- Joined
- Sep 15, 2008
- Messages
- 27,773
- Reaction score
- 3,377
No offense, but 97% of fighters are passing these tests now so FOR THE MOST PART, fighters know what rheyre throwing down their hole.
EXAMPLES OF MEDICATIONS THAT ARE PERMITTED II
• Asthma:
cromolyn sodium (Intal),
ipratropium,
montelukast (Singulair),
nedocromil,
theophylline,
tiotropium (Spiriva)
Certain Beta-2 Agonists (by inhalation only):
Inhaled salbutamol (albuterol): maximum 1600 micrograms over 24 hours, not to exceed 800 micrograms every 12 hours; inhaled formoterol:
maximum delivered dose of 54 micrograms over 24 hours;
inhaled salmeterol (Advair, Combivent, Foradil, ProAir, Proventil, Ventolin, Dulera, Serevent, Symbicort, Xolair, Xopenex): maximum 200
micrograms over 24 hours. The presence in urine of salbutamol in excess of 1000 ng/mL or formoterol in excess of 40 ng/mL is presumed
not to be an intended therapeutic use of the substance and will be considered as an Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) unless the athlete
proves, through a controlled pharmacokinetic study, that the abnormal result was the consequence of the use of the therapeutic dose
(by inhalation) up to the maximum dose indicated above. See Diuretic/Threshold warning.
Wow this was underrated goldYou forgot the most USADA banned substance of all, "Fun".
@dimspace
Novitsky is saying that the tainted supplement excuse wouldn't work even if the athlete found a supplement containing the banned substance. He says the levels of the banned supplement found in the sample would have to match the amount in the off-the-shelf substance.
Safe to say Novitsky is wrong here?
Well yes, of course. But Novitsky is saying it would be impossible to get away with unless you had a "PhD chemist" working with you to match quantities between sample and the supposedly contaminated supplement. You and I both know multiple athletes have gotten away with reduced sentences by successfully BSing a contaminated supplement excuse.um, yes and no
for instance, if a lot of "substance x" was in a sample that would rule out contamination, if too much was present in a sample to feasibly have been a result of contamination
on the other hand if a little of "substance x" was found in a sample that could indicate either a) a low amount administered which could point to contamination or b) the athlete had taken a lot but a week ago so it had been mostly excreted
So the amount present in a sample can discount contamination (in the case of a lot), and could partially backup a contamination claim (but would need other evidence with it)
not sure where this gif came from but....Props to you TS, for making all this effort, I applaud you
not sure where this gif came from but....
very good question.Anybody know when the USADA contract with the UFC expires?