Food Supplements Test Positive for Banned Substances
Victor Conte
Food Supplements Test Positive for
Banned Substances
By Adrian Warner
LAUSANNE, Switzerland (Reuters) - Up to 20 percent of 200
different food supplements taken randomly from shop shelves
in a new Olympic-sponsored investigation show traces of
banned substances such as steroids, the International Olympic
Committee (news - web sites) (IOC) said Wednesday.
IOC medical commission chief Patrick Schamasch said testers
had completed analyzes of a third of the 600 supplements they
planned to investigate in the survey and found banned
substances that would have led to a positive test.
``We have taken 600 products from around the world and they
have been analyzed in Cologne in Germany,'' Schamasch said.
''Fifteen to 20 percent of them were contaminated. If an athlete
had taken the product they would have tested positive.''
The IOC has been warning athletes against taking food
supplements for some time. In the last few years several
athletes have blamed positive drug tests on the products.
Schamasch said one of the substances found was the steroid
nandrolone, which has been at the center of several doping
scandals involving high-profile sportsmen in soccer and
athletics in the last two years.
The IOC hopes to be able to finish the investigation in the next
year.
After giving a report on anti-doping measures to a meeting of
the IOC's executive board, Schamasch said all endurance
athletes would face blood tests aimed at detecting the
stamina-boosting drug erythropoietin (EPO) at next year's Salt
Lake City Winter Olympics.
The tests will be carried out in sports such as cross-country
skiing and skating where stamina is vital.
The new blood-and-urine tests for EPO were first carried out at
last year's Sydney Olympics (news - web sites). The tests were
also used before the world athletics championships in August.
EPO boosts the number of red cells in the blood. If a
competitor's blood is suspicious, testers analyze an athlete's
urine to look for abuse of the drug before any sanction is
handed out.
The drug is very dangerous because it can lead to thickening of
the blood and is believed to have killed cyclists in the past.
Competitors in other sports at the Games next February could
also face tests for the drug but the IOC wants to make sure 100
per cent of all the endurance athletes are tested.
lee embe
the supplement business this is a really dumb article. What use is it if
the writer doesn't name the "contaminated" supplements?
Lee Embe
In article <3BACA5BA...@earthlink.net>, balc...@earthlink.net
says...
>
>Wednesday September 19 2:11 PM ET
>
> Food Supplements Test Positive for
> Banned Substances
>
> By Adrian Warner
>
> LAUSANNE, Switzerland (Reuters) - Up to 20 percent of 200
> different food supplements taken randomly from shop shelve
>s
> in a new Olympic-sponsored investigation show traces of
> banned substances such as steroids, the International Olym
>pic
> Committee (news - web sites) (IOC) said Wednesday.
>
> IOC medical commission chief Patrick Schamasch said tester
>s
> had completed analyzes of a third of the 600 supplements t
>hey
> planned to investigate in the survey and found banned
> substances that would have led to a positive test.
>
> ``We have taken 600 products from around the world and the
>y
> have been analyzed in Cologne in Germany,'' Schamasch said
>.
> ''Fifteen to 20 percent of them were contaminated. If an a
>thlete
> had taken the product they would have tested positive.''....
>
>
Patrick Arnold
named for legal reasons. this situation has to be addressed by the
supplement industry or else the drug companies will have the last word.
lee embe
relevant to whom -- the industry or the consumer? I maintain because the
article doesn't name companies or their products it indicts all
supplements which leaves the individual consumer/athelete extremely
frustrated. How on earth is he/she expected to know which product to buy
and which to avoid? And then I wonder about the loose phrase
"Olympic-sponsored" investigation. Which makes me ask who actually paid
for the analysis -- a drug company, perhaps? And I don't really buy the
overt reason so often given that the companies and products can't be
named for legal reasons. If you have the scientific evidence that
something is true and you can produce that evidence in court and show it
to be true then why would you worry about a lawsuit? This after all is
one of the fundamentals behind the idea of a "free press." This post
originates with Reuters. In another lifetime I worked for a
European-based wire service similiar to Reuters and which serviced a
large number of national dailies, both in Europe and North America. The
greater fear on the part of our customers, the dailies, was not law
suits but losing advertisers. That fear was passed on down the food
chain which in turn created a great deal of self-censorship in the
editors and writers. The kind of self-censorship that is illustrated in
the post/article we are discussing and which in the end I think raises
many more questions than it provides in actual information.
Respectfully, Lee Embe.
In article <3BAE99E0...@ix.netcom.com>, parn...@ix.netcom.com
says...
>
>the information he provided was quite relevant. the product
>s are not
>named for legal reasons. this situation has to be addressed
> by the
>supplement industry or else the drug companies will have the
> last word.
>
>lee embe wrote:
>>
>> Unless your pimping for the drug companies who are lusting
> to take over
>> the supplement business this is a really dumb article. Wha
>t use is it if
>> the writer doesn't name the "contaminated" supplements?
>>
>> Lee Embe
>>
>> In article <3BACA5BA...@earthlink.net>, balcolab@ear
Patrick Arnold
>
> Okay, Pat. I stand corrected. Not a "dumb" post but "relevant." But
> relevant to whom -- the industry or the consumer?
If the consumer is subject to doping testing it is very relevant. The
industry has to be concerned too of course, as a situation such as this
can be used as justification for more control of supplements
I maintain because the
> article doesn't name companies or their products it indicts all
> supplements which leaves the individual consumer/athelete extremely
> frustrated. How on earth is he/she expected to know which product to buy
> and which to avoid?
Unfortuantely the IOC will probably not release the names of these
companies. Their agenda is not to assist the athlete in determining
which supplements to buy. Their concern is more to stop athletes from
using ALL supplements and to perhaps exert pressure on the US government
to control supplement industry more
And then I wonder about the loose phrase
> "Olympic-sponsored" investigation. Which makes me ask who actually paid
> for the analysis -- a drug company, perhaps?
The Internation Olympic Committee did, as positive doping tests
connected to supplements have been an increasing problem
And I don't really buy the
> overt reason so often given that the companies and products can't be
> named for legal reasons. If you have the scientific evidence that
> something is true and you can produce that evidence in court and show it
> to be true then why would you worry about a lawsuit?
You would have to ask the IOC why they did not name companies, I dunno
why
This after all is
> one of the fundamentals behind the idea of a "free press." This post
> originates with Reuters.
There is no indication that IOC told Reuters who these companies were
and they likely never did
In another lifetime I worked for a
> European-based wire service similiar to Reuters and which serviced a
> large number of national dailies, both in Europe and North America. The
> greater fear on the part of our customers, the dailies, was not law
> suits but losing advertisers. That fear was passed on down the food
> chain which in turn created a great deal of self-censorship in the
> editors and writers. The kind of self-censorship that is illustrated in
> the post/article we are discussing and which in the end I think raises
> many more questions than it provides in actual information.
I think i touched on some plausible explanations why the IOC is not
revealing the specifics of their study. Certainly it is not of any
interest to them to assist athletes on which supplements to take
--
PA
http://www.ergopharm.net
http://www.lpjresearch.com
This and related e-mails contain PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL
information. The information contained herein is for the exclusive use
of the named addressees. If you are not the intended recipient, any
disclosure or use of this information is prohibited.
The opinions expressed above are not necessarily those of ErgoPharm or
LPJ Research Inc.
lysis_gr
Patrick Arnold <parn...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I think i touched on some plausible explanations why the IOC is not
>revealing the specifics of their study. Certainly it is not of any
>interest to them to assist athletes on which supplements to take
Apparently, they do not want all the athletes who are caught to claim that
they used tainted supplements and escape punishment. Maybe what they plan
to do is keep the list secret and have tha athletes declare what they took:
if it matches then they will be aquitted, if not ...
lee embe
says...
>
>lee embe wrote:
>>
>> Okay, Pat. I stand corrected. Not a "dumb" post but "relev
>ant." But
>> relevant to whom -- the industry or the consumer?
>I think i touched on some plausible explanations why the IOC
> is not
>revealing the specifics of their study. Certainly it is not
> of any
>interest to them to assist athletes on which supplements to
>take
Thanks for the informative reply. If that is the IOC's position (to
dissuade athletes from taking any and all supplements) then it seems
completely unrealistic. BTW You opened up the question earlier when you
said the supplement industry has to address the problem -- what would be
your suggestion as to how they should do that?
respectfully, Lee Embe
Patrick Arnold
That is a possibility
Patrick Arnold
The cause of the problem is cross contamination of prohormone into
non-prohormone products due to lack of sufficient cleaning of mixers,
encapsulation machines etc.
The solution is for nutritional supplement industry to practice much
more stringent manufacturing practices. To start, contract
manufacturers have to be made aware of this situation.
Maybe there should be machinery at contract manufacturing facilities
that is dedicated to prohormone manufacture and is not to be used for
stuff like creatine blends, MRPs etc.
I don't know how all this can be organized to get done. This industry
is not regulated and its every company for itself so I am probably just
pissing in the wind
Victor Conte
As many here already know, I was the one that led the legal defense (together
with Johnnie Cochran) for the CJ Hunter case. We discovered that the IOC
testing
laboratory had tested the specific brand of "iron" supplement that CJ had
taken and
found it to be positive for nandrolone like compounds on January 11, 2000.
The IOC
knew that this specific product was positive for nandrolone almost nine
months before
before CJ tested positive in August of 2000. I have copies of the letters to
this effect
between the IOC officials and the Italian track and field federation dated
January 11, 2000.
If the IOC had appropriately notified the world's athletes of their findings,
then CJ would not have
tested positive because he would have avoided that specific product. What is
most
interesting is the fact that the IOC officials said during the Olympics in
October 2000, that the
excuse CJ gave "was like saying that he got it from a toilet seat" and that it
was a "cheap excuse.
They ridiculed CJ and made fun of his explanation. They said that his level
of 2000 nanograms
per milliliter was "massive" and could not be caused by supplement
contamination.
That is totally ridiculous, because 2000 nanograms per milliliter equals 2
parts per billion.
That is an ultra trace amount and it has now been proven that trace
contamination of a supplement
could easily cause a nandrolone level of 2 parts per billion in urine. The
IOC needs to be pressured
into releasing the specific product names (approximately 40 products have now
been found to contain
nandrolone like compounds). When Arne Ljungqvist, head of the IOC anti-doping
commission, was ask by a Reuters writer at the World Indoor Track and Field
Championships
in Portugal during March of 2001, "What are the names of the contaminated
products that have
been found. The athletes need to know?" He outright lied when he said "We
don't know". How
could the IOC buy 200 products from store shelves all over the world, then
test and find about 40 to be
contaminated, and then outright lie and say that they "don't know" which
ones?
lee embe
Thanks, I learned new stuff from this exchange.BTW I also went to the WADA
website. Interesting, all the language is carefully bureaucratic and in a
strange way seems anti-athlete.
Respectfully, Lee Embe
lee embe
>
>Dear Patrick: You have provided some very plausible answers
>defense (together>with Johnnie Cochran) for the CJ Hunter case. We
discovered that the IOC testing laboratory had tested the specific brand
Victor: I apologise for initially charactrizing your original post as
"dumb." It was ignorant of me, and you and Patrick have educated me
with courtesy and restraint, which I appreciate and for which I thank
you.I can only plead that I was frustrated with the Reuters' article in
the same vein that you have articulated and also clarified for me in
your subsequent post:
When Arne Ljungqvist, head of the IOC anti-doping
>commission, was ask by a Reuters writer at the World Indoor
>Track and Field Championships in Portugal during March of 2001, "What
are the names of the contaminated products that have
>been found. The athletes need to know?" He outright lied when he said
"We don't know". How could the IOC buy 200 products from store shelves
all over the world, then test and find about 40 to be contaminated, and
then outright lie and say that they "don't know" which ones?
Respectfully, Lee Embe
>
Patrick Arnold
I think maybe that is what it has come down to. I have heard a few
athletes speak of situations in which they were treated like criminals
by testers