Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

***Craig*** · 10-04-2002, 05:16 PM

It's old news (from 9/13) but hasn't been discussed here yet:

French fencing champion Laura Flessel blamed the team's medical staff for her failed drug test in a May tournament. She said the team was given the banned substance coramine glucose. She has a hearing before the disciplinary tribunal of the International Fencing Federation, which will decide her punishment

Flessel-Colovic is now under a 3 month suspension from the FIE due to her second sample confirmed the original drug test results, but was allowed to fence in the Lisbon world champtionships even though her first sample had tested positive.

Flessel-Colovic finished 5th in the individual event and the French Women's Epee team finished 6th.

counter riposte · 10-04-2002, 05:29 PM

If she was allowed to fence, it wasn't really punishment was it?

JEC · 10-04-2002, 06:28 PM

Where are Edew, Inquartata, Epeemike, It, Mergs, and Hilandoug when we need to decide sufficient punishment?

Inquartata · 10-04-2002, 08:59 PM

She should be allowed to fence, but sabre only, and left-handed at that.

haggis · 10-05-2002, 12:48 PM

Three months is the IOC standard for a doping offence of this type, I believe. Her hearing will almost certainly have no chance of overturning the original suspension. Basically, the athlete has ultimate responsibility for what goes into their body.

Is the substance genuinely performance-enhancing? I suspect that if the suspension is only three months then probably not. More embarassing for fencer and medical staff really. Will this suspension mean that she cannot compete at next Olympics? Isn't there some ruling where athletes who have failed a drugs test are barred indefinitely from the Olympics?

Before anyone becomes too sanctimonious about this, hands up if you've ever fenced while taking a cold remedy due to the fact that otherwise your mask would have filled up with snot. I know I have and, if drug-tested at the time, would have failed and faced the possible wrath of a fencing.net poll.

Regards

Haggis

oiuyt · 10-05-2002, 06:56 PM

Enough caffeine is also in violation of the drug protocols.

The World Championships came between the testing of the first and second samples. The first samples are tested with a less accurate but significantly cheaper process. False Positives happen. Then we move to the second method of testing. Because you aren't definitively considered to have failed until the second test comes back positive there's no reason that she should not have been allowed to fence between the two tests. Points from such events removed, any titles stripped, sure, but not allowed to fence just because of a failed initial test? No.

Haggis- I've never used cold remedies while fencing. And I won't. F-C SHOULD have been aware of all of the rules. As an athlete at her level she has to be. At least in the US, and, I would imagine in much of the rest of the fencing world, the top (national-team level) athletes are enrolled in a No Advance Notice (NAN) testing program. They are required by the USOC to keep the USOC informed of where they are going to be at any given time in their daily lives so that they can be tested without prior notice. When you're doing things like that you CAN'T not be aware of the testing procedures. If despite that you don't independently check whatever you're putting into your body, you deserve the 3 month suspention for stupidity if you fail a test.

-B :)

Peach · 10-05-2002, 07:39 PM

Even the veterans in the Veteran World Championships are tested for restricted substances, and a good number of us might be on doctor-prescribed drugs which could disqualify us; that doesn't mean we're exempt, however.

Even though I'm not a world-level athlete and would only be tested at Nationals if they were really random about it, I carry an official form with a doctor's signature permitting me to use the inhaler I carry (it's on the list of things permitted only with a doctor's order). Believe me, if they have WS in the World Veteran Championships next year (which I believe they plan to do), I'll be careful about anything I take.

As to caffeine, to test positive for a man it would take at least a couple double cappucinos, but for a woman because of the lower body weight it might be easier. When I was at Coaches College a doping rep talked to us and said a normal intake of caffeine wouldn't take you over the limit. So I still have my two cups of coffee the morning of a tournament.

My coach makes sure the kids know they shouldn't be taking any over-the-counter drugs unless they are sure they aren't restricted, including and especially decongestants.

oiuyt · 10-07-2002, 09:45 AM

To clarify, as I mentioned, ENOUGH caffeine will put one over the limit. ENOUGH is a fairly high threshold in this case. The limit is 12 mcg/ml. For the average American male (because that tends to be all that such charts get made for) 1 cup of coffee (8oz, not 1 "drink" of coffee) will cause an equivalent of 1.5 mcg/ml. Ditto 1 No-Doz. 1 Vivarin will be 3 mcg/ml. 1 Excedrin is .97 mcg/ml. So, no I don't think it's likely that people will have enough to trip on this particular rule. I was merely responding to 135711's mention that it wasn't a suppliment, but was a stimulant and why couldn't athletes stay with things that weren't suppliments (now whether or not I would consider it a suppliment taken the way 135711 seemed to be suggesting is another issue).

-B :)

Peach · 10-07-2002, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by oiuyt
To clarify, as I mentioned, ENOUGH caffeine will put one over the limit. ENOUGH is a fairly high threshold in this case. The limit is 12 mcg/ml. For the average American male (because that tends to be all that such charts get made for) 1 cup of coffee (8oz, not 1 "drink" of coffee) will cause an equivalent of 1.5 mcg/ml. Ditto 1 No-Doz. 1 Vivarin will be 3 mcg/ml. 1 Excedrin is .97 mcg/ml. So, no I don't think it's likely that people will have enough to trip on this particular rule. I was merely responding to 135711's mention that it wasn't a suppliment, but was a stimulant and why couldn't athletes stay with things that weren't suppliments (now whether or not I would consider it a suppliment taken the way 135711 seemed to be suggesting is another issue).

-B

and I was just, in my oblivious way as usual, nattering on about what I know about drug restrictions, not actually responding to your post about caffeine. I don't generally get into these threads to argue, criticize, or point out errors--I get enough conflict to satisfy my needs in that area at work.

edew · 10-07-2002, 05:43 PM

Let's see how Jeb Bush might handle it:

"Hmm...she's dark-skinned. She's a mother. With dreadlocks. Did drugs. Not related to me or any other Bushes....twenty years in the slammer."

Disembowelment is too good for her! Let the punishment fit the crime: OD her with the drug until she dies a painful death in epileptic fit. Then shoot her in the head with a 12-gauge shotgun. Then lop it off. Then draw and quarter the rest of the body.

Oh, sorry, I thought she also molested some kid. Nevermind. Four months suspension.

nahouw · 10-07-2002, 06:46 PM

Coramine glucose is not just regular glucose (sugar). It is a substance that is routinely given to people who have heart conditions and are in high altitudes. It has a beneficial effect on the heart, cirulatory system and the lungs. That is why it is a banned substance.

A recent world-leader was administered this when he went to another high-altitude country -- it saved his life (I can't remember the details right now, but it illustrates the powerful and immediate effect this drug takes -- you can do a google search for the details).

In spite of this, she has still not been excluded from the competition in Malaga, according to the FIE website. As soon as Steve Geberman had tested positive, he was excluded from the competition results -- what is the reason for the delay this time?

3 months is the normal ban for using a banned substance. What is perplexing in this case, is that she was allowed to fence in World Championships after the A-sample was positive, and the FIE allowed the B-sample to be transferred and tested in a French lab, which, because without confirmation of the B-sample was the reason why they allowed her to compete.

The FIE has posted new rules on their website about which accreditted labs can do testing, going forward, so that they can comply with the rules of the IOC and not have people competing after failing a drug test.

The French press has put the blame on a new member of the French team staff -- but I think that is not really the case -- with the Tour du France being such a popular event in France, and a substance like coramine glucose being something more attractive for bicyclists to use, it is something that is commonly aware among their medical staff, and he should have known that that was what the pharmacist in Spain gave him.

edew · 10-07-2002, 07:59 PM

Believe it or not, folks, but once in a while, I post something and try to pass it off as humor. As such, I guess I have no expectations that people can "connect the dots".

Sigh.

veeco · 10-11-2002, 06:02 PM

In the same vein, Loic Attely was tested positive (under apparently discutable conditions) at a world cup in Caracas.

http://www.escrime-info.com/modules/...php?storyid=49 (in French)

Still, it's quite interesting that 2 French fencers are being tested positive in such a short amount of time.

Anyone care to comment?

JEC · 10-11-2002, 07:10 PM

Is this an invito?

nahouw · 10-11-2002, 08:28 PM

His drug test positive is an entirely different case than her drug test positive.

Nandrolane is an anabolic steroid. It is used by bodybuilders for obvious reasons, and detected through testing, a common doping used by bodybuilders. It is also considered as an accepted medical use for treatment of AIDS patients. In addition, through testing, it has also been found that at the testing limits specified for when it is indicated that doping has occurred, that some men will have naturally occuring levels of nandrolane -- in those men with naturally high testosterone levels. So him testing positive could just mean that he could just have this naturally occuring in his body due to his high testosterone levels.

His is a case that the levels set for when doping is considered to occur does not exclude those males in which it naturally occurs -- it is a function of who decides where to draw the line -- where on the bell curve do you place it? at the end? at the 75% level? and how can someone administer a drug to an effect to get the result and avoid detection? Of course, if they draw the line at the utmost where men have this naturally occuring, people could be free to dope athletes below this line and avoid detection. But in his case, he is apparently at the end of the bell curve, and other tests I am sure will be administered and it would be resolved.

Her case of detecting coramine glucose is just not the same. The medically accepted use of coramine glucose is for those people with heart conditions that travel to high altitudes. There is nothing in the regular body processes that would mimic coramine glucose. For coramine glucose to be detected in her drug screen would mean that she was doping.

veeco · 10-11-2002, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by nahouw
His drug test positive is an entirely different case than her drug test positive.

Nandrolane is an anabolic steroid. It is used by bodybuilders for obvious reasons, and detected through testing, a common doping used by bodybuilders. It is also considered as an accepted medical use for treatment of AIDS patients. In addition, through testing, it has also been found that at the testing limits specified for when it is indicated that doping has occurred, that some men will have naturally occuring levels of nandrolane -- in those men with naturally high testosterone levels. So him testing positive could just mean that he could just have this naturally occuring in his body due to his high testosterone levels.

His is a case that the levels set for when doping is considered to occur does not exclude those males in which it naturally occurs -- it is a function of who decides where to draw the line -- where on the bell curve do you place it? at the end? at the 75% level? and how can someone administer a drug to an effect to get the result and avoid detection? Of course, if they draw the line at the utmost where men have this naturally occuring, people could be free to dope athletes below this line and avoid detection. But in his case, he is apparently at the end of the bell curve, and other tests I am sure will be administered and it would be resolved.

Right, but the articles mentionned in the link say that his test showed that his levels of nandrolone were 5 times higher than the accepted limit. If we were to take your argument, he would pretty much be at the real high end of the bell curve...

I'm not saying his guilty, just the conditions of testing seem to be such that there is a lot of room for error, and the tests weren't even performed in IOC approved labs, so he could very well be innocent has he claims he is. I just think that it's a little bit of a strange coincidence that 2 French athletes are found to be under suspiscion in such a short amount of time.

nahouw · 10-11-2002, 09:55 PM

That is why there is such a hot debate in the drug testing community, and this substance in particular provokes the debate.

It is well known and common knowledge that this is also naturally occuring, though quite rare. He tested 5 times the current limit -- obviously he is naturally occuring, because if he was actually doping, don't you think he would dope just under the limits that are tested -- yes??

And the limits set are artificial anyway in the context of reality of the population as a whole, but rather just so that they can control and measure whether doping has occured or not.

If you raise the testing limits to reflect better the reality of the population as a whole, then more who want to dope have a larger realm under which they could without being detected -- yes???

And for those who are naturally occurring and then test positive, there are subsequent tests to verify the case. Which is better and serves the purpose of drug testing? To have a lower limit and re-test the small amount of false positives, or to have a higher limit and have more people doping undetected?

However, for coramine glucose, the same argument cannot be made -- either you use it for a heart condition or you are doping. Even if you _are_ using it for a heart condition at an elevation (last time I checked, Malaga was close to sea-level and not at elevation), you are subject to the IOC rules of drugs, and have to declare it in advance -- and some of the routinely prescribed drugs are not allowed, and you have to make alternative choices.