Gatlin could possibly avoid ban by testifying against coach

[daryn]

LONDON (AP) -- Justin Gatlin could escape a lifetime ban if he testifies against his coach.

By testifying against Trevor Graham, Gatlin would exercise the "substantial assistance" provision in the World Anti-Doping Agency's code, which reduces the ban by proving "he or she bears no significant fault or negligence" in the violation.

The 24-year-old American sprinter faces the ban after a second positive doping test, but that could be reduced to eight years if Gatlin provides information against his coach.

"Since we don't have any criminal investigative powers -- like wiretaps, warrants for searching premises, etc. -- it takes information coming to us from people aiming for a reduction in their own doping sentences," said general counsel Travis Tygart, who refused to comment on Gatlin or any other specific cases before USADA.

"It's one way we can continue to actively pursue those involved in doping practices."

Gatlin, the Olympic and world champion and co-world record holder in the 100 meters, tested positive for testosterone or other steroids April 22 after a relay race in Kansas. He denies knowingly using banned substances.

Graham has claimed Gatlin was the victim of a vengeful massage therapist who rubbed testosterone cream on the sprinter's legs without his knowledge after the race.

"If an athlete can provide information on individuals involved in doping conspiracies and can help us catch distributors or users of these drugs we would always welcome that evidence," Tygart said.

After a 2003 positive test for modafinil, American sprinter Kelli White cooperated with USADA, providing information on key Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative players -- including founder Victor Conte and her former coach Remi Korchemny. For her help, she received a two-year suspension.

The International Association of Athletics Federations said Thursday it would investigate the activities of Graham in conjunction with USADA.

Graham, banned by the U.S. Olympic Committee from its training facilities, has been involved with at least a half-dozen athletes who have received drug suspensions. He always has denied direct knowledge or involvement with drug use. But Graham helped launch the federal investigation of BALCO three years ago by anonymously mailing a syringe containing "the clear," a previously undetectable steroid, to USADA

article on SI

[A.B.]

This is the worst deal I have ever heard.  An 8 year ban and a life ban is the same thing for GATLIN.  What is the big incentive?  Make it 2 years and he will tell what he knows.

[cocoapanyol]

This is the worst deal I have ever heard.  An 8 year ban and a life ban is the same thing for GATLIN.  What is the big incentive?  Make it 2 years and he will tell what he knows.

I don't think he should get ANY deal.  If he talk, it mean he was lying all de time bout never "knowingly" taking anyting.  If he dirty...kick he a** out!!  Yuh tink he wouldn't cheat again if he get 2 years and come back?  Steups!!!  What de hell kinda discouragement it would be to other potential cheaters. When yuh so young like him...2 years eh nutting if he keep up de training.  Give him de damn 8 if dey have tuh give him anything.  But dat time he could run wid ah damn walker!!

[Blue]

Sorry, i know this is an ignorant question, but I know nothing about performance-enhancing drugs (athletics, football or otherwise) and I would really like someone to clear this up for me.

With every scandal - d latest being Gatlin on d track and Landis in cycling - d response is always d same..."It wasn't me".

How difficult is it to actually fail one of these tests? Are any of the banned substances contained in everyday products that the rest of us don't need to think twice about consuming (for example, multivitamins, or even, say, soft drinks), or would an athlete really need to be going out of his/her way (i.e. - actively intending to cheat) to test positive?

Genuine question, please don't just steups and ignore me 

[cocoapanyol]

Sorry, i know this is an ignorant question, but I know nothing about performance-enhancing drugs (athletics, football or otherwise) and I would really like someone to clear this up for me.

With every scandal - d latest being Gatlin on d track and Landis in cycling - d response is always d same..."It wasn't me".

How difficult is it to actually fail one of these tests? Are any of the banned substances contained in everyday products that the rest of us don't need to think twice about consuming (for example, multivitamins, or even, say, soft drinks), or would an athlete really need to be going out of his/her way (i.e. - actively intending to cheat) to test positive?

Genuine question, please don't just steups and ignore me 

ATO would have to answer that one for you but the fact remains that these guy cheat and then lie about it when they get caught.  Plain and simple.  They know what they are NOT supposed to take.  Every day drugs list all the "ingredients".  Pick up any bottle of medicine/pill etc. and you will see.  The first ingredient on the list is always the one that is the strongest in the drug followed by the least and so on.  If say "advil" has a banned substance that an athlete is not supposed to consume, then he/she is not supposed to take advil and then say after that I had a headache and I didn't know it contained such and such.  You have to read the label.  It's not different from someone who has Diabetes or some food allergy.  They cannot eat and drink everything that the average person consumes.

So all those excuses are hogwash!!

[pecan]

here is an interesting quote:

"Landis and Gatlin are both victims of Alibi Lag.  Ask any guy sneaking home at 4 a.m. with lipstick on his collar.  If it takes you 24 hours to stammer out a plausible alibi, your window of opportunity has slammed shut, and it was not your necktie it slammed down on" Scott Ostler of the San Fancisco Chronicle on Landis and fellow doper, sprinter Justin Gatlin.
 

[Blue]

Sorry, i know this is an ignorant question, but I know nothing about performance-enhancing drugs (athletics, football or otherwise) and I would really like someone to clear this up for me.

With every scandal - d latest being Gatlin on d track and Landis in cycling - d response is always d same..."It wasn't me".

How difficult is it to actually fail one of these tests? Are any of the banned substances contained in everyday products that the rest of us don't need to think twice about consuming (for example, multivitamins, or even, say, soft drinks), or would an athlete really need to be going out of his/her way (i.e. - actively intending to cheat) to test positive?

Genuine question, please don't just steups and ignore me 

ATO would have to answer that one for you but the fact remains that these guy cheat and then lie about it when they get caught.  Plain and simple.  They know what they are NOT supposed to take.  Every day drugs list all the "ingredients".  Pick up any bottle of medicine/pill etc. and you will see.  The first ingredient on the list is always the one that is the strongest in the drug followed by the least and so on.  If say "advil" has a banned substance that an athlete is not supposed to consume, then he/she is not supposed to take advil and then say after that I had a headache and I didn't know it contained such and such.  You have to read the label.  It's not different from someone who has Diabetes or some food allergy.  They cannot eat and drink everything that the average person consumes.

So all those excuses are hogwash!!

You're right, I would like to hear what Ato, or any other sportsmen on this site thinks.

Pecan - while I agree that an athlete should know the rules of his/her sport, I just wonder whether, if a banned substance can be as simple as something found in an everyday product, is it really in the interest of the sport, and the wider viewing audience to ban that athlete for life?

I'm not sure that I agree with your analogy - the reason a diabetic can't eat certain foods is because they could die. In most instances, an athlete's reason for not being able to ingest a particular substance isn't because he'll die, it's because "the rules say so". Which is essentially my original question - are the rules simply draconian, or are they really weeding out athletes who are gaining an unfair advantage over the competition?

[cocoapanyol]

The analogy I tried to draw between the diabetic to the athlete was not about the death but about the CARE.  A Diabetic has to READ the labels of the foods he/she injests.  In the same fashion, the athletes, knowing what they are banned from taking must also READ.  Bear in mind too that even if an athlete could injest regular foods and obtain banned substances in their  body that they would have to eat a LOT of it.  While I have no medical knowledge or training, common sense would suggest that the athlete would have to be taking a lot of the banned substance in order to improve or advance their ability and thereby, CHEAT.  I cannot see how you can accomplish that "unknowingly". It reeks of a lie to me.

I await a more learned comment on the topic.

[A.B.]

Well as someone who once tested positive for NYQUIL (there is no ban for it) I don't want to be a hypocrite, but when the thing turned up positive I said yes i figured it had cleared my system already, and ran at a relay meet that weekend. It hadn't.  The bottom line is that I knew how it got there, and so do both of these guys.  End of story.

The reason why u have to make Gatlin testify if he knows something is for the same reason you make the drug dealer testify against the head kingpin.  Trevor has doped or been associated with a ton of athletes who have doped, including a paralympian (LORD!)

It's better to take down the kingpin than to lose focus and eliminate one star.

It doesn't necessarily take a ton of the banned substance to create a positive test. I would venture to say that if you took a little bit of nandrolone you would test positive, since that is probably the substance most easily detected.  Testosterone is up there as well.

I will say that for all the uproar about Christie and Ottey years ago, there was a time when a ton of European athletes were failing tests and the supplements they took were tainted.  It's sad they get lumped with those that were systematically doping for years.

[cocoapanyol]

Well as someone who once tested positive for NYQUIL (there is no ban for it) I don't want to be a hypocrite, but when the thing turned up positive I said yes i figured it had cleared my system already, and ran at a relay meet that weekend. It hadn't.  The bottom line is that I knew how it got there, and so do both of these guys.  End of story.

The reason why u have to make Gatlin testify if he knows something is for the same reason you make the drug dealer testify against the head kingpin.  Trevor has doped or been associated with a ton of athletes who have doped, including a paralympian (LORD!)

It's better to take down the kingpin than to lose focus and eliminate one star.

It doesn't necessarily take a ton of the banned substance to create a positive test. I would venture to say that if you took a little bit of nandrolone you would test positive, since that is probably the substance most easily detected.  Testosterone is up there as well.

I will say that for all the uproar about Christie and Ottey years ago, there was a time when a ton of European athletes were failing tests and the supplements they took were tainted.  It's sad they get lumped with those that were systematically doping for years.

Point taken.  Like I said earlier...a more learned opinion than mine.

[pecan]

What is hapening today brings back memories of Ben Johnson in 1988

When Ben Johnson tested +ve in 1988, Canada aired its dirty laundry for the world to see.  The Dubin enquiry led to other atheletes admiitting to the use of drugs.  But what it also led to was a division amongst cdn atheletes - those who belonged to the Charlie Francis (Johnson's coach) camp.  Many of the others knew what was happening and made a decisison not train with this track club.  Francis eventually admitted that Johnson was using drugs since 1981.  But it took him a hell of a long time to admit this.  He and Johnson kept denying that the presence of stanozolol was deliberate (sabotage was cited as one excuse)

Hell, even I suspected that Johnson was using something.  I had a picture of Johnson and McKoy (hurdler who also tested positive)  before the 84 Olympics (early 80's).  His stature and bulk was significantly less that his 88 physique.  So was McKoy's physique.  The coach was an integral component in drug use.  As Ato says, yuh have to take down the kingpin ... the person who is promoting the use of drugs amongts the athletes that falls under his/her influence.  And do I dare say, the various clubs and national associations who look the other way in the pursuit of gold.

The bottom line is that fellow athletes knew who was using back then.  And many made the decision not to get drawn in.  I would guess that the same is happening today.

[fishs]

Well as someone who once tested positive for NYQUIL

  Yuh test positive fuh ah good night sleep. 

[A.B.]

It has a drug in it called pseudoephedrine.  You can take it, but you can't have it in your body when u run.  They have since changed that.  Ridiculous. 

[Dutty]

It has a drug in it called pseudoephedrine.  You can take it, but you can't have it in your body when u run.  They have since changed that.  Ridiculous. 

I find it highly ironic....the first syllable in in pseudoephedrine,,,,.is pseudo...as in false or made up

So you get 'held' for testing positive for taking fake phederine...but the positive test turned out to be false




ok allyuh right...lemmih go back and do de ppl wukk oui

[A.B.]

LOL well it have men who will (and do) use that as proof of my drug use while I was active lol.  Comical.

[cocoapanyol]

LOL well it have men who will (and do) use that as proof of my drug use while I was active lol.  Comical.

My mother always used tuh say dat "ah tief tink everybody else is a tief".  So if dat is all de evidence dey have...well....comical is right.