How to handle positive drug tests

How to handle positive drug tests

Post by Adam Brid » Sat, 06 Jul 1996 04:00:00


As I ponder the problems raised by swimmers testing positive for ***
I've become increasingly uncomfortable with the simple solution of a
two-year ban.

We want our rules to provide an even competition environment for all our
swimmers. And we'd like swimmers to swim "unaided" beyond the equipment
their genetics have given them which their training has aided.  And it's
important to remember that the analyses don't ever show INTENT to have
taken an illegal substance, only that an illegal substance was in a
swimmer's *** stream.

Therefor: if a swimmer tests positive for an illegal substance and there's
been sufficient care in chain of custody to verify that the sample
actually IS that swimmer's and no someone else's, AND that the lab has
sufficient internal controls and procedures to make the sample's analysis
valid, THEN the result should be (in my opinion):

1) if the swimmer set records or received awards for the swim or meet in
which the positive test was taken those awards/records should be removed
pending an additional test.  (this requires analyses to be performed in a
timely fashion but does not preclude testing for relatively short-lived
substances which may leave behind metabolites which can serve to confirm
the original test.)

2) if the swimmer has NOT set records or award then the swimmer should
have the option of remaining in a competative status IF that swimmer
submits to regular unannounced testing at his or her own expense.  This
lets someone continue to swim even though they may have been sabotaged.  

Thoughts?  Ideas?

Adam Bridge

 
 
 

How to handle positive drug tests

Post by Dave Bro » Tue, 09 Jul 1996 04:00:00


says...

Quote:

>As I ponder the problems raised by swimmers testing positive for ***
>I've become increasingly uncomfortable with the simple solution of a
>two-year ban.
>...
>Thoughts?  Ideas?

>Adam Bridge

On a somewhat different slant, I was talking to a coach very knowledgeable about
international competition this weekend, and I was commenting how the women athletes at the
recent US Track Trials were so "built", hard to believe no chemical assistance there.  He
commented that a common practice now is the use of human growth hormone, which promotes
muscle development, perhaps promotes healing of broken-down muscle tissue, etc., but is
completely undetectable, since it occurs naturally in the body, without any particular
"normal" levels.  He also mentioned that at various times prior to the gretter
availability of human growth hormone, East Germany experimented with impregnating their
woman athletes followed by subsequent ***, since pregnancy increases the level of
growth hormone.

Science marches on...

--
Dave Brown   Austin, TX

 
 
 

How to handle positive drug tests

Post by kreb.. » Tue, 09 Jul 1996 04:00:00

So whats the penalty for trying to get away with it?  

 
 
 

How to handle positive drug tests

Post by Adam Brid » Tue, 09 Jul 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

> So whats the penalty for trying to get away with it?  

You're banned from competition unless you undertake regular testing by
FINA at your own expense.

ab

 
 
 

How to handle positive drug tests

Post by Martin William Smi » Wed, 10 Jul 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

> So whats the penalty for trying to get away with it?  

There should be no penalty for trying to get away with it, not from
swimming organizations anyway.  If taking any of these *** is
against the law, then any penalty should be meted out by the court
system, not by FINA or USS.

martin
--

P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet       Tel. : +47 330 46900
N-3194 HORTEN, Norway           Fax. : +47 330 42297

 
 
 

How to handle positive drug tests

Post by Adam Brid » Wed, 10 Jul 1996 04:00:00


Quote:


> > So whats the penalty for trying to get away with it?  

> There should be no penalty for trying to get away with it, not from
> swimming organizations anyway.  If taking any of these *** is
> against the law, then any penalty should be meted out by the court
> system, not by FINA or USS.

> martin

Pig wash.  Basketball fouls and disciplinary hearings should be handled
the same way?

These are RULES violations not violations of law.  Whose juristiction
would they fall in?  Face it Martin: you can't tolerate anyone being held
accountable for violating rules.  It doesn't work that way.

Adam Bridge

 
 
 

How to handle positive drug tests

Post by gendr.. » Wed, 10 Jul 1996 04:00:00

As I see it, the problem with the approach suggested below is this:

Steroids allow rapid muscle mass gain, strength gain, and quicker recovery
between workouts (at a minimum).  It is also my understanding that gains
made while using steroids are lasting (i.e. one will not lose all the
muscle mass and strength gains once he/she stops using steroids as long as
he/she keeps training hard).  

Therefore, if the penalties for testing positive for steroids are as
minimal as described below, then an athlete might decide to go ahead
and use steroids without much fear of getting caught.  Why not use steroids
for as long as possible, make rapid muscle mass, strength gains, and
be able to train much harder due to faster recovery time between workouts,
and improve much, much faster than if not using steroids?  (Think about
the latest crop of Chinese women who came out of nowhere).  Then if the
athlete is caught, all that will happen is that they will forfeit records
set at the time they are caught, and they will have to discontinue steroid
use while they are tested regularly in the future.  In a best case
scenario for the steroid abusing athlete, s/he will maitain most or all of
the gains made while using the steroid as long as s/he keeps training
hard.  

It seems that there would be little incentive for unscrupulous athletes
(or athletic systems) not to use steroids as much as possible.

Ed


Quote:

>As I ponder the problems raised by swimmers testing positive for ***
>I've become increasingly uncomfortable with the simple solution of a
>two-year ban.

>We want our rules to provide an even competition environment for all our
>swimmers. And we'd like swimmers to swim "unaided" beyond the equipment
>their genetics have given them which their training has aided.  And it's
>important to remember that the analyses don't ever show INTENT to have
>taken an illegal substance, only that an illegal substance was in a
>swimmer's *** stream.

>Therefor: if a swimmer tests positive for an illegal substance and there's
>been sufficient care in chain of custody to verify that the sample
>actually IS that swimmer's and no someone else's, AND that the lab has
>sufficient internal controls and procedures to make the sample's analysis
>valid, THEN the result should be (in my opinion):

>1) if the swimmer set records or received awards for the swim or meet in
>which the positive test was taken those awards/records should be removed
>pending an additional test.  (this requires analyses to be performed in a
>timely fashion but does not preclude testing for relatively short-lived
>substances which may leave behind metabolites which can serve to confirm
>the original test.)

>2) if the swimmer has NOT set records or award then the swimmer should
>have the option of remaining in a competative status IF that swimmer
>submits to regular unannounced testing at his or her own expense.  This
>lets someone continue to swim even though they may have been sabotaged.  

>Thoughts?  Ideas?

>Adam Bridge

 
 
 

How to handle positive drug tests

Post by Martin William Smi » Thu, 11 Jul 1996 04:00:00

Quote:
(Adam Bridge) writes:


> > > So whats the penalty for trying to get away with it?  

> > There should be no penalty for trying to get away with it, not from
> > swimming organizations anyway.  If taking any of these *** is
> > against the law, then any penalty should be meted out by the court
> > system, not by FINA or USS.

> > martin

> Pig wash.  Basketball fouls and disciplinary hearings should be handled
> the same way?

The term is pig's wash, but I don't see what basketball fouls have to
do with the problem steroid use in swimming.

Quote:
> These are RULES violations not violations of law.

Exactly.  Punishment (the penalty for trying to get away with drug
use) ought not to be the purview of swimming organizations, whose
proper role is to ensure that swimming competitions are run by a set
of rules.  They ought to perform this role by detecting rule
violations and eliminating them.

Quote:
> Whose juristiction would they fall in?  Face it Martin: you can't
> tolerate anyone being held accountable for violating rules.  It
> doesn't work that way.

We have two problems here, Adam.  One is the difference between
enforcement of rules and punishment for rule violations, and the other
is the apparent ease with which you dismiss that difference.  The
latter problem is the more dangerous one.

martin

--

P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet       Tel. : +47 330 46900
N-3194 HORTEN, Norway           Fax. : +47 330 42297

 
 
 

How to handle positive drug tests

Post by Adam Brid » Thu, 11 Jul 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

> As I see it, the problem with the approach suggested below is this:

> Steroids allow rapid muscle mass gain, strength gain, and quicker recovery
> between workouts (at a minimum).  It is also my understanding that gains
> made while using steroids are lasting (i.e. one will not lose all the
> muscle mass and strength gains once he/she stops using steroids as long as
> he/she keeps training hard).  

> Therefore, if the penalties for testing positive for steroids are as
> minimal as described below, then an athlete might decide to go ahead
> and use steroids without much fear of getting caught.  Why not use steroids
> for as long as possible, make rapid muscle mass, strength gains, and
> be able to train much harder due to faster recovery time between workouts,
> and improve much, much faster than if not using steroids?  (Think about
> the latest crop of Chinese women who came out of nowhere).  Then if the
> athlete is caught, all that will happen is that they will forfeit records
> set at the time they are caught, and they will have to discontinue steroid
> use while they are tested regularly in the future.  In a best case
> scenario for the steroid abusing athlete, s/he will maitain most or all of
> the gains made while using the steroid as long as s/he keeps training
> hard.  

> It seems that there would be little incentive for unscrupulous athletes
> (or athletic systems) not to use steroids as much as possible.

I think these are good points -- but I'm worried about making rules to
deal with the most extreme situations. Banning people for life, or two
years of competition, is extreme.  Ideally world-class atheletes would be
regularly tested during their training cycles to minimize the likelyhood
of steroid use.

I am much more interested in protecting the athletes from the long-term
use of steroids than I am in any single infraction.  If an athlete accepts
a two-year ban from competition there's certainly nothing that prevents
that athlete, during that time, to train as heavily as possible, and then
"go clean" prior to re-appearing on the world stage.  A life-time ban
would deal with this case, but  to me it's the nuclear weapon of
penalties: it's supposed to deter but its use is incredibly difficult for
anyone to contemplate.

My suggestion does give an athlete an opportunity to overcome a situation
where there's been abuse which may not entirely been the athlete's fault.

I have questions about how long the muscular effects of steroids
last....can someone please address this issues.  How long would an woman
be required to stay out of competition before the increased muscle-mass
deiminishes on its own as her hormone levels return to normal.  Or will
this happen at all?  I'd like to know the answer to this.

Thanks

Adam Bridge

 
 
 

How to handle positive drug tests

Post by Adam Brid » Thu, 11 Jul 1996 04:00:00


Quote:

> (Adam Bridge) writes:


> > > > So whats the penalty for trying to get away with it?  

> > > There should be no penalty for trying to get away with it, not from
> > > swimming organizations anyway.  If taking any of these *** is
> > > against the law, then any penalty should be meted out by the court
> > > system, not by FINA or USS.

> > > martin

> > Pig wash.  Basketball fouls and disciplinary hearings should be handled
> > the same way?

> The term is pig's wash, but I don't see what basketball fouls have to
> do with the problem steroid use in swimming.

> > These are RULES violations not violations of law.

> Exactly.  Punishment (the penalty for trying to get away with drug
> use) ought not to be the purview of swimming organizations, whose
> proper role is to ensure that swimming competitions are run by a set
> of rules.  They ought to perform this role by detecting rule
> violations and eliminating them.

> > Whose juristiction would they fall in?  Face it Martin: you can't
> > tolerate anyone being held accountable for violating rules.  It
> > doesn't work that way.

> We have two problems here, Adam.  One is the difference between
> enforcement of rules and punishment for rule violations, and the other
> is the apparent ease with which you dismiss that difference.  The
> latter problem is the more dangerous one.

> martin

Sigh.....don't play silly word games. There are NO LAWS under which a
swimmer who uses performance enhancing *** can be tried.  It's not a
criminal offense.  I doubt there are even efficient ways to use the tort
system.  And it seems silly to even think about using the US courts as a
way of handling these disputes: unless of course you are a lawyer and
stand to make vast sums of money by handling the cases.

Clearly I don't understand your semantic differences which you toss up at
every opportunity in a majority of your discussions.  It's not a useful
way to debate ideas and hardly worthy of the time spent answering.

ab

 
 
 

How to handle positive drug tests

Post by Martin William Smi » Fri, 12 Jul 1996 04:00:00

Quote:
(Adam Bridge) writes:
> > > These are RULES violations not violations of law.

> > Exactly.  Punishment (the penalty for trying to get away with drug
> > use) ought not to be the purview of swimming organizations, whose
> > proper role is to ensure that swimming competitions are run by a set
> > of rules.  They ought to perform this role by detecting rule
> > violations and eliminating them.

> > > Whose juristiction would they fall in?  Face it Martin: you can't
> > > tolerate anyone being held accountable for violating rules.  It
> > > doesn't work that way.

> > We have two problems here, Adam.  One is the difference between
> > enforcement of rules and punishment for rule violations, and the other
> > is the apparent ease with which you dismiss that difference.  The
> > latter problem is the more dangerous one.

> > martin

> Sigh.....don't play silly word games. There are NO LAWS under which a
> swimmer who uses performance enhancing *** can be tried.  It's not a
> criminal offense.  I doubt there are even efficient ways to use the tort
> system.  And it seems silly to even think about using the US courts as a
> way of handling these disputes: unless of course you are a lawyer and
> stand to make vast sums of money by handling the cases.

> Clearly I don't understand your semantic differences which you toss up at
> every opportunity in a majority of your discussions.  It's not a useful
> way to debate ideas and hardly worthy of the time spent answering.

I see that you do understand the difference, but I'll try to explain
again anyway.  Punishing a swimmer for trying to get away with using a
banned drug is not enforcement of the rule prohibiting use of the
drug.  Enforcement of the rule ought only to ensure that swimming
competions are fair according to the definition of a fair swimming
competition.  This does not include punishment, which is the purview
of the court system.  If use of the banned substance is not against
the law (as you point out, it is not), then there should be no
punishment.

martin
--

P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet       Tel. : +47 330 46900
N-3194 HORTEN, Norway           Fax. : +47 330 42297

 
 
 

How to handle positive drug tests

Post by David C Berkof » Fri, 12 Jul 1996 04:00:00

Obviously you do not know the function or whole ability given to the
national governing bodies as dictated by the Amateur Soprts Act of 1980.
Under the Act, NGB's have the legal authority to set up the Olympic
programs of those sports for the US as well as govern any essential parts
of the sport. This includes doping. To leave the question of positive
tests to a lethargic court system where fast and efficient determination
of efficacy and penalty are needed, is tantamount to giving a green light
to all kinds of cheating.

The problem is that guilty scumbags threaten bigtime defamation of
charater lawsuits any time they test positive. To test positive you
really need to be a complete moron and be extremely guilty (in my
experienced and knowledgeable opinion). USS doesn't have the funds or the
spine to fend off such attacks so therefore they give in to less
credulous athletes. FINA however is somewhat immune from any judgment of
a US court. Therefore they are more apt to suspend a person for a
positive drug test.

Personally, I believe Congress should give the NGB the final legal
authority to impose penalties (ie: appeals should be limited to the NGB
and tort actions against the NGB should be barred). USS has too far an
important job that to be rendered unaffective against an increasingly
pervasive and disgusting problem like drug use than to have to worry
about being sued for doing its legal duty for the betterment of the
OLympic Movement.

DAVE BERKOFF
1988 and 1992 Olympian
Former USS Board of Directors Member
LAW STUDENT

 
 
 

How to handle positive drug tests

Post by Martin William Smi » Sat, 13 Jul 1996 04:00:00

Quote:
David C Berkoff writes:
> Obviously you do not know the function or whole ability given to the
> national governing bodies as dictated by the Amateur Soprts Act of 1980.
> Under the Act, NGB's have the legal authority to set up the Olympic
> programs of those sports for the US as well as govern any essential parts
> of the sport. This includes doping. To leave the question of positive
> tests to a lethargic court system where fast and efficient determination
> of efficacy and penalty are needed, is tantamount to giving a green light
> to all kinds of cheating.

I understand the function of the national governing bodies, David.  I
did not argue for leaving enforcement of rules to the court system.  I
argued for leaving enforcement of rules with the governing bodies and
for leaving punishment to the court system.  The current two year ban
combines enforcement *and* punishment.  This is wrong, mainly because
it does not distinguish among prolonged drug use, accidental drug
use, sabotage, first-time drug use, etc.  All of these may require
similar rule enforcement to ensure fairness of competition, but they
do not require punishment on top of it.  Sports organizations should
not be involved in retribution.

Quote:
> The problem is that guilty scumbags threaten bigtime defamation of
> charater lawsuits any time they test positive. To test positive you
> really need to be a complete moron and be extremely guilty (in my
> experienced and knowledgeable opinion).

It is, as you say, getting to the point where there is no excuse for
getting caught.  Using modern *** it has become possible, if not
easy, to defeat the test system.  This will inevitably lead to
abandoning the test system, since the test system will then serve only
to punish the "complete morons".

Quote:
> USS doesn't have the funds or the spine to fend off such attacks so
> therefore they give in to less credulous athletes. FINA however is
> somewhat immune from any judgment of a US court.

FINA seems to be answerable to no-one.

Quote:
> Therefore they are more apt to suspend a person for a positive drug
> test.
> Personally, I believe Congress should give the NGB the final legal
> authority to impose penalties (ie: appeals should be limited to the NGB
> and tort actions against the NGB should be barred). USS has too far an
> important job that to be rendered unaffective against an increasingly
> pervasive and disgusting problem like drug use than to have to worry
> about being sued for doing its legal duty for the betterment of the
> OLympic Movement.

You were born too late, David.

martin

--

P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet       Tel. : +47 330 46900
N-3194 HORTEN, Norway           Fax. : +47 330 42297

 
 
 

How to handle positive drug tests

Post by doug » Sat, 13 Jul 1996 04:00:00

Quote:
>==========Martin William Smith, 7/11/96==========

>(Adam Bridge) writes:
>> > > These are RULES violations not violations of law.

>> > Exactly.  Punishment (the penalty for trying to get away with drug
>> > use) ought not to be the purview of swimming organizations, whose
>> > proper role is to ensure that swimming competitions are run by a set
>> > of rules.  They ought to perform this role by detecting rule
>> > violations and eliminating them.

>> > > Whose juristiction would they fall in?  Face it Martin: you can't
>> > > tolerate anyone being held accountable for violating rules.  It
>> > > doesn't work that way.

>> > We have two problems here, Adam.  One is the difference between
>> > enforcement of rules and punishment for rule violations, and
>the other
>> > is the apparent ease with which you dismiss that difference.  The
>> > latter problem is the more dangerous one.

>> > martin

>> Sigh.....don't play silly word games. There are NO LAWS under which a
>> swimmer who uses performance enhancing *** can be tried.  It's not a
>> criminal offense.  I doubt there are even efficient ways to
>use the tort
>> system.  And it seems silly to even think about using the US
>courts as a
>> way of handling these disputes: unless of course you are a lawyer and
>> stand to make vast sums of money by handling the cases.

>> Clearly I don't understand your semantic differences which you
>toss up at
>> every opportunity in a majority of your discussions.  It's
not a useful
>> way to debate ideas and hardly worthy of the time spent answering.

>I see that you do understand the difference, but I'll try to explain
>again anyway.  Punishing a swimmer for trying to get away with using a
>banned drug is not enforcement of the rule prohibiting use of the
>drug.  Enforcement of the rule ought only to ensure that swimming
>competions are fair according to the definition of a fair swimming
>competition.  This does not include punishment, which is the purview
>of the court system.  If use of the banned substance is not against
>the law (as you point out, it is not), then there should be no
>punishment.

Adam,

I would highly recommend that you cease trying to have any sort
of meaningful discussion with Martin.  I doubt
VERY seriously you will make any progress.  He doesn't want to
debate the facts, he wants to get into all sorts of ***related
to the proper use of language/etc.  I don't have a problem
communicating with 99% of the people out there ... it's just
these people who look for small mistakes in grammer or someplace
where you weren't specific about something and jump on it as the
basis for their argument that I have a problem with.

I don't know about you; but, I don't want to waste my time with
this kind of crap.

Martin Smith ====> Kill File

Doug Gilliam

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

>martin
>--

>P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet     Tel. : +47 330 46900
>N-3194 HORTEN, Norway          Fax. : +47 330 42297

 
 
 

How to handle positive drug tests

Post by Martin William Smi » Sun, 14 Jul 1996 04:00:00

Quote:
Doug Gilliam writes:
> [..] He [martin] doesn't want to debate the facts, [..]

Which facts did you want to debate, Doug?

Fact:  The result of Ms Foschi's drug test was positive.

As far as I know, this fact is almost beyond question.  In any case, I
don't doubt the test result, Doug, so we can't debate it.

Which debatable facts were you referring to?  

Quote:
> Martin Smith ====> Kill File

And you accuse me of not wanting to debate?

martin

--

P.O. Box 1034 Bekkajordet       Tel. : +47 330 46900
N-3194 HORTEN, Norway           Fax. : +47 330 42297