Testosterone positives

Pherekydes

Well, what do y'all think of testosterone positives? Note I'm not mentioning any names and I think it should be left that way. I'm sure I would have been positive last night, if you get my drift...:D

P.S. In case you're not sure, yes, I think testosterone positives are an absolute joke.

thirtyfoot

Has Slowcoach heard the breaking news???

DaveH

BBC Confirm Garteh Turnbull has failed a drug test.

He has denied it and wants the B sample tested.

thirtyfoot

Its for excessive levels of testosterone, strange in a middle distance athlete. I really hope he is clean, he is the last guy you would expect to be on the juice.

Pherekydes

Tingle wrote:

Its for excessive levels of testosterone...

But what are excessive levels?

ecksor

It used to be the ratio between testosterone and epitestosterone in the body. Apparently the ratio should be 1:1 but they consider 6:1 or higher to be illegal. I don't know if they've changed that lately.

I agree with Tingle's last post.

Pherekydes

ecksor wrote:

Apparently the ratio should be 1:1...

Apparently I should be 5'8", have a resting heart rate of 72 BPM and an IQ of 100...

Too many athletes are being done over to pad the "fight against drugs statistics".

Moral: "normal levels" don't apply to single individuals.

ecksor

I merely responded to your question ...

I kinda agree with your points but what exactly are you proposing instead? Abolish testing? If you're going to test then you must establish thresholds.

Pherekydes

ecksor wrote:

I merely responded to your question ...

I kinda agree with your points but what exactly are you proposing instead? Abolish testing? If you're going to test then you must establish thresholds.

For the likes of testosterone or EPO what threshholds would be safe?

ecksor

How should I know? I'm not qualified to answer that question.

Pherekydes

It's a rhetorical question. Perhaps I should have said so. Who is qualified to set threshholds? To ruin people's careers? Again, what level is safe?

ecksor

Again, I don't know. Since you didn't answer my earlier question I don't really know what you're getting at. Either we test or we don't, but if we do then there must be thresholds. Do you agree?

Pherekydes

ecksor wrote:

Since you didn't answer my earlier question I don't really know what you're getting at. Either we test or we don't...

Read my first post...

Domer

Whether the sample is proved to be +ve or -ve, the impact on out sport is definitively -ve. In a time when athletics is competing against such quasi-mass-participation sports like soccer and gaa, drugs scandals like this only result in young kids been push away from the sport of athletics when it needs them most.

I was discussing this with a friend last night and it seems the amount of athletes who had their reputations and characters tarnished during the hours from when the AAI announced that there had been a +ve test, and them announcing the name was amazing. Everyone began guessing and speculating as to the offender (I had some ideas and was completely amazed when it was anounced) and several popular names were been thrown around in the rumour mill.

Perhaps in future the AAI should make one press release with ALL the details not a drip feed approach that did little to protect the integrity of its elite membership.

IMHO!!

DaveH

In reply to domer's statement. I think the athlete should be named immediately. However the way the aai announced this seems to be the general practice. With the exception of Rio Ferdinand the F.A in England announced all the failed drug tests the same way. Ferdinand missed a test which in my opinion is as good as failing one. Other point to make about drug tests in footie, because i think it was funny. Mudu the Chelsea player who failed a few years ago, one of the english paper reported that a premiership player had failed a drug test. Sky Sports questioned the F.A...they had no knowledge, then they question Sport Uk...they had no knowledge. It turned out Mudu didnt show up for training one day, no reason given and Morinho said.....test him!! The test showed he was on coke.

No back to athletics matters....I actually think turnbull is inconnect here. Whatever he has taken isnt working!:D in comparison to Lombard. A high level of testorone could of being caused by anything..he may have had a cold and taken something for it. I have heard on the grape fine that the 2 weeks before he was tested he was partying a fair bit....that would have risen his testorone levels<wink>.

Unfortunately it seems that John Tracey's "everything is out" statement is true. My uncle is a phamarist and he personally told Tracey to "go boil his head". His point being that athletes suffer from iron deficancy the most and if everything was out..normal illness that can happen to anyone would be as good as killing athletes.

thats my two cent!

ecksor

Slow coach wrote:

Read my first post...

I've read your first post. Saying that the positives are a joke doesn't answer the actual question I asked.

Pherekydes

Would you feel confident that your T:E ratio was in the "normal" range? I wouldn't. Also note that WADA changed the limits recently. A ratio of 6:1 was legal until 2005, and now it is not legal. Still confident? How can your levels be legal one minute and illegal the next?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/5081598.stm

ecksor

Still not sure what you're saying. I think it's one of two things, but I can't figure out for sure which so I'll make this a bit simpler. Which of the following best describes your position:

(a) - "Yes, I think there should be tests, I just think that the current thresholds are a joke."

(b) - "No, I do not think there should be testing. Testing is a joke since we can't set satisfactory thresholds."

Thanks.

Common Sense

No, testing is not a joke - maybe some of the results are e.g. Diane Modahl, Bernard Lagat etc. I think all athletes who test positive should be banned for at least 4 years, if not for life. However, I don't think any athlete should be provisionally suspended. No suspension or publication of a result should take place until the B sample is tested and final judgement is passed.