12 comments

• 

  dhowls

  5 months ago

  Millard,
  
  You're an idiot. Torres has gone above and beyond what is required of her to prove she is not doping.
  She is taking a medication that 100's of elite competitors take to treat asthma.
  She was diagnosed with asthma years ago.
  She switched medications to one that is allowed by the IOC.
  In this year's Olympics those not wearing the new suit, which by the way is approved by the IOC are at a disadvantage since everyone will be wearing one.
  What's your beef? Envious that you can't do what she is doing?
  She proclaims she is clean. All tests prove that she is.
  Why not tie her to a post, call the firing squad and shoot her before her first race.
  In your eyes she is damned if she succeeds and damned if she fails.
  Yes, you are a narrow minded idiot.
  reply
• 

  Millard Baker

  5 months ago

  @dhowls, I have no "beef" with Dara Torres. Granted, I am dismayed by the self-righteous undertones in her recent statements. But that does not change my opinion that she is an unqualified success - "in my eyes" - period.
  
  Her performances have been spectacular. She is one of the most admirable and inspirational athletes in the Olympics challenging our preconceived notions regarding the limitations of human performance with age.
  
  When it comes to performance and doping, my prolific record on the internet shows that I'm anything but narrow-minded on the topic.
  
  I have never claimed that Dara Torres is a "cheater." I am actually one of the people who believe she is following the WADA/IOC/FINA rules and NOT "doping" as it is defined in the WADA code. I have repeatedly stated this.
  
  My point of contention is the arbitrariness and capriciousness of the WADA code itself. I think the Dara Torres case illustrates this very well. In fact, you've made the case for me with your statement:
  
  "She is taking a medication that 100's of elite competitors take to treat asthma.
  She was diagnosed with asthma years ago.
  She switched medications to one that is allowed by the IOC. "
  
  That is exactly the point I've been making which I've stated repeatedly, albeit less euphemestically:
  
  Dara Torres, like hundreds of other swimmers, is using performance enhancing drugs sanctioned by the IOC due to thereapeutic use exemptions; whereas, other athletes who use similar asthma medications that are not sanctioned by the IOC are vilified.
  
  There is no scenario in which Torres should be "damned."
  
  Yet, the WADA code and the implementation of the doping protocols are another story.
  
  Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my position on Dara Torres.
  reply
• 

  Millard Baker

  5 months ago

  The demonization of performance enhancement is a tragedy. There are various performance enhancing substances. Anti-doping agencies have undertaken the task of identifying which performance enhancing substances are permitted (and under what circumstances) and which ones are prohibited.
  
  DOPING is the use of banned PEDs violating the WADA code.
  
  The simple use of PEDs does not necessarily constitute doping.
  
  An athlete can use PEDs and still NOT be guilty of DOPING.
  
  So, stating that an athlete is USING PEDs is NOT the same as stating that an athlete is DOPING.
  
  Sometime using PEDs is doping, sometimes it is not.
  reply
• 

  Strategus

  5 months ago

  Hello Millard -
  
  This is just an FYI about a commentary AND an editorial in the well-known journal _Nature_. I think you might like it, especially as it is published to coincide with the Olympics.
  
  http://www.nature.com/nature/index.html
  
  Donald A. Berry, a high-ranking statistician, calls into question the procedures used to charge athletes with cheating and cites the Floyd Landis case.
  
  If you are near a university library, you may want to check out:
  
  http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7205...
  
  Unfortunately, _Nature_ is a subscription-based journal, so the articles aren't open to those w/o a subscription.
  
  This blog post quotes a portion of the article.
  
  http://scienceblogs.com/drugmonkey/2008/08/the_...
  
  It's noteworthy because _Nature_ is one of the top 5 or 10 journals in the biomedical sciences and anything published in that journal carries a heavy weight (no pun intended :-)) in the scientific community.
  reply
• 

  Millard Baker

  5 months ago

  @Strategus, thank you for alerting me to this great article. I hope to read the full text shortly.
  reply
• 

  wmholt

  5 months ago

  Obviously, if a person has bronchospasm, then the "performance-enhancing" drugs simply overcome a limitation and bring the competitor back to baseline. If the person does not have asthma, or exercise-induced asthma, then medications that act as beta-adrenergic agonists could potentially provide a competitive advantage.
  
  The Symbicort actually contains a cortisone-based steroid, which is catabolic, and hurts muscle growth, rather having the effect that anabolic steroids have in enhancing performance.
  
  I have my questions about people that peak in their 40's. I'll give Dara the benefit of the doubt for now, but I won't be shocked if some testing reveals an illegal drug.
  
  It's just sad to see how cynical I have become, but I think athletes from baseball to weight-lifting to cycling have used illegal performance-enhancing drugs to the extent that we question extraordinary performances.
  
  Now that we are in the Olympics, the big story will be whether the Bulgarian weight-lifting team gets sent home again.
  reply
• 

  Millard Baker

  5 months ago

  Obviously, if a person has bronchospasm, then the "performance-enhancing" drugs simply overcome a limitation and bring the competitor back to baseline.
  
  I don't think there is any evidence or reason to believe this. There is nothing obvious about this assumption. (Of course, that is the justification for TUE.)
  
  Thanks for your feedback.
  reply
• 

  parkside701

  4 months ago

  novicbb would be interested in this. That and the fact he needs viagra to get his limp dick up and running
  reply
• 

  kieran

  4 months ago

  I think you should engage with reality before you write this. You should go through the steps to get a TUE - it is not a gimmie!!! It is very hard to get one and there is a huge burden of proof from independent medical people.
  reply
• 

  Millard Baker

  4 months ago

  You are missing my point. The question is not whether or not she legitimately qualified for a TUE; I am assuming that all TUEs granted are legitimate.
  
  The question is about the fairness of a system that allows some athletes to use performance enhancing drugs (for whatever reason) and forbids others from using the same drugs.
  
  At the very least, there should be full disclosure to the public regarding all the TUEs that are granted to individual athletes with a list of all drugs they are using.
  reply
• 

  Da Man

  4 months ago

  Good story. I enjoy this website as it covers steroids issues in more detail than the mainstream press. Keep up the good work. This TUE stuff is BS. Way too many athletes have come up lame with asthma, which the the "disease du jour" for athletes who never had symptoms or diagnosis.
  I had asthma as a child and grew out of it thanks to sports. To believe that full grown adults suddenly acquire asthma out of the blue is ludicrous. You apologists need to stop being gullible.
  reply
• 

  eq2 plat

  1 month ago

  Hello Millard -
  
  I think you might like it, especially as it is published to coincide with the Olympics.
  reply