In 1988, after Carl Lewis was awarded the gold medal in the 100M dash when Ben Johnson tested positive for steroids, (I believe it was) Lewis stated that he was not really that surprised because he just didn't think that it was humanly possible to run the 100m in 9.79 (Johnson's winning time).
In the past 3 years, 2 american’s have euqaled or surpassed that time.
In today’s Houston Chronicle there is a tiny article (which is a true disappointment considering the magnitude of the accusations) that reads as follows:
According to Terry Madden, the chief executive of the US anti-doping agency: "What we have unconverted appears to be intentional doping of the worst sort (...) this is a conspiracy involving chemists, coaches and certain athletes using what they developed to be undetectable designer steroids to defraud their fellow competitors and the American and world public"
The drug in question is known as THG and though no athletes were named, it appears that several prominent athletes are a party to this.
I also know for a FACT, that some elite swimmers know of the drug, and believe it is undetectable.
*** This is in no way intimating that any specific athlete has or is using the substance.
Parents
Former Member
Is there really a difference in the patent law between drugs that are prescribed and OTC. I thought they would be the same. If there is a difference is may be because of all the testing (and money for those tests) that has to be done before the drug can be released
This is part of my point about the FDA regulations. It is the ridiculous regulations that supposedly jack up the cost of prescription drugs. Yet, the same drugs are available outside of the US for much less and... Other countries' regulations are not as 'strigentent.' The safety and effocasy of the drugs are proven more quickly, and therefore new & cheaper drugs are getting into the hands of doctors and patients who need them.
Why then must the US have the regulations that they do? Monetary and political reasons, thats all! When those type of things factor into decisions such as approving a drug, then the decision its self is questionable. All decisions made under the same regulations are questionable because no one knows exactly what factors influenced the decision. It might have been good solid scientific research, on the other hand, it might not have been.
Extend that to the current discussion of performance enhancing drugs and you have to ask yourself what is the motivation behind this substance or that substance being labeled as dangerous or performance enhancing.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that there should be regulations concerning the marketing and use of drugs and other substances. What I am saying is, the argument that the FDA has labeled this substance or that substance as 'dangerous' is useless because the regulations under which it operates are political in nature.
Is there really a difference in the patent law between drugs that are prescribed and OTC. I thought they would be the same. If there is a difference is may be because of all the testing (and money for those tests) that has to be done before the drug can be released
This is part of my point about the FDA regulations. It is the ridiculous regulations that supposedly jack up the cost of prescription drugs. Yet, the same drugs are available outside of the US for much less and... Other countries' regulations are not as 'strigentent.' The safety and effocasy of the drugs are proven more quickly, and therefore new & cheaper drugs are getting into the hands of doctors and patients who need them.
Why then must the US have the regulations that they do? Monetary and political reasons, thats all! When those type of things factor into decisions such as approving a drug, then the decision its self is questionable. All decisions made under the same regulations are questionable because no one knows exactly what factors influenced the decision. It might have been good solid scientific research, on the other hand, it might not have been.
Extend that to the current discussion of performance enhancing drugs and you have to ask yourself what is the motivation behind this substance or that substance being labeled as dangerous or performance enhancing.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that there should be regulations concerning the marketing and use of drugs and other substances. What I am saying is, the argument that the FDA has labeled this substance or that substance as 'dangerous' is useless because the regulations under which it operates are political in nature.
