Nicklas Bäckström tested positive for doping

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by strombad

I thought you were done talking on the issue?

Not really the same, but let the ignorant comparisons and assumptions continue.

Two questions:
1. Did he take an illegal substance, or in context, a dosage that is above the approved level?
2. Did he fail a drug test?

Only things that need to be answered.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I just skimmed through this thread. Here's what I gather:

1) Backstrom has a documented allergy problem and has been taking an OTC medication for it for the past 7 years, including during the 2010 Olympics.

2) Backstrom asked his Olympic Team doctors about the medication. He was told that there is a banned substance in the medication HOWEVER he is allowed to have upto 150mg of the substance. He was then informed that a pill a day (120mg) should keep him below this limit.

3) Backstrom was selected for drug testing, he I formed the IOC drug testers of his medication and usage.

4) The test came back positive.

5) He was not informed of the results within 48 hours; not was he given a second test as is procedure.

6) He was pulled from the gold medal final 2 hours before game time.

If all of that is accurate (I didn't read the links) then I have several problems.

1) IOC drug testing procedure wasn't done properly.

2) I think teams should test athletes that are taking known medications that have maximum limits before the games to ensure their athletes fall under the maximums. If this was done and monitored, perhaps Backstrom wouldn't have tested positive due to an oversight (if it was) in the first place.


In this scenario what should have Backstrom done?

He checked into whether his medication would be allowable. He was told it was. Off he's taking a 120mg pill a day, a laymen would assume that he will fall under the 150mg maximum.

What else should he have done?

Now if he's still over he's still over.

But the fact that drug testing procedures weren't properly done means that Backstrom should get his medal. Period.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

Two questions:
1. Did he take an illegal substance, or in context, a dosage that is above the approved level?
2. Did he fail a drug test?

Only things that need to be answered.

From what I gather:

1. Inconclusive as a second test wasn't done.
2. Not the complete test, just the first half.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by strombad

To be fair, I don't think the argument is quite as "intellectually bankrupt" as you repetitively claim it to be.

I disagree. The moment one has to go to the "you would think different if it was your guy" argument, you can pretty much be assured that they are drowning in a debate as badly as PeteMoss usually does. They can't figure a way to overcome a point, and resort to what is basically a form of "I know you are but what am I?".

As to the later arguments, I don't disagree that the IOC handled this poorly, especially on the timing. But the risk is there, and the players, doctors and team officials know the risks. Backstrom is taking a medication that he knew put him at risk - even if he was told it was a low risk, it was still a risk. It doesn't seem like he acted with malicious intent, and I feel bad for him, but this is pretty much how the system works.

[PeteMoss]

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

As to the later arguments, I don't disagree that the IOC handled this poorly, especially on the timing. But the risk is there, and the players, doctors and team officials know the risks. Backstrom is taking a medication that he knew put him at risk - even if he was told it was a low risk, it was still a risk. It doesn't seem like he acted with malicious intent, and I feel bad for him, but this is pretty much how the system works.

I agree here, but think people need to stop calling it cheating or doping as neither is accurate

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I disagree. The moment one has to go to the "you would think different if it was your guy" argument, you can pretty much be assured that they are drowning in a debate as badly as PeteMoss usually does. They can't figure a way to overcome a point, and resort to what is basically a form of "I know you are but what am I?".

As to the later arguments, I don't disagree that the IOC handled this poorly, especially on the timing. But the risk is there, and the players, doctors and team officials know the risks. Backstrom is taking a medication that he knew put him at risk - even if he was told it was a low risk, it was still a risk. It doesn't seem like he acted with malicious intent, and I feel bad for him, but this is pretty much how the system works.

Yeah, I can get behind you on that. I don't like using that as a foundation for an argument anymore than you do, but it's pretty clear there are a few people here who are injecting a lot of their opinions into their version of events, so it stands to reason that their personal opinion on the player is the basis for their opinion of the overall situation.

Otherwise, yeah, it's an extremely poor blanket statement.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

Yes but allergy medicines can be abused. How do you know he didn't attempt to use it to enhance his performance?

Because there is nothing suspicious about how he was taking it. Being slightly over the limit in one test certainly doesn't mean he is abusing it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by FAN

I have no idea why we are still having this discussion. Backstrom apparently has an allergy problem and takes medication. The allergy medication Backstrom takes is a banned substance which Backstrom is apparently aware of. While I don't believe Backstom took the allergy pills for the purpose of gaining an edge against his competition, at the same time the allergy pill does increase Backstrom's performance and he failed the drug test.

Again, Backstrom failed the drug test and was properly prevented from playing in the gold medal game. Backstrom isn't this big cheater but he did screw up.

One test isn't enough to keep someone from playing in such an important game. They should have taken a 2nd test to confirm the findings.

Which they didn't. Because its political. The IOC doesn't give a damn about anything else other than their stupid doping policies and making sure athletes are punished.

[Robo]

I wish an allergy medicine would enhance my ability to anything usually I take one then fight off sleep for the next 3-4 hours while walking around like a zombie

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

Two questions:

1. Did he take an illegal substance, or in context, a dosage that is above the approved level?

2. Did he fail a drug test?



Only things that need to be answered.

As Maritime said:
1. Currently unclear
2. Sample A failed

Let me ask you a few questions (since I'm sure you'll come back for more):
1. Why did you claim Backstrom didn't fill out the form, when every player subject to a doping test MUST fill out the form, which is then signed by the player, the testing official, and any witnesses?

2. Why did you claim that there was a form to notify the IOC of medication beforehand, when no such form exists? Furthermore, why would he inform the IOC prior to the games that he was taking an approved medication, when there is no regulation in place requiring such notification of any kind?

3. Why did you claim that Backstrom knew of wrong-doing, when both the SOC and IIHF informed him he was within limits?

4. Why did you claim no WADA result had ever been overturned after referencing Visnovsky, who had his result overturned? Furthermore, do you not remember Ross Rebagliati?

5. Why did you claim Visnovsky had followed procedure and Backstrom hadn't, when both men followed the exact same procedure, with only the IOC's part of the procedure having been lacking?

I'm just trying to find a logical direction in your argument when most of what you've used to support it is nearly the exact opposite of actual fact.

Nobody but the ill-informed are looking at this as a question of whether or not he cheated. You realise that don't you? It isn't about cheating.

[Oling_Roachinen]

So has there been actually any math and science done to determine how many pills Backstrom likely had? I know people react to things differently and a ton of factors could come at play but there's seem to be quite the varying degrees of how much 190 micrograms per milliliter is. The IIHF medical officer was saying that Backstrom did nothing wrong and was just a victim of circumstances while a Finish doctor came out and said that Backstrom likely had to have been taking pure pseudoephedrine. Both are biased, but it's such an extreme difference.

So would he have been over if he was just taking his 1 pill a day and he had bad luck since the Slovenia game was at noon? Or is it a case where he had multiple pills that day right before the game? I know the second test would have helped in determining that but any ballpark guesses been done?

[Maritime Q-Scout]

This sounds an awful lot like Silken Laumann.

Had a cold, asked about cold medication, was told the medication was fine to take, failed drug test, medal was stripped.

Now Laumann was at the 1995 Pan-Am Games, so I'm not sure what the procedure was like there. I don't recall hearing about procedural errors in that case (whereas there are in the Backstrom case).

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.c...ils-drug-test/

To me, Backstrom's case hinges on the procedural errors as opposed to a strict, did he/didn't he.

In order to prove he did, you have to follow the procedures to ensure fairness and avoid any possibility of a testing error. Since that wasn't done, you can't prove to the standard set forth by the IOC that Backstrom has overdosed on a substance rendering him disqualified.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

So has there been actually any math and science done to determine how many pills Backstrom likely had? I know people react to things differently and a ton of factors could come at play but there's seem to be quite the varying degrees of how much 190 micrograms per milliliter is. The IIHF medical officer was saying that Backstrom did nothing wrong and was just a victim of circumstances while a Finish doctor came out and said that Backstrom likely had to have been taking pure pseudoephedrine. Both are biased, but it's such an extreme difference.

So would he have been over if he was just taking his 1 pill a day and he had bad luck since the Slovenia game was at noon? Or is it a case where he had multiple pills that day right before the game? I know the second test would have helped in determining that but any ballpark guesses been done?

To be fair I cannot answer your question.

However, the fact that this is unclear and a second test was done renders the answer moot. Procedures weren't followed and therefore it cannot be proven to IOC standard that he was ineligible.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

To be fair I cannot answer your question.

However, the fact that this is unclear and a second test was done renders the answer moot. Procedures weren't followed and therefore it cannot be proven to IOC standard that he was ineligible.

Can we not draw parallels to say a breathalyzer?

Would it be closer to Backstrom being pulled over, telling the officers he had 1 drink at dinner and blowing a 0.05?

Or Backstrom being pulled over, telling the officers he had 1 drink at dinner and blowing a 0.10?

In one case we might be able to chalk it up to Backstrom being a "lightweight." The other one it becomes much more likely he lied. Now if the officer didn't follow procedures correctly Backstrom would get off either way but I'm just wondering in more of a morally than legally way.

Or does a breathalyzer analogy completely fail because of the differences in the test?

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by strombad

As Maritime said:
1. Currently unclear
2. Sample A failed

Let me ask you a few questions (since I'm sure you'll come back for more):
1. Why did you claim Backstrom didn't fill out the form, when every player subject to a doping test MUST fill out the form, which is then signed by the player, the testing official, and any witnesses?

2. Why did you claim that there was a form to notify the IOC of medication beforehand, when no such form exists? Furthermore, why would he inform the IOC prior to the games that he was taking an approved medication, when there is no regulation in place requiring such notification of any kind?

3. Why did you claim that Backstrom knew of wrong-doing, when both the SOC and IIHF informed him he was within limits?

4. Why did you claim no WADA result had ever been overturned after referencing Visnovsky, who had his result overturned? Furthermore, do you not remember Ross Rebagliati?

5. Why did you claim Visnovsky had followed procedure and Backstrom hadn't, when both men followed the exact same procedure, with only the IOC's part of the procedure having been lacking?

I'm just trying to find a logical direction in your argument when most of what you've used to support it is nearly the exact opposite of actual fact.

Nobody but the ill-informed are looking at this as a question of whether or not he cheated. You realise that don't you? It isn't about cheating.

OK I will answer you (and I may be a little more informed about drug intake than you think). I found the following in another thread and found it an interesting take:

"Zyrtec D contains 120mg of pseudoephedrine per pill. The recommended maximum dosage is 2 pills per 12 hours, so 240mg per max dosage.

The half-life of pseudoephedrine is 4-8 hours and elimination time from the body is 5-6 half-lives, so pseudoephedrine leaves your system in about 20-48 hours assuming you don’t have a pre-existing condition that effects your blood cycling.

The body is roughly 7.4% blood, such that a 70kg person likely has 5.2L of blood, so Nicklas Backstrom, at 95kg (though he’s got more muscle mass than an average person, so the estimate is likely on the high end), probably has at most 7L of blood (probably a bit less).

Half-life calculations are simple…
N_t = N_0 * (1/2) ^ (t / t_h)
where
N_t = amount remaining
N_0 = initial amount
t = time
t_h = halflife

So, using that formula and assuming worst-case elimination time and long-lasting pseudo, within a 48 hour span, if Backstrom had taken the recommended dosage, he would have in his blood at the HIGH-END of estimates… 240mg (immediate dosage before slovenia game and subsequent test + 85mg (12 hours prior) + 30mg (24 hours prior), + 11mg (36 hours), + 4mg (48 hours) = 370milligrams on the high-end estimate assuming PROPER dosage.

370mg/7000mL of blood = .05286 milligrams per mL which is 52.86 MICROGRAMS/mL. The olympic limit is 150 micrograms/mL.

Even assuming Backstrom had average blood for an average 70kg male, he should have at that point just 72 micrograms/mL of blood.

I’m not trying to say he cheated, but the numbers are pretty staggering. To get 190 micrograms per mL, he would have had to have been taking nearly quadruple the dosage if properly scheduled 12 hrs apart.

Even if he was maybe taking 2 of them every 4 hours…"

Debate the math, not the poster.

[Beatle17]

Here's a little more for context:

"More autotranslated tabloid news. Stefan Holm, Swedish highjumper and a member of the IOC athletes' counsel slams Sweden GM's fierce critique of the handling of the Backstrom case. "Ridiculous", he says.

"It takes time to analyze a doping test. We'll report as soon as we get a result. Had answers come earlier, Backstrom would not have played in the Finland match. Then maybe we had lost it as well," says Holm.

"I understand that Backstrom is terribly disappointed but rules must be followed. We can not wait until after the game or the middle of the match. We can not let him play the final. However close to the match it is."

And a Finnish doctor also stated for a reading to be that high he had to be using pure pseudeoephedrin - but I discount this take as he doesn't know the specifics.

[strombad]

Funny, you didn't answer a single thing about what I asked.

[Beatle17]

One more for Strombad to digest, about Visnovsky:

"The Disciplinary Commission unanimously concluded that the Athlete had committed an anti-doping rule violation pursuant to Article 2.1 of the Code and Articles 2 and 12 of the Rules, in that there was the presence of the prohibited substance in his body,
pseudoephedrine. "

A mitigating factor when deciding on repercussions listed in the document is clearly the timing of when pseudoephedrines were relisted (as Lubos and the docs defence was that he did not know it was a listed substance) in 2010 ie the same year as the olympics and the list preceeding it from 2004 did not list the substance:

"WADA did not include pseudoephedrine when they first published their List in
2004, and only recently introduced pseudoephedrine to the 2010 List of
prohibited substances as a Specified Substance; "


This seemed to be a mitigating factor when they decided on consequences (was he allowed to play the following game) - they then retested him, but that was not to check the effects of PEE effects of the match when sample 1 was taken, but to see if he was "clean" to play the following game (semifinals):

The Disciplinary Commission acknowledges that the half life of pseudoephedrine is 5-8 hours, which means that the concentration in the body of pseudoephedrine in the urine falls by a half every 5-8 hours. The Disciplinary Commission noted that the concentration of pseudoephedrine in the Athlete’s A Sample # 2 and A Sample # 3 were much lower than the Athlete’s A Sample # 1 (and well below the threshold amount) and this is an indication that the prohibited substance was unlikely to have served to enhance the Athlete’s performance during his semi-final match on 26 February 2010. "

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by strombad

Funny, you didn't answer a single thing about what I asked.

You have nothing to refute the information provided? I have given you examples from "qualified" sources, unlike your opinion sources.

Again, bash the information not the poster. Even Swedens Athlete rep is telling Sweden to shut up and that Backstrom should not have played the semi final game.