than supplements).


Bob

lefty
October 11th, 2005, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by gull80
Keep in mind, however, that use of a controlled substance (anabolic steroids) without a prescription is illegal. [/B]

Is Androstendione illegal? I really do not know.

Geek: I would NOT pump that stuff in my body at this time, but I suspect that my (unborn) children will. And that is my point. How much science is too much science? I should have asked that in the fist place!

I kind of think the fast skin suit is too much science, accept one can simply shave and get similiar or better results. So I choose to use one out of the sake of convenience.

gull
October 11th, 2005, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by Bob McAdams
Unfortunately, the policy doesn't address what happens if an athlete ingests trace amounts of a banned substance by eating food (rather than supplements).

Right. That's like the patient we saw recently who explained his positive tox screen (for cocaine) on the fact that he was in a room with other people who were abusing the drug (but he of course was not).

aquageek
October 11th, 2005, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by Bob McAdams
Unfortunately, the policy doesn't address what happens if an athlete ingests trace amounts of a banned substance by eating food (rather than supplements).

How many athletes have been banned for this? Even the most creative of busted athletes aren't using this lame excuse. I did see an interesting segment on Real Sports about some bike rider that is claiming his positive blood test resulted from something called a "vanishing" twin. Maybe he should have gone with the Bob McAdams excuse - a cow ate a hemp plant and my hamburger was loaded with THC and I got busted.

aquageek
October 11th, 2005, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by gull80
Right. That's like the patient we saw recently who explained his positive tox screen (for cocaine) on the fact that he was in a room with other people who were abusing the drug (but he of course was not).

In a previous life, I handled the liability insurance for a drug screening company. One lady sued the company claiming a false positive for cocaine because she ate a poppyseed bagel prior to the test. I can't recall the final outcome but we hired another lab that said she would have to eat a few dozen poppysee bagels to have this actually happen. Maybe what she meant was she was sprinkling cocaine on her poppyseed bagel before eating it.

Allen Stark
October 11th, 2005, 06:33 PM
Poppy seeds can give you a positive drug screen for opiates if the test is very sensitive. If there is a question a quantitative analysis can be run,but most routine drug screens are deliberately run not sensitive to avoid false positives. Also cocaine is not an opiate and there is NO cocaine in poppy seeds.

Sam Perry
October 11th, 2005, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by aquageek
Maybe what she meant was she was sprinkling cocaine on her poppyseed bagel before eating it.

Bar none, one of the funniest things I have seen on here. Geek, you are a freakin riot! Keep it up!

newmastersswimmer
October 12th, 2005, 08:08 AM
originally posted by Aquageek

Maybe what she meant was she was sprinkling cocaine on her poppyseed bagel before eating it.


I thought everyone ate thier bagels that way?

craiglll@yahoo.com
October 12th, 2005, 12:18 PM
My brother used to be an army officer. His last tour of duty was in Germany telling soldierts taht they were being discahrged becaseu the either tested postive for drugs or were HIV positive. He said that almost to a man, each person claimed it was because of poppy seeds. supposedly, the Arymy then did a stury and found that you woudl have to eat about, I believe, 10 lbs of poppy seeds to meet the level the army said was necessary for discharge.

Also, I have a question about the USMS's policy on banning drugs. Didn't I read that there isn't one? But doesn't the USMS follow Fina? It is really confusing

gull
October 12th, 2005, 02:25 PM
I believe this is a summary of USMS policy re: performance enhancing drugs:










.

craiglll@yahoo.com
October 17th, 2005, 12:42 PM
Does anyone have any comments about the Chineses Nationals that were over the weekend? Has Chia gotten to where we don't have to suspect themof doping and othe forms of cheating?

craiglll@yahoo.com
October 17th, 2005, 12:42 PM
Does anyone have any comments about the Chineses Nationals that were over the weekend? Has Chia gotten to where we don't have to suspect themof doping and othe forms of cheating?

craiglll@yahoo.com
October 17th, 2005, 12:42 PM
Does anyone have any comments about the Chineses Nationals that were over the weekend? Has Chia gotten to where we don't have to suspect themof doping and othe forms of cheating?

Frank Thompson
October 17th, 2005, 05:34 PM
Craiglll:

I think people in swimming are not saying much because of the press statements by David Salo and John Leonard after Montreal were not taken to well by both Dick Pound of the WADA and Mustapha Larfaoui of FINA. The bigger news today was a request that Italy back off with its criminal charges if anyone is caught cheating with drugs during the competition. I read the news item in swiminfo today and it looks like they don't want Italy to go through with this during the Winter Olympics. They just wanted you banned from competition not jailed if you are guility.

ande
October 18th, 2005, 09:41 AM
who cares it's masters

I'm sure some masters swimmers do take performance enhancing drugs but my stance depends on their circumstances

I don't have a problem with a masters swimmer in chemo taking EPO, but a healthy masters swimmer taking steriods to swim a little faster is pathetic.

get a life

ande


Originally posted by TheGoodSmith
Do you think that there are any participants in Masters Swimming that use illegal supplements?
John Smith

Blue Horn
October 18th, 2005, 07:40 PM
What about people that take growth hormone or estrogen or testostrone for health reasons. Some people have medical reasons for taking banned substances. If that is the case, I don't really care. It is masters swimming, not the olympics. I just can't imagine someone taking the juice for a masters meet.

gull
October 19th, 2005, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by Blue Horn
What about people that take growth hormone or estrogen or testostrone for health reasons. Some people have medical reasons for taking banned substances. If that is the case, I don't really care. It is masters swimming, not the olympics. I just can't imagine someone taking the juice for a masters meet.

As I've posted previously, with the exception of diuretics and beta blockers for hypertension and bronchodilators for asthma, the majority of the banned substances are used infrequently in medical practice. Indications for the use of anabolic steroids or growth hormone are well-defined and quite narrow. And I have no trouble imagining someone using these drugs strictly for performance enhancement in Masters swimming. Keep in mind it's not against the rules.