New Tests or Reviewed results ??????

Three U.S. track and field champions tested positive for the stimulant modafinil over the summer, among them sprinter and Olympic gold medalist Chryste Gaines, sources familiar with the inquiry into stimulants and a newly detected "designer steroid"
said Monday.

Those testing positive after the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency reviewed results from samples taken at the U.S. outdoor track championships this June at Stanford, include Gaines, who won gold in the women's 400 relay at the 1996 Summer Games in Atlanta; Sandra Glover, a four-time U.S. champion in the women's 400 hurdles who was second at the world track championships in August at Paris, and Eric Thomas, 2003 U.S. outdoor 400 hurdles champion."
L.A. Times, 28 oktober

Did Harrison and others get caught with NEW TESTS,
or "reviewed results from samples taken at the U.S. outdoor track championships this June at Stanford" ????

Re: New Tests or Reviewed results ??????

>Did Harrison and others get caught with NEW
>TESTS, or "reviewed results from samples taken
>at the U.S. outdoor track championships this June
>at Stanford" ????

I would assume new tests on old samples, since they probably weren't looking for modafinil at the USATF champs.

But anyway, why does it matter? They were caught, who cares how.

Re: New Tests or Reviewed results ??????

Because if the results were there before, some one was hiding the truth. And that brings this
matter to another level (more "official" cheating !)

Re: New Tests or Reviewed results ??????

Certainly not the first time USATF had something
to hide. The question is if they still hiding facts, to protect themselves.

[Pego]

Re: New Tests or Reviewed results ??????

Oh, please, not another conspiracy spin!

Re: New Tests or Reviewed results ??????

My question is why was the IAAF testing for Mondafil in Paris? It wasn't on the banned list and I believe that it's chemically different from other stimulants from what I've read. Did the IAAF have a lead to pursue? I think the USATF's actions need to be viewed in light of the IAAF's unusual actions, rather than the other way around.

Re: New Tests or Reviewed results ??????

As I understand, IAAF was NOT testing for Modafinil in Paris. As part of the reading of a Kelli White sample, the technician noted a blip on the readout (gas cromatograph? mass spectrometer?). A profile of a drug that didn't fit any known ones. Further testing revealed it to be Modafinil.

IAAF Release of August 30 says in part <<As both the nature of the substance and the content of her explanation require further inquiry and investigation...>>

http://www.iaaf.org/WCH03/news/Kind=512 ... 22969.html

Next release, September 3, says after "expert opinion" Modafinil classied as "mild stimulant" (i.e., one that only gets single-meet penatly)

http://www.iaaf.org/news/Kind=512/newsId=23089.html

September 9 IAAF rejects White's explanation and it gets tossed into USATF's hands (suspension of athletes, as I understand the IAAF procedure, it always handled at the national federation level)

http://www.iaaf.org/news/Kind=512/newsId=23144.html

But in short, nothing at all strange about IAAF's actions. They followed the only possible course and should be commended for so-doing.

Re: New Tests or Reviewed results ??????

I think RMc has a point here. Many questions, few answers !!!!!!!

[Powell]

Re: New Tests or Reviewed results ??????

>My question is why was the IAAF testing for
>Mondafil in Paris? It wasn't on the banned list
>and I believe that it's chemically different from
>other stimulants from what I've read. Did the
>IAAF have a lead to pursue?

So what if they did have a lead ? Were they not entitled to following it ? What you seem to be saying now is 'OK, she doped, but the IAAF wasn't supposed to detect it'. Well, guess what, they did.
With that said, I'm not sure Modafinil is the kind of substance which should be banned... It helps you function normally, rather than make you superhuman. Or does it have side effects nobody has mentioned yet ? Unless it's that, or it serves as a masking agent for other stuff, I'd be in favor of allowing people to use it.

[BlueCurve]

Re: New Tests or Reviewed results ??????

>With that said, I'm not sure Modafinil
>is the kind of substance which should be
>banned... It helps you function normally, rather
>than make you superhuman. Or does it have side
>effects nobody has mentioned yet ? Unless it's
>that, or it serves as a masking agent for other
>stuff, I'd be in favor of allowing people to use
>it.

For a scarier view of how modafinil might be used, there is a suggestion it could be used to stay awake for 3 or so days without sleep and carry out more intensive training in that newly found time. See http://www.elitefitness.com/articledata/efn/121701.html.

As to the side-effects, it is metabolized in the liver, and the manufacturer recommends regular liver function tests for long term users.

See Smart Drug Update: Adrafinil and Modafinil by Steven Wm. Fowkes Published in the Ceri Newsletter Vol. 3 No. 8 December 1994 (http://groups.google.com.au/groups?q=mo ... com&rnum=2).

Doesn't sound much like "helping you function normally", does it ?

[Powell]

Re: New Tests or Reviewed results ??????

For a scarier view of how
>modafinil might be used, there is a suggestion it
>could be used to stay awake for 3 or so days
>without sleep and carry out more intensive
>training in that newly found time.

Why is that scary? I say it would be great if we could find a way to function normally with less sleep, leaving more time for other things. The liver damage part (if true) is a valid argument against the use of Modafinil, but the stay-awake-for-3-days part is not.

[Pego]

Re: New Tests or Reviewed results ??????

<it could be used to stay awake for 3 or so days without sleep and carry out more intensive training in that newly found time>

This is pure nonsense.

Re: New Tests or Reviewed results ??????

>>My question is why was the IAAF testing
>for
>Mondafil in Paris? It wasn't on the banned
>list
>and I believe that it's chemically
>different from
>other stimulants from what I've
>read. Did the
>IAAF have a lead to pursue?
>

So what if they did have a lead ? Were they
>not entitled to following it ? What you seem to
>be saying now is 'OK, she doped, but the IAAF
>wasn't supposed to detect it'.

My post was about whether the USATF should have been expected to find the drug at the Champs in June, not what the IAAF should have done. A subsequent post showed that the USATF should NOT have been expected to know, so there was no coverup by the USATF on this issue. I believe the IAAF probably did the right thing to pursue the issue. It's turned out to be a much bigger one than initially thought.

Re: New Tests or Reviewed results ??????

RMc still following the logic track. Why find
something you don’t need to find, you not suppose
to find, and you not looking for ? It seems like
some "invisible" hand, gave birth to a "miracle".

Re: New Tests or Reviewed results ??????

>RMc still following the logic track. Why
>find
something you don’t need to find, you not
>suppose
to find, and you not looking for ? It
>seems like
some "invisible" hand, gave birth
>to a "miracle".

I'm not sure I follow this, but an earlier post said that the IAAF found the Modafinil by accident looking at anamalous test results. I don't think we can expect the USATF to necessarily see those earlier. Many discoveries are fortuitous events that others overlooked.