Anti-Doping Rule Violation: Tyronne White

thats impressive considering he stopped with dehydration and still had a shot from the doc

 

speaking of shots, whats the story with the no needles rule in SA?

Impressive? Maybe. But it is indicative that something slowed them down.

Regarding the no needles, good question, how would that dude in the medical field have administered a ringer lactate fluid bag without one?

My question was: IF the doc did in fact give him the wrong meds would we believe it?

 

IF this did really happen it would also not be blame shifting.

 

IF this did happen would the doc actually admit it? Giving somebody the wrong meds, is a biggie...

 

I'm not talking about the likely hood of this, history has taught us better, but I'm just trying to be objective.

The meds would not necessarily be wrong, in fact they would probably have been correct. Just a WADA issue so no problem for the Doc as he is not ruled by WADA the athlete is.

The meds would not necessarily be wrong, in fact they would probably have been correct. Just a WADA issue so no problem for the Doc as he is not ruled by WADA the athlete is.

My hypothetical question was specifically: IF the meds were wrong.....

My hypothetical question was specifically: IF the meds were wrong.....

I'm assuming a field medic, doc or pharmacy would have a stock list and do a stock take.  This seems to be a common practice.  It should be possible to check if this doc did a stock take.

So if the meds were wrong, the doc would know a few days later that the wrong meds got provided to someone.  If the stock-take is any good you would be able to narrow it down to just a few patients since you can check which med you've got one too much of.

Ethical docs would try to track it or notify patients for side-effects.  Non-ethical docs would imply a whole big can of worms.

One would 'assume' they can name the meds given to him for the chunderi then??

which begs the question; whom should take responsibilty on this- the medics stocking meds thats on banned list; or should the riders sit and google each pills ingredients before popping them....

It is the athletes responsibility. No need for Google. Drug free sport has an app that if you type in the commercial name it well tell you if banned or not. Takes a minute. So no excuses !!

It is the athletes responsibility. No need for Google. Drug free sport has an app that if you type in the commercial name it well tell you if banned or not. Takes a minute. So no excuses !!

Again, the hypothetical question was: IF the Doc hands you a pill and says its a Panado, you check it on WADA app, it says all clear, you take it.... BUT the doc by mistake handed you something else...... How would we deal with that?

Again, these are hypothetical questions, so that some sort of constructive discussion can take place, they are not necessarily about Tyronne's case.

I'm assuming a field medic, doc or pharmacy would have a stock list and do a stock take.  This seems to be a common practice.  It should be possible to check if this doc did a stock take.

 

So if the meds were wrong, the doc would know a few days later that the wrong meds got provided to someone.  If the stock-take is any good you would be able to narrow it down to just a few patients since you can check which med you've got one too much of.

 

Ethical docs would try to track it or notify patients for side-effects.  Non-ethical docs would imply a whole big can of worms.

I agree. For a Doc to admit this is a biggie.

Question is, would be believe it? I doubt it.

Im very angry with him.

If he didnt take part in the three mountains, I would have come two hundred and eighty second.

Just sounds so much better than two hundred and eighty third.

I agree. For a Doc to admit this is a biggie.

 

Question is, would be believe it? I doubt it.

If I saw all the evidence, there's a chance I'd believe it.  The stocktake sheet for one.

We'll never see all the evidence, though.  The appeals board might see all the evidence, but now you're opening up:

- doctor patient confidentiality

- doctor malpractice problems

- name smearing, libel, etc.

My guess is any good lawyer would prevent all the evidence from coming out, so we'd get a "he said, she said..." scenario.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof...

Note that if the doc did provide the wrong meds, the cyclist is lucky:

• he wasn't allergic to the wrong meds
• the wrong meds didn't make him sicker
• the wrong meds weren't neutral
• the wrong meds, by chance, still cured his ailment (how often is this true ???)
• the wrong meds were banned

docs giving wrong meds is *very very very* serious.

Tend to agree with you. What kind of a dumbass incompetent doctor do they use at these races?

Yip I guess it must be the doctors fault ....

Sent from my LG-D958 using Tapatalk

Oh ****..I see his partner on j2ç was Andrew hill.. Who is the most straight down the line nice chap your will ever meet.. Hope he doesn't feel the repercussions of this

similarly to the #Geovans saga? 

similarly to the #Geovans saga? 

No its not similar to that. Don't be a dick.

Yip I guess it must be the doctors fault ....

 

Sent from my LG-D958 using Tapatalk

You shouldn't guess about these things, sheez.

Tend to agree with you. What kind of a dumbass incompetent doctor do they use at these races?

The human kind?

No its not similar to that. Don't be a dick.

  LOL! Why not?

  LOL! Why not?

I suppose you can be whatever you want to be, worked for Trump.

At least it's not another "the pharmacist spiked my drink" story.

My hypothetical question was specifically: IF the meds were wrong.....

If the meds were right, can the doc sue for bringing his name in disrepute?

If the meds were right, and did not contain a banned substance?

If the meds were right, contained a banned substance, but the cyclist was correctly informed?

If the meds were right, can the doc sue for bringing his name in disrepute?  If he suffered losses, I am sure he could.

 

If the meds were right, and did not contain a banned substance? Then whoopsie on the athletes part.

If the meds were right, contained a banned substance, but the cyclist was correctly informed? The same as the above.

All good points again, its nice engaging somebody like you.

Did I miss where it was stated that it was indeed a doctor, or a paramedic that administered the drugs (pun intended)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When is he appealing and presenting his evidence?.... If he is going to?

Did I miss where it was stated that it was indeed a doctor, or a paramedic that administered the drugs (pun intended)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No you didn't miss anything.

There was diferent conversations going on about general statements.

When is he appealing and presenting his evidence?.... If he is going to?

my limited understanding is that that has already happened. the process is something like this

- athlete gets notified of adverse finding

- athlete gets opportunity to present his side, lawyers, etc

- once all hearings have been had, a decision is made

- if decision is that adverse finding stays, then press release is issued

so all these clowns who bleat about how it was a mistake have already tried to convince the powers that be, and they didnt buy it. So their next best bet is to make the public think they are being unfairly done in

my limited understanding is that that has already happened. the process is something like this

 

- athlete gets notified of adverse finding

- athlete gets opportunity to present his side, lawyers, etc

- once all hearings have been had, a decision is made

- if decision is that adverse finding stays, then press release is issued

 

so all these clowns who bleat about how it was a mistake have already tried to convince the powers that be, and they didnt buy it. So their next best bet is to make the public think they are being unfairly done in

The appeal has not taken place yet. It does not form part of the initial tribunal.