12/26/24
February 10, 2006
U.S. Skeleton team takes another hit: of Propecia. Lund sent packing.
it is a shit rule becasue wenit applied to a british years it happened and they baned him and he was innoccent so yes soem one probley did delieratley sabotage his drug test
posted by sassybabygurl09 at 12:51 PM on February 10, 2006
How do you know Amateur that he wasn't using it for what it is banned for. Covering up the use of performance enhancing steroids. The steroids would not have showed up because this medicine maskes them. If he is afraid of people tainting stuff he should keep his stuff with him at all times so it isn't possible for that to happen. So what if you have to carry an extra bag with you everyday. If your career is on the line and you think people may taint your stuff, it is worth it. I get really sick of hearing how they are the victims. Only one guy that I can think of actually took responsibility for the positive test and accepted his punishment in the last few months were several people have gotten caught. Ok it was Morse and he admitted taking them one time and that the positive results must have come from the remnants.
posted by skydivemom at 01:13 PM on February 10, 2006
Only one guy that I can think of actually took responsibility for the positive test and accepted his punishment in the last few months Brian Berard took responsibility and accepted his punishment.
posted by fabulon7 at 01:22 PM on February 10, 2006
I don't know anything for certain, of course, and I never said Lund was a "victim." But according to the article: "CAS said it was entirely satisfied Lund was not a cheat." (The actual ruling is not available at the CAS web site yet, so we've only got the article to go on.) But under the rules, they still can't give him less than a one-year ban. That's the part that I think is wrong. If you accidentally take something that's performance-enhancing, then yes, that should carry some suspension. But he was accidentally taking something that isn't performance enhancing. So once the CAS has ruled that he wasn't using it as a masking agent, it seems pretty severe to give him a one-year sentence. Doesn't it? Also, maybe I wasn't clear, but I don't think anybody sabotaged his test. I was just pointing out that this is practically the only circumstance where he could have escaped without a suspension. He's admitted to using Propecia.
posted by Amateur at 01:38 PM on February 10, 2006
But he was accidentally taking something that isn't performance enhancing. So once the CAS has ruled that he wasn't using it as a masking agent, it seems pretty severe to give him a one-year sentence. Doesn't it? Amateur - how can you accidentally take something that you know is on the list and then say you took it? I don't know why you would risk suspension knowing that it could happen because you were taking a banned substance. Stop taking it, shave you head (bald is in these days) and follow the rules. You don't get punished if you don't break the rules. Maybe it is alittle extreme but if you don't have it people will take advantage of it. Let's say you are starting to go bald, you take propecia to remedy it, you get hurt, you take steroids and it's covered up. But you won't get suspended cause you were going bald. I am not saying this is the case with this guy but someone out there is going to try it so it has to be the same for everyone. It is a banned substance and everyone has the list available to them so it is no surprise.
posted by skydivemom at 02:10 PM on February 10, 2006
Watching an interview with him right now... he's far from happy, but at least he's copping to it.
posted by chicobangs at 03:46 PM on February 10, 2006
Only one guy that I can think of actually took responsibility for the positive test and accepted his punishment in the last few months Matt Lawton admitted culpability and took responsibility.
posted by holden at 05:30 PM on February 10, 2006
I misspoke about people not accepting and admitting. Thank you guys for pointing those two guys out to me. I guess the ones who deny it just stand out more with their mouths.
posted by skydivemom at 05:36 PM on February 10, 2006
Banned substance means banned substance. Period. End of statement. Regardless of whether or not someone agrees with the rule, or if they think it's a shit rule, they have to obey it if they wish to participate. The IOC has a pile of shitty rules, but seeing as with other things, the US no longer has a voice in fixing this, they have to accept the rules and take what's handed out. Things don't just work out because you wish they would.
posted by mrhockey at 06:18 PM on February 10, 2006
I agree mrhockey, the US federation tried to break the rules for Lund, and the CAS caught them at it. Under the rules, this is the right decision -- and actually the most lenient they can be. That doesn't mean I can't criticize the rule, though. Maybe not all banned substances should be treated the same.
posted by Amateur at 06:23 PM on February 10, 2006
I agree that claiming negligence shouldn't work for him when it isn't an allowable excuse for anyone else, but there's another question that I think needs to be asked here: How in the world would taking steroids be of any significant help in the skeleton? Of all the events in either Olympics, this would seem to be the event it would be the least useful in, and that's why I'm more inclined to feel sorry for him.
posted by TheQatarian at 06:43 PM on February 10, 2006
Here is a more detailed article that fills in a lot of details I had not seen before.
posted by Amateur at 07:21 PM on February 10, 2006
Why take Propecia and risk this ruling? You're prepping for a once-in-four-years event, and you're more concerned about your receding hairline than winning? I mean, you're in a frickin' helmet when you're racing; nobody'll know you're bald! Stupid. Win the event, and shave your head bald. Hell, when you're Olympic champ, noone will care what hair you have. You'll not only save money on Propecia, you'll probably be too busy fighting off the honeys to put it on! Cmon! Stupid!
posted by worldcup2002 at 08:02 PM on February 10, 2006
And thanks for the pointer, Amateur. Even with those details, I find it strange he didn't check on the drug's legal status. It wasn't like he had multiple drugs he was using that he was filing for. I mean, he was filing (and being tested) every year about drug usage, why not check, especially the year before the Olympics?
posted by worldcup2002 at 08:06 PM on February 10, 2006
I'm not surprised at this. Given that he had a positive test, the only way he could get away with less than a one-year ban is if he bore "no fault or negligence." Being ignorant of the rules is not enough -- he'd have to prove that somebody deliberately sabotaged his drug test, essentially. It's a shit rule, though, when it's applied to a masking agent that does not, in itself, enhance performance.