Facts, Not Fiction

 
Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 86
  1. Collapse Details
    Inika McPherson banned for cocaine
    #1
    The front page has the article (and it's all over Twitter) about Inika McPherson being banned for 21 months for use of cocaine back in June.
    This of course erases her entire 2015 season, although she'll be back in time for Rio..

    The reason I started this thread was to discuss whether "recreational" drugs (coke, acid, grass, etc) should be on the list of "bannable offenses" in our sport.

    I smoked grass and did acid "back in the day", but was never addicted.
    Coke, however, IS addictive.

    Therefore, I see cocaine (and heroin and crack) use as a sickness rather than a crime!
    It's use needs to be treated, not punished.

    Or at least not lead to a 21 month ban.
    (Yes, I would say the same if it were NOT an American being the offender!)

    Does ANYONE agree with me??
    (I have tons of doubts here!! LOL)
    Last edited by aaronk; 12-19-2014 at 09:47 PM.
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    #2
    According to the USADA release (now linked on front page), it's considered a stimulant.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogery- chwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch, Wales
    Posts
    11,730
    I'm frankly shocked she didnt try the municipal drinking water excuse
    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    #4
    Also, unlike anabolic steroids, cocaine kills people.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    #5
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    A Temperate Island
    Posts
    7,191
    I agree that an athlete testing positive for cocaine is a sign they need help. Yes, unlike marijuana, it can legitimately be performance enhancing, but if all you want to do is cheat to enhance your performance, I would imagine there are cheaper and safer (banned) stimulants you can take.
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    on task
    Posts
    9,747
    Simple answer: If something is an 'artificial' performance-enhancer, it's banned.
    Hard answer: Candy (glucose) and Coca-Cola (caffeine) are 'artificial' performance-enhancers.
    Slightly better answer: If the 'something' can be abused to imperil health, it's banned.
    Slightly worse answer: EVERYthing can be abused to imperil health. Someone drank too much water and almost died.

    Real answer: PEDs are a slippery slope that require a line be drawn SOMEwhere and no two people agree where the line is, so we take the mean and call it a PED.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    #7
    Good comments, but it doesn't answer whether she deserves a 21 month ban!
    For something that needs treatment more than punishment, wouldn't a lesser ban-----say, 3 months-----be better?
    Or just erase her marks from that day----the day she tested positive.

    Did she test positive at any other meet this season?
    (Or ever??)
    Like PoleVaultPower said, if she'd wanted to use a PED, there were plenty of cheaper and safer PED's she could have chosen.

    But being addicted (IF she's addicted!!) is a sickness, and since when does America imprison (ban) those who are sick??
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    #8
    Quote Originally Posted by polevaultpower View Post
    Yes, unlike marijuana, it can legitimately be performance enhancing, but if all you want to do is cheat to enhance your performance, I would imagine there are cheaper and safer (banned) stimulants you can take.
    Which might be the thinking behind USADA's conclusion that she "did not intend to impermissibly enhance her athletic performance through the use of a prohibited stimulant."

    On the other hand, having witnessed up close her personal best (2.00m) performance that day in Sacramento, it is easy for one to conclude that her performance may very well have been enhanced by being (excuse the expression) hopped-up on coke.

    Whether or not the goal was enhanced performance, after a day like that one would be very tempted to repeat the same pre-meet routine next time.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swkSdgwCxHs
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    #9
    21 months for Cocaine is ridiculous.

    Should be 3/6 month ban like other stimulants.

    It's possible that it gives someone a minor enhancements in their performance but it's also more than probable the fact that you lose all visual perspective and talk complete shit for hours inhibits your performance completely.

    Cocaine is a social drug that she probably did at a party and was still in her system at a later date. It's highly unlikely she took it to improve her performance.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    #10
    The standard sanction for a banned stimulant is 2 years. A reduction all the way down to 3 to 6 months requires significant mitigating evidence according to the rules for sanction reduction. Although the rules allowed her to possibly be given less than 21 months if she could prove beyond a doubt that the substance wasn't in her system with the intent of improving performance, she still took the drug voluntarily, and the drug wasn't in her system inadvertently through no fault, or little fault, of her own, as has been the case with many stimulant positives such as in situations where a banned substance wasn't listed in the list of supplement ingredients, or a supplement was tainted, etc.
    Last edited by Blues; 12-20-2014 at 02:23 AM.
    Reply With Quote
     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •