Posted on
of 353
First Prev
/ 353
  • "The Durban pharmacist took the blame and produced cash register receipts showing the times of the purchases."

    But again, wasn't named. Are they still working? Do they get 'struck off' for negligence, etc?

  • Get promoted and a job with a pro cycling team

  • That's so cynical

    (they were almost certainly already paid by cycling team)

  • the entire supplements market should be regulated the same way food, drink and drugs are.

    In general, they are. The "problem" isn't regulation, its customers shopping around for either a foreign regulatory regime or an unscrupulous supplier in order to get something not available through local, compliant, channels.

    The sporting regulations are different, as they prohibit many things which are permitted ingredients or impurities in food or pharmaceuticals. Any fule kno that if you're subject to anti-doping controls, you should source any supplements from specialist suppliers who work to higher standards than those required by law.

  • exactomundo

  • higher standards than those required by law

    this is where it gets tricky

  • Any fule kno that if you're subject to anti-doping controls, you should source any supplements from specialist suppliers who work to higher standards than those required by law.

    Few years back I went to get some stuff to help a bad cold and the pharmacist saw I was on a bike and asked me if I raced as what she was selling me was most definitely banned. That said, maybe it was a barely hidden upsell attempt to get me to buy more.

  • The "problem" isn't regulation

    For the most part it is. There's no risk for suppliers if they contaminate (knowingly or unknowingly) their products. People cheating by going looking for dodgy shit is a separate matter.

  • For the most part it is

    No, there's more than enough regulation, at least in the civilised nations. What you want is more enforcement.

    Regulation is cheap, enforcement is expensive. Politicians love making new rules, because it looks like doing something. They hate having to find the money for enforcement, because it reveals just a small part of the cost of excessive regulation.

    It is a general principle of politics, democratic or dictatorial, that enforcement is limited, so more regulation simply leads to lower overall compliance as enforcement resources get spread thinner and the risk attached to non-compliance becomes correspondingly lower.

  • No, there's more than enough regulation, at least in the civilised nations.

    Yes. Most of the supplements are coming from the US. So, there's the problem. What is regulation without enforcement? "Here's a bunch of rules, ignore them though because we won't be penalising any of you that slip in toxic shit to your products."

  • Like, what the actual fuck... forget enforcement, they don't even have rules in the first place.

    "Please rush me my 30-day course of poison!"

    "Federal law does not require dietary supplements to be proven safe to FDA's satisfaction before they are marketed."­pdates/fda-101-dietary-supplements

  • What is regulation without enforcement?

    Political grandstanding.

    With the politicians handily in the pockets of the commercial interests, they don't even lock the stable door after the horse has got into the lasagne

  • this is where it gets tricky

    There's nothing tricky about it. Where there is demand, somebody will supply product to a higher quality than the minimum demanded by regulation.

    Most, if not all, of the safety equipment now mandatory on new cars was first offered as a premium option by car manufacturers.

  • Well prosecution-or defence-wise it is tricky. It's hard to enforce based on some 'plus expectancy' on top of the law.

  • If the supplier doesn't meet the contractual terms, the buyer has recourse to the civil courts. If anything, that's easier than getting a regulator to use criminal enforcement.

  • So we know supplements are often poor quality or tainted and in the absence of any real regulation/enforcement shouldn't teams as a duty of care for its athletes or individual athletes being professional and taking this problem seriously be independently testing what they are using? A mate of mine looks after the weight cut for several top mma fighters and professional boxers and if they have the budget he'll get their sponsored supplements tested and if not he tells them to stop using it and uses what he knows to be quality and clean. He reckons 80% of supplements he's tested are under nutritionally and 10-15% tainted in some way from uk companies and about double that from American suppliers. So with those kind of odds the standard its what my sponsors gave me i thought it'd be alright excuse doesn't really wash anymore. Really any supplement should be treated with a there's quite possibly some nasty shit in that I'd better double check before I use it approach if you are a professional.

  • Really any supplement should be treated with a there's probably some nasty shit in that I'd better double check to make sure approach.

    Exactly. "I can't afford to get my supplements tested" is no fucking excuse for taking them. They're supposed to be a supplement for something you're lacking through diet so if you don't even know what's in them, how the fuck can you be sure they're doing their job as a supplement? You can't, it's horseshit and the book should be thrown at "tainted supplement" athletes the same as dopers.

  • Especially Betsema whose supplement came from a pharmacist, so made to order presumably rather than commercially available off the shelf. Such a bullshit excuse.

    Darryl Impey should be lumped in the same category, his excuse was so obviously bullshit too.

  • Yeah there does need to be a hard ruling on this. Its up to the athlete to make sure they're clean so claiming to have taken something accidentally isn't an acceptable excuse or they are simply lying so should be considered the same as doping. The fact there still seems to be this wiggle room that if you can prove its from a tainted supplement/steak you often get away with it for a first offence there is no reason for the manufacturers to improve or the athletes to test for themselves as if something gets flagged the company apologise and say they'll up the QC from now on but probably won't as no one will be checking and only at that point does the athlete have to be more careful in future. So they need to be a bit stricter on the athlete and a lot stricter on the companies as they seem to have very little kick back in these situations. If the company or pharmacist can take the blame for the athlete but thats it and nothing really happens no huge fine or loss of license to trade then whats the point?

  • Obviously if you get popped, you get your friendly pharmacists a fat wad of cash to say "oops, sorry" or you taint your own batch or throw the manufacturer some cash to taint a couple of tins or whatever. The WADA code basically says that you have to ensure you're free from dodgy shit so the "contaminated supplement" excuse doesn't gel with me at all.

    If you can't afford to get tested supps, you can't afford to take supps.

    In all of these cases there seems to be no follow up on the companies or the pharmacies. A London marathon runner was killed after taking Jack 3d or something - this isn't just cheating in races it can kill people. Where's all the prosecutions?

  • Just doing some googling...­nvestigation-dietarysupplements-idUSKCN0­T628320151118­iew/

    "As of March 2019, USPLabs has ceased operations as part of a plea agreement in a criminal case that included claims of fraud and a possible connection between a distributor and an outbreak of illness in 2013, shares Natural Products Insider."

    "an outbreak of illness" = "2013 outbreak of hepatitis that led to hospitalizations, liver transplants and even one death."­iduals-and-two-companies-sentenced-schem­e-fraudulently-sell-popular-dietary­owner-and-his-president-going-jail

  • In America you don't even have to bung your suppliment company any cash although I'm sure it helps. There is no random batch test at the company to check for contamination from a governing body so you can just get a large enough sample yourself from one single batch spike it get your own tester in to verify it and submit that as proof. If the company simply can't explain it or prove the contamination didn't come from their massive unregulated factory which they obviously can't your all good. They've done it with nut allergy warnings so maybe BCAA's should come with labels saying may contain traces of methylated testosterone or simian growth hormone ?

  • It's proper fucked.

  • Post a reply
    • Bold
    • Italics
    • Link
    • Image
    • List
    • Quote
    • code
    • Preview


Posted by Avatar for rpm @rpm