Nicklas Bäckström tested positive for doping

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

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?

In my mind it would be similar to being pulled over. Telling the officer that he had one drink. Failing the road side ALERT (first urine test), without ever being given a proper breathalyzer (second urine test upon failure of the first).

Now I'm no expert of the legalities of DUIs but I believe failing the ALERT is grounds to demand a breath sample via breathalyzer and it's the breathalyzer results that are admissible for court.

Now the situations aren't exactly the same.

Perhaps if the breathalyzer involved four samples and the police only took two, but were required to take four.

At the end of the day, the IOC did not properly administer the test (from what I understand) and therefore Backstrom should get a medal.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

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.

I am attacking the information, not the poster. The information that you've provided has simply been repeatedly proven as false, lending yourself to questionable levels of knowledge. You still haven't accounted for your list of lies, which greatly alters your credibility.

But you want a response? Sure.
Pseudo is measured in the urine, not the blood.

From WADA:

Pseudoephedrine is prohibited when its concentration in urine is greater than 150 micrograms per milliliter

Thus rendering your entire mathematical equation on pseudo in the blood completely useless, as well as further evidence that you are distorting information to suit your argument. It's clear you know nothing of the WADA or IOC drug testing, despite your claims.

No magical forms, no blood test for pseudo. What exactly DO you know?

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

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.

Even if all the math checks out (I'm not saying it doesn't) your argument hinges on the bolded part.

He had 190 mg per mL in his blood.

But that's not a certainty. In order for a player to be confirmed in violation of the IOC drug policy they must be tested twice with two samples collected each time. Both of these tests are to happen within a 48 hour period.

That didn't happen.

Without establishing how much pseudoephedrine was in his system, meeting IOC testing standards, it cannot be stated his results weren't an anomaly with a false positive due to an error(s) in the lab.


Therefore the following is likely the answers:

1) Backstrom probably took too much pseudoephedrine

2) The IOC fata'ed up the testing and doesn't meet their own threshold of proof. (If they fata'ed up one part, you can't reasonably exclude them fata'ing up elsewhere).

Because the testing was fata'ed up, you can't punish the player. Give Backstrom his medal.

[Beatle17]

Here is another story. The last line shows the difference between the Visnovsky case and the Backstrom case, Vis provided his allergy medicine while Backstrom didn't, wonder why.

Start / Sport Bladet / OS 2014 2014-02-24
"Three Crowns is just bad losers'
Swedish IOC bugs Gunilla Lindberg: It sounds crazy

TV: Gunilla Lindberg: "They are just bad losers'
SOCHI. Pär Mårts and Tommy Boustedt rage against the IOC and suspects a conspiracy.
Now Tre Kronor line a bitter matched the IOC vice-president Gunilla Lindberg.
- They are just bad losers. Why would the IOC have a conspiracy tactics against a Swedish ice hockey team?! It sounds insane, says Lindberg Sportbladet.


Tre Kronor coach Pär Mårts and national team manager Tommy Boustedt were not happy when they came to the press conference after the final loss yesterday. They argued that the IOC are amateurs and called the shutdown a miscarriage of justice.
The reason was that the IOC had taken it until two hours before kick off by saying that Nicklas Backstrom has been switched off for having used the allergy medication Zyrtec-D, a drug he had taken seven years.
"Typically when this happens, a Swedish"
When Sportbladet reaches IOC vice-president Gunilla Lindberg, 66, who is also the General Secretary of SOK, she says about Tre Kronor-line reaction:
- It is typical when it happens a Swedish thing. But it's proven that he has an agent that is on WADA's list and applicable to all. I suffer with Nicklas Backstrom, but the same rules apply to him as to everyone else. Of course, the physician should ensure that it is reported.
Lindberg think it is regrettable that the Tre Kronor leadership dirt throwing IOC.
- It is very sad. Because they lost is perhaps the reaction stronger. But anyone who has done wrong is not the IOC, but the one at fault is national leadership, which has not reported that he ate this agent.
- Nicklas has made the right submitters. But since it is not further reported. I can understand Nicklas Bäckström's anger, he has done everything he should do.
Scoff at the
Boustedt and Mårts believe there are politics behind. The IOC deliberately waited with the announcement to get as much attention as possible.
The conspiracy theory snorts Gunilla Lindberg to:
- It is very strange. Why would the IOC conspire?! For me it is absolutely incomprehensible. I myself have been a member of this disciplinary board for the other cases, and it is incredibly carefully how to obtain the samples.
Do you have an understanding of Tre Kronor anger that the news came as close to the game?
- I do not know the reason why the news came late. Maybe you wanted to be absolutely sure what the test said. Probably have very many samples to be analyzed, it is usually the case when it comes to ice hockey matches. But the process itself and the rules are obvious.
- All nations warned of diet drugs, you should not eat it, because it can show the doping tracks. And all the medicines you take should be reported.
So you're saying that it's national team doctor Bjorn Waldebäck who has done wrong?
- I do not want to accuse anyone, but Nicklas medicine has not been submitted.

[Beatle17]

So apparently the B results came out and surprise, it is over the limit also. He is a cheater, debate it any way you want but both samples failed.

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by strombad

I am attacking the information, not the poster. The information that you've provided has simply been repeatedly proven as false, lending yourself to questionable levels of knowledge. You still haven't accounted for your list of lies, which greatly alters your credibility.

But you want a response? Sure.
Pseudo is measured in the urine, not the blood.

From WADA:


Thus rendering your entire mathematical equation on pseudo in the blood completely useless, as well as further evidence that you are distorting information to suit your argument. It's clear you know nothing of the WADA or IOC drug testing, despite your claims.

No magical forms, no blood test for pseudo. What exactly DO you know?

I do KNOW that he failed his test. And I also know that WADA knows a little more about testing for illegal substances and levels than you ever will. Even the top level of the SOK doesn't support him or the team, maybe it's time you stopped.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

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.

Furthermore:

A single 120 mg oral dose produced pooled urine concentrations during the first 24 hours of 18–91 mg/L for pseudoephedrine and 0.6–0.9 mg/L for norpseudoephedrine

http://www.biomedicalpublications.com/dt8.pdf

The study found that a single dose in 24 hours could produce levels up to 91micrograms/mL.

Lower than 190, thus likely requiring (so long as no mistakes were made and 190 was the absolute number) TWO doses in 24 hours, but not even NEAR the dosing levels you attempted to fly.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

So apparently the B results came out and surprise, it is over the limit also. He is a cheater, debate it any way you want but both samples failed.

Originally Posted by Beatle17

I do KNOW that he failed his test. And I also know that WADA knows a little more about testing for illegal substances and levels than you ever will. Even the top level of the SOK doesn't support him or the team, maybe it's time you stopped.

Wait I thought that there wasn't a B result as the test takers (WADA) didn't perform it properly.

If he failed two separate tests (consisting of two samples each) within 48 hours, then he doesn't get a medal.

If the procedures weren't done properly, then he gets one.

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by strombad

Furthermore:



http://www.biomedicalpublications.com/dt8.pdf

The study found that a single dose in 24 hours could produce levels up to 91micrograms/mL.

Lower than 190, thus likely requiring (so long as no mistakes were made and 190 was the absolute number) TWO doses in 24 hours, but not even NEAR the dosing levels you attempted to fly.

You can keep arguing the points etc., but he failed the test, both A and B samples, you can't defend it.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

You can keep arguing the points etc., but he failed the test, both A and B samples, you can't defend it.

I'm unclear, they DID perform two separate tests involving two samples each within a 48 hour period?

I thought that didn't happen.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I'm unclear, they DID perform two separate tests involving two samples each within a 48 hour period?



I thought that didn't happen.

It did not.

"B sample" is taken from the same urine that produced A sample.

To contrast:
Visnovsky (who tested higher than 150 in 2010) failed his A test, but was NOT held out of competition. Instead, he was tested once again before the next game, and directly after the game (A#2 and A#3). Because both 2 and 3 were negative, he wasn't reprimanded.

Backstrom was never given the opportunity for the 2nd and 3rd tests. Visnovsky's B test was never opened because he passed the 2nd and 3rd A test.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

You can keep arguing the points etc., but he failed the test, both A and B samples, you can't defend it.

Cool, but you still lied in every single post you made to make a point. Backstrom tested positive, that sucks, but you've still got zero evidence he cheated.

I hereby disqualify you from this thread, and ban you from any further credible conversation due to the discovery of high levels of lies and ignorance in your posts.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

You can keep arguing the points etc., but he failed the test, both A and B samples, you can't defend it.

Originally Posted by strombad

It did not.

"B sample" is taken from the same urine that produced A sample.

To contrast:
Visnovsky (who tested higher than 150 in 2010) failed his A test, but was NOT held out of competition. Instead, he was tested once again before the next game, and directly after the game (A#2 and A#3). Because both 2 and 3 were negative, he wasn't reprimanded.

Backstrom was never given the opportunity for the 2nd and 3rd tests. Visnovsky's B test was never opened because he passed the 2nd and 3rd A test.

The issue isn't proving Backstrom is innocent; the onus is on proving he's guilty.

With only one test consisting of 2 samples, there is not enough evidence.

Backstrom should get a medal not because we can prove his innocence, but because we can't confirm his guilt to the standard set forth by the IOC.

That's the real issue here.

Consider it getting off on a technicality if you like, but the standard of proof isn't there.

[Beatle17]

Originally Posted by strombad

It did not.

"B sample" is taken from the same urine that produced A sample.

To contrast:
Visnovsky (who tested higher than 150 in 2010) failed his A test, but was NOT held out of competition. Instead, he was tested once again before the next game, and directly after the game (A#2 and A#3). Because both 2 and 3 were negative, he wasn't reprimanded.

Backstrom was never given the opportunity for the 2nd and 3rd tests. Visnovsky's B test was never opened because he passed the 2nd and 3rd A test.

Have not lied about 1 thing in this thread, all information is available on line. Also just read the IOC document listed below and nowhere does it state that there is additional testing. After the A Sample results are presented to the athlete he is give the option of having Sample B tested. IF they disagree with the results from this sample they can appeal.

The first step after the positive test is to compare the results to the Therupetic Use Exemption (TUE) form, which they don't have in this case.

I don't know how to attach a document but here is what it is called from the IOC:
FACTSHEET
THE FIGHT AGAINST DOPING AND
PROMOTION OF ATHLETES’
HEALTH
UPDATE - JANUARY 2014

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Beatle17

Have not lied about 1 thing in this thread

Oh, really?

he should have informed the IOC and WADA before the Olympics, there is a form to tell them, not during testing

he should have filled out the proper forms BEFORE the competition started, which is what Visnovsky did in 2010

he knew it was going to show on the drug test

he knew it was wrong before the games

Oh, and:

Have not lied about 1 thing in this thread

As well as claiming that pseudo was tested from blood samples (it's tested by urine)

[cowtown75]

He should of taken Nyquil just like the other olympic athlethes on the commercials right now then his life would of been all rainbows and unicorns.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by cowtown75

He should of taken Nyquil just like the other olympic athlethes on the commercials right now then his life would of been all rainbows and unicorns.

There's pseudoephedrine in that too. And rainbows are considered doping if caught, though there's a pot of gold at the end of it

[strombad]

Gold Medal vs Pot of Gold to make medals?

Yeah, rainbows it is.

[dino7c]

the guy had too much of a banned substance in his system...case closed no medal

/thread

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I went to the Googles to confirm the 48 hour thing. I couldn't find anything, so I re-read the thread. I think I was mixing up what happened in 2010 with what's going on with Backstrom.

It appears that they take two urine samples at one time. Which means that Backstrom's medal rests on the result of Sample B.


I wanted to quote this post as I found it interesting:

Originally Posted by Mith

For those asking "If the pill is 120mg how can he have 190mg in his test"

Drugs do not decay like that, you don't maintain 120mg constant level if you are taking a drug on a day to day basis. It does reach a maintained level eventually, but it isn't the dose of the pill.

It's like this:



So as you can see you will build up a level until you reach the steady state. If he tested for 190mg, it's possible this was how (especially since it's been theorized that he's been taking it long-term).

Edit: Also notice that the time of day the test is completed matters - your steady state is just an average that the dose oscillates about. It can be higher or lower given the time of the day.

I also found this post interesting, which shows the opposite argument:

Originally Posted by Beatle17

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.

Unfortunately NEITHER of the above quoted posts breaks down in urine, although the first post by Mith explains how a high reading for someone taking a regular dosage is possible.


Unfortunately, the limits are hard and fast. They don't take into consideration a margin of error. I would assume that the 150mg is the upper end of the allowable margin of error (rather than say 145mg +/- 5mg, they just say 150mg).


The issue becomes what happens if you fail. The precedent is fairly strict in international sporting competitions. There's the example presented by sureLoss here:

Originally Posted by sureLoss

Romanian gymnast was stripped of a gold medal for taking pseudoepherdrine in 2000 to combat cold symptoms:
http://assets.espn.go.com/oly/summer...25/776388.html

The doctor that gave her the pills was banned from the 2002 and 2004 Olympics

And of course one that we Canadians know all too well. Silken Laumenn lost her gold at the Pan-Am Games for almost the exact same situation (Backstrom takes a pill daily due to allergies, Laumenn was fighting an illness).


Really, doctors for the Olympic committees really should be watching this stuff like a hawk. I'm not a pharmacists (but I know Street Pharmacist is so maybe he can chime in on this) but I'd wonder if there is another product that would achieve the same (similar) result without the use of pseudoephedrine?


I'm still curious of the IOC procedures. Why did it take longer than 48 hours to get the test results? The priority should be sports that take longer to play (like hockey and curling) over sports that are one and done. Then the priority should be team sports, followed by individual sports so teams can put in the replacements if someone is ineligible. And individual sport the lone athlete can be stripped after the fact without the hindsight of being able to replace them.

So I have a major issue there.

Secondly, the precedent was set in 2010 that a player can be retested before the next game (as well as after the game). That was not done in this case. Why was there a different standard in Vancouver than Sochi?

Originally Posted by sureLoss

So yeah another bad mark for the IOC.... Lubomir Visnovsky failed his doping test too in 2010 for the exact same banned substance but was allowed to play:

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/sport...719/story.html



Perhaps Backstrom didn't fill out his doping control properly like Vishnovsky, but seems pretty inconsistent on how the IOC handled this case.

Thirdly, Ross Rebagliati. I don't recall exactly what was determined in the end only that he got to keep his medal.

Fourthly, should urine testing be done several times throughout the day to avoid skewed results like the possibility presented by Mith?



Part of the problem is the IOC isn't clear on the procedures, rules, processes and appeals. The current system seems to have too many flaws. These athletes train, and work hard for one shot every 4 years. If they are losing that shot due to a urine test, then perhaps the evidence needs to be beyond a reasonable doubt.


The issue needs to be fixed.


That said, if Backstrom's Sample B comes back as positive then he forfeits his medal. I don't think he was cheating, but that's not the issue. The issue revolves around him having too much pseudoephedrine in his system. Intention is irrelevant.

This situation is a complete and utter mess. The IOC should be embarrassed.

I'd love to see Sweden, and Canada champion reform due to this tom foolery.