Munster Team Talk Thread - New season title pending....

Burkie1203

Kirk Van Houten wrote: »

Cronin waived his right to have this heard by a judicial committee and accepted the charge from the off. That means no hearing and formal questioning of Cronin himself. If you believe this is unusual do you have stats of how often a JO will interview someone who has pleaded guilty and there is no hearing?

I'm unaware so what are the links of the pharmacy to the Munster set up?

In the official report on the EPRC website the details relating to what was on the medicine when it was dispensed have been redacted. Where are you getting the detail of the address being missing?

Today's Sindo article by Brendan Fanning. Only the name was on the prescription and a formal notice was issued by the pharmacy to the PSI regarding this

He also mentioned there is close family connections to the Munster set up with the pharmacy in question in a previous article.


The JO should have insisted on speaking to Cronin. Its a serious doping violation.

irishbucsfan

The more details that emerge it certainly sounds exceptionally, exceptionally dodgy alright. Not surprised Sport Ireland are digging into it

Kirk Van Houten

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Today's Sindo article by Brendan Fanning. Only the name was on the prescription and a formal notice was issued by the pharmacy to the PSI regarding this

He also mentioned there is close family connections to the Munster set up with the pharmacy in question in a previous article.


The JO should have insisted on speaking to Cronin. Its a serious doping violation.

If the prescription, which is what the doctor writes, had only a name on it, it would be the doctor who was in trouble. It was the labelling on the bag for collection which I believe had only a name on it. I have no doubt the pharmacy reported their significant error but in terms of GDPR what is the guidance on labelling to pharmacys in dispensing medicines?

I refuse to read the Indo so can you please confirm what these close links are between the pharmacy and Munster rugby.

Again if you think it's so "strange" for Cronin not be interviewed can you please back that up.

jacothelad

About 10 years ago I collected my repeat meds from my local pharmacy. I was very well known to the staff who I knew socially. When I got home and opened the paper bag and removed the package it was for someone with the same name but it was medication for someone with a compromised immune system. In the small town in which I lived there were 3 men with exactly the same name as me. I can easily understand how this happens.



Medication errors are most common at the ordering or prescribing stage. Typical errors include the healthcare provider writing the wrong medication, wrong route or dose, or the wrong frequency. These ordering errors account for almost 50% of medication errors. Data show that nurses and pharmacists identify anywhere from 30% to 70% of medication-ordering errors. It is obvious that medication errors are a pervasive problem, but in the majority of cases, the problem is preventable.

thomond2006

The bag label of a dispensed medicine always has the patient name and address. It's part of protocol to not mix up patients with the same name, there is never meant to be one patient identifier in healthcare. An address is a legal requirement to accept a script.

A pharmacist's words, not mine.

irishbucsfan

Kirk Van Houten wrote: »

If the prescription, which is what the doctor writes, had only a name on it, it would be the doctor who was in trouble. It was the labelling on the bag for collection which I believe had only a name on it. I have no doubt the pharmacy reported their significant error but in terms of GDPR what is the guidance on labelling to pharmacys in dispensing medicines?

I refuse to read the Indo so can you please confirm what these close links are between the pharmacy and Munster rugby.

Again if you think it's so "strange" for Cronin not be interviewed can you please back that up.

The label on the prescription should have had Cronin’s address. Or rather, I guess, the other Cronin who was collecting their prescription for a performance-enhancing drug from a pharmacy with family links to Munster, but had coincidentally not yet collected it that day.

jacothelad

thomond2006 wrote: »

The bag label of a dispensed medicine always has the patient name and address. It's part of protocol to not mix up patients with the same name, there is never meant to be one patient identifier in healthcare. An address is a legal requirement to accept a script.

A pharmacist's words, not mine.

The problem was that I was simply handed a medication with my 'name' on it by people who knew my name. Familiarity perhaps. It didn't matter whose address was on the origination documents. It is perhaps a potential weakness in the NHS repeat prescription system. I'm just posting because it does happen...as it happened to me. Where I now live I am asked my address on receipt of my meds.

irishbucsfan

jacothelad wrote: »

About 10 years ago I collected my repeat meds from my local pharmacy. I was very well known to the staff who I knew socially. When I got home and opened the paper bag and removed the package it was for someone with the same name but it was medication for someone with a compromised immune system. In the small town in which I lived there were 3 men with exactly the same name as me. I can easily understand how this happens.



Medication errors are most common at the ordering or prescribing stage. Typical errors include the healthcare provider writing the wrong medication, wrong route or dose, or the wrong frequency. These ordering errors account for almost 50% of medication errors. Data show that nurses and pharmacists identify anywhere from 30% to 70% of medication-ordering errors. It is obvious that medication errors are a pervasive problem, but in the majority of cases, the problem is preventable.

Absolutely no doubt it happens. Completely accepted the explanation at the beginning as well. But the list of circumstances Fanning has published seem far too convenient to be true.

I really hope it’s one of the biggest coincidences of all time or Fanning is making it up or something. Because a doping offense from a player would be one thing, but a calculated doping offense with assistance of medical professionals would be an absolute killer for the reputation of the sport in the country. Especially at a time when there’s nothing else for tabloids to put in their back pages

Former Former

Kirk Van Houten wrote: »

What do you feel hasn't been answered?

Here's one.

When you give a sample, you have to declare any medicines or supplements you're taking.

What did Cronin declare? Somewhere, there's a document that says he told the sampling officer that he was taking prednisolone, or that he didn't.

I'd like to know what it says.

Burkie1203

Kirk Van Houten wrote: »

If the prescription, which is what the doctor writes, had only a name on it, it would be the doctor who was in trouble. It was the labelling on the bag for collection which I believe had only a name on it. I have no doubt the pharmacy reported their significant error but in terms of GDPR what is the guidance on labelling to pharmacys in dispensing medicines?

I refuse to read the Indo so can you please confirm what these close links are between the pharmacy and Munster rugby.

Again if you think it's so "strange" for Cronin not be interviewed can you please back that up.

The pharmacy had an internal review and lodged a formal notice with the PSI. That indicates to me the issue was at the pharmacy end.

Name and address are required. Also there is further requirement to put age if the person is under 12.


I don't know the exact details but in a previous article Fanning mentioned there was a family link between pharmacy and the Munster set up. GDPR is being cited now. But will Munster or Cronin take legal action against the pharmacy now?

https://twitter.com/teflondub/status/1259474440951418880?s=19



When a player fails a doping test, and the explanation is a list of coincidences then the JO IMO should be cross examining the player to make sure what is given in writing matches up otherwise what is given in writing could be well matched up by legal rep.

aloooof

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Absolutely no doubt it happens. Completely accepted the explanation at the beginning as well. But the list of circumstances Fanning has published seem far too convenient to be true.

I really hope it’s one of the biggest coincidences of all time or Fanning is making it up or something.

What extra circumstances did Fanning write that wasn’t on the report from the Disciplinary Panel?

(Genuine question, I think the article is behind a paywall?)

Burkie1203

Former Former wrote: »

Here's one.

When you give a sample, you have to declare any medicines or supplements you're taking.

What did Cronin declare? Somewhere, there's a document that says he told the sampling officer that he was taking prednisolone, or that he didn't.

I'd like to know what it says.

The medication on the prescription emailed to pharmacy was put on the doping control form

aloooof

Former Former wrote: »

Here's one.

When you give a sample, you have to declare any medicines or supplements you're taking.

What did Cronin declare? Somewhere, there's a document that says he told the sampling officer that he was taking prednisolone, or that he didn't.

I'd like to know what it says.

That’s of zero value though unless you know the full timeline of events, which presumably will have been available to the EPCR.

(Fwiw, I also believe the more transparency the better)

Kirk Van Houten

Former Former wrote: »

Here's one.

When you give a sample, you have to declare any medicines or supplements you're taking.

What did Cronin declare? Somewhere, there's a document that says he told the sampling officer that he was taking prednisolone, or that he didn't.

I'd like to know what it says.

The full EPCR states clearly that the medication listed on the day of the match was only what had been prescribed by the doctor.

lawrencesummers

As this appears to be blown out of proportion, can I ask a question.

I’ve no time for drugs cheats, and I think Cronin should undergo mandatory testing on a regular basis because of this,


But that said. If the doctor had deemed necessary could he have prescribed that steroid to Cronin and included it on the TUE? As in can a doctor give a patient with the symptoms JC had those meds if they get clearance?

Burkie1203

lawrencesummers wrote: »

As this appears to be blown out of proportion, can I ask a question.

I’ve no time for drugs cheats, and I think Cronin should undergo mandatory testing on a regular basis because of this,


But that said. If the doctor had deemed necessary could he have prescribed that steroid to Cronin and included it on the TUE? As in can a doctor give a patient with the symptoms JC had those meds if they get clearance?

Yes. If the athletes condition requires that medication

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/what-we-do/science-medical/therapeutic-use-exemptions

Kirk Van Houten

lawrencesummers wrote: »

As this appears to be blown out of proportion, can I ask a question.

I’ve no time for drugs cheats, and I think Cronin should undergo mandatory testing on a regular basis because of this,


But that said. If the doctor had deemed necessary could he have prescribed that steroid to Cronin and included it on the TUE? As in can a doctor give a patient with the symptoms JC had those meds if they get clearance?

I'm not a medical professional but my understanding is that if a drug is a valid treatment for an illness then a TUE can be used.
The drug in question here was not a valid treatment in this instance.

Also the word "understands" in relation to Fanning's article and the links between the pharmacy and Munster means it's a rumour he can't prove.

irishbucsfan

aloooof wrote: »

That’s of zero value though unless you know the full timeline of events, which presumably will have been available to the EPCR.

(Fwiw, I also believe the more transparency the better)

The timeline is that he was tested within 24 hours of taking all this, and none of the steroids he took made it onto the doping control form which was filled out by the doctor and affirmed by Cronin. Its possible that the doctor didn't actually ask Cronin what he had taken and how much (which would have triggered suspicion given the dosages), and Cronin then signed that form without reading it.

Basically, as more and more information becomes available, the story seems more and more unlikely.

Also to be clear, according to the times, he ALSO took the Amoxicillin. He received the antibiotics he was prescribed and took them and then the steroids (which were labeled as steroids), which were in a completely different form to the antibiotics he was supposed to be taking.

Prednisone can also be used to mask other steroids (it doesn't have any long-term benefit, its mostly used illicitly for this purpose), so there's also the coincidence he took this huge amount of it within 24 hours of a drug test (two players are test once every 4-5 European games, and those players can be targeted). So there's another potential conspiracy that there was a tip-off and scramble to cover up something else I guess.

It's still completely possible it was all a series of coincidences, I hope it is, but there's no surprise at all that Sport Ireland want more information. I hope they conclude quickly and we can get past it.

Burkie1203

Kirk Van Houten wrote: »

I'm not a medical professional but my understanding is that if a drug is a valid treatment for an illness then a TUE can be used.
The drug in question here was not a valid treatment in this instance.

Also the word "understands" in relation to Fanning's article and the links between the pharmacy and Munster means it's a rumour he can't prove.

If your not a medical professional, how do you know the drugs taken were not valid in this instance?

The only reference I have seen is Cronin was feeling "unwell" so we don't actually know what was wrong with him.

Kirk Van Houten

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The timeline is that he was tested within 24 hours of taking all this, and none of the steroids he took made it onto the doping control form which was filled out by the doctor and affirmed by Cronin.

As stated in the full report Cronin declared all the medicine he had been prescribed on his control form and that was done by the Doctor and signed by Cronin. The Doctor had no way of knowing what else Cronin was taking other than what he had prescribed and from what I can "understand" (same use as Fanning's link to the pharmacy) Cronin believed that declaration covered it all as he didn't spot the difference in medicine he just followed the instructions on the pack.

In a way Cronin is very lucky it wasn't something far more damaging to his body.

Also the fact Cronin waved the right to a hearing, accepted full responsibility meant that he opened himself to the likelihood of a two year ban. He was very lucky it wasnt more but as per the EPCR the level of evidence he was able to provide helps explain why the sentence was lowered so much.

Burkie1203

Kirk Van Houten wrote: »

As stated in the full report Cronin declared all the medicine he had been prescribed on his control form and that was done by the Doctor and signed by Cronin. The Doctor had no way of knowing what else Cronin was taking other than what he had prescribed and from what I can "understand" (same use as Fanning's link to the pharmacy) Cronin believed that declaration covered it all as he didn't spot the difference in medicine he just followed the instructions on the pack.

In a way Cronin is very lucky it wasn't something far more damaging to his body.

Also the fact Cronin waved the right to a hearing, accepted full responsibility meant that he opened himself to the likelihood of a two year ban. He was very lucky it wasnt more but as per the EPCR the level of evidence he was able to provide helps explain why the sentence was lowered so much.

The evidence was put forward by a solicitor. Not by Cronin.

Vinnie222

Has the IRFU come out with any statement about all this ?

Kirk Van Houten

Burkie1203 wrote: »

If your not a medical professional, how do you know the drugs taken were not valid in this instance?

The only reference I have seen is Cronin was feeling "unwell" so we don't actually know what was wrong with him.

My view as a non medical professional is that if it was a valid treatment then that's what the Doctor would have prescribed.

Any update on this links to Munster Rugby other than a rumour in the Sindo?

Or the stats behind JO interviewing or not interviewing someone who has already accepted being guilty of the charge.

irishbucsfan

Kirk Van Houten wrote: »

As stated in the full report Cronin declared all the medicine he had been prescribed on his control form and that was done by the Doctor and signed by Cronin. The Doctor had no way of knowing what else Cronin was taking other than what he had prescribed and from what I can "understand" (same use as Fanning's link to the pharmacy) Cronin believed that declaration covered it all as he didn't spot the difference in medicine he just followed the instructions on the pack.

What do you mean the Doctor "had no way of knowing" what else Cronin had taken in the 7 days prior to the test? He had a perfectly good and completely easy way of knowing, he could have asked him.

In fact it seems harder for me to believe that he didn't ask him if he'd taken anything else other than the antibiotics that week and just guessed instead that he hadn't.

Kirk Van Houten

Burkie1203 wrote: »

The evidence was put forward by a solicitor. Not by Cronin.

What is your point? There was no hearing, meeting or call. This was done by correspondence.

You seem to be implying that because it was put forward by a solicitor that in someway Cronin was hiding. Even in a disciplinary meeting it would be put forward by a solicitor or similar not the player themselves.

Kirk Van Houten

irishbucsfan wrote: »

What do you mean the Doctor "had no way of knowing" what else Cronin had taken in the 7 days prior to the test? He had a perfectly good and completely easy way of knowing, he could have asked him.

In fact it seems harder for me to believe that he didn't ask him if he'd taken anything else other than the antibiotics that week and just guessed instead that he hadn't.

The implication is that Cronin believed the two medicines he had were the antibiotics. The doctor filled out the form and Cronin confirmed it. Cronins liability which he accepted.

irishbucsfan

Kirk Van Houten wrote: »

The implication is that Cronin believed the two medicines he had were the antibiotics. The doctor filled out the form and Cronin confirmed it. Cronins liability which he accepted.

Is there not also supposed to be the dosages and timings in the disclosure?

lawrencesummers

Kirk Van Houten wrote: »

I'm not a medical professional but my understanding is that if a drug is a valid treatment for an illness then a TUE can be used.
The drug in question here was not a valid treatment in this instance.

Also the word "understands" in relation to Fanning's article and the links between the pharmacy and Munster means it's a rumour he can't prove.

Are you sure about that?

lawrencesummers

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Yes. If the athletes condition requires that medication

https://www.wada-ama.org/en/what-we-do/science-medical/therapeutic-use-exemptions

Then I think this is very relevant.
The medicine that was incorrectly given by the pharmacist was medicine that is available and could have if the Munster Doctor wanted to, been prescribed. It’s not as if he got pinged for some stuff that not available, has no earthly business being in his system, like that Carlow footballer recently.

Kirk Van Houten

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Are you sure about that?

According to wiki one helps fight infection and the other is used to suppress the immune system. Again I'm not a medical professional so am very open to anyone who can show me that they can be used to treat the same thing. As stated before Cronins illness was never disclosed officially.

Prednisone is a glucocorticoid medication mostly used to suppress the immune system and decrease inflammation in conditions such as asthma, COPD, and rheumatologic diseases.

Amoxicillin is an antibiotic used to treat a number of bacterial infections. These include middle ear infection, strep throat, pneumonia, skin infections, and urinary tract infections among others.