BigRedFan

I hear they'll have a road trip that includes Cornell, UNC, and Princeton.

I think this covers the case where a substance was taken inadvertently (say, a contaminated supplement). Disclosing that you are taking a banned substance doesn't make up for the fact that the athlete is responsible for understanding what is on the prohibited list and *not* using that substance or proactively seeking a TUE.

Thanks for the information. Still, that says nothing about bringing your prescription. You can be tested anywhere, and I hope that doesn't mean that you have to bring all your medical records with you wherever you tell them you are at any point. Your quote above makes it sound like whoever is doing the sample analysis needs to know about TUEs, which seems odd: wouldn't they just report the results to the xADA authority, who have all the TUEs? Obviously, I don't know all the details of this process!

You don't bring your prescription to a drug test. That just isn't how it works. Stop talking about his prescription as if it matters in this case: it doesn't. If you fail a drug test for a banned substance for which you don't have an existing TUE, you are deemed to have an AAF. Maybe that's due to not "filing" the correct paperwork, but that doesn't justify your usage. There are processes in place to deal with this. Whether he has a basis for an appeal is not known to us at this point.

His version of events demonstrates that he doesn't know how this all works, or he's not telling the truth. You don't provide a prescription at a drug test: you either already have a TUE (based in part on a previously provided prescription (say that three times fast!)) on file, or you don't. I don't even know if one tells the personnel administering the drug test anything about what substances you are taking: again, either you have a TUE for something on the banned list or you aren't taking anything on the banned list.

More like a pillar of salt.

Nice snark. Just because someone was allowed to compete, doesn't mean that said person has been cleared.

I didn't listen to his interview. I was wondering if you had some other source.

Because he said so?

Doesn't matter which ADHD drug he was taking or if he had a prescription for it: if he didn't have a TUE for it, and it is on the prohibited list (which the above drug is), then he is in violation and is subject to penalties.

Of course, all of this assumes that there is a "there" there. If there was no "there" there, then Minnow could be opening himself up to some serious libel, although IANAL.

No, the only question is whether AB had a TUE prior to the test. If not, then he would have had an AAF (Adverse Analytic Finding). All this is, of course, speculation. The actual second question is whether all testing and notification protocols along with appropriate sanctions were followed.

It matters because a prescription is not enough: an athlete needs a Therapeutic Use Exemption, which must be obtained *prior* to any testing, and which requires substantial medical support (by a psychiatrist or other physician) indicating that the condition is present and the substance in question is the only or best treatment. From the USADA website (https://www.usada.org/spirit-of-sport/three-things-know-tues/ ), emphasis added:

How is the possibility that an athlete who qualified for the US Olympic Team and tested positive for a substance on the banned list is "much ado about nothing?" Is there some qualification in the testing process that I missed which says "well, if it doesn't benefit you personally, then no big deal"? Here's the NCAA prohibited list (containing adderall): https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2015/6/10/ncaa-banned-substances.aspx Here's the US ADA statement on TUEs for stimulants such as adderall: https://www.usada.org/spirit-of-sport/education/athletes-adhd-know-about-tues/

Don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger.