Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kristi Anderson, 51, tells reaction to USADA suspension

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I'm assuming that Ms. Anderson didn't notice either this notification or the drug test she signed off on.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
    Drug Testing
    As a participant in the Pikes Peak Ascent and/or Marathon you are subject to drug testing pursuant to USDA standards and procedures, and you acknowledge this notification and your willingness to be so tested.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>

    I'm really not sure why the OP feels it necessary to take up the woman's cause when the race and testing agency did nothing incorrectly and the caught doesn't seem particularly put out by the whole thing.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Atticus View Post
      My point being, of course, that if a professional athlete is dependent on his muscles for his livelihood, and he then tears a muscle, which prevents him from earning that livelihood, then his first recourse SHOULD be to seek medical counsel on regenerating that muscle post-haste, anabolic steroids being an excellent course of treatment, so he can get back on the 'job', but we're telling him, "no, you can't do that - good luck, though."
      As always, it is the people looking to ABUSE the substance that ruins it for everyone. If some is good, LOTS more should be even gooder . . . sigh . . .
      Besides the abusers ruining it for everyone, there's also the possible problem that anabolic steroids aren't necessarily specific enough and won't just promote muscle growth, etc., in only the injured muscle, but that they can affect other muscles/physiological systems too, and therefore might result in unintended performance enhancing benefits unrelated to the injury.

      Weighing the benefits of anabolic steroid therapy for certain injuries, versus any possible risks, may also result in anabolic steroids not being warranted.

      If we want to allow anabolic steroids for treating athletic injuries and not risk a possible performance enhancing effect in addition to the therapeutic healing effect, then I guess we'd have to have an ample, agreed upon wash out/waiting period, after which any potential PED benefits of the steroid would be deemed to be gone, before the athlete would be able to legally compete again... Under those circumstances, it's possible that the athlete might actually be back in competition sooner WITHOUT using an anabolic agent to speed up the healing of a musculoskeletal injury.

      Comment


      • #18
        I don't really know how prednisone helped with the one injury I mentioned earlier. I assumed prednisone to be, among other things, anti inflammatory. Once upon a time I had a severe hamstring injury. It healed, mostly -- 90-95% -- but there was this point of "discomfort" that would not resolve. Lucky for me, so to speak, later that month I got a bad case of poison ivy -- for me, every case of poison ivy is bad. I was prescribed prednisone to help deal with that, and in the first few days of prednisone, the last recalcitrant part of my hamstring injury healed quickly and completely. And that is about as far as my knowledge of these things goes...

        But as for the athlete in question in this thread, the substance in question is DHEA, right? What does that do, or supposedly do? I see DHEA -- or something with that label, at least -- on the supplement shelves.
        Last edited by Master Po; 12-27-2014, 09:40 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Master Po
          But as for the athlete in question in this thread, the substance in question is DHEA, right? What does that do, or supposedly do? I see DHEA -- or something with that label, at least -- on the supplement shelves.
          AFAIK, no PED benefit of DHEA has ever been established.
          "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
          by Thomas Henry Huxley

          Comment


          • #20
            thanks Pego. That is what I have been reading on sites (e.g., Mayo Clinic, NIH, etc.) that I take to be reasonably reliable on these things. But even in reading those reports, I could not quite discern what it might reliably (considering that possibility generously) do that would make it a banned substance in athletics, and/or something a doctor would prescribe/advise.

            Doesn't seem like it costs very much -- maybe I'll buy some, take it for a month, and let you all know how awesome I feel. As I am not competing any more anyway, should not be a problem. However, if suddenly you see reports of Master Po winning age-group competitions, anyone should feel free to report me to USADA.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Master Po View Post
              Doesn't seem like it costs very much -- maybe I'll buy some, take it for a month, and let you all know how awesome I feel.
              It sounds to me as if you're kidding, but if you're serious, you might want to consider all of the potential negative side-effects. There appear to be some.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by tandfman View Post
                It sounds to me as if you're kidding, but if you're serious, you might want to consider all of the potential negative side-effects. There appear to be some.
                Oh, I was kidding. I do appreciate your concern! (Smiley holiday emoticon here.)

                Comment

                Working...
                X