Vijay Singh admits to using banned substance in Sports Illustrated ... - Page 12

More on the story from USA Today:

Finchem said that Singh had initially been sanctioned by the Tour, then appealed the sanction. Singh was cleared, Finchem said, because the status of deer antler spray had been changed by the World Anti-Doping Agency.

"During the appeal process, PGA Tour counsel contacted WADA to confirm a number of technical points," Finchem said, reading a prepared statement. "At that time, WADA clarified that it no longer considers the use of deer antler spray to be prohibited unless a positive test results."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/golf/2013/04/30/vijay-singh-pga-tour-suspension-deer-antler-spray/2124525/

You would think that the PGA banned list is better defined than this.  The WADA Prohibited Substances list is very public and the timing on changes are pretty clear also.  I'd be curious how the PGA Tour defines it's banned substances list.  Either way, Vijay was upfront, followed the process and has been exonerated.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by topspin4hand 

You would think that the PGA banned list is better defined than this.  The WADA Prohibited Substances list is very public and the timing on changes are pretty clear also.  I'd be curious how the PGA Tour defines it's banned substances list.  Either way, Vijay was upfront, followed the process and has been exonerated.
 

The PGA Tour simply uses the same list.  Not unlike many other sports, to be fair.

Vijay withdraws from Wells Fargo tourney. The UPS guy probably won't leave the deer antler spray without a signature. Why does a guy with a script for testosterone get suspended for a year, when a Hall of Fame member that admits taking a banned substance, gets nothing? OH, wait a minute, I think I answerd my own question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by caniac6 

Vijay withdraws from Wells Fargo tourney. The UPS guy probably won't leave the deer antler spray without a signature. Why does a guy with a script for testosterone get suspended for a year, when a Hall of Fame member that admits taking a banned substance, gets nothing? OH, wait a minute, I think I answerd my own question.

Because it isn't actually a banned substance? "During that process, WADA clarified that it no longer deems deer antler spray to be prohibitive without a positive test result." And even that only happened upon appeal from Singh, so…

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas 

 

Because it isn't actually a banned substance? "During that process, WADA clarified that it no longer deems deer antler spray to be prohibitive without a positive test result." And even that only happened upon appeal from Singh, so…

Interestingly, according to Finchem yesterday, they don't even have a test for IGF-1, the actual banned substance found in minute quantities in the deer antler spray.

Finchem indicated that the only reason that verbiage is included, is in case such a test is someday developed.  He also said that even if such a test is developed for IGF-1, according to WADA, the levels of IGF-1 that would make it into the system of someone using deer antler spray are so small, that they'd be well below whatever threshold was set for a positive result.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas 

 

Because it isn't actually a banned substance? "During that process, WADA clarified that it no longer deems deer antler spray to be prohibitive without a positive test result." And even that only happened upon appeal from Singh, so…

It was a banned substance when he took it. I just think Finchem didn't have the backbone to disclipine a guy with Vijay's resume.

Quote:

Originally Posted by caniac6 

It was a banned substance when he took it. I just think Finchem didn't have the backbone to disclipine a guy with Vijay's resume.

Your "thought" is unsubstantiated. He was going to be penalized but appealed. So Finchem WAS going to do something until Vijay won the appeal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas 

 

Because why try to split hairs like this? The substance itself is illegal. What if in three months someone makes a spray form that is effective? How do you define "spray" form?

 

It's easier to say "this is banned" rather than trying to define the efficacy of various methods of use, and constantly keep watch on those for changes and variations on the effectiveness and the use.

 

What if you cut yourself and "sprayed" it on your body that way? You can't even define the "uses" accurately.

THrough this whole arguement, this is the most logical response.

And thought I believe steroids to be beneficial, I think they should be used under the guidance of a professional.