Vijay Singh admits to using banned substance in Sports Illustrated ...

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Let's dispel some myths and fallacies the media has propagated about PED's.  PED's aren't magic, you don't swallow a pill and wake up the next day looking like the Hulk.

Most PED's are taken because they enable athletes to workout harder and recover faster.  The key term is "workout", you have to go to the gym and bust your butt to see any real results.  You might work with someone on PED's or TRT and not even know they are because they aren't working out and eating to gain size, A-Rod would be a prime example of someone using PED's but doesn't look it..

To get the massive gains you see in professional body builders you'd have to stack a number of steroids with HGH, eat about 5000+ calories of lean food (protein) and spend about 3-5 hours in a gym.  I've trained guys in gyms that are clean and juiced, don't let the media fool you, juiced guys kill it in the gym, they aren't just swallowing a pill.   Don't underestimate the value of top notch trainers and a high quality lean diet as there are a number of clean bodybuilders and weight lifters that could hold their own and out lift guys on PED's.

The point is the media has gotten on the PED's soapbox and everyone is believing what the talking heads say.  The reality is most PED's are worthless, about 80% of what's on the IOC banned list fits into the worthless category.  Proper training and nutrition are 100% required to become a pro athlete and that doesn't come cheap.  As I said earlier, alcohol, aspirin and nicotine are more of a PED than deer antler spray and most other products on the banned list.

PEDS testing is a feel good to make everyone believe there's some equal ground in sports but it's an illusion.

When I refer to PED's, I'm not just referring to those that build muscle mass.  I never wanted to imply that you can swallow a pill and end up looking like the hulk.  What I said was that you can take a pill as a substitute for exercise, and you can.  While your entire argument focuses on only one class of PED's (hormones that, with the aid of exercise, increase the rate of muscle growth), my argument considers ALL classes of PED's.  While you may have significant experience that I do not (I've never assisted with anyone's training using PED's) I rely on my medical background.  With that, I can assure you that many of the drugs on the banned list do, in fact, provide immediate improvement that would only be gained with regular exercise.  Let's look at a few of them.

Erythropoietin is secreted by the kidneys. It stimulates the stem cells in marrow causing them to increase red blood cell (RBC) production. Increased RBCs lead to an increased ability to deliver oxygen to the muscles, thereby increasing endurance and minimizing fatigue.  It requires no additional exercise, yet gives a person the same endurance boost they would have received had they been on a regimen of regular aerobic conditioning.

Stimulants are also banned, but you don't mention them in your argument, probably because you can, in fact, get immediate benefit from them.

Beta Blockers are also banned, but you don't mention them in your argument, probably because you can also get immediate benefit from them.

Generalization is a dangerous tool if you're going to make a logical argument.  While it's true that the media has focused more of the PED stories on steroids and muscle-building drugs, you know better than to fall into their trap when discussing PED's.  I will agree that the drugs alone don't just build muscle.  But they are a substitute for MORE time in the gym.  You gave an example of clean bodybuilders who could hold their own against athletes on PEDs, but I'd bet that clean bodybuilder spends a lot more time in the gym than the guy on PEDs does.  No?

You keep talking about how having a personal trainer gives an unfair advantage, as though the trainer can simply wave a wand and improve your game.  Trainers can only instruct.  They can't do the work for you.  Some PED's on the other hand actually do a lot of the work themselves with little or no effort on your part.  As for the expense involved (I guess we're going to argue now about how richer players have an unfair advantage?) there are plenty of "rich" people in this forum who have spent plenty of money on individualized instruction who aren't on the tour.  I'm sure they wish it were only a matter of spending enough money to get the "right instructor" to turn them into a pro.  Next we'll be arguing about how being able to pay for the best caddies in the game somehow gives an unfair advantage.

Let's be realistic...there's no way to have an absolutely level playing field because even weather can cause inconsistencies.  But the way you talk, you'd rather just let people do whatever they want because since we can't have a perfectly level playing field, we might as well not even try.  Kind of a weak, defeatist attitude isn't it?  I'm thankful the USGA doesn't just give up like that.

I'm honestly trying to figure out why someone who thinks every sport was invented for the purpose of making money would let themselves be a pawn in the game.  If it wasn't about competing under common conditions, why do you suppose we have standards on equipment, golf course layout, etc?

[Wansteadimp]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

This is the answer. ;)

http://www.hulu.com/#!watch/4090

Apparently not the answer if your trying to view from the UK!!!!!

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by Wansteadimp

Apparently not the answer if your trying to view from the UK!!!!!

Sorry, I couldn't find the clip on youtube, only hulu, so I couldn't embed it and that's probably why it's not working.

It's an old (80's) Saturday Night Live skit about the "All Drug Olympics." They take place in Bogota, Colombia and the athletes are "allowed to take drugs before, after, and even during the competition."  It's showing a weightlifter who's on "anabolic steroids, novocaine, nyquil, darvon, and some sort of fish paralyzer.  Also I believe he's had several cocktails in the last hour."  He's trying to clean and jerk over 1500 pounds and fails because he pulls his arms right out of the sockets.  It's ridiculous of course, but it cracks me up.

[Beachcomber]

'I think tomorrow, he's really going to feel that!?'

[dave67az]

Just wanted to briefly touch on the mention of alcohol, aspirin and nicotine as performance enhancing drugs.

Alcohol has been studied quite a bit, from what I've seen, and it's detriments outweigh any benefits to performance, therefore I'm not sure why one could think it should be on the banned list.

http://espn.go.com/special/s/drugsandsports/alcohol.html

Aspirin has also been studied, but from what I've seen has only shown improvement when combined with other PEDs (such as caffeine).  By itself, I doubt it does much more than relieve aching muscles.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18824931

Nicotine is a stimulant, and we'll probably be seeing it on the banned list soon.
http://www.foxsports.com.au/other-sports/wada-to-move-towards-declaring-nicotine-a-performance-enhancing-drug/story-e6frf56c-1226139585832#.URlj3Wf_dQI

Caffeine was on the banned list until 2004, but since then use has increased to the extent that we'll probably see it added soon as it's already restricted by the IOC.

http://www.rice.edu/~jenky/sports/caffeine.html

http://www.teachpe.com/drugs/caffeine.php

[newtogolf]

Dave your point about stimulants and beta blockers are dead on, I didn't mention them because those aren't the ones the media gets crazy about and they do provide instant results.  Most people associate PEDS with steroids and GH, those are the ones that sell newspapers and get the headlines.  The media and MLB seemed to be fine with greenies in baseball until steroids hit the scene, greenie use dates back to the 50's, why wasn't there any outrage about PEDs then?

In my opinion professional sports are no longer about level playing fields and fair competition but big corporations and money.  It's not defeatist, it's realistic.  Small market teams try to enforce salary caps on larger market teams that then find loopholes and ways around it.

Lance Armstrong didn't get caught by science, he was turned in by his competitors and team mates who failed their drug tests because they didn't have the resources to pass them like Lance did.  Barry Bonds never failed a drug test to my knowledge nor did McGwire.  Ryan Braun failed a drug test but because he had a smart lawyer who found a loophole in the chain of custody procedures he never got suspended.  You're a doctor, so you know that cheaters are always a step ahead of the tests.

The USGA, MLB, NFL, etc would all have us believe their sports are clean now and that what we're seeing is a "level playing field", it's not.  The testing might prevent the lesser paid players from cheating, but there's still a lot of cheating going on amongst the highest paid.

As for equipment standards, we're got pro golfers that can hit a par 4 green from the tee, and most can do anything they want with a wedge from just about anywhere on the course so while I agree there are standards, I wouldn't say they are all that restrictive.  In just trying to ban the anchored putting stroke the USGA is getting a ton of push back from the manufacturers and PGA.

I play sports recreationally so I'm not a pawn.  I'm comfortable with the fact that corporations control sports and it really doesn't matter to me until we get into their hypocrisy.

Originally Posted by dave67az

Let's be realistic...there's no way to have an absolutely level playing field because even weather can cause inconsistencies.  But the way you talk, you'd rather just let people do whatever they want because since we can't have a perfectly level playing field, we might as well not even try.  Kind of a weak, defeatist attitude isn't it?  I'm thankful the USGA doesn't just give up like that.

I'm honestly trying to figure out why someone who thinks every sport was invented for the purpose of making money would let themselves be a pawn in the game.  If it wasn't about competing under common conditions, why do you suppose we have standards on equipment, golf course layout, etc?

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Dave your point about stimulants and beta blockers are dead on, I didn't mention them because those aren't the ones the media gets crazy about and they do provide instant results.  Most people associate PEDS with steroids and GH, those are the ones that sell newspapers and get the headlines.  The media and MLB seemed to be fine with greenies in baseball until steroids hit the scene, greenie use dates back to the 50's, why wasn't there any outrage about PEDs then?

In my opinion professional sports are no longer about level playing fields and fair competition but big corporations and money.  It's not defeatist, it's realistic.  Small market teams try to enforce salary caps on larger market teams that then find loopholes and ways around it.

Lance Armstrong didn't get caught by science, he was turned in by his competitors and team mates who failed their drug tests because they didn't have the resources to pass them like Lance did.  Barry Bonds never failed a drug test to my knowledge nor did McGwire.  Ryan Braun failed a drug test but because he had a smart lawyer who found a loophole in the chain of custody procedures he never got suspended.  You're a doctor, so you know that cheaters are always a step ahead of the tests.

The USGA, MLB, NFL, etc would all have us believe their sports are clean now and that what we're seeing is a "level playing field", it's not.  The testing might prevent the lesser paid players from cheating, but there's still a lot of cheating going on amongst the highest paid.

As for equipment standards, we're got pro golfers that can hit a par 4 green from the tee, and most can do anything they want with a wedge from just about anywhere on the course so while I agree there are standards, I wouldn't say they are all that restrictive.  In just trying to ban the anchored putting stroke the USGA is getting a ton of push back from the manufacturers and PGA.

I play sports recreationally so I'm not a pawn.  I'm comfortable with the fact that corporations control sports and it really doesn't matter to me until we get into their hypocrisy.

I think we can agree the media rarely focuses on the "real" issues, rather they sell stories that the dumbest people out there can understand.  They have to reduce their content to the lowest common denominator and fit it into a neat little space (what was once column-inches, now measured in seconds in visual media).  There are a few good series out there like Real Sports that addresses the real issues at hand, but it's true that most "mainstream news" organizations only care to briefly touch on the boundaries of an issue (and sometimes even then manage to get it wrong).

Money will always be an issue, and in sports that means leverage.  Whether it's a manufacturer leveraging in order to keep their equipment on the "approved" list, or a player circumventing the processes that have been put in place to make the games "fair" (accepting bribes to throw a game, paying bribes to rig drug tests, organizing bounty schemes to eliminate the competition) we'll never be totally free of those who want to gain an advantage.  But I still believe that the VAST majority of those of us who play the sports, who eventually find ourselves sitting on competition committees making the decisions on what is and isn't allowed in our sports, have a goal to make the playing fields as level as possible.  No, there's no way to make it PERFECTLY level, but we should still strive to create common rules that all can understand and abide by in order to enhance the enjoyment of the games.

Nobody wants to play against someone who "cheats".  And if we go down that road of accepting cheaters as "part of the game", we might as well get rid of the sports in the first place.

I play as you do, simply for recreation.  But I'm betting "cheaters" still bug you just as much as they bug me judging from your posts.

[dave67az]

I wanted to clarify something.  In the military we have doctors, and in some branches (most notably the Navy and Air Force) we have unlicensed, enlisted medical providers.  Long ago (mostly during Vietnam) the branches realized the danger of sending highly-paid medical officers into areas with virtually no additional medical support.  But they realized the value of having a well-trained medical provider who could still provide front-line medical support.  I'm not talking about Army medics, though they are valuable as well.  I'm talking about enlisted providers with no medical degree, but who have been trained to examine, diagnose, treat, prescribe and administer medications (including narcotics and intravenous meds), perform minor surgeries, and even provide other medical services such as monitoring public health issues (water sampling, food facility and health inspections, mental health evaluations and monitoring, and even emergency dental care).  The Navy calls them Independent Duty Corpsmen.  The Air Force calls us Independent Duty Medical Technicians.

We're trained specifically to treat and care for adult patients with very little pediatric, geriatric, or obstetric training (though we sometimes find ourselves caring for kids and old people on humanitarian missions).  Most of the members of our patient population will call us "doc", but we don't have civilian medical degrees.  So I'm not a doctor by civilian standards...there is no civilian equivalent for us.  Consequently I can never work in the civilian world as a doctor (without going through years of medical school).  Some are trying to change that for us so we can actually continue doing for civilians what we did for the military, but it will probably be a long time before it actually happens.

So no, I'm not a doctor by civilian standards and when someone calls me a doctor (as you did) I try to clarify so you won't think I was trying to "pull one over" on you.  I am/was a medical provider and I'd still stack my training, knowledge and experience against most ER docs out there but I'm not a doctor.

I hope you don't feel like I misrepresented myself.  My apologies if you do.

[k-troop]

I've refrained from jumping into the fray on this one because it took me a little while to figure out what I really think.  Some interesting and informative comments posted.

I don't think what Vijay did was all that bad; at best a technical violation.  I doubt he was intentionally trying to use banned PEDs; at most he was reckless for using a bunch of ridiculous stuff and failing to fully check all of it out.  Given his status on the Tour and as much money as he's made, he should have a full-time employee vetting every product or substance he uses.

I do think that the Tour will make an example of him, and I agree if they do.  PEDs are roiling other sports--you can't have a conversation about most sports without having a working knowledge of who's been accused of doping with what substances.  The PGA Tour, however, has a squeaky clean image that sets them apart.  We have to try really hard to find scandal on the Tour (apart from Tiger's issues, we've had really nothing to talk about).  Last year we speculated for 10 pages about whether some dude who finished 10th in the Sony Open might have smoked pot once, and earlier this year we had sixty pages of comments on Phil not liking taxes.  If those are the Tour's scandals, then they're doing quite well.

Which is why Vijay will probably get a punishment that vastly outweighs the crime.  The Tour will likely want to send a message that this stuff has no place in golf.  If they let this one slide, then the next guy might think that he can remain blissfully ignorant and face no penalty if he later gets caught.  Sending a strong message now will set the stage:  take a pill or a creme to improve your performance, you might have to face some very loud and uncomfortable music.  I think that's a good position for the Tour to take now before we see several HoFers lying to a Congressional committee.

[Clambake]

K-Troop, I think you've captured the essence of much of my thinking on this as well, with some further clarification below

Originally Posted by k-troop

I don't think what Vijay did was all that bad; at best a technical violation.  I doubt he was intentionally trying to use banned PEDs; at most he was reckless for using a bunch of ridiculous stuff and failing to fully check all of it out.  Given his status on the Tour and as much money as he's made, he should have a full-time employee vetting every product or substance he uses.

I think what Vijay is really guilty of is gullibility and naivety.    Besides the deer antler spray, he's indicated he's using the holograms and other hooey that SWATS was selling.   He's been suckered in by some really flaky marketing by a very questionable provider of snake oil products, showing either a lack of intelligence, an unwarranted sense of trust, an irrational sense of desperation, or all of the above.

Originally Posted by k-troop I do think that the Tour will make an example of him, and I agree if they do.  PEDs are roiling other sports--you can't have a conversation about most sports without having a working knowledge of who's been accused of doping with what substances.  The PGA Tour, however, has a squeaky clean image that sets them apart.  .....

Which is why Vijay will probably get a punishment that vastly outweighs the crime.  The Tour will likely want to send a message that this stuff has no place in golf.  If they let this one slide, then the next guy might think that he can remain blissfully ignorant and face no penalty if he later gets caught.  Sending a strong message now will set the stage:  take a pill or a creme to improve your performance, you might have to face some very loud and uncomfortable music.  I think that's a good position for the Tour to take now before we see several HoFers lying to a Congressional committee.

I think the Tour will have to react fairly strongly, but I don't think it is so much to make an example of Vijay to other players but more to make a statement of what the Tour stands for.   It's a subtle difference, so let me explain what I mean.   Years ago, I had to fire a senior executive with my company for some questionable activities that weren't illegal or immoral, but were not consistent with the high standard I expected from my leadership team.    This wasn't done to send a message to other employees to make sure they didn't do something, but it was more done to show to everyone in our company the specific values we stood for.

I think the Tour is in a similar situation here and will act not so much to serve up Vijay as an example to others but to show a core set of values to the world that the Tour stands for.    They need to show that they are an organization of utmost integrity; that a fundamental foundation of its sport is the self responsibility of its members to follow the rules; that it has an established drug policy that is clear and unambiguous; and that it cannot bend its own rules for the sake of convenience.    The message the Tour will be sending is more about defining the Tour itself than any issue over PEDs or other substance abuses.

[newtogolf]

No worries, I don't believe you misrepresented yourself and appreciate the clarification.

Originally Posted by dave67az

So no, I'm not a doctor by civilian standards and when someone calls me a doctor (as you did) I try to clarify so you won't think I was trying to "pull one over" on you.  I am/was a medical provider and I'd still stack my training, knowledge and experience against most ER docs out there but I'm not a doctor.

I hope you don't feel like I misrepresented myself.  My apologies if you do.

[mailman]

Hang on...if this deer antler stuff really is just snake oil that provides absolutely NO benefit what so ever...then why punish VJ?

If this stuff doesnt work, which seems to be the concensus then surely the best thing here is for the USGA to move the stuff off its banned list and on to its "crap that doesnt work" list?

Secondly, if VJ took this stuff not knowing it was a banned substance and he did so "honestly" then there is no point in treating him like the golfing version of Lance Armstrong.

Mailman

[jamo]

Hang on...if this deer antler stuff really is just snake oil that provides absolutely NO benefit what so ever...then why punish VJ? If this stuff doesnt work, which seems to be the concensus then surely the best thing here is for the USGA to move the stuff off its banned list and on to its "crap that doesnt work" list? Secondly, if VJ took this stuff not knowing it was a banned substance and he did so "honestly" then there is no point in treating him like the golfing version of Lance Armstrong. Mailman

It's on the banned list. He broke the rules. If you want to argue that it shouldn't be banned, that's a separate debate.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by mailman

Hang on...if this deer antler stuff really is just snake oil that provides absolutely NO benefit what so ever...then why punish VJ?

If this stuff doesnt work, which seems to be the concensus then surely the best thing here is for the USGA to move the stuff off its banned list and on to its "crap that doesnt work" list?

Secondly, if VJ took this stuff not knowing it was a banned substance and he did so "honestly" then there is no point in treating him like the golfing version of Lance Armstrong.

Mailman

1.  Just because studies about deer antler spray have mixed results doesn't mean that it proves there is no benefit.

2.  The active ingredient in deer antler spray is on the banned list because it has been proven to enhance performance in some forms (injected, for instance).

3.  The banned substance list doesn't differentiate between application methods and all the golfers on the tour know this.  Therefore if you use a product on the banned substance list regardless of what form in which you're using it, you are in violation of the rules.

It's not the USGA/PGA's job to conduct studies to prove that a substance provides benefit in EVERY form before placing it on the banned list.  It's cut and dried.  If you use a substance on the banned list, you're in violation of the rules.

It doesn't get much more simple than that, and if you can't abide by the rules then you need to find a different job.  People who try to skate around loopholes don't get a free pass just because "well there's no proof that it enhanced my performance."  That demonstrates a clear lack of moral character, doesn't it?

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by mailman

Hang on...if this deer antler stuff really is just snake oil that provides absolutely NO benefit what so ever...then why punish VJ?

If this stuff doesnt work, which seems to be the concensus then surely the best thing here is for the USGA to move the stuff off its banned list and on to its "crap that doesnt work" list?

Secondly, if VJ took this stuff not knowing it was a banned substance and he did so "honestly" then there is no point in treating him like the golfing version of Lance Armstrong.

Mailman

My intention in replying to your post WAS going to be just to answer your questions, but then I thought about it some more and you bring up a good point.  The answer to your first question is because it contains an illegal substance.  The answer to your second question is because from what I remember from the more informed posters above, it's not "crap that doesn't work" but moreso "crap that only works when injected."

But then that got me thinking ... what makes a substance illegal?  For example, if somebody gave me a steroid in pill form, and I rubbed it on my hands, or if somebody gave me a liquid form of an illegal drug that I was suppose to ingest and instead I used it to wash my hair ... are either of those actions illegal?  I would assume that the answer to both of those would be no.

So now I'm thinking that you are right, and that this needs to be looked at more closely.  It reminds me of a scene at the beginning of A Few Good Men when Tom Cruise's character is playing softball and negotiating with another lawyer ...

Kaffee : Alright, let's go, let's get two.
Lt. Sherby : Sorry!
Kaffee : Nothing to be sorry about, Sherby, you just look the ball into your glove. Shootin' two!
Lt. Sherby : Sorry!
Kaffee : Sherby, you gotta trust me, you keep your eyes open and your chances of catching ball increase by a factor of 10.
Lieutenant Dave Spradling : Kaffee.
Kaffee : Let's try it again.
Lieutenant Dave Spradling : Kaffee!
Kaffee : Dave you seem distraught.
Lieutenant Dave Spradling : We were supposed to meet in your office 15 minutes ago to talk about the McDermont case. You're stalling on this thing. We get this done right now, or I mean it, Kaffee, I'm going to hang your boy from a ****in' yardarm!
Kaffee : Yardarm? Sherby, does the Navy still hang people from Yardarms?
Lt. Sherby : I don't think so.
Kaffee : Dave, Sherby doesn't think the Navy hang people from yardarms anymore.
Lieutenant Dave Spradling : I'm going to charge him with possession and being under the influence while on duty. You plead guilty I recommend 30 days in the brig with loss of rank and pay.
Kaffee : It was oregano, Dave. It was 10 dollars worth of oregano.
Lieutenant Dave Spradling : Yeah, but your client thought it was marijuana.
Kaffee : My client's a moron that's not against the law.
Lieutenant Dave Spradling : Kaffee, I have people to answer to just like you do. I'm going to charge him.
Kaffee : With what? Possession of a condiment?
Lieutenant Dave Spradling : Kaffee...
Kaffee : Dave, I tried to help you out of this but if you ask for jail time I'm going to file a motion to dismiss.
Kaffee : You won't get it.
Kaffee : I will get it. And if the MTD is denied I'll file a motion in limine seeking to obtain an evidentary ruling in advance and after that I'm going to file against pretrial confinement and you're going to spend the next three months going blind on paperwork because a Signalman Second Class bought and smoked a dime bag of oregano.
Lieutenant Dave Spradling : B misdemeanor 20 days in the brig.
Kaffee : C misdemeanor 15 days restricted duty

Maybe what they need to do is have him spray himself again, then actually test for the substance and see if it turns up.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by jamo

It's on the banned list. He broke the rules.

If you want to argue that it shouldn't be banned, that's a separate debate.

Originally Posted by dave67az

1.  Just because studies about deer antler spray have mixed results doesn't mean that it proves there is no benefit.

2.  The active ingredient in deer antler spray is on the banned list because it has been proven to enhance performance in some forms (injected, for instance).

3.  The banned substance list doesn't differentiate between application methods and all the golfers on the tour know this.  Therefore if you use a product on the banned substance list regardless of what form in which you're using it, you are in violation of the rules.

It's not the USGA/PGA's job to conduct studies to prove that a substance provides benefit in EVERY form before placing it on the banned list.  It's cut and dried.  If you use a substance on the banned list, you're in violation of the rules.

It doesn't get much more simple than that, and if you can't abide by the rules then you need to find a different job.  People who try to skate around loopholes don't get a free pass just because "well there's no proof that it enhanced my performance."  That demonstrates a clear lack of moral character, doesn't it?

LOL.  These are basically the answers I was originally going to give Mailman.  You guys are both right, obviously, but is it cut and dried?

Maybe my examples are a little silly, but, again, what constitutes "use?"  If the guy from SALTS gave me steroids and said you don't have to inject these or swallow these ... to get the benefits all you have to do is tape them over your heart while you sleep.  I'm "using" them the way the producer told me too, but it's not providing me any benefit, right?

Is this where intent factors in?  Vijay wasn't intending to break the rules, but he WAS intending to enhance his performance by using this product the way he THOUGHT it was intended to work. Maybe that's the crux?

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

My intention in replying to your post WAS going to be just to answer your questions, but then I thought about it some more and you bring up a good point.  The answer to your first question is because it contains an illegal substance.  The answer to your second question is because from what I remember from the more informed posters above, it's not "crap that doesn't work" but moreso "crap that only works when injected."

But then that got me thinking ... what makes a substance illegal?  For example, if somebody gave me a steroid in pill form, and I rubbed it on my hands, or if somebody gave me a liquid form of an illegal drug that I was suppose to ingest and instead I used it to wash my hair ... are either of those actions illegal?  I would assume that the answer to both of those would be no.

So now I'm thinking that you are right, and that this needs to be looked at more closely.  It reminds me of a scene at the beginning of A Few Good Men when Tom Cruise's character is playing softball and negotiating with another lawyer ...

Kaffee: Alright, let's go, let's get two.

Lt. Sherby: Sorry!

Kaffee: Nothing to be sorry about, Sherby, you just look the ball into your glove. Shootin' two!

Lt. Sherby: Sorry!

Kaffee: Sherby, you gotta trust me, you keep your eyes open and your chances of catching ball increase by a factor of 10.

Lieutenant Dave Spradling: Kaffee.

Kaffee: Let's try it again.

Lieutenant Dave Spradling: Kaffee!

Kaffee: Dave you seem distraught.

Lieutenant Dave Spradling: We were supposed to meet in your office 15 minutes ago to talk about the McDermont case. You're stalling on this thing. We get this done right now, or I mean it, Kaffee, I'm going to hang your boy from a ****in' yardarm!

Kaffee: Yardarm? Sherby, does the Navy still hang people from Yardarms?

Lt. Sherby: I don't think so.

Kaffee: Dave, Sherby doesn't think the Navy hang people from yardarms anymore.

Lieutenant Dave Spradling: I'm going to charge him with possession and being under the influence while on duty. You plead guilty I recommend 30 days in the brig with loss of rank and pay.

Kaffee: It was oregano, Dave. It was 10 dollars worth of oregano.

Lieutenant Dave Spradling: Yeah, but your client thought it was marijuana.

Kaffee: My client's a moron that's not against the law.

Lieutenant Dave Spradling: Kaffee, I have people to answer to just like you do. I'm going to charge him.

Kaffee: With what? Possession of a condiment?

Lieutenant Dave Spradling: Kaffee...

Kaffee: Dave, I tried to help you out of this but if you ask for jail time I'm going to file a motion to dismiss.

Kaffee: You won't get it.

Kaffee: I will get it. And if the MTD is denied I'll file a motion in limine seeking to obtain an evidentary ruling in advance and after that I'm going to file against pretrial confinement and you're going to spend the next three months going blind on paperwork because a Signalman Second Class bought and smoked a dime bag of oregano.

Lieutenant Dave Spradling: B misdemeanor 20 days in the brig.

Kaffee: C misdemeanor 15 days restricted duty

Maybe what they need to do is have him spray himself again, then actually test for the substance and see if it turns up.

The assumption I believe you're making (correct me if I'm wrong) is that topical application of meds isn't effective?  The fact is, all drugs are absorbed by some tissue in the body and that's how they get into our systems.  Whether it's skin, mucous membranes, intestinal tissue, etc that's how drugs get into our system.  Many drugs can be absorbed topically as well.  Look at all the arthritis products on the market.  If you're old enough, you might remember a product calls dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO).  DMSO is readily absorbed into skin, carrying with it any other chemical/drug that it's mixed with.  (I even remember an old episode of Quincy in which a guy was poisoned because the killer put a mixture of poison and DMSO on the guy's steering wheel...a little embellished, but it's possible).

The point is, using a banned substance in any form is against the rules because the goal is to get people to stop using banned substances, not to encourage them to be creative in finding new ways to administer banned products.

As for your example, it was a great movie and has some awesome quotes in the courtroom scenes, but the point remains that the guy ATTEMPTED to buy marijuana.  Whether he was successful has no bearing on his intentions.  Just as if you try to kill someone, it's still a crime even if you don't succeed.

[dave67az]

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

LOL.  These are basically the answers I was originally going to give Mailman.  You guys are both right, obviously, but is it cut and dried?

Maybe my examples are a little silly, but, again, what constitutes "use?"  If the guy from SALTS gave me steroids and said you don't have to inject these or swallow these ... to get the benefits all you have to do is tape them over your heart while you sleep.  I'm "using" them the way the producer told me too, but it's not providing me any benefit, right?

Is this where intent factors in?  Vijay wasn't intending to break the rules, but he WAS intending to enhance his performance by using this product the way he THOUGHT it was intended to work. Maybe that's the crux?

I think this should answer your question, and this is why I believe it's cut and dried.

Straight from the Anti-Doping Program Manual, page 7...

What other conduct violates the Program?
Other conduct may lead to the finding of a violation and sanctions under the Program, including the possession, use or attempted use of a prohibited substance or method; refusing or failing to be tested; tampering with a sample; trafficking in or administering any prohibited substance; or admitting to any conduct that violates the Program.

In order to believe that he "wasn't intending to break the rules", don't you have to make a pretty big assumption considering you've admitted you believe he was intending to enhance his performance by administering a chemical that he believed would help him?