No Oppo Supporters CAS hands down guilty verdict - Players appealing - Dank shot - no opposition - (cont in pt.2)

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Surely this has been done to death by now. -.-
 
pepsi said:
imagine the hours and staff that have been allocated to this story over the past 3 years? Kept many in a job I reckon.
Click to expand...
I never thought I'd see it called an exercise in philanthropy... and yet, here we are.
 
expires said:
Four Corners (ABC) is going to have an interesting perspective about the saga next week. Or so they concluded tonight's episode saying.
Click to expand...
$10 says it won't be interesting.
 
Lance Uppercut said:
except that this drug isn't designed to be used for years, is it? From what I've read it's supposed to be used, by diabetics, in short stints yeah?

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/mar/08/meldonium-treatment-four-to-six-weeks-maria-sharapova

The Latvian company that manufactures meldonium says the normal course of treatment for the drug is four to six weeks – not the 10 years that Maria Sharapova says she used the substance.

• Meldonium is used to treat ischaemia: a lack of blood flow to parts of the body, particularly in cases of angina or heart failure.

• It is manufactured in Latvia and only distributed in Baltic countries and Russia. It is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in the United States and is not authorised in the rest of Europe.

• It increases blood flow, which improves exercise capacity in athletes.

• Wada found “evidence of its use by athletes with the intention of enhancing performance” by virtue of carrying more oxygen to muscle tissue.

• The decision to add meldonium to the banned list was approved on 16 September 2015, and it came into effect on 1 January 2016. Wada had spent the previous year monitoring the drug before adding it to the banned list.

• The drug was name-checked in the latest investigative documentary on Russian doping reforms by the German Hajo Seppelt on Sunday. The documentary referred to a 2015 study in which 17% of Russian athletes (724 of 4,316) tested were found to have meldonium in their system. A global study found 2.2% of athletes had it in their system.

• L’Equipe reported that the scientific advisor to the French Agency Against Doping (AFLD), Professor Xavier Bigard, said in interviews with athletes at last year’s European Games in Baku that a wide proportion of athletes admitted taking meldonium.

• It is classed as an S4 substance under the Wada code, which addresses hormone and metabolic modulators.

• A memo was sent out to athletes by Russia’s anti-doping agency last September informing them of the decision to ban its use.

And it was widely used among Russian troops to enhance their stamina while fighting in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...



Under the code WADA and the national bodies retain the right to ban athletes for taking performance enhancing substances based on their qualities even if those substances are not listed.

This is not the first that they know of the use of Meldonium or of its prevalence. It's been legal for years and then all of the sudden it gets added to the list and missed by 99 athletes including one of the most high profile in the world (with there not being any suggestion that they struggle to test for it - as evidenced by the massive number of positive tests).

Makes me wonder whether it is actually performance enhancing, for a start.

I don't know whether I am prepared for Sharapova and the other 98 to be labelled drug cheats based on how this has evolved. Why does WADA sit on its hands when it is worried about performances enhancing properties of legal substances? Why is an "asthmatic" allowed something like 18 puffs of Ventolin in a day when any episode requiring 18 puffs of Ventolin in a day would see an asthmatic hospitalized (not to mention that the best preventers at the moment also provide immediate relief).

Brent Harvey has been spruking some dumb drink that he thinks has gotten him through 19 seasons of footy.

The code has a tolerance for cheating until one day someone who is basically a public servant wakes up and decides that the parameters are being changed. What is the difference between taking Meldonium or 18 puffs of Ventolin (which is undeniably performance enhancing) and taking the latest synthetically produced but WADA compliant protein powder? The scientific analysis is not particularly relevant when it is the intention of the athlete to gain a competitive advantage.
 
da faq is spark

would love to see the actual nutrient label
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

There is also a difference between how a code punishes an athlete and how society punishes the athlete.

The code might ban you for 12 months, and that is the recorded doping penalty. The sport will welcome you back.

How ever that doesn't take into account the loss of sponsors, the absolute smashing you receive in media and the emotional/mental punishment all this entails from a society that is notorious for publicly lynching someone that the mob decides deserves it.
Sure you might come back after your ban, but will sponsors touch you? will fans support you? For a tennis player (low ranking) to travel the world and compete you need money. If all your seen as is a drug cheat because someone decided to tick a box one day is it fair that this could actually end your career?
Ryan Crowley served his time, and still people didn't want him back. Is that fair?

In a world that is becoming more and more about image, and with the absolute furore that the "anti-doping" groups have created by pursuing clean sport to the extreme, do we need to take into account the flow on effects of being branded a drug cheat.
 
DapperJong said:
da faq is spark

would love to see the actual nutrient label
Click to expand...
It's all good, they are just amino acids that improve your performance.

Nothing to see, everything is legit.
 
[QUOTE="BrunoV, post: 43356298, member: 79274"
.....
I don't know whether I am prepared for Sharapova and the other 98 to be labelled drug cheats based on how this has evolved.
.....
[/QUOTE]

But Sharapova and nearly all the others ARE drug cheats. The only thing that has changed is legality of the PED they were using. If it wasn't banned they could all keep using it and competing, but they'd still be cheats.
 
So Dank lost one part of his defamation case against the Daily Telegraph - So it appears that Mannah never took peptides but in the search for 'the truth', you can link peptides and cancer. Of course the media never asked Rebecca Wilson if it was a 'technical victory'.
 
yaco55 said:
So Dank lost one part of his defamation case against the Daily Telegraph - So it appears that Mannah never took peptides but in the search for 'the truth', you can link peptides and cancer. Of course the media never asked Rebecca Wilson if it was a 'technical victory'.
Click to expand...
She can go drink driving to celebrate
 
yodellinhank said:
Because some drug enhanced their performance? With less effect than the technology of Sharapova's racket...
Click to expand...

So you're OK with PEDs that help a little bit; that's not cheating? Are you OK with PEDs that help a lot? If not, where do you draw the line?

I acknowledge there is a line to be drawn, but for me that line is crossed when you take non-food substances for the purpose of increasing athletic performance.
 
Stephen Dank’s ‘indifference’ to Jon Mannah’s cancer shows why media was right to report the issue

A GREAT stillness fell over rugby league on Tuesday. It was the frozen moment of a close call.

In the Supreme Court on Monday, a jury found that Stephen Dank, a name familiar to all of us, administered banned peptides CJC-1295 and GHRP-6 to NRL players.

He was found to have acted with “reckless indifference to (Jon) Mannah’s life by administering him with peptides while he was in remission for cancer”.

Jon Mannah, you will recall, was the Cronulla player diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma in 2009 who took a brief spell from the game to fight his illness.

He returned to play for Cronulla, including five games in 2011 when Dank was at the club, but suffered a relapse of his cancer and died in 2013.

By administering those peptides, the Court also found on Monday, Dank “accelerated Mannah’s death from cancer”.

The jury also found that Dank had administered dangerous and cancer causing supplements to Jon Mannah and other football players thereby exposing them to risk”.
 
**** me
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Duckworth
Delisted #38: Rhett Montgomerie - Not offered a contract for 2024 - 28/8
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
196
Views
19K
Zach Package
Zach Package

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top