Yolande de Villiers sanctioned for anti-doping rule violation

Apparently Yolande has been on these blood pressure meds for 4 years... and has been declaring the use of it for 4 years. Might explain the very lenient sentencing? Might explain the lack of transparency from SAIDS...

 

Starting to sound a bit like some administrative failure, regardless of what led us to this outcome...

 

Options: She's been allowed to use her blood pressure meds for three years, but not the fourth year?

She's never been allowed to use them and it took 3/4 years for the penny to drop with SAIDS?

This is just a little spin doctoring to save some face?

 

It's hard to know what is actually going on when there is no transparency, no accountability... we're always left fumbling around in the dark looking for the truth.

World is not black and white huh? Do you think it's fair to receive a lifetime ban for someone else's bungle?

You are absolutely correct! I am no doctor either but it seems logical that diuretics and meds like beta blockers would negatively impact physical performance.

So I google it and guess what: "Exercise performance is impaired when an individual is dehydrated by as little as 2% of body weight. Losses in excess of 5% of body weight can decrease the capacity for work by about 30% (Armstrong et al. 1985; Craig and Cummings 1966; Maughan 1991; Sawka and Pandolf 1990)."

Not saying it happened in YdeV's case but :

Google a bit more and you will find that diuretics are abused by athletes as a masking agent for performance enhancing drugs and as such have been put on the banned list.

Beta blockers are abused by athletes in sports where a steady hand and regular heartbeat under pressure are required. Think competition shooting or snooker.

There are few drugs on the list that have not been used by some skelm to try and get an unfair advantage.

World is not black and white huh? Do you think it's fair to receive a lifetime ban for someone else's bungle?

We don't know who bungled ("we" might know, but I don't.)

• Did Yolande know she needed a TUE?  Who was supposed to tell her?  If she's pro, she's supposed to know.
• Did she assume a TUE for year 1 was valid in year 2 and 3?
• Did she apply for the TUE, but race before she got one?
• Did she get one, but forget to present it when being tested?
• Did she get one, present it, and it wasn't deemed good enough?
• Did she get one for drug A, and the doc switched her to generic B?

Not saying it happened in YdeV's case but :

 

Google a bit more and you will find that diuretics are abused by athletes as a masking agent for performance enhancing drugs and as such have been put on the banned list.

 

Beta blockers are abused by athletes in sports where a steady hand and regular heartbeat under pressure are required. Think competition shooting or snooker.

 

There are few drugs on the list that have not been used by some skelm to try and get an unfair advantage.

Sure eddy, with you on that, I'm just saying that certain drugs have a negative impact on some sports, so you need to look at the context of the sport i.e. beta blockers and cycling is not good, but beta blockers for target shooting would be advantages. Likewise diuretics for cycling don't make sense, but in the context of a masking agent, then it does make sense.

Cheaper medication means a short cut has been taken somewhere, perhaps in the blending plant or packaging plants? Risks of trace contamination higher?

The way I understood it is that the generic drugs are cheaper because they don't have to pay all the high development and testing fees to make sure that the product is actually working? Maybe there's a doctor or a pharmacist here who knows the process and the differences?

Cheaper medication means a short cut has been taken somewhere, perhaps in the blending plant or packaging plants? Risks of trace contamination higher?

Nope. 

Patent Lapse. That is all. 

World is not black and white huh? Do you think it's fair to receive a lifetime ban for someone else's bungle?

Raptor, do you know something the rest of us don't? if so, please fill us in. It would be nice to have some light shed on this

You are pretty vociferous in your defense of the athlete, which suggests you do know more than the rest of us. 

And in response based on what is in the public domain. 

The responsibility sits with the athlete, so it is their bungle. 

The UCI ban is final, meaning the athlete had the opportunity to represent their case. UCI still found against the athlete. The evidence that was presented may have lead to a reduced sentence, not in the public domain. 

We have not heard from the Athlete at this point. 

There is no comments column. Yet. 

You are absolutely correct! I am no doctor either but it seems logical that diuretics and meds like beta blockers would negatively impact physical performance.

So I google it and guess what: "Exercise performance is impaired when an individual is dehydrated by as little as 2% of body weight. Losses in excess of 5% of body weight can decrease the capacity for work by about 30% (Armstrong et al. 1985; Craig and Cummings 1966; Maughan 1991; Sawka and Pandolf 1990)."

I think that is wrong. It sounds very much like the sponsored "research" which the energy companies used to push their products. I can't find the more correct studies now, but here is one link to an article written by Ross Tucker (including links at the bottom) http://sportsscientists.com/2013/01/dangerous-exercise-the-hype-of-dehydration-heat-stroke/

"Supposedly, as little as 2% dehydration impairs performance by 10%, which is amusing because when the world’s elite marathon runners finish in 2:05, they have lost at least 2% body weight, which means they’re running two minutes slower than they would’ve done had they listened to many Gatorade advertisements and scientists sponsored to tell this “truth”. The problem is not dehydration, it’s thirst – the discomfort created by feeling thirsty is without doubt detrimental, which is why drinking ad libitium, in response to thirst, is both good enough to ensure our health and to optimize performance."

Raptor, do you know something the rest of us don't? if so, please fill us in. It would be nice to have some light shed on this

 

You are pretty vociferous in your defense of the athlete, which suggests you do know more than the rest of us. 

 

And in response based on what is in the public domain. 

 

The responsibility sits with the athlete, so it is their bungle. 

The UCI ban is final, meaning the athlete had the opportunity to represent their case. UCI still found against the athlete. The evidence that was presented may have lead to a reduced sentence, not in the public domain. 

 

We have not heard from the Athlete at this point. 

 

There is no comments column. Yet. 

I'm not defending anyone. I am stating that I don't trust the process

I'm not defending anyone. I am stating that I don't trust the process

I'm not defending anyone. I am stating that I don't trust the process

Pretty much the way I understood it....

I agree that in SA many processes are flawed. But that does not automatically make the athletes victims or innocent, in fact flawed systems are easier to exploit by those who intend to cheat.

Flawed systems also target results before quality. The system has as much a duty to fulfill in ensuring real cheats are caught as the riders do need ensure they are clean.

Placing blind faith in a non transparent  bureaucratic process is foolish. The value of these processes is not to provide Friday Bikehub banter but to police fair sporting activity.

I agree that in SA many processes are flawed. But that does not automatically make the athletes victims or innocent, in fact flawed systems are easier to exploit by those who intend to cheat.

Agreed.

Slight tangent, but I also see a gap in the education of young sports people in the processes and responsibilities of not only following the rules of a specific race (e.g. junior gearing), but also the anti-doping rules and how to stay on the correct side of those rules in terms of supplements, medicines, etcetera. I guess the parents and team managers would fill some role there, but the final responsibility falls on the rider therefore the rider should also know all the rules and processes.

Flawed systems also target results before quality. The system has as much a duty to fulfill in ensuring real cheats are caught as the riders do need ensure they are clean.

 

Placing blind faith in a non transparent bureaucratic process is foolish. The value of these processes is not to provide Friday Bikehub banter but to police fair sporting activity.

What's your arguement against them? Does this make Yolande innocent by default? And why only this case?

I'm not defending anyone. I am stating that I don't trust the process

Cool, what about the process don't you trust? 

That part where the athlete is responsible?

The way the rules are applied?

The people responsible for the process? If this is the case, which people?

Or is there another part of the process you are not happy with? 

Thanks 

Cool, what about the process don't you trust? 

 

That part where the athlete is responsible?

The way the rules are applied?

The people responsible for the process? If this is the case, which people?

Or is there another part of the process you are not happy with? 

 

Thanks 

Good questions. I'll come back you to once I've structured my arguments. Just banging out random thoughts just to respond wouldn't be respectful to the quality of the questions

Mmmmm.

A quick question to all the experts out there...?

Would said athlete be liable to pay back winnings after first test was taken...?

That means winnings from Epic 2015 podium and stages etc..?

Just interesting, as this could amount to well over ZAR80000, if I'm not mistaken..

And then , will their innocent Epic team mate be liable for forking out their deserved share of the loot..? Just because their team mate was a bamboozler....?

Wow, this could be a costly one.. If that is the case?

Mmmmm.

A quick question to all the experts out there...?

Would said athlete be liable to pay back winnings after first test was taken...?

That means winnings from Epic 2015 podium and stages etc..?

Just interesting, as this could amount to well over ZAR80000, if I'm not mistaken..

And then , will their innocent Epic team mate be liable for forking out their deserved share of the loot..? Just because their team mate was a bamboozler....?

Wow, this could be a costly one.. If that is the case?

I'm no expert, but following your line of thinking. 

You would think that all results from the start of the ban are null and void, therefore requiring the athlete to #paybackthemoney 

As for the partners in those races, they would also need to #paybackthemoney. Did they get told by the athlete after she was notified? Did they race with her knowing the potential for a DQ down the line? 

There is a further point to consider. What is a podium at Epic, Sani, J2C, SA's etc worth to the individuals that did not get the recognition at the time? Not only the prize money but their ability to market themselves to potential sponsors and partners for future races.

Call me a sceptic (or whatever else you want) but I get the feeling that this would have been swept under the carpet if it wasn't for the UCI publishing the sanction. 

So as part of my formulating my arguments to illustrate my distrust of the system I've been reading through transcripts of SAIDS hearings with athletes who have found themselves on the wrong side of the process.

The challenge with educating people about the system is not with the process but rather what is allowed and what is not , knowing all the names of the substances. This burden lies with the athlete. This in itself is a bit of an unfair expectation since one really needs a degree in sports medicine, pharmacy or biochemistry to make head or tail of it. The app on their website is helpful but it wouldn't have helped the kid who bought supplements from dischem and 32Gi.

The whole burden of proof lying with the athletes smacks of a witch hunt since the athletes; particularly at an amateur or lower level pro will not have the resources to establish the contents of every vitamin or supplement they ingest without having a lab do analysis of the products. It's here where I feel WADA and moRe locally SAIDS needs to be assisting by identifying which products actually contain banned substances and approve products that are clean by either developing an SABS standard or applying a SAIDS approved mark to products.

In a he mean time it feels like picking the low hanging fruit to serve as sacrificial lambs and a deterrent to others is the real objective. If a real doper gets caught then that's a bonus.

Call me a sceptic (or whatever else you want) but I get the feeling that this would have been swept under the carpet if it wasn't for the UCI publishing the sanction. 

And that's because you can be certain that the bungling bafoons that are SAIDS (and CSA) knew they wrongly allowed her to keep racing and racking up results, possibly knowing full well that what she was taking for medical reasons contained something illegal, and when the UCI stepped in and said "oi, what's going on here fellas...?", they hung her ass out to dry, offering "no further comment on the matter", which is the same as sticking their fingers in their ears and going "LALALALALALALALALA...!!!"

So as part of my formulating my arguments to illustrate my distrust of the system I've been reading through transcripts of SAIDS hearings with athletes who have found themselves on the wrong side of the process.

 

The challenge with educating people about the system is not with the process but rather what is allowed and what is not , knowing all the names of the substances. This burden lies with the athlete. This in itself is a bit of an unfair expectation since one really needs a degree in sports medicine, pharmacy or biochemistry to make head or tail of it. The app on their website is helpful but it wouldn't have helped the kid who bought supplements from dischem and 32Gi.

 

The whole burden of proof lying with the athletes smacks of a witch hunt since the athletes; particularly at an amateur or lower level pro will not have the resources to establish the contents of every vitamin or supplement they ingest without having a lab do analysis of the products. It's here where I feel WADA and moRe locally SAIDS needs to be assisting by identifying which products actually contain banned substances and approve products that are clean by either developing an SABS standard or applying a SAIDS approved mark to products.

 

In a he mean time it feels like picking the low hanging fruit to serve as sacrificial lambs and a deterrent to others is the real objective. If a real doper gets caught then that's a bonus.

I get what you're saying but is the answer not to ask when not sure? 

This is obviously speculation, but their fingers are still in their ears, and they're still going "LALALALALALALALALA....!!!!", so anything here is all pure speculation.

One has to wonder why she only got 10 months, and why they are considered to have already been served.

I smell rats...

I get what you're saying but is the answer not to ask when not sure? 

Have you tried asking a pharmaceutical company what their products contain? I have all they will offer is printed on the side of the container. Add up those numbers and they don't reconcile to 1 so theres also stuff in there they won't disclose. To find out what that "other stuff" is I would need to send the product to a lab and have it analysed and then I'll fall foul of patent or copyright law.

So either way, as an athelete, unless you live on organic produce groen in your own backyard and fertilized by a free range cow, drink natural spring water and are one of those 0.005% of the worlds population who never gets ill, you're rolling the dice when you turn up to start a bike race and you're asked to pee in the cup.

Without full disclosure of what any foodstuff contains, the athlete cannot be 100% responsible for what they ingest because of the lack of transparency in the food/medication/ manufacturing and supply chain.

Only WADA and its affiliates can demystify that. In the mean time, we're all guinea pigs, and sacrificial lambs in the game of laying down markers to act as a deterrent.

I don't find that particularly fair when WADA is all about promoting fair sport. This is like justifying the Spanish Inquisition as a good cause that had to step over the line in order to givet Christianity credibility by identifying witch craft. The only difference is that witches never really existed.

So whats the alternative?

WADA needs to speed up identifying which products contain banned substances.

Where people are claiming they only ingested a supplement then that supplement shou;d be immediately tested to understand if there is truth.

New products for use as sports supplements should be SAIDS and WADA approved and frequency testing on these products needs to implemented,

Supplements at events should also be tested, not just the riders

it feels like the pharmaceutical companies are let off the hook here in exchange for financial support to WADA and affiliates. that's a perfect way to shift blame back to the (unwitting) athlete.

I get what you're saying but is the answer not to ask when not sure? 

I think you hit the nail on the head - seems the current  way of doing things is to go ahead anyway and hope for the best (Seems to be the method KE & BS was following).

For how long can athletes keep on hiding behind ignorance given the tainted history of the sport?