A longtime lurker, I've grown to accept the fact that a burning question I have apparently isn't going to be answered (unless Kelli White has a good lawyer, perhaps). And that's the question posed in my subject line about "rush to judgement."
First question I have is, "Does anybody actually know on what day Modafinil was IDed in White's urine?" The test came after her 100 win on 24 August, and French paper leaked the results on 30 August. Clearly the sample couldn't have been read until the 25th, but given that it was what must have been a "new mystery substance" it doesn't seem unrealistic to suppose that it was several days before they figured out it was Modafinil, since nobody had ever had a positive for it before. The 30 August stories said that IAAF then had to decide if it was a major or minor stimulant. TFN timeline never addresses it, but in looking at IAAF site I find this is what happened
<<Wednesday 3 September 2003
Monte-Carlo - Having obtained the necessary expert opinion on the subject, the IAAF has decided to classify the substance, modafinil, for which Kelli White tested positive following the Women’s 100m in Paris last week, in the category of weaker stimulants.>>
So here's my major question(s):
Who provided the "necessary expert opinion"?
How did they--without the benefit of any clinical trials on the subject--decide that a substance that is tossed about like candy by many doctors apparently, given how benign it is, was performance-enhancing?
How can White's lawyers not rip this action to shreds? I have to predict that in a short matter of time that Modafinil is going to end up like caffeine and ephedrine, not even on the banned list.
Is this a sterling defense of White's character? Nah! The fact that she chose not to put it on her prescription-drugs form, prescribed by a doctor, leads me to believe she (and the others using it) were trying to hide something. But just as you can't bust somebody for smoking oregano even if they think it's marijuana, if it's not a helpful substance they shouldn't be banned for it.
Bottom line: it was a hasty decision that shouldn't have been made. In retrospect, one has to posit that the IAAF was already running scared, knowing there was a THG scandal in the works, and wanted to stake out the high moral ground ahead of time.
First question I have is, "Does anybody actually know on what day Modafinil was IDed in White's urine?" The test came after her 100 win on 24 August, and French paper leaked the results on 30 August. Clearly the sample couldn't have been read until the 25th, but given that it was what must have been a "new mystery substance" it doesn't seem unrealistic to suppose that it was several days before they figured out it was Modafinil, since nobody had ever had a positive for it before. The 30 August stories said that IAAF then had to decide if it was a major or minor stimulant. TFN timeline never addresses it, but in looking at IAAF site I find this is what happened
<<Wednesday 3 September 2003
Monte-Carlo - Having obtained the necessary expert opinion on the subject, the IAAF has decided to classify the substance, modafinil, for which Kelli White tested positive following the Women’s 100m in Paris last week, in the category of weaker stimulants.>>
So here's my major question(s):
Who provided the "necessary expert opinion"?
How did they--without the benefit of any clinical trials on the subject--decide that a substance that is tossed about like candy by many doctors apparently, given how benign it is, was performance-enhancing?
How can White's lawyers not rip this action to shreds? I have to predict that in a short matter of time that Modafinil is going to end up like caffeine and ephedrine, not even on the banned list.
Is this a sterling defense of White's character? Nah! The fact that she chose not to put it on her prescription-drugs form, prescribed by a doctor, leads me to believe she (and the others using it) were trying to hide something. But just as you can't bust somebody for smoking oregano even if they think it's marijuana, if it's not a helpful substance they shouldn't be banned for it.
Bottom line: it was a hasty decision that shouldn't have been made. In retrospect, one has to posit that the IAAF was already running scared, knowing there was a THG scandal in the works, and wanted to stake out the high moral ground ahead of time.
Comment