Register | Login
Attackpoint - performance and training tools for orienteering athletes

Discussion: Eddy Hellebuyck at RM1000

in: Orienteering; General

Jul 27, 2004 12:37 AM # 
iamstillhungry:
Is that *the* Eddy H? He is registered for M40 so the age class is correct. If so, has he come to US O events in the past? I don't care how rusty is O skills may or may not be, I think he should have to tow a boulder around the courses.
Advertisement  
Jul 27, 2004 6:56 PM # 
bmay:
Yes, The Eddy Hellebuyck (marathon runner extrodinaire with a recent positive test for EPO) is indeed registered for the 1000 day.

I may share some of the blame in his signing up because last fall I spoke with him before the Twin Cities Marathon and encouraged him to return to orienteering, even mentioning the 1000 day as a nearby event. But, he was "clean" back then!

Mike Platt and I have had some discussions on his situation. Given the fact that 1) no ban has yet been announced by USATF, and 2) his case will likely go to an appeal, it seems like the situation is currently in an "unresolved" state. In the interest of assuming innocence until guilt is proven, Mike plans to allow him to run the 1000 day. But, if a ban is imposed (effective back to the date of his positive test), then in all probability his 1000 day results would be struck from the record after the fact.
Dec 21, 2004 3:00 AM # 
PG:
He got a two-year suspension, retroactive back to Jan. 31.
Dec 21, 2004 1:37 PM # 
the_latvian:
I am not familiar with the particular person's situation but I feel that even if he has received a disqualification from the US Athletics Federation, nothing should preclude him from enrolling and participating in O' competitions, so long as he is not tested positive in an O'meet and accordingly disqualified by USOF. Prohibiting him from participating in 1000 day would be analogue to banning him from a chess tournament, which, needless tosay, makes no sense.
Dec 21, 2004 5:18 PM # 
bmay:
Without going into too much detail, I must say that I couldn't disagree more with the_latvian. Eddy took a drug (EPO) to illegally enhance his performance in sport. This is the drug of choice for marathon running and if one were to take a drug for orienteering, it would also be at the top of the list. In my opinion, his 1000-day results should be deleted and he should be banned from any USOF-sanctioned events for the duration of his ban. Drugs are something that we do not want in our sport.
Dec 21, 2004 6:20 PM # 
Nev-Monster:
I totally agree with Brian and this is a pretty straightforward decision. EPO is specifically designed for endurance athletes, Orienteers are endurance athletes. Not at all like banning him from the chess tournament. EPO is a massive problem in elite endurance sport because of credibility damage and I wouldn't be surprised if there are some significant athletes nailed next year in Turin.
Dec 21, 2004 7:09 PM # 
jjcote:
Well, the USOF Rules are pretty laconic on this subject. All they say is:

35.8 The use of drugs to obtain an advantage is forbidden. This does not prohibit the use of medically necessary drugs prescribed by a physician.

I will note that a conspicuous blank space has appeared on the web page in 17th place on the Red course from the 2004 1000-Day. But at least as of right now, there are no such deletions on the other (unsanctioned) event results.
Dec 21, 2004 7:35 PM # 
eddie:
Of this year's 1000-day competitors, how many were actually tested for banned substances?
Dec 21, 2004 8:35 PM # 
jtorranc:
I'm betting on "one" as the correct answer to Eddie's question.

I completely agree with the theoretical correctness of deleting Mr. Hellebuyck's result and banning him from orienteering competition for the duration of his USATF ban. However, no way could USOF get away with an anti-doping rule so lacking in detail if there were any significant money, directly or indirectly, in North American orienteering. On the face of rule 35.8, I can't see why one couldn't enter a protest over another orienteer taking any kind of non-prescription medication, whether cold medicine (with or without ingredients prohibited by the IOF) or ibuprofen or whatever.
Dec 22, 2004 12:59 AM # 
bmoore:
USOF recently inherited its anti-doping policy from IOF:
http://home.comcast.net/~rshannonhouse/IOFAnti.htm...

>The Rules Committee is directed by the Board to incorporate the IOF Anti-Doping Rules into the USOF Rules by reference in accordance with IOF Anti-Doping rule 14.1
> To be effective immediately

I think IOF inherited its policy from the IOC, which inherited it from the World Anti-Doping Agency, which would put us under the same umbrella as many other sports.
Dec 22, 2004 2:55 PM # 
the_latvian:
I am sorry if I did not make myself sufficiently clear. I could not agree more with the idea that using illegal substances to enhance your performance in whatever sport should be illegal. What I am not sure about is whether the phrase "The use of drugs to obtain an advantage is forbidden" means that organizers of certain competition can exclude from the results someone who has been disqualified for use of illegal drugs in a completely different sport. While it is true that marathon running and orienteering are both endurance sports, in terms of anti-doping system they are no more connected than athletics and chess. What I am getting at is the question about what would one do if Barry Bonds enrolled in an orienteering competition? Under the current logic, should he be disqualified as well? I am not sure the USOF rules answer that question.
Dec 22, 2004 3:50 PM # 
eddie:
Indeed. You were very clear. It doesn't seem right to exclude one person (even someone who was found guilty in the past and/or in another sport) when none of the other competitors was faced with even the *threat* of a random drug test. For all we know 50% of the 1000-day field could have been eating Eeepy-Os for breakfast, despite the fact that the USOF rule states: 35.8 "Just say no to cereal"
Dec 22, 2004 3:59 PM # 
Sergey:
Yep, cereal and five 20 oz bottles of Mountain Dew (caffein in quantities is also prohibited drug).

The problem is that there is no system and money in place.
Dec 22, 2004 4:38 PM # 
feet:
Actually, Sergey, WADA removed caffeine from the banned list as of 1/1/04, so your Mountain Dew is fine. Of course, there's always the time lost stopping for fluid elimination.
Dec 22, 2004 4:44 PM # 
Swampfox:
I just want to say that if just one more person even casually implies that I am in the 50% that eats Eeeepy-Os, for breakfast or for any other meal, I am going to totally lose it and go Silva on you. Besides the fact I have plausible deniability and not even the most infinitely small of small infinities (and that's really small) of culpability, it's well known that I eat pizza and not Eeeepy-Os.

But I must freely admit and do confess to the occasional consumption of Mountain Dew. But not often though. Well, I mean, you know, not more than a few times a day. Not that I would mix Mountain Dew and rogaining...oh, alright, I admit I've done that, too.
Dec 22, 2004 5:52 PM # 
jjcote:
I've been in Swampfox's kitchen. It's pizza all the time, even for breakfast.

There actually were other competitors at the 1000-Day (at least seven, I believe) who could have been subject to drug testing this year: the people who qualified for the US Team to the WOC. They could have been pulled into the doping tent (this happened to Swampfox back in the 80s). And there may be other people who might have been subject to drug testing, the results of which could have been public, as well.

I guess the notion here is that if USOF isn't doing random drug testing itself, then it can't sanction anyone for drug use. Because the rule would apply only to high-profile people who get tested elsewhere. Maybe so. But I don't buy the idea that there it doesn't apply because there's no connection between orienteering and marathoning. There doesn't have to be. It's no defense to say, "Oh, the EPO, yeah, I just took that for marathoning, I don't use those extra red cells when I have a map in my hand".

USOF has inherited the IOF's drug policy, that's true. I don't know that it was in effect last summer. And there are likely to be some other changes that we will see -- I think there's a doping committee being set up to implement them. I'm not expecting to see drug testing at A-meets any time soon, though.

Also perhaps worth considering is the fact that the sanction that's being brandished here is so lame as to be a joke. There's a blank line on a web page. The results have already been published in O/NA, and I don't know that anybody is going to go to the effort of sending in a correction. Will O/NA run a small piece on this topic? If so, big deal. There's no prize to retract, and I guess the party in question might be denied entry to O-meets next year, but that's not a very big deal considering that the 2004 1000-Day is the only time he's ever orienteered in the US anyway, as far as I know.

Would we tell Barry Bonds to get lost? Maybe.
Dec 22, 2004 6:23 PM # 
jtorranc:
I vote for telling Barry Bonds how sorry we are he's going to have to carry all that bulk on the long leg with the 30 contours of climb.

Seriously, if inheriting the IOF and hence IOC/WADA anti-drug regime puts things on a proper legal basis, such that it is clear that USOF respects bans imposed by USATF and other organisations signatory or affiliated or whatever the correct term is to that regime (including or not including Major League Baseball - my bet is on not), great.

Regarding Eddie's basic fairness objection, perhaps the US Team ought to submit the entire A, B and C level team membership as belonging to the category of athlete subject to random out of competition tests. Granting that predicting one's wheareabouts a year in advance is a pain, based on events this summer, athletes don't get banned purely for not being at home the first time the drug tester comes looking. It would introduce an outside chance of the better US orienteers being tested unexpectedly (and the fun of having to care what ingredients are in your cough syrup). I suppose one could decline team membership but then you can't buy the cool uniforms - still less than fierce as a sanction but they are rather nice.
Dec 22, 2004 6:36 PM # 
jjcote:
Also worth remembering here is why drugs are banned in sport. It's not because of an attempt to level the playing field, or because they give the user an advantage. There are lots of things that give you an advantage, like maltodextrin, or living at altitude, or training. And they aren't banned.

The reason drugs are banned (or at least, the reason they *should* be banned) is that they present a risk. EPO is a perfect example. Use a little EPO, your red cell count goes up, and you perform better. So then the other guy uses it too, and to stay ahead, you have to use more. When does it stop? When somebody uses enough that his heart can't pump the sludge that's trying to pass for blood, and he dies. Rather than having athletes dancing on the hairy edge of disaster, trying to be as good as possible without dying, we insist that they not mess with the regulatory systems in their bodies. Steroids are a similar deal -- use a little, it helps. Use too much, and you do permanent damage.

So the deal is that anybody who's using this stuff can't participate. Is it the case that there are other orienteers (in the US) who are getting away with using EPO? I don't think so. There probably isn't enough at stake to motivate it, but if we thought there were orienteers using it, then we should by all means test them, for their own protection, and so as to not encourage others to use it. I don't think anybody in the US is using drugs for the primary motive of improving their orienteering performance. If someone has other motivation, then it's still reasonable to keep them out of our sport.
Dec 22, 2004 6:56 PM # 
jtorranc:
I'm not sure the health risks are the only good reason to ban drugs in sport. Though the next question of what happens when people invent safe and/or health-enhancing performance-enhancing drugs is interesting. Even more so when they become cheap. It will be interesting to see how sporting bodies adjust to broad societal uptake of drugs that enhance physical and mental performance. IOF and competitive chess may well be banning people for using the same substances somewhere down the road.
Dec 23, 2004 1:28 PM # 
randy:
And even more interesting when genetic doping, designer babies, and similar technologies become available to Everyman. Of course, at that point, the technology will probably also exist to experience the psychological rewards of success at sport without achieving it. As interesting as this is, I'll refrain from getting too philosophical and off topic ... :-)

Regarding Eddie's basic fairness objection, perhaps the US Team ought to submit the entire A, B and C level team membership as belonging to the category of athlete subject to random out of competition tests

Right now, I believe the regime is that the A team is subject to this. WC participants are also under threat of random test. I also heard that WRE participants are, tho I have not confirmed this (my information comes from this claim in the meet notes of a European WRE I attended in the past).


There probably isn't enough at stake to motivate it, but if we thought there were orienteers using it, then we should by all means test them


I've witnessed orienteers cheat at meets in the US (and I'm not talking about following, but taking bags out of order intentionally when apparently no one was looking, and the like). If there is motivation to cheat, why would we assume that that motivation is limited? I'm not asserting that anyone is doping, but am asserting a motivation to cheat, at least in limited cases. Of course, it could be a matter of degree, but I wouldn't just make assumptions. (And don't flame me for reporting that I've seen cheating, just reporting for the sake of discussion).


Also worth remembering here is why drugs are banned in sport. It's not because of an attempt to level the playing field, or because they give the user an advantage [...] The reason drugs are banned [...] is that they present a risk.


I disagree with this assertion. I don't believe that those who are upset with Barry Bond's alledged drug use are upset because they are concerned about risks to his health. I think it is viewed as cheating, plain and simple, and, for evolutionary/biological reasons, people get upset at cheating. I believe the line is drawn at "things that seem natural or like hard work are ok", and "things that seem artificial or easy are not ok". That may be why carb loading and training seem ok, but EPO and other doping doesn't (tho the line is fuzzy in many cases, and I think, quite frankly, instinctive).

(It is interesting to look at sleeping in hypobaric tents, which I think seems right on the line of the EPO<-->living at altitude continuum in some people's judgements, and I've have read at least one report of this practice being (or considered being) banned (tho I don't have references so I might be wrong), while it is not banned everywhere. This would be typical of such a putative judgement continuum).


It doesn't seem right to exclude one person (even someone who was found guilty in the past and/or in another sport) when none of the other competitors was faced with even the *threat* of a random drug test


Would we ban someone who admitted to doping? I'm not sure I agree or disagree with the above assertion, but I am particularily certain that I feel the method we find out that an individual is doping is irrelevent, so long as we have confidence in the accuracy of the report. In any case, I find this last point quite interesting.

Dec 23, 2004 2:37 PM # 
Swampfox:
I might be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure any of us are subject to drug testing not only any time we compete, but also any time at all even away from competitions. Right now as a result of decisions taken by the ESC when it met at Telemark, only "A" squad members are subject to the reporting requirements (filling out and continuously submitting the forms disclosing where you will be for the next 2 months or so.) But I don't think that means that the rest of us can't be tested out of season. If the testing authorities can find us, and want to test us, they can. It's not likely to happen of course, but anyone who is pondering the possibilities of doping should be aware they could be caught, even out of season.
Dec 23, 2004 4:18 PM # 
Sergey:
Ban Mikell from drinking Mountain Dew more than once per day and living at high altitude altogether :)

Seriously speaking, anti-doping is all about fairness. The slogan of WADA is "Play true". And here is part of their message "The Olympic Charter speaks of the promotion of 'friendship, solidarity and fair play'. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) is an independent foundation built upon these important values."
Dec 23, 2004 4:25 PM # 
Sergey:
By the way, alcohol IS NOT prohibited in-Competition for orienteering according to the WADA publications! Opens whole new field of imagination :)
Dec 23, 2004 4:39 PM # 
Tundra/Desert:
J-J said:

Also worth remembering here is why drugs are banned in sport. It's not because of an attempt to level the playing field, or because they give the user an advantage. There are lots of things that give you an advantage, like maltodextrin, or living at altitude, or training. And they aren't banned.

Somewhere in p. 4.3.2 WADA says that there are three criteria for a substance to be on the banned list, and for it to actually make it, the substance has to fit at least two out of the three. The three are enhancing performance, presenting a health hazard, and a vague phrase, "it is contrary to the spirit of sport", undoubtedly in place for those of you sophisticated enough to enjoy their animated contour lines.
Dec 23, 2004 8:08 PM # 
ebone:
I've been randomly selected for doping testing two or three times at World Cups and World Championships.
Dec 23, 2004 8:33 PM # 
Hammer:
Drug testing (and random drug testing) is only useful if national and international authorities use their rules to kick athletes out for life and strip them of medals for the period they were found to have used the drugs. Unfortunately, the US allowed over 100 of their athletes that tested positive at National trials or random tests to go on and compete in the Olympics (and in some cases win Gold medals). Was it out of fear of costly law suits? Likely! So now the routine when caught doping is to deny, appeal, and go to court. Has a precedent been set? I think so and it is a disgrace! So an EH appeal doesn't surprise me.

Meanwhile millions are spent on drug tests every year that should be going to grass roots non-Olympic Sport development. The Canadian
doping scandal of the 80's lead to the development of a very good anti-doping programme in Canada (WADA HQ is also in Canada) but Sport Canada also cut funding to numerous sports at the same time (orienteering included). So it ticks me off when people that dope (cheat) get away with short bans or don't get penalized at all despite being caught.

Young kids in all sports are indirectly being penalized by lack of grass roots funding. Less money means less opportunities.

Anyway, the take home message of this thread should be that we don't want doping in our sport. A doped 'athlete' participating in our sport is still a doped 'athlete' even if caught in another sport.

USOF should take a stand and ban this 'athlete'' for the duration of his USATF ban.
Dec 23, 2004 8:56 PM # 
Charlie:
A lot of thoughtful posts on this difficult subject. I guess I find Mike W's post (the most recent in this thread) the most persuasive. Orienteering is a bit unusual in that it is a participant sport as well as a competitive one. If orienteering were to determine that a doped athlete should be ineligible for competition, could that athlete still come to a meet and run a recreational course?
Dec 24, 2004 12:41 AM # 
MBrooks:
> USOF should take a stand and ban this 'athlete'' for the duration of his USATF ban.

USOF doesn't have to take that stand. The IOF took it for us when they signed into the WADA treaty (or contract, or whatever). All we have to do is follow the rules set before us.

From the document that Vlad links above, section 15.4 confirms that we have to uphold the USATF ban. The gentleman in question is persona non grata until 2-1-2006, not only at track meets, but at orienteering meets, bowling leagues, golf tournaments, and almost anything else that we can think of in organized sports. That school that hired him has to keep him out of their athletic department for the rest of his penalty as well.

I wish that WADA had included some official definitions for "recreational level" and "local sports event". That would make interpreting section 10.9 (and answering Charlie's question) a little easier. But the meaning of these terms do seem obvious. It seems to me that this gentleman has to be purged from ALL results, not just the A-meet results, as the other 1000 day races meet WADA's apparent definition of "local sports event" and stays outside of their apparent definition of "recreational level". For Charlie's question, I don't think he can come to a meet, since the fact that the meet is organized would make it a "local sports event" as well. He can obtain a blank map and run around to his heart's content on his own once were gone. That's the only activity in orienteering that would fit WADA's definition of "recreational level". He just can't enter ANY "events" until he serves his penalty.

WADA, IOF, and IOC all seem to be fairly serious-minded about this issue. I can't imagine that anything less than the harshest interpretation of the WADA rules would stand scrutiny if an international group of some sort were to review our actions in this type of matter. They want the athletes who violate doping policy to be punished severely and I can't imagine that trying to find a loophole (like declaring a meet to be "recreational level", just to include a banned athlete) would be well recieved.

Two other bits of nit-picking:
Has anyone from the 1000 day staff notified the ranking committee of this? This gentleman can't appear in any USOF results list, official or otherwise. Unofficial lists that include all A-meet participants are usually produced by the rankings committee and he needs to be off of those too, since it's a USOF product.

There is a photo of the Stampede winner (Eddie B) with a very nice prize for winning that race. Can someone please reassure the membership that there was NO physical prize (not even a gag gift) for second place in that race? If there was such a prize, it would have to be retrieved and sent down the line to Alexai who would have to send what he got for third to Eric, etc. We can all imagine what a pain that would be, so hopefully the news will come that there was nothing given to this gentleman for that race.

>Will O/NA run a small piece on this topic? If so, big deal.

Donna's a grownup who can make her own decision. I thought I saw her name on the member list, so she may be reading along already. I think a small piece would be appropriate.

The IOF is still trying to get us into the Olympics. The fact that we are going through this exercise would show that we are taking the "sports' war against drugs" seriously and could only help such an effort. I don't think that we should pretend that the individual result was overly important, but the fact that we have to do this and do it right matters.

Is this the first time that "sport B" has had to purge results based on a suspension from "sport A" under the WADA deal? That might be noteworthy by itself.
Dec 24, 2004 7:18 PM # 
jjcote:
Eddy Hellebuyck does not appear in the official USOF rankings because he is not a USOF member. The rankings calculation for 2004 took place a week or two ago, and Eddy's results were included in the calculation. I'll suggest that this had a completely negligible effect on the rest of the ranking list, and that it isn't worth recalculating the rankigs.

Eddy did receive some kind of prize at the Stampede, as did most (all?) of the finishers, but based on the nature of the randomly-selected prizes, I'd guess that it's very likely that he ate it that afternoon. (I was personally quite fortunate in that my prize was not food -- I got a Lynyrd Skynyrd CD!)
Dec 24, 2004 11:35 PM # 
Swampfox:
I think J-J might be confusing the Stampede with The Chase at Pitcher Hill.
Dec 25, 2004 12:36 AM # 
jjcote:
You're right, that was the Chase. Eddy probably ate his prze from the Chase. For the Stampede, there's a photo of the winner holding a pair of Saegermeister Mark 1000 O' shoes, but it's worth noting that these are actually a pair of Nikes that Jeff Saeger had completely destroyed. I don't think there was a prize for second, but this is the sort of thing where two pair of Saegermeisters would have been appropriate.
Dec 30, 2004 6:16 PM # 
smittyo:
Just to let people know what's going on. I have been in contact with the USOF Board about this issue. I want to thank those who have helped out by posting pertinent references. At the moment, it looks like Eddy's suspension will carry over into orienteering, but the board is concerned that we are on firm legal ground in doing this, so we are investigating the rules carefully. There is some question about the fact that Eddy's actual doping test was prior to the effective date of the current IOF anti-doping rules.

In the meantime, Eddy's A-meet results from 2004 have been removed. If it is finally determined to uphold the suspension, we will make sure that future meet directors know not to accept registrations from Eddy.

Clare Durand
USOF VP Competition
Dec 30, 2004 10:07 PM # 
tdgood:
Due to the nature of my work, I am subject to random drug testing. While I haven't been tested since the RMOC 1000 day (and I don't know that they would test for all sport related enhancements), I just as well could have been. I.E. there was at least one person with a good likelyhood of being tested.

I encourage everyone to join me and be as drug free as possible: no aspirin, caffeine, cough syrup, poppy seeds.....
Jan 27, 2005 9:41 PM # 
Tundra/Desert:
Even though pseudoephedrine in your cold medicine has been eliminated from the WADA prohibited substances list (p. 7 note ***), a bill currently making rounds through United States House of Repsresentatives subcommittees will make pseudoephedrine a Schedule V controlled substance. So, um, all of you... better don't cough and drive, I guess...
Jan 27, 2005 10:53 PM # 
ndobbs:
i got tested this autumn (sorry, fall) at a national event in france - does this give me some legitimacy for posting here? never mind... only just discovered what this thread was about, btw :)

anybody taking drugs (medicinal or otherwise) should be allowed run orienteering races, but should declare themselves non-competitive and be unclassed/untimed accordingly.

any elite athlete who tests positive should have to return all state/federation funding.

run clean, run fast, run high.
Jan 27, 2005 11:54 PM # 
Swampfox:
I'm pretty sure the motivation for the bill Vlad references (and I'm just guessing since I hadn't heard anything about the bill) has everything to do with attempting to put a crimp in the production of meth by making one of the key ingredients more difficult to obtain, and has nothing to do with anything aimed at orienteers. Or even swampfoxes!
Jan 28, 2005 9:58 PM # 
jtorranc:
On rereading, I still hope Neil doesn't mean what he wrote. Or rather neglected to specify what subset of drugs he believes people ought to declare themselves non-competitive for taking. I certainly don't want to see people forced to run unofficially because they took some aspirin or some antihistamines. Though I had, on reflection, better check and make sure my particular antihistamines are permitted before the spring season starts.
Jan 31, 2005 1:19 PM # 
jjcote:
Swampfox is correct about the reason for controlling Sudafed. I believe it will still be available by prescription, but the motivation is solely to prevent people from purchasing large quantities over the counter and cooking it into amphetamine, which creates the dual problem of putting a very dangerous subsance on the street, and leaving law enforcement with a nasty toxic cleanup situation when the meth producer abandons his "lab" in a motel room or whatever. Sudafed will be replaced with an alternative compound that is already widely used in Europe, that is purportedly just as good for congestion, but that can't be turned into amphetamine.
Mar 11, 2014 3:52 PM # 
barb:
So. Where are we now with banning doped athletes from national and local orienteering competitions? Are A meet registrars responsible for checking some list to make sure that no banned competitors are allowed to register? Are local meet directors required also to turn people away or erase their results?
Mar 11, 2014 4:39 PM # 
j-man:
Holy back from the dead thread!
Mar 11, 2014 9:57 PM # 
randy:
IMHO, if you want to be taken seriously as a sport, material anti-doping and other anti-cheating measures should be in place.
Mar 11, 2014 11:44 PM # 
jjcote:
Having tried the alternative medication that was supposed to substitute for Sudafed, I found it useless. You can still get Sudafed at the local pharmacy, but you have to ask for it (I find a need for it maybe once every few years). But in the interim since this thread tapered off, a lot of people became familiar with Walter White.
Mar 12, 2014 7:22 AM # 
GuyO:
IMO, unless someone points out that a "banned" athlete was on the registration list for an A-event, I wouldn't worry about it. And who would really care if a banned athlete ran at a local meet. I'm sure Lance Armstrong still rides his bike...
Mar 12, 2014 2:21 PM # 
Tundra/Desert:
The short answer from the trailrunning world (prompted by the not particularly hypothetical possibility of the appearance of said Lance, post Oprah) is that you must worry. If you have USATF sanctioning at your events, you are guarateed to lose it. If you have USATF insurance, you can lose it once they find out. If USOC finds out that OUSA has been allowing its member clubs to allow banned people at events, no matter how local, there will be ramifications, however much or little we happen to care about USOC. If OUSA's insurance company finds out, for one thing, there may be consequences.

We signed up for a number of things once we said that we are a real sport with an NGB, a set of rules, and an appropriate governance structure. We are asked to hold up our end of the bargain by enforcing anti-doping laws. There is no chance of a Usada truck showing up at a local event any time soon, but if you, the event director or registrar, know that a certain person is on a banned list, it is dereliction of your duty to allow this person to compete.
Mar 12, 2014 2:52 PM # 
barb:
So it's sounding to me, so far, from the few posts on this thread, as though OUSA does not have explicit policy or procedures around keeping banned athletes out of competition. Which is easier for the directors and the organization. But arguably not what we "should" be doing.
And it sounds as though other sports do have policy and procedures around this.
Mar 12, 2014 3:05 PM # 
Cristina:
OUSA rules point to IOF rules on doping matters, which point to the WADA Anti-Doping Code. Which means that yes, OUSA does have explicit policies and they are the same as other sports. Whether organizers are really aware of them is a different matter, but technically a banned athlete is not allowed to participate in any organized event.
Mar 12, 2014 3:47 PM # 
kissy:
And how do you know if an athlete is banned? And from which sport(s)? Is there a database somewhere?
Mar 12, 2014 4:08 PM # 
Spike:
For US athletes the list is here:

https://www.usada.org/sanctions/
Mar 12, 2014 4:55 PM # 
iamstillhungry:
There is a Shawn Crawford on that list in 2013. My heart skipped a beat before it noted the substitution of wn for ron.
Mar 12, 2014 6:20 PM # 
jtorranc:
Am I naive to think that the most that could possibly be expected of us is that we make a good faith effort to exclude banned athletes from receiving awards? I see on the USADA list a track and field athlete named Mark Block is currently serving a 10 year suspension. T/D surely can't believe anything bad is going to happen to OUSA because someone named Mark Block shows up at a QOC local event and we let him run a yellow course without first completing an investigation to make sure he isn't that Mark Block.
Mar 12, 2014 7:33 PM # 
Tundra/Desert:
I agree, a good-faith effort is sufficient. But it is also necessary. In other words, if a Lance Armstrong signs up, you have no plausible deniability.
Mar 12, 2014 7:38 PM # 
Mr Wonderful:
Better competition is crucial to improvement, so we should encourage our non-national orienteers to dope so they can push the US team to higher levels.
Mar 12, 2014 10:22 PM # 
mikeminium:
Should we ban dopes from attackpoint?
Mar 12, 2014 11:40 PM # 
jjcote:
411.com shows 79 people in the USA named Lance Armstrong. What a pain in the neck to be one of them if you want to participate in sports. Like having the same name as somebody on a terrorist watch list and trying to get on a plane.
Mar 13, 2014 1:51 PM # 
fletch:
jj - to go back a few posts, Sudafed is OK again, as long as you stick to the recommended dose. (Pseudoephidrine is no longer totally banned - unless they put it back again in 2014 - I didn't check this year)
Mar 13, 2014 10:28 PM # 
barb:
Policy is meaningless or worse if there are no procedures to support it.

This discussion thread is closed.