Subscribe: Comments on: Martina Fights; Thorpedo Cleared
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
cortisone  denmark  doping musician  doping  drug  fahey  intra articular  intra  john fahey  license monaco  license  monaco  musician 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on: Martina Fights; Thorpedo Cleared

Comments on: Martina Fights; Thorpedo Cleared

Always select Genuine Rant™ Brand. Everything else is just words.

Last Build Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 23:15:26 +0000


By: Rant

Fri, 09 Nov 2007 16:36:56 +0000

Yep, I'm sure you did. But if he's hanging with the swanky chicks, he's still gonna have some `splaining to do when he gets home to his wife. :-)

By: doping musician

Fri, 09 Nov 2007 15:33:23 +0000

I must have meant "swanky chicks".

By: Rant

Fri, 09 Nov 2007 05:20:58 +0000

Doping musician, The Danish paper Politiken did an article a while back (don't have the cite at the moment) about Rasmussen's use of "countries of convenience" for his racing license. Two examples: Mexico and more recently, Monaco. The speculation is that because these countries have no real established anti-doping programs that this may have been a way to avoid a great deal of out-of-competition tests. Rasmussen isn't saying why he chose to license there and not in Denmark. But he doesn't reside in Denmark much. He owns a home in Italy, and perhaps one in Mexico (where his in-laws live). He also owns a bike shop near his Italian home. ... Could be a tax dodge, may well be a doping dodge, and if he likes hanging with skanky chicks, he's going to be in trouble with his wife. ;-) --- Dan, I'm working on finding out the answers to your questions about the particular drug and how it was administered. Floyd may know, but if not, either his personal physician or the Phonak team physician might know. Now, the question is whether Floyd will allow this information to be released. But given how open he's been so far, who knows? He might. ... I've found references to various corticoids that have a half-life of up to 54 hours, which is pretty long acting, and would probably be detectable for a very long time. But that's with IM administration, and I've heard some rumblings that perhaps the metabolism of an IM drug is different and less detectable via urine specimens. Lots of stuff to track down. If only I could do this full-time and not worry about the day job, I'd have all of what I'm looking into done much sooner. ... The TUE paperwork might have the name of the drug, as you suggest. I haven't seen it posted anywhere, but there's a lot of stuff out there, and it would sure be easy to miss. ... By the way, that drug with the 54-hour half-life? One of the side-effects would be to exacerbate the problems Floyd was having with his hip. One hopes that wasn't the drug being used.

By: Daniel Peterson

Fri, 09 Nov 2007 04:35:34 +0000

Rant, I have a basic question about Landis' therapeutic exemption use of glucorticoids: Was it cortisone (hydrocortisone) injected intra-articularly (I assume intra-articular delivery for hip osteoarthritis, as opposed to oral or IM as you presumed in a previous post)? Cortisone has inferior potency compared to methylprednisolone and triamcinolone acetonide -both glucocorticoids apparently also have longer lasting effects and are more often used for intra-articular injections, as far as I can tell. Determining the actual corticosteroid injected should be clarified, since it (and/or it's metabolites) are potential coeluting substances, and thus potential confounders to estimating the carbon 12-13 difference in peaks coeluting with the glucocorticoid (and/or it's metabolites). I just left a post over at DPF with the same question, alluding to a previous discussion with OMJ that I had regarding his thoughts on the cortisone question: So, was it actually a cortisone injection -or another glucocorticoid like methylprednisolone or triamcinolone? I think the medical literature would suggest more arthritis benefit from the latter two. Would his therapeutic exeption form spedify this? Is this form viewable anywhere on the web? You think Floyd actually knows what was injected? Who is his doctor who was doing the intra-articular injections? thanks! Dan

By: Doping musician

Fri, 09 Nov 2007 03:50:24 +0000

Could someone please explain this to me: * Rasmussen defended himself, saying that the missed controls were from the Danish federation, which he said did not have the right to test him as his license is from Monaco. "They were Danish [Federation] controls. They don't have the right to make them," explained Rasmussen in August. "I was not in Denmark and my license is from Monaco. I did not miss the WADA or UCI controls. The UCI even made one when I was in Denmark for the national championships on June 30. * * What value is there for Ras to have his license with Monaco? Is this a tax dodge, a doping dodge, or does he just want to hang with skanky chicks?

By: Larry

Fri, 09 Nov 2007 01:50:24 +0000

William, following Jean's link, I guess we'd have to see the musician's wattage figures. Didn't "Spinal Tap" go all the way to 11?

By: William Schart

Fri, 09 Nov 2007 01:27:10 +0000

John Fahey, that's it. You know, there was a guitarist, now dead, that same name. - - To put this on topic, are all musicians dopers?

By: Rant

Thu, 08 Nov 2007 14:10:35 +0000

William, Fahey. John Fahey. He'll be the man who replaces Dick Pound, when the D-man steps down in about 9 days' time. I've written about this before. The way ASADA handled Thorpe's case has been much more open-minded and in the spirit of seeking truth than USADA's handling of most cases, including the Landis case.

By: William Schart

Thu, 08 Nov 2007 13:43:56 +0000

The Aussie ADA seems to have handled the Thorpe affair with a more open mind then the USADA did with Landis. None of this "We're batting 1.000" posturing, but rather more "Let's look at the evidence and see what is really happening". Of course, to be the devil's advocate for a moment, it could be that they were protecting their golden boy, but if there really was a good case, would FINA have dropped it? Anyway, does this bode well for the admisstration of the Aussie president of WADA, whose name escapes me at the moment?