the silence is deafening

[Flumpy]

Re: the silence is deafening

USATF's ruling won't stand though, will it?

Surely the IAAF/WADA will slap her with 6 month ban.

[gh]

Re: the silence is deafening

This wasn't a USATF decision; it was USADA's. USATF not part of the process.

IAAF can reject the USADA finding if it wants.

Of course, at this point, she's already 4 months through any 6-month ban should that be applied.

[Flumpy]

Re: the silence is deafening

That's what I meant. I can't see IAAF going along with it whoever made the decision.

Obviously it won't make any difference but a ban should be on her record.

[Blues]

Re: the silence is deafening

Corticosteroids are one of those things that simply shouldn't be banned. "Therapeutic use exemptions" are a load of bunk if you ask me.

Why do you feel that a ban on corticosteroids is unwarranted?

I'm not sure I agree that they should always be permitted, especially since they're only banned in-competition, and since many common uses aren't banned, like inhaled use for asthma or nasal allergies or injection into inflamed joints. Certain corticosteroids like prednisone and prednisolone have very short half lives and could probably be cleared from the body if an athlete tapers off as late as a day or two before competition too. (That's not the case for corticosteroids that have much longer half lives, like methylprednisolone and dexamethasone, which would probably remain detectable for a few days or longer after the last dose).

Corticosteroids can sometimes cause a feeling of euphoria in an athlete, and can also mask the pain of certain injuries to the point that more severe or permanent injury could occur because an athlete isn't aware of the increased damage that's occurring during competition, so I can at least understand some of the logic behind banning their use in-competition. If it makes anyone feel any better, thoroughbred race horses have to do without their corticosteroids on race day too.

[26mi235]

Re: the silence is deafening

so it's more likely she wasn't interested in telling the USADA she was using it[/i].

By the way I'm not flatout saying she was using it to cheat, however it's perfectly as valid at this point to infer[] form the facts that she either did or didn't pending how you see it.

She had listed it, according to a post early on [did not seek a TUE at the time but will now]. Doesn't that completely torpedo your speculation?

[Blues]

Re: the silence is deafening

Apologies if I got that bit wrong but I'm under the impression athletes when prescribed something new medically as Vessey was wait to get permission to use it. If she had I would be surprised if she wasn't told it was on the banned list prior to using it. Then she would have likley worked to get an exemption. However we know she didn't apply to get an exemption so it's more likely she wasn't interested in telling the USADA she was using it.

By the way I'm not flatout saying she was using it to cheat, however it's perfectly as valid at this point to infer[] form the facts that she either did or didn't pending how you see it.

She had listed it, according to a post early on [did not seek a TUE at the time but will now]. Doesn't that completely torpedo your speculation?

Maybe I missed it, but I tried to find where it was stated that she declared the banned substance (in advance of testing positive), but I wasn't able to.. Which post or article stated that she declared it?... This is all I've found, and it doesn't mention anything about declaring the drug in advance:

“I took a prescription skincare product that was prescribed to me by my family practitioner, that I did not know contained a diuretic,” Vessey said in a statement provided by USADA. “As soon as I was notified of my positive test, I cooperated with USADA and provided them everything they asked for in order to demonstrate that I made an honest mistake, and that the medication did not enhance my performance in any way... I have since applied for a Therapeutic Use Exemption for this medication. I share in USADA's belief in clean sport and look forward to the upcoming track season."

[26mi235]

Re: the silence is deafening

I was referring to this post, which I said was the basis of my comment and, like you, I do not find it indicating that she listed it on a doping control form (although it does not say that she did not, either-but it seems that it would have said so...):

"A key fact could have been that she disclosed that she was taking this substance on the doping control form. That could have explained USADA's leniency in this case. Unfortunately, whether or not she listed that medication on her form is not made clear in the USADA press release.

http://www.usada.org/default.asp?uid=4134

[eldanielfire]

Re: the silence is deafening

Apologies if I got that bit wrong but I'm under the impression athletes when prescribed something new medically as Vessey was wait to get permission to use it. If she had I would be surprised if she wasn't told it was on the banned list prior to using it. Then she would have likley worked to get an exemption. However we know she didn't apply to get an exemption so it's more likely she wasn't interested in telling the USADA she was using it.

By the way I'm not flatout saying she was using it to cheat, however it's perfectly as valid at this point to infer[] form the facts that she either did or didn't pending how you see it.

She had listed it, according to a post early on [did not seek a TUE at the time but will now]. Doesn't that completely torpedo your speculation?

If she had, fair enough the evidence would then weight towards a mistake. However the post I think you refer to only mention that she could have listed it hence the light sanction, but we don't know if this happened, not that she actually had listed it. Unless that is I missed something.

[26mi235]

Re: the silence is deafening

If she had, fair enough the evidence would then weight towards a mistake. However the post I think you refer to only mention that she could have listed it hence the light sanction, but we don't know if this happened, not that she actually had listed it. Unless that is I missed something.

Yes; I had written my statement that (explicitly) assumed that the prior post was correct and clear, which it is not (to an unknown extent). That makes the transgression murkier.